Kafr Ana 2007 1

KAFR >ANA 3
A RURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE LOD VALLEY
Ram Gophna, Itamar Taxel and Amir Feldstein
KHIRBET AL-KHURRUMIYA 139

A FATIMID FARMHOUSE IN NORTHERN ISRAEL
Lisa Yehuda
TEL AVIV - 2007

Published by the Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology
(Bequeathed by the Yass Estate, Sydney, Australia)
of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University
Editors Ze’ev Herzog

Israel Roll
Assistant Editor Na’ama Scheftelowitz
Manuscript & Production Editor: Shirley Gassner
ISSN 1565-5407
©
Copyright 2007
All rights reserved
Printed in Israel by Top Print

KAFR >ANA
A RURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE LOD VALLEY
Contributions by
N. Amitai-Preiss, Z. Gur, A. Kindler, M. Sade, R. Shimelmitz
3
CONTENTS
Foreword 3
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 6
Ram Gophna and Itamar Taxel
Chapter 2 STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE 9

Itamar Taxel
Chapter 3 POTTERY 33
Chapter 4 GLASS OBJECTS 66

Itamar Taxel
Chapter 5 THE CHALCOLITHIC LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE 77

Ron Shimelmitz
Chapter 6 STONE, BONE, SHELL AND METAL OBJECTS 88

Itamar Taxel
Chapter 7 NUMISMATIC FINDS 99

BYZANTINE COINS 99
Arieh Kindler and Zvi Gur
MUSLIM AND RECENT COINS 101
Nitzan Amitai-Preiss
Chapter 8 FAUNAL REMAINS 103

Moshe Sade
Chapter 9 HISTORICAL-GEOGRAPHIC CONCLUSIONS 108

References 115
List of loci 129
4
FOREWORD
Between February 1996 and July 1997 a large-scale Additional advice and professional support
salvage excavation was conducted by the Sonia were given by A. Shavit of the Israeli Institute of
and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel Archaeology, M. Fischer, N. Na’aman, Z. Mednick
Aviv University at Kafr >Ana, on the southeastern and N. Scheftelowitz of Tel Aviv University, A.
fringes of modern Or Yehuda. This area was slated Gorzalczany of the Israel Antiquities Authority, E.
for construction activity. The excavations (Licence Ayalon and I. Ziffer of the Eretz-Israel Museum,
Nos. G-33/1996 and G-105/1997), financed by the as well as M. Avidan (Newe Monosson Local
Israel Lands Administration, were directed by A. Council) and B. Isserlin. We wish to thank them
Feldstein, under the scientific advice of Prof. R. all for their willing cooperation.
Gophna, and assisted by A. Fantalkin, I. Paz, I. The authors are particularly indebted to L.
Gal, Y. Gottlieb, Y. Gamarsani, D. Weinberger, E. Barda, D. Barkan, S. Golan, E. Kogan-Zahavi,
Tishler, P. Itzhaki and A. Evron (Area supervisors), O. Sion and F. Vitto for permission to use their
I. Snir and G. Rosenblum (Registration), I. Paz, D. preliminary unpublished reports of excavations
Weinberger and O. Sadan (Administration). Area and surveys at Kafr >Ana. We are also grateful to
photographs were taken by N. Trachanov, and the A. Gorzalczany for allowing us to mention details
finds were photographed by P. Shrago. Plans were from his as yet unpublished excavations at Khirbet
drawn by G. Kobo, A. Rosenberger and N. Mesika ed-Duheisha in 2006, and to A. Rochman-Halperin
and prepared for publication by Y. Smertenko. for making written material from J. Kaplan’s
Pottery was restored by R. Pelta. Finds were drawn archival files available for study. In addition, I.
by A. Speshilov and R. Penchas. Metal artefacts Taxel wishes to thank E. Ayalon and I. Ziffer for
and coins were cleaned by N. Halperin and the showing him the pottery in the storerooms of the
latter identified by A. Kindler, Z. Gur and N. Eretz-Israel museum.
Amitai-Preiss. The Chalcolithic flint assemblage In 2003 the field diaries, photographs, plans and
was studied by R. Shimelmitz. Faunal remains finds of the Tel Aviv University excavations were
were analyzed by M. Sade and anthropological entrusted to I. Taxel to synthesize and prepare for
remains identified by Y. Nagar. publication.
5
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The modern town of Or Yehuda is located within wide hill (35 m asl), composed of red soil (hamra)
the Lod valley, about 1 km north of Naúal Ayalon with margins of dark brown-black heavy alluvial
(Wadi al-Kabir in Arabic). The region is known soil. As indicated from the excavations, the virgin
from biblical sources as biq >at Ono (Nehemiah 6: soil at the site was usually the red hamra, and
2), a roughly triangular valley between the Yarqon only in the northern and southern margins the
river in the north, Jaffa in the northwest and Lod excavation reached ancient remains above the
in the south. It was a densely populated fertile and alluvial soil. The water sources of the site and its
relatively rich area with numerous settlements at vicinity were mainly wells of groundwater, which
least from Chalcolithic times. are quite easily accessible in the Lod valley (Vaqrot
The archaeological remains on the southeastern 1977:30). The winter rain, averaging between 500-
edge of Or Yehuda (Map Ref. 137300-137650/ 600 mm a year (ibid.:32), was also collected into
158875-159250) mark the site of the Arab village cisterns dug into the ground, as reported by 19th
of Kafr >Ana (Fig. 1.1). The site is situated on a low, century European travellers (see below).
Fig. 1.1: Map of the environs of Kafr >Ana (● Archaeological site).
6
Chapter 1: Introduction
The precise size of the ancient site of Kafr >Ana, partly ruined at that time, as has been argued
is unknown. The built-up area of the settlement lately (Aronson and Lavsky 2001:321). Aronson
during the British Mandate period was 9 hectares and Lavsky wrongly identified the village with
but in antiquity, only in its heyday during the another village named Kafr >Ana, which is located
Byzantine period, did the site reach its maximum in the southern Samaria Hills and was described
size– ca. 4 hectares. It seems that until the late by Seetzen in the early 1800’s as partly ruined
19th or early 20th century the settlement did (Seetzen 1854:195).
not exceed its size during the Byzantine period, Kafr >Ana was briefly mentioned by some
although in the Mamluk period it included an scholars in the late 19th century. Guérin, who
area which was not previously settled for use as passed through the village in 1863 on his way
a cemetery (see Chapter 8). The nature of the site from Sāfiriya to al-Yahudia, two other villages in
throughout its history, as reflected both in the the Lod valley, described its mudbrick houses, its
written sources and the archaeological evidence, sāqiya (water wheel) wells, and its gardens, and
points to a characteristic rural nature, which is mentioned that it had 500 inhabitants. Near one of
typical of many multi-periodic sites in the region. the wells he noticed some ancient marble columns.
Since the middle of the 19th century Kafr >Ana The village water supply was provided also by
was identified with Ono, a village/town which artificial ponds for rainwater, which were dug in
was mentioned in historical sources from the the ground (Guérin 1875:319-321). The British
Late Bronze Age II to the Early Islamic period. Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) surveyors in
However, as will be shown below, according to the the 1870’s gave a similar description of Kafr >Ana
results of the present excavations (in addition to all (Conder and Kitchener 1882:251-252; Sheet 13).
the other excavations conducted in Kafr >Ana) and Guérin and Abel (Abel 1967:173) were among the
those conducted at nearby Kafr Juna, we suggest a first scholars to identify Kafr >Ana with Ono.
new identification to the site of ancient Ono, which During the Early Ottoman period Kafr >Ana
is not in Kafr >Ana (see Chapter 9). was almost the smallest village in the Lod valley
There is no written information about Kafr >Ana with only 20 more inhabitants than the village
prior to the 16th century, when the village was first of Sibtari to its south. Until the end of the 19th
mentioned in Early Ottoman documents. During century the village’s population grew almost ten-
the Ottoman period, the village was included fold, probably due to the abandonment of Sibtari
within the district (liwa/sanjak) of Gaza and and the immigration of its inhabitants to Kafr
within the subdistrict (naúiya) of Ramla (Hütteroth >Ana. In the early 1870’s the village had more than
and Abdulfatah 1977:156). An Ottoman document 150 houses, and about 500 inhabitants. During the
from 1552 mentioned Kafr >Ana, among other 19th and 20th centuries the village continued to
villages in the Lod valley which had a significant grow, and at the end of the British Mandate period
portion of their incomes given to the waqf (Stephan it was the sixth largest village in the Lod valley,
1944). The village was later included in the tax list with a total of 3020 inhabitants. The built-up area
of 1596, when its inhabitants had to pay tax of 25% of the village in the 1940s was ca. 9 hectares, and
of their income from agriculture. At that time, its cultivable area was 1.6 hectares.
the village population enumerated 55 inhabitants, Two more reasons for the growth of the village
all Muslims (Grossman 1983:89; Hütteroth and were the increasing economic importance of
Abdulfatah 1977:156). The reason that Kafr >Ana Jaffa and its harbour, and the settlement of many
does not appear in the Jacotin’s map (1799) is Egyptian immigrants in the vicinity of Jaffa and
because the map described in detail only the Lod. This phenomenon began in the 1830s, in
areas and places actually occupied by Napoleon’s the time of Ibrahim Peha’s rule, and continued
army or touching the main coastal road (Karmon into the early 20th century. The prosperity of
1960:155-156), and not because the village was the Lod valley was known also due to its fertile
7
heavy soils and development varied agriculture cemetery of the village was on its northwestern
(Grossman 1983:88-90, 96-97, 100; 1994:154- margins.
155; Hartman 1883:138; Khalidi 1992:247; Socin The village was linked by two secondary
1979:156). The Palestine Exploration Fund roads to the highways that connected Jaffa, Lod
survey and the Mandate period maps show that and Ramla. The first road crossed the village
most of the village cultivated plots were located from south to north, and the second road crossed
in its north and west. the village from east to west, and they both met
The village’s threshing floors were positioned southeast to the village mosque. At that time the
on its eastern margin, between the easternmost population of Kafr >Ana remained entirely Muslim.
houses and Nahal Ayalon. During Israel’s War of Independence, in September
In the north the village lands were bordered 1948, the village was occupied and its inhabitants
by the lands of the Jewish settlement of Petach fled (Khalidi 1992:247). A few partially ruined
Tiqvah, and in the east, south and west by houses and the village mosque (Fig. 1.2), in addition
the lands of the Arab villages of al-Yahudiya, to some fig and mulberry trees and cactus hedges,
as-Safiriya and as-Saqiya, respectively. The are still visible in the area today.
Fig. 1.2: The village mosque, looking northeast.
8
CHAPTER 2
STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

Itamar Taxel
The excavations at Kafr >Ana were divided into Only on the northeastern fringes of the site were
four areas (A–D), corresponding to the different clusters or strips of squares and half-squares
excavation stages. The total excavated area (Fig. excavated, after the excavators uncovered remains
2.1) included 114 squares and half-squares (ca. that warranted more extensive investigation. The
2500 m²). Squares 1-35 were excavated in the main disadvantage of this method is that no areas
area of the settlement itself, and the rest of the larger than 25 m² were exposed, allowing only
squares and half-squares (36-114) were excavated a very limited understanding of the unearthed
on the northeastern fringes of the site, where a remains. At the same time, the most prominent
large Muslim cemetery was found. The squares advantage is the ability to check numerous
for excavation were picked at random, in order parts of the site simultaneously. Seven periods
to check as many parts of the site as possible are represented in the excavations by finds and
before construction activities started in the area. remains – Chalcolithic, Byzantine, Early Islamic,
In most of the excavation points chosen within the Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman and the time when
site, only a single 5x5 m square was excavated. Palestine was under British Mandate.
Fig. 2.1: General plan of the

excavated areas (■).
9
Itamar Taxel
THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD spots unearthed in these two excavations are also
part of the settlement uncovered by the Tel Aviv
Remains from the Chalcolithic period were
University team. Moreover, deposits containing
exposed only in Areas A and C (Squares 13-19),
Chalcolithic period finds were uncovered in trial
above the red hamra virgin soil and below remains
trenches made by the Israel Antiquities Authority
from the Byzantine and the late Ottoman or British
south of Kafr >Ana, indicating at least one other
Mandate periods. In Area A, the remains included
settlement of that period located in the area. The
only thick deposits (Loci 118, 119, 123, 128, 134,
similarity in settlements may reflect the swampy
137, 138, 1048, 1050-1055, 1058, 1060, 1062,
environment of Naúal Ayalon, which caused the
1064-1066) of grey-brown dirt, 1-2 m in depth,
which lay above the virgin soil. No architectural inhabitants to move seasonally from site to site.
remains from the Chalcolithic period were found
in the excavation, although the deposits contained THE BYZANTINE PERIOD
lumps of mud brick material, which could indicate Pottery from the Byzantine period, some of it
remains of structures. The finds from this thick, worn and fragmented, was found in the topsoil
ashy deposit included a large amount of pottery layer of almost every square in the excavation.
fragments, many of them worn and corroded due However architectural remains or other features
to a combination of low firing temperature and the from this period are less common, and were
acidity of the local hamra soil. The ceramic array concentrated on the northern, eastern and western
includes many of the known types of the period margins of the site. In a pattern that will reappear
in the central coastal plain region (bowls, basins, in every period, these scattered remains include
storage jars, holemouth jars, churns and cornets). walls, floors and refuse pits.
Also found were relatively many flint tools, cores Remains of a wall dated to the Byzantine
and chips (see Chapter 5). Other finds were a few period were unearthed on the western boundary
fragments of basalt vessels, two bone artefacts, of the site, in Square 3 (Area D). The wall (WD
animal bones (see Chapter 8), and remains of 4) oriented on a north–south axis, founded in
a poorly preserved human skull. The latter was the virgin hamra soil, was covered with stone
found above the virgin soil, and its anatomy proved collapse (Loci 4018, 4023, 4026, 4027). The finds
it to be that of an individual 6-8 years old. from the collapse and from both sides of the wall
Other Chalcolithic remains were found in two (Loci 4028, 4029) include pottery fragments
small-scale excavations that took place at the site, (storage jars, cooking-pots and Phocaean Red
both on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Slip Ware/Late Roman C bowls) dated to the
The first was at the northwestern edge of the site. 6th–7th centuries, and one bronze coin from the
Here were found, not in situ, fragments of pottery 5th century.
and a pedestalled basalt bowl (Gorzalczany 2000: Other fragmentary remains from the Byzantine
43*). The second excavation was located northeast period were found also in the northwestern part of
of the confines of the Kafr >Ana excavation. Here the site, in Square 35 (Area D). Here were found
were found pottery fragments, flint tools, and remains of a wall (WD 8, 1.5 m known length),
animal and human bones, which the excavator oriented east–west, with a badly preserved white
attributed to an unpreserved grave (Buchennino mosaic floor abutting upon it on the north (Fig. 4).
2002a:114*). The wall was built of medium-sized ashlars and
The Chalcolithic site discovered at Kafr >Ana small fieldstones, and was preserved to a height
is similar to two other settlement sites discovered of one course only (0.3 m). East of the wall
recently along the hamra hills on the fringes of there was a small heap of seashells. The finds
the lower Yarkon-Ayalon drainage basin, namely from above the floor (Loci 4037, 4044) included
at Yehud (Brink et al. 2001) and at Tel Lod pottery fragments (storage jars and a basin) dated
(Yannai and Marder 2000). It seems that the find to the 6th–7th centuries.
10
Chapter 2: Stratigraphy and Architecture
Fig. 2.2: Byzantine period mosaic floor in Square 35, looking west.
One of the refuse pits was found on the western height of one course (0.2 m). It is impossible to
edge of the site, in Square 8 (Area D). The pit determine whether they were built at the same
(Loci 4009, 4012, 4013, 4015-4017, 4019, 4020, time or at different stages. However, the absence
4022, 4025) was deep (known depth 2.5 m) and of pottery later than the Byzantine period in the
compounded of grey-brown soil. It contained walls’ foundations indicates that they were all
a large amount of pottery fragments (almost built in the Late Byzantine period, or in the early
entirely Gaza amphorae, but also bag-shaped Umayyad period at the latest. Late Byzantine/
jars, basins, mortaria bowls, Phocaean Red Slip Early Islamic structures built into a Byzantine
Ware/Late Roman C bowls, a Fine Byzantine refuse pit are known also from Khirbet Ibreica
Ware (FBW) juglet, cooking-pots, casseroles (Taxel and Feldstein 2006:44-45).
and casseroles lids, jugs and lamps), and also Part of another refuse pit is placed in
fragments of glass vessels (bowls, bottles, Square 13 (Area C; Loci 1041, 1043, 1048),
oil lamps and more), fragments of roof tiles on the northern fringes of the site. The pit,
and tabuns, mosaic tesserae, clay floor tiles, a a compound of reddish-grey soil, penetrated
fragment of a marble plate, iron pieces and nails, into the Chalcolithic stratum and was itself
seashells, animal bones, and four Byzantine partly disturbed by another, late Ottoman or
bronze coins, dated from the beginning of the modern refuse pit. The dimensions of the pit are
5th to the second quarter of the 6th century. The unknown, but its depth is ca. 1 m. The finds from
pottery and glass vessels also indicate a date in the pit include many pottery sherds (bag-shaped
the 6th or 7th century, with a few types which jars and Gaza amphorae), some fragments of
are dated to the Umayyad period. Within the glass vessels, an iron knife (?), an iron nail, and
pit area the remains of four walls (WD 1-3, 7) animal bones, dated to the 6th century.
were unearthed, whose foundations extend into Somewhat to the west, in Square 12 (Area C),
the pit and are thus probably later than it. The part of a third refuse pit was unearthed. The pit
walls (length 1.2-2 m, width 0.3-0.5 m) are all (Loci 1045, 1047, 1049, 1056, 1057, 1059, 1061), is
oriented east–west, and built very close to each compounded of pale grey soil, is 2.4 m depth and
other, of medium-sized carved stones and small ends in the virgin hamra soil. It extends all over the
fieldstones, and are preserved to a maximum square, and probably also beyond its borders.
11
Itamar Taxel
The pit contained a vast amount of pottery surface, and a chancel post which was reused as
fragments, mainly storage jars, but also basins, a tombstone in a Mamluk period grave (for these
Late Roman Red Ware (LRRW) bowls, Fine finds, see Chapter 6).
Byzantine Ware (FBW) bowls, jugs, juglets, The limited nature of the excavations at Kafr
cooking-pots and casseroles, in addition to >Ana precludes reconstruction of the architectural
fragments of roof tiles, tabuns and glass vessels, plan of the settlement in the Byzantine period. The
mosaic tesserae, and animal bones. The pottery few walls, in most cases damaged by later activity,
from the pit dates its use to the Late Byzantine could have belonged to domestic or industrial
period, maybe until the early Umayyad period structures. All the walls were unearthed in the
(mid-6th to end of the 7th century). western part of the site, and there is no information
On the eastern fringes of the site, in Square 24 about architectural remains in other parts of it. The
(Area B), there was found part of a fourth refuse finding of some architectural elements typical of
pit (Loci 2055, 2067, 2068, 2082, 2086). This pit, a public building, such as the capital with the two
of compound grey-brown soil, ends in the virgin crosses and the chancel post, in addition to relatively
alluvial soil. It is ca. 1 m deep, and extends all over many fragments of marble slabs and fragments of a
the square and beyond it. This pit yielded the richest marble paten or altar table, indicates the existence
assemblage of Late Byzantine finds found in the of a public building during the Byzantine period,
excavation. It contained a large amount of pottery probably a church. This structure was not located
(various storage jars, imported amphorae, bowls, in the excavated areas, and at any rate it seems that
LRRW bowls, FBW bowls and juglets, cooking- the building was looted – if not totally destroyed
pots, casseroles and casserole lids, and more) and – for its architectural elements in a later period.
glass fragments (bowls and bottles), roof tiles, The possible existence of a church in Byzantine
mosaic tesserae, basalt mortars and millstones, Kafr >Ana does not agree with the traditional
pieces of tabuns, a fragment of a marble slab, a few identification of the site as One (see Chapter9).
metal objects (bronze bell, iron nail and iron lump), Large refuse pits were often dug on the fringes
one worn bronze coin, seashells, and many animal of Byzantine settlements, such as Ashqelon
bones. The varied ceramic assemblage from the pit (Nahshoni 1999:100*), Yavneh (Fisher and Taxel
indicates that it was in use mainly during the Late 2007:233-237), Khirbet Ibreica (Taxel and Feldstein
Byzantine period (mid-6th–mid-7th century), but 2006:44-45) and Kafr Jinnis (Messika 2006:90-91).
continued to serve also in the Umayyad period. A The location of these pits and non-domestic (i.e.,
few sherds dated to the early ‘Abbasid period, found industrial and funeral) remains unearthed in other
in the upper level of the pit, may be intrusive. salvage excavations conducted at the site can be
A fifth refuse pit was found in the northwestern taken to define the northern, western and eastern
fringes of the site, in Square 9 (Area D). This pit perimeters of the inhabited part of the site, since
(Loci 4007, 4014, 4021) was dug into the virgin there was no later building in this area.
alluvium soil to a depth of ca. 1.5 m. It contained It seems that the inhabited part of Byzantine Kafr
a relatively small amount of pottery fragments, >Ana was concentrated mainly in the hilly hamra
in addition to glass fragments, one iron nail, area, and less in the alluvial plain which surrounded
mosaic tesserae, seashells, animal bones and some it. The northern border of the inhabited area can
plastered building (?) stones. The few sherds that thus be located somewhere south of Squares 12 and
survived do not allow an accurate dating of the pit, 13. Remains of a “Roman-Byzantine” settlement
although the glass indicates a date within the Early were found already in Kaplan’s excavations in the
Byzantine period (5th century). northern foothills of the site (Kaplan 1962:14-15,
Other finds from the Byzantine period are IAA archives; excavation files: Ono (Kafr >Ana), J.
a column capital which bears two crosses, Kaplan, &-6/1962), although these remains included
later reused as a basin, which was found on the only fill layers, without any architectural remains.
12
Another Byzantine-period refuse pit, which pottery, glass and metal workshops, on the fringes
was dated by the excavator to the 5th–6th of rural settlements is known also from other
centuries, was unearthed on the northeastern contemporary sites (e.g. Ayalon 1997).
fringes of the site (Shemueli 1998a). Enormous On the basis of the finds from the Byzantine
quantities of sherds, slag and burnt mud bricks period, mainly the pottery and the glass, it seems
from Late Byzantine pottery kilns were found in that the site was re-inhabited only in the 6th century.
two excavations conducted on the northeastern edge The 5th and 5th–6th century coins, in addition
of the site. The first was conducted by E. Kogan- to a few apparently 4th–5th century ceramic
Zehavi in 2005 and the second by O. Sion in 2007, and glass types, cannot provide firm evidence
who also found three limestone sarcophagi (already for a pre-6th century settlement at the site. The
looted in antiquity) dated to the Byzantine period. presence of Late Roman–Early Byzantine coins in
The eastern border of the settlement may be Late Byzantine assemblages does not necessarily
west of Square 24, This assumption is further indicate an earlier phase. Bronze coins from the
supported by the results of a salvage excavation 4th and 5th centuries were in circulation up to the
conducted by D. Barkan in 2006 on the eastern 6th, 7th and even 8th century, probably as small
periphery of the site. Here remains of a plastered change in bulk, as a widespread phenomenon in
industrial installation and two pottery kilns from the Syria-Palestine, which is known from many sites
Byzantine-Early Islamic period (5th-8th centuries) (Bijovsky 2000-2; Magness 2003a:170, 205; and
were unearthed. In addition, two cist graves built into references). Some of the pottery and glass types,
an earth layer containing large amounts of Byzantine which have been traditionally dated to the 4th–5th
pottery sherds were discovered. However, according century, may also have a longue durée, probably
to the excavator the graves may be of a later date. up to the early 6th century.
The western border of the settlement is Pottery production seems to be one of the major
somewhere between Squares 8 and 9. However, crafts practised at Kafr >Ana in the Byzantine
Byzantine architectural remains, including cist period. An important detail regarding this industry
graves, walls and a mosaic floor, were unearthed is that the kilns found in Sion’s excavation (see
northwest of the present excavation (Gorzalczany above) probably produced Gaza amphorae, judging
2000:42*-43*), which may indicate that the site by the enormous amount of almost homogeneous
expanded in this direction. fragments of these vessels found in their debris.
The southern border of the settlement in the All belong to the latest variant of this type, with
Byzantine period is unknown, either because the elongated body and conical, ribbed base, which
excavation in the southern squares (4-7 and 34) is dated to the 6th and 7th centuries (Majcherek
did not continue below the remains of the later 1995:169, Form 4, Pls. 7, 8). If this assumption
periods, or because of the poor preservation of is true, the northern limit of the production area
the archaeological strata there. Therefore, it is of Gaza amphorae can be extended up to the Lod
impossible to determine exactly the size of the valley. Until recently, the northernmost known sites
settlement in the Byzantine period. The area of the with evidence for the production of these vessels
territory between the furthermost points in which were Yavneh (Fischer and Taxel 2007:238) and
Byzantine remains were found is about 4 hectares Tell Qatra (Gutfeld 1999), both located along Naúal
although doubtless it was larger. Soreq. The new finds from Kafr >Ana point to the
The location of the pottery workshops in the fact that, during the 6th and 7th centuries, a type
eastern and northeastern parts of the site, probably of container reflecting uniformity in ware and form
on its periphery, has a clear ecological reason. was produced in the southern and central coastal
The smoke, heat and odours which are an integral plain from Naúal Besor in the south (Israel 1993) to
part of pottery production, were removed by the Naúal Ayalon in the north (ca. 80 km),
northwesterly wind which prevails in this region. As will be shown in Chapter 8), the economy
The location of pollutant industries, such as of the settlement during the Late Byzantine and
13
Itamar Taxel
Umayyad periods probably depended not only of another floor (?), made of stones. The finds above
on pottery production but also on raising cattle, the stones included pottery from the >Abbasid period
maybe due to the natural conditions of the area and fragments of marble slabs, probably Byzantine in
and the relative abundance of water. A historical date but in secondary use in the floor.
confirmation of the importance of raising cattle A refuse pit which was found on the eastern
in the vicinity of Lod appears in the Talmudic fringes of the site, in Square 25 (Area B), contained
sources, regarding certain Late Roman-period finds which indicate that it was in use not only in
traditions. One tradition mentions Rabbi Tarfon, the >Abbasid period, but also in the Fatimid period
who met several cattle herders outside Lod (late 10th–end of the 11th century). The pit (Loci
(Babylonian, Eruvin 45:1); another tells about 2071, 2072), 1.3 m deep, was partly disturbed by
Rabbi Joshua B. Levi, a guardian of an orphanage another, late Ottoman or British Mandate period
outside Lod, who was "selling lands and buying refuse pit. The finds from the pit include pottery
cattle with the proceeds" (Babylonian, Gittin 57: (storage jars, basins, glazed bowls, cooking ware,
1); and there is a third tradition about cattle in Fine Buff Ware jugs, FBW bowls, and more) and
Lod (Babylonian, Bechorot 4:4). glass fragments (bowls and bottles), pieces of iron
and iron nails, fragments of stone artefacts (basalt
THE EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD mortar, beach rock millstone, and a door socket
made of hard limestone), seashells and a large
As in the former period, Early Islamic pottery was
amount of animal bones.
found in many parts of the site, although in lesser
Fatimid period remains were unearthed also
quantity than Byzantine pottery. Even so, as in
on the southern fringes of the site, in Square 4
the Byzantine period, the remains from the Early
(Area B). Here, under a dump and beneath stone
Islamic period are scanty and fragmentary, and
collapse debris which contained finds from the
include architecture and refuse pits.
Byzantine, Early Islamic, Mediaeval and late
The Umayyad period (mid-7th–mid-8th
Ottoman periods, were found two massive walls
centuries) is the most difficult to identify, mainly
and monumental floors (Fig. 2.3).
due to the continuity of many ceramic types from
One of the walls (WB 1; 4 m known length,
the Late Byzantine period into the beginning of the
0.7 m width) oriented north–south, abutted upon
Early Islamic period. The refuse pit in Square 24
the second wall (WB 2; 4.5 m known length, 0.7 m
(Area B), which contained many finds dated mainly
width) – oriented east–west – from the north. The
to the Late Byzantine period, was probably in use
walls, preserved to a maximum height of 0.85 m,
also in the Umayyad period.
were built of large dressed stones and small and
The uppermost level of the pit (Locus 2055)
medium-sized fieldstones between them. Two well-
contained a small amount of pottery typical to
made floors of large and medium-sized flagstones
the Umayyad period (Egyptian storage jar, FBW
abutted upon the walls from the northeast and the
bowls, and lamp).
northwest. The pottery fragments (storage jars,
The remains from the >Abbasid period (mid
bowls, glazed bowls and more) found above the
8th–late 10th century) are easier to identify. On the
floors (Loci 2045-2049) were dated to the very
southern fringes of the site, in Square 5 (Area B),
end of the Early Islamic period or the beginning of
below architectural remains from the Mediaeval
the Crusader period (late 11th–early 12th century).
period, there were found remains of a thin plaster
Other finds were pieces of iron and copper/bronze,
floor. The finds from above and below the floor (Loci
fragments of tabuns, charred olive pits, a seashell
2037, 2043, 2044) included fragments of pottery
and animal bones. The character of the remains
(cooking ware, basins and jugs), glass, and a glass
indicates that they were part of a large building,
weight, which were dated to the >Abbasid period, and
maybe an opulent dwelling, which was built in one
animal bones. Below this floor there were remains
of the settlement’s suburbs.
14
In an excavation conducted by S. Golan on during this period. Without evidence to the

behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2000 contrary, it appears that at least at the beginning
on the northeastern side of the site, three pit graves of the period, during the Umayyad period, the
and one cist grave were found. The graves, oriented site’s territory remained more or less the same as
east–west, have not been dated and contained no in the Byzantine period. Only in the ‘Abbasid and
finds, aside from a few pottery fragments from Fatimid periods did some sort of decline occur in
the Early Islamic period (Golan, forthcoming). the inhabited area of the settlement.
The absence of any later finds within the area of
the graves could theoretically date them to the THE CRUSADER AND MAMLUK PERIODS
Early Islamic period, although we cannot rule out
The architectural picture of the site during Crusader
the possibility that the graves were dug later, into a
times (12th–13th century) and the Mamluk period
layer which contained Early Islamic pottery.
(13th–beginning of 16th century) is not very
Another architectural feature is a round stone-
different from that of the Early Islamic period,
built installation which was dated to the beginning
although the amount of Crusader–Mamluk pottery
of the Early Islamic period (7th-8th centuries) was
and other finds excavated at the site seems to be
unearthed in the excavation conducted by Barkan
greater than that of the previous period. The most
at the eastern fringes of the site. The installation
prominent feature unearthed at the excavations was
was interpreted as a storage device or some other
part of an extensive Mamluk-period cemetery on
kind of agricultural feature.
the northeastern fringes of the site.
The architectural plan of Early Islamic Kafr
At the southern end of the site, in Square 5 (Area
>Ana, in light of the excavations, is even less clear
B), below a topsoil layer which contained mixed
than that of the Byzantine period. We know very
pottery from the Byzantine through late Ottoman
little about the development of the settlement
periods, a floor was found made of small fieldstones
and fragments of marble slabs in secondary use. The
finds from above the floor (Loci 2007, 2016, 2017,
2022) and below it (Locus 2037) included pottery
fragments (storage-jars, glazed bowls, painted
handmade bowls and jugs, glazed frying-pans and
handmade cooking-pots) dated to the Crusader-
Mamluk period (13th century), in addition to iron
nails and animal bones.
On the southeastern edge of the site, in Square
6 (Area B), at the bottom of a deep refuse pit
from the late Ottoman/British Mandate period
was found a section of a thin wall, made of small
fieldstones. The wall (WB 3; 2 m known length,
0.3 m width) is oriented north–south, and was
preserved to the height of the foundation course
only (0.3 m). On both sides of the wall (Loci 2030,
2031), and above it (Loci 2023, 2025), there was a
relatively large amount of pottery (glazed bowls,
painted handmade jugs, and more), which can date
the wall to the Mamluk period.
Fig. 2.3: Plan of an Early Islamic structure in Square 4.
15
Itamar Taxel
Remains of two other walls, which also seem poor architectural remains and a small quantity
to date from the Mamluk period, were unearthed of different finds from the late Ottoman–British
on the eastern side of the site, in Square 27 (Area Mandate period, which were also found in the
B). The first wall (WB 11; 3 m known length, 0.5 topsoil layer, indicate human presence in the 19th
m width) is oriented east–west, and the second and 20th centuries. The location of the cemetery
wall (WB 12; 3 m length, 0.5 m width) is oriented outside the settled area and on the less fertile and
north–south and originally created a corner with cultivable hamra soil fits the religious prohibitions
WB 11. Both walls were built of small and medium- of Islam and the information known to us from
sized fieldstones, and were preserved to the height other Muslim cemeteries (Simpson 1995:243).
of the foundation course only. The layers above Prior to the excavations, none of the graves were
and attached to the walls were highly disturbed visible on the surface. The graves are all oriented
by a late Ottoman pit, but the large amount of on an east–west axis, and are of six types (see
pottery fragments (jars, glazed bowls, painted below). Recently, Gorzalzcany (2007) studied the
handmade jugs, and handmade cooking-pots) from differences in orientation of late Islamic (Mediaeval
the Mamluk period (with a few Crusader period and Ottoman) cemeteries in Palestine, including
pieces), and other finds (a tabun fragment, iron that of Kafr >Ana. He found that at Kafr >Ana
nails, a glass bead, fragments of glass bracelets orientation ranges between 73º and 110º East (ibid.:
and animal bones) which were found in addition Table 1) and assumes it to be in accordance with the
to the walls and beneath their foundations (Loci religious custom of maintaining sight with Mecca,
2052, 2053, 2056, 2057, 2059, 2061, 2063, 2065, the dead being placed according to the annual
2066, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2085, 2094) date their changing direction of the sunrise (ibid.: 74-77).
construction to the Mamluk period. The interred bones were poorly preserved,
As mentioned, the most prominent feature probably due to the highly acidity of the hamra
exposed in the excavations was part of an extensive soil, and in most of the graves no bones were
cemetery dated to the Mamluk period. The present found. In cases when the bones were preserved,
excavation concentrated in the western part of the the positions of the deceased indicate that they
cemetery. The total number of graves excavated were Muslims. The interred were always put in
in this part of the cemetery is unclear, because anatomical articulation on their right, with their
not all of the graves were fully excavated, and heads to the west and their faces to the south,
others were not identified definitively as graves. toward Mecca. In one grave (Locus 115, W 087)
Locus numbers were given to 167 graves but an the deceased was buried with the right hand
unknown number of unexcavated graves were not beneath the head. It seems that only one person
numbered. Consequently the total is estimated at was buried in each grave. The graves that seem
ca. 200 graves. The eastern part of this cemetery to have been used for burying adults measured
was excavated in 1999 by F. Vitto on behalf of the from 1.6 to 3 m by 0.3-1 m (the smaller graves
Israel Antiquities Authority (Vitto, forthcoming), were probably those of females). The smallest
and two other graves were excavated in 2000 graves, about one third of the total number, are
(Buchennino 2002b:114*). 0.5-1.55 m by 0.2-0.7 m, and may have been infant
The cemetery is located at the northeastern burials. The graves were dug into the hamra soil,
corner of the site, at the boundary of the red hamra and sometimes reached the alluvium soil beneath
soil. The Mediaeval cemetery seems to be the most it. They were dug at different levels, and in a few
ancient built feature in this area, although the topsoil cases two graves were found one above the other. It
layer in the cemetery did contain a small amount was seldom possible to discern any stratigraphic or
of worn pottery fragments and other finds from chronological order in the cemetery because of the
Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (including relatively few artefacts that were found in relation
one worn bronze coin from the 5th century). Some to the graves (see below).
16
The grave types unearthed in the excavations are:

Type 1: A rectangular pit grave (Fig. 2.4) dug
into the ground and filled with sand. They
are either covered by a row of small to large
fieldstones (Fig. 2.5) or left uncovered. In one
of the graves, in addition to the usual line of
fieldstones, there was also a Byzantine-period
marble chancel post in secondary use (Chapter
6) which stood upright at the western edge of
the grave, probably to mark the place of the
head after burial (Fig. 2.6). Another grave was
covered by fieldstones and by two parts of a
reused threshold (Fig. 2.7).
Type 2: Similar to Type 1, but covered with one or
two ceramic storage jars, or even a row of such
jars (up to seven vessels on a single grave), with
small fieldstones between them (Figs. 2.8, 2.9).
Usually, the jars were laid on their sides, neck to
base. In some cases, very large ceramic conical,
funnel-shaped vessels were used instead. These
were identified as originally intended or used
for beehives or dovecotes (see Chapter 3). In
some cases the pottery vessels were surrounded
by larger stones; some were ancient ashlars or
carved stones in secondary use.
Type 3: A pit grave surrounded by an oval line
of large and medium-sized fieldstones (Figs.
2.10-2.11).
Type 4: A pit grave in which the interred was
surrounded by two parallel lines of small and
medium-sized fieldstones (Fig. 2.12).
Type 5: A cist grave, made of one course (and
seldom, of two courses) of large or medium-
sized carved stones or ashlars in secondary use.
The grave was sealed by dressed stones or other
architectural elements in secondary use, with
small fieldstones sometimes inserted between
Fig. 2.4: Plan of Type 1 graves.
them (Figs. 2.13, 2.14).
Type 6: A grave with a few stones (one to five),
arranged in a line or in an irregular group. These
small graves were probably those of infants.
17
Fig. 2.5: Two type 1 graves, one above
the other, looking south.
Fig. 2.6: Type 1 graves, looking east.

Note the chancel post
reused as a tombstone in
the grave at the rear.
Fig. 2.7: Type 1 grave (W082),

looking south. Note the
reused threshold stones.
18
Fig. 2.8: Type 2 grave (Locus 1093), looking south. Note the reused threshold(?) stone.
Fig. 2.9: Type 2 grave (W112), looking north.
19
Itamar Taxel
Fig. 2.10: Type 3 grave (Locus 1104), plan and photograph, looking south.
Fig. 2.11: Type 3 grave (Locus 1146), Fig. 2.12: Plan of Type 4 grave (Locus 1105).
looking west.
20
Fig. 2.13: Type 5 grave (Locus 1110), looking east.
Fig. 2.14: Plan and section of Type 5 grave (Locus 1110).
21
Itamar Taxel
In addition to the graves, remains of a structure reused for sealing some of the graves, few other
in the eastern part of the cemetery were found. The objects were found inside the graves or near them.
structure is almost square (6.5 x 6.25 m), oriented One object, a simple ceramic bowl, was found
northwest–southeast (Fig. 2.15). Its four walls near graves W 020 and W 029 (Locus 023). In
(WA 62, 63, 117, 121) were built of small to large another case (Locus 1085), a fine blue glass vessel
fieldstones, and were preserved to the height of the was found outside a grave. These finds may be
foundation course only. The exact function of the the remains of Muslim post-burial feasts, which
building is unclear. Within its area was found at were eaten in the cemetery. These were feasts of
least one grave, which was bordered on the south by meat and bread or rice, called the Invitation of the
a thin line of small fieldstones and on the north by Dead, served to the relatives and friends of the
the building’s northern wall. The grave (WA 119) deceased on the evening of the funeral, or meals of
contained the remains of at least two individuals. bread, olive oil and figs, called the Breaking of the
In addition, many other human remains were Solitude and offered by the women to passers-by.
found, without any obvious order, mixed with small Such mortuary rituals are known at least from 19th
fieldstones. It seems that they belonged to other and 20th century parallels, but it is said that they
graves, which were probably dismantled during were more common in the past (Granqvist 1965:85,
the construction of the building. The dating of the 89-90, 157; Macalister and Masterman 1905:349;
building is also unclear. Besides a few fragments Seger 1981:159, Pls. 214, 216-217).
of a Mamluk-period storage jar of the type used to The finds from inside the graves include
cover some of the graves, there were no other finds jewellery (glass beads, iron and copper/bronze
inside or outside the building. However, at least one bracelets, silver and copper earrings, etc.), one
cist grave (WA 120) was built after the construction iron knife or razor, and an unidentified iron
of the building, attached to its southwestern corner plaque. The burying of grave goods, such as coffee
from the outside. utensils and iron knives in men’s graves, and
Our conclusions are as follows: soap, combs, needle and thread and perfume in
1. The building served as part of the cemetery, women’s graves, is known also from more recent
maybe as a mausoleum or family grave. Muslim cemeteries in Palestine and elsewhere
2. During its construction, some earlier graves in the Muslim world (Granqvist 1965:62-63, 84;
were demolished. Macalister and Masterman 1905:349-350; de Vries
3. The date of construction is within the Mamluk 1987:344). Many grave goods were selected less
period, and before the end of use of the for their material value than for their connection
cemetery, as indicated by the graves, which are to local beliefs (Simpson 1995:249), as seems to
later than the building. Some of the building be the case also in some of the finds from the Kafr
stones may have served in the construction of >Ana cemetery (see below). In some graves there
later graves. were iron nails, some of them very long (up to
The graves vary in size, although these 24 cm.) and inclined at the point. The context of
differences can be explained by the robbing of stones the nails is not always clear – most of them were
from earlier graves for reuse in the construction of found above or beside the graves, and only a few
new ones. Evidence for such looting was found in were found inside the graves. In one grave a single
many graves, when sometimes almost the entire nail was found below the head of the interred.
masonry of a grave was stripped. In other cases, only The bending of some of the nails (especially the
the sealing stones of the graves were looted. Some of longer ones) indicates that they were used on
the graves identified as being those of infants could wooden beams, perhaps attaching two beams. If
be larger graves whose stones were looted. so, the nails may have been used in wooden grave
Apart from 59 broken and complete storage markers. The nails did not, in all probability, come
jars, and seven large conical vessels that were from coffins, both because of the surface context
22
Fig. 2.15: Plan of a Mediaeval structure in the cemetery.
where they were found, and because no coffins a 20- to 25-year-old individual, of undetermined
are known from Muslim cemeteries in Palestine gender. However, the five bracelets and a finger
and its neighbours, although they are not, strictly ring that were found in the grave indicate that the
speaking, forbidden by Islam (Simpson 1995:241). interred was probably a female.
Although the preservation of the human remains The second grave (Locus 1107, W22) contained
in the excavated graves was so poor that in many postcranial bone fragments, without skeleton, of an
graves not even a single bone was found, some individual over fifteen, of undetermined gender.
bones and skeletons were disinterred, and given The third grave (Locus 1110, W17) contained
immediately to the representatives of the Ministry postcranial bone fragments and a tooth of an 18- to
of Religious Affairs before being studied; only a 25-year-old individual, of undetermined gender.
few were studied later by a physical anthropologist. The fourth grave (Locus 1134, W62) contained
These bones were found in four graves, close to skull and postcranial bones of a 25- to 35-year-
one another. The first grave (Locus 1104, W16) old individual, also of undetermined gender.
contained postcranial bone fragments and teeth of The cranial vault of this person has a unique
23
Itamar Taxel
morphology. It is shorter than average, flat in the are included in this study, in addition to two as yet
occipital area and distinctly asymmetrical – its left unpublished cemeteries studied by Taxel. They all
side protruding more than the right. According to originated in rural sites related either to sedentary
Y. Nagar, this morphology, which was identified or nomadic/semi-nomadic populations. The dating
also in skeletal remains found in an excavation is that given by the excavator although in some cases
conducted by F. Vitto at Kafr >Ana in 1999, is this seems to be inaccurate, and usually too early
unique to an ethnic group of Turkmen tribes which Additional cemeteries were only surveyed.
were one of the components of the tribe known later Among them the better described are those from the
(since the 19th century) as the Ghawarna (Nagar vicinity of Dor (Mediaeval and Ottoman; Gibson et
2003:154, and oral communication). The Ghawarna al. 1999:83-84) and from Ramat Hanadiv (Ottoman;
first settled in the northern valleys of Palestine, Hirschfeld 2000:366-368). As in Kafr >Ana, most of
though other Turkmen groups settled also in central the excavated cemeteries yielded only small amounts
Palestine in the Mamluk and early Ottoman periods of artefacts, mostly glass and metal jewellery.
(see below). In the Mamluk period cemetery at Pella The published research shows that the basic
in Jordan, the maximum lifespan of the interred was Muslin burial customs did not change between
30-35 years, in comparison to 60-65 years in the the 12th and 13th centuries and the 20th century.
Roman and Byzantine periods, and 25-30 years in There are, of course, variations connected to
the Umayyad period at the same site (Browne 1992: different regions, customs or beliefs, but the
227). In Pella too, the morphology of the interred main characteristics remained stable. The most
points to the presence of Negroid and Asiatic widespread type of grave is the simple pit grave,
(maybe Turkmen) ethnic groups, mixed into the with or without sealing stones (our Types 1 and 2).
local population (Walmsley 1997-1998:138). Pit graves of these types dated to the Mamluk,
Vitto’s excavation unearthed the eastern Ottoman and British Mandate periods were
part of the Mamluk cemetery. The results of her excavated at Azor (Gudovitch 2001: 67*; Milevski
excavations are similar to those discussed here, 1999), Caesarea (Chase 1992: 177, Fig. 87), Kefar
except that Vitto identified three levels of graves, Saba (Gorzalczany 2005: Figs. 1-5; 2007: Fig. 3),
without any chronological range between them. She Kerem Maharal (Sa‘id 2006: Figs. 1, 2), Khirbet
identified five types of burials, analogous to our Yama (Gal and Muqari 2002: 102, 105, Plan
Types 1, 3, 4 and 5, and another type, composed 3), el-Lajjūn (de Vries 1987: 344-345), Naúal
of two lines of stones in a V-shape (this type may Tut (Alexandre 2006, Plan 4, Figs. 70-71), Pella
actually represent partial looting of the stones, and (Walmsley 1997-1998: 136-138), Qiryat Shemona
thus recalls our Type 3). As in our excavation, two (Taxel, unpublished), Tel Dan (Taxel, unpublished),
themes of grave sealing were identified – a simple Tel Hazor (Dothan 1957: 23), Tel Mevorakh (Stern
line of stones, or a line of storage jars. Most of the 1978: 4, Fig. 23)1, Tel Mor (Barako 2007:39, Figs.
graves were used for the burial of adults. Some 2.41, 2.43), Tel Yehud (Shmueli 1998), Tel Zeror
of the females’ graves contained more than one (Ohata 1966, Pl. 10), Tell Deir Alla (van der Kooij
individual, usually a mother and a child. Two other and Ibrahim 1989: 90), Tell el-Far‘ah (north) (de
simple graves, also dated to the Mamluk period, Vaux 1951:420-421), Tell el-îesi (Toombs 1985:
marked by a line of stones, were later unearthed 37-38, Pls. 5:A-B, 17-20), Tell Keisan (Briend
east of Vitto’s excavation (Buchennino 2002b:64). 1980, Fig. 13), Yad Benyamin (Weksler-Bdolah
The Mamluk Muslim cemetery in Kafr >Ana is 2000), and Zur Natan (Neidinger et al. 1994:14).
an important addition to the long list of Mediaeval The Muslim custom of burying in simple pit
to recent Muslim cemeteries excavated in Israel and graves is recorded at least as far back as the >Abbasid
Transjordan, as shown in Table 2.1. Only published period, as is apparent from a cemetery dated to
cemeteries which were described in sufficient detail that period unearthed in îorvat Me§ad (Fischer,
1. Simpson (1995:247, n. 142) disputes the dating of some of the graves at Tel Mevorakh to the Crusader period.
24
TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF EXCAVATED MEDIAEVAL TO RECENT MUSLIM CEMETERIES IN ISRAEL AND TRANSJORDAN
Site Period PG CG SG JB MG Source
Abu en-Naml Ottoman + Mershen 1991a; 1991b
Azor Mamluk and Ottoman + + Gudovitch 2001; Milevski 1999:65*
Bethsaida Ottoman + Arav 1999: 16-17; Rottloff 2003
Caesarea Ottoman and modern + + Chase 1992
el-Haddariya Ottoman (?) + Bulletin of the Department of Antiquities
of the State of Israel 2 (1950):16
(Hebrew); IAA Archives
îorvat Bet Zeneta Mediaeval or later + Getzov 2000:101*
îorvat Ne‘tar Mamluk + Syon 1999:44*
îorvat Zikhrin Mediaeval (?) and Ottoman + + + Taxel 2005:40, 43; 2006: 208
Kefar Gevirol Mediaeval or later + Dagot 2007
Kefar Sava Ottoman + Gorzalczany 2005; 2007
Kerem Maharal Ottoman + Sa‘id 2006
Khirbet ed-Duheisha Mamluk and/or Ottoman + +? Gorzalczany, oral communication
Kaplan 1957:202; Pipano 1985
Khirbet Yama Ottoman or earlier + Gal and Muqari 2002:102, 105
el-Lajjun Ottoman and modern + + de Vries 1987:344-346
Naúal Tut Mamluk or Ottoman + + Alexandre 2006:182-187
Nes Ziyyona Ottoman and modern + + Glick 1998:74; Gorzalczany 1998:74-75
Pella Mamluk + Browne 1992; Walmsley 1997-1998:136-138
Qiryat Shemona (south) Ottoman or modern + + Taxel (unpublished)
Tel Dan Mamluk (?) and Ottoman + + Taxel (unpublished)
Tel >Erani 7th-15th centuries4 + Yeivin 1961:3-4
Tel Hazor Mamluk + + Dothan 1957
Tel Mevorakh Crusader5 and Ottoman + + + + Stern 1978:4-9
Tel Mor Ottoman and modern + + + Barako 2007:38-40
Tel Te’o Ottoman + Eisenberg et al. 2001:46
Tel Yehud Ottoman + Shmueli 1998b
Tel Zeror Mediaeval + + Ohata 1966; 1967
Tell Deir ‘Alla Ayyubid and Mamluk + van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989:90
Tell el-Far‘ah (north) Mamluk + de Vaux 1951:420-421
Tell el-îesi Ottoman + + + Eakins 1993; Toombs 1985
Tell el-Wawiyat (Tel Tannim) Ottoman + Onn 1988-1989:182; Onn et al. 1995:10
Tell îisban Ottoman + Walker 2001
Tell Keisan Mediaeval (?) + Briend 1980:47-48
Tell Qiri Ottoman + Avissar 1987:7-8
Yad Benyamin Mamluk + Weksler-Bdolah 2000
Yavneh Mediaeval (?) and Ottoman + Fischer and Taxel 2007
Zur Natan Ottoman + + Neidinger et al. 1994:14
25
Legend: PG=pit graves of various types; CG=cist grave; SG=simple grave; JB=jar burial; MG=mass grave.
Itamar Taxel
forthcoming). Graves similar to our Type 3 were 12; Toombs 1985:39-40, Pls. 26, 27), Nes Ziyyona
excavated at Tell Qiri (Avissar 1987:7, Ph. 3, Plan 5). (Glick 1998:74), Khirbet ed-Duheisha (Kaplan
Another widespread type, though less so than 1957:202), Tel Mor (Barako 2007:39-40, Figs.2.44,
the former types, is the cist grave (our Type 5). 2.45) and Zur Natan (Neidinger et al. 1994:14), in
These were usually built of carved stones in addition to a few more examples found at en-Naby
secondary use, but also of fieldstones and even Qanda and Zarnuqa during the survey for the map
mud bricks. They have been excavated at Abu of Yavneh (Fischer and Taxel 2006).
en-Naml (Mershen 1991a: 137; 1991b, Fig. 7), It is remarkable that compared to the other burial
Azor (Gudovitch 2001, Fig. 150), Caesarea (Chase types, which are typical of Mediaeval, Ottoman
1992: 177, Figs. 87-88), Bethsaida (Arav 1999, and modern periods, all the jar burials (excluding,
Fig. 11; Rottloff 2003: 182, Abb. 311), îorvat Bet perhaps, those from Khirbet ed-Duheisha, Tel
Zeneta (Getzov 2000: 101*, Fig. 31), îorvat Ne‘tar Mor and Zur Natan) were dated only to the late
(Syon 1999: 44*, Fig. 91), îorvat Zikhrin (Taxel Ottoman and British Mandate periods. This date was
2005:40, 43; 2006: 208), Kefar Gevirol (Dagot determined by the types of pottery vessels used for
2007), el-Lajjūn (de Vries 1987: 344-345), Naúal burying – usually dark grey-black Gaza ware storage
Tut (Alexandre 2006, Plan 4, Figs. 65-66), Nes jars. The exception is a burial from Tel Mevorakh, in
Ziyyona (Glick 1998: 73; Gorzalczany 1998: 74), which a conical vessel was used, of the same type as
Qiryat Shemona (Taxel, unpublished), Tel Dan those found at Kafr >Ana (see below). It is also worth
(Taxel, unpublished), Tel >Erani (Yeivin 1961: mentioning that almost none of the ethnographic
3-4, Pl. I:1)2, Tel Hazor (Dothan 1957: 23), Tel sources that describe Muslim burial customs in
Mevorakh (Stern 1978: 4, Fig. 23, Pl. 6), Tel Mor Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries mention
(Barako 2007:39, Fig. 2.42), Tel Te’o (Eisenberg et infant jar burials. Only Canaan (1924:8, n. 1) and
al. 2001: 46, Plan 3.10), Tel Zeror (Ohata 1966:3, Bar-Tzvi et al. (1988:57-58) mention a Muslim shrine
19, Pl. 10; 1967, Pls. 12-13), Tell el-îesi (Toombs near Khan Yunis (esh-Sheikh Nuran), which served
1985: 38-39, Pls. 5:C, 21-24), Tell el-Wawiyat (Tel as a graveyard for infants, all buried in jars. The latter
Tannim; Onn 1988-1989:182; Onn et al. 1995:10) (1988:105, n. 4) also mention infant burials in jars at
and Yavneh (Fischer and Taxel 2007:262, 273). the site of ancient Elusa in the northwestern Negev in
The graves in the surveyed cemetery of Ramat the 1940s.
Hanadiv (Hirschfeld 2000:366-368, Figs. 318-320) As can be seen, the Muslim cemeteries that
probably also belong to this type, while those in have been excavated or surveyed yield good
the cemetery of Dor (Gibson et al. 1999:43, Fig. 8) parallels for the graves from Kafr >Ana, especially
seem more like our Type 4. Some of the graves at for the pit and cist graves. No obvious parallels
Dor were marked with marble columns and other were found to Kafr >Ana graves Types 4 and 5,
architectural elements in secondary use, as was excluding, perhaps, the cemetery near Dor. As to
done in one of the graves from Kafr >Ana. the probable burial structure built in the cemetery,
In addition to these main types, there are two it must be mentioned that a similar phenomenon
more types of grave which are much less common. of mass burial within a room of older building is
The first, which is simply a heap of small stones known also from the late Ottoman cemetery at Tell
covering the interred (our Type 6?), is known only îisban, in Transjordan (Walker 2001:47-48).
from Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978:177, Fig. 23). The However, the most interesting and enigmatic
second type is jar burial of infants and fetuses. phenomenon identified in the Muslim cemetery at
Jar burials are known from Tel Mevorakh (Stern Kafr >Ana, in our opinion, is the reuse of pottery
1978:4-5, Fig. 23, Pl. 6), Tell el-îesi (Eakins 1993: vessels for covering some of the pit graves (Type
2. The finds found in relation to the Muslim cemetery excavated at Tel ‘Erani indicate that the cemetery should be dated to
not before the Mamluk period, if not later.
26
2 graves). Until now, this custom is known only sometimes in addition to fieldstones, and are
from some Muslim graves at el-Haddariya/Hadar recorded in two anonymous short notes (Bulletin of
Yosef (on the northern bank of Naúal Yarkon) and the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel 2
Khirbet ed-Duheisha (northeast of Yavneh), and [1950]:16 [Hebrew]; QDAP 10 [1944]:202) and from
possibly from another grave at Azor (see below). files in the IAA archives (Mandatory files: el-
Somewhat different examples are known Haddar and Kh. Hadra; Israeli file: Hadar Yosef,
from Tell el-Hesi, where jar fragments served J. Kaplan, A-230/1970).
as a capstone for a twin burial (Eakins 1993: Pl. At Khirbet ed-Duheisha, Mediaeval Muslim
4), and from Tell Deir >Alla, where fragments of graves were excavated in relation to jars, but the
Mediaeval ‘sugar pots’ were used for covering excavator does not specifically say that these
some of the interred in the Muslim cemetery (van jars covered the graves (Pipano 1985). However,
der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989:90). In other examples, a recent excavation conducted at the site revealed
different vessels were put beside some of the many more Muslim graves, some of them covered
interred as grave goods. At the Mediaeval through by pottery vessels in the same pattern of the same
late Ottoman Christian cemetery of >Abud, three kind as at Kafr >Ana. The vessels include mostly
Crusader/Ayyubid glazed bowls were found inside Mamluk bag-shaped jars (identical to those found
three of the cist graves, where they served as grave at Kafr >Ana), as well as four conical vessels and
goods (Taha 1997:366-367, Pl. 18:6). At Tell el- one antiliya jar (personal observation, 2006).
Hesi, two infant burials contained a small spouted At Azor, a burial (pit grave?) of a young girl
jug (suggested by the author as being a baby’s was covered by two Mamluk period bag-shaped
feeding bottle) and a piriform juglet (Toombs jars (Gudovitch 2001:67*, Fig. 151:3, 4), also of the
1985:107-108, Pls. 85-87). In another cist grave, same type as those found at Kafr >Ana and Khirbet
six spouted drinking jugs (abariq; sing.: ibriq) ed-Duheisha. In addition, in a higher level above
made of dark grey-black clay, characteristic of late the graves in this cemetery, some jars and a large
Ottoman Gaza ware, were found (ibid.:106, Pls. 82, conical vessel, which the excavator identified as a
83). The reason for the presence of pottery vessels funnel were found and dated to the late Ottoman
in this grave remained obscure to the excavators, period (ibid.:67*, Fig. 151:5). Together with the
but in Simpson’s opinion it may be connected to conical vessel from Tel Mevorakh, two vessels
the Egyptian practice of placing a full water jar at from îorvat Zikhrin, also dated to the late Ottoman
the head of the interred (1995:249). However, this period (Taxel 2006a:Figs. 13:3, 4, 14) and used for
does not seem to be the case in Kafr >Ana, since infant burials, an unknown number of vessels from
here the jars were found lying intentionally on el-Haddariya, four as yet unpublished vessels from
their side. Anoter example of a Gaza ware ibriq Khirbet ed-Duheisha and the seven vessels from
laid beside a Muslim grave was published from Kafr >Ana, this is the sixth example of these objects
>Ain Kadis in nothern Sinai (Woolley and Lawence being used in this manner in Muslim cemeteries in
2003: Pl. 12:12). Israel. Below we shall suggest that these conical
Examples from el-Haddariya, Khirbet ed- vessels are parts of beehives known from traditional
Duheisha, Azor and >Abud, are closer to the Arab agriculture (see also Taxel 2006a).
graves from Kafr >Ana, both geographically and The use of these vessels in cemeteries in
chronologically. At el-Haddariya an unknown Kafr >Ana, Azor, Tel Mevorakh, îorvat Zikhrin,
number of Mamluk or Ottoman Muslim graves, el-Haddariyah and Khirbet ed-Duheisha can be
erroneously dated to the Byzantine period, were explained, perhaps, only by the size of the vessels,
excavated during the 1940s.3 These graves were which made them suitable for burying infants as
covered by bag-shaped jars and conical vessels, well as for covering graves. However, this may be
3. The dating given here is based on the description and illustrations of the bag-shaped jars and conical vessels in the published
notes and archive files.
27
Itamar Taxel
a matter not only of convenience but also point to 147-148). Tel Mevorakh, located on the edge of
a local ethnic custom, related to the composition the Cabara swamps, was known as the cemetery
of the population in these sites. The use of dozens of the local Ghawarna people until the middle of
of storage jars in Kafr >Ana for sealing graves (in the 20th century (Stern 1978:4). It is important to
addition to the jars from Azor, el-Haddariyah note that the Ghawarna of the Cabara swamps, and
and Khirbet ed-Duheisha), can be explained especially those who later settled in the village of
in a number of ways, some more fruitful than Jisr ez-Zarqa, were composed mainly of Egyptian
others. Physically speaking, their size makes them and Sudanese immigrants (Nagar 2003:153-154).
suitable for covering graves. This explanation is As said before, Egyptian immigrants were settled
less convincing in that stones of all sizes abound also in the Valley of Lod during the 19th century.
at the site which could have served the purpose These immigrants, and their predecessors in the
of protecting or decorating the grave more Mamluk period, whether settled in the Sharon
effectively, and which were indeed, as mentioned, or in the Lod valley, most probably brought with
used on many occasions. So the vessels could have them some of their traditional customs, including
been used in the cemetery as a form of recycling, those relating to burial. We suggest, therefore, that
in lieu of and achieving a different visual result the custom of sealing graves with large ceramic
than rocks. Another line of thought sees the vessels, identified on a vast scale so far only at
connection to the argument made before about the Kafr >Ana (with a few other examples from Khirbet
conical vessels, which relates the artefacts to the ed-Duheisha and Azor), is related to Turkmen and/
ethnic composition of the inhabitants of the site. or Egyptian immigrants who settled in the village
The widespread use of ceramic vessels for sealing during the Mamluk period. The second custom, of
graves at this particular site maybe points to this infant jar burials, is more widespread. This custom
being a custom specific to a certain group among was indeed identified in relation to the Ghawarna
the site’s population. (e.g. at Tel Mevorakh), but it cannot be attributed
As previously mentioned, the study of the solely to this population, according to other jar
skeletal remains from Kafr >Ana shows a very burials found at sites which were inhabited by
close morphological similarity of at least part other populations, such as Bedouin (e.g. Tell el-
of the site’s population in the Mamluk period îesi). Nevertheless, the custom, although not
to the Turkmen tribes of the northern regions widespread, of using conical vessels instead of
of Palestine. The Turkmen first immigrated to conventional storage jars for burying infants may
Palestine in the Mamluk period, and settled tentatively be attributed to a certain population,
mainly in the northern valleys (Hula, Jezreel) and probably Turkmen or Egyptian.
on the Sharon plain. Two more waves of Turkmen The poor architectural remains dated to the
migrations to Palestine occurred in the early Crusader and Mamluk periods unearthed at the
Ottoman period and in the 19th century, and the site do not allow us to understand the nature
quarters of veteran Turkmen soldiers in Gaza and and the dimensions of Kafr >Ana at this period.
Ramla are mentioned in early Ottoman documents. Nevertheless, according to the size of the cemetery
In the Hula valley and in other swampy areas, such and the total number of graves found in it (including
as the Cabara swamps in the northern Sharon, those from Vitto’s excavations) as well as the large
the Turkmen were part of the tribes known since amount of pottery and other finds from the village
the 19th century as Ghawarna. The Ghawarna itself, it seems that the site flourished during the
were not a homogeneous group, but compounded 13th–15th centuries. However, we cannot rule out
of Bedouin tribes from the Jordan valley and two other alternatives. First, that the cemetery was
central Palestine, Turkmen and Kurdish tribes, used not only by the inhabitants of Kafr >Ana, but
and even Egyptian soldiers (Cohen and Lewis also by those of neighbouring settlements, which
1978; Greenberg 1996:29; Grossman 1994:120-121, was common (c.f. van der Kooij and Ibrahim
28
1989:90). If so, there is reason to believe that this excavations, included, as in the earlier periods,
settlement could have been Kafr Juna, ca. 1 km structures and refuse pits. In the southeastern
northeast of Kafr >Ana. Second, the large number part of the site, in Square 7 (Area B), just below
of roughly contemporary graves could indicate not the surface, there was found a wall (WB 10; 5.5 m
only the number of live inhabitants of the site, but known length, 0.5 m width) oriented on a north–
also, perhaps, that sudden disaster decimated the south axis, built of medium-sized fieldstones and
population; but the poor state of preservation of preserved to the height of the foundation course
human remains does not allow us to settle this. only. A floor, made of small fieldstones, abutted
upon the wall on the west. In the southwestern
OTTOMAN AND BRITISH MANDATE PERIODS corner of the square a tabun was unearthed. The
Too little is known as yet about settlement patterns floor itself was preserved only in the northern part
to ascertain the continuity of the habitation in Kafr of the square. The deposits from both sides of the
>Ana between the Mamluk and the early Ottoman wall and above the floor (Loci 2000, 2004, 2005,
periods. Most of the remains found above the 2010, 2014, 2015) contained pottery fragments
Mediaeval remains are dated to the 19th and (bowls, a glazed bowl, jugs, jars, a handmade
20th centuries. This can be explained, of course, cooking-pot and a lamp), smoking pipes and
by the fragmentary nature of the excavation, animal bones, dated to the late 19th century. The
which concentrated mainly on the fringes of nature of the remains may indicate that this was
the site and much less on the core of the ancient part of a courtyard of a dwelling, and not a room
settlement. Of course, there may have been a gap inside the house.
in the inhabitation of the site in the first century Remains of another late Ottoman structure
or two of the Ottoman period. However, Kafr or structures were unearthed in the eastern part
>Ana is mentioned in Ottoman documents of the of the site, in Square 26 (Area B; Fig. 2.17). Two
middle and the end of the 16th century (see above), architectural phases were identified here, but it
indicating an unbroken sequence in the occupation cannot be said if they both belong to the same
of the village. If, as shown earlier, Kafr >Ana at the building or not.
beginning of the Ottoman period was a very small To the earlier phase belongs a thick wall
village with only few dozen inhabitants, the village (WB 14; 4 m known length, 0.8 m known width)
houses would probably have been concentrated at oriented east–west, which was built of small to
the top of the hill, an area that is almost completely large fieldstones and was preserved to the height
unexcavated. of the foundation course only. A floor of small
It should be borne in mind that some of the fieldstones, very similar to that unearthed in
material characteristics of the late Mamluk Square 7, abutted upon the wall from the north.
period (the 14th and mainly the 15th century) The floor was preserved mainly in the western part
had a relatively long lifespan which extended into of the square. The deposit above the floor (Locus
the early Ottoman period (the 16th and even 17th 2093) contained pottery fragments, including
centuries) (e.g. Avissar and Stern 2005; McQuitty a glazed bowl, smoking pipe, and a fragment of
2000; Ziadeh 1995). Thus, it is possible that some Marseille roof tile.
finds automatically identified as Mamluk, and even The second architectural phase included a
late Mamluk are actually from the early Ottoman wall (WB 8; 4.5 m known length, 0.7 m width),
period. However, the paucity of objectively dated also oriented east–west, which was built above
finds, such as coins and smoking pipes, in the WB 14, although not exactly overlapping it. The
pre-late Ottoman assemblages in Kafr >Ana makes foundation course of the new wall, which was also
accurate dating quite difficult. built of small to large fieldstones, was 0.5 m higher
The remains from the late Ottoman and than the earlier wall. A new floor, identical to the
the British Mandate periods exposed in the former, abutted upon the wall from the north. The
29
Itamar Taxel
floor tiles, which characterised the wealthier Arab

buildings of the first decades of the 20th century
(Kroyanker 1998:180), were found in the upper level
of the deposit that covered the remains of the second
phase. These tiles could belong to a later phase of
the same building, or to another, nearby structure,
which was not excavated.
The third structure belonging to this stratum
was unearthed in the northern part of the site, in
Square 31 (Area D). Here too, remains of two phases
were found. The earlier phase included two walls
forming a corner – WD 13 (2 m known length, 0.5
m width), oriented southwest–northeast, and WD
14 (1.5 m known length, 0.5 m width), oriented
northwest–southeast. Plaster floors abutted upon
the walls from the west and east, and it seems
that these remains belong to at least two rooms.
In rural Arab architecture, plaster or lime floors
are most typical of the living levels within the
houses, rather than of courtyards (Canaan 1933:
Fig. 2.17: Plan of a late Ottoman period structure in Square 26.
24; Hirschfeld 1995:121), as found, for instance,
at al-Burj al-Ahmar (Pringle 1986:109, 118), Umm
deposit above it (Loci 2069, 2070, 2080, 2089, el-‘Aleq (Hirschfeld 2000:341-347) and el-Qubab
2092) contained pottery fragments, including (Ein Gedy 2006:55*-56*), although in the two
a glazed bowl, smoking pipes, fragments of latter sites some of the rooms were paved with
glass bracelets, iron objects, animal bones and flagstones. The finds from above the floors (Loci
fragments of Marseille roof tiles. 4036, 4043, 4049, 4051) and below them (Locus
The discovery of so-called Marseille roof tiles in 4050) included pottery fragments, a smoking pipe
both phases help to date them within a short period and fragments of Marseille roof tiles, which date
of time. Since we know that the import of clay roof this phase to the end of the 19th century.
tiles from Marseille and its vicinity to Palestine The second phase (Fig. 2.18), which was better
did not precede the mid-19th century, and that preserved and better documented, included a corner
their adoption in rural Arab architecture occurred of two walls as well – WD 5 (2.5 m known length,
even later (Ayalon 2000:126-127; Kark 1995:535), 0.5 m width), oriented northwest–southeast, and
the presence of such a find on the floors of the WD 6 (1.9 m known length, 0.5 m width), oriented
two architectural phases can give a terminus post southwest–northeast. Both walls, which were
quem of the second half of the 19th century to the preserved to the height of the foundation course
construction of the structure/s. It must be noted that only, were built of large carved stones, with small
all the tiles found at the site carried the heart-shaped fieldstones in between. WD 5 was built directly
potter’s stamp, the mark of the Roux brothers of the above WD 13 from the earlier phase. From the west
St. Henri Quarter in Marseille (Ayalon 2000:129; a floor abutted upon the walls, made of small and
see also Kark 1995: Pl. 6; Kletter 2004: Fig. 13; medium-sized fieldstones, which was preserved
Urman 2004: Fig. 33). The smoking pipes, which mainly in the western part of the square. The finds
are typical of the late 19th–early 20th century (see from the deposit above the floor (Loci 4030, 4032)
below) help date these remains more accurately. included pottery fragments and animal bones.
In addition, a few fragments of decorated cement An iron peg was found in situ, stuck in the floor.
30
The peg has a loop-curved end with an iron ring soil, and contained pottery fragments, including a
connected to it, maybe for tying an animal. This porcelain plate, a 19th century smoking pipe and
find indicates that the floor belonged either to a fragment of Marseille roof tile.
paved courtyard or to the front part of a house, since The second refuse pit was found on the eastern
we know that domestic animals in traditional Arab fringes of the site, in Square 25 (Area B). The pit
villages were sheltered not only in the courtyards, (Loci 2054, 2060, 2062, 2074, 2087) was ca. 3.5 m.
but also in the front, on a lower level (Arab. qa‘ al- deep and penetrated into earlier deposits from the
bayt) of dwellings (Ziadeh 1995a:1005). Late Byzantine/Umayyad, >Abbasid and Fatimid
To this phase can be attributed also a deep periods. It is composed of grey-brown soil, and
(refuse?) pit, which was dug north to WD 5 (outside contained pottery fragments, some 18th and 19th
the courtyard/house?) into the remains of the century smoking pipes, fragments of glass bracelets
earlier phase. The pit (Loci 4031, 4035, 4045, 4048, and Marseille roof tiles. Other contemporary finds,
4055) is composed of pale grey soil and contained such as a glass bottle and a copper bracelet, were
pottery fragments and a 19th century smoking found in the Early Islamic refuse pit.
pipe, which helps date both phases to within that A third refuse pit was found on the southeastern
century. The nature of the two phases is obviously fringes of the site, in Square 6 (Area B). The pit
different, and it is difficult to determine whether (Loci 2002, 2006, 2013, 2018, 2019, 2023-2025,
they belonged to the same building or not. 2031, 2036) was ca. 3.5 m. deep and penetrated
Other remains from the late Ottoman-British into the Mediaeval period stratum. This refuse pit
Mandate period included at least three refuse pits. contained the richest and most varied assemblage
The first was found on the northern fringes of the of finds from the late Ottoman or British Mandate
site, in Square 13 (Area C). The pit (Loci 1040, period found at Kafr >Ana. The finds included
1041, 1044, 1046), was ca. 3 m deep and penetrated a large amount of pottery fragments and broken
into earlier layers from the Byzantine and vessels (bowls, basins, jars, jugs, abariq, handmade
Chalcolithic periods. It is composed of pale grey cooking-pots, and a porcelain plate), glass vessels
Fig. 2.18: Plan and photograph (looking west) of a late Ottoman period structure in Square 31.
31
Itamar Taxel
(bottles, glasses and bowls), window panes, glass bracelets, glass bead, tabun fragments, iron artefacts
(nails, pegs etc.), rifle bullet casings, a copper bracelet, a small lump of blue, highly crystallised pigment
("Egyptian blue"), fragments of Marseille roof tiles and animal bones. In the upper level of the pit were
also found a British Mandate coin dated to 1939 (Chapter 7), and fragments of flat cement roof tiles.
These were produced in Palestine from the beginning of the 20th century or the early British Mandate
period (Ayalon 2000:131) and were in use in Arabic building together with the imported clay roof tiles
up to 1948. Together with the late British Mandate coin, these finds can date the end of use of the refuse
pit probably to the 1940s, perhaps to the abandonment of the village in 1948. The terminus post quem
for the beginning of use in the refuse pit can theoretically be determined, according to the glass window
panes and the Marseille roof tiles, to the 1850s.4 Nevertheless, the absence of smoking pipes, which were
very popular during the Ottoman period and especially in the 19th century, and were found in every other
late Ottoman assemblage at Kafr >Ana, may point to a later date for the digging of this pit, perhaps to the
beginning of the 20th century.
Deposits from the late Ottoman-British Mandate period, without clear architectural remains, were
found in almost every square in the excavations. These deposits covered also a relatively wide area of the
Mamluk-period cemetery, which indicates that the village expanded towards the northeast, and provides
a terminus ante quem for the use of the cemetery. According to the village map from the British Mandate
period (1946), the new cemetery was placed almost opposite the Mediaeval cemetery, on the northwestern
fringes of the settlement. The reason for the establishment of a new cemetery is unknown, and can be
explained by a short gap in the occupation of the site (say, in the 15th–early 16th century) or by the arrival
of new inhabitants to the village sometime during the Ottoman period. The finds from the deposits
(pottery and porcelain fragments, smoking pipes, Marseille and thin mortar roof tiles, iron artefacts,
etc.) date them to the 19th–20th centuries, when the site reached its largest expansion since the Byzantine
period.
As in the former periods, the architectural picture of the site in the Ottoman, and mainly in the late
Ottoman, and British Mandate periods is very fragmentary. Remains of modest dwellings were unearthed
in the northern, southern and eastern parts of the site. To these remains should be added two floors
made of fieldstones, which were unearthed in another excavation in the northeastern fringes of the site
(Shemueli 1998a).
In some of the remains that were unearthed in the present excavation two architectural phases were
identified, both are dated within the 19th century until the beginning of the 20th. In two cases both phases
included stone-paved floors. Floors like these, usually with a tabun in one of the corners, are characteristic
of courtyards in traditional rural Arab building. Paved courtyards were exposed, for instance, in the Arab
village of Umm el-‘Aleq (Hirschfeld 2000:341-347). The floors unearthed in Kafr >Ana abutted upon walls
that may have been the bounding walls of courtyards. These courtyards were used for many of the household
chores, in addition to storing food and fuel and housing the livestock (Hirschfeld 1995:116, 121, 138-140).
Animals, however, were sheltered also inside the houses, so the upper floor in Square 31 could have belonged
also to a dwelling. Refuse pits were dug not far from these structures, probably to serve the nearby houses,5
and their varied finds, especially those from the pit in Square 6, are a good source for studying the material
culture of the rural Palestinian Arab households from the 19th to the middle of the 20th century.
4. Glass windowpanes, imported from western Europe, first appeared in Arab urban building (in Jerusalem) in the 1840s
(Fucks 1998:55, n. 6), and it seems they were used in rural building not before the middle of the 19th century.
5. We cannot rule out the possibility that some of the deposits found inside the houses themselves also represent discarded
rubbish, since we know that deserted buildings in traditional Arab villages sometimes became dump areas (Ziadeh-Seely
2000:86). This phenomenon is known as secondary refuse (Schiffer 1995:211).
32
CHAPTER 3
POTTERY
THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD some start to appear in the second half of the 5th
century. Some types found in the large refuse
The pottery of this period retrieved at Kafr >Ana
pit and elsewhere date to the Umayyad period
is a typical late Chalcolithic repertoire. Generally
(the mid 7th-mid 8th centuries), together with
it can be related to those of the Beersheba valley
types characteristic of the transition between the
sites (Amiran 1969) and, more specifically, to
Byzantine and Umayyad periods.
pottery assemblages unearthed in Chalcolithic
sites situated in the central coastal plain and the LATE ROMAN RED WARE (LRRW) BOWLS
western slopes of the central hill country (e.g.
The imported fine ware bowls include examples
Scheftelowitz 2004a).
of the four main groups of Late Roman Red Ware
The pottery consists of a variety of bowls
(LRRW) of the periods dicussed, i.e., Phocaean
(Fig. 3.1:1, 2) including some with triangular
Red Slip/Late Roman C (LRC), Cypriote Red Slip
knobs attached to the inner wall (Fig. 3.1:3, 4)
(CRS), African Red Slip (ARS) and Egyptian Red
and pedestal bowls (Fig. 3.1:5), kraters (Fig. 3.1:
Slip (ERS).
7-12), cornets (Fig. 3.2:1-4), jars (Fig. 3.2:5-8),
The LRC included bowls dated to the end of the
holemouth jars (Fig. 3.2:9) and churns (Fig. 3.2:
5th-beginning of the 6th centuries (Fig. 3.3:1; Hayes
10, 11). There are also typical late Chalcolithic
1972:329-338, Form 3E), to the 6th century (Fig.
pierced handles (Fig. 3.2:12, 13), handles with
3.3:2, 3; ibid., Form 3F), and to the first half of the
triangular sections (Fig. 3.2:14) and body sherds
7th century (Fig. 3.3:4; ibid., Form 10C). One of the
of jars with nail-incised decorations (Fig. 3.2:
bowls’ bases bears an impression belonging to the
15), horizontal incised decorations (Fig. 3.2:16),
‘Palm-branch Style’, which dated to the middle of
impressed decoration (Fig. 3.2:17), plastic rope
the 5th century (Fig. 3.3:5; ibid.:350). On the basis
decoration (Fig. 3.2:18) and red slip decoration. Of
of the rest of the pottery types from the site, we tend
special interest are the two bowls with triangular
to accept J. Magness’ suggestion that the lifetime of
knobs attached to the inside of the vessel which
LRC bowls Form 3 in Palestine should be extended
are paralleled by those found long ago at sites in
at least to the end of the 6th century, and up to the
the Beersheba valley (Contenson 1956: Fig. 9:
early 7th (Magness 1999:193-194).
4, 6) and more recently at Giv >at Ha-Oranim
The CRS is represented here by a bowl dated to
(Scheftelowitz 2004a: Fig. 3.3:10, 11). They have
the late 4th-third quarter of 5th century (Fig. 3.3:
also been collected at Chalcolithic sites surveyed
6; ibid.:372-373, Form 1) and a heavy bowl dated
in the western Samaria hills (Gophna and Tsuk
to the end of the 6th/beginning of the 7th until the
2005). The function of these bowls is still unclear.
end of the 7th century (Fig. 3.3:7; ibid.:379-382,
Form 9C).
THE BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD PERIODS The ARS also including one type, dated to the
The most varied assemblages of Byzantine-period first half of the 7th century (Fig. 3.3:8; ibid.:171,
pottery in the site came from refuse pits, especially Form 107).
from the large pit in Square 24. Most of the types The ERS bowls, which are relatively less
represented below are dated to the Late Byzantine common in Palestine, included two types; both
period, i.e., to the 6th and 7th centuries; although belonging to the ‘A’ group. The first (Fig. 3.3:9; ibid.:
33
Fig. 3.1: Chalcolithic pottery.
34
Chapter 3: Pottery
FIG. 3.1: CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

No. Type Reg. No. Locus Description
1 Bowl 1151 119 Orange, red slip on the interior and on rim.
2 Bowl 10541 1054 Yellowish.
3 Bowl 10516 1054 Yellowish, red slip on the interior and exterior.
4 Bowl 10562 1054 Yellowish.
5 Pedestal bowl 10562 1054 Yellowish.
6 Krater 1151 119 Yellowish, red slip on the interior and exterior.
7 Krater 10502 1054 Yellowish.
8 Krater 1037 1055 Orange-grey.
11 Krater 10562 1054 Yellowish, pinkish slip on the interior and exterior.
FIG. 3.2: CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1 Cornet 10322 1048 Yellowish-orange.
2 Cornet 10800 1054 Orange, red slip.
3 Cornet 10573 1054 Orange, red slip.
4 Cornet 10414 1058 Orange.
5 Jar 1301 123 Yellowish.
6 Jar 10562 1054 Orange.
7 Jar 10372 1054 Yellowish.
8 Jar 10545 1054 Yellowish-orange.
9 Holemouth jar 10573 1054 Yellowish-orange.
10 Churn (handle) 10551 1054 Yellowish
11 Churn (handle) 1101 119 Yellowish
12 Handle 10329 1048 Yellowish, red slip.
13 Handle 10444 1054 Yellowish-brown, red-brown slip.
14 Handle 10563 1058 Yellowish.
15 Body sherd 10176 1054 Yellowish, red slip on the exterior.
16 Body sherd 1316 1054 Yellowish.
35
Fig. 3.2: Chalcolithic pottery.
36
Chapter 3: Pottery
394, Form KK) is dated to the 6th century, while the COOKING WARE
second bowl (Fig. 3.3:10; ibid.:387-393, Form J) was The cooking wares of the discussed periods are
probably imported to the Levant only from the 7th represented here by two open vessels and two
century and up to the middle of the 8th (Stacey 1988- closed cooking-pots. The first vessel is a deep
89: Fig. 2:1-4; Watson 1995:305, Fig. 1:1-5). casserole, of a type dated to the 6th-7th/8th
centuries (Fig. 3.3:19; Calderon 2000: Pl. 23:47;
FINE BYZANTINE WARE (FBW) BOWLS
Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: Pl. 5:200). The
Four types of local FBW bowls are represented second open vessel is a frying pan with a wishbone
here; all were found in the large refuse pit in handle, dated to the 6th-7th centuries (Fig. 3.3:
Square 24. The first is a rounded bowl decorated 20; Magness 1993:213-214, Casseroles Form 2).
with a single incised wavy line, which is dated to Another related type, which is not illustrated,
the mid 6th-late 7th/early of 8th centuries (Fig. 3.3: is cooking ware lids (Magness 1993:215). The
11; Magness 1993:193-194, FBW Bowls Form 1A). first type of closed cooking-pot represented here
The second type is dated the same and is almost is a neckless cooking-pot with flaring rim and
identical to the former, but it lacks the incised thick loop handles, which is dated to the 6th-7th
line (Fig. 3.3:12; ibid.:193-195, FBW Bowls Form centuries (Fig. 3.4:1;Calderon 2000: Pl. 7:36). The
1B). The third type is a deep bowl with burnished, second type is an exceptionally large cooking-pot
convex walls, which is dated to the late 7th/early with a vertical ridged neck and strap handles (Fig.
8th-9th/10th centuries (Fig. 3.3:13; ibid.:194-196, 3.4:2). It is typical of Late Byzantine and Umayyad
FBW Bowls Form 1D). The fourth bowl was dated assemblages mainly in sites in northern Palestine
by Magness to the mid 7th-9th/10th centuries and Transjordan (Ben-Arieh 1997: Pl. 11; Stacey
(Fig. 3.3:14; ibid.:198-200, FBW Bowls Form 1988-89: Fig. 4:3; Watson 1992: Fig. 3:20, 21).
2C), although it is known to be found also in Late
Byzantine contexts, like those at Pella (Watson JARS AND AMPHORAE
1992:242, Ware K, Fig. 12:100). The local storage jars are divided into several
types. The first is the southern Palestinian bag-
COARSE WARE BOWLS AND BASINS
shaped jar, which has a slightly convex neck
Other local open forms included four types of and combed shoulder (Fig. 3.4:3). It is common
coarse ware bowls and basins. The first type in the southern and central coastal plain (Adan-
is a deep bowl/basin with a broad horizontal Bayewitz 1986: Fig. 1:6-7; Tubb 1986:Figs. 3, 4:
rim (Fig. 3.3:15). It is typical of the region of 2). The second type is another variant of the
Jerusalem and Judaea and is dated to the 6th-late Palestinian bag-shaped jar, which is characterized
7th/early of 8th centuries (Magness 1993:206-208, by a straight neck, flattened rim and a sloping
Arched-Rim Basins Form 2B). The second type and ribbed shoulder (Fig. 3.4:4). This type is
has an impressed decoration below the rim and particularly typical of the Sharon plain, the Carmel
a plastic thumb decoration on the rim itself (Fig. and the Samaria hills, and is dated as the previous
3.3:16). It has a parallel from Jerusalem, which type (Calderon 2000: Pl. 17:11-14; Taxel 2005: Fig.
may be another sub-type of the arched-rim basin 41:19-20; Taxel and Feldstein 2006: Fig. 8:7). The
(Magness 2003b: Pl. 18.2:18). The third type is a third type is represented by a single example of a
bowl with an incurved rim and horizontal combing northern Palestinian bag-shaped jar. It is made of
below it (Fig. 3.3:17), dated to the 6th-7th centuries a dark grey metallic ware, and has a short vertical
(Rahmani 1991: Fig. 14:6; Taxel 2005b: Fig. 35:14). neck with a flattened rim (Fig. 3.4:5). These jars
The north Syrian mortaria bowl with a thickened, are usually found in assemblages dated to the 6th-
square rim (Fig. 3.3:18) also characterises 7th centuries in the northern regions of the country
Byzantine assemblages of the 5th to 7th centuries (Avshalom-Gorni 1998: Fig. 5:9; Landgraff 1980:
(Calderon 2000: Pl. 25:78; Riley 1975:37, No. 42). Fig. 22:13-15), although sometimes they appear in
37
more southerly sites, like Jerusalem (Mazar and Palestinian origin. This vessel has only few
Peleg 2003:Pls. I.14:6, I.16:22, 23). The fourth published parallels, all from Late Byzantine-
type is a large bag-shaped jar which has a high, Umayyad contexts (Delougaz and Haines 1960: Pl.
vertical neck with a ridge at its base and horizontal 54:15; Fowler 1990:51, Nos. 1, 2; Magen 1982 [no
combing on shoulder (Fig. 3.4:6). This type is page number]). The vessel with a short wide neck
typical of Judaea and southern Palestine between and globular body (Fig. 3.4:12) is made of reddish-
the late 6th/early7th to 8th centuries (Magness brown, micaceous clay that seems to indicate an
1993:227-229, Storage Jars Form 6A), and even Egyptian origin. Indeed, Egyptian cooking-pots of
later (see below). The fifth type of jar, which is the 7th-8th centuries have the same morphology as
not illustrated here, is the so-called Gaza amphora this vessel, although most of them are ribbed (for
of the variant dated to the 6th-7th centuries plain vessels, see: Bailey 1998: Pl. 33:127, 133).
(Majcherek 1995:169, Form 4, Pls. 7-8). The presence of an Egyptian cooking-pot at the
In addition to the Palestinian storage jars, two site is remarkable since ordinary coarse ware other
examples of Egyptian bag-shaped jars were found than commercial amphorae was rarely imported to
at the site. They are made of reddish-brown, highly Palestine from abroad.
micaceous clay, and probably originated in the Nile
Delta region. In Egypt they are usually dated to LAMPS
between the 7th and the late 9th or 10th centuries Four types of Byzantine and Umayyad lamps
(Gayraud 2003:559), although in the Levant they were found at the site. The first type is the large
are known as a typical Umayyad-period import, ‘candlestick’ lamp, which is decorated with a
which ceased to appear after the mid 8th century linear pattern on its body and nozzle (Fig. 3.5:1). It
(Watson 1995:319). The first example represented was dated by Magness to the mid 6th-late 7th/early
here has a convex vertical neck (Fig. 3.4:7), while 8th centuries (1993:251-255, Large Candlestick
the second jar has a more flaring neck (Fig. 3.4:8). Lamps Form 3A), but Hadad’s study of the lamps
Both variants are well known in Palestinian and from Beth Shean showed that these lamps were in
Egyptian assemblages (Taxel 2005:72-74, Fig. 42: use until the end of the Umayyad period (2002:66-
14, 16, 19, and references therein). 68, Type 28).
The imported amphorae belong to one type, The second type is a wheel-made lamp with a
characterised by a wide neck with thickened, conical, ribbed body, protruding nozzle and a loop
rounded rim, slim densely-ribbed body and two handle (Fig. 3.5:2). This lamp, which is dated to
handles from the upper neck to the shoulder the 6th-7th/8th centuries, is characteristic mainly
(Fig. 3.4:9, 10). It originated in the northeastern to the southern regions of Palestine (Gadot and
Mediterranean, either in Cyprus, the north Syrian Tepper 2003: Fig. 18; Harper 1995: Fig. 19:3-7;
coast or southeastern Asia Minor, and is dated to Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 47:6-8).
the 5th-7th centuries, until the beginning of the The third type is the latest variant of the so-
Umayyad period (Peacock and Williams 1986: called ‘Samaritan’ lamp, which has a tongue
185-187, Class 44B; Uscatescu 2003:549). These handle and a net pattern decoration (Fig. 3.5:3).
amphorae (and another, somewhat larger sub- It was dated to the 6th-7th/8th centuries (Hadad
type of them) are relatively widespread in Late 2002:74-78, Type 32, Nos. 327, 329, 330-332;
Byzantine contexts in Palestine (e.g. Calderon Sussman 1983:74, Type 4, Fig. 7:3).
2000:Pls. 19, 20, 21:28). The fourth lamp is a characteristic Umayyad-
period type. It has an ovoid shape and a small
MISCELLANEOUS FORMS conical handle (Fig. 3.5:4), and is dated mainly to
A beaker with a thickened grooved rim and the first half of the 8th century, until the beginning
horizontal folded handle (Fig. 3.4:11) is made of of the Abbasid period (Hadad 2002:82-95, Type
dark grey metallic clay, which points to a northern 36, Nos. 356-418).
38
Chapter 3: Pottery
Fig. 3.3: Byzantine and Umayyad pottery.
39
FIG. 3.3: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD POTTERY

1 Bowl 40289 4024 Orange-brown, reddish-orange slip on the interior and exterior.
2 Bowl 40345 4025 Orange-brown, red slip on the interior and exterior.
3 Bowl 40302 4024 Orange, orange slip on the interior and exterior.
4 Bowl 20580 2055 Orange, reddish-orange slip on the interior and exterior.
5 Bowl 20528 2055 Orange-brown, reddish-orange slip on the interior and exterior.
6 Bowl 20689 2072 Orange-brown, red slip on the interior and exterior.
7 Bowl 20453 2055 Orange-brown, brown slip on the interior and exterior and reddish-brown
slip on rim.
8 Bowl 20502 2055 Orange-brown, reddish-brown on the interior and exterior.
9 Bowl 20468 2055 Yellowish-orange, reddish slip on the interior and exterior.
10 Bowl 40160 4018 Yellowish-pink, orange slip on the interior and reddish slip on rim.
11 Bowl 20332 2055 Yellowish-orange.
14 Bowl 20470 2055 Orange-brown.
15 Bowl 40309 4025 Yellowish-brown.
17 Bowl 20399 2055 Orange-brown.
18 Bowl 40064 4099 Brown.
19 Casserole 20468 2055 Reddish-brown.
20 Frying pan 20697 2068 Orange-brown.
40
Chapter 3: Pottery
Fig. 3.4: Byzantine and Umayyad pottery.
FIG. 3.4: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD POTTERY

1 Cooking-pot 20549 2053 Reddish-brown, fired to dark grey from the exterior.
2 Cooking-pot Reddish-brown.
3 Jar 20441 2055 Orange-brown.
5 Jar 20430 2055 Dark grey.
6 Jar 20398 2055 Yellowish-brown.
7 Jar 20441 2055 Reddish-brown, micaceous.
8 Jar 40054 4009 Reddish-brown, micaceous.
9 Amphora 20466 2055 Buff.
10 Amphora 20512 2055 Orange-brown.
11 Beaker 10331 1049 Dark grey.
12 Cooking-pot (?) 20553 2055 Reddish-brown, fired to yellowish, micaceous.
41
2 3
Fig. 3.5: Byzantine and Umayyad lamps.
FIG. 3.5: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD LAMPS

1 Lamp 20548 2055 Orange-brown.
2 Lamp 20551 2055 Reddish-brown.
3 Lamp 2072 20689 Yellowish-orange.
4 Lamp 20441 2055 Yellowish-brown.
THE >ABBASID AND FATIMID PERIODS basins, which appeared in the Umayyad period and
continued into >Abbasid period (Cohen Finkelstein
The pottery from the >Abbasid and Fatimid periods
1997: Fig. 1:10; Kletter 2005: Fig. 13:5). The second
described here was found above and below
type, with the ledge rim (Fig. 3.6:3), has parallels
structures’ floors and in a refuse pit, and it represents
in >Abbasid assemblages (Baramki 1944: Fig. 10:
all the phases of those periods, since the 8th/9th
centuries until the end of the 11th. 2; Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.15:1-3). The third basin,
with the thickened, rounded rim, loop handles and
UNGLAZED BOWLS AND BASINS horizontal and wavy combed decoration (Fig. 3.6:
The open unglazed forms include mostly local 4) is dated to the >Abbasid and Fatimid periods
bowls and basins, in addition to a few imported (Kletter 2005: Fig. 13:2, 4; Sion 2004: Fig. 9:3).
vessels. The carinated bowl with the thickened, Among the finer unglazed bowls there are two
broad rim (Fig. 3.6:1) has parallels in assemblages bowls with cut ware and impressed decoration,
dated to the 8th/9th to 10th/11th centuries (Ayalon narrow ledge or rounded rim, known as
et al. 1990: Fig. 11:5; Sion 2004: Fig. 10: 11-13). ‘Kerbschnitt’ (Fig. 3.6:5, 6). These bowls are dated
Three types of basins are represented here. The to the late Umayyad to early >Abbasid periods
first has a thickened, incurved rim, loop handles (8th-9th centuries) and were probably imitations
and wavy combed decoration (Fig. 3.6:2). This is of carved wooden bowls (Avissar 1996a: Fig.
one of the most common forms of Early Islamic XIII.74:3; Baramki 1944: Fig. 6:23; Kletter 2005:
1. The report on the Early Islamic pottery from the excavations conducted at Jaffa in 2000-2001 by A. Fantalkin on behalf of
Tel Aviv University was prepared for publication by I. Taxel.
42
Chapter 3: Pottery
Fig. 15:6, 7). Another Umayyad-early >Abbasid common in Palestine during the >Abbasid and
decorated form is a black burnished bowl with Fatimid periods (the 9th-11th centuries; Arnon
three vertical projecting handles and incised 2003: Pl. 90:1, 2, 4; Avissar 1996a: Fig. XIII.2:1, 4;
geometric decoration (Fig. 3.6:9). Our example is de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. A:2-5). The third type
unique in that its firing was not uniform, causing is a monochrome yellow-glazed bowl with sgraffito,
the bowl to be half dark grey and half yellow. made of reddish-brown coarse ware (Fig. 3.6:13).
This type was dated to the 8th-9th centuries, and This type is dated to the early 11th to late 12th
probably imitated similar steatite bowls imported century (Avissar 1996a: Fig. XIII.21:3, 4; Stern and
from the Arabian peninsula (Arnon 2003: Pl. 78: Stacey 2000: Fig. 3:2; Kletter 2005: Fig. 12:16).
10; Magness 1994; Niamir 1999: Fig. 2:2; Stacey
2004: Fig. 5.8:5). The bowl with a vertical wall and COOKING WARE
incised and impresed decoration (Fig. 3.6:7) could The cooking ware of these periods includes
be an imitation of the black burnished bowl although open and closed forms. The first type is a deep
it was made of different ware. No parallels to this hemispherical casserole (Fig. 3.6:14) dated to
type have been found. The black-on-white painted the late 7th/early 8th-9th/10th centuries (Arnon
bowl/cup (Fig. 3.6:8) is a variant of a FBW bowl 2003:Pls. 86:5, 9-10, 95:1-2; Magness 1993:214,
form dated to the 8th-9th centuries (Magness 1993: Casseroles Form 3). The second type is a glazed
194-196, FBW Bowls Form 1E). The painted variant frying pan with rounded rim (Fig. 3.6:15) – a
is of the same date and has parallels throughout the variant which probably appeared only towards the
country (Arnon 2003: Pl. 80:3, 4; Haiman 1995: Fig. end of the Fatimid period (Arnon 2003: Pl. 115:3;
8:4, 5, 7; Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.2:2, 4). Avissar 1996a, Fig. XIII.102). The third type is a
The only unglazed imported open vessel is deep casserole with an inner glaze (Fig. 3.7:2). It
an Egyptian bowl made of pinkish clay. It has a has parallels dated to the Fatimid (Arnon 2003: Pl.
slightly carinated body, orange slip on the exterior 110:9, 10; Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.32:11) and Crusader
and interior, burnished red slip below the rim (Niamir 1999: Fig. 10:3) periods. The fourth
and impressed decoration of palmets and small type is a globular cooking-pot with everted rim,
concentric circles (Fig. 3.6:10). Similar bowls from horizontal handles and a glazed bottom (Fig. 3.7:
Elephantine in the Nile Valley (Gempeler 1992: 1). Cooking-pots with an everted rim were dated to
Ab. 63:6-7, Taf. 5:2, 10:4) and from Alexandria the Fatimid and Crusader periods (Arnon 2003: Pl.
(Rodziewitcz 1976, Form O25, Pl. 26) were dated to 103:10, 11; Avissar 1996a: Fig. XIII.94:2, 3; Stacey
the mid 7th until the 8th/9th centuries. These bowls 2004: Fig. 5.32:16).
are scarcely represented in Palestine but do have
parallels in early >Abbasid contexts from Caesarea STORAGE JARS
(Arnon 2003: Pl. 78:1, 2), Yoqne >am (Avissar The storage jars are of three types. There is a large
1996a: Fig. XIII.64: 3) îorvat Zikhrin (Taxel 2005: bag-shaped jar made of hard buff clay which
Fig. 40:1, 2) and Jaffa. A mid 8th-9th century date, represents a continuation of the Late Byzantine-
therefore, can be given also to our example. Umayyad type (see above). This variant has a
short neck with horizontal combing below the rim
GLAZED BOWLS (Fig. 3.7:3). It characterizes the >Abbasid period
Only a few types of Early Islamic glazed bowls although not all the jars have combed decoration
were found in the excavations. The first is on the neck (Kletter 2005: Fig. 19:11; Singer 2004:
a monochrome green-glazed bowl (Fig. 3.6:11) Fig. 3:5; Sion 2004: Fig. 11:47). The second type
which is dated to the 10th-11th centuries (Avissar has a short, vertical neck with a sharp ridge at its
1996a: Fig. XIII.8:3, 4, 7; Baramki 1944: Fig. 11: centre and a pointed rim (Fig. 3.7:4). It already
1, 4, 5). The second type is a polychrome under- appeared in the Umayyad period or more probably
glazed painted bowl (Fig. 3.6:12) which was very during the 8th century (Cohen Finkelstein 1997:
43
Fig. 3.6: >Abbasid and Fatimid pottery.
44
Chapter 3: Pottery
FIG. 3.6: >ABBASID AND FATIMID POTTERY

1 Bowl 20691 2072 Buff.
2 Basin 20337 2045 Dark brown-grey.
3 Basin 20290 2043 Buff.
4 Basin 20687 2071 Orange-brown.
5 Basin 40405 4036 Yellowish-orange.
6 Bowl 20517 2046 Orange, reddish-brown slip.
8 Bowl 20665 2071 Yellowish-orange, black painting over white slip on the exterior.
9 Bowl Pale grey and yellowish.
10 Bowl 20688 2071 Pinkish, orange slip on the interior and red slip on the exterior.
11 Bowl 20691 2072 Buff, green glaze on the interior.
12 Bowl 20691 2072 Buff, green and manganese painting over white slip and under transparent
glaze on the interior.
13 Bowl 20691 2072 Reddish-brown, yellow glaze with brown sgraffito over whitish slip on the
interior and whitish slip on the exterior.
14 Casserole 20348 2044 Reddish-brown.
15 Frying pan 20336 2047 Orange-brown, purple-brown glaze on the interior.
FIG. 3.7. >ABBASID AND FATIMID POTTERY

1 Cooking pot 20353 2044 Reddish-brown, purple-brown glaze on bottom.
2 Casserole 20691 2072 Reddish-brown, purple-brown glaze on the interior.
3 Jar 20691 2072 Yellowish-grey.
4 Jar 20665 2071 Yellowish-brown, fired to yellowish-buff.
5 Jar 20338 2047 Reddish-brown.
6 Jug 20665 2071 Orange, white painting over yellowish slip on the exterior.
7 Jug 20355 2044 Yellowish-orange, fired to brown-grey, whitish painting on the
exterior.
8 Jug 20678 2071 Buff.
9 Lamp 20572 2068 Yellowish-brown.
11 Zoomorphic vessel 20284 2041 Reddish-brown, brown and white glaze on the exterior.
45
Fig. 3.7: >Abbasid and Fatimid pottery.
46
Chapter 3: Pottery
Fig. 5:7-11) and continued to exist until the 10th spots (Fig. 3.7:11). It probably belongs to the common
or 11th century (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 6:12; group of Early Islamic zoomorphic vessels. The
Kletter 2005: Fig. 19:7, 8; Sion 2004: Fig. 11: 32- glaze and the nature of the clay point to a somewhat
35, 37-39). The third jar, which is made of reddish- late date, probably in the Fatimid period. The few
brown, hard-fired ware and has a triangular rim published parallels of glazed zoomorphic vessels
(Fig. 3.7:5) belongs to the latest variant of the come from Caesarea, dated to the first half of the 11th
northern Palestinian bag-shaped jars, dated to the century (Arnon 2003: Pl. 62:17), and Banias, from a
9th-11th centuries (Arnon 2003: Pl. 85:5; Ayalon et Mediaeval context (Israeli 2001:No. 56). Another,
al. 1990: Fig. 11:4). as yet unpublished parallel was found in a mixed,
>Abbasid/Fatimid and Crusader period assemblage at
JUGS îorvat Zikhrin2.
The jugs can be divided into two general types. Fine
Metallic White-Painted jugs are represented here by THE CRUSADER AND MAMLUK PERIODS
two vessels. One is a jug with a high vertical neck
and pinched rim. It is decorated with white wavy A rich array of mediaeval pottery was found at the
bands over a yellowish slip (Fig. 3.7:6). This form site usually associated with architectural remains.
appeared in the Umayyad period and continued It is represented mainly by Mamluk period (late
until the beginning of the 9th century (Avissar 13th-15th/16th centuries) types, although some
1996a: Fig. XIII.142:1; Walmsley 1995: Fig. 7:6). types can be dated to the later part of the Crusader
The other is a jug with a neck that narrows towards period (the 13th century).
the flaring rim. It is decorated with white wavy UNGLAZED BOWLS AND BASINS
lines over dark grey ware (Fig. 3.7:7). No parallels
The unglazed open forms include locally-made
were found for this vessel.
bowls and basins. The carinated bowl with the flat
The second type are Fine Buff ware jugs,
base (Fig. 3.8:3), which was found in the Mamluk
which here have a loop handle, geometric moulded
cemetery, is indeed typical of the Mamluk period
decoration and applied knob (Fig. 3.7:8), dated to
but also of the Ottoman period (Avissar and Stern
the 9th-11th/12th centuries (Arnon 2003: Pl. 114:7;
2005:82, Fig. 35:10). The large basin with a broad
Niamir 1999: Fig. 3:2, 5; Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.49:2, 3).
out-folded rim (Fig. 3.8:1) is also characteristic
LAMPS of the Mamluk period (Avissar and Stern 2005:
The main type of >Abbasid-Fatimid lamp is also Fig. 36:5). Other open vessels are handmade
represented here. This is a mould-made, almond- bowls, with or without painted decoration. The
shaped lamp with a tongue handle which probably unpainted rounded bowls, sometimes red-slipped,
starts to appear at the end of the 8th/beginning of have ledge handles or a thumbed band below the
the 9th century and continues until the 11th century rim (Fig. 3.8:2, 4). They appeared in the late
(Hadad 2002:95-106, Type 37). There are two 12th century and continue into the Ottoman
examples, one (Fig. 3.7:9) decorated with a vegetal period, although most characterize the Mamluk
motif (c.f. Hadad 2002:No. 425; Kletter 2005: Fig. 21: period (Avissar and Stern 2005:88, Fig. 38:1-5).
8) and the other (Fig. 3.7:10) with a motif of tiny, dense The painted bowls include rounded or carinated
depressions for which no close parallels were found. forms decorated with geometric painted motifs
in purple-brown or red over yellowish or pinkish
ZOOMORPHIC VESSEL slip (Fig. 3.8:5-7). These bowls are dated the
One fragment of a zoomorphic vessel was found. It same as the previous type, and also have parallels
is a short, flat nose of an animal with a pouring hole, mostly in Mamluk-period assemblages (Avissar
decorated on the outside with brown glaze with white and Stern 2005:88, Fig. 38:6-10).
47
GLAZED BOWLS bowl with a ledge rim and yellow glaze with
The large variety of glazed bowls included local as 2 green splashes (Fig. 3.8:16) is an Aegean import
well as imported types. Most of the local types seem dated to the later Crusader period (late 12th-early
to be dated to the Mamluk period, but certainly 13th century; Avissar and Stern 2005:45, Fig. 17:
before the later part of the Crusader period. One 1). Contemporary with it is a rounded bowl with
of the most common local types includes rounded thickened rim and pale yellow glaze (Fig. 3.8:17)
bowls with a thickened rim and monochrome also imported from the Aegean (Avissar 1996a: Fig.
green glaze (Fig. 3.8:8) which are typical of the XIII.47; Avissar and Stern 2005:45-46, Fig. 17:3).
Mamluk period (Avissar and Stern 2005:12, Fig. 4: Another imported type is represented by soft-
2, 5). A variant of this type, with an orange-brown paste or frit ware bowls decorated in black and blue
glaze (Fig. 3.8:9), is much less common (Lazar paint under a transparent alkaline glaze. These
1999: Fig. 2:6). Another monochrome-glazed bowls were manufactured in Syria and probably
bowl with a ledge rim (Fig. 3.8:10) is probably also at Beit Shean between the 12th to 15th
also a local type without exact parallels. A very centuries but flourished mainly during the 13th
common local glazed type is represented by and 14th centuries (Avissar and Stern 2005:25).
carinated slip-painted bowls, either with yellow The first example is represented by a low ring base
or green painting over a brown background (Fig. which is decorated with a grid pattern in black (Fig.
3.8:11, 12). These bowls appeared in the mid 12th 3.8:18). This bowl probably belongs to the variant
century but flourished mainly during the Mamluk decorated with black or blue under transparent
period (Avissar and Stern 2005:19, Fig. 7:1, 3, 4, turquoise or colourless glaze which is dated to the
6). Another local type is a rounded bowl, glazed 12th and 13th centuries (Avissar and Stern 2005:
in yellow with green splashes and decorated with 26, Fig. 9:4-11) although no parallels to the grid
gouged sgraffito in horizontal and wavy lines (Fig. pattern of the present bowl were found. The second
3.8:13) which is dated to the 14th-15th centuries bowl, represented by a ledge rim, is decorated with
(Avissar and Stern 2005: Fig. 6:6, 7). black and blue under transparent colourless glaze
The imported glazed bowls include Crusader (Fig. 3.8:19). This variant is dated to the 13th-15th
and Mamluk types from various regions in centuries (Avissar and Stern 2005:28-29, Fig. 11:
the Mediterranean and the Levant. One of the 1-3). The latest imported types include Italian
Crusader-period imports is Port St. Symeon glazed bowls from the Mamluk period. These
glazed bowls, which originated in al-Mina (the rounded bowls with external impressed ridges are
port of Antioch in northern Syria) and are dated covered with monochrome green glaze or splashes
to ca. 1200-1268 (Avissar and Stern 2005:52-53 of green and yellow glaze over a white background,
with references). Two such bowls were identified and decorated with sgraffito (Fig. 3.9:1, 2). They
in the assemblage from Kafr >Ana. One has a wide are dated to the 14th-15th centuries and probably
ledge rim and transparent glaze over a white slip originated in northern Italy. They are relatively rare
(Fig. 3.8:14). This rim form could have belonged in contemporary assemblages in Palestine (Avissar
to either monochrome or polychrome St. Symeon and Stern 2005:73, Fig. 31:4-6). To this type one can
ware bowls, decorated or un-decorated with add the low ring base with green glaze and sgraffito
sgraffito (Avissar and Stern 2005: Fig. 21:1-3, 5). (Fig. 3.9:3; Stern 1999: Fig. 2:24). Another Italian
The second example is a small hemispherical import is the bowl with the thumbed ledge rim and
bowl/cup with splashes of green and yellow paint sharp ridge, which was glazed in monochrome
over white glaze and decorated with sgraffito (Fig. dark green and decorated with sgraffito (Fig. 3.9:4;
3.8:15; Lane 1937: Pl. 27.1:H, M). The carinated Buerger 1979: Pl. 10:27; Stern 1999: Fig. 2:21).
2. By "local" we mean pottery produced somewhere in the southern Levant, i.e., Palestine or southern Syria. In most cases
the exact source of production is unknown.
48
Chapter 3: Pottery
COOKING WARE Byzantine; Gudovitch 2001: Fig. 151:3-4). Other

Mediaeval cooking ware includes various types Mamluk period forms are a jar with a convex
of open and closed vessels, wheel-made and ridged neck and flattened rim (Fig. 3.9:13; Saller
handmade alike. The open cooking vessels are 1957: Fig. 42:5760; Seligman 2001: Fig. 10:9), and
represented by two types of glazed frying pans. a jar with a plain vertical neck and flaring rim
The first type has nearly vertical walls and pointed (Fig. 3.9:14; Kingsley 1999: Fig. 16:16; de Vaux
rim (Fig. 3.9:5). It is dated to the Crusader period and Steve 1950: Pl. G:25). The jar with an everted
(Arnon 1999: Fig. 12:b; Pringle 1997: Fig. 7:15) ridged neck and pinched rim (Fig. 3.10:1) is also
although similar vessels were also found in an dated to the Mamluk period (Tushingham 1985:
>Abbasid/Fatimid context (Boas 1992: Fig. 74: Fig. 42:4). The amphora with a high ridged neck
5-6). The second type has thicker, everted walls and flattened rim (Fig. 3.10:2) is usually dated to
and triangular rim (Fig. 3.9:6) and is usually the Crusader period (Avissar 1996a: Fig. XIII. 125:
dated to the later part of the Crusader period 2-3; Getzov 2000: Fig. 22:4) although it has also
(late 12th-late 13th century; Avissar and Stern been reported from Mamluk contexts (Lazar 1999:
2005: Fig. 41:3). The wheel-made closed cooking Fig. 6:6; Wightman 1989: Pl. 58:4).
vessels are represented by a glazed cooking-pot
JUGS
with a very low neck, thickened rim and drops of
yellowish-brown glaze on the interior (Fig. 3.9:7). These consist mainly of handmade jugs with a
This type is dated to the second half of the 13th geometric painted decoration. The most widespread
century (Avissar and Stern 2005: Fig. 39:8). The form has a globular body, vertical or everted neck,
handmade cooking-pots have a globular body, a loop handle from neck to shoulder and a ring
sometimes burnished on the outside. They can be or disc base. They are decorated with geometric
either neckless with an everted rim and impressed motifs painted in purple-brown or reddish-brown
plastic decoration (Fig. 3.9:8) or with a short neck over a burnished yellowish or white slip (Fig. 3:10:
(Fig. 3.9:9). Both variants have large horizontal 3-6). These vessels appeared already in the 12th
strap or ledge handles, sometimes with an incised century but flourished mainly during the Mamluk
decoration (Fig. 3.9:10-12). These very common period (Avissar and Stern 2005:113, Fig. 47). A
vessels are dated to the mid-13th to late 15th body sherd from one of these jugs was decorated
centuries (Avissar and Stern 2005: Fig. 40:2, 4-6; with an Arabic inscription (see Appendix).
Lazar 1999: Fig. 5:10; Pringle 1984: Fig. 3:2-4). LAMPS
STORAGE JARS Lamps of these periods are represented by two
The jars are represented mainly by various types of fragments of typical mould-made slipper lamps.
bag-shaped jars. The only complete examples were One is decorated with a geometric pattern (Fig.
found in the Mamluk cemetery in secondary use as 3.10:7) and the other has a bent handle and a
tombstones (Chapter 2). They are all of the same decoration of stylized arabesques (?) (Fig. 3.10:8).
type which has a high vertical neck, a concave These lamps are dated to the mid 13th century to
or plain rim with a ridge below, a sloping ribbed the late 15th century (Avissar and Stern 2005:126,
shoulder, horizontal and wavy combed decoration 128, Fig. 53:2-4).
on the body, and two loop handles at the base of CONICAL VESSELS
the neck. Most bases are rounded but there are few
The most unusual and enigmatic ceramic objects
examples with a low ring base (Figs. 3.9:15-17; 31).
dated to the Mamluk period are the seven conical
This type is typical of the Mamluk period (Avissar
funnel-shaped vessels which were found in
and Stern 2005:102, Fig. 42:5, 6) although very
secondary use in the Muslim cemetery. Two of
few complete examples have been published so far
these vessels are presented here (Figs. 3.10:9, 10).
(Grant 1938:Pls. 49:3, 69:10, wrongly identified as
49
Fig. 3.8: Crusader and Mamluk pottery.
50
51
FIG. 3.8: CRUSADER AND MAMLUK POTTERY

1 Basin 20055 2007 Orange-brown, grayish slip on the interior and exterior.
3 Bowl 001 093 Orange.
4 Bowl 20022 2007 Yellowish-orange, reddish slip on the interior and exterior.
5 Bowl 20100 2019 Grey, fired to yellowish, purple-brown painting over orange slip on the
interior and orange slip on the exterior.
6 Bowl 20579 2061 Yellowish-orange, reddish-brown painting on the interior and rim.
7 Bowl 20069 2007 Yellowish-orange, reddish slip on the interior and rim.
8 Bowl 20538 2061 Pinkish-orange, green glaze over white slip on the interio and beyond rim.
9 Bowl 20782 2085 Orange-brown, orange-brown glaze on the interior and rim.
10 Bowl 20538 2061 Brown-grey, yellowish-green glaze on the interior and beyond rim.
11 Bowl 20086 2018 Reddish-brown, yellow painting over brown glaze on the interior and beyond
rim.
12 Bowl 20033 2007 Reddish-brown, green painting over brown glaze on the interior and beyond
rim.
13 Bowl 20631 2061 Reddish-brown, green splashes, yellow glaze and brown sgraffito over white
slip on the interior and beyond rim.
14 Bowl 20663 2066 Orange, micaceous, transparent glaze over a white slip on the interior.
15 Bowl/cup 20371 2052 Yellowish, splashes of green and yellow and brown sgraffito over white
glaze on the interior and exterior.
16 Bowl 20054 2007 Orange-brown, green splashes and transparent glaze over white slip on the
interior and rim.
17 Bowl 20164 2022 Brown, pale yellow glaze over white slip on the interior and beyond rim.
18 Bowl 20123 2021 White, black painting under transparent glaze on the interior and transparent
glaze on the exterior.
19 Bowl 20782 2085 White, black and blue painting under transparent glaze on the interior and
exterior.

1 Bowl 20615 2065 Orange-brown, micaceous, green glaze and brown sgraffito on the
interior and rim.
2 Bowl 20782 2085 Orange-brown, micaceous, green and yellow splashes and brown
sgraffito over white glaze on the interior and rim, and transparent glaze
on the exterior.
3 Bowl 20575 2066 Yellowish-brown, micaceous, green glaze and brown sgrafftto on the
interior.
4 Bowl 20457 2059 Orange-brown, micaceous, green glaze and brown sgraffito on the
interior and rim.
7 Cooking-pot 40237 4018 Orange-brown, splashes of yellowish-brown glaze on the interior.
8 Cooking-pot 20158 2024 Grey, fired to yellowish.
9 Cooking-pot 20631 2061 Grey-brown.
10 Cooking-pot 20579 2061 Yellowish-orange.
(handle)
11 Cooking-pot 20022 2007 Yellowish-grey.
(handle)
12 Cooking-pot 40517 4046 Yellowish-grey.
(handle)
14 Jar 20143 2025 Orange-brown, yellowish slip on the exterior.
17 Jar 10648 1024 Orange-brown, yellowish slip on the exterior.
52
Chapter 3: Pottery
53

1 Jar 40160 4018 Buff.
2 Amphora 20613 2066 Orange-brown, fired to pale grey.
3 Jug 20122 2018 Orange, yellowish slip on the interior and exterior, purple-brown
painting on the exterior.
4 Jug 20022 2007 Yellowish, purple-brown painting on the exterior and beyond rim.
5 Jug 20183 2030 Yellowish-orange, reddish painting on the exterior.
6 Jug 20022 2007 Whitish, brown painting on the exterior.
8 Lamp 20619 2061 Grey-brown.
9 Conical vessel 105002 104 Yellowish-brown.
10 Conical vessel 105001 104 Yellowish-brown, fired to buff.
One group is large and conical with a wide inward- vessel were found in domestic contexts from Ramla
curved mouth which has a flat or everted rim (Fig. (early Ottoman period; Elisha 2005: Fig. 2:13) and
3.11). The other type is smaller and more cylindrical el-Qubab (late Ottoman period; Avissar 2006: Fig.
and its narrow mouth is straight with a rounded 7:15). Additional rim fragments, probably from the
thickened rim. These sometimes have ribbing on Ottoman period, were found in a surface survey
the outside wall below the mouth. at Tel Yavneh (Fischer and Taxel 2007: Fig. 34:
Only four other whole vessels of this type have 1-3). The distribution map of the conical vessels
been published to date. These came from from (Fig. 3.12) shows that, excluding Tel Mevorakh, all
Azor (Gudovitch 2001: Fig. 151:4), Tel Mevorakh the sites which yielded these vessels are located
(Stern 1978: Fig. 1:3) and îorvat Zikhrin (Taxel in a relatively small area between Naúal Soreq
2006a: Figs. 13:2, 3, 14). Other similar vessels from in the south and Naúal Yarkon in the north. Thus,
el-Haddariya and Khirbet ed-Duheisha are yet these vessels can be considered to be a cultural
unpublished. Several fragmentary and complete characteristic of the inhabitants of this area in the
vessels were found in the Ottoman fortress at Tel Mamluk and Ottoman periods.
Aphek, apparently in domestic contexts, and are Most of the complete vessels were found in
currently being examined by the author. Two other Muslim cemeteries and all, apart from those from
rim fragments which seem to belong to this type of Khirbet ed-Duheisha (and maybe el-Haddariya),
Fig. 3.11: Mamluk period bag-shaped jars and conical vessels from the cemetery.
54
Chapter 3: Pottery
are dated to the late Ottoman period. Secondary event that these cones were used as dovecotes, a
use of these vessels in five Muslim cemeteries in similar technique would have been used.
Palestine may be connected to their size, which This explanation for the use of these conical
makes them suitable for burying infants as well vessels leads to some important conclusions.
as for covering graves, or perhaps there may be an It is clear proof of beekeeping or dove-raising
ethnic explanation. in Palestine in the Mamluk period and adds to
The original function of these vessels may be our knowledge regarding the economy not only
very simply explained. Ethnographic evidence of Kafr >Ana, but also of other sites where these
from Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries vessels were found. Honey was the main source
shows very similar vessels as parts of traditional of sweetening in the Mediaeval Near East,
beehives or dovecots in Arab villages. Although especially among the lower classes and peasants
beehives were usually made of sun-dried mud or because sugar was very costly (Ashtor 1970:5).
mud-covered reeds shaped into long cylindrical Neither beekeeping nor dove-raising produce
pipes (Avitsur 1976:69, Figs. 191-194; Dalman much archaeological evidence, if any, unless
1964:292, Abb. 171; Safrai 1988:215, Figs. 9, related artefacts can be identified. Furthermore,
19-20), sometimes ordinary jars whose necks the typology of these utensils shows very little
were removed and the bases broken to create an difference between those of the Mamluk and the
entrance for the bees were also used (Safrai 1988: late Ottoman periods.
211, Figs. 2-3; Dalman 1964:293). Specially-made
ceramic utensils are barely documented in the
ethnographic literature. The only example is
a 1940s photograph published by Avitsur (1976:
Fig. 190; also Taxel 2006a: Fig. 5) of ceramic
beehives or dovecotes identical to those discussed
here seen in the Arab village of al-Mirr, near the
Yarkon river.
Another type is a specially-made pipe-shaped
beehive made of Gaza ware which originated in
Gaza or the el-Arish region and is now in the
Eretz-Israel Museum (Taxel 2006a: Fig. 6). The
differences between the various types of beehives
can be explained, in our opinion, mainly by
regional traditions, the economic abilities of the
beekeeper or his personal preferences. Both the
mud or reed-made pipes and the ceramic utensils
or jars were placed horizontally, side by side,
into a wall built of mud, stones or mortar, either
already existing or purpose-built. In the case of Fig. 3.12: Distribution of conical vessels (▲).
the ceramic cones (and jar beehives), the narrow
opening allowed the bees entrance and exit from
the hive. The wider opening was usually covered
by a piece of fabric or temporarily blocked by mud
and designed to allow the beekeeper to collect the
honey with a long, narrow spoon made specially
for that purpose (Safrai 1988: Fig. 17). In the
55
LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH the transition between rim and body (Fig. 3.13:2).
MANDATE PERIODS It has parallels made either of pale (Taxel 2006b:
Fig. 10:16) or dark grey Gaza ware (Avisar 2006:
As in most of the earlier periods, the pottery from Fig. 6:1; Boas 2000a: Pl. 2:8-10). The other bowls
the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods was have various rim shapes: incurved (Fig. 3.13:3; Lass
found mainly in structures and refuse pits. Most of 2003: Fig. 31:2; Taxel 2006b: Fig. 10:15), triangular
the types are characteristic to both of the periods, (Fig. 3.13:4; Avissar 2006: Fig. 7:5), concave ledge
i.e., to the 18th/19th-20th centuries, although (Fig. 3.13:5), and thickened ledge (Fig. 3.13:6).
few types characterised only the late Ottoman The few imported vessels include two types of
period. The main problem in studying finds from Turkish glazed bowls. The first two bowls belong
these periods is the diminution of studies in the to a type defined by Hayes as “Ware P”, which was
archaeology of Palestine that deal seriously with produced in Didymoteichon, near Turkey’s Greek
the material culture of recent periods (see Baram border (Hayes 1992:276-277).
2000; Milwright 2000). Among the latter one can The first example is a slip-painted bowl, with
mentione the publishing of 19th and 20th centuries a low ring base and outfolded rim. Its decoration
remains and various finds (mainly pottery) from consists of yellow strips and brown glaze over
Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994), Ramat white slip on the interior and down the rim on the
Hanadiv (Boas 2000a; 2000b; Hirschfeld 2000), exterior (Fig. 3.13:7). This is a very common late
Zuba (Harper and Pringle 2000), Tell el-îesi 19th-early 20th century type, as indicate not only
(Eakins 1993; Toombs 1985), Ti>innik (Ziadeh by finds from Istanbul (Hayes 1992: Fig. 144:19),
1995a; 1995b), Tel Kabri (Hawari 1994), Akko but also by bowls found in Palestinian sites (Boas
(Edelstein and Avissar 1997; Stern 1997), Zir‘in 1999: Fig. 22:4; 2000a:Pls. 3:1-2, 10:2; Edelstein
(Simpson 2002), Yoqne >am (Avissar 2005a; and Avissar 1997: Fig. 1:9).
2005b) and el-Qubab (Avissar 2006; Ein Gedy The second bowl has a ledge rim and a
2006). The prominent lack of published parallels, monochrome pale green glaze over white slip on
therefore, gives to every study of pottery and other the interior (Fig. 3.13:8). In Istanbul such bowls
finds of the late Ottoman and British Mandate were dated from the mid 18th to the 19th century
periods further importance. (Hayes 1992:Figs. 144:13-14, 147:1). This type was
The pottery from the late Ottoman-British recorded also from Palestine (Boas 2000a: Pl. 3:
Mandate periods found in Kafr >Ana is composed 6), although it seams to be much less common than
almost entirely of local ware, with the exception of the slip-painted bowls.
a few imported open vessels and one jug. The third bowl belongs to the Çanakkale
ware, another late 19th century common Ottoman
BOWLS AND BASINS product, which was manufactured in Çanakkale on
The local open forms include mainly different the Dardanelles (Hayes 1992:268). It has a ledge
types of bowls and basins. The first type is a deep rim (missing in our example) and low ring base,
basin with a ledge rim, made of dark grey clay and its decoration consist of transparent glaze
characteristic of the Gaza ware of the 18th-early over white slip and manganese paint of leafs-like
20th centuries (Fig. 3.13:1). Our example came pattern (Fig. 3.13:9). Similar bowls were found
from the large British Mandate-period refuse pit in in Istanbul (Hayes 1992: Pl. 44:4), as well as in
square 6 (Avissar 2006: Fig. 6:7; Grey 2000a: Fig. Palestine (Avissar 2005a: Fig. 2.25:7; Boas 2000a:
6.2:25; Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: Fig. 14:2). Pl. 10:7-9; Muqary 1996: Fig. 134:2).
The rest of the bowls and basins were made of pale One example of porcelain plate is represented
grey clay, fired to orange-brown. The first bowl has here. Since the 19th century European porcelain
a low ring base, carinated body, a vertical ridged vessels became very common in Palestine, and
rim, and a sharp ridge with thumb decoration at they are frequently found in late Ottoman and
56
Fig. 3.13: Late Ottoman and British Mandate pottery.
57
FIG. 3.13: LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH MANDATE POTTERY

1 Basin 20156 2024 Dark grey.
2 Bowl 20271 2036 Grey-brown, fired to yellowish-brown.
3 Bowl 20225 2036 Grey-brown.
6 Bowl 20617 2069 Orange-grey.
7 Bowl 20060 2011 Yellowish-orange, yellow painting and brown glaze over white slip on the
interior and rim.
8 Bowl 20822 2093 Yellowish, pale green glaze over white slip on the interior and rim.
9 Bowl 20794 2089 Yellowish-orange, manganese paint and transparent glaze over white slip on
the interior.
10 Plate 20188 2031 White porcelain, blue, white and brown painting under transparent glaze on
the interior and transparent glaze on the exterior.
11 Cooking pot 20313 2036 Orange-grey, fired to yellowish.
British Mandate-period assemblages. The plate

discussed here has a wide ledge rim, decorated
with over-glazed painting of wide blue strip with
floral pattern in white between two thin brown
lines (Fig. 3.13:10). A similar plate was found in an
early 20th century deposit at Kabri (Hawari 1994:
Fig. 23:5), and other plates, similar in form but
with different decorations, were found at Ramat
Hanadiv (Boas 2000a:Figs. 3-5) and Mazor (Taxel
2006b: Fig. 10:17).
COOKING-POTS
The most widespread type of cooking vessel in the
late Ottoman and the British Mandate periods is
the handmade globular cooking-pot (Arabic: kidre)
with a thickened rim, large ledge handles and wavy
puncture decoration on the shoulder and handles
Fig. 3.14: Arab boys using handmade cooking-pots in
(Fig. 3.13:11). There is photographic evidence of
Jerusalem in the late 19th century.
domestic production and use of such vessels in Arab (After Bossard 1896)
villages (Fig. 3.14) north of Jerusalem and in the city
itself up to the 1930’s (Bossard 1896; Crowfoot 1932: STORAGE JARS
Figs. 8, 10; Dalman 1964:Abb. 98). The relatively This group includes relatively few types all of
few parallels from surveys and excavations like those which are made of pale brown or pale grey ware
from Zuba (Grey 2000a: Fig. 6.6:112, 114), Modi‘in fired to brown. The main form is a thin-walled
(Golani 2005: Fig. 19:6), el-Qubab (Avissar 2006: bag-shaped jar with a swollen neck and infolded
Fig. 8:1-3) and nearby Yehud (Gudovitch 1999: Figs. rim, sometimes with a thumbed band beneath, two
149, 150:6), indicates that this type of handmade strap handles and comb decoration on the body
cooking-pot was characteristic of regions in central (Fig. 3.15:1-3). This type is typical of the 19th-
Palestine, i.e., the vicinity of Jerusalem, Judaea and 20th centuries (Avissar 2006: Fig. 8:7, 8; Glick
the central coastal plain. 1996: Fig. 134:10, 11; Gudovitch 1996: Fig. 107:
58
Chapter 3: Pottery
Fig. 3.15: Late Ottoman and British Mandate pottery.
59
FIG. 3.15: LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH MANDATE POTTERY

1 Jar 20101 2019 Grey, fired to orange-brown.
2 Jar 20248 2036 Yellowish-brown.
3 Jar 1015 103* Grey, fired to orange-brown.
4 Jar 20012 2005 Orange-brown, grayish slip from the exterior.
5 Jar 20690 2072 Orange-brown, fired to buff.
6 Jar 20188 2031 Brown.
7 Jar/plant pot 20305 2036 Brown.
8 Holemouth vessel 20009 2002 Grey, fired to yellowish.
9 Jug 20100 2019 Dark grey, orange painting.
12 Jug 20063 2006 Orange-brown
13 Jug 20009 2002 Buff.
17-19). Another similar form, with thickened rim painted decorations may symbolize a corn ear or
and thumbed band at the middle of neck (Fig. 3.15: a palm branch, a very common motif in Arab and
4), has published parallels only among Gaza ware Islamic art that represent a later role of the tree
jars (Boas 2000a: Pl. 2:1-5). These jars usually of life.4 Parallels to these jugs were dated mainly
served for carrying water, as indicated from to the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods
ethnographic evidence (Fig. 3.16). The jar with the (Boas 2000a: Pl. 1:14, Fig. 12:1; Golani 2005: Fig.
funnel-shaped neck and thickened rim (Fig. 3.15: 19:7; Grey 2000a: Fig. 6.2:47; Toombs 1985: Pl.
5; Avissar 2005a: Fig. 2.26:2; Boas 2000a: Pl. 1: 83). Another kind of ibriq, with a funnel-shaped
1; Golani 2005: Fig. 19:73; Kletter 2004: Fig. 10: neck and rounded rim, was made of orange-brown
5) is simllar to a jar described by Grant as used ware (Fig. 3.15:12). A similar vessel was found in a
for keeping yoghurt (Arabic: leben) (Grant 1921: late 18th/early 19th century context at Akko (Stern
114). Other types are a jar with everted neck and 1997: Fig. 18:130), although our example should be
thickened rim (Fig. 3.15:6; Stern 1978: Fig. 1:1; dated to the British Mandate period.
Taxel 2006b: Fig. 10:11) and a jar with a funnel- Beside the local jugs, a single imported jug was
shaped neck (Fig. 3.15:7; Kletter 2004: Fig. 15: also found. This is a biconial water jug made of
2; alternatively, it can be a conical plant pot, c.f. buff ware with a ridged upper body and a low ring
Boas 2000a: Fig. 12:2, 3). The holemouth vessel base (Fig. 3.15:13). More than 170 such jugs (out
(Fig. 3.15:8) probably belonged to a wide conical of more than 800 jugs of related types) were found
beehive or dovecote vessel like those from the in an 18th century shipwreck at Sadana Island, off
Mamluk period described above. the Egyptian Red Sea coast (Braun 2005:29, Type
3, Fig. 21). This jug type, known as qulal (plural
JUGS qulla) is typical of Egypt and the Red Sea region
The most common type of jug is the spouted Gaza and seems to have originated in Egypt. There
ware water jug (Arabic: ibriq; Fig. 3.17), with is ethnographic evidence for the production of
a high ridged neck, out-folded rim, ribbed body identical jugs in villages in Upper Egypt as late as
and orange painted decoration of stylized floral the 20th century (e.g. Blackman 1927:151-152, Fig.
motifs and horizontal stripes (Fig. 3.15:9-11). The 79; Braun 2005: Fig. 4). apparently contradicting
4. It should be noted that the palm branch plays a very important role in Muslim daily life, such as in funerals (Simpson 1995:
247). Similar painted decoration was found also on a Gaza’ware storage jar found in a surface survey at Tel Yavneh (Fischer
and Taxel 2007: Fig. 22:9).
60
Chapter 3: Pottery
Braun’s conclusion that the early Ottoman qulla vessel at Kafr >Ana can be related to the migration
were produced in Yemen (2005:65). of Egyptians to the Lod valley (and to the village
Very few ethnographic and archaeological itself) in the early 20th century.
parallels for this type of qulal are known from
Palestine. Some jugs, said to have originated
LAMPS
in Egypt and Sinai, are kept in the Eretz
Israel Museum and others were published in The only Ottoman-period lamp is an open,
ethnographic studies on Palestine (Avitsur 1976: pinched-nozzle lamp (Fig. 3.15:14). Similar lamps
Fig. 316; Grant 1921:114, middle). Another possible appeared already in the Mamluk period, and
example of such a jug was found at Tel Yoqne >am continue into the 20th century (Gichon and Linder
(Avissar 2005a: Fig. 2.26:7) The presence of this 1984: Fig. 1:D, E).
Fig. 3.16: Arab women using storage jars for carrying Fig. 3.17: Arab girl with an ibriq, on the right, in the late
water in the early 20th century. (After Preiss 19th century. (After Bossard 1896)
and Rohrbach 1925)
61
SMOKING PIPES in Palestine in the late 19th to early 20th century

Several dozen smoking pipe fragments were (Avissar 2005b: Fig. 4.3:72, 79; Boas 2000a: Pl. 4:
found in the excavations and 14 of them are 15-17; Simpson 2000:Figs. 13.5:100-121, 13.6, 13.7:
presented here. On the basis of previous studies 138-161; 2002:Figs. 1:6-8, 2:9, 10).
of pipes from Palestine and other regions in The fourth type, divided into two sub-types, is
the eastern Mediterranean, such as Greece and represented by red-slipped burnished pipes with a
Turkey, smoking pipes have become an efficient disc base. The first group has thick-walled stems
and important tool in dating archaeological decorated with vertical scored lines. The lower part
assemblages of the Ottoman period. Most of the of the bowl is decorated with a series of diagonal
pipes represented here, which are divided into four or wavy scored lines (Fig. 3.19:2-4). Although disc-
types, are dated to the 19th-early 20th centuries, base pipes were found in other parts of the eastern
although there are also some earlier examples. Mediterranean, this specific type was found only in
The earliest pipe is made of pale grey, Palestine and may represent a Jerusalem product.
unburnished ware. It has a thickened shank-end, It was dated to the second half of the 19th century
decorated with floral motif (Fig. 3.18:1). This type (Avisar 2005b: Fig. 4.4:88; Simpson 2000:Figs.
is dated to the 17th-early 18th centuries (Simpson 13.7:162-171, 13.8:172-178; 2002:Figs. 2:12, 13, 3:
2000: Fig. 13.1:1; 2002: Fig. 1:1). The second type 14-18; Wightman 1989: Pl. 63:12).
includes two pipes with short steams, stepped-ring The second sub-type is represented by a single
shank-ends and rounded bowls with a cylindrical pipe, probably imported from Turkey or the
upper portion. They are made of pale grey ware Aegean. It has a flat disc base, flaring bowl and
with a matte red slip, and are decorated with thin-walled stem which form a shallow flat squared
crescent-shaped seal with dots on right side of foot on base (Fig. 3.19:5). Only one similar 19th
shank (Fig. 3.18:2, 3). This type is usually dated century pipe from Palestine was published so far,
to the 18th century (Avissar 1996c:Phs. XVI.6-9; but its exact origin and the description of its ware
2005b:Figs. 4.1:5, 7, 8. 4.2:11, 14, 15; Edelstein and were not given (Baram 2000: Fig. 5.1:b). Another,
Avissar 1997: Fig. 2:3a-c), although one parallel yet unpublished pipe, also of foreign origin, was
dated it to the 18th-19th centuries (Stern 1997: Fig. found in Jerusalem.5 Similar pipes were found
19:136). Our examples were both found in mixed in Istanbul (Hayes 1992: Pl. 50:g-h), Athens and
contexts – the first in a refuse pit and the second in Corinth (Robinson 1983:Taf. 54:34; 1985:Pls. 57,
an unidentified deposit – and therefore cannot be 62:A23-24, 63:A25), where they were dated to
more accurately dated. the 19th until the early 20th century. Some other
The third type is a red-slipped burnished lily pipes of the same form but of a light-coloured ware
pipe. These pipes have rounded shank-ends, are and without slip were found in Beirut. They were
decorated with one to three rouletted lines, and have considered to be local imitations of imported pipes
a stamped or rouletted decorated lily-shaped bowls and were dated to the mid 19th-early 20th century
(Figs. 3.18:4-9, 3.19:1). This is the predominant type (Bartl 2003:Pls. 1, 2:4).
5. The pipe was found during the excavations at the Third Wall site in Jerusalem, conducted in 2005 by D. Amit on behalf
of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The report on the pottery from the excavations was prepared by I. Taxel and awaits
publication.
62
Chapter 3: Pottery
Fig. 3.20: Ottoman period smoking pipes.
63
Fig. 3.21: Ottoman period smoking pipes.
FIG. 3.20: OTTOMAN PERIOD SMOKING PIPES

No. Reg. No. Locus Description
1 20072 2009 Pale grey.
2 20418 2054 Pale grey, matte red slip.
3 10294 1047 Pale grey, matte red slip.
4 20011 2004 Grey, red burnished slip.
6 20059 2010 Orange, tracks of red burnished slip.
9 20830 2093 Yellowish-grey, red burnished slip.
FIG. 3.21: OTTOMAN PERIOD SMOKING PIPES

No. Reg. No. Locus Description
2 20396 2054 Orange, red burnished slip.
3 20013 2011 Grey, orange-brown burnished slip.
5 20396 2054 Reddish-orange, red-orange burnished slip.
64
Chapter 3: Pottery
APPENDIX
AN ARABIC INSCRIBED SHERD
The sherd under discussion (Locus 2022; Reg. No. 20136) is a fragment of a Mamluk period
geometric painted ware vessel which could have been part of a large jug or a table amphora (Fig. 3.22).
Fig. 3.22: An Arabic inscription.
This vessel was decorated with grey and brown paint over a yellowish slip on the exterior. It also
bore a pseudo-Arabic inscription between two lines.
The part seen on the sherd is an aberrant rhythm of Arabic letters: Alif, Lam, ‘Ain; a short line (or
an Alif on its own); Lam, Mim […], Alif (?); short line (or Alif on its own); ‘Ain, Alif; short line (or Alif on its
own); Lam, Alif (‫)ا ل ع ا ل م ]…[ ا ? ا ? ﻋﺎ ا ? ﻻ‬.
Only two parallels were found for Arabic inscriptions on Mamluk geometric painted vessels. The
first is a fragment of a geometric painted bowl from Qubeibeh (Bagatti 1993:Fig 33:10) and the second is a
jug fragment from Sumaqa (Kingsley 1999:284, 318, Fig 17:28)1. Both fragments show cursive reminiscent
of Arabic script. The one from Sumaqa contains a few lines and the one from Qubeibeh shows one letter: ‫ظ‬.
65
CHAPTER 4
GLASS OBJECTS
Itamar Taxel
BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD PERIODS spiral ribbing on the body (Fig. 4.1:9). These vessels
are typical of the Byzantine period and continue
Most of the glass vessels found in the excavation into the Umayyad period (Gorin-Rosen 2000: Fig.
are dated to the Byzantine and Umayyad periods, 2:19; Hadad 2005: Pl. 16:317-320; Katsnelson 2004:
and include open and closed forms. Fig. 63:8), although no exact parallels to our second
BOWLS example were found.
Shallow bowls with a broad out-folded rim (Fig. 4.1: LAMPS
1, 2) existed throughout the Byzantine period (Meyer Two types of glass oil lamp were found. The first
1987: Fig. 6:J; Peleg and Reich 1992: Fig. 18:2) and in has a hollow stem with a pontil scar on its base (Fig.
the Umayyad period (Hadad 2005: Pl. 3:58, 59). The 4.1:10), originally set into a metal polycandela. It
small bowl with the rounded, out-folded rim (Fig. 4.1: is typical of the Byzantine and Umayyad periods
3), appeared in the Late Byzantine/early Umayyad (Hadad 2005: Pl. 22:436-442; Meyer 1987: Fig.
period (Hadad 2005: Pl. 1:20; Meyer 1987: Fig. 11: 11:H, J-L; Peleg and Reich 1992: Fig. 20:1-8). The
R) and continued into the >Abbasid period (Avner second type is a bowl-shaped lamp, represented
1998: Fig. 14:1). Our example was found in a mixed here by a vertical wick-tube attached to an omphalos
Byzantine and >Abbasid locus. base (Fig. 4.1:11). This is also characteristic of the
Late Byzantine period and later (Cohen 1997: Pl. 2:
BOTTLES
15; Patrich 1988: Pl. 12:8-13).
The bottle with a funnel-shaped neck and in-folded
rim (Fig. 4.1:4) is mainly characteristic of the MISCELLANEOUS
Late Roman/Early Byzantine period (the 4th-5th The rounded rim decorated with a fused-in trail of
centuries; Gorin-Rosen 1999: Fig. 1:17; Katsnelson blue glass (Fig. 4.1:12) probably belongs to a beaker
1999: Fig. 3:1) although it continued into the Late (wine glass) typical of the Late Byzantine and
Byzantine/early Umayyad period as well (Hadad Umayyad periods (Delougaz and Haines 1960: Pl.
2005: Pl. 9:175, 176; Meyer 1987: Fig. 9:O-Q). 59:14; Katsnelson 1999: Fig. 2:11). The jar/large
A similar, although larger, bottle (Fig. 4.1:5) was bottle with the short everted neck (Fig. 4.1:13) is
dated to the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods characteristic of the Umayyad period, and maybe
(Delougaz and Haines 1960: Pl. 59:7; Hadad 2005: even later (Hadad 2005: Pl. 17:333-335; Meyer 1987:
Pls. 8:162-164, 9:165-169). Bottles with a funnel- Fig. 12:I-J). The trail-decorated body fragment (Fig.
shaped neck and plain rim (Fig. 4.1:6) appear 4.1:14) belongs to a double kohl tube, typical of
throughout the Byzantine period (Katsnelson 1999: the middle of the 4th-7th centuries (Delougaz and
Fig. 3:12). The bottle with the wide vertical neck Haines 1960: Pl. 50:11-12; Gorin-Rosen 1999: Fig. 2:
and horizontal folds (Fig. 4.1:7) is known from 31). One bracelet fragment of the Byzantine period
Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts (Gorin- is also represented here. This is a spirally twisted
Rosen 1999: Fig. 1:16; Meyer 1987: Fig. 6:R). Two monochrome bracelet with a dense twist and rounded
decorated mould-blown bottles were retrieved. One cross-section (Fig. 4.1:15). This form typifies the
has a cylindrical neck decorated with spiral ribbing Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and continues to
(Fig. 4.1:8), while the other is represented by a footed appear into the Early Islamic period (Spaer 1988:58-
base and the lower part of a body. It is decorated 59, Type C1a, Fig. 11; see also Delougaz and Haines
with mould-blown vertical ribbing on the base and 1960: Pl. 46:11; Sussman 1969: Pl. 13:8).
66
Fig. 4.1: Byzantine and Umayyad glass objects.
67
FIG. 4.1: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD GLASS OBJECTS

1 Bowl 40299 4024 Transparent yellowish.
2 Bowl 40299 4024 Transparent blueish.
3 Bowl 40454 4041 Transparent greenish.
4 Bottle 40361 4022 Transparent greenish.
5 Bottle 20397 2055 Transparent blueish.
8 Bottle 20464 2055 Transparent blueish.
10 Lamp 40057 4009 Transparent blueish.
11 Lamp 40362 4025 Transparent greenish.
12 Beaker 20525 2055 Transparent blueish.
13 Jar 20586 2069 Transparent colorless.
14 Double kohl tube 40291 4022 Transparent greenish.
15 Bracelet 40299 4024 Opaque blue.
THE >ABBASID AND FATIMID PERIODS as coin weights, and bear an impression with the
governor’s name and the unit of weight (for dinars,
Only a few glass vessels and objects from the
>Abbasid and Fatimid periods were found. The dirhams or fulus on gold, silver or copper coins).
first is a deep bowl or cup with a diamond etched The example discussed here weighs 5.5 gr, which
decoration (Fig. 4.2:1). It is most typical of the is equal to 28 kharrūba or qīrāt (i.e., the seed of
>Abbasid period but continues into the Fatimid as the carob tree), suggesting that it may have been
well (Hadad 2005: Pl. 33:650, 652, 655-657, 663; used for weighing coins in quantity (Allan 2001:
Scanlon 1984: Fig. 58). The bottle or jar with an 27*-28*; Miles 1948:28). This weight was found in
infolded rim (Fig. 4.2:2) has a parallel in >Abbasid a mixed locus containing >Abbasid and Mediaeval
contexts (Avner 1998: Fig. 14:2; Kubiak and Scanlon pottery, but it is reasonable to assume that it is
1980: Fig. 9:d; Lester 1996: Fig. XVII.1:2). from the earlier period.
Another glass object is a circular flat glass Only one Early Islamic bracelet fragment was
weight (2.5 cm diameter, 0.5 cm thick) with found. This bracelet belongs to the same type as
a circular depression within which is impressed the Byzantine bracelet, i.e., spirally twisted and
a very worn and unreadable Arabic legend (Fig. monochrome (Fig. 4.2:6; Spaer 1992:49-50, Type
4.2:5). Glass weights are relatively common C1). Parallels were found in Late Umayyad to
finds in Umayyad through Fatimid, and even Fatimid period assemblages (Hadad 2005: Pl. 47:
Mediaeval assemblages. Usually they were used 990, 991; Spaer 1992:Fig, 24:2).
68
Chapter 4: Glass Objects
Fig. 4.2: >Abbasid-Fatimid and Crusader-Mamluk glass objects.
FIG. 4.2: >ABBASID-FATIMID AND CRUSADER-MAMLUK GLASS OBJECTS

1 Bowl 20685 2071 Transparent yellowish.
2 Bottle/jar 20685 2071 Transparent greenish.
3 Bottle 10642 1085 Transparent dark blue.
4 Phial 20310 2063 Opaque dark blue.
5 Weight 20261 2037 Transparent yellowish.
6 Bracelet 20262 2071 Opaque dark blue.
69
THE CRUSADER AND MAMLUK PERIODS a. Single trail decoration (Fig. 4.3:3-
9). According to Spaer, this type
VESSELS characterizes mainly the Ottoman
Only two glass vessels can be dated with certainty period (1992:49-50, Type C2a, Figs. 4,
to the Mediaeval period. The first is an oval 27b), although the finds from Kafr >Ana
asymmetric ampoule with very thin walls (Fig. indicate that it appeared already in the
4.2:3) found beside a group of graves in the Mamluk period. Other Mamluk-period
Muslim cemetery. It may have served for keeping parallels were found at Beth Shean
perfumes, oil or any other precious liquid. It has (Hadad 2005: Pl. 55:1114-1116).
no parallels. All that remains of a second vessel is a b. Symmetrical trails, usually consisting of
solid base with a square cross-section and a broken a broad central trail with narrow borders
end (Fig. 4.2:4). This is probably part of a perfume (Fig. 4.3:10-12). Spaer dated this type to
phial (Gorin-Rosen 1997: Fig. 2:18). the Umayyad period onwards (1992:49-50,
Type C2b, Figs. 5, 24:3). Such a bracelet
BRACELETS was found in the Mediaeval Muslim
The majority of the glass bracelets found at the site cemetery at Tell Deir ‘Alla (van der Kooij
belong to Mediaeval times, mainly to the Mamluk and Ibrahim 1989:110, No. 181).
period. It is reasonable to assume that most of the c. Asymmetrical trails, arranged in one or
bracelets, if not all, were worn on the hands of more sets (Fig. 4.3:13, 14). According to
women and girls. However, glass bracelets found Spaer, this type characterized most of
in the Muslim cemetery at Tell Deir >Alla near the the Islamic periods (Spaer 1992:49-50,
heads of some of the bodies indicate that they may Fig. 6). Mamluk-period parallels were
also have been used as hair-rings (van der Kooij found at Tel Dan (ibid.: Fig. 23:4) and
and Ibrahim 1989:90). Khirbet el-Minyeh (ibid.: Fig. 25:9, 13).
The bracelets from Kafr >Ana are divided into Type 4: Combined pattern bracelet (Fig. 4.4:1).
five main types: Spaer dated this type to the Mamluk period
Type 1: Undecorated monochrome bracelet (Fig. onwards and pointed that there are numerous
4.3:1). This simple form, with a semicircular variants (1992:54, Type D4f). Parallels from
cross-section, appeared before the Islamic Quseir al-Qadim in Egypt are dated to the
periods but continued at least until the Mamluk period (Meyer 1992: Pl. 20:573-
Mamluk period (Spaer 1988:54-55; 1992: 577), although another one from al-Ţūr in
48-49, Type A12, Fig. 2). Ayyubid and Sinai is dated to the late Ottoman period
Mamluk parallels were found at Beit Shean (Kawatoko 1995: Pl. 25:8).
(Hadad 2005: Pl. 54:1104, 1105) and Dhiban Type 5: Trail pattern bracelets. This type also has
(Porter et al. 2005: Fig. 9:7). numerous variants in all Islamic periods
Type 2: Moulded monochrome bracelet with (Spaer 1992:54). The first example has a
horizontal ribbing (Fig. 4.3:2). This type also flat cross-section and is decorated with two
has a pre-Islamic tradition (Spaer 1992:48- twisted trails at the edges and a broad trail
49, Type B4). A Mamluk-period parallel was in the middle (Fig. 4.4:2; ibid.:55, Type D2e).
found at Khirbet el-Minyeh (ibid.: Fig. 24:1). Parallels were found in Khirbet el-Minyeh
Type 3: Spirally twisted multicoloured trail- (ibid.:Figs. 23:8, 25:15). The second example
decorated bracelets. All have a rounded has a semicircular cross-section and is
cross-section. This is the most common type decorated with surface fused trails (Fig. 4.4:
of glass bracelet at the site and includes three 3). It was found in a mixed Mediaeval and
sub-types: late Ottoman context and has no parallels, so
it can be dated to either period.
70
Fig. 4.3: Mamluk glass bracelets.
71
FIG. 4.3: MAMLUK GLASS BRACELETS
1 Bracelet 20584 2065 Translucent green.
2 Bracelet 20634 2061 Opaque blue.
3 Bracelet 20435 2059 Opaque black, six single white trails.
4 Bracelet 20521 2061 Opaque black, three single white trails.
5 Bracelet 20589 2061 Opaque black, four single white and red trails.
6 Bracelet 20608 2061 Opaque black, five single white trails.
7 Bracelet 20608 2061 Opaque black, four single white and red trails.
8 Bracelet 20638 2066 Transparent colourless, three single white trails.
9 Bracelet 20638 2066 Opaque black, three single white and red trails.
10 Bracelet 20589 2061 Opaque blue, one white trail.
11 Bracelet 20608 2061 Opaque black, one white trail with red borders.
12 Bracelet 20523 2063 Opaque black, one red trail with white borders.
13 Bracelet 20523 2063 Opaque black, three white and red trails.
14 Bracelet 20584 2065 Transparent colourless, three white and red trails.
BEADS
Three different glass beads which can be dated perforation (Fig. 4.4:5). No parallels have been
to the Mamluk period were found; two of them found for this type.
inside a grave. One has a biconical hexagonal A third bead is roughly spherical (Fig. 4.4:6)
shape (Fig. 4.4:4). It has no parallels, excluding a and may belong to the trail-decorated type which
similar undated bead made of quartz from al-Ţūr was dated by Spaer to the 9th-14th centuries
(Kawatoko 1995: Pl. 37:8). (Spaer 2001:103-104). A similar bead was found in
Another is most unusual in that it has an oval flat a Mamluk-period (?) context in the northwestern
base and protruding convex back with a horizontal Negev (Schaefer 1989: Fig. 10:11).
Fig. 4.4: Mamluk glass bracelets and beads.
FIG. 4.4: MAMLUK GLASS BRACELETS AND BEADS

1 Bracelet 20652 2061 Opaque dark blue, twisted yellow and green trails at points, yellow and green
oval blobs.
2 Bracelet 20709 2061 Opaque blue-green, twisted yellow-brown trails at sides, central yellow trail.
3 Bracelet 20410 2053 Opaque blue, red trails and wider yellow and white trails.
4 Bead 20581 2061 Transparent colourless.
5 Bead 003 007 Opaque dark brown.
6 Bead 002 007 Opaque black and yellow coils.
72
THE LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH b. Impressed crosshatched motif (Fig. 4.5:6, 7).
MANDATE PERIODS This is a Hebron product of the late 19th-
20th centuries (Spaer 1992:48-49, Type B7,
VESSELS Fig. 3). Parallels were found in Zuba (Grey
A few 19th-20th century glass vessels were found 2000c: Fig. 10.2:28) and Ramat Hanadiv
at the site. The first two vessels discussed here (Boas 2000a: Pl. 9:29, 30).
were found in the large British Mandate-period c. Impressed serrated motif. Small triangulates
refuse pit in Square 6 and the third was found and other forms were pressed along the
in another refuse pit probably dating from the edges of the bracelet and a crescent-like
19th century. A small deep mould-made bowl of impression at the centre (Fig. 4.5:8). This
colourless glass is decorated with a vegetal pattern may be another cheap product of Hebron.
(Fig. 4.5:1). A mould-made multi-faceted beaker, The only parallel came from al-Ţūr
also colourless, has a possible maker’s mark (Kawatoko 1995: Pl. 23:16).
(S[?]A1) on its underside (Fig. 4.5:2). The small Type 3: Multicoloured bracelets. These bracelets,
cylindrical bottle with a ridged shoulder made of which represent most of the 19th-20th
dark green glass (Fig. 4.5:3) may have contained century examples found at the site, are also
medicine or even served as an inkwell. However, divided into three sub-types:
published contemporary inkwells are rectangular a. Patch pattern (Fig. 4.6:1, 2). The examples
and have a hollow for placing a pen (Boas 2000a: presented here, which are another late
Pl. 13:8, 9). These vessels do not seem to be local, Hebron product, have the flat cross-section
i.e., Palestinian products, but apparently imported characteristic of the Ottoman period (Spaer
from Europe. 1992:54-55, Type D2b, Fig. 29 left; 2001:
No. 477). Parallels were found in Tell el-
BRACELETS îesi (Toombs 1985: Pl. 77a), Zuba (Grey
Not many late Ottoman and British Mandate- 2000c: Fig. 10.2:35) and Ramat Hanadiv
period bracelets were found compared to the (Boas 2000a: Pl. 9:26, 27).
relatively large number of Mediaeval bracelets. b. Trail pattern. Bracelets with obliquely pointed
All the bracelets discussed here were found in cross-section decorated with two pairs of
19th-20th century contexts. twisted trails on the edges (Fig. 4.6:3, 4).
They fall into four types: This type was also produced at Hebron in the
Type 1: Undecorated monochrome bracelet (Fig. late 19th-20th centuries (Spaer 1992:55, 62,
4.5:4). According to Spaer, the flat cross- Type D4e(c), Fig. 29 right). A parallel was
section bracelets are not dated prior to the found in Zuba (Grey 2000c: Fig. 10.2:31).
Mamluk period (1992:48-49, Type A3, Fig. c. Trail and patch pattern (Fig. 4.6:5, 6). Similar to
2). Parallels are known from Tell el-Hesi the former sub-type and same date but with
(Toombs 1985:Pls. 76a:3, 76b, 76c) and al-Ţūr a surface coating and patches (Spaer 1992:
(Kawatoko 1995:Pls. 23:1-3, 36:13, 14; 1996: 55, 62, Type D4d(c), Fig. 15; 2001: Pl. 36:
Pl. 10:13, 14). 481-483). Parallels were found at Tell el-îesi
Type 2: Tooled or moulded monochrome bracelets, (Eakins 1993:Pls. 91-92; Toombs 1985: Pl.
divided into three sub-types: 77b), Beitsaida (Rottloff 2003:316) and Ramat
a. Vertical ribbing (Fig. 4.5:5). This form Hanadiv (Boas 2000a: Pl. 9:32, 33). The two
characterizes mainly the pre-Islamic periods last sub-types are larger than the average.
(Spaer 1988:55) although it continues to Ethnographic evidence from the Bedouin
appear later (ibid. 1992:48-49, Type B2), tribes of the Negev and Sinai shows that these
like our example and one from Ramat bracelets were worn on the arm above the
Hanadiv (Boas 2000a: Pl. 9:43). elbow (Goren 1994:297-298, Fig. 12, left).
73
Fig. 4.5: Late Ottoman - British Mandate glass objects.
74
FIG. 4.5: LATE OTTOMAN-BRITISH MANDATE GLASS OBJECTS
1 Bowl 20009 2002 Transparent colourless.
2 Glass 20289 2036 Transparent colourless.
3 Bottle 20705 2072 Transparent dark green.
4 Bracelet 20793 2080 Transparent blue.
7 Bracelet 20261 2036 Transparent black.
8 Bracelet 20749 2079 Transparent blue, white base coating.
FIG. 4.6: LATE OTTOMAN-BRITISH MANDATE GLASS BRACELETS, BEADS AND INLAYS
1 Bracelet 20073 2011 Transparent blue; yellowish-green, black and white patches.
2 Bracelet 20711 2068 Transparent blue; yellow, black and white patches.
3 Bracelet 20120 2018 Transparent green; black and white twisted trails.
4 Bracelet 1013 101 Transparent greenish-yellow; blue and white twisted trails.
5 Bracelet 20418 2054 Opaque black; green surface coating, purple and yellow patch (trails missing).
6 Bracelet 20835 2092 Transparent colourless; green surface coating, orange patch, black and
white trails.
7 Bracelet 20748 2079 Transparent blue; painted drops in silver and painted spots in white and yellow.
8 Bead 20278 2038 Transparent green.
9 Bead 20315 2036 Opaque blue.
10 Bead 20387 2050 Opaque blue.
11 Inlay 40391 4033 Opaque blue.
12 Inlay 40391 4033 Transparent colourless.
Type 4: Moulded and painted decoration. Moulded

motif of lozenges and triangles decorated
with painted dots and oval spots (Fig. 4.6: In addition to the beads, two tiny worked glass
7). The only parallels were found in al-Ţūr fragments were found (Fig. 4.6:11, 12). They may
(Kawatoko 1995: Pl. 23:15; 1996: Pl. 30:11, have been inlayed in some kind of jewellery.
12), and it seems that this type is another The relatively large quantity of blue glass
cheap product of Hebron. bracelets and beads points to the widely-
disseminated Muslim superstition of protection
BEADS against the evil eye. Blue bracelets and blue and
Five beads can be dated to the 19th-20th centuries; green beads (the latter as parts of necklaces,
three of them are presented here. They all belong bracelets or headdresses) were worn by women
more or less to the same type, differing mainly of all ages throughout the Muslim world. Beads
in shape and size. Two are spheroid and one is were also tied to infants’ and children’s caps and
flattened. All are made of opaque blue glass except bonnets, fastened by pins to the inside of their
one which is translucent and green (Fig. 4.6:8-10). clothing or hung upon babies’ cradles (Algrove
These simple beads are most probably another 1976:45; Lees 1905:214-215; Mershen 1991c:173;
19th-20th century product of Hebron or another local Weir 1989:194, 201-202), as can be seen also in
workshop (Spaer 2001:146-147, Pl. 22:269, 271). They ethnographic material (e.g. Bossard 1896 [no
are very common in late Ottoman-British Mandate page number]; Preiss and Rohrbach 1925:57, 92).
contexts, such as in Zuba (Grey 2000d: Fig. 12.4:12, This popular belief may be at least one of the
14, 22), Ramat Hanadiv (Boas 2000a: Pl. 9:3-7) and explanations for the widespread distribution of the
al-Ţūr (Kawatoko 1996: Pl. 30:19-21). Hebron products.
75
Fig. 4.6: Late Ottoman - British Mandate glass bracelets, beads and inlays.
76
CHAPTER 5
THE CHALCOLITHIC FLINT ASSEMBLAGE

Ron Shimelmitz1
The excavation of the Chalcolithic remains at Kafr THE ASSEMBLAGE

>Ana provided a sample of flint items sufficient
The assemblage includes 812 items of which all but
for techno-typological analysis. Although the
one are flint (Table 5.1). The exception is a single
assemblage is not large, this study is important
obsidian item. The debitage and tools include 532
since only a few Chalcolithic lithic assemblages
items that are the main focus of this analysis.
from central Israel have been reported. Since no
The raw material types vary. Many are siliceous,
clear Chalcolithic layers could be differentiated
however most lack a clear homogenous texture.
at the site, the assemblage is presented as one. It
Extensive use of semi-translucent brown and grey
should be noted that the material was not sieved.
raw materials as typical of many Chalcolithic
The typological and technological description of
assemblages (Gilead 1984; Hermon 2003) was
the assemblage is followed by a discussion of the
observed as well.
production methods of the blades and bladelets
from the site.
TABLE 5.1. THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE OF KAFR >ANA

Type No. % of debitage and tools % of whole assemblage
Primary element flake 34 6.4 4.2

Primary element blade 7 1.3 0.9
Flake 147 27.6 18.1
Blade 53 10.0 6.5
Bladelet 36 6.8 4.4
Core trimming element 53 10.0 6.5
Core 30 5.6 3.7
Core on flake 3 0.6 0.4
Burin spall 2 0.4 0.2
Bifacial polished debitage item 3 0.6 0.4
Microburin technique 1 0.2 0.1
Tools* 163 30.6 20.1
Sub total 532 100 65.5
Chunk 195 24.0

Chip 85 10.5
Total 812 100
*The tool category includes one obsidian item.
1. I wish to thank Avi Gopher and Ran Barkai for their constructive advice on an early version of this chapter.
77
Ron Shimelmitz
Primary elements were divided into flakes blade production and CTEs that relate to bladelet
(n=34) and blades (n=7: four blades and three production. This division was primarily conducted
bladelets).2 The predominance of the former according to the CTEs size, but also according the
reflects the meagre blade production at the site. use of semi-translucent raw material. Most of the
Flakes (n=147, 27.6% of the debitage and tools) are ‘formal’ CTEs (core tablets, overshots and crested-
the most common debitage type in this assemblage. blades) are related to bladelet production and
Only two of the flakes are thinning flakes – items were made from semi-translucent raw material:
that are mostly attributed to the manufacture of Only three of the CTEs are core tablets (5.7% of
bifacial tools (Andrefsky 1998:118; Barkai 1999). the CTEs) (Fig. 5.1:2), two of which were made
Blades (n=53, 10.0% of debitage and tools) were from semi-translucent flint and are related to the
made from a variety of raw material types. Some bladelet production. Of the 14 overshots found,
were made from semi-translucent flint. Only eight 12 were made from semi-translucent flint and are
of the blades are whole, while 22 are proximal related to bladelet production (Fig. 5.1:3, 5). Two
fragments, 12 are medial fragments and 10 are distal others indicate a clear blade production and they
fragments. In general, the blades lack uniformity in were also made from different raw materials (Fig.
shape or size (whole blades are 33-53 mm in length). 5.1:4). Of the first group of overshots, which relate
Bladelets (n=36, 6.8% of the debitage and to bladelet production, three carry a crested ridge,
tools) were mainly made from semi-translucent two have a base modification and two indicate
raw materials (83.3% of the bladelets) (Fig. 5.1: changed orientation of production (Fig. 5.1:3). Of
1). Fourteen of the bladelets are whole, six are the 12 crested blades found, six were made from
proximal fragments, six are medial fragments semi-translucent flint and are related to bladelet
and 10 are distal fragments. The bladelets present production. The ‘non-formal’ CTEs include 13
a higher degree of standardisation than the blades. items that were catalogued as CTE varia, of
They bear uniform scars of previous bladelet which only four were made from semi-translucent
reduction and their lateral edges are usually flint, and 11 items that were catalogued as CTE
uniform (mostly straight but some are arched). fragments, two of which were made from semi-
Their profile is mostly curved. Whole bladelets translucent flint.
range in length between 23-40 mm. The cores (n=30, 5.6% of the debitage and
Core trimming elements (CTE) include 53 tools) include flake cores (n=12), bladelet cores
items (10.0% of the debitage and tools) and they (n=13), broken cores (n=4, three of them bladelet
were divided into three categories according to cores), and tested pebbles (n=1).
the production trajectory they relate to: blade Flake cores were divided according to their
production, bladelet production and unidentified number of striking platforms: One has one striking
CTEs which can relate to each of the former platform; four have two striking platforms and seven
categories or to flake production (Table 5.2). have more than two striking platforms. Most of these
The main division is between CTEs that relate to cores are amorphous. The largest of the flake cores
TABLE 5.2. FLINT CORE TRIMMING ELEMENTS

Type Bladelet production Blade production Unidentified Total %
Core tablet 2 1 3 5.7
Overshot 12 2 14 26.4
Crested-blade 6 6 12 22.6
Varia 13 13 24.5
Fragment 11 11 20.8
Total 20 9 24 53 100
% 37.7 17.0 45.3 100
2. Fragments were included in the categories of primary elment blades, blades and bladelets.
78
Chapter 5: The Chalcolithic Flint Assemblage
(size: 58x52x53 mm) had been secondary used as a Ibrahim technique’ and mostly appear in Paleolithic
hammer stone. Only one of the flake cores was made industries (e.g. Barkai et al. 2005; Goren 1979;
of the semi-translucent raw material. Goren-Inbar 1988; Sarel 2002; Solecki and Solecki
Of the 13 bladelet cores, only three were made 1970). Their appearance here is worth noting since it
from raw material other than semi-translucent expands their chronological sphere. Their functional
flint. Eleven of the bladelet cores have one striking purpose is still obscure and they are mostly referred
platform and their shape is mostly pyramidal (Fig. to as cores for producing small flakes or tools (for
5.1:7). Two others have three striking platforms. an overview see Sarel 2002:22).
The maximum length of the bladelet cores’ debitage In addition, three categories of special waste
surface ranges between 19-38 mm. Most of these and spalls were noted. The first includes burin
cores are highly exhausted and do not bare traces of spalls (n=2). The second includes bifacial polished
cortex. In four, the core’s back was modified. debitage (n=3, not including an additional item
Another core, which is not recorded in this recorded in the tools). These items (flakes in this
category but in the bifacial tool category, is a blade specific case) carry the remains of polished surfaces
core that was shaped on a broken and recycled adze reduced from bifacial tools (Barkai 1999). The last
(Fig. 5.3:6). The original shape of this recycled category includes a single microburin technique
bifacial tool was well suited for the production of waste of the Krukowski type (Fig. 5.1:6). Such
blades with the aid of only a small modification. microburins are assumed to be the result of shaping
The striking platform was placed on the broken the backed and truncated Chalcolithic sickle blades
edge. Only a few blades were detached from this
(Gilead et al. 2004; Hermon 2003:327).
core. Recycling bifacial tools into blade cores
was common in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic TOOLS
periods (Barkai 1999; 2000:30-33). Another The tools include 163 items (30.6% of the debitage
possible indication of bifacial tool recycling in and tools) of which 91 (55.8% of the tools) are
this assemblage is the appearance of a blade with a shaped on blades and bladelets (Table 5.3). Some
partly polished dorsal face (Fig. 5.2:3). tools were shaped on CTEs: Four were shaped on
Three items were recorded as ‘core on flakes’ crested blades, three on CTE-varia and one on an
(Fig. 5.1:8) which are also known as the ‘Nahr unidentified CTE fragment.
TABLE 5.3. LITHIC TOOLS

Type Blade tools Flake tools Core tools Total %
Retouched flake 19 19 11.7
Retouched blade 33 33 20.2
Truncation 5 1 6 3.7
Polished edge blade 2 2 1.2
Microlith 25 25 15.3
Scraper* 1 7 8 4.9
Tabular scraper 1 1 0.6
Burin 3 3 1.8
Borer 6 6 3.7
Notch and denticulate 2 15 17 10.4
Sickle blade 23 23 14.1
Bifacial 2 2 1.2
Fragment 18 18 11.0
Total 91 70 2 163 100
% 55.8 42.9 1.2 100
*One of the end scrapers is shaped on an obsidian blank.
79
Ron Shimelmitz
RETOUCHED FLAKES material type is unidentifiable. Only one microlith

Retouched flakes include 19 items (11.7% of the was made from a clearly different raw material.
tools). They lack any uniformity in shape or size. Microliths were divided into the following
types: Twelve micro end scrapers (eight whole),
RETOUCHED BLADES six retouched bladelets (three whole), one
A total of 33 retouched blades was found (20.2% of backed bladelet (whole), two double retouched
the tools). As a group they lack uniformity in size, bladelets, one inversely retouched bladelet and
shape and in their secondary modification (Fig. two alternately retouched bladelets. All examples
5.2:2). Only six of these are whole, while nine are of the last three types are broken. In addition, one
proximal fragments, nine are medial fragments complete shouldered bladelet was found; this was
and nine are distal fragments. The whole ones made from a different raw material.
vary between 39-79 mm in length. Twenty two of Micro end scrapers are the dominant microlith
these have been retouched along one lateral edge type in this assemblage (48%). This microlith
in which the retouch is mostly partial. In addition, type is the main fossile directeur of Chalcolithic
five items were inversely retouched, four items bladelet production and it grades into several sub-
were alternately retouched and two items were types (Gilead 1984; Gilead et al. 1995): At Kafr
dorsally retouched on both lateral edges. One of >Ana four of the micro end scrapers have a rounded
the retouched blades was shaped on a laminar retouched distal end (Fig. 5.2:6-8). Five items have
polished debitage item (Fig. 5.2:3). an obliquely retouched distal end in which the
TRUNCATION lateral edge near the upper part of the obliquely
Six truncated items were found, two were inversely end was retouched as well, forming a tip (Fig. 5.2:
truncated. Five of the truncations were made on 9, 10). In addition, two items have a distal end that
blade, while one on an elongated flake. was inversely retouched (one is rounded and one
is oblique) and in one item the proximal end was
POLISHED EDGE BLADES shaped as a micro end scraper in which the inverse
Two distal blade segments bear some retouch and retouch covers the bulb of percussion. The length
polish concentrated at the lateral edges and the of whole micro end scrapers varies between 22-
distal end (Fig. 5.2:4, 5). The polish appears on part 41 mm, all are curved. In three of the micro end
of the ventral face as well. The polish is assumed to scrapers some modification was performed at the
be the result of use. Similar blades were found in proximal end, possibly to facilitate hafting. This
the Chalcolithic site near Serabit el-Khadim in Sinai modification includes inverse and dorsal retouch
and are presumed to be connected to the mining and the adjustment of small notches on the lateral
activity practised at that site (Beit-Arieh 2003:87-91; edges (Fig. 5.2:6).
Merenzon 1986). At Kafr >Ana such an explanation
SCRAPERS
seems unlikely. Blades with polished edges were
found in some Early Bronze assemblages albeit Seven end scrapers and one double side scraper
rarely (e.g. Gopher and Rosen 2001; Shimelmitz were found. One of the end scrapers was shaped
and Rosen, forthcoming) and it should be noted that on an obsidian fragment (Fig. 5.2:11). Only one of
the end scrapers was shaped on a blade and the rest
several factors can cause polish.
on flakes.
MICROLITHS
In all, 25 microliths were found. Twenty two of these TABULAR SCRAPERS
were made from the semi- translucent raw material, Only one fragment of a tabular scraper was found
two others are burnt and patinated and their raw and it bears inverse retouch.
80
BURINS BIFACIAL TOOLS

Three burins were found; two are on a natural Two adzes were found; one is broken and bears
surface and one on a truncation. some knapping marks of later use (Fig. 5.3:5).
The second is a broken adze that was recycled
BORERS and used as a blade core (Fig. 5.3:6). The latter
Six borers were found, varying in size and shape. bears only minor traces of polish that are cut by
All were shaped on flakes. later knapping scars, a fact indicating the intensive
NOTCHES AND DENTICULATES resharpening of this tool (Barkai 1999) before it
Seventeen notches and denticulates were found. was recycled as a core.
These tools lack any uniformity. Two of these were TOOL FRAGMENT
shaped on blades and the rest on flakes. Tool fragments (n=18) include unidentified broken
SICKLE BLADES tools.
Of the 23 sickle blades found, 18 are of the classic THE OBSIDIAN ITEM
Chalcolithic type – backed, truncated and thin. It The single obsidian item found is an end scraper
should be noted that one of these 18 sickle blades (Fig. 5.2:11). Patination covers part of it and this
has a natural back and two were truncated by is overlain by the retouch – a fact that indicates
inverse retouch. Of this classic type, only two are recycling of an old item. The implication of this
whole, bearing truncations at both ends (Fig. 5.3: recycling is that in addition to the option of a direct
1, 2) (51 and 55 mm in length), five are medial product of trade from Anatolia it could have been
fragments and 11 are ‘halfs’, bearing one truncated collected from the remains of a Neolithic or even
end and one broken end (Fig. 5.3:3). In two of the Chalcolithic site.
broken items a microburin-like scar was noticed Obsidian artefacts are also known from Ghassul
underlying the truncation). Some of these ‘broken’ (Lee 1973:260) and Gilat where they have been
sickle blades might be whole in which the breakage found to originate from east and central Anatolia
scar is similar to a truncation in function (Barkai (Yellin et al. 1996).
2004; Roshwalb 1981:28).
Three other sickle blades resemble the classic
DISCUSSION
type but do not have a back (Fig. 5.3:4). The gloss
on all the sickle blades appears on one edge only Rosen maintains that the Chalcolithic industry
and this edge was finely serrated. The mean width is composed of five different manufacturing
of these 21 Chalcolithic sickle blades is 11.9 mm. technologies: the production of flakes, blades,
The width of the three sickle blades without a back bladelets, tabular flakes/scrapers and core tools
is smaller than this average (10-11 mm), a fact that (choppers and bi-facials). He also notes that some
might explain its absence. of these were produced by specialists (Rosen
In addition, one sickle blade was shaped on 1987; 1997). At Kafr >Ana all five manufacturing
a Canaanean blade-like segment (Fig. 5.2:1). technologies are present, yet only flakes and
Although similar sickle blades were found in several bladelets were systematically produced at the site.
other Chalcolithic sites (e.g. Barkai 2004; Hermon The numerous flakes (27.6% of the debitage
2003:172) the item is slightly patinated and can be and tools) indicate that their production was the
intrusive. Another sickle blade seems to be intrusive most common at the site. Nevertheless, blades
from a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B origin (Fig. 5.2:12). It and bladelets are more frequent (55.8% together)
is also made from a different in raw material. among the tools.
81
Ron Shimelmitz
1 2 3
Fig. 5.1: Chalcolithic lithic finds.
82
1 2
3 4 5
7 8 9
10
11 12
83
Ron Shimelmitz
3 4
84
THE PRODUCTION OF BLADELETS different: [Hermon 2003:264]). The differentiation

Bladelets were almost exclusively produced from in the habit of using semi-translucent raw material
semi-translucent raw material as evident by the for a rather similar bladelet production amongst the
numerous microliths, CTEs and cores. The habit Wadi Raba, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
of focusing this specific production on semi- I industries (Gilead 1984; Rosenberg et al. 2004)
translucent raw material was dominant in the implies that it is not a necessity. This variability
Chalcolithic industries (Gilead 1984; Hermon may indicate that the choice of semi-translucent
2003). The roots of this practice are found in the raw material was embedded not only in functional
Wadi Raba industry where semi-translucent raw aspect but also in social aspects that are yet to be
material formed only a portion of the bladelet explored. An interesting analogy can be found in
production (e.g. Barkai and Gopher 1999; Taçon’s (1991) study from Australia which found
Rosenberg et al. 2004). that brightness had symbolic implications and that it
The manufacture of bladelets continued into the had played an integral role in raw material choice.
Early Bronze Age I, but fewer of these were made
THE PRODUCTION OF BLADES
from semi-translucent raw material (Gilead 1984).
Searching for the reason/s that lay behind the Although blades are quite common at Kafr >Ana,
technological choice of using almost exclusively evidence of local production at the site is meagre
semi-translucent raw material for this specific and seems to indicate a different production mode
production in the Chalcolithic period could be of from that of the bladelets. The nature of blade
importance. production at this site can be better understood
The function of these bladelets and bladelet by comparing it to bladelet production here. The
tools is still obscure. Although the term of the main difference lies in the proportion of blanks to
fossil directoire of this production sequence the quantity of CTEs and cores. While the number
– the ‘micro end scraper’ implies a function, it of blades, and tools shaped on blades, is higher
should be taken with caution. Reconstructing their than that of bladelets (blanks: 53 vs. 36; tools:
functional aspects might be highly important for 45 vs. 25) fewer CTEs and cores are related to
understanding the choice of producing bladelets their production than to the bladelets (Table 5.2).
from semi-translucent raw material, nevertheless In other words, the problem we are facing is that
some points can be stated even before arriving while blades and blade tools are more numerous
at this stage: Hermon (2003:259) suggested than bladelets, the resultant waste relating to their
that the reason for this choice lies in the raw production is less. The cores emphasize this point
material quality which was well suited for bladelet well: While 13 bladelets cores (and three more core
production. However, if this was the cause, or even fragments) were found, only one blade core was
only the main cause, it must be asked why such a retrieved (shaped on a recycled adze and seemingly
phenomenon did not occur in the Epi-Paleolithic representing only an attempt to produce blades).
industries of central Israel where bladelets were The relatively small quantity of CTEs and cores that
produced in abundance from a variety of raw relate to the production of blades might indicate that
material types (e.g. Bar Yosef 1970; Shimelmitz most blades were not produced at the site.
2002). Using Calcadunian flint at some later Blade production was found to be meagre in
Epi-Paleolithic industries is of note, but this was many Chalcolithic sites and it has been suggested
mostly a regional phenomenon, characterising that blades, and especially blades for sickle blades,
southern sites (e.g. Goring Morris 1991; Goring were occasionally the product of specialisation
Morris et al. 1998:162). Only in the Chalcolithic is and trade (e.g. Gilead et al. 1995; Hermon 2003;
there dominant use of semi-translucent raw material Rosen 1987). The sites of Beit Eshel and Gazzeh-A
throughout most of the southern Levant (Kaukab where hundreds of blade cores were found (Gilead
and Tel Turmus in northern Israel are slightly et al. 2004; Roswalb 1981) highlight this aspect.
85
Ron Shimelmitz
Nevertheless, in Kafr >Ana the source of blades provide another perspective on a complementary
seems to be different. activity. The nature of blade production has been
Most blades and blade tools, apart from sickle discussed here for Kafr >Ana only. Nevertheless,
blades, are not standardised and their quality the paucity of blade cores in many Chalcolithic
differs from low to high without a clear pattern. sites (Hermon 2003) indicates that further research
Such a situation does not characterize products is needed in order to understand the complexity of
of specialisation in which standardisation and blade production in the Chalcolithic.
good quality are hallmarks (e.g. Costin 1991;
Hartenberger and Runnels 2001). KAFR >ANA AND THE CHALCOLITHIC LITHIC
In addition, the presence of bladelet production ASSEMBLAGES OF CENTRAL ISRAEL
indicates the general ability of the knappers to Comparing the flint assemblage of Kafr >Ana with
produce blades. The production of blades and of other sites is unfortunately limited, since only
bladelets have many similarities. Although the few Chalcolithic assemblages were studied and
issue is more than a matter of scale, many of the published from the region of central Israel. The
technological actions involved in the production flint assemblages of Gat Govrin and Giv >at ha-
of blades are also part of bladelet production. This Oranim are the basis for this comparison (Barkai
implies that the scanty blade production was not a 2004; Hermon 2003:165-175). It should be noted
result of a lack of knowledge or expertise; the notion that while the assemblage of Gat Govrin is small
that one can produce bladelets but not blades seems and includes only 241 items (Hermon 2003:167)
unlikely. In short, although some of the blades and the assemblage of Giv >at ha-Oranim is much
blade tools (especially sickle blades) might have larger, including 5982 items (Barkai 2004).
been the products of specialisation, most of the These three assemblages are dominated by
blades found at Kafr >Ana are un-standardised and flake production. It is seems as if the ratio of blade:
do not seems to be such products. flake was higher among the tools than among the
The notion that the knappers of Kafr >Ana debitage in all the assemblages. Tools constitute
had the capabilities required to produce blades about 18%-19% in all the three assemblages
and a suitable raw material favours a different (Barkai 2004:87, Table 7:1; Hermon 2003:167).
explanation. The alternative explanation may be The composition of the tool types is also of note.
local production of blades at an unexcavated part of At Giv >at ha-Oranim retouched flakes, denticulates
the site or outside it. In his study of the Alyawara and notches form a large portion of the tools (55%
in Australia, Binford (1986) demonstrated that the all together; Barkai 2004:88), this in contrast to a
production of some items may occur at specifically much smaller portion at Kafr >Ana (22.1%) and Gat
chosen locations. He elaborates on the production Govrin (20%) (Hermon 2003:171).
of ‘men’s knives’ that occurred in the men’s camp The frequency of sickle blades varies in the
only, while evidence of other tool production was assemblages; at Kafr >Ana they form 13.5% of the
found in all parts of the settlement. It is possible tools, at Gat Govrin 26% (Hermon 2003:172) and
that a similar situation was involved regarding the at Giv >at ha-Oranim 9% (Barkai 2004:88). At all
production of blades in which the inhabitants of these sites single sickle blades made on ‘Canaanean
Kafr >Ana produced the blades themselves but in a like blades’ were found as well. The size of sickle
specific place yet to be found. blades indicates of a high standardisation. At Kafr
It should be noted that this explanation does >Ana sickle blades have an average width of 11.9 mm
not contradict the presence of specialisation in and 5.1 mm thickness. At Giv >at ha-Oranim sickle
blade production in the Chalcolithic, but rather to blades have an average width3 of 11.5 mm and 4.6
3. The fact that the average width from Giv>at ha-Oranim is a little higher is probably the result of including the sickle blades
made on ‘proto Canaanean blades’ (Barkai 2004).
86
mm thickness (Barkai 2004:93, Table 7.5). The sites Giv >at ha-Oranim is the exception and this
standardisation of sickle blades characterised many difference can be a result of different factors which
Chalcolithic assemblages (Hermon 2003:326). might be chronological, social and/or functional.
Microliths are more common at Kafr >Ana On a social/functional ground, it should be stated
(15.7% of the tools) than at Gat Govrin and Giv >at that at Giv >at ha-Oranim many burials were found,
Ha-Oranim (5% and 3% respectively). In all of some including prestige items (Scheftelowitz and
these assemblages micro-end scrapers were found. Oren 2004), which may indicate of a different
Bifacial tools are also of importance. At Giv >at ha- nature of activities performed at the site.
Oranim bifacial tools form 6% of the tools (n=71),
while at Kafr >Ana its form only 1.2% (n=2) and SUMMARY
at Gat Govrin its form 3% (n=1). Barkai (2004)
remarks on the possibility of a local workshop at The lithic assemblage of Kafr >Ana, although
Giv >at Ha-Oranim for bifacial production – a fact limited, makes a positive contribution towards
that might explain this difference. reconstructing the Chalcolithic lithic industry
The difference between these three assemblages of central Israel. The topic of blade and bladelet
can be a result of many factors. In general, it manufacturing technology has been thoroughly
should be noted that the assemblage of Kafr >Ana discussed since their production seems to reflect
is more similar to that of Gat Govrin and the small not only practical necessity but also social aspects
difference can be explained by the small sample that are yet to be explored. It may be a key to a
of the latter (39 tools only!). Among the three better understanding of the Chalcolithic culture.
87
CHAPTER 6
STONE, BONE, SHELL AND METAL OBJECTS

Itamar Taxel
STONE its original place, and a concave depression (0.27

m in diameter, 0.12 m depth) was carved into its
THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD upper face, probably for reuse as a basin. The reuse
Two rims of basalt bowls dated to the Chalcolithic of capitals as basins in post-Byzantine periods is a
period were found in the excavation. One of the known phenomenon from other sites in Palestine
rims is decorated on the outside with an incised (c.f. Aharoni 1956:109; 1964: Pl. 2:1).
triangular pattern (Fig. 6.1:1), and the other is Another architectural element is a marble
plain (Fig. 6.1:2). These bowls are typical of chancel post (Fig. 8), that was reused as a tombstone
the Chalcolithic period, but it is impossible to in one of the pit graves in the Mamluk cemetery.
determine if our fragments belonged to regular V- This architectural element, although also common
shaped, flat based bowls or to pedestalled bowls, in Jewish synagogues, may belong to the church
as indicated by the pedestalled bowl found lately which existed at the site.
at the site (Gorzalczany 2000: Fig. 75), and from The third artefact indicating to the presence of
those found in other sites like Shiqmim (Levy a church is a fragment of a wide, rounded marble
1987: Fig. 6.10:1-2, 5), Naúal Qanah Cave (Gopher paten (c.f. Negev 1997:Ph. 221) or altar table (c.f.
1996:Figs. 4.14:1-2, 4-7, 4.16:1), Giv >at Ha-Oranim Mazar 2003: Pl. I.13:3), with a wide ledge rim
(Scheftelowitz 2004b:Figs. 4.2-4.7) and nearby (Fig. 6.1:3). Whether a paten or an altar table, both
Yehud (van den Brink et al. 2001: Fig. 4). objects were related to the ceremonies carried out
in the bamah area.
THE BYZANTINE PERIOD
THE >ABBASID AND FATIMID PERIODS
All the Byzantine-period stone objects presented
here probably belonged to a public building on the One of the stone objects found in the >Abbasid-
site, perhaps a church. Fatimid period refuse pit on the eastern fringes
The column capital (Fig. 6.2) is made of of the site is a small rectangular plaque-like tuff
limestone. This is an echinus capital, rectangular implement (Fig. 6.1:7). Its exact use is unknown,
in shape (0.5x0.4 m, 0.25 m height). Its echinus since the tuff is too soft to be used as a grinding
was decorated on two of its sides with simple implement.
Greek crosses within medallions. Similar capitals
are known from Caesarea (Gersht 1999: Fig. 48; THE CRUSADER AND MAMLUK PERIODS
dated "Byzantine"), Khirbet Abu Rish in the The Mediaeval-period stratum yielded a few
Hebron hills (Magen and Baruch 1997: Fig. 4; examples of unique stone vessels – two rounded
dated to the 6th century) and Khirbet el-Shubeika bowls (Fig. 6.1:4, 5), and one leg of box or lid
in the Galilee (Syon 2002: Fig. 2; dated to the 6th- handle with a square cross-section (Fig. 6.1:
7th century). According to Fischer, this type of 8) made of soft white chalk. These vessels are
capital did not appear before the 5th century. The decorated with reddish or purple-brown painted
capital was not found in situ, close to the surface geometric patterns, exactly as the handmade
layer, thus cannot be accurately dated or attributed ceramic vessels described above. Painted, chalk-
to a specific building, although it clearly indicates made vessels were published so far only from
the presence of a church at the site. Sometime after three sites in Palestine. At Giva>t Dani, south of
the Byzantine period the capital was taken from Kafr >Ana, these vessels were dated to the Mamluk
88
Chapter 6: Stone, Bone, Shell and Metal Objects
Fig. 6.1: Stone objects.

89
FIG. 6.1: STONE OBJECTS
No. Object Reg. No. Locus Description
1 Bowl 1150 119 Basalt
2 Bowl 10562 1054 Basalt
3 Paten/altar table 40277 4022 Marble
4 Bowl 20120 2018 Chalk, purple-brown painting.
5 Bowl 20143 2025 Chalk, reddish-brown painting.
6 Finger ring 20486 2059 Carnelian
7 Plaque-liked implemment 20694 2072 Tuff
8 Leg/handle 40247 4018 Chalk, purple-brown painting.
Fig. 6.2: Limestone column capital from the Byzantine period.1
1. Unfortunately the capital was stolen during the excavations. Consequently only its drawing, made before the theft, is
available. I. Taxel wishes to thank Prof. M. Fischer for his advice and help in identifying the capital.
90
period. They include a handle/box leg similar to internal diameter) with a central disc (Fig. 6.1:
ours and a ledge handle (Lazar 1999: Fig. 6:17- 6). Very similar Mediaeval finger rings made
18). Another similar handle/box leg was found at of carnelian and other semi-precious stones
Bashshit, in the southern coastal plain, where it were found at Hama (Ploug 1969: Fig. 39: 1-
was dated to the 12th-13th century (Kanias 2004: 4). Another finger ring, made of bronze with a
Fig. 87:6). A chalk bowl from Khirbet Burin in the carnelian central disc, was found in a Crusader
eastern Sharon was dated to the Mamluk period period assamblage in Apollonia (Roll and Ayalon
(Kletter and Stern 2006: Fig. 26:9). These vessels 1989: Fig. 57). Jewellery made of red carnelian or
seem to imitate similar handmade ceramic vessels, other red materials such as agate and coral have
such as the rounded bowls described above and been venerated in Islamic (as well as in earlier)
lids with similar handles (Saller 1957: Fig. 56: superstition as a protection against disease and
5692; de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. F:4), and may danger and promoting love and fertility (Algrove
even be a regional product of central Palestine. 1976:45; Simpson 1995:246).
One of the stone artefacts of these periods
is a broken red carnelian finger ring (2.5 cm
Fig. 6.3: Bone and shell objects.
FIG. 6.3: BONE AND SHELL OBJECTS

1 Jewellery 20622 2061 Shell.
2 Point 10354 1048 Bone.
3 Point 10575 1054 Bone.
4 Game pot/furniture decoration 40451 4040 Bone.
5 Cut horn 20284 2041 Horn.
91
Itamar Taxel
BONE AND SHELL
THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD THE >ABBASID AND FATIMID PERIODS

Only two bone tools can be dated to the Chalcolithic One of the most interesting bone artefacts (Fig.
period. These are two polished points, one with 6.3:5) was found in a mixed Early Islamic and
a flat cross-section (0.3 cm) and a sharp tip (Fig. Mediaeval context. This is part of a horn of a
6.3:2), and the second with rounded cross-section fallow deer (Dama dama mesopotamica)3. It was
(0.5 cm) and broken tip (Fig. 6.3:3). Similar points cut at both ends with a sharp tool, probably a saw,
are known from many Chalcolithic sites such as in preparation for future work, maybe carving. It is
Shiqmim (Levy 1987, Fig. 6.11:7) and Grar (Gilead important to note that no other evidence for making
1995, Fig. 8.5:7-10) where they were sometimes artefacts from animal horns were published from
identified as awls. late period contexts in Palestine. Even at Caesarea,
where many pieces of wild animal horn were
THE BYZANTINE PERIOD found, not even one horn-made artefact was found.
One bone artefact was found in a mixed Byzantine According to Ayalon, this may be due to the poor
and Early Islamic (>Abbasid?) period context (Fig. quality of local animal horn, but in any case,
6.3:4). This is a small conical hollow and well- no real tradition of making horn artefacts ever
polished object (height 2.5 cm, external diameter developed in Palestine (Ayalon 2003:320-321).
2.2 and 1.2 cm). Its narrow end is rounded while its
wide end is flat and decorated with two concentric THE CRUSADER AND MAMLUK PERIODS
grooves. Three more grooves were incised just A single broken ornament made of shell was found
above the wider end. Two possibilities for its in the excavation, in a Mediaeval context (Fig. 6.3:
use can be considered: a game pot or a furniture 1). It was cut in the form of a ring (2.5 cm internal
decoration. Somewhat different artefacts are diameter) and polished on both surfaces. It is too
known from other sites in Palestine. A game pot wide to be a finger ring, so its acceptable use can
dated to the Late Roman period (Ayalon 2003: Pl. be a pendant or an earring. A similar object, dated
29:303) and a furniture decoration dated to the to the Roman-Byzantine period and identified
Early Islamic period (ibid.: Pl. 45:424) were found as a pendant or a bead, was found at Beth Shean
at Caesarea, and furniture decorations, dated to (Ayalon 2006: Fig. 23.1:13, Photo 23.7).
the Byzantine period (Rahmani 1960: Fig. 8:1),
were found in Ma>on.
92
METAL rounded end, and a tang (Fig. 6.5:1). No parallels

were found to it. The iron bracelet (Fig. 6.5:2; 5 cm
THE BYZANTINE PERIOD
internal diameter) was also found inside a grave in
The metal artefacts which can be attributed to the the Mamluk-period cemetery. Iron bracelets are a
Byzantine period include iron, copper/bronze and very common find in Muslim cemeteries (Eakins
lead objects. Among the iron artefacts are a knife 1993:Pls. 93-94; Stern 1978: Pl. 41:19; Toombs 1985:
with a tang (Fig. 6.4:1; 8.5 cm length, 2 cm width; Pl. 81), being considered to offer powerful protection
c.f. Mazar 2003:Ph. III.4; Nikolsky et al. 2004: (Algrove 1976:45). Other iron artefacts are nails
Fig. 56:1-2), and nails (Fig. 6.4:2-5). with a rounded cross-section, and a rectangular
The copper/bronze objects from the Byzantine iron plaque (6.5x2 cm) which was also found inside
period include the top of a bell with a square a Mamluk-period grave. The exact purpose of it is
suspension loop (Fig. 6.4:8; Ayalon 2004: Fig. unknown, but a similar contemporary object was
13:4; Dar 1999: Fig. 3.7:5) and a broken spatula identified as a blade or a chisel (Rochman-Halperin
terminate in small ovoid bulb (Fig. 6.4:9), which 1999: Fig. 3.8:1).
is characteristic to the Late Roman and Byzantine The Mamluk period copper/bronze artefacts
periods (the 3rd-7th centuries; Waldbaum 1983: include a hammered folded sheet (Fig. 6.5:3), most
Pl. 41:40-43). Other artefacts are bronze nails, probably a casing of some kind of organic object.
either with a square cross-section (Fig. 6.4:6), or It was found in a mixed context, which included
with a rectangular cross-section and curved head mostly Mediaeval pottery. A parallel, although
(Fig. 6.4:7). later in date, was identified as a belt plate (Grey
The only lead object found in the excavation 2000b: Fig. 11.2:25). Other artefacts are a fragment
was a rectangular folded fishing net weight, which of a pin of unknown nature (Fig. 6.5:4), and part
was found in a Byzantine period context (Fig. 6.4: of a bracelet with a square cross-section and
10; 6.5x0.8 cm). This is the most common type of flattened curved end (Fig. 6.5:5) which came from
lead fishing net in Palestine, where they are found a mixed, Byzantine and Mediaeval context. Two
mainly in underwater or coastal sites (Galili et al. pieces of copper jewellery were found in graves in
2002:184, Type L2.3, Figs. 2b, 7). Similar weights the Mamluk cemetery. The first was probably an
were found also in inland sites of the Byzantine earring, from which were preserved small pieces
and Early Islamic periods (like Kafr >Ana), such of thin wires and two pieces of spool-liked wires
as îorvat Raqit (Ayalon 2004:Figs. 5:12, 13, 11:8) (Fig. 6.5:6). A bronze earring with similar parts
and Nevé Ur (Shalem 2002: Fig. 19:13), possibly was found in the Mediaeval Muslim cemetery at
brought there for recycling. Tell Deir ‘Alla (van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989:
THE >ABBASID AND FATIMID PERIODS 110, No. 175). The second object is a flat wire with
rounded soldered ends and two small soldered hooks
In contexts dating to this period were found a
(Fig. 6.5:7). The exact nature of it is unknown, and
broken iron finger-ring (Fig. 6.4:11; 2 cm internal
it may be an earring or part of a pendant.
diameter) and a copper/bronze bracelet with a flat
cross-section (Fig. 6.4:12) was also found (c.f. Two broken silver earrings (Fig. 6.5:8, 9) were
Kletter 2005: Fig. 3.7:4). found inside graves in the Mediaeval Muslim
cemetery. The better-preserved earring contained a
THE CRUSADER AND MAMLUK PERIODS wire inserted through a hollow ball. The ball itself
The Mediaeval metal artefacts include items made has a small fused ring on its bottom, probably for
of iron, copper/bronze and silver. Among the iron a pendent. An identical earring, although made
artefact there is a knife or razor which was found of bronze, was found in the Mediaeval Muslim
inside one of the Mamluk-period graves. It has a cemetery at Tell Deir >Alla (van der Kooij and
rectangular blade (7.3 cm length, 1.5 cm width) with Ibrahim 1989:110, No. 175). The second earring
93
Itamar Taxel
comprised only fragments of the wire and ball. As bracelet has only one pair of twisted wires and
in the case of the iron bracelets, silver jewellery narrower ends (Fig. 6.7:2). These bracelets, called
was also considered by local superstition to in Arabic şwār or eşāwra, are a very common
offer protection (Algrove 1976:45), and thus was style of bracelet throughout the Mediterranean.
selected as grave-goods not necessarily for its In Palestine and neighbouring regions they were
material value (Simpson 1995:249). worn by town, village and Bedouin women (Goren
1994:298; Stillmar 1979:100-101), and known from
THE LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH MANDATE archaeological contexts at Tell el-îesi (Eakins
PERIODS 1993: Pl. 90; Toombs 1985: Pl. 80b), Beitsaida
(Rottloff 2003: Fig. 315) and al-Ţūr (Kawatoko
The metal artefacts attributed to the latest phase of 1998: Pl. 22:14).
occupation at the site are made of iron and copper/ The copper/bronze finger ring (2 cm internal
bronze. The iron peg with the loop-curved end and diameter) with the central disc decorated with
the ring connected to it (Fig. 6.6:1) was found fixed short diagonal incisions (Fig. 6.7:3), was found
into the floor of one of the late Ottoman structures. in a mixed Mediaeval and late Ottoman context.
It is 21.5 cm long and the ring’s diameter is 5 cm. Similar rings, simply called khātim (seal), were the
The peg may have been used for tying up livestock, most common type of ring throughout the Islamic
and thus can indicate that the floor belonged to a world, and were worn by both sexes (Stillmar
courtyard. Other late Ottoman iron artefacts are 1979:103). They have been found in a Mediaeval
a pin with a loop-curved end (Fig. 6.6:2), and an context in Meiron (Meyers et al. 1981: Pl. 9.8:10)
S-shaped hook (Fig. 6.6:3). and in Ottoman and modern contexts at Tell el-
The copper/bronze buckle (Fig. 6.6:4) and Hesi (Eakins 1993:Pls. 98-101; Toombs 1985:Pls.
the rounded cross-section broken copper/bronze 72-73) and al-Ţūr (Kawatoko 1996: Pl. 31:3). One
bracelet (Fig. 6.6:5; internal diameter 4.5 cm; Grey of the unique copper/bronze artefacts is a slightly
2000: Fig. 11.1:12), were found in a late Ottoman convex, nine-pointed ornament with a pointed
context. Two other late Ottoman-British Mandate conical centre and three holes for attaching it by
copper/bronze bracelets (4.5 cm internal diameter) nails to another object, probably made of wood
were made of twisted wires and have hammered (Fig. 6.7:4). This object, which has no parallels,
flat ends. The first was originally composed of two was found in a topsoil layer that contained
pairs of twisted wires, and its remaining end bears Mediaeval and late Ottoman pottery, and therefore
traces of repair with lead (Fig. 6.7:1). The second can be dated to either of the periods.
94
Fig. 6.4: Metal objects.
FIG. 6.4: METAL OBJECTS

1 Knife 10297 1043 Iron.
2 Nail 20609 2061 Iron.
3 Nail 20609 2061 Iron.
4 Nail 40292 4022 Iron.
5 Nail 40256 4022 Iron.
6 Nail 20829 2096 Copper/bronze.
7 Nail 40256 4022 Copper/bronze.
8 Bell 20797 2086 Copper/bronze.
9 Spatula 40241 4026 Copper/bronze.
10 Fishing net weight 40103 4015 Lead.
11 Finger ring. 20290 2043 Iron.
12 Bracelet 20685 2071 Copper/bronze.
95
Itamar Taxel

1 Knife 001 062 Iron.
2 Bracelet 003 021 Iron.
3 Folded shit 40517 4046 Copper/bronze.
4 Pin 20827 2061 Copper/bronze.
6 Earring 001 063 Copper/bronze.
7 Earring/pendant 003 023 Copper/bronze.
8 Earring 001 078 Silver.
9 Earring 002 078 Silver.
96

1 Peg 40497 4032 Iron.
2 Pin 40520 4047 Iron.
3 Hook 20848 2092 Iron.
4 Buckle 20009 2002 Copper/bronze.
97

3 Finger ring 20132 2011 Copper/bronze.
4 Ornament 40504 4047 Copper/bronze.
98
CHAPTER 7
NUMISMATIC FINDS
The excavations at Kafr >Ana yielded 16 identifiable coins, nine of which are dated to 5th and 6th
centuries, and seven belong to the time between the 12th to mid-20th centuries. They are shown here on a
scale of 1:1. The absence of Early Islamic coins is remarkable considering the large amount of pottery and
other finds from this period found at the site.
BYZANTINE COINS
Arieh Kindler and Zvi Gur
No. 1.
Locus 4025, Basket 40314.
Theodosius II (?), 408-450.
Obv.: [DN THE]OD[OSIUS PF AUG]. Bust of emperor to r. Diademed. Cable
border.
Rev.: [SALUS REIPVBLICAE]. Victory dragging captive. Cable border.
Æ; 0.35 gr; 13.38x12.54 mm, .
No. 2.
5th century.
Obv.: Bust of emperor (obscure).
Rev.: Figure standing (obscure).
Æ; 1.19 gr; 13.35x12.48 mm.
No. 3.
5th century.
Completely obscure.
Æ; 0.35 gr; 8.03x7.86 mm.
No. 4.
Anastasius, 491-518; Follis; Constantinople.
Obv.: Traces of letters. Bust of emperor to r. Cable border.
Rev.: In exergue: CON and large M. On r.: star. Cable border.
Æ; 6.66 gr; 23.91x23.88 mm; .
99
Arie Kindler and Zvi Gur
No. 5.
Anastasius, 491-518; Follis; Constantinople (?).
Obv.: Around from l. below: NVNCT SIVSPP. Bust of
emperor to r. (barbaric style).
Rev.: In exergue: CON and large M. Above: small cross. On
l. under: star.
Æ; 9.01 gr; 30.16x26.31 mm; .
No. 6.
Justinus I, 518-527; Follis; Nikomedia.
Obv.: DN IVSTINVS PP AV[G]. Bust of emperor to r. Cable
border.
Rev.: In exergue: NIK M and large M. Above: small cross.
On l.: star. On r.: cross. Cable border.
Æ; 14.10 gr; 31.46x29.82 mm; .
No. 7.
Justinian I, 527-565; Follis; Constantinople.
Obv.: Around from below: DN IVSTINVS PP
AUG. Bust of emperor facing wearing
helmet and pludamentum, holding in r.
hand globe surmounted by cross. In field
r.: cross. Cable border.
Rev.: On l.: ANNO. On. r.: X/III (=13th year of
Justinian I, 540/41). Large M. Between
legs of M: B and officina. In exergue:
CON. Above: small cross.
Æ; 18.71 gr; 40.16x39.87 mm; .
No. 8.
Byzantine. Cut piece of Byzantine Follis (?).
Æ; 2.90 gr; 24.64x12.70 mm.
No. 9.
Byzantine. Cut piece (quarter) of Follis
Æ; 3.11 gr; 18.79x14.35 mm.
100
Chapter 7: Numismatic Finds
MUSLIM AND RECENT COINS

No. 10.
Zangid: Atabegs of Halab. Mahmūd b. Zangī (A.H. 541-569/1146-
1174);
Obv.: Within a circle of dots: Centre: ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻌﺎدل‬. Decorations: star-
plant-star. Margin: [‫]اﻟﻌﻤﺮ اﻟﺴﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺪاﺋﻢ‬.
Rev.: Traces of ‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮد ﺑﻦ زﻧﻜﻲ‬.
Æ; 3.39 gr; 20.5x23.4 mm; .
C.f. Lane-Poole 1877:212, No. 602.
No. 11.
Ayyubid.
Obv.: Within a dotted square a linear square is found, in it traces of a two line
Arabic inscription: …. ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬.
Rev.: Worn out.
Æ; 0.85 gr; 13.6x15.6 mm;
C.f. Balog 1980:174-175, Nos. 480-489.
No. 12.
Mamluk. al-Žahir Rukn al-Dīn Baybars I (A.H. 658-676/1260-1277).
Obv.: ‫ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮ‬/ ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬. Small lion passant to left (?).
Rev.: Centre: [‫ ]اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ‬/ ‫اﻻﻣﺎم‬. Part of a counter-clockwise circular legend: ‫اﷲ‬.
AR; 1.63 gr; 13.1 mm; .
C.f. Balog 1964:93, No. 50.
No. 13.
Mamluk. al-Muzaffar Rukn al-Dīn Baybars II (A.H. 709/1309).
Obv.: Centre: ‫ ﺑ|ﺒﺮ‬/ ‫س‬.
Rev.: Centre: [‫ ﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎ ]و‬/ ‫ه‬. The coin is pierced.
AR; 0.63 gr; 15x17 mm; .
C.f. Balog 1964:136, Pl. 7:175b.
No. 14.
Unidentified Mamluk coin.
Border on both sides: thick circular line. Within it linear hexagram with
pellet in each external angle. The inscription in the centre of the hexagrams
is wiped out.
Æ; 2.84 gr; 20x20 mm.
For year 701 A.H. c.f. Balog 1964:134, No. 171.
For year 741-742 A.H. c.f. Balog 1964:164-165, Nos. 267, 268.
101
No. 15.
Ayyubid or Mamluk Coin.
Æ; 1.48 gr; 15.8x20.18 mm.
No. 16.
British Mandate.
Obv.: A branch of olive flanked by 1 and ١. The marginal legend is: ‫מיל‬
ONE MIL ‫ﻣ|ﻞ‬.
Rev.: ‫ﻓﻠﺴﻄ|ﻦ‬
PALESTINE
‫פלשטינה א"י‬
1939
١٩٣٩
Copper; 3.05 gr; 21 mm; .
C.f. Haffner 1970:202, No. PMC-4.
The author wishes to thank R. Barkay and C. Meir for their useful remarks.
102
CHAPTER 8
FAUNAL REMAINS
Moshe Sade
This chapter summarises the archaeozoological THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD

finds from four major homogenous assemblages
The osteological material belonging to this period
which yielded a relatively large amount of animal
came from 12 loci, which contained 104 bones
bones: the Chalcolithic deposit in the north of the
(Tables 8.1 - 8.3). The represented species are:
site; the Late Byzantine-Umayyad refuse pit in the
sheep/goat, cattle and pigs.
western fringes of the site (Locus 4009 etc.); the
The highest amount came from sheep/goat, but
Late Byzantine-Umayyad refuse pit in the eastern
the percentage of cattle shows that the inhabitants
fringes of the site (Locus 2055 etc.); and the
maintained a permanent settlement at the site.
>Abbasid-Fatimid refuse pit on the eastern fringes
of the site (Loci 2071, 2072).
TABLE 8.1. DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL BONES IN THE CHALCOLITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Species Ovis aries/Capra hircus Bos taurus Sus scrofa Total
Bones
Mandibula 10 1 11
Molar 19 12 1 33
Premolar 5 1 6
Incisor 2 2
Scapula 3 3
Humerus 4 1 5
Radius 1 1
Ulna 1 1
Metacarpus 2 1 3
Pelvis 2 2
Femur 1 1 2
Tibia 1 1 2
Calcaneus 1 1
Metapod 11 11
Vertebrae thoracic 2 2
Vertebrae lumbar 3 1 4
Phalanx I 2 4 6
Phalanx II 1 1
Costae 8 8
Total 79 21 4 104
% 75.86 20.19 3.85 100
103
Moshe Sade
TABLE 8.2: RIGHT AND LEFT IN ANIMAL BONE LEGS IN THE CHALCOLITHIC ASSEMBLAGE
Species Ovis aries/Capra hircus Bos taurus Sus scrofa
Bones R L R L R L
Humerus (D) 2 2 1
Radius (P) 1
Ulna (P) 1
Metacarpus (P) 1 1
Femur (P) 1 1
Tibia (D) 1 1
Calcaneus 1
TABLE 8.3: MINIMAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE CHALCOLITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Species Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Bos taurus Sus scrofa Total
No. 2 1 1 4
% 50 25 25 100
SUMMARY
The small number of faunal finds, indicating few animals, precludes any statistical analysis. It is therefore
not possible to learn anything about the settlement’s economy during the Chalcolithic period.
THE LATE BYZANTINE-UMAYYAD PERIOD

The osteological material belonging to this period came from seven loci, which contained 274 bones
of domestic animals, one carvid bone, one fish bone and five fragments of seashells. The most unusual
phenomenon reflected in these assemblages is that the number of cattle bones is higher than that of the
sheep/goat bones. Pig bones were also present, and together with the cattle indicate that the settlement
had a permanent source of water, since these animals need certain conditions for living, including enough
water during all seasons of the year.
TABLE 8.4:. DISTRIBUTION OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS IN LATE BYZANTINE-UMAYYAD

ASSEMBLAGES
Species Ovis aries/ Bos taurus Sus scorfa Equus Canis Camelus Gallus gallus Total
Bones Capra hircus asinus familiaris dromedaries domestica
Horn core 1 1 2
Cranium 3 5 1 2 11
Maxilla 1 2 2 5
Orbit 1 1 2
Mandibula 3 10 5 1 2 21
Molar 12 21 9 1 3 46
Premolar 1 4 2 2 9
Canin 2 2
Inisar 1 1 2
Scapula 2 5 1 1 9
Humerus 8 2 2 12
Radius 2 3 1 6
Ulna 1 1 2
104
Chapter 8: Faunal Remains
Species Ovis aries/ Bos taurus Sus scorfa Equus Canis Camelus Gallus gallus Total
Bones Capra hircus asinus familiaris dromedaries domestica
Metacarpus 4 3 1 8
Pelvis 4 5 1 10
Femur 2 1 1 4
Tibia/Tibiotarsus 3 3 3 7
Astragalus 1 2 3
Metatarsus 1 2 1 4
Metapod 13 9 7 1 1 31
Phalanx I 1 8 1 10
Phalanx II 2 2
Phalanx III 1 1
Vertebra atlas 3 1 4
Vertebra lumbar 6 11 1 4
Costa 14 26 2 1 43
Total 83 125 39 7 3 13 4 274
% 30.29 45.62 14.23 2.55 1.11 4.74 1.46 100
TABLE 8.5: RIGHT AND LEFT IN ANIMAL BONE LEGS IN THE LATE BYZANTINE-UMAYYAD
ASSEMBLAGES
Species Ovis aries/ Bos taurus Sus scrofa Equus Canis Camelus Gallus gallus
Capra hircus asinus familiaris dromedaries domestica
R L
Bones R L R L R L
R L R L R L
Humerus (P) 1
Humerus (D) 6 2 1 1 1
Radius (P) 1 1 2 1
Radius (D) 1 1
Ulna (P) 1 1
Metacarpus (P) 2 2 1 2 1
Femur (P) 1 1
Femur (D) 1 1
Tibia/Tibiotarsus (P) 1
Tibia/Tibiotarsus (D) 1 1 1 1 1
Astragalus 1 2
Metatarsus (P) 1 2 1
Metatarsus (D) 1
TABLE 8.6: MNI (DOMESTIC) IN THE LATE BYZANTINE-UMAYYAD ASSEMBLAGES

Species Ovis aries/ Bos taurus Sus scrofa Equus Canis Camelus Gallus gallus Total
Capra hircus asinus familiaris dromedaries domestica
No. 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 14
% 42.86 14.28 14.28 7.145 7.145 7.145 7.145 100
TABLE 8.7: MNI (WILD) IN THE LATE BYZANTINE-UMAYYAD ASSEMBLAGES

Species .Cervus sp Balistes coralinensis Total
.No 1 1 2
% 50 50 100
105
Moshe Sade
SUMMARY
The fact that the number of sheep/goat is three times larger than that of cattle is unusual. In the yet
unpublished excavations of the Late Byzantine site at nearby Beit Dagon the number of cattle bones is
larger than those of the sheep/goat, e.g. 51 cattle bones and only 4 sheep/goat bones. This find strengthens
the conclusions about a permanent settlement at Kafr >Ana in the Late Byzantine-Umayyad period.
THE >ABBASID-FATIMID PERIOD

The animal bones originating in this period came from two loci, which included 139 bones. As in the
previous period, here too it is unusual to see such a low amount of sheep/goat bones, and in the other hand
a large number of cattle and the same number of camel bones.
TABLE 8.8: DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL BONES IN THE >ABBASID-FATIMID ASSEMBLAGE

Species Ovis aries/Capra hircus Bos taurus Camelus dromedaries Gallus gallus domestica Total
Bones
Horn core 1 1
Orbit 1 1
Mandibula 2 3 4 9
Molar 2 11 5 18
Premolar 4 1 5 10
Canin 2 2
Scapula 7 3 10
Humerus 2 2
Radius 2 4 6
Ulna 2 4 1 7
Metacarpus 1 1
Pelvis 1 2 2 5
Calcaneus 2 2
Oscentrotarsus 1 1
Metatarsus 2 2 4
Metapod 1 4 10 15
Phalanx I 1 1 1 3
Vertebra lumbar 4 2 6
Costa 4 16 5 25
Total 20 59 59 1 139
% 14.39 42.44 42.44 0.73 100
TABLE 8.9: RIGHT AND LEFT ANIMAL BONES IN THE >ABBASID-FATIMID ASSEMBLAGE
Species Ovis aries/Capra hircus Bos Taurus Camelus dromedaries Gallus gallus domestica
Bones R L R L
R L R L
Humerus (D) 1
Radius (P) 1 1
Radius (D) 1 1 2
Ulna (P) 1 4 1
Ulna (D) 1
Metacarpus (P) 1
Femur (P) 2 1 3
Femur (D) 1
106
Chapter 8: Faunal Remains
Tibia (P) 1 1
Tibia (D) 1 1 1
Oscentrotarsus 1
Calcaneus 1 1
Metatarsus (P) 1 1 1
TABLE 8.10: MNI IN THE >ABBASID-FATIMID ASSEMBLAGE

Species Ovis aries/Capra hircus Bus taurus Camelus dromedaries Gallus gallus domestica Total
Bones
No. 1 2 4 1 8
% 12.50 25 50 12.50 100
SUMMARY
The presence of the bones of four camels in the MNI, seems to imply that the Early Islamic settlement
at Kafr >Ana served as a station for camel caravans. The caravans, carrying goods, passed from the arid
regions in the south – mainly the Negev desert – into the inland and more populated regions in the north.
The Lod valley, as a central economic centre with its capital Ramla and the town of Lod in its south,
attracted many caravans, some of which may have also passed through the villages in the valley. This
finding is reminiscent of the situation in Stratum II at the Iron Age I site of >Izbet êartah on the western
slopes of the Samaria Hills (Hellwing and Adjeman 1986). The explanation for this phenomenon there
was the same as at Kafr >Ana, also since the two sites are quite close.
107
CHAPTER 9
HISTORICAL-GEOGRAPHIC CONCLUSIONS 1
The results of the large-scale excavations at Kafr of the settlement during this period is clearly
>Ana display a picture – although fragmentary – of indicated by a capital decorated with crosses and
a typical site in the Lod valley. Among the sites the pig bones. The latter are a characteristic find in
which are most similar to Kafr >Ana in that they many other Christian Byzantine settlements, rural
have a pre-Byzantine phase and were occupied as well as urban ones (e.g. Cope 1999:407, Table
continously until the British Mandate period, are 1; von den Dreisch and Boessneck 1995:71-73,
Yehud (Gudovitch 1999; Shemueli 1995, 1998b; Table 5.10; Horwitz 2006:840; Rielly 1993:Table 1;
Yannai 2004) and Beit Dagan (Peilstöcker and Sasson, forthcoming).
Kapitaikin 2000). Other, somewhat less similar Kafr >Ana continued to preserve the name of
sites are Kafr Jinnis (Messika 2006; Milevski and ancient Ono in its Arabic version throughout the
Rapuano 2001) and Nes Ziyyona (Sarafend al- Early Islamic, Crusader and Mamluk periods.
Kharab; Glick 1998; Gorzalczany 1998). During these years the number of settlements
The site of Kafr >Ana was first inhabited in the area was gradually reduced to the number
during the Chalcolithic period and extended over that more or less existed here until the end of the
an undefined area. Despite the scanty remains of British Mandate period. Kafr >Ana itself probably
this period found, they add important information shrank in the Early Ottoman period, then
to the knowledge of the settlement pattern in the expanded only in the Late Ottoman and British
Lod valley and the western slopes of the Samaria Mandate periods, reaching its last peak before
Hills which includes already known sites at Azor, finally being abandoned in 1948.
Lod, Yehud, Shoham and Giv >at ha-Oranim. The The excavations at Kafr >Ana are an unusual
material culture of Chalcolithic Kafr >Ana, as example of documentation of material culture
reflected in the ceramic and lithic assemblages, is remains of the Ottoman (mainly Late Ottoman)
typical of the region. and modern periods. The remnants of the latest
After a gap of ca. 4500 years, the site was again occupation phases at Kafr >Ana reflect the changing
inhabited in the Byzantine period, probably in the nature of Arab villages of the late 19th and early
6th century. This new large village was part of 20th centuries. Beside dwellings built in traditional
the dense rural Byzantine settlement of the area rural Arab techniques and locally-made pottery and
situated between the towns of Lod in the south and glass, imported artefacts, such as roof tiles, were
Jaffa in the west, and the Yarqon river in the north. found. European-style glass vessels and porcelain
Domestic/industrial structures and finds related tableware marked the continuous modernisation
to public buildings were unearthed with small of pre-industrial Palestinian Arab society. While
finds dating to this period. The pottery reflects in other Arab villages, such as Ti>innik, this
a varied assemblage of local and imported types transition occurred only towards the mid-20th
which indicate direct and indirect commercial century (Ziadeh 1995a:1007), at Kafr >Ana it begun
connections of the settlement and the economic considerably earlier, perhaps due to the location of
capabilities of its inhabitants. The Christian nature the village in one of the central areas of Palestine.
1. Dedicated to the late Dr. Jacob Kaplan - the first to test archaeologically the identification of Kfar >Ana with biblical Ono.
108
Chapter 9: Historical-geographic Conclusions
Towards the end of the 19th century European During the Hellenistic and Roman periods the
scholars and the surveyors of the Palestine region was included within the district ( toparchy)
Exploration Fund visited the village. They suggested of Lod (Lydda), which in the Second Temple period
identifying the site with ancient Ono of the biblical, became an important Jewish centre. This toparchy
Mishnaic and Talmudic periods (Conder and bordered on those of three other important cities:
Kitchener 1882:251-252; Guerin 1875:319-321). Antipatris (@Antipatriv") in the north, Jaffa
The toponym Ono was first mentioned in the (Iovpph) in the west and Yavneh (Iamv nia) in the
Topographic List (No. 65) of Thutmose III (ca. southwest. The northern boundary, according to
1479-1425 BCE), as Iw-in-iw, one of the Canaanite Schwartz (1991:32-33), may have passed along the
cities which he conquered during his first line of Ono ( JOnou 'v") and Yehud ( JIoudaiva). In ca.
campaign to Canaan (Redford 2003:203). It seems 200, following the establishment of the Hellenised
reasonable to assume that during the Late Bronze polis of Diospolis (Diovspoli") under the ancient
Age Ono was included within the territory of the Lod, Jewish activity was no longer concentrated in
city-state of Aphek, and after the decline of the the city but in the villages in its vicinity, including
latter came under the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Ono. During that time the region began to be
administrative centre at Jaffa. settled by Samaritans. They inhabited Lod and
During the early First Temple period Ono was some villages near Ono, like Beit Dagon/Kefar
included within the Kingdom of Israel. After the Dagon, Safarea and ürifin, although no Samaritans
destruction of the kingdom by the Assyrians the are mentioned in Ono itself, probably due to its
region became part of the Assyrian province of Jewish majority.
Samaria. Later, after the conquest of Ashdod by At the end of the 3rd century, in the time of
Sargon II and the establishment of the province Diocletian, Ono was separated from the toparchy
of Ashdod, the Lod valley became a border area of Lod and received independent municipal status,
between three geo-political units: the Assyrian with its own city council (boulhv ), although it is not
provinces of Samaria and Ashdod and the clear whether it became a true polis. The separation
Kingdom of Judaea. It seems that in this time the of Ono from Lod may have contributed to the
area of the province of Samaria was more or less strong Jewish demographic base of the former.
the same as the province of Lod in the Hellenistic In the Byzantine period hostilities developed
and Roman periods (see below) (Lipschits 1997:11- between Lod and Ono, and the Talmud mentions
12; Na’aman and Zadok 2000). harassment of the Jews of Ono by the gentiles of
The first mention of Ono and its vicinity in Lod (Lamentations Rabbah 1:17). Ono is mentioned
the Bible are attributed to the time of the return in the Mishna and the Talmud in connection with
from Babylonian exile when some towns in the Jewish sages who lived in the town or visited it.
territory of Benjamin, including Ono and Lod, It is known that the town was almost entirely
were mentioned as part of ‘the rest of Israel’ Jewish until the end of the Byzantine period, and
(Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37, 11:35). This list is no bishops are mentioned as sitting in it (Avi-
identified with the Jewish population, probably Yonah 1966:123-158; Ben-Zvi 1976:92-95; Safrai
from the Benjamin area, which remained in the 1983:57-62; Schwartz 1991:32-33, 107-109). It is
country after the destruction of the First Temple worth noting that Ono is not mentioned either
and settled in the Lod valley. The apparently older in the Onomasticon of Eusebius (4th century;
mention of Ono as a place built, together with Lod, Klostermann 1904) nor in the Madaba mosaic map
by Benjaminite clans (1 Chron. 8:12), seems to (6th century; Avi-Yonah 1954).
reflect a later source from the time of return The Cairo Geniza provided some important
from exile, that records the establishment of the information on the Jewish settlement in Ono at
first group of Judaean population in the region the end of the Byzantine period and in the Early
(Aharoni 1979:45, 140, 224, 355-356; Lipschits Islamic period. One document is an elegy on the
1997:30-32; Mazar 1950:150). destruction of Jewish communities in Palestine
109
in the late Byzantine period. Ono is mentioned as finds earlier than the 4th/5th century were found
one of these places, and it says that the Christians in the site. The large-scale excavations reported
of Lod massacred its Jewish community and its here, the wide distribution of the squares and the
synagogue was destroyed. These events date to fact that in many points the excavation reached
the beginning of the 7th century, probably to the virgin soil, remove any doubt about the periods in
revenge of Heraclius on the Jews of Palestine after which Kafr >Ana was inhabited.
the Persian conquest. Another document, which Furthermore, the fact that the present
dates to the 9th-11th centuries and deals with legal excavations yields some finds that point to
matter, mentions ‘Qiriat Ono’ as a town settled by the presence of a church at the site in the
Jews, despite the destruction of the late Byzantine Byzantine period (including a column capital
period (Assaf 1940:61, 63; Friedman 1983:74-81; with the depiction of crosses), in addition to the
Gil 1992:220-221, n. 98). founding of pig bones in the refuse pits dating
Another important source about Ono in the to the Byzantine period, clearly indicate the
Early Islamic period are the Greek Taktika – lists presence of a Christian population. This, and
of the Christian Archbishoprics of Palestine in the later 9th-10th century sources mentioning
the 9th and 10th centuries, which were first the Christian community in Ono, is a prominent
published only in the 19th century. According to contradiction to the historical sources telling
the Taktikon, the city of Lod was an autocephalous about the flourishing Jewish community of Ono
archbishopric which now controlled or represented from the Roman to the Early Islamic period.
only a reduced territory of some rural Christian A small Christian community could have had
communities. Ono no longer belonged to Lod’s lived beside the Jewish majority in Ono, but the
territory, however, but to that of Jaffa, also an absence of Late Roman and even Early Byzantine
autocephalous archbishopric with a much wider finds (apart from a few 5th century coins and
territory of Christian communities. The most fragments of glass vessels) in the site refutes the
important point here is that Ono (called here identification of Kafr >Ana as the Ono mentioned
Zwovno") was mentioned as a Christian settlement in the Mishna and Talmud.
and even as a titular See (Levy-Rubin 2003: In a recent article (Gophna et al. 2005) an
201-210). Apparently, this source contradicts the alternative suggestion for the identifying Ono
above-mentioned evidence of the Cairo Geniza not at Kafr >Ana, as previously accepted, but in
about the contemporary Jewish community of a nearby site named Kafr Juna (Map. Ref. 13795/
Ono. However, as we shall see later, the Jewish and 16040), less than one km to its northeast. Kafr
the Christian sources probably do not deal with the Juna was also located on and around a low hamra
same settlement. hill, west of a tributary of Naúal Ayalon. Within
From the historical sources mentioned above, it the area of the site was a Muslim shrine, named
seems that Ono was inhabited, apparently without an-Nebi Malik. The place was known as an ancient
a break, at least from the Late Bronze Age I to the site at least since the 1940’s. 2 In 1958, after the
Early Islamic period. site was partly damaged during construction
The major obstacle to the identification of Kafr activities in the settlement of Newe Monosson
Ana as ancient Ono lies in the fact that, apart from (Efrayim), a small-scale salvage excavation was
remains from the Chalcolithic period unearthed conducted there by B. Isserlin. In a survey made
in the present excavations as well as in two other of the site prior to the excavation by R. Gophna
excavations conducted at Kafr >Ana, no remains or and others, architectural remains and elements,
2. Kafr Juna was first mentioned as an ancient site named Khirbet KafrJun in the second addition to the formal list of ancient
sites and monuments of the British Mandate government, from 1944 (p. 933).
110
such as ashlars, columns, oil press installation, Hellenistic periods found at the site.4 Applebaum,
mosaic tesserae and pottery fragments dated to the who saw in Kafr Juna remains of a plastered
Iron Age II, the Persian and the Mamluk periods structure that he identified as a Roman villa, gave
were collected. The 1958 excavations unearthed more data about the site. The pottery sherds he
architectural remains and features dated to the found in addition to this structure were dated to
Byzantine through Mediaeval periods, lying above the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Applebaum
fills containing pottery fragments from the Iron 1987:1). Additional architectural remains, most
Age II and the Persian period. At least at one point, of which belong to industrial installations of the
the earlier remains were founded on the sandy Byzantine period, and small finds (pottery and
virgin soil. A few years later, in an inspection coins) dated to the Persian, Late Roman, Byzantine,
carried out by M. Broshi, Inspector of Antiquities, Early Islamic and Mamluk periods, were unearthed
on each side of a modern road which cuts the in two salvage excavations conducted at Kafr Juna
hill, pottery fragments dated to the Late Bronze (Birman 2007; Sion 2007).
Age, the Iron Age I (including Philistine pottery) During a short survey made by the authors in
and II, the Persian and the Hellenistic periods 2003 at Kafr Juna, many pottery fragments dated
were found. Many Persian and Hellenistic-period to the Byzantine period were found in addition to
pottery fragments, beside shards from the Iron few sherds from the Persian period.
Age II, Early Roman, Late Roman and Byzantine These results all point to the fact that Kafr Juna
periods, were found in 2000 by L. Barda during was inhabited at least since the Late Bronze Age,
the survey for the Map of Petach Tiqwa also along probably up to the Mamluk period (Table 9.1). This
the western bank of the tributary.3 Both B. Isserlin span of time included, of course, all the periods
and the later surveyors mentioned the vast amount during which Ono was inhabited according to
of pottery from the Iron Age II, the Persian and the ancient literary sources. It is likely that Kafr Juna was
TABLE 9.1: THE CHRONOLOGY OF KAFR >ANA AND KAFR JUNA
Kafr >Ana Kafr Juna (Ono)

Chalcolithic period -
- Late Bronze Age
- Iron Age I
- Iron Age II
- Persian period
- Hellenistic period
- Early Roman period
- Late Roman period
Byzantine period Expansion of Ono Byzantine period
Early Islamic period Early Islamic period (?)
Crusader period Crusader period (?)
Mamluk period Mamluk period
Ottoman period -
British Mandate period -
3. The authors wish to thank L. Barda (Israel Antiquities Authority) for permission to see the material from her survey at
Kafr Juna.
4. Israel Antiquities Authority archives, excavations files: Newe Monosson (Kafr Juna), B. Isserlin, &-14/1958. The authors
wish to thank A. Rochman-Halperin (Israel Antiquities Authority archives) and the late B. Isserlin for permission to use
written material from unpublished excavations and from administrative inspection files.
111
deserted during the Mamluk period or at the latest at encouraged them to establish new settlements in
the very beginning of the Ottoman period since its the vicinity, mainly along the Jaffa-Jerusalem road
name is missing from the Ottoman tax list of the late (Schwartz 1991:128-129) but probably also in other
16th century (Hütteroth and Abdulfatah 1977), and areas. These settlers may have originated in Lod
from the fact that in the maps of the British Mandate itself, or in another nearby city. They could even
period (and not prior to 1934) the name Kafr Juna have come from Antipatris in the northeast, which
is mentioned only as a cultivated area northeast to was destroyed by an earthquake and abandoned,
Kafr >Ana, and may used as a mazra‘a (a seasonal probably in 363. The vacuum caused by the
agricultural settlement) of the latter (Fig. 9.1). The destruction of the major city in the southeastern
phenomenon of small settlements deserted in the Sharon plain, brought about the establishment
late Mamluk period or during the Ottoman period and/or enlargement of rural settlements in the
is known also from other villages in the Lod valley, nearby countryside (Fischer 1985:121; Frankel
such as Jindas (Conder and Kitchener 1882:251; and Kochavi (2000:23, 31). Theoretically, the
Grossman 1983:94; 1994:155-156) and Kafr Jinnis new Christian settlement south of Ono may have
(Grossman 1983:95; 1994:156).5 belonged to this group, although there is no solid
If our identification is correct and Kafr Juna evidence of pre-6th century presence at the site
was indeed the original site of ancient Ono, then (excluding, of course, the Chalcolithic remains).
the main problem remaining is that the ancient The close proximity of the new settlement to
name was erroneously attributed to the wrong site, Jewish Ono could also be connected to pressure
i.e., to Kafr >Ana. All the other Arab villages and by the Christians of Lod on the Jews of Ono in the
towns in the region between Jaffa in the west and Byzantine period.
the western slopes of the Samaria Hills in the east, According to the second explanation, which
which preserved the names of historical sites, also is not very different, the new settlement was
contained remains from those periods. For instance: established by people from Ono itself who wanted
al-Yahudiya=Yehud; Beit Dajan=Beth Dagon; to upgrade their life by moving to a nearby place.
Yazur=Azor; Kheiriyeh [Ibn Ibraq]=Bene Berak; The source of the settlers can explain the reason
el-Haditheh=Hadid; Jimzu=Gimzo (Aharoni 1979: they named the new settlement after the mother-
373-377) and of course, Jaffa and Lod themselves town – Ono. According to Bar, the phenomenon of
(Fig. 9.2). Therefore, Kafr >Ana is the only village establishing offshoot villages in Late Roman and
belonging to this group which does not contain Byzantine Palestine was relatively common (2001:
remains that fit the historical sources. In our opinion, 205). As evidence to that he mentions Eusebius’
there can be only one acceptable explanation for this Onomasticon, in which there can be found some
phenomenon. During the Byzantine period a new examples of neighbouring villages in Palestine
suburb of Ono, or even a separate settlement, was that have the same name, for instance: Bezek in
founded south to the old (Jewish?) town. As to the northeastern Samaria and Ataroth north of Jerusalem
founders and the inhabitants of the new settlement, (Eusebius, 26:25, 54:5). Another archaeological
there can be two alternative explanations. According example of this phenomenon is reflected in several
to the first, Christians inhabited the new area also, rural sites in the southern Hebron Mount (Baruch
1999; Sar-Avi 1999).
or even solely. The reason for establishing the
However, the assumption that the inhabitants of
new settlement/suburb could be connected to the
Ono in the Byzantine period were Jews does not fit
increasing importance of Lod (due to its strategic
with the Christian nature of the settlement in Kafr
location) during the Byzantine period. This may
>Ana, unless it was a mixed settlement or that the
have attracted new Christian inhabitants and
Christian inhabitants joined it sometime later. In any
5. The village of Kafr Jinnis was probably deserted only in the late Ottoman period as seen from finds dated to the 18th/19th
century discovered inthe excavation at the site (Messika 2006:108-110; Milevski and Rapuano 2001).
112
rate, we suggest that both of the places were called – probably that mentioned in the Taktikon – fell
Ono, but at some point the name was preserved only victim to assimilation more or less at the same time.
in the southern settlement. This could have occurred Concurrently, a new name – Kafr Juna – was given
after the Arab conquest, or maybe after the ceasing to the northern settlement, previously called Ono.
of the Jewish presence in Ono, probably sometime The source of this name is so far unknown to us.
during the >Abbasid or Fatimid periods, perhaps From that point onwards the Arab-Muslim village
due to conversion to Islam. It seems likely that the of Kafr >Ana preserved the name of old nearby Ono,
Christian population of the southern settlement thus leading to erroneous identification.
Fig. 9.1: Map from the British Mandate period showing Kafr >Ana and its vicinity.
113
Fig. 9.2: Map showing ancient sites in the vicinity of Ono, and their Arabic names.
114
REFERENCES
Abel, F. M. 1967. Géographie de la Palestine, Tome I1: géographie politique, les villes. Paris.
Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1986. The pottery from the Late Byzantine building and its implications (Stratum 4). In:
Levine, L.I. and Netzer, E., eds. Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979, Final Report.
(Qedem 21) Jerusalem. pp. 90-129.
Aharoni, Y. 1956. Excavations at Ramat Raúel, 1954: Preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 6:102-11,
137-157.
Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raúel, Seasons 1961 and 1962. Rome.
Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible, a Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Alexandre, Y. 2006. Naúal Tut (Site VIII): A fortified storage depot from the late fourth century BCE. >Atiqot
52:131-189.
Allan, J.W. 2001. Early Islamic glass stamps. In: Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times. (Reuben and
Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa) Haifa. pp. 27*-29*.
Allgrove, J. 1976. The Qashqā’i of Iran: World of Islam Festival. London.
Amiran, R. 1969. The Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem.
Andrefsky, W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge.
Applebaum, S. 1987. The problem of the Roman villa in Eretz-Israel. Eretz-Israel 19:1-5 (Hebrew)
Arav, R. 1999. Bethsaida excavations: Preliminary report, 1994-1996. In: Arav, R. and Freund, R., eds.
Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. (The Bethsaida Excavations Project and
Conextual Studies 001) Kirksville, MO. pp. 3-114.
Aronson, R. and Lavsky, H. 2001. The rural settlements in the Sanjak of Gaza (including Jaffa and Ramla) in
the 1870’s. In: Aronson, R. and Lavsky, H., eds. A Land Reflected in its Past: Studies in Historical
Geography of Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 311-359. (Hebrew)
Arnon, Y. D. 1999. Islamic and Crusader Pottery (Area I, 1993-94). In: Holum, K.G., Raban, A. and Patrich, J.,
eds. Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the
Late Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard and Other Studies. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary
Series, No 35) Portsmouth. pp. 225-251.
Arnon, Y. D. 2003. Development and Continuity in the Early Islamic Pottery Types from the 7th Century to the
12th Century. The Caesarea Data as a Study Case. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Haifa University) Haifa.
Ashtor, E. 1970. The diet of salaried classes in the Medieval Near East. Journal of Asian History 4:1-24.
Assaf, S. 1940. An elegy on the destruction of Jewish communities in Palestine. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine
Exploration Society 7.2:6-67. (Hebrew)
Avi-Yonah, M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem.
Avi-Yonah, M. 1966. The Holy Land, from the Persian to the Arab Conquests, 536 BC to AD 640: A Historical
Geography. Grand Rapids, MI.
Avissar, M. 1987. The Medieval to Persian periods: architecture, stratigraphy and finds. In: Ben-Tor, A.
and Portugali, Y., eds. Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. A Report of the Archaeological
Excavations 1975-1977. (Qedem 24) Jerusalem. pp. 7-26.
Avissar, M. 1996a. The Medieval pottery. In: Ben-Tor, A., Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y., eds. Yoqne >am I: The
Late Periods. (Qedem Reports 3) Jerusalem. pp. 75-172.
Avissar, M. 1996b. The oil lamps. In: Ben-Tor, A., Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y., eds. Yoqne >am I: The Late
Periods. (Qedem Reports 3) Jerusalem. pp. 188-197.
Avissar, M. 1996c. The clay tobacco pipes. In: Ben-Tor, A., Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y., eds. Yoqne >am I:
The Late Periods. (Qedem Reports 3) Jerusalem. pp. 198-201.
115
Avissar, M. 2003. Early Islamic through Mamluk pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in
the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982. Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas
A, W and X-2: Final Report. Jerusalem. pp. 433-446.
Avissar, M. 2005a. The pottery. In: Avissar, M. Tel Yoqne >am – Excavations on the Acropolis. (IAA Reports
25) Jerusalem. pp. 35-78.
Avissar, M. 2005b. The clay tobacco pipes. In: Avissar, M. Tel Yoqne >am – Excavations on the Acropolis. (IAA
Reports 25) Jerusalem. pp 83-93.
Avissar, M. 2006. The pottery finds. In: Ein Gedy, M. El-Qubab. >Atiqot 51:58*-66*. (Hebrew)
Avissar, M. and Stern, E.J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel. (IAA
Reports 26) Jerusalem.
Avitsur, S. 1976. Man and His Work: Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land. Jerusalem.
(Hebrew)
Avshalom-Gorni, D. 1998. Storage Jars from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods in Western Galilee
– Chronological, Typological and Regional Aspects. (M.A. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University) Ramat-Gan.
(Hebrew)
Avner, R. 1998. Elat-Elot – an Early Islamic village. >Atiqot 36:21*-39*. (Hebrew)
Ayalon, E. 1997. Ecological aspects of villages in the southern Sharon region during the Roman-Byzantine
period. In: Dar, S. and Safrai, Z., eds. The Village in Ancient Israel. Tel Aviv. pp. 209-227. (Hebrew)
Ayalon, E. 2000. The ‘roofscape’ of Eretz Israel. In: Barkay, G. and Schiller, E., eds. Landscape of Israel,
Azaria Alon’s Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem. pp. 126-131 (Hebrew)
Ayalon, E. 2003. The Assemblage of Bone and Ivory Artifacts from Caesarea Maritima, Israel. (Ph.D.
Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University) Ramat-Gan. (Hebrew)
Ayalon, E. 2004. The stone and metal implements from îorvat Raqit. In: Dar, S. Raqit, Marinus’ Estate on the
Carmel, Israel. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1300) Oxford. pp. 268-296.
Ayalon, E. 2006. Bone, ivory, and shell objects. In: In: Mazar, A., ed. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-
1996, Vol. 1: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem. pp. 666-674.
Ayalon, E. Gilboa, E. and Harpazi, S. 1990. A public building of the Early Arabic period and Crusader remains
of Tel Qasile – the 12th-13th Seasons. Israel – People and Land 5-6:9-22. (Hebrew)
Bagatti, B. 1993. Emmaus-Qubeibeh. The Results of Excavations at Emmaus-Qubeibeh and Nearby Sites (1873,
1887-1890, 1900-1902, 1940-1944). (Collectio Maior Studium Biblicum Franciscanum No. 4) Jerusalem.
Bailey, D. M. 1998. Excavations at el-Ashmunein, Vol. 5: Pottery, Lamps and Glass of the Late Roman and
Early Arab Periods. London.
Balog, P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamlūk Sultans of Egypt and Syria. New York.
Balog, P. 1980. The Coinage of the Ayyūbids. London.
Bar, D. 2001. Changing in the Rural Population of Palestine and Its Distribution from the Bar-Kokhba Revolt
to the Arab Conquest. (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University) Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Bar-Tzvi, S., Abu Rabi‘a, A. and Kressel, G. 1998. The Charm of Graves: Mourning Rituals and Tomb
Worshiping Among the Negev Bedouin. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew)
Bar-Yosef, O. 1970. The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine (Ph.D. Dissertation, the Hebrew University)
Jerusalem.
Barako, T. J. 2007. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960. (IAA Reports 32) Jerusalem.
Baram, U. 2000. Entangled objects from the Palestinian past. Archaeological perspectives for the Ottoman
period, 1500-1900. In: Baram, U. and Carroll, L., eds. A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire:
Breaking New Ground. Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology. New York. pp. 137-159.
Baramki, D. C. 1944. The pottery from Kh. el-Mefjer. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
10:65-103.
116
Barkai, R. 1999. Resharpening and recycling of flint bifacial tools form the southern Levant Neolithic and
Chalcolithic. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 65:303-318.
Barkai, R. 2000. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel-Aviv University) Tel Aviv.
(Hebrew)
Barkai, R. 2004. The Chalcolithic lithic assemblage. Salvage Excavation Reports 1:87-109.
Barkai, R. and Gopher, A. 1999. The last Neolithic flint industry: A study of the technology, typology and
social implication of the lithic assemblage from Nahal Zehora I, a Wadi Raba (Pottery Neolithic) site
in the Menashe hills, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 29:41-122.
Barkai, R., Shimelmitz, R. and Gopher, A., 2005. Middle Pleistocene blade production in the Levant: An
Amudian assemblage from Qesem Cave, Israel. Eurasian Prehistory 3(2):39-74.
Bartl, K. 2003. Clay pipes from Ottoman Beirut. Bulletin d’Archeologie et d’Architecture Libonaises 7:321-340.
Baruch, Y. 1999. Tell Zif and the establishment of Christianity in the south of Hebron mountain. Judea and
Samaria Research Studies 8:171-184. (Hebrew)
Beit-Arieh, I. 2003. Archaeology of Sinai: the Ophir Expedition. (Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 21) Tel Aviv.
Ben-Arieh, R. 1997. The Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad pottery. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. The Roman Baths at
Hammath Gader: Final Report. Jerusalem. pp. 347-381.
Ben-Zvi, I. 1979. The Book of the Samaritans. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Bijovski, G. 2000-2. The currency of the fifth century C.E. in Palestine – Some reflections in light of the
numismatic evidence. Israel Numismatic Journal 14:196-210.
Binford, L. R. 1986. An Alyawara day: Making men’s knives and beyond. American Antiquity 51:547-562.
Birman, G. 2007. Newe Efrayim. îadashot Arkheologiyot 119 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il)
Blackman, W.S. 1927. The Fellāhīn of Upper Egypt: Their Religious Social and Industries Life Today with
Special References to Survivals from Ancient Times. London.
Boas, J. A. 1992. Islamic and Crusader pottery (c. 640-1265) from the Crusader city (Area TP/4). In: Vann,
R. L., ed. Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea.
(Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series No. 5) Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 154-166.
Boas, J. A. 1999. Excavations in Area B: the pottery. In: Golani, A. and Van den Brink, E. Salvage Excavations
at the Early Bronze Age IA Settlement of Azor. >Atiqot 38:1-49.
Boas, J. A. 2000a. Pottery and small finds from the Late Ottoman village and early Zionist settlement. In: Hirschfeld,
Y., ed. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984-1988 Seasons. Jerusalem. pp. 547-580.
Boas, J. A. 2000b. Medieval and Post-Medieval finds. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations:
Final Report of the 1984-1988 Seasons. Jerusalem. pp. 211-225.
Bossard, E. 1896. La Terre Sainte: Itinéraire au jour le jour de norte pélérinage aux lieux saints. Paris.
Braun, K.J. 2005. A Cargo of Islamic Ceramics from the Eighteenth-Century Sadana Island Shipwreck in
the Red Sea: Typology, Form and Function of Qulal and Other Shapes. (MA Thesis, Florida State
University) Tallahassee.
Briend, J. 1980. L’église byzantine. In: Briend, J. and Humbert, J.B., eds. Tell Keisan (1971-1976): une cité
phénicienne en Galilée. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis: Series Archaeologica 001) Paris. pp. 37-50.
Brink, E. C. M. van den, Golan, S. and Shemueli, O. 2001. A note on the archaeological investigations at Yehud
and some Chalcolithic finds. >Atiqot 42:25-34.
Browne, C. D. 1992. Paleopathological survey of the human remains from Pella. In: McNicoll, A.W., Edwards,
P. C., Hanbury-Tenison, J.B., Potts, T.F., Smith, R.H., Walmsley, A. and Watson, P. 1992. Pella in
Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster
Excavations at Pella 1982-1985. (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 002) Sydney. pp. 227-229.
Buchennino, A. 2002a. Ono (A). îadashot Arkheologiyot 114:114*.
117
Buchennino, A. 2002b. Ono (B). îadashot Arkheologiyot 114:114*.
Buerger, J. 1979. The Medieval glazed pottery. In: McNally, S., Marasović, J. and Marasović, T., eds.
Diocletian’s Palace: Report on Joint Excavations, Vol. 3. Split.
Calderon, R. 2000. Roman and Byzantine pottery. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final
Report of the 1984-1988 Seasons. Jerusalem. pp. 91-165.
Canaan, T. 1924. Mohammedan saints and sanctuaries in Palestine. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
4:1-84.
Canaan, T. 1933. The Palestinian Arab house: Its architecture and folklore. Journal of the Palestine Oriental
Society 13:1-83.
Chase, J.W. 1992. Mortuary analysis of the recent burials in Area KK: Preliminary report, 1990. In: Vann,
R.L., ed. Caesarea Papers. Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbor, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea.
Cohen, A. and Lewis, B. 1978. Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century.
Princeton.
Cohen, E. 1997. Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad glass. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. The Roman Baths at Hammath
Gader. Jerusalem. pp. 396-431.
Cohen Finkelstein, J. 1997. The Islamic pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana. >Atiqot 32:19*-34*.
Conder, C. R. and Kitchener, H. H. 1882. Survey of Western Palestine, Vol. II: Judaea. London.
Contenson, H. de. 1956. La céramique chalcolithique de Beersheba; étude typologique.. Israel Exploration
Journal 6:163-179.
Cope, C.R. 1999. Faunal remains and butchery practices from Byzantine and Islamic contexts (1993-94
Seasons). In: Holum, K.G., Raban, A. and Patrich, J., eds. Caesarea Papers, Vol. 2: Herod’s Temple,
the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard and
Other Studies. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 35) Portsmouth. pp. 405-417.
Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting and explaining the organization of
production. In: Schiffer, M. B., ed. Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 3. Tucson. pp. 1-56.
Crowfoot, G. M. 1932. Pots, ancient and modern. Quarterly Statement:179-187.
Dagot, A. 2007. Tell Musa Shahin, Kefar Gevirol. îadashot Arkheologiyot 117 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il).
Dalman, G. 1964. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina: Das Haus, Hühnerzucht, Taubenzucht, Bienenzucht. (Schriften
des Deutschen Palästina-Instituts Band VII) Hildesheim.
Dar, S. 1999. Sumaqa: A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel. (British Archaeological
Reports International Series 815) Oxford.
Delougaz, P. and Haines, R. C., eds. 1960. A Byzantine Church at Khirbet al-Karak. (The University of
Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Vol. 85) Chicago.
de Vaux, R. 1951. La troisième campagne de fouilles a Tell el-Far‘ah, pres Naplouse. Revue Biblique 58: 393-430.
de Vaux, R. and Steve, A.M. 1950. Fouilles à Qaryet el-‘Enab, Abū Gôsh, Palestine. Paris.
de Vries, B. 1987. The Fortifications of el-Lajjūn. In: Parker, S. T., ed. The Roman Frontier in Central
Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980-1985 (British Archaeological Reports
International Series No. 340) Oxford. pp. 311-351.
Dothan, M. 1957. Hazor (Tell el-Wakatz). Bulletin of the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel 5-6:
23-24. (Hebrew)
Eakins, J.K. 1993. Tell el-îesi: The Muslim Cemetery in Fields V and VI/IX (Stratum II). (The Joint
Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi, Vol. 5) Winona Lake.
Edelstein, G. and Avissar, M. 1997. A sounding in old Acre. >Atiqot 31:133-135.
Ein Gedy, M. 2006. El-Qubab. >Atiqot 51:55*-67* (Hebrew)
Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. and Greenberg, R. 2001. Tel Te <o: a Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
118
Site in the Hula Valley. (IAA Reports No. 13) Jerusalem.
Elisha, Y. 2005. Ramla East. îadashot Arkheologiyot 117 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il).
Eusebius. Eusebius, Onomasticon. The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Notley, R.S. and Safrai, Z. 2005, eds.
Leiden.
Fischer, M. 1985. Excavations at îorvat Zikhrin. Qadmoniot 71-72:112-121. (Hebrew)
Fischer, M. Forthcoming. Archaeological and architectural remains. In: Fischer, M., ed. Horvat Me§ad
through the Ages: Archaeology of a Road-Station at the Jaffa-Jerusalem Road. (Monograph Series of
the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv.
Fischer, M. and Taxel, I. 2006. Yavne, Survey Map. îadashot Arkheologiyot 118 (http://www.hadashot-
esi.org.il).
Fischer, M. and Taxel, I. 2007. Ancient Yavneh: Its history and archaeology. Tel Aviv 34: 204-284.
Fowler, A. 1990. The pottery of Zur Natan. Publication of the Texas Foundation for Archaeological and
Historical Research :34-51.
Frankel, R. and Kochavi, M. 2000. History of Aphek-Antipatris. In: Kochavi, M., ed. Aphek-Antipatris
I. Excavation of Areas A and B: the 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 16-38.
Friedman, M. 1983. Ono – new evidence from the Cairo Geniza. In: Grossman, D., ed. Between Yarkon and Ayalon.
Studies on the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area and the Lod Valley. Ramat-Gan. pp. 73-85. (Hebrew)
Fuchs, R. 1998. The Palestinian Arab house reconsidered. Part 2: Domestic architecture in the 19th century.
Cathedra 90:53-86. (Hebrew)
Gadot, Y. and Tepper, Y. 2003. A Late Byzantine pottery workshop at Khirbet Baraqa. Tel Aviv 30:130-162.
Gal, Z. and Muqari, A. 2002. Excavations at Khirbet Yama (Yahem) in the Sharon plain. In: Gal, Z., ed. Eretz
Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. pp. 91-105. (Hebrew)
Galili, E., Rosen, B. and Sharvit, J. 2002. Fishing-gear sinkers recovered from an underwater wreckage site off
the Carmel coast, Israel. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31.2:182-201.
Gempeler, R. D. 1992. Elephantine X: Die keramik römischer bis fruherarabischer Zeit. Mainz am Rhein.
Gayraud, R. P. 2003. La Transition céramique en Egypte, VIIe-IXe siècles. In: VIIe Congrès International sur la
Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11-16 Octobre 1999. Athens. pp. 558-562.
Gersht, R. 1999. Sculpture. In: Gersht, R. The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima.
Tel Aviv. pp. 15-47. (Hebrew)
Getzov, N. 2000. An excavation at îorbat Bet Zeneta. >Atiqot 39:75*-106* (Hebrew)
Gibson, S., Kingsley, S. and Clarke, J. 1999. Town and country in the southern Carmel: Report on the landscape
archaeology project at Dor (LAPD). Levant 31:71-121.
Gichon, M. and Linden, R. 1984. Muslim oil lamps from Emmaus. Israel Exploration Journal 34:156-169.
Gil, M. 1992. A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge.
Gilead, I. 1984. The micro-endscraper: a new tool type of the Chalcolithic period. Tel Aviv 11:3-10.
Gilead, I. 1995. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. (Beer-Sheva 7) Beer-Sheva.
Gilead, I., Hershman, D. and Marder, O. 1995. The flint assemblages from Grar. In Gilead, I., ed. Grar, A
Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. (Beer-Sheva 7) Beer-Sheva. pp. 223-280.
Gilead, I., Marder, O., Khalaily, H., Fabian, P., Abadi, Y. and Yisrael, Y. 2004. The Beit Eshel Chalcolithic flint
workshop in Beer Sheva: A preliminary report. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 34:245-263.
Glick, D. 1998. Nes üiyyona, Yad Eli>ezer (a). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18:73-74.
Golani, A. 2005. Salvage excavations in the Modi‘in landscape. >Atiqot 50:73-97.
Gopher, A. and Rosen, S.A. 2001. Lithics of Strata XIII-III, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic-Early Bronze Age.
In: Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. and Greenberg, R., eds. Tel Te <o: a Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early
Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. (IAA Reports 13) Jerusalem. pp. 49-82.
119
Gopher, A. and Tsuk, T. 1996. The Naúal Qanah Cave: Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant. (Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 12) Tel Aviv.
Gophna, R. and Tsuk, T. 2005. Chalcolithic settlements in the western Samaria foothills. Tel Aviv 32:3-19.
Gophna, R., Taxel, I. and Feldstein, A. 2005. A new identification of ancient Ono. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel
Archaeologial Society 23:167-176.
Golan, S. Forthcoming. Or Yehuda. îadashot Arkheologiyot .
Goren, N. 1979. An Upper Acheulian industry from the Golan Heights. Quartär 29-30:105-131.
Goren, O. 1994. The jewelry of Bedouin women in the Negev and Sinai. Israel – People and Land 7-8: 291-
300. (Hebrew)
Goren-Inbar, N. 1988. Too small to be true? Reevaluation of core on flakes in Levantine Mousterian
assemblages. Lithic Technology 17.1:37-44.
Gorin-Rosen, Y. 1997. Excavations at the Courthouse Site at Akko: Medieval Glass Vessels (Area TA). >Atiqot
31:75-85.
Gorin-Rosen, Y. 1999. Glass vessels from Ras Abu Ma>aruf (Pisgat Ze’ev East A). >Atiqot 38:205-214.
Gorin-Rosen, Y. 2000. The glass vessels from Khirbet Tabaliya (Giv >at Hamatos). >Atiqot 40:81*-95*.
(Hebrew)
Goring-Morris, N. 1991. The Harifian of the southern Levant. In: Bar-Yosef, O. and Valla, F.R., eds. The
Natufian Culture in the Levant. (International Monograph in Prehistory) Ann Arbor. pp. 173-216.
Goring-Morris, N., Marder, O., Davidzon, A. and Ibrahim, F. 1998. Putting Humpty together again: Preliminary
observations on refitting studies in the eastern Mediterranean. In: Milliken, S., ed. The Organization
of Lithic Technology in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe. (British Archaeological Reports
International Series 700) Oxford. pp. 149-182.
Gorzalczany, A. 1998. Nes üiyyona, Yad Eli>ezer (b). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18:74-76.
Gorzalczany, A. 2000. Ono. îadashot Arkheologiyot 111:42*-43*.
Gorzalczany, A. 2005. Kefar Saba. îadashot Arkheologiyot 117 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il).
Gorzalzcany, A. 2007. The Kefar Saba cemetery and differences in orientation of Late Islamic burials from
Israel/Palestine. Levant 39: 71-79.
Granqvist, H. 1962. Muslim Death and Burial: Arab Customs and Traditions Studied in a Village in Jordan.
Helsinki.
Grant, E. 1921. The People of Palestine. Philadelphia.
Grant, E. and Wright, G. E. 1938. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine): Part 4 (Pottery). Haverford.
Greenberg, R. 1996. The Huleh Valley from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the End of the Middle
Bronze Age IIa: A Study in Regional Archaeology. (Ph.D. Dissertation, the Hebrew University)
Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Grey, A. 2000a. The unglazed pottery. In: Harper, R. and Pringle, D., eds. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of
a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology
No. 10) Oxford. pp. 87-100.
Grey, A. 2000b. The metalwork. In: Harper, R. and Pringle, D., eds. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a
Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology
No. 10) Oxford. pp. 131-137.
Grey, A. 2000c. The glass. In: Harper, R. and Pringle, D., eds. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a Crusader
Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 10)
Oxford. pp. 127-130.
Grey, A. 2000d. Miscellaneous objects of stone, bone and terracotta. In: Harper, R. and Pringle, D., eds.
Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. (British
Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 10) Oxford. pp. 139-145.
120
Grossman, D. 1983. The development of the rural settlement between the Yarkon and the Ayalon from the
sixteenth until the twentieth centuries. In: Grossman, D., ed. Between Yarkon and Ayalon: Studies on
the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area and the Lod Valley. Ramat-Gan. pp. 87-103. (Hebrew)
Grossman, D. 1994. Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its Offshoots in Ottoman Palestine.
Jerusalem (Hebrew)
Gudovitch, S. 1998. Mazor – 1993. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18:57-58.
Gudovitch, S. 1999. Yehud. îadashot Arkheologiyot 109:64*.
Gudovitch, S. 2001. Azor. îadashot Arkheologiyot 113:66*-67*.
Guérin, M. V. 1875. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, Judée, 1. Paris.
Gutfeld, O. (1999) Tell Qatra (Southwest). îadashot Arkheologiyot 110:65*.
Hadad, S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean. (Qedem Reports 4)
Jerusalem.
Hadad, S. 2005. Islamic Glass Vessels from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean. (Qedem
Reports 8) Jerusalem.
Haffner, S. 1970. Israel’s Money 1917-1970. Tarzana, CA.
Haiman, M. 1995. An Early Islamic period farm at Naúal Mitnan in the Negev Highlands. >Atiqot 26:1-13.
Harper, R. P. 1995. Upper Zohar: An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia. Final Report of Excavations
in 1985-1986. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 9) Oxford.
Harper, R. and Pringle, D., eds. 2000. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a Crusader Stronghold in the
Kingdom of Jerusalem. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 10) Oxford.
Hartenberger, B. and Runnels, C. 2001. The organization of flaked stone production at Bronze Age Lerna.
Hesperia 70:255-283.
Hartman, M. 1883. Die Ortschaftenliste des Liwa Jerusalem in dem türkischen Staatskalender für Syrien auf
das Jahr 1288 der Flucht (1871). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pälastina-Vereins 6:102-149.
Hawari, M. 1994. Al-Tall: architecture, stratigraphy and finds. In: Kempinski, A. and Niemeier, W.D.
Excavations at Kabri 7-8. Preliminary Report of 1992-1993 Seasons. Tel Aviv. pp. 47*-51*.
Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London.
Hayes, J.W. 1992. Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul. Vol. II: the Pottery. Princeton.
Hellwing, S. and Adjeman, Y. 1986. Animal bones. In: Finkelstein, I. >Izbet êarta: An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh-
Ha >ayin, Israel. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 299) Oxford. pp.141-152.
Hermon, S. 2003. Socio-Economic Aspects of Chalcolithic (4500-3500 BC) Societies in the Levant – A Lithic
Perspective. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Ben-Gurion University) Beer-sheva.
Hirschfeld, Y. 1995. The Palestinian Dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine Period. (Collectio Minor: Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum 34) Jerusalem.
Hirschfeld, Y. 2000. Architecture and stratigraphy. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final
Report of the 1984-1988 Seasons. Jerusalem. pp. 235-370.
Horwitz, L. K. 2006. The application of ethnographic analogy to the examination of Roman/Byzantine
pastoral practices in the Mount Carmel region. In: Maeir, A. M. and de Miroschedji, P., eds. “I Will
Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai
Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Vol. 2. Winona Lake. pp. 833-851.
Hütteroth, D. W. and Abdulfatah, K. 1977. Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern
Syria in the Late Sixteenth Century. ( Erlanger geographische Arbeiten sonderband 005) Erlangen.
Israel, Y. 1993. Survey of pottery workshops, Naúal Lachish-Naúal Besor. Excavations and Surveys in Israel
13:106-107.
Israeli, S. 2001. The artifacts. In: Wilson, J. F., ed. Rediscovering Caesarea Philippi: The Ancient City of Pan.
Malibu. pp. 25-34.
121
Kanias, T. 2004. Bashshit. îadashot Arkheologiyot 116:47*-48*.
Kaplan, J. 1957. Archaeological survey of the Jibne district. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 21:
199-207. (Hebrew)
Kaplan, J. 1962. The excavations at Kafr >Ana. îadashot Arkheologiyot 3:14-15.
Kark, R. 1995. Introduction of modern technology into the Holy Land (1800-1914). In: Levy, T. E., ed. The
Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. pp. 524-541.
Karmon, Y. 1960. An analysis of Jacotin’s map of Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 10:155-173.
Katsnelson, N. 1999. Glass vessels from the painted tomb at Migdal Ashqelon. >Atiqot 37:67*-82*.
Katsnelson, N. 2004. Glass objects. In: Figueras, P., ed. îorvat Karkur ‘Illit. A Byzantine Cemetery Church
in the Northern Negev (Final Report of the Excavations 1989-1995). (Beer-Sheva 16/Beer-Sheva
Archaeological Monographs 1) Beer-sheva. pp. 265-291.
Kawatoko, M. 1995. Al-$ūr. A Port City Site on Sinai Peninsula. The 11th Expedition in 1994 (a Summary
Report). Tokyo.
Kawatoko, M. 1996. Al-$ūr. A Port City Site on Sinai Peninsula. The 12th Expedition (a Summary Report). Tokyo.
Kawatoko, M. 1998. Al-$ūr. A Port City Site on Sinai Peninsula. The 13th Expedition in 1996 (a Summary
Report). Tokyo.
Khalidi, W. 1992. All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948.
Washington.
Kingsley, S. A. 1999. The Sumaqa pottery assemblage: Classification and quantification. In: Dar, S. Sumaqa.
A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel. (British Archaeological Reports
International Series 815) Oxford. pp. 263-329.
Kletter, R. 2004. Jaffa, Roslan Street. >Atiqot 47:193-207.
Kletter, R. 2005. Early Islamic remains at >Opher Park, Ramla. >Atiqot 49:57-99.
Kletter, R. and Stern, E.J. 2006. A Mamluk-period site at Khirbet Burin in the eastern Sharon. >Atiqot 51:
173-214.
Kroyanker, D. 1998. Jerusalem Architecture. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Kubiak, W. and Scanlon, G.T. 1980. Fustat Expedition: Preliminary report, 1971: Part II. Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 17:77-96.
Landgraf, J. 1980. Keisan’s Byzantine Pottery. In: Briend, J. and Humbert, J.B., eds. Tell Keisan (1971-1976), une
cité phénicienne en Galilée. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archeologique 001) Paris. pp. 51-99.
Lane, A. 1937. Medieval finds from al-Mina in northern Syria. Archaeologia 87:19-78.
Lane-Poole, S. 1877. The Coins of the Turkuman Houses of Seljook, Urtuk, Zengee. Catalogue of Oriental
Coins in the British Museum. London.
Lass, E. H. E. 2003. An Early Bronze Age IB burial cave and a Byzantine farm at îorbat îani (Khirbet Burj
el-îaniya) (West). >Atiqot 44:1-51.
Lazar, D. 1999. A Mamluk and Ottoman settlement at Giv >at Dani in the Ayalon valley. >Atiqot 38:127*-136*.
(Hebrew)
Lee, R. E. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. (Ph.D. Dissertation, the Hebrew
University) Jerusalem.
Lees, G. R. 1905. Village Life in Palestine. A Description of the Religion, Home Life, Manners, Customs,
Characteristics and Superstitions of the Peasants of the Holy Land with Reference to the Bible. London.
Lester, A. 1996. The glass from Yoqne >am: the Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk periods. In: Ben-Tor, A.,
Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y., eds. Yoqne >am I: the Late Periods. (Qedem Reports 3) Jerusalem. pp.
202-217.
Levy, T. E. 1987. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel
(1982-1984). (British Archaeological Reports International Series 356) Oxford.
122
Levy, T. E. and Rosen, S.A. 1987. The chipped stone industry at Shiqmim: Typological consideration. In: Levy,
T. E., ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel
(1982-1984). (British Archaeological Reports International Series 356) Oxford. pp. 281-294.
Levy-Rubin, M. 2003. The reorganization of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period.
Aram 15:197-226.
Lipschitz, O. 1997. The origins of the Jewish population of Modi>in and its vicinity. Cathedra 85:7-32.
(Hebrew)
Macalister, R. A. S. and Masterman, E.W.G. 1905. Occasional papers on the modern inhabitants of Palestine.
Quarterly Statement: 343-356.
Magen, Y. 1982. The Archaeological Discoveries at Qedumim – Samaria. Qedumim.
Magen, Y. and Baruch, Y. 1997. Khirbet Abu Rish. >Atiqot 32:135-146. (Hebrew)
Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200-800. Sheffield.
Magness, J. 1994. The dating of the black ceramic bowl with a depiction of the Torah Shrine from Nabratin.
Levant 26:199-206.
Magness, J. 1999. Redating the forts of Ein Boqeq, Upper Zohar, and other sites in SE Judaea, and the
implications for the nature of the Limes Palaestinae. In: Humphrey, J. H., ed. The Roman and
Byzantine Near East, Vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research. (Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplementary Series 31) Ann Arbor. MI. pp. 189-206.
Magness, J. 2003a. The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine. Winona Lake.
Magness, J. 2003b. Late Roman and Byzantine pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the
Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982. Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W
and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem. pp. 423-432.
Majcherek, G. 1995. Gazan amphorae: Typology reconsidered. In: Meyza, H. and Mlynarczyk, J., eds.
Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies, Acts of
the Second Workshop at Nieborow. Warsaw. pp. 163-178.
Mazar, B. 1950. Ono. In: Cassuto, M. D., ed. Encyclopedia Biblica, 1. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968-1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar. Final
Report Vol. II. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods. (Qedem 43) Jerusalem.
Mazar, E. and Peleg, O. 2003. The Pottery Assemblage in the Large Byzantine Structure in Area XV. In:
Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968-1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar.
Final Report Vol. II. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods. (Qedem 43) Jerusalem. pp. 86-103.
McQuitty, A. 2000. The Ottoman period. In: MacDonald, B., Adams, R. and Bienkowsky, P., eds. The
Archaeology of Jordan. (Levantine Archaeology 001) Sheffield. pp. 561-593.
Merenzon, J. 1986. Dos Casos de Analisis Functional sobre Conjuntos Instrumentales Lithicos Procedentes
del Levante. (M.A. Thesis, University of Buenos Aires) Buenos Aires.
Mershen, B. 1991a. The Islamic Cemetery of Abu en-Naml. The Near East in Antiquity 2: 135-141.
Mershen, B. 1991b. The Islamic Cemetery of Abu en-Naml. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
34: 331-332.
Mershen, B. 1991c. Folk Jewelry in Jordan. In: Bieinkowski, P., ed. Treasures from an Ancient Land: The Art
of Jordan. Stroud. pp. 162-174.
Messika, N. 2006. An Early Islamic Site at Kafr Jinnis near Lod. Salvage Excavation Reports 3:84-112.
Mettens, A. 2002. Jaljuliya (B). îadashot Arkheologiyot 114:43*.
Meyer, C. 1987. Glass from the North Theatre Byzantine Church, and Soundings at Jerash, Jordan, 1982-1983.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 25:172-222.
Meyer, C. 1992. Glass from Quseir al-Qadim and the Indian Ocean Trade. Chicago.
123
Meyers, C.M., Strange, J. F. and Meyers, C. L. 1981, eds. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel
1971-72, 1974-75, 1977. (Meiron Excavations Project 003) Cambridge.
Miles, G.C. 1948. Early Islamic Glass Weights and Stamps. New York.
Milevski, I. 1999. Azor. îadashot Arkheologiyot 109:65*.
Milevski, I. and Rapuano, Y. 2001. Khirbet Kafr Jinnis. îadashot Arkheologiyot 113:65*-66*.
Milwright, M. 2000. Pottery of Bilad al-Sham in the Ottoman period: A review of the published archaeological
evidence. Levant 32:189-208.
Muqary, A. 1996. >Akko, the Old City. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15:124-125.
Na’aman, N. and Zadok, R. 2000. Assyrian deportations to the province of Samarina in the light of two
cuneiform tablets from Tel Hadid. Tel Aviv 27:159-188.
Nagar, Y. 2003. Who Lived in Israel? A Story of Ancient Populations. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew)
Nahshoni, P. 1999. A Byzantine Site in the Migdal Neighborhood, Ashqelon. >Atiqot . 38:99*-111* (Hebrew)
Negev, A. 1997. The Architecture of Oboda: Final Report. (Qedem 36) Jerusalem.
Neidinger, W., Matthews, E. and Ayalon, E. 1994. Excavations at Zur Natan: Stratigraphy, architectural and
historical report. In: Reports on Tfahr Excavations at: Zur Natan, Israel, Silistra, Bulgaria and
Ulanci, Macedonia. (Publication of the Texas Foundation for Archaeological and Historical Research
1994) Houston, TX. pp. 5-14.
Niamir, M. 1999. A Corpus of Islamic Ceramics (Area Z, 1987 Season). In: Holum, K.G., Raban, A. and
Patrich, J., eds. Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and
Granaries, the Late Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard and Other Studies. (Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplementary Series 35) Portsmouth. pp. 41-67.
Nikolsky, V. and Figueras, P. 2004. Descriptive Pottery Catalogue. In: Figueras, P. 2004, ed. îorvat Karkur
>Illit. A Byzantine Cemetery Church in the Northern Negev (Final Report of the Excavations 1989-
1995). (Beer-Sheva 16/Beer-Sheva Archaeological Monographs 1) Beer-Sheva. pp. 151-209.
Nikolsky, V, Figueras, P., Auladell, J. and Guerra, R.A. 2004. Metal objects. In: Figueras, P., ed. Horvat Karkur
‘Illit: A Byzantine Cemetery Church in the Northern Negev (Final Report of the Excavations 1989-
1995). (Beer-Sheva 16/Beer-Sheva Archaeological Monographs 1) Beer-Sheva. pp. 237-264.
Ohata, K. 1966. Tel Zeror I. Preliminary Report of the Excavation First Season, 1964. Tokyo.
Ohata, K. 1967. Tel Zeror II. Preliminary Report of the Excavation Second Season, 1965. Tokyo.
Onn, A. 1988-1989. Tell el-Wawiyat. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7-8:181-183.
Onn, A., Greenberg, R., Shaked, I. and Rapuano, Y. 1995. Tell el-Wawiyat (Tel Tannim) – 1993. Excavations
and Surveys in Israel 15:10-12.
Patrich, J. 1988. The Glass Vessels. In: Tsafrir, Y., ed. Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Vol. I: The
Northern Church. (Qedem 25) Jerusalem. pp. 134-141.
Peacock, D.P.S. and Williams, D.F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy, an Introductory Guide.
(Longman Archaeology Series) London.
Peilstöcker, M. and Kapitaikin, A. 2000. Bet Dagan. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20:59*-60*.
Peleg, M. and Reich, R. 1992. Excavations of a segment of the Byzantine city wall of Caesarea Maritima.
>Atiqot 21:137-170.
Piphano, S. 1985. Khirbet Deheisheh. îadashot Arkheologiyot 86:42.
Ploug, G. 1969. Les objets en pierre. In: Ploug, G., Oldenburg, E., Hammershaimb, E., Thomsen, R. and
Løkkegaard, F., eds. Hama. Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938, Vol. 4.3: Les petit objets médiévaux
sauf les verreries et poteries. Copenhagen. pp. 89-106.
Porter, B., Routledge, B., Steen, D., Parlsow, C., de Jorg, L., and Zimmerle, W. 2005. Tall Dhībān 2004 pilot
season: Prospecting, preservation, and planning. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
49:201-216.
124
Preiss, L. and Rohrbach, P. 1925. Paläestina und Ostjordanland. Stuttgart.
Pringle, D. 1984. Thirteenth-century pottery from the monastery of St. Mary of Carmel. Levant 16:91-111.
Pringle, D. 1986. The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the
Crusaders and Mamluks, A.D. 1099-1516. (British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem Monograph
Series 001) London.
Rahmani, L. Y. 1960. The ancient synagogue at Ma‘on (Nirim): The small finds and coins. Bulletin III of the
Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues. Jerusalem. pp. 14-18.
Rahmani, L. Y. 1991. Two Byzantine wine presses in Jerusalem. >Atiqot 20:95-110.
Redford, D. B. 2003. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden.
Rielly, K. 1993. The eleventh and twelfth seasons of excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Faúl), 1989-1990: The
animal bones from Tell al-Husn (Area XXXIV) and the Abbasid complex (Area XXIX). Annual of
the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37:218-221.
Riley, J. A. 1975. The pottery from the first session of excavation in the Caesarea hippodrome. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 218:25-54.
Robinson, R. C. W. 1983. Clay tobacco pipes from the Kerameikos. Athenische Abteilung 98:265-285.
Robinson, R. C. W. 1985. Tobacco Pipes of Corinth and the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 54:149-203.
Rochman-Halperin, A. 1999. Excavations at Giv >at Yasaf (Tell er-Ras) – 1984-1985. >Atiqot 37:83-123.
(Hebrew)
Roll, I. and Ayalon, E., eds. Apollonia and Southern Sharon: Model of a Costal City and its Hinterland. Tel
Aviv. (Hebrew)
Rosen, S. A. 1987. The potentials of lithic analysis in the Chalcolithic of the northern Negev. In: Levy, T. E., ed.
Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982-1984).
(British Archaeological Reports International Series 356) pp. 295-312.
Rosen, S. A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. London.
Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R. and van den Brink, E. D. C. M. 2004. The lithic assemblage of Qidron: A Wadi
Raba site in central Israel. Neo-Lithics 2/04:30-34.
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1988. The pottery. In: Tsafrir, Y., ed. Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Vol. I:
The Northern Church. (Qedem 25) Jerusalem. pp. 78-96.
Roswalb, A. F. 1981. Protohistory in the Wadi Gazzeh: A Typological and Technological Study Based on the
Macdonald Excavations. (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of London) London.
Rottloff, A. 2003. Ein Bestattungsplatz der Tellawije-Beduinen auf dem Tell von Betsaida am Nordrand des See
Gennesaret. In: Fassbeck, G., Fortner, S., Rottloff, A. and Zangenberg, J., eds. Leben am See Gennesaret:
Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in Einer Biblischen Region. Mainz am Rhein. pp. 181-186.
Sade, M. 2006. Appendix A: Archaeozoological Remains. Salvage Excavation Reports 3:62-63.
Sa‘id, K. 2006. Kerem Maharal. îadashot Arkheologiyot 118 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il).
Sasson, A. Forthcoming. Faunal Remains from Khirbet es-Suyyagh. Salvage Excavation Reports.
Safrai, Z. 1983. The setting apart of the settlement in the Lod-Jaffa region during the time of the Mishna and
the Talmud. In: Grossman, D., ed. Between Yarkon and Ayalon. Studies on the Tel Aviv Metropolitan
Area and the Lod Valley. Ramat-Gan. pp. 53-72. (Hebrew)
Safrai, Z. 1988. Beekeeping and honey productiion in Eretz Israel during the Roman period. Israel – People
and Land 4:211-224. (Hebrew)
Saller, F. J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949-1953). (Publications of the Biblicum Studium Franciscanum
12) Jerusalem.
Sar-Avi, D. 1999. Ein el-Sachaniah and the monasteries in the Wilderness of Ziph. Judea and Samaria
Research Studies 8:185-192. (Hebrew)
125
Sarel. J. 2002. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Israel: Technological Analysis. (Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Haifa) Haifa.
Scanlon, G.T. 1984. Fustat Expedition: Preliminary report, 1978. Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 21:1-38.
Schaefer, J. 1989. Archaeological remains from the Medieval Islamic occupation of the northwest Negev
desert. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 274:33-60.
Scheftelowitz, N. 2004a. The pottery. Salvage Excavation Reports 1:37-58.
Scheftelowitz, N. 2004b. Stone artefacts. Salvage Excavation Reports 1:59-67.
Scheftelowitz, N. and Oren, R. 2004. Giv >at Ha-Oranim: A Chalcolithic site. Salvage Excavation Reports 1.
Schiffer, M.B. 1995. Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Schwartz, J.J. 1991. Lod (Lydda), Israel, from its Origins through the Byzantine Period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E.
(British Archaeological Reports International Series 571) Oxford.
Seetzen, U. J. 1854. Reisen durch Syrien, Palästina, Phönicien, die Transjordan-Länder, Arabia Petraea und
Unter-Aegypten, Band 2. Berlin.
Seger, K. 1981. Portrait of a Palestinian Village: The Photographs of Hilma Granqvist. London.
Seligman, J. 2001. Yet another Medieval tower and section of Jerusalem’s ancient walls (Armenian Patriarchate
Road). >Atiqot 42:261-276.
Shalem, D. 2002. Nevé Ur – an Early Islamic period village in the Bet She’an Valley. >Atiqot 43:149-176.
Shemueli, O. 1995. Tel Yehud. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15:64-65.
Shemueli, O. 1998a. Ono. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18:115.
Shemueli, O. 1998b. Tel Yehud. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20:53*.
Shimelmitz, R. 2002. Technological Aspects of the Flint Industry from the Kebaran Site of Nahal Hadera V.
(M.A Thesis, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv. (Hebrew)
Shimelmitz, R. and Rosen, S. A. Forthcoming. The flint assemblage of Beit Yeraú.
Simpson, St J. 1995. Death and burial in the Late Islamic Near East: Some insights from archaeology and
ethnography. In: Campbell, S. and Green, A., eds. The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East.
Oxford. pp. 240-251.
Simpson, St J. 2000. The clay pipes. In: Harper, R. and Pringle, D., eds. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a
Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology
No. 10) Oxford. pp. 147-171.
Simpson, St J. 2002. Ottoman Pipes from Zir >in (Tell Jezreel). Levant 34:159-172.
Singer, K. 2004. The pottery assemblage from the excavations at Sarafand el-Kharab, Nes üiyyona. >Atiqot 46:
49-58. (Hebrew)
Sion, O. 2004. An Early Islamic period settlement in Ramla. >Atiqot 46:67-92. (Hebrew)
Sion, O. 2007. Newe Monosson. îadashot Arkheologiyot 119 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il).
Socin, A. 1879. Alphabetisches Verzeichniss von Ortschaften des Paschalik Jerusalem. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 2:135-163.
Solecki, R.L. and Solecki, R.S. 1970. A new secondary flaking technique at the Nahr Ibrahim cave site,
Lebanon. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 23:137-142.
Spaer, M. 1988. The Pre-Islamic glass bracelets of Palestine. Journal of Glass Studies 30:51-61.
Spaer, M. 1992. The Islamic glass bracelets of Palestine: Preliminary findings. Journal of Glass Studies 34:44-62.
Spaer, M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects. Jerusalem.
Stacey, D. 1988-89. Umayyad and Egyption Red-Slip "A" Ware from Tiberias. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel
Archaeological Society 8:21-33.
Stacey, D. 2004, ed. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973-1974. The Early Islamic Periods. (IAA Reports 21)
Jerusalem.
126
Stephan. St.H. 1944. An Endowment Deed of Khāsseki Sultān, Dated the 25th May 1552. Quarterly of the
Department of Antiquities in Palestine 10:170-194.
Stern, E. 1978. Stratum I: The Crusader-Muslim cemetery. In: Stern, E., ed. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh
(1973-1976). (Qedem 9) Jerusalem. pp. 4-9.
Stern, E. J. 1997. Excavation of the Courthouse Site at ‘Akko: The pottery of the Crusader and Ottoman
periods. >Atiqot 31:35-70.
Stern, E. J. 1999. The pottery of the thirteenth-fifteenth centuries from Giv >at Yasaf (Tell er-Ras). >Atiqot 37:
125-136. (Hebrew)
Stern, E. J. and Stacey, D.A. 2000. An eleventh-century pottery assemblage from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya.
Levant 32:171-177.
Stillman, Y. K. 1979. Palestinian Costume and Jewelry. Albuquerque.
Sussman, V. 1969. Ancient burial cave at Reúovot. >Atiqot 5:69-71. (Hebrew)
Sussman, V. 1983. The Samaritan oil lamps from Apollonia-Arsuf. Tel Aviv 10:71-96.
Syon, D. 1999. Horbat Ne‘tar. îadashot Arkheologiyot 109:44*-45*.
Syon, D. 2002. Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika, 1991, 1993. The Church. In: Gal, Z., ed. Eretz Zafon:
Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. pp. 255-162. (Hebrew)
Taçon, P. 1991. The power of stone: Symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in Western Arnhem
Land, Australia. Antiquity 65:192-207.
Taha, H. 1997. A salvage excavation at the Abudiyah Church in Abud – Samaria. Liber Annuus 47:359-374.
Taxel, I. 2005. The Transition between the Byzantine and the Early Islamic Periods (the 7th Century) as seen
through Rural Settlement – îorvat Zikhrin as a Case Study. (M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University) Tel
Aviv. (Hebrew)
Taxel, I. 2006a. Ceramic evidence for beekeeping in Palestine in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods. Levant
38:203-212.
Taxel, I. 2006b. A salvage excavation and survey in the environs of Mazor. Salvage Excavation Reports 3:
22-39.
Taxel, I. and Feldstein, A. 2006. Khirbet Ibreica: A rural settlement in the southeastern Sharon plain. Salvage
Excavation Reports 3:40-68.
Toombs, L. E. 1985. Tell el-îesi: Modern Military Trenching and Muslim Cemetery in Field I, Strata I-II. (The
Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell El-îesi, Vol. II) Ontario.
Tubb, J. N. 1986. The pottery from a Byzantine well near Tell Fara. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 118:51-65.
Tushingham, A. D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Vol. I. (British Academy Monographs in
Archaeology 002) Toronto.
Urman, D. 2004. Nessana excavations 1987-1995. In: Urman, D., ed. Nessana Excavations and Studies I.
(Beer-Sheva 17) Beer-Sheva. pp. 1*-119*.
Uscatescu, A. 2003. Report on the Levant Pottery (5th-9th Century AD). In: VIIe Congrès International sur la
Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11-16 Octobre 1999. Athéns. pp. 546-558.
Ustinova, Y. and Nahshoni, P. 1994. Salvage excavations in Ramot Nof, Be’er Sheva. >Atiqot 25:157-177.
Vaqrot, O. 1977. The Historical Geography of Lod. Lod (Hebrew)
van der Kooij, G. and Ibrahim, M. M., eds. 1989. Picking Up the Threads: A Continuing Review of Excavations
at Deir Alla, Jordan. Leiden.
Vitto, F. Forthcoming. A Muslim cemetery at Kafr ‘Ana (Or Yehuda). >Atiqot .
von den Driesch, A. and Boessneck, J. 1995. Final report of the zooarchaeological investigation of animal
bone finds from Tell îesban, Jordan. In: LaBianca, Ø. S. and von den Driesch, A., eds. îesban, Vol.
13: Faunal Remains: Taphonomical and Zooarchaeological Studies of the Animal Remains from Tell
îesban and Vicinity. Berrien Springs, MI. pp. 65-108.
127
Waldbaum, J.C. 1983. Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds through 1974. (Monograph/ Archaeological
Expedition of Sardis 8) Cambridge.
Walker, B.J. 2001. The Late Ottoman cemetery in Field L, Tall îisban. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 322:47-65.
Walmsley, A. 1995. Tradition, innovation, and imitation in the material culture of Islamic Jordan: The first
four centuries. In: ‘Amr, K., Zayadine, F. and Zghloul, N., eds. Studies in the History and Archaeology
of Jordan, Vol. 5: Art and Technology throughout the Ages. Amman. pp. 657-668.
Walmsley, A. 1997-1998. Settled life in the Mamlûk Jordan. Views of the Jordan valley from Faúl (Pella). Aram
9-10:129-143.
Watson, P. 1992. Change in foreign and regional economic links with Pella in the seventh century A.D.: The
ceramic evidence. In: Canivet, P. and Rey-Coquais, J.-P., eds. La Syrie de Byzance a l’Islam VIIe-VIIIe
Siècles: Actes du Colloque International, Lyon-Mayson de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Paris – Institute du
Monde Arabe, 11-15 Septembre 1990. Damascus. pp. 233-248.
Watson, P. 1995. Ceramic evidence for Egyptian links with northern Jordan in the 6th-8th centuries AD. In:
Bourke, S. and Descoeudres, J-P., eds. Trade, Contact, and the Movements of Peoples in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy. (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 003)
Sydney. pp. 303-324.
Weir, S. 1989. Palestinian Costume. London.
Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2000. Yad Benyamin. îadashot Arkheologiyot 112:98*-100*.
Wightman, G. J. 1989. The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Excavations by C. M. Bennett and J. B. Hennessy at
the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 519)
Oxford.
Woolley, C.L. and Lawrence, T. E. 2003. The Wilderness of Zin (Revised Edition). Winona Lake.
Yannai, E. 2004. Yehud. îadashot Arkheologiyot 116:35*-36*.
Yannai, E. and Maeder, O. 2000. Lod. îadashot Arkheologiyot 112:63-65.
Yeivin, S. 1961. First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel Gat (Tell Sheykh Aúmed el-‘Areyny),
Seasons 1956-1958. Jerusalem.
Yellin, J., Levy, T.E. and Rowan Y.M. 1996. New evidence on Prehistoric trade routes: The obsidian evidence
from Gilat, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:361-368.
Ziadeh, G. 1995a. Ethno-history and ‘reverse chronology’ at Ti‘innik, a Palestinian village. Antiquity 99:999-
1008.
Ziadeh, G. 1995b. Ottoman ceramics recovered from Ti‘innik, Palestine. Levant 27:209-245.
Ziadeh-Seely, G. 2000. The archaeology of Ottoman Ti‘innik: An interdisiplinary approach. In: Baram, U. and
Carroll, L., eds. A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground. New York.
pp. 79-91.
128
LIST OF LOCI
THE SETTLEMENT
Locus Square Description
1040 13 Topsoil
1041 13 Fill
1042 12 Topsoil
1043 13 Refuse pit
1044 13 Refuse pit
1045 12 Fill
1046 13 Refuse pit
1047 12 Fill
1048 13 Fill
1049 12 Fill
1050 14-19 Fill and layer of mud bricks
1051 14-19 Sandy soil
1053 14-19 Fill and layer of mud bricks
1054 14-19 Fill
1055 13 Fill
1056 12 Fill
1057 12 Fill
1058 14-19 Fill
1059 12 Fill
1060 13 Fill
1061 12 End of fill and virgin soil
1062 14-19 Dismantling layer of mud bricks
1063 13 Virgin soil and burial remains
1064 13 Burial remains
1065 14-19 Fill
1066 14-19 Fill
2000 7 Topsoil
2001 5 Topsoil
2002 6 Topsoil
2003 4 Topsoil
2004 7 Fill above floor
2005 7 Fill
2006 6 Fill and stone collapse
2008 (=2021) 7 Dismantling of WB 10
2010 7 Topsoil
2011 (=2027) 4 Fill and stone collapse
2012 4 Fill
2013 7 Fill
2014 7 Fill
2016 5 Dismantling of stone collapse
2017 5 Cleaning of floor
2018 (=2019) 5 Dismantling of floor
2020 4 Dismantling of WB 1
2022 5 Dismantling of floor
2023 5 Fill
2024 (=2036) 5 Refuse pit
2025 5 Refuse pit
2028 4 Fill
2030 5 Fill
129
2031 5 Fill
2032 4 Fill
2035 4 Fill
2036 5 Refuse pit
2038 5 Fill
2039 4 Fill
2041 4 Fill
2042 4 Fill
2044 5 Fill
2046 4 Fill
2049 4 Fill above tabun
2050 27 Topsoil
2051 4 Fill
2052 27 Fill
2053 27 Fill
2054 25 Topsoil
2055 24 Topsoil
2056 27 Fill
2057 (=2058, 2063) 27 Fill
2059 27 Fill
2061 27 Fill
2062 25 Fill
2064 27 Pit
2065 27 Fill
2066 (=2076) 27 Fill
2067 24 Fill
2068 24 Fill
2069 (=2070) 26 Topsoil above floor
2071 25 Refuse pit
2072 25 Floor (?)
2073 25 Fill
2074 25 Refuse pit
2075 23 Topsoil above virgin soil
2077 27 Fill
2078 27 Fill
2079 28 Topsoil
2081 25 Fill
2082 24 Fill
2083 28 Fill
2085 27 Fill
2086 24 Fill above virgin soil
2087 25 Refuse pit
2088 25 Refuse pit
2090 24 Virgin soil
2091 25 Pit
130
2095 28 Fill
2097 29 Virgin soil
3000 11 Topsoil
4000 34 Topsoil
4001 34 Fill
4002 2 Topsoil
4003 9 Topsoil
4004 1 Topsoil (no finds)
4005 (=4006, 4008) 2 Fill above virgin soil
4007 (=4014, 4021) 9 Refuse pit above virgin soil
4009 8 Topsoil above refuse pit
4010 3 Topsoil
4011 2 Virgin soil
4012 8 Fill
4013 8 Fill
4015 (=4017, 4020) 8 Refuse pit
4016 8 Refuse pit
4018 3 Fill
4019 8 Dismantling of WD 1
4022 8 Refuse pit
4024 3 Fill
4025 8 Refuse pit
4028 3 Fill
4029 3 Fill
4030 31 Topsoil above walls and floor
4031 31 Pit
4033 35 Topsoil
4034 29 Topsoil
4035 31 Pit
4038 29 Stone collapse above walls
4039 (=4040) 29 Fill
4041 29 Fill
4042 29 Fill
4043 31 Floor
4044 35 Cleaning of floor
4045 31 Fill
4046 33 Topsoil
4047 32 Topsoil
4048 31 Dismantling of WD 5
4050 31 Fill
4051 31 Fill
4052 10 Topsoil
4053 33 Fill
4054 32 Fill
4055 31 Fill
4056 31 Fill
4057 31 Fill
4058 33 Fill
4059 33 Fill
131
MUSLIM CEMETERY1
001 53-55 Topsoil
003 55 Topsoil
004 53-54, 57-58 Sandy soil
005 81-82 Excavation of grave W011
007 53-54, 57-58 Sandy soil
008 85 Topsoil
010 58 Sandy soil
011 86 Sandy soil
012 89 Sandy soil
014 85 = Grave W035
015 85 = Grave W036
017 55 Sandy soil
019 58 Excavation of grave W003
020 55 Pile of bones near grave W003
025 90 Sandy soil
026 91 Sandy soil
027 92 Sandy soil
030 54, 58 Excavation of grave W004
032 87, 91 Sandy soil
034 61-62 Topsoil
038 87 Sandy soil
039 77, 83 Sandy soil
1. In a few cases the same locus number was given in error to two different graves. In order to prevent confusion, the duplicate
grave is marked with asterisk (*).
132
058 78-79 Topsoil
059 84 Topsoil
065 53-54 Topsoil
066 70-71 Topsoil
067 70-71 Excavation around graves
073 (=082) 89 Excavation of grave W042 (=W093)
079 64 Topsoil
080 69-70 Topsoil
081 71 Topsoil
083 87, 91 Excavation of burial (?) structure
091 (=113) 90 Excavation of grave W043
096 (=149) 62 Excavation of grave W070
104 90 Row of jars on grave W042
112 87, 91 Excavation of burial (?) structure
114 87 Excavation of burial (?) structure
133
119 74 Topsoil
125 96 Topsoil
126 96 Topsoil
1070 75-76, 79-80 Excavation around graves
1073 95 Excavation around graves
1074 46-48 Topsoil
1075 98-98 Excavation around grave
1093 107-108 Excavation of Grave W38
1083 49 Excavation around grave
1090 104-105, 109-110 Excavation around graves
134
1100 113-114 Excavation around grave
1105 49 Excavation of Grave W24
1109 ? Excavation around graves
1119 36 Topsoil
1144 104-195, 109-110 Excavation of Grave W96
1147 38 Excavation of Grave W100*
135
W001 59 Grave
W002 58-59 Grave
W003 58 Grave
W004 54, 58 Grave
W005 58 Grave
W006 58 Grave
W007 53-54 Grave
W009 81-82 Grave
W010 81-82 Grave
W011 81 Grave
W012 56 Grave
W013 86 Grave
W014 86 Grave
W015 54, 58 Grave
W016 58 Grave
W017 53 Grave
W018 53, 57 Grave
W020 65-66 Grave
W021 66 Grave
W022 66 Grave
W023 66 Grave
W024 66 Grave
W025 66 Grave
W026 67 Grave
W027 67 Grave
W028 67 Grave
W029 66-67 Grave
W030 55 Grave
W031 55 Grave
W032 55 Grave
W033 77, 83 Grave
W034 85 Grave
W037 53 Grave
W038 53 Grave
W039 59 Grave
W041 85 Grave
W042 89 Grave
W043 90 Grave
W044 90 Grave
W045 91 Grave
W046 91 Grave
W047 91 Grave
W048 91 Grave
W049 91 Grave
W051 91 Grave
W052 92 Grave
W053 92 Grave
W054 92 Grave
W055 92 Grave
W056 92 Grave
W057 92 Grave
136
W059 87, 91 Grave
W060 87, 91 Grave
W061 87, 91 Grave
W064 87 Grave
W065 55 Grave
W066 63 Grave
W067 62-63 Grave
W068 62 Grave
W069 62 Grave
W070 62 Grave
W071 61 Grave
W072 55 Grave
W073 61 Grave
W075 61 Grave
W076 61 Grave
W078 61 Grave
W079 60 Grave
W081 65 Grave
W082 58 Grave
W083 58 Grave
W084 55 Grave
W085 54 Grave
W086 54 Grave
W087 53 Grave
W089 77, 83 Grave
W090 83 Grave
W091 83 Grave
W092 77, 83 Grave
W094 71, 73 Grave
W095 69 Grave
W096 69-70 Grave
W097 70 Grave
W098 73 Grave
W099 73 Grave
W100 73 Grave
W101 72 Grave
W103 87, 91 Grave
W104 77, 83 Grave
W105 87-88 Grave
W106 87-88 Grave
W107 87-88 Grave
W108 87-88 Grave
W109 87-88 Grave
W110 64 Grave
W111 64 Grave
W115 74 Grave
W122 78-79 Grave
W123 78-79 Grave
W124 78-79 Grave
W125 84 Grave
W126 84 Grave
W127 84 Grave
W128 84 Grave
W132 96 Grave
W133 96 Grave
W134 96 Grave
W135 96 Grave
W15 46-48 Grave
W16 46-48 Grave
137

W17 46-48 Grave
W22 46-48 Grave
W24 49 Grave
W27 49-50 Grave
W29 49-50 Grave
W30 49-50 Grave
W31 45 Grave
W32 45 Grave
W33 49-50 Grave
W34 108 Grave
W35 108 Grave
W36 108 Grave
W38 107-108 Grave
W42 109-112 Grave
W41 109-112 Grave
W44 109-112 Grave
W45 109-112 Grave
W46 109-112 Grave
W47 109-112 Grave
W49 109-112 Grave
W50 109-112 Grave
W53 109-112 Grave
W54 109-112 Grave
W55 43 Grave
W57 43 Grave
W59 43 Grave
W60 41-42 Grave
W62 109-112 Grave
W62* 41-42 Grave
W63 41-42 Grave
W65 41-42 Grave
W66 41-42 Grave
W67 41-42 Grave
W68 41-42 Grave
W73 39-40 Grave
W74 39-40 Grave
W77 42 Grave
W78 51-52 Grave
W79 51-52 Grave
W81 51-52 Grave
W82 51-52 Grave
W83 51-52 Grave
W84 51-52 Grave
W85 51-52 Grave
W90 104-105, 109-110 Grave
W91 104-105, 109-110 Grave
W95 104-105, 109-110 Grave
W96 104-105, 109-110 Grave
W98 104-105, 109-110 Grave
W99 38 Grave
W100* 37 Grave
W101* 37 Grave
W103* 36 Grave
W105* 36 Grave
W106* 37 Grave
138
KHIRBET AL-KHURRUMIYA
A FATIMID FARMHOUSE IN NORTHERN ISRAEL
Lisa Yehuda
In November 2001 a salvage excavation (License and the new excavation areas (A3) to reveal the
No. B-244/01) was conducted under the direction western continuation of the farmhouse (Fig. 1).
of Andrej Tas at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya. The Several walls which could be connected to the
project was carried out on behalf of the Sonia previously excavated architectural features as
and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel well as some new rooms were unearthed: Room
Aviv University. The pottery was drawn by Alina 4, west of Room 3, measuring 3.7m x 4.4m,
Speshilov and the plans were drawn by Andrej Tas. Room 5, west of Room 4, measuring 4m x 4.5m
and the western continuation of the courtyard
INTRODUCTION separated by a north-south oriented wall from its
eastern part and called Room 6. During the final
The site is located on the northern bank of Naúal
excavation in 2001 the complete southern part of
îazor, approximately 1.5 km southwest of ancient
the house was excavated.
îazor (Map Ref. 20260 26915).
The excavation expanded an area previously
ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY
excavated in 1992 by the Israel Antiquities Authority
under the supervision of Hanna Abu Uqsa (1997: The location of the structure in an isolated position
19). Several walls demarcating three inner rooms, in an exclusively agricultural area defines it as a
living and sleeping areas, Rooms 2 and 3 (5.5m x rural building.
2.6m and 7m x 4.2m respectively), a storage room, By the end of the 2001 season the complete
Room 1 (7.5m x 3.5m) and an adjoining courtyard layout of the building was seen to consist of several
east of Room 1 were unearthed. The structure rooms (Fig. 2) along the southern side of a wide
was interpreted by Abu Uqsa as the eastern part courtyard (Room 1) measuring 18.3m x 3.5m,
of a rural building from the early Islamic period. originally identified by Stern and Stacey as an
A preliminary internal report simply described the inner room (2000:171). Such a plan characterises
walls and dated the pottery found within. Some this house as a typical complex dwelling.
years later Edna Stern and David Stacey conducted a The outer walls of the farmhouse seem to
detailed examination of the pottery assemblage and have been built more or less at the same time.
assigned it exclusively to the 11th century (Stern Except for Room 2 of the 1991 excavation,
and Stacey 2000:171). Additionally a very brief which may be a later addition, no building
attempt was made to relate certain walls and the joins are visible. On the contrary, all the
pottery found within to different functions. walls are properly interlocked and therefore
The 2001 season included eight 5mx5m contemporary. On closer examination the walls
squares (A1-A9)) set to the west of the 1991 display some distinctive architectural features.
excavation area and two additional half squares; The selection of building materials for different
one to the east (B1) and one connecting the old walls varied. W22, W24, W25 were built of
139
Lisa Yehuda
Fig. 1: Schematic plan of the two excavation seasons.
fieldstones as was W21 but the stones of the first considerably larger stones than the upper courses
course here were roughly dressed. Another wall, and replaces a missing foundation.
W26, was composed of boulders and smaller stones Several walls have doorways that lead into
likewise roughly dressed. W20, W26, W10 and W28 other rooms or into the areas outside the building.
in contrast were built of fieldstones and boulders. Some of these doorways were later blocked but
Wall W29 (Fig. 3) was built completely of rough some continued their original function.
slab-like stones which were erected perpendicular. Doorways are visible in W24 and W10. Also
One of the stones shows a drain and was probably W25, W21 and W20 show doorways, but were
used in olive oil production. After it fell from blocked in a later occupation phase. W28 and W26
use it was integrated in the wall’s construction in do not bond with W24 and W25 respectively and
secondary use. the gaps in between may be taken as doorways.
All the walls are double-rowed. The outer Also the join between W11, W25 and W10 is
row has large stones, as this guarantees a better problematic. All three walls do not bond together,
protection of the wall construction against wind but it is unclear if this situation is the result of a
and weather. The inner row is built mainly of later, accidental destruction or of an intentional
smaller stones and shows more similarity to a wall opening to create a new entrance. Nevertheless
covering than to a real row. it is possible to assume that there was probably a
Another feature that all the walls have in connection between W25 and W10. It is unlikely
common is that the first course was built of that a doorway would be set exactly in the corner
140
Khirbet al-Khurrumiya
of a room. A connection between W25 and W11

seems unlikely and the gap between those two
walls may be considered as an entrance.
Altogether there is a complexity of open and
blocked doorways and the manner of blocking
entrances and additional installed walls sheds light
on earlier and later division of occupation spaces
between families or different groups of people.
Before starting to examine the architectural
evidence, some generally accepted facts must be
considered:
Protection of privacy was the most important
principle in Islamic architecture, not only in houses Fig. 2: Rooms 4 and 5, looking northwest.
of wealthy owners and/or in densely settled urban
centres, but also in more modest houses in isolated
rural areas. In the lower social classes privacy
was more important than a symmetrical layout of
a building, a nice view or generous aeration and
lighting (Krauss 1910:42-50). The attempt to separate
private spaces from the outside world is reflected in
inwardly constructed buildings. Small and highly
placed windows and staggered entranceways
guaranteed the minimum possible insight into other
people’s lives (Velenis 1979:227-229).
Within a building dwelling spaces were
separated according to different degrees of
privacy. Entrance areas had a lower degree of
privacy than kitchens, but kitchens and living
areas in turn were less private than sleeping areas. Fig. 3: Wall 29. looking northwest.
The higher the degree of privacy, the more shut
off a room was inside the house complex. For
architectural reasons, therefore, internal rooms
very often suffered from a lack of direct supply PHASE1
of air and light. Thus sleeping areas, in the most Altogether four rooms can be distinguished in the
secluded areas of a house, were the poorest lit and earliest occupation of the building (Phase 1). The
ventilated areas of a dwelling. ones to the east were excavated in 1992 and those
On the other hand, kitchens were highly on west in 2001 (Fig. 4).
frequented and busy and had a lower degree of Room 1 was a long courtyard that stretched
privacy. Therefore they needed a direct supply of over the whole east-west extension of the building.
air and light and were generally located close to the Based on Islamic building traditions and for
house’s periphery. technical and lighting reasons the definition of
The location of a room in an architectural this area as courtyard seems logical. All the other
context is therefore essential for understanding its rooms (3, 4 and 5) had direct access to this area.
functions. However, room functions were not stable Rooms 3 and 5 in particular had their only external
and many rooms were multifunctional areas which openings into Room 1 and would be cut off from
rotated their functions according to season. air and light, unless it was a courtyard.
141
Lisa Yehuda
Because of its central location and its Inside the house the connecting doorway
connecting character, Room4 should be assigned between Rooms 4 and 5 was blocked, isolating
first of all as a central entrance area but very the latter from the eastern part of the building.
probably served also as a kitchen or working Additionally a semi-circular dividing wall (W29)
area. A single function as an entrance area in an was erected west of the remaining doorway that
isolated building with rural character like that divided a western space (2m x 2m) from the
excavated seems wasteful (Ellis 1991:119-123). eastern part of Room 5. (Figs. 7 and 8)
Room 5 must have served as a living and sleeping Room 5 seems to have been transformed into
area. It opens only into inner domestic areas and is a partially roofed courtyard which was used as a
relatively isolated from external areas. Connected to summer and winter kitchen: One may assume that
Room 4 on the east was Room 3 which, apart from the ceiling that once covered Room 5 collapsed and
this internal connection, has another opening into the inhabitants decided to leave this area unroofed
the courtyard. This room, too, should be identified and utilise it as an additional courtyard. W29 was
as a living and sleeping area. then erected to serve as a support for a partial roof
Summing up, in Phase 1 the building was that covered the north-western corner – the area of
probably divided into two dwelling units, one the summer kitchen.
consisting of Room 5 and the second being Room 1, the original large courtyard, was
Room 3. Room 4 in between those two units may divided in two parts and the newly separated
have served as the central and connecting area western part of the courtyard was designated Room
used as an indoor kitchen during wintertime. 6. Such repartition of dwelling spaces, regardless
of whether inner or outer areas, would only have
PHASE 2 been necessary if the family increased and required
In the second phase a few doorways were blocked additional delimited dwelling spaces.
and new functions for several rooms emerged Room 6 may have been transformed into a
(Fig. 5). The general layout of the building seems closed space and was maybe provided with a roof,
now more inwardly oriented and even defensive. but archaeological evidence is missing and so this
The exit of Room 4 into the areas outside assumption is speculative. However, if Room 6 was
the house was blocked and therewith a strict roofed to serve as a living and sleeping area, the
separation between the area south of the building identification of Room 5 as an additional courtyard
as outside and the inside of the dwelling complex that served as a kitchen seems quite likely. Or, vice
was made. (Fig. 6) versa, identifying Room 5 as an additional courtyard,
With the exception of Room 2 it seems that no providing the divided western part of Room 1 (now
other rooms possessed a second storey. The stone Room 6) with a roof becomes logical. The addition of
bases found in Rooms 3 and 4 were probably bases a courtyard (Room 5) to another courtyard (Room 6),
for wooden pillars which carried a lightweight roof as it would appear if Room 6 stayed unroofed, would
construction made of wooden beams and branches. signify the waste of valuable inner dwelling space
Moreover the walls of Rooms 4 and 5 were quite and contradict the need of space that the layout of the
thin (only 40-70cm) and therefore too flimsy to farmhouse during Phase 2 demonstrates.
carry weight. Room 4 was converted in Phase 2 into a
The massive construction of Room 2 and its completely closed room. The entrance-like character
positioning next to the only remaining exit into the of Phase 1 disappeared and the room was transformed
outer areas indicates its function as a tower-like into an area with a more isolated character. Almost
feature which was added as a defensive element in all doorways were blocked and the only remaining
times of danger and maybe served as a refuge for access was via Room 3. Therefore the function of
the inhabitants of the building and safe storage for Room 4 may have changed from an entrance and
belongings of value. kitchen area to a living and sleeping area.
142
Fig. 4: Schematic plan of Phase I.
Fig. 5: Schematic plan of Phase 2.
143
Lisa Yehuda
East of Room 3 an additional room (Room 2)

was erected. This room was identified by Abu
Uqsa as a sleeping area on the basis of a bench-
like podium in the north-western corner of the
room (Abu Uqsa 1997:19). However, the location
of the room within the house and the position of
the platform do not sustain such a function. The
platform’s size and position may identify it rather
as the base of a stairway leading up to a second
storey. This theory is supported by the thickness
of the walls which reached 1.1m wide and were
massive enough to carry another floor.
Room 3 also underwent some changes in
Phase 2. The original broad room was divided by
Fig. 6: Room 4, looking south.
a wall into an eastern (Room 3B) and a western
room (Room 3A). The former could now have
served as a sleeping area while the latter maybe
took over the function of Room 4 as a central
entrance area, kitchen and working area.
Deducing from the architectural changes, it
seems that during Phase 2 additional dwelling
space became necessary. More families resulted
in spatial constriction which led to the creation
of new dwelling spaces by roofing open areas
(Room 6) and rearranging already existing
units. The formerly spacious dwelling unit Room
3 was divided into a smaller dwelling unit (Room
3B) and a central area (Room 3A). Room 4 was
transformed into a dwelling unit which shared a
kitchen and working area (Room 3A) with unit
Room 3B. Room 5 became now exclusively the
Fig. 7: Rooms 4 and 5, looking west.
kitchen area of an independent dwelling unit
(Room 6).
The newly-created Room 6 appears to have
been necessary to accommodate an extended and
partially separately-living family - maybe the
original nuclear family and a son’s family. This
would explain why two dwelling units (Room 3B +
Room 4) continue the concept of a shared working
and kitchen area, while Room 6 possessed its own
kitchen area.
Construction of a tower-like room (Room 2) in
the southeastern corner of the complex in Phase 2
and the blocking of all external entrances attests
to an increasing need for security.
Fig. 8: Room 5, looking south.
144
POTTERY are very similar in form to the groups of unglazed

bowls at Yoqne >am (Avissar 1996: Type 4 plain
TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY bowls IV) and Khirbet el Mefjer (Baramki 1944:
Ceramic types excavated at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya Fig. 8:1-15), but should be assigned to Type 8 of the
range from bowls, frying pans, cooking-pots and monochrome glazed ware at Yoqne >am (Avissar
lids to juglets, jugs and storage jars. 1996: Fig. XIII.8:5-9).
The group of bowls is by far the largest, The last group (Fig. 9:11-14) consists of
followed by storage jars and cooking-pots. Jugs are hemispherical bowls with everted and flattened
also a quite large group, but unfortunately only the rims. These bowls are polychrome or monochrome
bases of jars were preserved. Therefore this group glazed in ochre/brown-black, green/ochre and
will not be included in the typological analysis. purple. The glaze was splashed outside over the
The smallest groups in the assemblage comprise rim. In form these bowls are similar to the imitated
of frying pans and juglets. Also only bases of celadon ware from Yoqne > am (Avissar 1996: Type1
juglets were preserved, which are not useful for a 4, Imitation Celadon Ware) and to the plain bowls
typological analysis. from Khirbet el Mefjer (Baramki 1944:Fig.12:20,
22), but should be assigned also to Type 8 of the
BOWLS monochrome glazed bowls and especially to Fig.
The corpus of the group of bowls consists mainly XIII.8:1 from Yoqne >am (Avissar 1996). Bowls
of glazed bowls. Unglazed bowls are represented with a similar form but much more richly decorated
in a much lower percentage. were found at Tiberias were they were assigned to
Mainly three types of bowl forms can be the ‘later matt glazed ware with out-turned rims’
differentiated: (Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.19:9-13). They first appear
The first and largest group (Fig. 9:1-6) is in the early >Abbasid period and disappear during
composed of bowls with a cyma-recta form, the early Fatimid period. The decoration seems to
identical to the cyma-recta bowls found at Tiberias be more elaborate during the former period and
(Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.25:3-7). The rim is slightly becomes poorer and less geometrical during the
everted and the body is double-carinated directly latter. The bowls from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya
under the rim. Inside they are monochrome glazed which show almost no decoration might be
in ochre, yellow or green on a whitish slip and therefore simply a development of the matt glazed
outside the glaze is splashed over the rim. In her bowls during the late Fatimid period.
article on the pottery assemblage of Khirbet al- Bowl Fig. 9:15 shows a rim and shoulder
Khurrumiya Stern assumed that this bowl type shape similar to common cooking-pots (Avissar
was locally produced at Tiberias, where they date 1996: Type 5, Fig. XIII.92:1-4) but seems to be a
to the 10th-11th centuries (Stern and Stacey 2000: modification of the cyma form bowl type from the
174). The large quantity of bowls identical in first group.
shape and glaze found during the second season Some bowls show a sgraffito technique on
of excavations at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya indeed green or brown-black glaze but unfortunately only
points to production of this bowl type nearby, i.e., bases of such bowls are preserved. Altogether
Tiberias. These cyma bowls were common during three pieces were counted. Two of them (Fig. 9:
the late 10th-11th centuries. 17-18) show a sgraffito corkscrew pattern, wavy
The second group (Fig. 9:7-10) consists of bowls lines between double outlines, very similar to
with straight, slightly thickened or pointed rims. the polychrome splashed and mottled sgraffito
The body is shallow and hemispherical. Inside ware from Yoqne >am (Avissar 1996: Type 7, Fig.
they are monochrome in green or ochre glazed or XIII. 7:2, 5 and 6) and the cyma-recta bowls from
polychrome in ochre and brown-black. Outside the Tiberias (Stracey 2004: Fig. 5.25: 6-9). The third
glaze is splashed over the rim. These simple bowls sgraffito bowl (Fig. 9:16) has an irregular pattern
145
Lisa Yehuda
of simple strokes on brown-black glaze. Taking to one group of frying pans with outwardly
into account that two of these bowls (Fig. 9.17- folded triangular rim, two horizontal handles
18) from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya have a simple and sometimes additional thumb-indented ledge
glaze and the third (Fig. 9:16) shows additionally handles. Figs. 10:3 and 10:4 are completely
only a simple sgraffito pattern, one may assume glazed inside in purple-brown, while the glaze
that they are already a poorer continuation of the of Fig. 10:2 covers only the bottom of the pan.
polychrome splashed and mottled sgraffito ware Similar frying pans were excavated at Yoqne >am
to more simple decorated monochrome glazed (Avissar 1996: Type 13, glazed frying pans),
sgraffito bowls (cf. Avissar 1996: Types 25-30). Akko (Pringle 1997: Fig.7:16), Caesarea (Brosh
Furthemore, the simplification of the corkscrew 1986:Fig.4: 15 and 17) and Tiberias (Stacey 2004:
pattern is clearly a simplified development that Fig. 5.32: 14, 15) where they were dated from
appears at the beginning of the 11th century. the late 9th century until the late Fatimid period
(1033-1100).
HANDMADE BOWLS
Three rim fragments of handmade bowls were COOKING-POTS
chosen for examination (Figs. 9:19, 20; 10:1). All are Two groups of cooking-pots are distinguishable.
large basins with straight rims, one with thumbnail The first group (Fig. 10:6-8) consists of pots
impressions right under the rim (Fig. 10:1), flat with a globular shape and slightly thickened and
bases and sloped walls. A basin similar to these outwardly turned rim. Sometimes a slight ridge
three was found during the 1991 excavation of appears at the base of the neck (Fig. 10:7, 8).
Khirbet al-Khurrumiya (Stern and Stacey 2000: As in the frying pans, two horizontal strip
Fig. 3:11). Related handmade vessels are reported handles are placed right below the rim and two
from Belmont Castle (Harper and Pringle 2000: additional thumb-indented ledge handles on
Fig.6.3:70-73), Emmaus-Qubeibeh (Bagatti 1993: the shoulder. Inside only the bottom of the pot
Fig.32:11-16) and Yoqne >am (Avissar 1996: Type is glazed and outside the glaze was splashed
33 plain handmade bowls), although they date to partially over the rim and/or the upper part of the
the Crusader and even Mamluk periods. Only at vessel. Cooking-pots of the same type were found
Tiberias were identical handmade bowls found at Capernaum (Loffreda 1983: Fig.9:4, 5, 7-9, 14-
which date to the first half of the 11th century 16, 18, 19) and Tiberias (Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.32:16,
(Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.16:3-5). 17) where they are dated to the 11th century and
According to the chronological context the especially its second half. At Yoqne >am cooking-
handmade bowls from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya pots appeared which have a fine ridge at the base
are earlier by far than the bowls from Emmaus- of the neck (Avissar 1996: Type 5 glazed cooking-
Qubeibeh, Yoqne >am or Belmont Castle. That pots) and show clearly the same basic shape as the
means handmade vessels which retained a form pots from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya. They are dated
reduced to a basic bin shape were very popular to the end of the 11th century, shortly before the
over several centuries and thus appeared likewise beginning of the Crusader period.
during the Early Islamic, Crusader and Mamluk The second group (Fig. 10:9-12) consists of
periods. cooking-pots with a short and straight neck,
slightly everted and rounded rims and a narrow
FRYING PANS carination immediately below the neck. No traces
Three profile pieces (Fig. 10:2-4) of purple-brown of glaze were found, either on the outside or on
glazed frying pans were preserved from the rim the inside of the pots. However, no complete
to the base and were therefore chosen for closer profiles were preserved but one can assume that
examination. the pots were glazed, probably in purple-brown,
Although different in shape, all pans belong only on the bottom of the interior. Similar pots
146
were excavated at Yoqne >am (Avissar 1996: Type related storage jars from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya
2 glazed cooking-pots), Caesarea (Brosh 1986: should be dated rather to the Fatimid period than to
Fig.4:4) and Tiberias (Stacey 2004:5.32:9) where the >Abbasid or even Umayyad periods.
they first appear in the late 9th century. The jars of the second group (Fig. 10:19-20)
Both groups date to the Early Islamic period have a short and tapering neck, a slightly outwardly
but their successor according to rim shape and pointing rim and sloping shoulders. Related shapes
neck form can be assigned to the Crusader period are the white painted storage jars from Yoqne >am
(compare here Avissar 1996: Type 6 cooking-pots (Avissar 1996: Type 4, esp. Fig. XIII.114:4) and
of the Crusader period). from the Red Tower (Pringle 2000: Fig.44:18).
The rim of a storage jar almost identical in
LIDS shape to those from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya was
Only one lid fragment was identified (Fig. 10:13). found at Caesarea (Boas 1992: Fig. 71:7) where
It belonged to a plain lid with a knob handle. The this type of storage jar was dated to the Fatimid/
upper part of the knob was accentuated by a circular Crusader period. However, examinination of the
ridge. Similar lids were found at Yoqne >am, where storage jars from the Crusader period excavated at
they form the largest group of Early Islamic lids Yoqne >am reveals a similar but not identical type
(Avissar 1996: Type 23), Caesarea (Brosh 1986: with a high tapering neck and everted triangular
Fig.4:13), Khirbet el-Mefjer (Baramki 1944: rim (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.119:1-5). This type
Fig.13:14-17, 21), Abu Gosh (de Vaux and Steve might be the successor to the clearly Fatimid type
1950: Pl. B:15, 16) and Tiberias (Stacey 2004: found at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya.
Fig.5.33:2). At all these sites this type of lid is Bag-shaped storage jars were very popular
exclusively assigned to the Early Islamic period, during the Roman and Byzantine periods and
first appearing during the 8th century. continued with slight modifications throughout
STORAGE JARS the Umayyad, >Abbasid and Fatimid periods into
the Crusader period.
Numerous fragments of storage jars were
found during the second season at Khirbet al- LAMPS
Khurrumiya, but only two specific groups became Only one lamp was found during the 2001
apparent (Fig. 10:5, 14-20). excavation (Fig. 10:21). It is a wheel-made discus
The jars of the first group (Fig. 10:5, 14-18) shaped lamp without any decoration. Parallels
have a straight and relatively long neck, a simply were found at Caesarea (Brosh 1986:71, Fig. 6:1)
pointed or rounded rim, sloping shoulder and are although the lamp there was slipped and glazed.
often decorated with multibrush white, angular Brosh misdated his lamp to the Crusader period,
lines on their shoulder. The body is bag-shaped notwithstanding that it actually dated to the first
with its widest diameter located near the base of half of the 11th century. The wheel-made lamps
the vessel. The jars of this group are paralleled at from Tiberias (Stacey 2004: Fig.6.21:4, 5) which are
Tiberias (Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.34:4, 5) where they similar to that found at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya are
date to the early 10th century. The related storage tentatively dated to the period between 1033-1100.
jars found at Yoqne >am (Avissar 1996: Fig XIII.114:
1-5) date from the 9th to the 11th century, but have SUMMARY
a more globular body and more elaborate rim All chronological dates point to the mid-late
profiles than those found at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya. 11th century. Although the life-span of some
According to some modifications which occur vessel types exceeds a period of 50 years by
during the Umayyad, >Abbasid and Fatimid periods far, type development indicating a later Fatimid
- disappearing body ribbing and especially more continuation of Umayyad or >Abbasid vessel forms
sloping shoulders and simpler rim forms - the and a complete overlapping of all time spans in the
147
Fig. 9: Pottery.
148
Fig. 10: Pottery (continued).
149
Lisa Yehuda
second half of the 11th century relates the pottery In contrast, pottery assemblages always
assemblage from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya to the define the most recent manner of use of different
late Fatimid period. rooms. Therefore spatially bonded pottery
Furthermore two distinctive features became assemblages are of great value for the assignation
apparent in the course of the pottery examination: of room functions as they support or contradict
1. The short period of settlement at the farmhouse architectural considerations.
at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya is manifested in In peaceful times abandonment of a dwelling
a clear emergence of some dominant vessel for economic or family reasons was normally
types. accompanied by a well-balanced process of taking
2. This would imply that occupation of the along and leaving behind. Nothing of value was
farmhouse did not exceed a time-span of 50 left but otherwise a home, even if no longer useful,
years since some vessel types reached their had its own dignity and this was respected. Once
zenith at the end of the 11th century. deserted, the house was left to crumble if there was
In consideration of these two aspects, the no intention of building on the existing walls.
most popular vessel types for the mid-to-late 11th The quantity and variety of archaeological
century in rural areas of the upper Galilee are: finds in a peacefully abandoned dwelling is
1. Cyma-recta shaped, green or yellow glazed remarkably lower than in houses unintentionally
bowls with and without sgraffito from a local and abruptly deserted due to wars, epidemics or
production centre at Tiberias. natural disasters (Ault and Newett 1999:48-50).
2. Flat based, purple-brown glazed frying pans Yet even if only a faint echo of daily life and work,
with triangular rims. the remnants after an orderly departure are still
3. Globular cooking-pots with bottom glaze in meaningful enough to shed considerable light on
purple-brown and a slightly thickened and function and use of domestic spaces.
outwardly turned rim. Before starting the ceramic analysis, some
4. Cooking-pots with a narrow carination right basic principles about pottery and its contribution
below the neck. to the identification of room functions should
5. Storage jars with a simple pointed or rounded be stated. Firstly it must be emphasised that
rim, sloping shoulders, a relatively long neck pottery only suggests the type of activities which
and occasional decoration with multibrush were mainly, but not exclusively, carried out in
white angular lines. a particular spatially bounded area. Therefore
the identification of only a single function for a
ORGANIZATION OF DOMESTIC SPACE certain area on the basis of ceramic analysis might
be quite incorrect.
Although the different rooms at the farmhouse at
There are mainly three groups of vessel types
Khirbet al-Khurrumiya were assigned to different
which are used in dwelling complexes.
functions on architectural grounds, the picture
Immobile vessels. This group includes all pottery
would not be complete without analysis of the
items which due to their weight and/or function
pottery assemblages found in these rooms.
remain in one place, e.g. long-term storage vessels
Walls were built, broken down and added,
like storage jars and amphorae.
doorways were blocked and opened and the
Conditionally movable vessels. These include
original layout of a dwelling house underwent
those vessels assigned to certain spatially bounded
several changes. Accordingly, walls are often
functions, for example cooking-pots, frying pans
manifestations of the first intention of use of its
and mortaria. This group of vessels is movable, but
builders but do not necessarily correspond with the
normally remains close to its place of use.
final or real use of dwelling spaces (Putzeys et al.
Non restrictive movable vessel types. This group
2004:32-33).
includes all vessels which are not related to
150
a single room function, e.g. plates, bowls, jugs, On the basis of the ceramic analysis Room
juglets and lamps. 5 clearly served as a kitchen and multipurpose
Based upon the distribution of various vessels, area. The ceramic assemblage of Room 4 shows
assignment of room functions is possible. Cooking- a different distribution of pottery types from that
pots, frying pans and mortaria are doubtlessly and in Room 5. The total amount of pottery is quite
exclusively indicators of areas for food processing, low and pottery associated with food processing
e.g. kitchen. Storage jars and amphorae as tools for is completely absent indicating that this room was
long-term food and beverage storage are related doubtlessly a living and sleeping area.
to storage areas and kitchens. Plates and bowls The eastern part of Room 1 demonstrates a
are related to food consumption and are therefore balanced ceramic assemblage of food processing
characteristic of kitchens and living areas. Jugs and food serving pottery that leads to the
and juglets are related to beverage consumption, conclusion that this area of the courtyard was
but also to temporary beverage storage and a cooking and storage area, probably an outdoor
accordingly designate kitchen, storage areas and kitchen in summertime.
living areas. Lamps, in contrast, are indicators Room 6 shows a very homogeneous distribution of
for all rooms that need to be lighted during ceramic types. This supports the theory that Room
evening time, e.g. working areas and living areas. A 6 was an additional inner dwelling unit during
slightly differing classification of vessel types was Phase 2.
presented by Putzeys et al. for domestic contexts at The 2001 only partially excavated Room 3A
Sagalassos. (Putzeys et al. 2004:40-42). shows a wide spectrum of ceramic types and in
It appears that vessel types gain more equal shares food serving and food preparing
significance in identification of room functions, pottery. According to this ceramic evidence
the more spatially associated they are to certain Room 3A was used as a shared indoor kitchen and
rooms. Different assemblages of pottery found working area by both dwelling units, 3B and 4,
in different rooms of the complex will be roughly during Phase 2.
analysed to gain further information about certain Another ceramic assemblage comes from the
room functions (Table 1). Naturally all conclusions area east of Room 1 and north of Room 2. Stern
drawn from the ceramic evidence are only valid and Stacey identified it as a storage area (Stern
for room functions during Phase 2. No clearly and Stacey 2000:171) because of some storage
definable pottery assemblages from Phase 1 were jars which were found there in situ but the results
preserved and therefore all results are exclusively of the assemblage analysis suggest that this area
assigned to the last occupation period. functioned also as a kitchen.
TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF POTTERY TYPES BY ROOM

Bowls Jugs Storage jars Cooking- Lids Lamps Juglets Mortaria Unidentified Total
pots and numberof
frying pans sherds
Room 5 66.6% 5.6% 5.6% 16.6% 5.6% 1pc 18%
Room 4 38.5% 38.5% 15.5% 7.5% 11%
Room 1 (east) 33% 27% 27% 13% 13%
Room 6 88% 12% 5%
Room 3A 44% 19% 31% 6% 15%
East of Room 1 36.5% 27%+ 36.5% ` 10%+
South of Room 4 32% 22% 12% 27% 7% 18%
SW of Room 5 18% 18% 28% 36% 10%
151
Lisa Yehuda
The final ceramic assemblages derived from During the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods
the areas south of Room 4 and southwest of Room complex houses – simple houses expanded by
5, outside the walls of the building complex. additional rooms around a courtyard (Hirschfeld
Interestingly, the variety of vessel types in these 1995:21, 44, 57-59) – were typical both for cities
assemblages is very high, possibly because the areas (Goitein 1978:14-17; Whitehouse 1971:255-261)
outside the house were used for waste disposal. and rural areas (Hirschfeld 1997:44-48). Although
Comparing absolute numbers of sherds in not classical courtyard buildings, complex houses
different rooms it turns out that sleeping and living are of a similar layout, with two, three or even four
areas had a slightly lower concentration of scattered wings surrounding a spacious courtyard.
pottery sherds than kitchen and storage areas. These As a consequence of their layout these houses
numbers support the classification of rooms in shut usually display a radial room arrangement which
off and less frequented inner private spaces and allows direct access via the courtyard into each
busy and highly frequented working spaces. room. On the other hand free access to the courtyard
as essential working space was guaranteed and the
SUMMARY actual open-plan living area increased.
Excavations of farmhouses of the Fatimid period The building excavated at Khirbet al-
in the Upper Galilee are so far unpublished Khurrumiya is such a typical complex house. It
and no direct comparisons could be made. An was enclosed on two sides – the south and the east
archaeological survey undertaken by Frankel, - by rooms. Thus, while the layout of the building
Getzov, Aviam and Degani in the upper Galilee did not follow any particular pattern, it clearly
(Frankel et al. 2001) provide an idea of settlement suited rural demands for spacious working and
dynamics of the Early Islamic period but do not easily accessible living areas. Besides its typical
reveal details of rural dwelling during that time. layout as a complex building, the farmhouse at
Exceptions are only the excavation of Khirbet al-Khurrumiya shows a rather unexpected
a farmhouse at Khirbet et-Tinat (Sion 1997) feature: a tower like room on the east side of
which was built during the Byzantine period and the building. Such towers were no anomaly in
continued to function well into the Early Islamic rural building tradition. During the Hellenistic,
period and an Umayyad farmhouse excavated Roman (Hirschfeld 1998, 1995:53, 71-72) and
at Busra in the Hauran (Seeden 1997:121-126). Byzantine periods (Hirschfeld 1997: Fig. 37) some
A striking similarity in the plan of the farmhouse farmhouses, especially wealthy manor houses on
excavated at Tinat and the one at Khirbet al- the fringes of the Negev, were fortified with towers
Khurrumiya is noteworthy. More material is and massive walls. Layout and construction of such
published about urban dwellings such as the farmhouses are sometimes of much higher standards
Fatimid residence at Aqaba (Withcomb 1988) and than the one at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya (Hirschfeld
a late Byzantine-Umayyad mansion house in Beth- 1995: Fig. 37), but the primary character stays the
Shean (Sion and Said 2002). same: a rural building with defensive character.
Despite the paucity of publications from the During the Crusader period large farmhouses
Early Islamic period, the temporal proximity fortified with towers became common architectural
between the late Byzantine and the Early Islamic features (Ellenblum 1998:179-193). The tower was
periods should allow a comparison of Byzantine the first element to be erected within a spacious
period farmhouses with those of the Early Islamic courtyard building and a second floor was added
period. Furthermore, the distinction between the to it immediately (Pringle 2000: V: 170). Those
Byzantine and the beginning of the Early Islamic towers served as storage, strongholds, dwelling
period is based on historical considerations rather areas and refuge for the inhabitants of the farm
than true cultural change. and more than once the Latin Christians escaped
152
death or enslavement by attacking Muslims due to from the Early Islamic period are limited and no
the massive construction of such towers (Pringle farmhouses with a tower were so far published.
2000:VIII:1-8). Therefore the farmhouse at Khirbet al-Khurrumiya
Due to missing publications and excavations may mark the architectural link that attempts to
a gap between the Byzantine and the Crusader close the gap between tower buildings from the
period occurs. Excavations of rural buildings Byzantine and those from the Crusader period.
REFERENCES
Abu Uqsa, H. 1997. Kh. el-Kurromiye. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 16:19.
Ault, B. and Nevett, L.C. 1999. Digging houses. Archaeologies of Classical and Hellenistic Greek domestic
assemblages. In: Allison, P., ed. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London.
Avissar, M. 1996. The medieval pottery. In: Ben-Tor, A.; Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y. Yoqne>am I: The Later
Periods. (Qedem Reports 3) Jerusalem: 75-172.
Bagatti, B. 1993. Emmaus-Qubeibeh: the results of excavations at Emmaus-Qubeibeh and nearby sites (1873,
1887-1890, 1900-1902, 1940-1944. (Translated from Italian by Raphael Bonanno) Jerusalem.
Baramki, D. C. 1944. The pottery from Kh. El Mefjer. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine X:
65-104
Boas, J. A. 1992. Islamic and Crusader pottery (c. 640-1265) from the Crusader city (Area TP/4). In: Vann,
R. L., ed. Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea.
Brosh, N. 1986. Pottery of the 8th-13th centuries C.E. (Strata 1-3). In: Levine, L.J. and Netzer, E. Excavations at
Caesarea Maritima. 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report. (Qedem 21) Jerusalem. pp.66-89.
de Vaux, R. and Steve, A.M. 1950. Fouilles A Qaryet el-’Enab Abu Gosh. Palestine. Paris.
Ellenblum, R. 1998. Frankish rural settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge.
Ellis, S. P. 1991. Power architecture and decor. How the late Roman aristocrat appeared to his guests. In: Gazda,
E. K., ed. Roman Art in the Private Sphere. Ann Arbor.
Frankel, R; Getzov, N.; Aviam, M. And Degani, A. 2001. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient
Upper Galilee. (IAA Reports No. 14) Jerusalem.
Goitein, S.D. 1978. Urban housing in Fatimid and Ayyubid times. Studia Islamica 47:5-24.
Harper R.P. and Pringle, D. 2000. Bellmont Castle: Excavation of a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of
Jerusalem. Oxford.
Hirschfeld Y. 1995. The Palestinian Dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Jerusalem.
Hirschfeld, Y. 1997. Farms and Villages in Byzantine Palestine. (Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51) Washington D.C.
Hirschfeld, Y. 1998. Early Roman manor houses in Judea and the site of Khirbet Qumran. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 57,3: 161-189.
Krauss, S. 1910. Talmudische Archäologie. Leipzig.
Loffreda, S 1983. Nuovi contributi di Cafarnao per la ceramologia palestinese. Liber Annuus 33:347-372.
Pringle, D. 1997. Excavation in Acre, 1974; the pottery of the Crusader period from Site D. >Atiqot 31: 137-156.
Pringle, D. 2000. Fortification and Settlement in Crusader Palestine. Adelshot.
Putzeys, T., Van Thuyne, T.; Poblome, J.; Uytterhoeven, I.; Waelkens, M. and Degeest, R. 2004. Analyzing
domestic contexts at Sagalassos: Developing a methodology. using ceramics and macro-botanical remains.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17.1:31-57.
Seeden, H. 1997. Busra in the Hauran: A Bronze Age village, an Umayyad period farmhouse and public
153
Lisa Yehuda
archaeology today. Les Annales Achéologiques Arabes Syriennes XLI:117-129.

Sion, D. and Said, A. 2002. A mansion house from the late Byzantine-Umayyad period in Beth-Shean-Scythopolis.
Liber Annuus 52:353-366.
Sion, O. 1997. A farmhouse north-east of Jerusalem. >Atiqot 32:159-166. (Hebrew)
Stacey, D. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973-1974: the Early Islamic Periods. (IAA Reports 21) Jerusalem.
Stern E. and Stacey D.A. 2000. An eleventh-century assemblage from Khirbet al-Khurrumiya. Levant 32:171-
177.
Velenis, G. 1979. Wohnviertel und Wohnhausbau in den bzyantinischen Städten. In: Wohnungsbau im Altertum:
Diskussionen zur Archäologischen Bauforschung 003. Berlin
Whitcomb, D. 1988. A Fatimid residence at Aqaba, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32:
207-223.
Whitehouse, D. 1971. The houses of Siraf, Iran. Archaeolgy 24/3:255-262.
154

Kafr Ana 2007 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kafr Ana 2007 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kafr Ana 2007 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KAFR >ANA 3

A RURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE LOD VALLEY

Ram Gophna, Itamar Taxel and Amir Feldstein

KHIRBET AL-KHURRUMIYA 139

TEL AVIV - 2007

Editors Ze’ev Herzog

Assistant Editor Na’ama Scheftelowitz

Manuscript & Production Editor: Shirley Gassner

Printed in Israel by Top Print

Ram Gophna, Itamar Taxel and Amir Feldstein

N. Amitai-Preiss, Z. Gur, A. Kindler, M. Sade, R. Shimelmitz

Chapter 2 STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE 9

Chapter 4 GLASS OBJECTS 66

Chapter 5 THE CHALCOLITHIC LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE 77

Chapter 6 STONE, BONE, SHELL AND METAL OBJECTS 88

Chapter 7 NUMISMATIC FINDS 99

Chapter 8 FAUNAL REMAINS 103

Chapter 9 HISTORICAL-GEOGRAPHIC CONCLUSIONS 108

Fig. 1.1: Map of the environs of Kafr >Ana (● Archaeological site).

Fig. 1.2: The village mosque, looking northeast.

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 2.1: General plan of the

In an excavation conducted by S. Golan on during this period. Without evidence to the

Fig. 2.3: Plan of an Early Islamic structure in Square 4.

The grave types unearthed in the excavations are:

Fig. 2.6: Type 1 graves, looking east.

Fig. 2.7: Type 1 grave (W082),

Fig. 2.9: Type 2 grave (W112), looking north.

Fig. 2.13: Type 5 grave (Locus 1110), looking east.

Fig. 2.14: Plan and section of Type 5 grave (Locus 1110).

Fig. 2.15: Plan of a Mediaeval structure in the cemetery.

floor tiles, which characterised the wealthier Arab

FIG. 3.1: CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

FIG. 3.2: CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

Fig. 3.3: Byzantine and Umayyad pottery.

FIG. 3.3: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD POTTERY

Fig. 3.4: Byzantine and Umayyad pottery.

FIG. 3.4: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD POTTERY

Fig. 3.5: Byzantine and Umayyad lamps.

FIG. 3.5: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD LAMPS

Fig. 3.6: >Abbasid and Fatimid pottery.

FIG. 3.6: >ABBASID AND FATIMID POTTERY

FIG. 3.7. >ABBASID AND FATIMID POTTERY

Fig. 3.7: >Abbasid and Fatimid pottery.

COOKING WARE Byzantine; Gudovitch 2001: Fig. 151:3-4). Other

FIG. 3.8: CRUSADER AND MAMLUK POTTERY

FIG. 3.9: CRUSADER AND MAMLUK POTTERY

Fig. 3.10: Crusader and Mamluk pottery.

FIG. 3.10: CRUSADER AND MAMLUK POTTERY

FIG. 3.13: LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH MANDATE POTTERY

British Mandate-period assemblages. The plate

Fig. 3.15: Late Ottoman and British Mandate pottery.

FIG. 3.15: LATE OTTOMAN AND BRITISH MANDATE POTTERY

SMOKING PIPES in Palestine in the late 19th to early 20th century

Fig. 3.20: Ottoman period smoking pipes.

FIG. 3.20: OTTOMAN PERIOD SMOKING PIPES

FIG. 3.21: OTTOMAN PERIOD SMOKING PIPES

Fig. 3.22: An Arabic inscription.

FIG. 4.1: BYZANTINE AND UMAYYAD GLASS OBJECTS

Fig. 4.2: >Abbasid-Fatimid and Crusader-Mamluk glass objects.