The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.35, N.1

32 Pages·1972·3.54 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

The
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Of.
Publishedb y
THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL
RESIEARCH
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass.
Vol. XXXV February, 1972 No. 1
L
r
1 , ~
?i 'i
'C' P
~~~? ;?
?. )
..
~?5
d,, Il
~CL-L4LI
$ j?
?, is
rl 1iF t ?) .;i 'i /rii'
iilir: ,Ii~llL~ cl `r Ylr t ;1ILL r? ~1
Fig. 1. The Mausoleuma t KhirbetS hema', looking north,v enerateda s the Tomb of Shammais ince
the Middle Ages. Photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Sr.
2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXV,
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, Decem-
ber) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a
readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate
to the Bible.
Editors: Edward F. Campbell, Jr. and H. Darrell Lance, with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson
in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editors at 800 West
Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614.
Editorial Board: G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard Uni-
versity; William G. Dever, Jerusalem.
Subscriptions: $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research,
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive
the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address,
$3.50 per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. H. Blackwell, Ltd.,
Broad Street, Oxford.
Back Numbers: $1.50 per issue, 1960 to present: $1.75 per issue, 1950-59; $2.00 per issue
before 1950. Please remit with order, to the ASOR office.
The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end
of every fifth volume of the journal itself.
Second class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices.
Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1972
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY
PETERBOROUGH, N. H.
and Rabbinic Tradition at Khirbet Shema'
Archaeology
1970 and 1971 Campaigns
ERIC M. MEYERS,D uke University; A. THOMAS KRAABEL,
University of Minnesota; JAMES F. STRANGE,
Florham Park, New Jersey
The Joint Expedition to Khirbet Shema' is a project of ASOR.
Its first two seasons were funded by the Smithsonian Institution and a
consortium of schools. For the 1970 season these schools were Drew Uni-
versity, Dropsie University, Duke University, Harvard University, Luther
College, and the University of Minnesota. The 1971 season was sponsored
by Dropsie, Duke, Harvard, Luther, and Minnesota, joined by Princeton
University. Special thanks are due the Project Overseer, G. Ernest Wright,
and to Senior Advisor Robert J. Bull, for their abiding help and support
without which the project would never have succeeded. The cooperation
of Dr. A. Biran, Director of the Israel Department of Antiquities, has
been invaluable, as has been that of his local inspector Mr. N. Tflinski of
Meiron. During the 1970 season, Dean Moe was a field supervisor and
Sidney D. Markman was architect. Area supervisors were Frank Anders,
Michael Goldwasser, Barbara Johnson, Harold Liebowitz, Carol Meyers
and Dave Peters. Area supervisors for 1971 were Sue Estroff, Diana Fur-
manik, John Gager, Harold Liebowitz, Carol Meyers, Dan O'Connor and
Olin Storvik. John Thompson was head architect, Tom Blount and John
Machinist also served as architects, Hendrick van Dijk, Sr. and Jr., and
Lee Sterner photographers, Baruch Kanael numismatist, and Richard
Hanson, academic director and epigrapher. To the 150 or so volunteers,
no thanks are sufficient to express the indebtedness of the entire staff.
1972, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3
Historical Setting
Khirbet Shema' (The Ruin of Shammai) is located on a natural hill
in the township of Meiron, some ten kilometers from Safad in Upper
Galilee (Fig. 2). Since at least medieval times, if not much earlier, Khir-
~?,,,---r--=---~- -----~-T------ ----------~
It\
I'tN\ \ \ /i II
IItI I\ttt" \ I tI IItIt t I/I
IN "N,Ii,t ,
ItI
INI
N,\I I I
N"I"N\N\N, "\ ',\I\' I \' ,I\ ., = \\ NI.f NiNll\\,, ?, IIIIN IIt t \ \-? ? - :N,- '- I
Nk"\N\ \o IN ??N I- NN\N,1, , /
IN N I,I I "" "I2 I \I I , vXo I \ NNN I AtII ,Ii
IN-;
1, AIItNI I, NIIIl tIl ,
fiIlIl N'' 01 kiItIi lI lI
I I j
iti
ItI
----
6 PwZ . II
-= m '~:, ,
Fig. 2 Topographic map indicates that Meiron and Khirbet Shema' are separated only by the
Wadi Meiron. Both sites are less than 10 km. from Safad. Drawing and photo by John F.
Thompson.
bet Shema' has been associated with the sacred synagogue and necropolis
of ancient Meiron, where tradition located the tomb of Hillel. From the
15th century onward, however, travelers and pilgrims venerated the so-
called Tomb of Shammai (see Fig. 1) which lies south of the Meiron
tombs across the Wadi Meiron on one of the foothills of Mt. Meiron,
often called Har Shammai, some 760 m. above sea level.'
1. These notices are conveniently collected by Zev Vilnay in Holy Monuments in Eretz Israel
(1963), pp. 289-295 (Hebrew). For another picture of the Mausoleum see Vilnay, P1. 72, and
also his plan on p. 294. Others who record the uniqueness and significance of this monument are
V. Gu6rin, Galiled II (1880), pp. 433-434; C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, The Survey of
Western Palestine I (1881), pp. 246-247; G. Dalman, Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldistina-Vereins,
XXIX (1906), 195-199; and the Israel Department of Antiquities' List of Historical Monuments
(1964), Paragraph 17, map coordinates 191 and 264 (Hebrew).
4 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXV,
It is probably from this period that the Arabic tradition regarding
the name of Khirbet Shema' dates and it must be emphasized that no
ancient sourcem entions KhirbetS hema'a s the burial place of Shammai.2
That later generations of Jews placed the holy places of their sages in
Galilee is readily understandable, for it was in the north that the rabbis
reconstitutedt hemselvesa fter the two devastatingw arsw ith Rome.
Though the bulk of literary referencest o Meiron and its environs
come from the talmudic (late Roman-Byzantine)p eriod 'the expedition
was a bit hopeful at the outset of finding remains from the late Second
Temple period. After all Josephus is thought to have fortified Meiron in
Jim
f
,
?all b
'
' :. r, (cid:127).
(cid:127) "" ?',-(cid:127) -;4.% ,.(cid:127). .-.%
i.;.,(cid:127)'?, :"J6.
Fig. 3 The Shema' eagle is incised on a doorposti n the western wall of the synagogue.D rawing
by Kay Wanous; photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Jr.
the first war against Rome (War II. 573; III. 40) and Gush Halav
(Gischala), just a few kilometersn orth, is thought to be the home of
John of Gischala,f anatic zealot of that revolt (War IV. 66; V. 70, et al.).
Indeed the Israel Departmento f Antiquities in its list of monumentsr e-
cords the presenceo f Hellenistic remainsa t Khirbet Shema'a nd seven to
eight percento f all coins thus far identifieda t the site are MaccabeanY. et
no occupation from before the 4th centuryA .D. has as yet been found.
2. Among the supposedly earlier writings the Megillath Avitar (Evyatar, Abiathar?), of question-
able origin and date, records that the burial place of Shammai was in Galilee. On this point see
M. Ish-Shalom, Holy Tombs (1948), pp. 129-133 (Hebrew), who also lists the 12th-century traveler
Benjamin of Tudela as one of the earliest writers to place Shammai's burial place in the vicinity of
Meiron. The authors have been unsuccessful in locating the former reference which in all proba-
bility dates to modern times as it leaves no impact on the medieval midrashim.
1972, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 5
One of the main reasons why this site was selected over others was
the important fact that Khirbet Shema' had never been excavated. The
presence of fallen architectural members and of an eagle incised on the
front of a doorpost "with outstretched wings, sculptured on a crown
. . ."
(Fig. 3) suggested to the British survey team of Conder and Kitchener
that such fragments probably "once belonged to a synagogue, though
there are now no traces of such a building." It was anticipated, therefore,
that Khirbet Shema' was a rather out-of-the way Jewish village in a part
of Galilee in which there had been little scientific archaeology. Indeed, we
know this section of Palestine mainly from surface surveys, published
architectural fragments and objets d'arts. To begin a new effort at re-
covering the Judaism of Galilee, therefore, was a major goal of the Joint
Expedition from the outset. It was also hoped that a renewed interest and
study of Judaism in Galilee would feed into the discipline of New Testa-
ment studies as well.
In attempting to relate the ruins of Khirbet Shemnat' o a town known
from literary sources it became immediately apparent that this was a very
hazardous task without archaeological proof. The late Professor Samuel
Klein of the Hebrew University was the first to suggest that Khirbet
Shema' was the same as Galilean Tekoa3. Though Klein educes convinc-
ing evidence for the existence of a Galilean Tekoa nothing uncovered in
the first season of excavations would tend to corroborate or discredit his
view. The fact that the rabbinic sources are at pains to identify Tekoa as
"the one near Meiron and Gush Halav" and note that it was "built on
a mountain with its houses running down the incline of the site" at least
leaves the possibility that Tekoa and Khirbet Shema' are one and the
same. The nagging problem remains, however, that in the whole area of
Meiron there is little data to support either a Second Temple or even a
2nd or 3rd century occupation.
Excavation Methods
Generally speaking, the methods of excavation followed those first
developed by the British (the "Wheeler-Kenyon" Method) and then by
American expeditions such as those to Shechem and Gezer. This involved
three major considerations: the grid, use of balks, and separation of all
artifacts by loci.
The entire site was laid out in four quadrants around a N-S base line
that ran through the 19th century British triangulation point at the north
end of the ruin. Each of these four quadrants (NW, NE, SW, and SE)
was divided into thirty-six 30 x 30 m. squares numbered by Roman
3. Not to be confused with Judean Tekoa, the home of the prophet Amos. See Klein, The Land of
Galilee, (1946), p. 130 (Hebrew). M. Avi-Yonah in The Macmillan Bible Atlas (1968), pp. 141
and 183 accepts the identification but without discussion.
6THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXV,
numerals W-E east of the base line and E-W on the other side. That
is, east of the base line the squares were numbered I-VI west to east, VII-
XII west-east for the next row north, and so on to square XXXVI. On
both sides of the base line this numbering moved northwards by rows.
Each of these 30 x 30 m. squares was further subdivided into thirty-
six 5 x 5 m. squares numbered according to the same pattern, but this
-e? Q
rcN
2..A
Fig. 4 This site plan represents the Joint Expedition's continuing effort to investigate Khir-
bet Shema' in its totality. In the center at grid zero the synagogue and associated buildings.
Below and to the left one grid square may be located the Mausoleum and an ancient wine
press. Drawing and photo by John F. Thompson.
time with Arabic numerals. In this way every 5 x 5 m. square in the grid
received a unique numerical designation. For example square NW. VII.2
was the second 5 x 5 m. square east of the base line in the seventh 30 x 30
m. square in the NW quadrant. This square happened to be in the North-
east corner of the synagogue (see Fig. 4).
Only 4 x 4 meters was dug in most squares, which left a one meter
wide catwalk to the east and north of each square. This catwalk or "balk"
effectively separated squares during the work of digging, but more im-
1972, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 7
portantly it left a vertical section of unexcavated soil. Such a vertical
section provides a visual record of each layer of human occupation and
natural deposition in the site. Therefore it was necessary to draw virtually
every section, for that drawing contained a permanent file, so to speak, of
the history of occupation in that square. After balks are drawn, however,
they have served their purpose and are taken down layer by layer so as to
maximize exposure of the architecture.
Soil layers in each square are, of course, excavated in reverse order
to the way they were deposited, the latest layers removed first. In other
words all of a given layer (identified by changes in color, texture, or com-
position) is carefully peeled off with pick and hoe or with small hand tools,
and all pottery and other artifacts from each layer (or "locus") are care-
fully separated from all other artifacts of different provenance. This
separation of layers and therefore of artifacts is the only way to recover
successfully the chronological development of pottery, artifacts, and suc-
cessive uses of structures without a time machine.
On occasion it was discovered in the course of two seasons that the
demands of digging a Khirbeh (or "ruin") necessitated slight modifica-
tions in digging and recording procedures. These were always introduced
with some diffidence, as this method is widely accepted and used, especial-
ly in British and American archaeology, though almost always at deep soil
sites (tells). The staggering amount of stone architecture at Khirbet
Shema' required serious reconsideration, for example, of the size of
squares. If it was discovered that the north balk of a 5 x 5 m. square was
parallel to and perhaps 35 cm. north of a large wall, then it seemed fool-
ish to attempt to dig a tiny trench along the north face of the wall, which
would result in a narrow trench and a balk that no one could "read" or
draw. In such a circumstance the square was simply enlarged to 5 x 7.5 m.,
or even 5 x 10 m., which gave a clear N-S section across the wall.
Modifications in the method of layer separation are more serious, as
they may alter the very basis of stratigraphic digging as ordinarily under-
stood in American, British, and Israeli archaeology. Nevertheless on oc-
casion it was clear that a change in only one of the three variables above
(color, texture, and composition) did not signify a new locus, but rather
a local change in the same one. For example in the NW corner of the
synagogue, where the debris was deepest, the "layers" under the Arab
house that were identified by color changes alone were not sharply deli-
neated but rather blended into one another indicating that the soil is the
result of continuous natural deposition and does not indicate successive
layers of occupation. Texture and composition did not change, so this
particular stratum of soil was dug as one layer. The different elevations
8 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXV,
on successive buckets of pottery (with associated artifacts and coins)
would enable later analyses to recover whatever chronological sequence
might otherwise be lost if an error had been made in this case. But ex-
amination of pottery and artifacts indicated that only one period was
represented with no clear typological or numismatic development from
bottom to top.
The considerations that dictated changes in the use of balks in the
sense of catwalks and in the sense of drawable sections were two: quantity
of stone fall and the necessity to clarify complex architecture in our new
rescue excavations in Meiron. In the first instance it was sometimes found
that a shallow deposition of debris on top of bedrock consisted almost
entirely of stone fall with wind-blown soil in the interstices. In this case
a careful photograph would serve the purpose of a balk drawing and
could be taken, developed, and printed in far less time than a competent,
checked balk drawing could be produced. In the second instance it was
sometimes decided that time did not warrant leaving catwalks between four
adjacent squares, though the section drawings were desired. In such a case
two 5 x 5 m. squares diagonally opposite would be dug fully, leaving no
1-meter catwalk. Then the north and west balks of one square and the
south and east balks of the other would be drawn. This set of drawings
preserves the entire N-S and E-W story across a 10 x 10 m. square. The
other two diagonally opposed squares within this 10 x 10 meters could
then be excavated, leaving outside balks to be drawn later.4
In all cases these changes in field method were still based on the
premise that archaeology is vertically as well as horizontally oriented.
That is, it is obvious that we need full plans of houses and public build-
ings, but it is equally obvious by now that we also need vertical plans of
the successive soil layers laid down both by nature and by man so as to
recover a graphic record of successive occupations and abandonments of
a given site. Our method represented an attempt to use the best of
stratigraphic and architectural archaeology.
The Synagogue
Surface evidence at Khirbet Shema' had long made it likely that some
of the ruins belonged to a synagogue, but any visitor to modern Galilee
can attest that a number of ancient synagogues have been discovered al-
ready, and six well known ones are restored in some fashion for any
tourist to view: Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, Capernaum, Chorazin,
Meiron and Bar'am.5
4. This is an adaptation of a well-known method of excavating "barrows." Cf. R. J. C. Atkinson,
Field Archaeology (1953), p. 59, Fig. 10.
5. Brief descriptions, plans and references to the literature for each of these buildings are con-
veniently available in E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols of the Greco-Roman Period (1953), Vols.
I and III, especially the index to volume I. Also I. Sonne, "Synagogue" in The Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible (1962), Vol. IV, 480-483 and Fig. 99.
1972, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 9
Bringing in eighty or ninety Americans to go after still another
would not be a wise investment of time and funds perhaps unless the
building turned out to be unusual in function or design, or unless it was
to be excavated in its context, with equal attention given its adjoining
buildings and the town around it. This latter concern was a part of the
expedition's planning from the beginning (all of the town has been
planned and much of it excavated already), but the discovery of a
"unique" building cannot be planned in advance; it was not until the
1971 campaign, the "synagogue season," that we could be sure that the
Shema' structure is unparalleled, a riddle of a building in Galilee, where
one might have thought that all synagogue puzzles had been solved.
Location: Surroundings and Orientation
Like its neighbor, the Meiron synagogue, one wadi to the north, the
Shema' building is not located on the highest part of the site; it is on the
first terrace below and east of the top of the north-south ridge on which
the ancient town was located. The long axis of the building runs east-west,
at right angles to the lines of the terraces, so that the western half of the
building has walls and floor cut out of bedrock, while the eastern end
extends beyond the edge of the terrace and rests on a platform of fill held
in by retaining walls.
Excavation of the fill at the eastern end in 1971 proved that the
synagogue was not the first installation in this position; under the fill was
a chamber, roughly round, about 2.5 m. in diameter. It and the steps
which led into it were cut into bedrock at some earlier time, then de-
liberately covered over later to provide a foundation for the east end of
the synagogue. At Khirbet Shema' most rock-cut chambers are tombs or
cisterns, but this one is too shallow to contain much water and too small
and simple to be a likely tomb; it is without loculi and resembles none of
the tombs excavated thus far. Nor is it likely that a Galilean synagogue
would be founded knowingly on a tomb. The closest parallel typologically
on the site is the ritual bath or miqveh, excavated this season farther
down the east slope of the hill.6 It indicates that the crest of the ridge
was occupied, perhaps even well settled, before the synagogue was erected.
Two facts suggest that earlier rooms were extended and utilized to
form the new building. First, the south wall, the "bema-wall",i s not a unit;
a seam is visible in the wall at the west end of the bema. The west end of
what is now the bema-wall originally "turned a corner" and became the
terrace wall which still runs southward away from the synagogue (see
Fig. 5); later, when the synagogue was constructed, its south side was
6. It is possible, however, that this installation is a cistern, for an interesting parallel comes from
the ancient synagogue at Yafa near Nazareth. On this point see E. L. Sukenik, Bulletin II (1951),
p. 15, of the Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues.
10 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXV,
formed by adding that section of wall which now runs behind the bema
and out across the newly extended foundation to the southeast corner of
the present building.
Second, the orientation also suggests that the form and position of
the synagogue were determined in part by whatever occupied this area
earlier. In most Galilean synagogues, the long axis is north-south, locating
the facade or, in later times, the torah shrine in the short wall facing
Jerusalem. The Khirbet Shema' ridge and its terraces also run north-
,Tj
K4WN
0 0 0 0
cm.
",
Fig. 5 The synagogue plan reveals all the salient features: the terrace leading to entryway on the
north; the bema on the south wall; stairway, two chambers, woman's gallery, "Eagle door-
way" on western wall. Drawing by John F. Thompson and John Machinist. Photo by John
F. Thompson.
south, making it more practical to position a rectangular building with
its long axis north-south. But this synagogue has its long axis running
east-west and its bema on the long southern wall! We may attribute this
to creative architects (for whom there is other evidence as well, see be-
low), but it could as well be due to the need to fit the structure into a site
defined by already existing building and, perhaps, the desire to use
existing walls in the construction.
While the synagogue thus incorporates parts of earlier structures, the