2013 NEW FINDS FROM THE SAMARIA-SEBASTE NECROPOLIS

K. Levent Zoroğlu’na ArmağanStudies in Honour of K. Levent Zoroğlu

AYRIBASIM / OFFPRINT

K. Levent Zoroğlu’na ArmağanStudies in Honour of K. Levent Zoroğlu

Editör / Edited by Mehmet TEKOCAK

Suna – İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma EnstitüsüSuna & İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations

Baskı / Printed byMatsis Matbaa Hizmetleri

Sefaköy / İstanbulTel: 0212 624 21 11 www.matbaasistemleri.com

Sertifika No / Certificate No: 20706

Yapım ve Dağıtım / Production and DistributionZero Prod. San. Ltd. Şti.

Abdullah Sokak, No. 17, Taksim 34433 İSTANBUL - TÜRKİYE

Tel: +90 (212) 244 7521 Fax: +90 (212) 244 3209e.mail: [email protected]

www.zerobooksonline.com/eng www.egeyayinlari.com

Armağan Dizisi / Festschrift Series: 3

K. LEVENT ZOROĞLU’NA ARMAĞANSTUDIES IN HONOUR OF K. LEVENT ZOROĞLU

Editör / Edited by Mehmet TEKOCAK

ISBN 978-605-4701-27-8© Suna – İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü, Antalya 2013

Yayıncı Sertifika No / Publisher Certificate No: 25840Bütün hakları saklıdır. / All rights reserved.

Bilim Kurulu / Scientific CommitteeCelal ŞİMŞEK

Nurettin ARSLANBilal SÖĞÜT

Mehmet TEKOCAK

Bu yayındaki bütün makaleler bilim kurulu değerlendirmesinden geçmiştir.All papers have been evaluated by the scientific committee.

Tüm metin ve fotoğrafların yayım hakkı saklıdır. Tanıtım için yapılacak kısa alıntılar dışında yazarların ve yayımcının yazılı izni olmaksızın hiçbir yolla çoğaltılamaz.

Bu eser ile ilgili tüm sorumluluklar yazarlarına aittir.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the author and the publisher except in the context of reviews.

Responsibility of the essays in this work rests on its author(s).

Yazışma Adresi / Mailing AddressBarbaros Mah. Kocatepe Sok. No. 25Kaleiçi 07100 ANTALYA - TÜRKİYE

Tel: 0 (242) 243 42 74 • Fax: 0 (242) 243 80 [email protected]

www.akmed.org.tr

SUNA – İNAN KIRAÇ AKDENİZ MEDENİYETLERİ ARAŞTIRMA ENSTİTÜSÜSUNA & İNAN KIRAÇ RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON MEDITERRANEAN CIVILIZATIONS

NEW FINDS FROM THE SAMARIA-SEBASTE NECROPOLIS

Dalit REGEV – Uzi GREENFELD*

ÖzetSamaria-Sebaste Nekropolü’nden Yeni Buluntular

Tel Samaria’nın batı sınırında yapılan kurtarma kazılarında nekropolün küçük bir bölümü ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Çeşitli mimari planda yedi adet mezarın kazısı yapılmıştır. Bu mezarlardan bazıları Demir Çağı II’nin en erken evresi ile Hellenistik ve Erken Roma Dönemi’nde inşa edilmiştir. Bu mezarlar; Demir Çağı II ile Erken Roma Dönemi’ne tarihlenen seramik ile Roma Dönemi kireç taşı Samaria tipinde lahit ve Roma cam kapları gibi buluntular vermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Samaria, Nekropol, Klineli Mezar, Samaria Lahti, Seramik.

IntroductionThe Samaria-Sebaste necropolis covers the western and northern slopes of the tell, where many of the tombs have been looted and most have not been excavated,1 but its full range extends to a belt of tombs located 1 –2 km to the south and west. The western edges of the tell have recently undergone a salvage excavation sponsored by USAID, which initiated repairs to the road between Shechem and Jenin, the construction of which damaged the necropolis of Tell Samaria. The excavation was conducted in May–June 2010 (OIG 167076-1187202, ITM 217076-687202). In addition to five tombs on the slopes of the tell (1, 4–7), two other nearby tombs (8 and 10) were unearthed due to construction on a road west of Tell Samaria (fig. 1). The excavations revealed finds from the Iron Age to the Mamluk period, but most of the later finds comes from dwelling caves 2 and 9 located on the tell’s slopes. The finds include three Samarian stone sarcophagi, glass vessels, metal objects and pottery.2 This article, which fo-cuses on the pottery found in the caves and tombs and the particular clay used in the region of Samaria, is a tribute to Levent Zoroglu, a dear colleague and an expert on Hellenistic pottery.

The TombsThe Samaria necropolis, as revealed in the tombs excavated along the main road from Shechem to Jenin, is archi-tecturally and stylistically diverse. The cemetery consists of three or four types of rock-cut burial: a bench tomb (T1), arcosolia tomb (T4), loculi tombs (T6, T7, T8 and T10) and what may be a shaft tomb or tombs that may have been incorporated in a later loculi tomb (T5).3

* Dalit Regev, Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

Uzi Greenfeld, Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel.1 Another tomb, which was not excavated, was found between tombs 5 and 6 after the conclusion of the excavation. Another loculi tomb, located

above tomb 7, was excavated by U. Greenfeld in 2008 and has not yet been published.2 Measurements were taken by F. Portnov, photos by S. Amami and drawings by M. Manukian.3 The numbers were assigned to the tombs during the excavation in order of work; the area of tomb 3 turned out to be irrelevant and was canceled.

We stuck throughout to the original area names to avoid confusion in the registration of items from these areas.

Dalit Regev – Uzi Greenfeld542

It is commonly assumed that bench tombs are characteristic of the Iron Age and became less common starting in the Persian period, while loculi tombs characterize the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In Judea and Samaria, however, this conventional chronological division does not hold; all these types were used simultaneously dur-ing the Late Hellenistic and Roman period. The population of these regions, and especially of Shechem and the Samaria region, used several structural designs in their tombs and incorporated bench tombs or bench rooms in mausolea. The mausolea of this period were both built and hewn. Some are more built than hewn; for example the mausoleum at Tell Samaria-Sebaste, and some were more hewn than built, for example the mausoleum at Kh. el-Babariyyeh near Samaria (north of Shavei Shomron and southwest of Tombs 1 and 4–7).4 Bench tombs and bench rooms in Roman-period mausolea at Samaria and Shechem are often associated with burial in ‘Samaritan’ stone sarcophagi of the type found in this excavation. However, such sarcophagi are also found in loculi tombs like T8 and T10 at our site.

Bench tombs with arcosolia dated to the Hellenistic period were found at Shechem, Tomb 1.5 Similar tombs were found at Jerusalem at Akeldama, Tomb 1 room D, Tomb 2 room C and Tomb 3 room C.6 South of Bethlehem, at Kh. ‘Alya, several bench tombs were dated to the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.7 Other tombs southwest of Shechem include benches, arcosolia and loculi, in the mausoleum at Kh. Kurkush and at Deir ed-Derb dated to the first and second centuries A.D.8 Tomb E at Kedumim and the tomb at Kh. el-Babariyyeh near Samaria, dated to the first and second centuries A.D., include one room with loculi and another with benches.9 However, bench tombs with arcosolia from Kh. Samara, a few kilometers west of Samaria, were dated to the end of the Roman period and beginning of the Late Roman period.10

Although bench tombs and arcosolia-bench tombs of the Iron Age II are regarded as markers of Judean territory, religious beliefs and social structure, tombs of this type also appear outside Judah, in the territory of the kingdom of Israel in the region of Samaria.11 Such tombs were excavated in the same area as our tombs on the other side of the Shechem-Jenin road opposite T10, and at Kh. el-Lauz.12 Similar tombs were found in northwestern Samaria at ‘Eilar, Kh. Shemsin and Kh. Sirisye.13 This distribution shows that bench tombs were not restricted to the ter-ritory of the southern kingdom. Moreover, this tomb type did not disappear by the sixth century B.C. as is usually assumed; it flourished again during the late Hellenistic to Roman periods, both in Judea and Samaria.

Tomb 1 (T1). A bench tomb (fig. 2) consisting of a square courtyard 4.5 m wide, a corridor 1.1 m long and a squarish room, 4.1 X 2.7 m with two benches measuring 2.7 X 0.7 m hewn in the stone walls. The courtyard was destroyed by heavy machinery during road construction but it appears that the tomb was not looted earlier. Only late Iron Age pottery was found in this tomb and it seems that this tomb was constructed at the end of the Iron Age, in the late seventh–early sixth centuries B.C.

Tomb 4 (T4). An arcosolia tomb consisting of a courtyard, destroyed in an unknown early period and a square room, 2.4 X 2.4 m, with three burial boxes with arcosolia hewn into the side and back walls of the tomb. The burial boxes are located 0.5–0.6 m above the floor level and are 2–2.1 m long and 0.9–1.1 m wide. Cut marks on

4 Sukenik 1942, 81-90; Aizik – Peleg 2009a, 30-33. 5 Magen 2009, 289-92. 6 Avni – Greenhut 1996, 4-31. 7 Peleg 2003, passim. 8 Magen 2008a, 146-53. 9 Magen 2008b, 205-9; Aizik – Peleg 2009a, passim.10 Magen 2008b, 208-9.11 Bloch-Smith 1992, 41-52; Yezerski 1999, 258, 262-66; Osborne 2011, with references.12 Zayadine 1968, 562; Peleg 2009a, passim.13 Magen – Eisenstadt 2004, 63-5; Aizik – Peleg 2009b, passim; Aizik 2009, passim.

New Finds from the Samaria-Sebaste Necropolis 543

the tomb’s walls and burial boxes indicate that these elements were constructed at one time, meaning that T4 was constructed not later than the Hellenistic period and was not changed during the Late Roman period. This tomb contained glass vessels of the third to fifth centuries A.D. and a Late Roman oil lamp, as well as Hellenistic- and Early Roman-period pottery.

None of the other excavated tombs of this necropolis were used during the Late Roman period; T4 may have been chosen for reuse during that period due to its different architecture, which conformed to burial conventions in the later period. Based on its architecture (fig. 3), T4 may have been constructed during the Iron Age II, although no finds were retrieved there from this period. The finds indicated that T4 was used at the end of the Hellenistic pe-riod, in the first century B.C., and reused during the Late Roman period, probably in the fifth century A.D.

Tomb 5 (T5). Only two loculi or corridors, one 5.2 m long and the other 4 m long, remained of what was either a loculi tomb or two separate shaft tombs of an unknown form. The walls of the loculi/corridors are straight and the ceiling rounded. One of them was made as a shaft tomb, perhaps the remnant of an earlier burial incorporated into a tomb during the Hellenistic period. Remains of a built stone wall found on top of the loculi could not be dated. Pottery from the tomb and above it was dated from the Iron Age to the Early Roman period, but finds inside the loculi/corridors were dated only from the Hellenistic to Early Roman period. T5 also contained a complete oil lamp and glass vessels dated to the first century A.D. This tomb or tombs are difficult to date due to their irregular shape and measurements. Loculi of all periods are usually between 1.2 to 2.5 m long but never, as far as we know, 4 or 5 m long. As the loculi/corridors at T5 were cut and most of the tomb structure disappeared, we cannot be certain if these are loculi or corridors to shaft tombs. If they are loculi, then based on the finds, they were probably constructed in the late Hellenistic period at the end of the second century B.C. If, however, these are corridors to shaft tombs, they were probably constructed earlier than the Hellenistic period, and, based on the finds, no earlier than the late Iron Age. T5 was used, nonetheless, until the early first century A.D.

Tomb 6 (T6). A loculi tomb, the only remnant of which is the edge of an irregular loculus 0.5 m long with a rounded ceiling. T6 contained a small amount of pottery from the Iron Age and the Early Roman period and its construction date cannot be determined.

Tomb 7 (T7). A loculi tomb whose western part was also destroyed by the road construction, leaving part of a room 2.8 m wide with a rounded ceiling. Five loculi with straight ceiling remained, measuring 1.7 to 2.7 m long. Although T7 was looted in antiquity, it produced most of the metals found in this excavation. It also contained glass vessels of the Roman period and pottery dated to the Roman and beginning of the Late Roman periods. Based on the finds it seems that T7 was constructed in the Early Roman period and reused during the end of Ro-man period or beginning of the Late Roman period (fig. 4); we cannot tell whether T7 was in continuous use or was used in two different stages.

Tomb 8 (T8). A loculi tomb located northwest of the tell that was also damaged by construction of the road. Only part of a room with rounded ceiling remained (4 X 2.6 m) with five carelessly hewn loculi 1.2 to 1.8 m long, and a rectangular niche 1.5 X 0.8 m hewn 0.3 m into the floor (fig. 5). The tomb contained a stone sarcophagus of the Roman period, glass vessels of the first and second centuries A.D. and pottery dated from the Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman periods. Based on these finds it seems that the tomb was used in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, probably from the end of the second–early first centuries B.C. until the second century A.D.

Tomb 10 (T10). Also a loculus tomb, T10 is located south of Tell Samaria and consists of a room 6.2 X 3 m with 14 well-hewn loculi and arched ceiling, all between 2.3 and 2.4 m long. The tomb contained two sarcophagi of the Roman period, glass vessels of the first and second centuries A.D. and pottery dated to the Iron Age, the Hellenis-tic, Roman and Late Roman periods. Based on the finds it seems that T10 was constructed in the late Hellenistic or Early Roman period, probably used from the end of second–early first century B.C. to the second century A.D. (fig. 6) and reused during the Late Roman period.


Dwelling caves 2 and 9 (C2 and C9) are amorphous, hemispherical caves adjacent to each other on the tell’s slope, which were used from the Iron Age until at least the Mamluk period. T2 measures 5.5 X 4.3 m and T9, 6.5 X 5 m.

The Sarcophagi (Fig. 7)Three limestone sarcophagi, one complete in T8 and one complete and one broken in T10, were found in this excavation. None of the sarcophagi bear an inscription. The three sarcophagi are all of the Samaritan type, which was mainly common in the Shechem area but was also found in the Sharon and northern coastal plain, where Samaritan settlements dated to the second to fourth century A.D. have been documented. The use of this sarcopha-gus type started in the second quarter of the second century and continued until mid-third century A.D. Although Samaritan inscriptions are absent (a trait that began in the fourth century A.D.), the type is usually associated with the Samaritan population due to its geographic and chronological distribution, as well as the lack of pagan decora-tive characteristics. Nonetheless, some claim that this sarcophagus type is not of Samaritan origin but rather of southern Levantine origin and that it was used by both Jews and Samaritans.14

Samaritan sarcophagi are characterized by a narrow width, an average length of 2 m, a gabled roof and acroteria at their corners. Particularly distinctive to this type are trapezoid or triangular stone-carved handles at the narrow ends of the coffin, legs or stripes 3 cm high at the bottom of the narrow sides and a stone-carved pillow on the floor of the coffin. The typical decoration of the Samaritan Roman period sarcophagi of the simple type are panels of squares, circles, rectangles and Π-shaped structures in low relief. The group was made of soft limestone typical of the Shechem area and they were all probably made in the same workshop.15

At Samaria the Samaritan sarcophagi were found in loculus tombs 8 and 10, but this type was also found in bench tombs, natural caves, mausolea, box tombs and in trenches dug in the ground. In some cases Samaritan sarcophagi were found in secondary use in earlier tombs.16

Samaritan sarcophagi of the type found in T8 and T10 were also found in tomb E 220 in Samaria, excavated by the British Antiquities Department in 1931–2. E 220 is a mausoleum dated to the second and third centuries A.D. that contained nine Samaritan limestone sarcophagi, all of the undecorated Barkai type 1. The next tomb, E 221, contained another similar sarcophagus and nearby tomb E 222 had three more Samaritan sarcophagi, of Barkai types 3a and 5.17 As mentioned above, our sarcophagi are of the simpler types, and while more decorated types are usually dated to the last phase of Samaritan sarcophagi production in the third century A.D., the date of the simple types may possibly be confined to the second century A.D.18

Sarcophagus 1 – T10, 2.1 m long, 0.7 m wide, 0.7 m high, roof height 0.15 m. Originally, the roof was gabled but its upper part was coarsely cut, probably to enable its insertion into to a loculus smaller than its size. This sar-cophagus is of Barkai type 1.19

14 Van den Brink 2004: 151; Barkai 1989: 70–73, see there the distribution map; Barkai 2002, 334–338; for an approach that denies the sarcophagus type’s Samaritan origin see Magen 1993, 163-165; according to Foerster 2009, 83, at least some of these sarcophagi resemble sarcophagi from Proconnesus in Asia Minor that were sent semi-processed to the east; on Proconnesian sarcophagi and their imitations in Beirut, see De Jong 2001–2002, 297–299.

15 Barkai 1989, 63-67; Barkai 2002, 312; Magen 1993, 151–55, type A; Magen 2009, 341-42, type B.16 Barkai 2002, 323.17 Sukenik 1942, 81-90.18 Barkai 2002, 335.19 Barkai 2002, 317, fig. 8.


Sarcophagus 2 – T8, 2.01 m long, 0.54 m wide, 0.58 m high, roof height 0.18 m. The roof is gabled, a stone pil-low is carved in its floor, and three squares in low relief decorate the long side. The sarcophagus was broken but restored completely. This sarcophagus is of Barkai type 3.20

Sarcophagus 3 – T10, only part of it remained. The roof is gabled and a square in low relief decorates the narrow side. This sarcophagus is of Barkai type 3.21

Glass Vessels (Fig. 8)22

The glass vessels found in Samaria tombs include mainly bottles, which are common in graves, but also some bowls and jugs. All the bottles, found in T5, T7, T8 and T10, are dated to the first and second centuries A.D., while the bowls, found in T7, and jugs, found in T4, are dated to the third and fourth centuries A.D. The corpus of glass vessels from our tombs contains only simple, undecorated items; they are described in chronological order.

Bottles/UnguentariaRounded piriform bottles, Jackson-Tal type 3 26 A (fig. 8: 1, 2). This form is the most common of all the glass bottles in the Early Roman period and is found throughout the Roman Empire. They appear in various sizes and imitate Early Roman clay vessels. The bottles have a pear-shaped body and the rim is folded-in and flattened. These bottles are very common in tombs, where they were used for scented oils. In Israel they were mainly found in Judea and the Jerusalem area and dated there until 70 A.D., although they were also found in smaller quantities in contexts dating from 70 to 135 A.D.23

Piriform bottle with waist, Jackson-Tal type 3 27 A (fig. 8: 3). These pear-shaped bottles are pinched at mid-body, a shape originating in the eastern Mediterranean. In Israel, such bottles are dated from early first century to mid-second century A.D.24

Candlestick bottles with rounded body, Jackson-Tal type 3 29 A (fig. 8: 4, 5). These bottles originate in the Levant and are dated from the late first to mid-third centuries A.D., although in Israel they are mostly common until the mid-second century A.D. Such bottles were found in previous excavations at Samaria, but in secondary use, and erroneously dated to the fourth–fifth centuries A.D. Bottles with straight neck, folded-in rim and flat base are dated to the first century A.D. The type characterized by the constriction at the junction of the neck with the body is typical to the Levant, while Italian and western Mediterranean types show continuity from body to neck.25

JugsJugs with conical necks (fig. 8: 6–8). Jug with conical neck tapering toward bottom start to appear in the late third century A.D. and are often decorated with trail wound around the neck. A similar jug was found at Beth-Shean in a tomb dated to the fourth century A.D. Our jugs should be dated to the late third or fourth centuries A.D.26

20 Barkai 2002, 318, fig. 12.21 See this coffin in the photo of T10.22 My thanks to Yael Gorin-Rosen for her kind advice in the classification of the glass vessels.23 Israeli 2003, 208, 211, nos. 241, 248 ; Caron – Zoïtopoúlou 2008, 44-5, 76-7, nos. 38, 69; Jackson-Tal 2009, 251-52; Israeli 2010, 225-26, pl. 6 2:

30-38.24 Jackson-Tal 2009, 252-53; Israeli 2010, 210, no. 247.25 Israeli 2003, 212, nos. 251, 253; Caron – Zoïtopoúlou 2008, 54-5, 78-9, nos. 48, 70; Jackson-Tal 2009, 245-55; Weinberg – Stern 2009, 105.26 Fleming 1997, 46, pl. 70b.


BowlsCarinated bowls (fig. 8: 9, 10). Both bowl fragments were found in T7 and probably belong to the same type; however, they do not belong to the same vessel but rather to two different bowls. Carinated glass bowls come in a shallow and a deep version, but the remains of our bowl cannot indicate whether it belongs to one version or the other. In any case, both versions are usually dated to the second and third centuries A.D.; some continue into the fourth century A.D. as well.27

Table 1 Description of glass vessels

No. Location Vessel Description Glass description Date1 T5 Bottle, base and neck Colorless 1st A.D.2 T5 Complete non-intact bottle Colorless with bubbles of various sizes 1st A.D.3 T7 Bottle, base and neck Colorless, blue patina, numerous tiny bubbles 1st – early 2nd A.D.4 T7 Complete non-intact bottle Yellowish-greenish, numerous tiny bubbles 1st and 2nd A.D.5 T8 Complete non-intact bottle Colorless, tiny bubbles 1st–early 2nd A.D.6 T4 Jug, rim and part of neck Colorless, very thin Late 3rd–6th A.D.7 T4 Jug, rim and part of neck, decorated

with single trail 1.5 cm below the rimColorless, thick; the trail is yellowish-green Late 3rd–6th A.D.

8 T4 Part of jug base Colorless 3rd and 4th A.D.9 T7 Bowl, rim Colorless 2nd and 3rd A.D.10 T7 Bowl, base Greenish 2nd and 3rd A.D.

The Wares (Fig. 9)The pottery of the Samaria region is made of local wares that are very different in texture and color from the wares typical of both Judea and the coastal area. Although no chemical or physical study was made on these wares it may be considered local to the Samaria area, based on observations made by the archeologists working in this area and the fact it is unfamiliar to archaeologists working in other parts of Israel. Little is known of these wares, which are rarely described in archaeological reports. We therefore include close-up color pictures of several vessels made of the wares typical of Tell Samaria. The most common ware is of bright orange to red color (“orange ware”), followed by a pale ware of white/gray/green color (“pale ware”). The samples presented here cover the range of wares found in our excavation from usage phases recorded in the tombs, excluding the Hellenistic period. The ves-sels presented here include bowls of the Iron Age (item 42) and early Persian period (item 47) and jars dated to the Early Roman period (items 10, 11, as well as another not-illustrated item).28

Item 42, Tomb 1, bowl. Orange-brown ware with many red and gray inclusions, orange-red slip. The upper part of the photo shows the bowl’s inner side where the slip eroded and the clay can be properly observed. The lower part of the photo shows the underside of the bowl’s base where slip remained.

Item 47, Tomb 1, bowl. Whitish-very light brown ware with gray inclusions.

Tomb 5, jar (not illustrated). Whitish-greenish ware.

Item 11, Tomb 8, jar. Orange ware.

Cave 9, jar (similar in ware to item 10) (not illustrated). Reddish-pink ware.

27 Fleming 1997, 38, pl. 54a; Stern – Gorin-Rosen 1997, 10-12, fig. 6: 2, 7.28 For the description and date of these vessels see below. Some of the items that were drawn could not produce good close-up pictures while other

items are not suitable for illustration but provide good surfaces for a close-up picture of the ware.


It seems that the orange ware is characteristic of the Iron Age, the pale ware characteristic of the Persian period, and starting in the Hellenistic period both wares are used contemporaneously in Samaria. During the Roman period both ware types are especially common for jars.

Pottery VesselsThe pottery from this excavation includes mainly jars, jugs, juglets, cooking pots, plates and bowls. Most of the vessels (ca. 98%) are locally made and only a small quantity was imported, mainly during the Hellenistic and Ro-man periods; the imported vessels include plates, bowls and an oil lamp. Most of the pottery found in the tombs are jars, dated from the late Iron Age to the Early Islamic period, but the assemblage also includes a large quantity of cooking pots of the Iron Age, Hellenistic and Late Roman periods; cooking pots of the Mamluk period were also found in the dwelling caves. The jugs found at Tell Samaria are dated to the Hellenistic and Late Roman peri-ods, the juglets date to the Hellenistic and/or Roman periods and the bowls date from the Iron Age and Hellenistic to the Late Roman periods. The jars constitute 60% of the pottery at the site, bowls constitute 12%, cooking pots 10%, jugs 8% and juglets 5%.

The Iron Age pottery includes mainly bowls but also large portions of jars and cooking pots and an amphoriskos. The Persian-period pottery includes mainly jars; Hellenistic pottery at this site includes most of the jugs found at the site (about 40% of this period’s pottery) and the rest is almost evenly divided among jars, cooking pots and bowls. Most of the Roman pottery is composed of jars that also comprise the majority of the jars found at the site, and the juglets are all of the Roman or Hellenistic–Roman period. The Late Roman pottery is also mainly made up of jars, with few bowls, cooking pots and one jug.

Iron Age pottery in these tombs is of types found from the Jerusalem area and northward, but the jars and one of the cooking-pot types is more common from the Samaria area and northward. The Persian-period pottery of this site is more typical of central Israel between northern Judea and the southern Carmel; the Hellenistic-period pot-tery is even more restricted and most of it is typical of the inland areas. The Roman pottery is, again, mostly typi-cal to the area of Jerusalem, Samaria and the eastern areas, as in the Late Roman pottery.

Iron Age Pottery (fig. 10)Jars (fig. 10: 1, 2). Jars with a triangular rim and a neck-ridge typical of the ninth–eighth centuries in northern Israel were found in T5 (items 1–2). Two handles that may belong to this type – or perhaps to another Iron Age jar type – were found in dwelling cave 9 (henceforth C9). One of these is made of the same ware as item 1 but painted red. Another handle fragment was found in T1. All these jars were made of local orange ware. Five Iron Age jar fragments were found, constituting 25–30% of the Iron Age pottery found but only 6% of all the jars in our exca-vation. Items 1–2 were dated in earlier excavations at Tell Samaria to between the late tenth and the third quarter of the eighth centuries B.C. This is type SJ52b at Beth-Shean, dated there to the Iron Age IIb, the late ninth to late eighth centuries B.C. Large quantities of jars of this type were found at Tell el-Far‘ah level 7-d and dated to the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. Parallels: Samaria, Tappy 2001, 93-4, 416-19, fig. 6: 14; Beth-Shean, Mazar 2006, 348-49, fig. 12.4; Tell el-Far‘ah, Chambon 1984, 54, pl. 45: 4-7.

Cooking Pots. (fig. 10: 3, 4). Two closely related types of cooking pots dated to this period were found in the ex-cavation – three items in T5 and one in T10. Cooking pots and other vessels related to cooking, eating and storing food are often found in tombs where secondary burial was practiced.29 This is true in particular of bench tombs (like T1 and T4) but may also be the case for loculi tombs, with or without sarcophagi. Four to five Iron Age cook-ing pot fragments were found, constituting 25% of the Iron Age pottery found and 30–35% of all the cooking pots in our excavation.

29 Osborne 2011, 42-3.


Item 3 is a cooking pot with incurved rim and a neck ridge; another rim and handle of the same type were found in T5. This may be Beth-Shean type CP55 or CP56, the latter being the most common type in the eighth century B.C. in Israel.30 Similar cooking pots are dated at Gezer to the ninth century, at Samaria from the second half of the ninth century, at Tell el-Far‘ah to the eighth century, at Kh. el-Lauz (near Samaria) to the eighth–seventh centuries, at Tel Bira to the late eighth–early seventh centuries and at Kh. Tubeiqa (Hebron Mountains) from the mid-eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. Parallels: Samaria, Tappy 2001, 79-80, fig. 6: 39; Kh. el-Lauz, Peleg 2009a, 54, pl. 1:11; Kh. Tubeiqa, Peleg 2009c, 135, pl. 1:6; Beth-Shean, Mazar 2006, 342-4, fig.1 2.3; Tel el-Far‘ah, Chambon 1984, 62, pl. 52:8; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 68, pls. 13:17–18, 14A: 3; Tel Bira, Alexandre – Stern 2001, 186-7, fig.3: 18; Dor, Gilboa 1995, 8, fig. 1.5:14.

Item 4 is a cooking pot with thick incurved rim and two handles from rim to body, found in T5. This may be Beth-Shean type KR55, which is very common at northern Israelite sites during the Iron Age II.31 Similar cooking pots/craters are dated at Gezer from the mid-ninth to the mid-eighth centuries, at Moza from the mid-ninth to the mid-seventh centuries, at Tell el-Far‘ah to the eighth century and at Samaria from the eighth to early sixth centuries B.C. Parallels: Samaria, Amiran 1969, 227, pl. 75:21; Tel el Far‘ah, Chambon 1984, 57, pl. 47:7; Moza, Greenhut – De Groot 2009, 92, fig. 3.15:1; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 68, pls. 14A: 2, 22A:1; Beth-Shean, Mazar 2006, 337, fig 12.2; Dor, Gilboa 1995, 8, figs. 1.1; 16, 17; 1.5:20.

Bowls (fig. 10: 5–9). Several bowls of two types were found in the Samaria excavations. Most of them belong to the carinated type; one item only belongs to another type. Most of the bowls were found in T1, and one each in T5, T8 and C9. Except for one, all of these bowls were made of local orange ware. Six to nine Iron Age bowl frag-ments were found, constituting 37–45% of the Iron Age pottery found and 40–50% of all the bowls in our excava-tion.

Items 5–8 belong to a carinated bowl type with a low ring base, most of the items of this type in Samaria are made of orange coarse and crispy clay with many inclusions. Three to six red-slipped bowls of this type were found in T1; some were partly burnished. Other bowls of the same type but without slip were found in T5 and C9. Similar bowls were found at En-Gedi, but unlike the bowls of Samaria, those bowls were made of well-levigated clay, well-fired and finely burnished. At Tell el-Far‘ah, however, bowls of similar shape are also made of coarse ware, some are red-slipped and some brown-slipped. Similar bowls were dated at Samaria to the tenth and early ninth centuries B.C., especially the low ring base type, at Tel el-Far‘ah to the ninth–eighth centuries, at Kh. Sirisye (south) from the end of the ninth to the end of the eighth centuries, at Bani Dar (Hebron Mountains) to the eighth century, at Hazor from the eighth to the early sixth centuries, and at En-Gedi from the mid-seventh to the sixth centuries B.C. Parallels: Samaria, Tappy 1992, 181-4; Tel el-Far‘ah, Chambon 1984, pl. 57: 5-7; Bani Dar, Yezer-ski 2009, 145-6, pls. 1:2, 4; 3:20, 22; 7:4; Kh. Sirisye (south), Yezerski – Aizik 2009, 66, pl. 1:7; En-Gedi, Yezer-ski 2007: 87, photo 1, pl. 1:1–7; Beth-Shean, Mazar 2006, 330-32, fig. 12.1; Hazor, Amiran 1969, 200, pl. 64:2.

Item 9 is a large bowl made of orange ware with drooping rim, found in T8. This shape of bowl is also found in later periods, but this item was included in the Iron Age finds based on its ware. Similar bowls were dated at Jerusalem, Moza and Bani Dar to the eighth century B.C., at Samaria to the Iron Age II and at Dor to the end of the Iron Age. Parallels: Samaria, Amiran 1969, 212, pl. 67:632; Jerusalem (City of David), De Groot – Ariel 2000, 94-7, fig. 9: 14; Moza, Greenhut – De Groot 2009, 82, fig. 3.13:2; Bani Dar, Yezerski 2009, pl. 5:6; Dor, Gilboa 1995, fig. 1.14 1.

30 Mazar 2006, 342-44.31 Mazar 2006, 337.32 By its description the ware of this bowl is similar to our bowl; another bowl from Samaria, from the same level, is also similar in form but is red-

slipped, Amiran 1969, pl. 67:9.


Persian-period pottery (fig.11)Jars (fig. 11: 1–4). Jars with a thickened rim and short neck, with variations of the rim, are the typical form of this period at Tell Samaria. Jars with out-folded rim were found in T5, jars with rectangular rim were found in T5 and C9, and jars with triangular and rounded rims also came from C9, where four jar handles from this period were also found. Ten Persian-period jar fragments were found, all made of local pale ware, constituting the majority of the Persian-period pottery found and 13% of all the jars in our excavation.

Item 1, a jar with out-folded rim, was dated at Gezer and Timnah to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. Parallels: Gezer, Gitin 1990, 73, pl. 29:3; Tel Ya‘oz, Segal et al. 2006, 11, fig. 10: 4; Tel Mevorakh, Stern 1978, 34, fig. 7: 2; Timnah (Tel Batash), Mazar – Panitz-Cohen 2001, pl. 76:17.

Item 2 is a jar with triangular rim, which was also dated at Gezer and Timnah to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., but at Nahal Tut it was dated to the end of the fourth century B.C.

Parallels: Gezer, Gitin 1990, 73, pl. 29:1; Timnah, Mazar – Panitz-Cohen 2001, pl. 76:15; Nahal Tut, Alexandre 2006,156, figs. 61:12; 62:3.

Item 3 is a jar with rectangular rim and two shallow ridges at the base of the neck. Parallels: Tel Mevorakh, Stern 1978, 34, fig. 7: 1; Kh. Kebbar (Hebron Mountains), Baruch 2006, 62, fig. 14: 3.

Item 4 is a jar with rounded rim and a shallow ridge at the base of the neck, dated at Shechem to the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., but dated at Nahal Tut to the end of the fourth century B.C. Parallels: Shechem, Lapp 2008, 19-20, pl. 2.1:11-13, 15; Nahal Tut, Alexandre 2006, 156, fig. 60: 5.

Amphora (fig.11: 5). Item 5 is a basket-handle amphora base, possibly of Cypriot origin, found in C9. This am-phora type is typical of the Levant during the Persian period, but it was produced starting in the seventh century and up to the fourth century B.C. At Ashkelon it was dated to the end of the seventh century, at Tel Keisan to late seventh–early sixth centuries, at Tell el-Hesi to the fifth century and at Gezer to the fifth–fourth centuries B.C.33 Parallels: Gezer, Gitin 1990, 74, pl. 28B:28; Dor, Stern 1995, 62-3, fig. 2; Tell el-Hesi, Bennett – Blakely 1989, 210-13; Tel Keisan, Salles 1980, 136-41, pls. 23-24; Ashkelon, Barako 2008, 441, fig. 23.11.

Bowl (fig. 11: 6). One such bowl, Item 6, was found in T1. It is a carinated bowl with an everted rim made of pale, coarse and crispy ware which, like the ware of the Iron Age bowls, was not well fired. This is a transitional type between the Iron Age and Persian period and should be dated from the end of the seventh to the sixth centuries B.C. It was dated at Tell el-Far‘ah to the end of the eighth century, at Samaria to the seventh century, at Gezer to the seventh–sixth centuries and at En-Gedi from the sixth to fourth centuries B.C. Parallels: Samaria, Tappy 2001, 397-408; Tel el-Far‘ah, Chambon 1984, 69, pl.61:1-5; En-Gedi, Stern 2007, 199, fig. 5.2.1:26; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 61-2, pl. 27:19.

Hellenistic-period pottery (fig. 12)Jars (fig. 12: 1–3). Sack-shaped jars with short neck and thick rim are the most typical jars found in inland exca-vations, dating mainly from the third and second centuries B.C. As this type is a direct descendent of a Persian-period type and continued to be produced until the end of the Hellenistic period, it may also date to the fourth and first centuries B.C.34 Jars of this type were found in T4, T5, T8 and C9. Some of these jars were made of local pale ware and some of orange ware. Four Hellenistic jar fragments were found, constituting 18% of the Hellenistic-period pottery found but only 5% of all the jars in our excavation. Item 1, a jar with thick, rounded rim, is similar in its pale ware and form to Persian-period types but such jars were dated at Tell Samaria and the Shechem area, as well as at Gezer, to the third century B.C. At Nahal Tut this type was found in a late fourth-century B.C. context

33 For a detailed discussion of this type, see Humbert 1991, 574-590; Gunneweg – Perlman 1991, 591-599.34 Johnson 2006, 532.


and at Rujib (near Mt. Gerizim), in a second-century B.C. context. Parallels: Shechem, Lapp 2008, 48, pl. 3.3:16, 17; Nahal Tut, Alexandre 2006, 156, fig. 52: 1-3; Rujib, Peleg 2009b, 72, pl. 1:3; Kh. el-Khamis (Bethlehem area), Batz 2009, pl. 1:3; Beth-Shean, Johnson 2006, 532, fig. 15.3:58-64; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 73, pl. 32:4; Dor, Guz-Zilberstein 1995, 311, figs. 6.35, 37.

Item 2 is a jar with folded rim, Shechem Type B, dated at Beth-Shean from the third to the early first centuries B.C. Parallels: Shechem, Lapp 2008, 42, pl. 3.3:12; Johnson 2006, 532, fig. 15.3:64.

Item 3 is a jar with a folded, flaring rim, Shechem Type B and D, dated at Beth-Shean to the third–early first cen-turies B.C. Parallels: Lapp 2008, 42, pls. 3.3:9; 3.8:3; Johnson 2006, 532, fig. 15.4:67; Jerusalem, Tushingham 1985, fig.18: 14.

Jugs (fig. 12: 4–8). Five jug types were found at Samaria in T4, T5, T8 and T10. In addition, more jug rims, han-dles and shoulders of unidentified Hellenistic types were found in T5 and T8. More than half the jugs were made of local orange ware and the rest of various wares. Nine Hellenistic-period fragments were found, constituting 40% of the Hellenistic- period pottery found and 80% of all the jugs in our excavation.

Item 4 is a jug with a wide, high neck and a grooved, out-folded rim, found in T8. At Timnah this type was dated to the fifth–fourth centuries B.C. and at Tell Mardikh to the third–second centuries B.C. This wide mouth jug is not a common type to this area and period and should rather be described as a krater. Parallels: Timnah, Mazar – Panitz-Cohen 2001, pl. 78:1; Tell Mardikh, Mazzoni 1984, 114-5, fig. D:3.

Item 5 is a ribbed jug base from T10. Parallels: Shechem, Lapp 2008: 42, pl. 3.20:16; Gamla, Berlin 2006: fig. 2.9:5–6.

Item 6 is a small jug with small, flat base cut unevenly by rope, from T5.

Item 7 is a jug with slightly everted neck and rim from T4, red-slipped. This type was dated at Shechem from the third to the early second centuries B.C. and at Gezer to the end of the second century B.C. Parallels: Shechem, Lapp 2008, 47, pl. 3.15:11; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 73, pl. 39:12–13.

Item 8 is a jug with wide, straight neck and slightly everted rim from T5, gray-slipped, and dated at Shechem to the second century B.C. Parallels: Shechem, Lapp 2008, 47, pl. 3.15:3; Beth-Shean, Johnson 2006, 535, fig. 15.5:98.

Cooking Pots (figs.12: 9–12). Three types of cooking pots dated to the Hellenistic period were found in Samaria, in T5 and T8. Five Hellenistic-period cooking-pot fragments were found, constituting 22% of the Hellenistic-period pottery found and 35% of all the jars in our excavation. Item 9 is a cooking pot of rounded, closed shape, high, straight neck and flat rim, found in T8. The type is dated at Gezer to the first half of the second century B.C. and at Jerusalem to the first century B.C. Parallels: Jerusalem (Akeldama), Ben-Arieh – Coen-Uzzielli 1996, 74, fig. 4.1:5; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 97, pl. 35:15; Gamla, Berlin 2006, 32, fig. 2.12:1.

Item 10 is a cooking pot of rounded, closed shape with a short, straight neck. Two items of this type were found in T5. The type is dated at Gezer to the end of third–early second centuries B.C. and at Jerusalem to the first century B.C. Parallels: Jerusalem (Akeldama), Ben-Arieh – Coen-Uzzielli 1996, 74, fig. 4.1:6; Gezer, Gitin 1990, 97, pl. 35:21; Marisa, Regev 2003, 174, type 58a.

Item 11 is a cooking-pot base, probably of the same type as item 10, found in T5.

Item 12 is a neck-less cooking pot with concaved rim made for a lid, found in T5. As only the rim was found, it is difficult to ascertain whether it belongs to the rounded-body type typical of the Hellenistic period, or to the cari-nated-body type typical of the Early Roman period. At Dor the rounded type is dated to the third–second centuries B.C., at Shavei Shomron a similar rim and neck are dated to the first century A.D. and at Ramat Hanadiv, from the first to the second centuries A.D. Parallels: Dor, Guz-Zilberstein 1995, 299, fig. 6.20:4-5; Shavei Shomron, Peleg – Greenfeld 2009, 46, pl. 1:8; En-Gedi, de Vincenz 2007, 2356, pl.3:13-14; Ramat Hanadiv, Calderon 2000, 95, pl. 3:46-7.


Bowls (fig. 12: 13, 14). Four bowl fragments of two types were found at Samaria, in T4, T5 and T8. Bowls consti-tute 18% of the Hellenistic-period pottery found and 22–26% of all the bowls in our excavation.

Item 13 is a hemispherical bowl with incurved rim, found in T5 and T8. This type is common throughout the Hel-lenistic period. Parallels: Marisa, Regev 2003, 177, type 63; Gamla, Berlin 2006, 25-8, fig. 2.6:5-20.

Item 14 is Eastern Sigillata A, Hayes Form 4, dated to the second and first centuries B.C., found in T4 and T5. Parallels: Tel Anafa, Slane 1997, pl. 6; Hayes 1985, 15-16, Form 4; Hayes 2008, fig. 2:32.

Roman-period pottery (fig. 13)Jars (Fig. 13:1–5). In the region of Samaria, jars of this period are ribbed, with medium to high neck, a ridge at the neck’s base, rounded handles at the upper body and a rounded base. A good deal of the pottery assemblage found in this excavation and the majority of all the jars are of this type. Jars of this type were found in T5, T8, T10, C2 and C9. They are made of at least three different clays: the local pale ware and orange ware as well as pinkish-brown ware. The same wares were used in this area during the late Iron Age, the Persian period and to a lesser degree also during the Hellenistic period. Fifty Roman-period jars fragments were found, constituting 80% of the Roman-period pottery found and 65% of all the jars in our excavation.

Items 1–5 are Roman jars, all of the same type, which was very common during the Early Roman period in Judea and Samaria, especially from the Jerusalem area and eastward, in the Judean Desert and the Dead Sea region. Similar jars were dated at Shechem and nearby Kh. as-Sawieh to the first century B.C., at Jericho from the mid-first century B.C. to the mid-first century A.D., at En-Gedi, Beth-Shean, Shavei Shomron and Kh.Yannun from the first century B.C. to the 30s of the second century A.D. and at ‘En Boqeq from the first to mid-second centuries A.D. This group has been divided into several sub-types by de Vincenz, but with minor changes; the type was dated mainly to the Early Roman period until the Bar-Kokhba revolt.35

In the coastal and northern areas, however, this jar type appears only in the late second to late third centuries A.D. Recent evidence from Nahal Hagit south of Mount Carmel revealed a large quantity of such jars, constituting al-most half of all the pottery found in Stratum II, dated based on coins and glass vessels from the late second to late third centuries A.D. This jar type had not been found in the earlier Stratum I, dated from the first century B.C. to the first century A.D. At a nearby site at Ramat Hanadiv similar jars were found in a context previously dated from the late first- to the mid-second centuries A.D., but should be dated later in the second century A.D.36

Jars with characteristic ribbed body are typical to the coastal and northern areas starting in the Hellenistic period. Such features began to appear at inland locales, the mountains, the lowlands and the Judean Desert, only starting in the Roman period, when the land of Israel had become unified under a single governmental and cultural entity. Previously, during the Hellenistic period, the same area was ruled by a single Greek authority, whether Ptolemaic or Seleucid, but there was a clear cultural separation between the polytheistic cities on the coast and the Jewish population in the mountain and lowland areas, as well as a measure of official autonomy for each group. Under Roman rule, external influence noticeably increased in both sectors and with it, cultural assimilation. This phe-nomenon is perceived in the material culture, including the local pottery corpus, which becomes less distinctively regional and more similar throughout the entire region.

It was only during the Roman period and the breach of regional boundaries that characteristics typical of coastal jars penetrated the repertoire of forms typical of the mountains and lowlands. These characteristics include ribbing of the jar body and a small, rounded handle located on top of the shoulder. Those two elements – along with a long neck and the sack-shaped body of inland jars typical during the Hellenistic period – generated a new jar type

35 Fischer – Tal 2000, 36-7, fig. 2.6:30-38; De Vincenz 2007, 238-39, pl. 5:1-23.36 Calderon 2000, 91-3, pl.1:1-12; Seligman 2010, 112-21, fig. 3.11:1-16.


typical of the mountains and eastern regions during the Early Roman period. While the latter areas used only the new jar type, the coastal area used the neck-less hole-mouth ribbed jar typical of the Hellenistic period onward.

Only during the second century A.D, when most of the inland Jewish centers and population had become extinct, did the new jar type of the mountains filter into the coastal area. This can be seen at Ramat Hanadiv, where both types – the coastal neck-less jar and the mountain high-neck jar – were found side by side. Later on, starting in the Late Roman period in the fourth century A.D., the two traditions merged and from then on, one jar form became typical to the entire area, the type known as the ‘Gaza Jar,’ produced around Ashkelon.37

Parallels: Ramat Hanadiv, Calderon 2000, 91-3, pl. 1:1-12; Nahal Hagit, Seligman 2010, 112-21, fig. 3.11:1-16; Shavei Shomron, Peleg – Greenfeld 2009, 46, pl. 2:1-9; Kh. Yannun (Itamar), Kagan – Eisenstadt 2009, 99–100, pls. 2:6-8, 3:12; Kh. as-Sawieh, Kagan 2009, pl. 1:1-6; Shechem, Magen 2005, pl. 54:14-20; Jericho, Hachlili – Killebrew 1999, 123-5, fig. III.63: 3-7; Capernaum, Loffreda 2008, 124-8; Beth-Shean, Sandhaus 2007, 119-21, fig. 6.2:6.

Jug (fig. 13: 6). Only one jug fragment dated to this period was found. Item 6 is an Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) jug base, found in T4, which belongs to either Hayes’ Forms 104, 107, 109, 114 or 116B. ESA jugs are quite rare and date between the second half of the first century B.C. and the second half of the first century A.D. Parallels: Hayes 1976, 19-20, fig. 5: 86, 88, pl. 11:86, 88; Hayes 1985, 43-7.

Juglets and Unguentaria (fig. 13: 7, 8). Four of the seven juglet fragments retrieved came from T8; three more came from T4, T5 and T7. These fragments include a neck, handle and bases; most of them are too small for in-fallible identification but all belong to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Seven Roman-period juglet fragments were found, constituting 11% of the Roman-period pottery found and all the juglets in our excavation.

Item 7 includes a base and lower body part of a juglet with horizontal ribbing above the base, found in T8. This type continues a local tradition of carinated juglets, which, starting in the Hellenistic period, were also horizon-tally ribbed. This type is very popular all over Israel.38 Juglets of this type were dated at Jerusalem from late first century B.C. to the end of the first century A.D., at Jericho to the first century A.D. and at Shechem from the second to the fourth centuries A.D. Parallels: Jerusalem (Akeldama), Ben-Arieh – Coen-Uzzielli 1996, 74, fig. 4.5:3; Jericho, Hachlili – Killebrew 1999, 119-20, fig. III.60:1; Gamla, Berlin 2006, 57, fig. 2.30: 22-23; Banias, Tzaferis – Israeli 2008, 73, fig. 4.13:16; Shechem, Magen 2005, pls. 27:19-20, 63:2.

Item 8 includes a base and lower body part of an unguentarium with knife-paring marks above the base, found in T8. This form was dated at Jerusalem from the late first century B.C. to the first century A.D. and at Kh. Yannun from the first to early second centuries A.D. Parallels: Jerusalem (Akeldama), Ben-Arieh – Coen-Uzzielli 1996, 74, fig. 4.5:4; Shechem, Magen 2005, 339, upper photo, two unguentaria on the left, pls. 58: 12, 61: 3-4, 63: 3-14; Yannun, Kagan – Eisenstadt 2009, 100-101, pl. 3:13-14.

Cooking Pots (fig. 13: 9,10). Cooking vessels of this period include one type only and a lid was also retrieved. Two Roman-period cooking pot fragments were found, constituting 3% of the Roman-period pottery found and 15% of all the cooking pots in our excavation.

Item 9 is a cooking jug. Two vessels of this type were found in T8 and C9, a type dated at Tel Anafa to the Early Roman period, at Shechem to the second century A.D. and in Tiberias to the third–fifth centuries A.D. Parallels: Shechem, Magen 2005, pl. 6: 9; Tiberias, de Vincenz 2008, 108-109, pl. 4.1:5; Tel Anafa, Berlin 1997, 148, pl. 54: PW 464.

Item 10 is a cooking pot lid of the rounded type that may be dated to the Hellenistic, Roman or even a later period.

37 Regev 2004, 337-52.38 Regev 2003, 170-71.


Bowls (fig.13: 11, 12). Bowl fragments of two types were found in T4 and T5. Two Roman-period bowl fragments were found, consisting 3% of the Roman-period pottery found and 11–13% of all the bowls in our excavation.

Item 11 is an incurved-rim bowl with sharp carination, found in T5. This type was dated at Shechem to the first century B.C. and at En-Gedi, ‘En Boqeq and Ramat Hanadiv from the first century B.C. to the first or early second century A.D. Parallels: Shechem, Magen 2005, pl. 54: 1, 2; En-Gedi, de Vincenz 2007, 237, pl.3:13-14; ‘En Bo-qeq, Fischer – Tal 2000, 31, fig. 2.2:11-32; Ramat Hanadiv, Calderon 2000, 98, pl. 4:62.

Item 12 is ESA, Hayes Form 36 dated to the first century A.D., found in T2. Parallels: Tel Anafa, Slane 1997, pl. 15:155-8; Hayes 1985, 30-31, Form 36; Hayes 2008, fig. 3: 61-6.

Late Roman pottery (fig. 14)Jars (fig.14: 1–5). Two types of jars dated to Late Roman and Early Islamic periods were found at Samaria. Most of the items come from T10. Eight Late Roman-period jars fragments were found, constituting 60% of the Late Roman-period pottery found and 10% of all the jars in our excavation.

Item 1 is a ‘Black Beisan Jar’ dated from the fourth to the eighth centuries A.D., one example of which was found in T10. This is a well-known and widely distributed jar, made of gray ware and decorated with circular white lines. Except for the decorations and handle details, it is identical in form to the ‘Gaza Jar’ produced around Ashkelon. This Levantine jar was produced at least at three locations – one in Egypt and two in Israel, one of these in the Jordan Valley in the Beth-Shean area. During the Umayyad period this type was produced in the Pella area in Jordan. The ‘Beisan Jar’ is assumed to have contained a renowned brand of wine and was also found in Cyprus, Greece and the Aegean Islands, Istanbul, Carthage, Rome and Gallia.39 Parallels: Beth-Shean, Abu ‘Uqsa 2005, 84, fig. 26: 4; Tel Keisan, Landgraf 1980, 67-83; Capernaum, Loffreda 2008, 132-6; Tiberias, Stacey 2004, 126, fig. 5.34:1-2; Kh. al-Mafjar, Whitcomb 1988, 51-67, fig. 1:1A; Ashkelon, Johnson 2008, 468.

Items 2–5 are jars of a form very similar to the Roman-period type above, but are made of finely levigated clay and have an omphalos base. Items of this type were mainly found in T10 but also in T5, T8 and C2. This type was dated at Shechem to the third–fourth centuries A.D. and at Kh. esh-Shubeika to the seventh–eighth centuries A.D. Like the ‘Beisan Jar,’ it was common in northern Israel and the Samaria region. Parallels: Magen 2005, pl. 10: 1-11; Kh. esh-Shubeika, Avshalom-Gorni 2002, 240, fig. 27: 1.

Cooking Pots (fig. 14: 6). Cooking-pot fragments of this period were found at Samaria, T10 and C9. Two Late Roman-period cooking pot fragments were found, constituting 15% of the Late Roman period-pottery found and 15% of all the cooking pots in our excavation.

Item 6 is a neck-less cooking pot with thickened and ridged rim, found in T10, dated to the Late Roman/Byzantine or Early Islamic period. Parallels: Shechem, Magen 2005, pl. 43: 25-26; Beth-Shean, Johnson 2006, 547-8, fig. 15.11:225; Capernaum, Loffreda 2008, fig. 176: 35-b2749.

Bowls (fig.14: 7, 8). Two items of two types were found in T7 and T10. These two Late Roman-period bowl frag-ments consists 15% of the Late Roman-period pottery found and 11–13% of all the bowls in our excavation.

Item 7 is Late Roman C ware (LRC), Hayes Form 3C, also known as Phocean Red Slip, is a bowl with thickened rim, triangular in section, red-slipped, found in T10.40 This type is dated at En-Gedi from the fifth to the seventh centuries A.D. and at Jerusalem and Athens to the sixth century A.D. At Ramat Hanadiv this form was identified as Hayes LRC Form 10, dated to the end of the sixth and early seventh centuries A.D. Parallels: Jerusalem (Jewish Quarter), Magness 1993, 138, fig. 1: 3; En-Gedi, de Vincenz 2007, 242, pl. 8: 18, 19, 21; Ramat Hanadiv, Calde-ron 2000, 112, pl. 10: 66-7; Capernaum, Loffreda 2008, 103-104; Athens, Hayes 2008, fig. 40: 1286.

39 Pieri 2005, 114-27, pls. 82-91; Landgraf 1980, 67-83.40 Hayes 1972, 329–338, fig.68: 10.


Item 8 is an open bowl/dish with flaring, slightly thickened rim, red-slipped, found in T7. This type may belong to the Late Roman C group, Hayes Form 4, a rare form close to Form 3, dated to the second quarter of 5th century A.D.41

Mamluk-Period Cooking PotTwo fragments of cooking-pot handles were found at Samaria, C9. These handles were too fragmentary to be illus-trated and were thus not assigned an item number and not included in the pottery statistics. The handles are wide and thin, of the ribbon type common during the Mamluk period, Avissar and Stern type II.2.1 dated to the 12th and 13th centuries A.D.42 Similar cooking pots were also dated at Nahal Hagit to the 12th and 13th centuries A.D., at Tiberias to the end of tenth to the 11th centuries A.D., and at Beth-Shean from the ninth to the 13th centuries A.D. Parallels: Nahal Hagit, Seligman 2010, 133-5, fig. 3.15:2; Tiberias, Stacey 2004, 125, fig. 5.32:16, 17; Beth-Shean, Boas 2006, 535, fig. 15.17:4.

Table 2 Description of clay vessels.

Fig. Loc. Vessel Description Clay description Date11: 1 T5 Jar, triangular rim, neck-ridge Orange on the outside, core and inner

side gray.End of 9th and 8th c. B.C.

11: 2 T5 Jar, triangular rim, neck-ridge Orange ware End of 9th and 8th c. B.C.11: 3 T5 CP, incurving rim, ridge on neck Brown ware 9th – 8th c. B.C.11: 4 T5 CP, incurving thickened rim,

2 handles from rimReddish brown ware 9th – 7th /6th c. B.C.

11: 5 T1 Carinated bowl, low ring base Orange brown ware with many red and gray inclusions, orange-red slip

10th – 7th c. B.C.


10th – 7th c. B.C.


10th – 7th c. B.C.


10th – 7th c. B.C.

11: 9 T8 Large bowl, rim folded out Orange ware 8th – 7th c. B.C.12: 1 T5 Jar, folded-out rim, short neck Grayish-brown ware, light brown clay

wash5th – 4th c. B.C.

12: 2 DC 9 Jar, triangular rim, short neck Light brown ware with red stains, gray core

5th – 4th c. B.C.

12: 3 DC 9 Jar, rectangular rim, 2 shallow ridges at the base of a short neck, and handle

Over fired gray ware, white inclusions on surface, cracks and air-bubbles

5th – 4th c. B.C.

12: 4 DC 9 Jar, rounded rim, shallow ridge at the base of a short neck

Light brown ware, grayish brown core 5th – 4th c. B.C.

12: 5 DC9 Amphora, handle Light brown ware, dark gray core, with mica

7th – 4th c. B.C.

12: 6 T1 Carinated bowl, rim folded out Very light brown – white ware, many gray inclusions, partially slipped reddish brown

End of 7th – 6th c. B.C.

13: 1 DC 9 Jar, thickened rim and short neck Light orange ware, gray core, many gray inclusions

2nd c. B.C.

13: 2 T5 Jar, folded rim Reddish-brown ware, well levigated 2nd c. B.C.13: 3 T4 Jar, folded rim Yellow ware, light orange core 2nd c. B.C.13: 4 T8 Jug, high and wide neck, folded-out rim Orange sandy ware 5th – 2nd c. B.C.

41 Hayes 1972, 338, fig. 69.42 Avissar – Stern 2005, 91-4, fig. 30:2, 5, pl. 26:1-2.


Fig. Loc. Vessel Description Clay description Date13: 5 T10 Jug, base, ribbed Brown ware 3rd – 2nd c. B.C.13: 6 T5 Jug, flat small base Light brown ware 3rd – 2nd c. B.C.13: 7 T4 Jug, high and wide neck, flaring rim Orange ware, reddish-brown slip 3rd – 2nd c. B.C.13: 8 T5 Jug, high and wide neck, flaring rim Orange ware, gray slip 2nd c. B.C.13: 9 T8 CP, high and wide neck, flat rim,

rounded closed bodyReddish brown ware, black core 3rd – 1st c. B.C.

13: 10 T5 CP, high and wide neck, concaved rim, rounded body

Brown ware 3rd – 1st c. B.C.

13: 11 T5 CP rounded base Brown ware, grayish brown core 3rd – 1st c. B.C.13: 12 T5 CP, short neck, rounded body Reddish brown ware 3rd – 1st c. B.C.13: 13 T8 Hemispherical bowl, incurved rim Pinkish – light brown ware inside, light

brown ware outside4th – 1st c. B.C.

13: 14 T5 Bowl/plate, base Light brown, well levigated ware, orange red slip

2nd – 1st c. B.C.

14: 1 T5 Jar, upper part, high neck, ridge at the neck’s base, rounded handles

Pinkish brown ware 1st – 2nd c. A.D.

14: 2 T8 Jar, rim, high neck, ridge at the neck’s base

Orange ware 1st – 2nd c. A.D.

14: 3 T10 Jar, rim, medium neck, ridge at the neck’s base

Light brown ware 1st – 2nd c. A.D.

14: 4 DC 9 Jar, rim, high flaring neck, ridge at the neck’s base

Light brown ware, pinkish brown core 1st – 2nd c. A.D.

14: 5 T5 Jar, rim, high neck, ridge at the neck’s base

Light brown ware 1st – 2nd c. A.D.

14: 6 T4 Jug, flat base, ESA Orange brown ware well levigated, shiny orange brown slip

1st c. B.C. – 1st c. A.D.

14: 7 T8 Juglet, base and lower part of body, ribbed

Light brown ware 1st c. B.C. – 1st c. A.D.

14: 8 T8 Unguentarium, base and lower part of body, knife-paring marks

Light brown ware, gray core, well levigated

1st c. B.C. – 1st c. A.D.

14: 9 T8 Cooking jug, neck and flat, everted rim Reddish brown ware, black core 1st – 3rd c. A.D.14: 10 DC 9 CP, rounded lid Grayish brown ware, ash marks14: 11 T5 Carinated bowl, rim Grayish brown ware inside, light brown

ware outside1st c. B.C. – 1st c. A.D.

14: 12 DC 2 Bowl/plate, base Light brown, well levigated ware, orange slip

1st c. A.D.

15: 1 T10 Jar, base with painted circular lines Dark brown ware, gray slip, white painted decoration

4th – 8th c. A.D.

15: 2 T10 Jar, omphalos base Reddish brown ware, gray slip, well levigated, metal sound

4th – 8th c. A.D.

15: 3 T10 Jar, high neck and rim Reddish brown ware, gray slip, well levigated, metal sound

4th – 8th c. A.D.

15: 4 T10 Jar, high neck and rim Reddish brown ware, flaking gray slip, well levigated, metal sound

4th – 8th c. A.D.

15: 5 T10 Jar, high neck and rim Reddish brown ware, gray slip inside and brown slip outside, well levigated, metal sound

4th – 8th c. A.D.

15: 6 T10 CP, thickened rim with ridge Dark brown ware 5th – 8th c. A.D.?15: 7 T10 Bowl, triangular rim Reddish brown, well levigated ware,

reddish brown slip, burnished5th – 7th c. A.D.

15: 8 T7 Bowl, flaring thickened rim Reddish brown, well levigated ware, reddish brown slip, burnished

5th c. A.D.


The Oil Lamps (Fig.15) 43

Six oil lamps of five different types were found at Samaria: two knife-pared lamps of the Roman period in T5, an Attic lamp in C9, a Hellenistic lamp of unidentified type in T8, an Early Roman lamp of the Provincial type in T10 and a lamp of the Late Roman period in T4. Except for one complete knife-pared lamp, all the others are lamp fragments.

Attic Black-Glazed (ABG) Lamp (fig.16: 1). An imported type dated between the end of fifth to the mid-third cen-turies B.C. but most common only until the end of the fourth century B.C. It is made of well-levigated light brown ware with black slip, found in C9. As this lamp fragment was found in a dwelling cave that saw prolonged use, we cannot give an accurate date within its range. Parallels: Tell el-Hesi, Risser – Blakely 1989, 126-7, figs. 74: 236, 78: 239, 83: 242; Dor, Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 234-6, figs. 5.13:1,2, 5.14:10.

Hellenistic-Period Oil Lamp (fig.16: 2). Found in T8, this is the base of a nozzle of an unidentified type. It is made of orange-brown ware. The lamp was dated by the ware and the form of this fragment.

Knife-Pared Oil Lamps (fig.16: 3, 4). Also known as Herodian or Jewish lamps, these are a type of lamp dated from the late first century B.C. to the mid-second century A.D., from Herod’s time until the end of the Bar-Kokhba revolt, but mostly common during the first century A.D. This lamp type was wheel-made and its nozzle was scraped with a knife, hence the name. This lamp is typical to Jewish sites in Israel, from Gush-Halav in the Up-per Galilee to Oboda in the Negev, as well as in the Hauran and Jordan. It was produced in many workshops in this area, used mainly by Jews but also by Nabataeans and other groups in Israel and Jordan who preferred not to use the ordinary Roman lamps. This phenomenon is often explained as resulting from rejection of the figurative decorations of Roman lamps with pagan deities and Roman emperors.44 Nonetheless, there are other areas where wheel-made undecorated lamps continued to be made and used during the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., areas where figurative art was culturally embedded and accepted, for example in Athens and Corinth.45

Lamp 3 is a complete lamp of the pared oil-lamp type, dated to the first century A.D., found in T5. It is 9.3 cm long, 6.3 cm wide and 2.5 cm high, made of yellowish-light brown ware. The base is flat and there are ash marks on the nozzle indicating it was used. Thirty-seven such lamps were found in Crowfoot’s excavations at Tell Sa-maria and nine others in a Samaritan loculi tomb at Kh.‘Amurieh alongside Samaritan sarcophagi of the types found in T8 and T10. Lamp 4 is a nozzle of the pared oil-lamp type, dated to the first century A.D., found in T5. Parallels (Lamps 3 and 4): Samaria, Crowfoot 1957, 368, fig. 86: 3; Shavei Shomron (Samaria), Peleg – Greenfeld 2009, 47, pl. 2:13; Shechem, Magen 2009, pl. 38:2; 63:15; Kh.‘Amurieh, Magen 2008b, 219-30, fig. 8; Jerusalem (Akeldama), Ben-Arieh – Coen-Uzzielli 1996, 83-5, fig. 4.8:2; Avni – Greenhut 1996, 29, fig. 1.54; Bet Shean, Hadad 2002, 13-15.

Provincial Rounded Roman Oil Lamp (fig.16: 5). A common lamp type dated from the end of first to the third cen-turies A.D. It is a base fragment made of light brown ware with thin black slip, found in T10. Parallels: Samaria, Crowfoot 1957, fig. 88: 7-9; Shechem, Magen 2005, pl. 3:4, 7; Beth-Shean, Hadad 2002, 16–20.

Late Roman-Period Oil Lamp (fig. 16: 6). This fragment is made of clay similar to the ware of Jerash area in Jor-dan. Lamps of similar types are dated to the fifth or sixth centuries A.D. and later. It is a fragment of the upper side of a lamp made of well-levigated reddish-brown ware with dark gray slip, was found in T4. Remains of a decora-tive pattern on this fragment show a circle with dots inside, and an unidentified element.

43 The authors thank Varda Sussman for her kind assistance in the identification of the lamps.44 Sussman 1982, 14; Israeli –Avida 1988, 38–45, nos. 59, 70, 79; Lapp 1999, 17–23, figs. 5, 6.45 Perlzweig 1961, 106–7, pl. 14: 418–38, Alpha Globule lamps; Broneer 1930, 56–60, pl. VII: 372–73, type XVI 3; Slane 1990, 9–11, pl. 1:1–6.


Summary and ConclusionsThe burial caves dug on the slope of Tell Samaria and in its vicinity should be ascribed to a single cultural unit. Some of these tombs were constructed as early as the Iron Age II and some during the Hellenistic and Early Ro-man period, but all of them were in use during the first and second centuries A.D. 46 These burial caves are part of a much wider necropolis in a radius of about one km around Tell Samaria-Sebaste. Samaria’s necropolis extended to this area during its prosperous eras, in the Iron Age II and the Roman period. Some of the necropolis tombs were also used during the Late Roman period; however, the volume of finds dated to the Early Roman period, including the sarcophagi, glass vessels, oil lamps and pottery, indicate that the Early Roman period was the last use phase of this necropolis, and a phase of later use was limited, perhaps restricted only to one tomb – T4.

As the tombs excavated on the tell’s slope were damaged by the heavy machinery of the road works we cannot be certain that their remaining content defines their dates; theoretically, some of the finds may have fallen into these tombs from the surface above during road construction.

However, as bench Tomb 1 contained only late Iron Age II finds and its architecture is typical of the Iron Age II, and loculi Tomb 7 on the same slope contained no find prior to the Early Roman period, it is quite clear that these tombs were not contaminated by intrusive finds. Loculi Tomb 8 was contaminated neither with finds predating its construction in the Early Roman period nor by later finds. Loculi Tomb 10 was not contaminated with finds pre-dating the Early Roman period, but was contaminated by later finds. Nonetheless, what remained of loculi Tomb 6 is obviously not of a clean corpus, and arcosolia Tomb 4 may have been contaminated with earlier finds of the Hellenistic period.

Notwithstanding, the strong likelihood that some or all of these tombs were partly robbed, in antiquity or in mod-ern times, is irrelevant to our ability to secure a date of construction and use for most of these tombs.

46 For another mixed Iron Age to Roman period necropolis in Jerusalem, see Greenhut – Adawi 2008, passim.


Abbreviations and BibliographyAizik 2009 N. Aizik, A Winepress, Quarries, a Pit Tomb and a Burial Cave at Khirbet Sirisye (South). Pp. 625, 31* in

Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew), 2009.

Aizik – Peleg 2009a N. Aizik – Y. Peleg, A Roman Period Burial Cave to the north of Khirbet el-Babariyyeh. Pp. 30–43, 29* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew), 2009a.

Aizik – Peleg 2009b N. Aizik – Y. Peleg, An Iron Age IIb Burial Cave to the East of Khirbet Shemin. Pp. 201–204, 47* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew), 2009b.

Abu ‘Uqsa 2005 H. Abu ‘Uqsa, Bet-She’an in the early Islamic period I-II (661-969 CE) as reflected in the ceramic assemblages from the “Tourist Center” excavations. M.A. thesis, University of Haifa (Hebrew), 2005.

Alexandre – Stern 2001 Y. Alexandre – E. Stern, Phoenician Cremation Burials at Tel Bira. Atiqot 42, 2001, 183–95.

Alexandre 2006 Y. Alexandre, Nahal Tut (Site VIII): A Fortified Storage Depot from the Late Fourth-Century BCE. Atiqot 52, 2006, 131–89.

Amiran 1969 R. Amiran, The Ancient Pottery of Eretz Yisrael: from its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the First Temple. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society, 1969.

Avissar – Stern 2005 M. Avissar – E. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk periods in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 26. Jerusalem, 2005.

Avni – Greenhut 1996 G. Avni – Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs, Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 1. Jerusalem, 1996.

Avshalom-Gorni 2002 D. Avshalom-Gorni, Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika, 1991, 1993 – The Pottery. Pp. 226–44 in Eretz Zafon, Studies in Galilean Archaeology, ed. Z. Gal. Jerusalem: IAA (Hebrew), 2002.

Barako 2008 T. J. Barako, Amphoras Throughout the Ages. Pp. 429–61 in Ashkelon 1, Introduction and Overview (1985-2006), The Leon Levy expedition to Ashkelon. Final reports 1. eds. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen and D. M. Master. Harvard Semitic Museum Publications. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Barkai 1989 R. Barkai, Samaritan Sarcophagi of the Roman Period in Eretz Israel, Cathedra 54 (1989), 63–73.

Barkai 2002 R. Barkai, Samaritan Sarcophagi, pp. 310–38 in The Samaritans, eds. E. Stern and H. Eshel. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, IAA, SOA-CAJS, 2002.

Baruch 2006 Y. Baruch, Buildings of the Persian, Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods at Khirbet Kabar, in the Northern Hebron Hills. ‘Atiqot 52 (2006), 49*–71*, 205 (Hebrew).

Batz 2009 S. Batz, Burial Caves, A Colombarium, and a Winepress at Khirbet el-Khamis. Pp. 73–83, 9* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 10, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CA and IAA (Hebrew), 2009.

Ben-Arieh – Coen-Uzzielli 1996 R. Ben-Arieh – T. Coen-Uzzielli, The Pottery. Pp. 73–93 in The Akeldama Tombs, Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, by G. Avni and Z. Greenhut. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 1. Jerusalem, 1996.

Bennett – Blakely 1989 W. J. Bennett – J. A. Blakely, Tell el-Hesi, The Persian Period (Stratum V). American Schools of Oriental Research Excavation Reports. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989

Berlin 1997 A. Berlin, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Plain Wares. Pp. 1–211 in Tel Anafa II1, ed. S. Herbert. Ann Arbor, 1997.

Berlin 2006 A. Berlin, Gamla I, The Pottery of the Second Temple Period. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 29. Jerusalem, 2006.

Bloch-Smith 1992 E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Boas 2006 A. J. Boas, Note on Some Medieval Period Ceramics Found in Area P. Pp. 590–93 in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Vol. I: From the late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, by A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006.

Broneer 1930 O. Broneer, Terracotta Lamps, Corinth, Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. IV, Part II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

Calderon 2000 R. Calderon, Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 91–165 in Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Final Report of the 1984-1998 Seasons, by Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.


Caron – Zoïtopoúlou 2008 B. Caron – E. P. Zoïtopoúlou, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, Collection of Mediterranean Antiques, Vol. 1, The Ancient Glass, Monumenta Graeca et Romana 13. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Chambon 1984 A. Chambon, Tell el-Far’ah I, l’âge du fer. Paris: CNRS, Editions recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984.

Crowfoot 1957 G. M. Crowfoot, Lamps, and an Early Stone Lamp Holder. Pp. 365–78 in Samaria-Sebaste Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, No. 3, The Objects from Samaria, by J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1957.

De Groot – Ariel 2000 A. De Groot – D. T. Ariel, Ceramic Report. Pp. 91–154 in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Vol. VI. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000.

De Jong 2001-2002 L. De Jong, Aspects of Roman Burial Practices in Beirut: On Romanization and Cultural Exchange. ARAM 13/14 (2001-2002), 293–312.

De Vincenz 2007 A. De Vincenz, The Pottery. Pp. 234–427 in En-Gedi Excavations II, Final Report (1996-2002), by Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007.

De Vincenz 2008 A. De Vincenz, The Pottery Assemblages. Pp. 107–65 in Tiberias: The House of the Bronzes I, by Y. Hirschfeld and O. Gutfeld. Qedem 48. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008.

Fischer – Tal 2000 M. Fischer – O. Tal, Pottery. Pp. 29–67 in ‘En Boqeq, Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea, Vol. II: The Officina, An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore, eds. M. Fischer and O. Tal. Mainz, 2000.

Fleming 1997 S. J. Fleming, Roman Glass, Reflections of Everyday Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Mu-seum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1997.

Foerster 2009 G. Foerster, The Production of Decorated Sarcophagi in Palestine and their Relation to the Sarcophagi from Main Workshops of the Roman World. Pp. 82–7 in Man Near a Roman Arch, Studies presented to Prof. Y. Tsafrir, eds. L. Di Segni et al. Jerusalem: IES, 2009.

Gilboa 1995 A. Gilboa, The Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age Pottery and the Chronology of Iron Age Assemblages. Pp. 1–49 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Vol. I B, Areas A and C: The Finds, ed. E. Stern. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995.

Gitin 1990 S. Gitin, Gezer III, A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1990.

Greenhut – De Groot 2009 Z. Greenhut – A. De Groot, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza, The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 39. Jerusalem, 2009.

Greenhut – Adawi 2008 Z. Greenhut – Z. Adawi, Caves from the Iron Age and Early Roman period at ‘Ein el-Luza, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 59 (2008), 21*–35*, 198.

Gunneweg – Perlman 1991 J. Gunneweg – I. Perlman, The Origin of “Loop-Handle Jars” from Tell Keisan. Revue Biblique 98 (1991), 591–99.

Guz-Zilberstein 1995 B. Guz-Zilberstein, The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Pp. 289–433 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Vol. I B, Areas A and C: The Finds, ed. E. Stern. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995.

Hachlili – Killebrew 1999 R. Hachlili – A. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish cemetery of the Second Temple Period. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 7. Jerusalem, 1999.

Hadad 2002 S. Hadad, The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean. Qedem Reports 4. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration Society, 2002.

Hayes 1972 J. W. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery. London: The British School at Rome, 1972.

Hayes 1976 J. W. Hayes, Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum, A Catalogue. Toronto: Royal Toronto Museum, 1976.

Hayes 1985 J. W. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali A. Pp. 9–48, Pls. 1–10 in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, classica e orientale. Atlante della forma ceramiche II: ceramica fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo Impero). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1985.

Hayes 1991 J. W. Hayes, Paphos, Vol. III: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1991.

Hayes 2008 J. W. Hayes, The Athenian Agora 32, Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies in Athens, 2008.


Humbert 1991 J. B. Humbert, Essai de classification des amphores dites “Á anses de panier”. Revue Biblique 98 (1991), 574–90.

Israeli 2003 Y. Israeli, Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum, The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2003.

Israeli 2010 Y. Israeli, Glass vessels. Pp. 221–35 in H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem conducted by N. Avigad 1969-1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: IES and Hebrew University, 2010.

Israeli – Avida 1988 Y. Israeli – U. Avida, Oil-lamps from Eretz Israel: the Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection at the Israel Museum. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1988.

Jackson-Tal 2009 R. E. Jackson-Tal, Early Roman Glass Vessels from Dated Contexts in Palestine: From Pompey to Hadrian (63 BCE–137 CE). Ph.D. diss. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2009.

Johnson 2006 B. L. Johnson, The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Period Pottery. Pp. 523–89 in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Vol. I: From the late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, by A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006.

Johnson 2008 B. L. Johnson, The Pottery in the Grid 38 Bathhouse. Pp. 463–70 in Ashkelon 1, Introduction and Overview (1985-2006), eds. L.E. Stager, J. D. Schloen and D. M. Master. Harvard Semitic Museum Publications. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Kagan 2009 E. D. Kagan, A Rural Settlement from the Roman to the Early Islamic Periods at Khirbet as-Sawieh. Pp. 235–8, 54* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CA and IAA (Hebrew), Kagan.

Kagan – Eisenstadt 2009 E. D. Kagan – I. Eisenstadt, The Pottery and Glass Vessels from Khirbet Yannum (Itamar East). Pp. 97–119, 35* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CA and IAA (Hebrew), 2009.

Landgraf 1980 J. Landgraf, Keisan’s Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 51–99 in Tell Keisan (1971-1976), une cité phénicienne en Galilée, eds. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert. Fribourg Suiss: éditions universitaires Fribourg, 1980.

Lapp 1999 E. C. Lapp, The Archaeology of Light: The Cultural Significance of the Oil Lamp from Roman Palestine. Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999.

Lapp 2008 N. Lapp, Shechem IV, The Persian-Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balatah. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 11. Boston, 2008.

Loffreda 2008 S. Loffreda, Cafarnao VI, tipologie e contesti stratigrafici della ceramica (1968-2003). Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 48. Jerusalem, 2008.

Magen 1993 Y. Magen, The “Samaritan” Sarcophagi. Pp. 149–66 in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context, Monuments and Documents, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 38. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993.

Magen 2005 Y. Magen, Flavia Neapolis, Shechem in the Roman Period. Judea and Samaria Publications 5, eds. A. Segal, B. Yuzefovski and L. Kleinberg-Farhi. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew), 2005.

Magen 2008a Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria Researches and Discoveries. Judea and Samaria Publications 6, ed. A. Malka. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA, 2008a.

Magen 2008b Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Judea and Samaria Publications 7, ed. N. Carmin. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA, 2008b

Magen 2009 Y. Magen, Flavia Neapolis, Shechem in the Roman Period. Judea and Samaria Publications 11, ed. L. Kleinberg. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA, 2009.

Magen – Eisenstadt 2004 Y. Magen – I. Eisenstadt, Ancient Burial Caves in Samaria. Pp. 1–76 in Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria from the Bronze and Iron Ages, Judea and Samaria Publications 4, eds. H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA, 2004.

Magness 1993 J. Magness, Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: circa 200-800 CE. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Monograph Series Sheffield: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993.

Mazzoni 1984 S. Mazzoni, L’insedimento persiano-ellenistico di Tell Mardikh. Studi Eblaiti 7 (1984), 87–132.

Mazar 2006 A. Mazar, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Vol. I: From the late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006.

Mazar – Panitz-Cohen 2001 A. Mazar – N. Panitz-Cohen, Timnah (Tel Batash) II, The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2001.


Osborne 2011 J. F. Osborne, Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70 (2011), 35–53.

Peleg 2003 Y. Peleg, Second Temple Period Burial Caves in Khirbet ‘Alya. Pp. 205–14 in One Land – Many Cultures, Archaeological Studies in Honor of S. Loffreda, eds. G. C. Bottini – L. Di Segni and L. D. Chrupcata, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 41. Jerusalem, Peleg.

Peleg 2009a Y. Peleg, An Iron Age II Burial Cave at Khirbet el-Lauz. Pp. 52–61, 30* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew), 2009a.

Peleg 2009b Y. Peleg, A Late Hellenistic Burial Cave to the West of Rujib. Pp. 71–8, 32* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, I. ed. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew).

Peleg 2009c Y. Peleg, A Late Iron Age Structure at Khirbet et-Tubeika. Pp. 133–8, 13* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 10, I. ed. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew).

Peleg – Greenberg 2009 Y. Peleg – U. Greenberg, A Late Roman Period Cave and Ritual Bath West of Shavei Shomron. Pp. 44–51, 29* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, I. ed. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CAJS and IAA (Hebrew), 2009.

Perlzweig 1961 J. Perlzweig, Lamps of the Roman Period, First to Seventh Century After Christ, The Athenian Agora, Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. VII. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1961.

Pieri 2005 D. Pieri, Le commerce du vin oriental à l’époque byzantine (Ve-VIIe siecles), Le témoignage des amphores en Gaule. Bibliothèque archéologique et Histoirique 174. Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2005.

Regev 2003 D. Regev, Typology of the Persian and Hellenistic Pottery Forms at Maresha – Subterranean Complexes 70, 21, 58. Pp. 163–83 in Maresha Excavations Final Report I, Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 17. Jerusalem, 2003.

Regev 2004 D. Regev, The Phoenician Transport Amphora. Pp. 337–52 in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 2002, eds. J. Eiring and J. Lund. Athens, 2004.

Risser – Blakely 1989 M. K. Risser – J. A. Blakely, Imported Aegean Fine Ware in the First Millennium BCE. Pp. 69–137 in Tell el-Hesi, the Persian Period (Stratum V), by W. J. Bennett and J. A. Blakely. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports. Indiana, 1989.

Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995 R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Pp. 183–288 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Vol. I B, Areas A and C: The Finds, ed. E. Stern. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University, 1995.

Salles 1980 J. F. Salles, Le niveau 4. Pp. 131–56 in Tell Keisan (1971-1976), une cité phénicienne en Galilée, eds. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert. Fribourg, Suiss: éditions universitaires Fribourg, 1980.

Sandhaus 2007 D. Sandhaus, The Pottery. Pp. 115–21 in Nysa-Scythopolis: The Caesareum and the Odeum, by G. Mazor and A. Najjar. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 33. Jerusalem, 2007.

Segal et al. 2006 O. Segal, R. Kletter, I. Ziffer, A Persian-Period Building from Tel Ya’oz (Tell Ghaza). ‘Atiqot 52 (2006), 1*–24*, 203 (Hebrew).

Seligman 2010 J. Seligman, Nahal Haggit, A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the Southern Carmel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 43. Jerusalem, 2010.

Slane 1990 K. W. Slane, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, The Roman Pottery and Lamps, Corinth, Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. XVIII, Part II. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1990.

Slane 1997 K. W. Slane, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Fine Wares. Pp. 247–393 in Tel Anafa II1, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, ed. S. Herbert. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, 1997.

Stacey 2004 D. Stacey, Excavations at Tiberias, 1973-1974, The Early Islamic Periods. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 21. Jerusalem, 2004.

Stern 1978 E. Stern, Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part One: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period. Qedem 9. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University, 1978.


Stern 1995 E. Stern, Local Pottery of the Persian Period. Pp. 51–92 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Vol. I B, Areas A and C: The Finds, ed. E. Stern. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University.

Stern 2007 E. Stern, En-Gedi excavations I: final report (1961-1965). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Stern – Gorin-Rosen 1997 E. J. Stern – Y. Gorin-Rosen, Burial Caves Near Kabri, ‘Atiqot 33 (1997), 1–22.

Sukenik 1942 E. L. Sukenik, The Tombs. Pp. 81–90 in Samaria-Sebaste, No. 1, The Buildings at Samaria, by J. W. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon and E. L. Sukenik. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942.

Sussman 1982 V. Sussman, Ornamented Jewish Oil-Lamps from the Destruction of the Second Temple Through the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, Israel Exploration Society, 1982.

Tappy 1992 R. E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Vol. I: Early Iron Age through the Ninth Century BCE. Harvard Semitic Studies 44. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1922.

Tappy 2001 R. E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Vol. II: The Eight Century BCE. Harvard Semitic Studies 50. Winona Lake, In.: Eisenbrauns, 2001.

Tushingham 1985 A. D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Vol. I. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1985.

Tzaferis – Israeli 2008 V. Tzaferis – S. Israeli, Paneas I, The Roman to Early Islamic Periods Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 37. Jerusalem: IAA, 2008.

van den Brink 2004 E. C. M. van den Brink, A ‘Provincial’ Roman-Period Samaritan Burial Ground in Pardes Ha-Gedud, Netanya. ‘Atiqot 47 (2004), 131–54.

Weinberg – Stern 2009 G. D. Weinberg – M. E. Stern, The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 34 – Vessel Glass. Princeton, 2009.

Whitcomb 1988 D. Whitcomb, Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271 (1988), 51–67.

Yezerski 1999 I. Yezerski, Burial-Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah toward the End of the Iron Age. Tel-Aviv 26 (1999), 253–70.

Yezerski 2007 I. Yezerski, Pottery of Stratum V. Pp. 86–129 in En-Gedi Excavations I, Final report (1961-1965), by E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Yezerski 2009 I. Yezerski, The Finds from the Cemetery at Bani Dar, Pp. 145–67, 14* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 10, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CA and IAA (Hebrew), 2009

Yezerski – Aizik 2009 I. Yezerski – N. Aizik, Finds from the Tomb at Khirbet Sirisye (South). Pp. 65–70, 32* in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications 9, ed. I. Yezerski. Jerusalem: SOA-CA and IAA (Hebrew), 2009.

Zayadine 1968 F. Zayadine, Une tombe du Fer II a Samarie-Sébaste. Revue Biblique 75 (1968), 562–85.


Fig. 1 Map of Tell Samaria and the area with the excavated tombs and caves

Fig. 2 T1

Fig. 3 T4 Fig. 4 T7

Fig. 5 T8 Fig. 6 T10


Fig. 7 Sarcophagi Fig. 8 Glass

1

1

5 8

6

7

9

10

2 3

4

2

4 5

3

Fig. 9 Color close-up photos of clay samples


Fig. 10 Iron Age pottery

Fig. 11 Persian period pottery

1 2

3

4

5

6

9

7

1 2

3

5

6

4

8


Fig. 12 Hellenistic period


Fig. 13 Roman period pottery


Fig. 14 Late Roman period pottery

Fig. 15 Oil lamps

2013 NEW FINDS FROM THE SAMARIA-SEBASTE NECROPOLIS

Documents

Transcript of 2013 NEW FINDS FROM THE SAMARIA-SEBASTE NECROPOLIS