Gorin-Rosen Y. 2009. The Glass Vessels from Strata 5–1. In N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y....

Chapter 3

Strata 5–1: the early ISlamIc, cruSader, and mamluk PerIodS

Horbat ‘Uza and the Medieval historiCal soUrCes

Ayelet Tatcher

The site of Horbat ‘Uza (Fig. 3.1) is mentioned for the first time in historical sources during the Middle Ages. These sources are Arabic chronicles written by witnesses to the events of the Muslim–Crusader wars, who often had been in the service of Saladin, and Latin historical sources, some of which were apparently written subsequent to the events.1 Other sources are title deeds of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem that refer to the site: a document from 1178, in which the site is referred to as the fiefdom of a knight, Galterius Seagius (Ellenblum 1998:155); a deed of sale from 1255 for the land of Johan Marriam, stating that on the east his property bordered the lands of the village La Hadia, which were the property of Roland Anthelmus (Frankel 1988:261); and an appendix to a peace treaty signed in 1283 between the Mamluk sultans and the Second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, listing the settlements to remain under Crusader control (Barag 1979:202, 204).

Based on the traditional name of the site, Khirbet el-‘Aydiah, historians have identified H. ‘Uza as Tell el-‘Ayadiya, which appears in Arab historical sources.2 In this section, the various sites as they appear in Arab and Latin sources are examined and an attempt will be made to establish their exact location.

baCkgroUnd

When the outcome of the Battle of Hittin (July 4, 1187) became known in Europe, preparations began for the Third Crusade. Heading this latest crusade, the largest of the three, were three rulers: Emperor Frederick I Barberousse of Germany, King Richard the Lionheart of England, and King Philippe II Auguste of France.

Between 1189 and 1190, the armies of Europe set out for the Holy Land, although only some of them arrived at their destination. The remains of the German forces, led by Frederick duc de Souabe, arrived at Acre (‘Akko) in the beginning of October 1190. The French regiment landed on the shores of Acre in April 1191, and the English forces arrived in June. The European armies united with the depleted forces of King Guy de Lusignan, who had besieged Acre beginning in August 1189. This new development led Saladin to return to Acre and lay siege to the Crusader forces entrenched on Tell el-Musaliba/Tell el-Fukhar (Tel ‘Akko). During the siege, which lasted two years, both sides suffered from famine, disease, and cold.

There is a wealth of information on the siege battles. Below is a description of six episodes from those days, which will be used in our attempt to pinpoint the exact location of Tell el-‘Ayadiya and the identification of H. ‘Uza.

Episode 1

The campaign against Acre began with a small force of Christian knights led by Guy de Lusignan (April 1189), which set out from Tripoli in the direction of Muslim

Fig. 3.1. Map of the ‘Akko Plain and the sites mentioned in this chapter.

0 4 km0 4km

H z. U aTel Bira

Tell Keisan

Tel Afeq

Na

al Na

aman

h

’

(Tel ‘Akko)Acre

‘Akko Plain

Hillcountry

H. Turit

760

748

750

752

754

756

758

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

HORBAT ‘UzA: VOLUME II106

Acre. Sicilian and Pisan navies accompanied the force. They were joined by Templars, Hospitallers, and other knights who were, at that time, in hiding in the Galilee. Guy de Lusignan and his force reached the walls of Acre on August 26, 1189 and entrenched at Tell el-Musaliba (Hubert and Lamont 1976:136; ‘Imad al-Din al-‘Isfahani 1972:170, Anon RHC Occ 2:125). The news of the approach of the Christian forces reached Saladin while he was besieging Beaufort Fortress, one of the remaining pockets under Christian control. He left the siege and turned toward Acre by way of Lake Hula and Tiberias, arriving in the area of Acre (Tell Kharuba), where he could observe the enemy, on August 29, 1189 (Baha ed-Din 1897:155; Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:133). Saladin deployed his forces in two flanks and a central column and positioned his headquarters at Tell Keisan. The left flank of the army spread out to Nahal Na‘aman (Nahar el-H‘lo) and the right flank spread out until it neared Tell el-‘Ayadiya (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:133; Anon RHC Occ 2:126; Hubert and Lamont 1976:141). On September 14, 1189, Saladin’s army made the first attack on the Christian forces. On the second day (September 15) of the attack, the Muslim forces succeeded in opening a passage into Acre through the Christian blockade (Baha ed-Din 1897:158). Having established an approach into the city, Saladin redeployed his army and moved his headquarters and personal command to Tell el-‘Ayadiya (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:138; ‘Imad al-Din al-‘Isfahani 1972:176). The Muslim encampment in the northern part of the city and the redeployment of Saladin’s forces prompted the Christian forces to action and, on October 4, 1189, they attacked the Muslim weak spot to the north of the city. The main brunt of the attack fell upon the elite units of the Templar and Hospitaller troops. The Christian forces pushed the Muslim forces back from their positions and these began to retreat. Saladin, who monitored the battle from an observation point, sent reinforcements.

When the Christians discerned the depleted condition of the central Muslim force, they turned to attack the central-right Muslim units, near Tell el-‘Ayadiya. The Muslims began to retreat, and the Christian cavalry conquered the hill on which stood the tent of the sultan (Abu Shama RHC Or 4–5:417; Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:142). The Crusader forces began to pillage the camp and the bazaar that had sprouted up around it (Hubert and Lamont 1976:157; Baha ed-Din 1897:165). The pillaging soldiers quickly realized they had lost contact

with the rest of the units at the same time that the Muslim forces recovered and began to fight back. The Christians on the hill began to retreat, surrounded by both the Muslim forces that had come out from the city of Acre and by the army of Saladin. The battle ended with the defeat of the Crusaders. The area between Tell el-Musaliba and Tell el-‘Ayadiya was strewn with the bodies of the fleeing Crusaders. At the end of the battle Saladin ordered the Christian bodies collected and thrown into the waters of Nahal Na‘aman. The Muslim victory was incomplete, however. While the Muslim forces did not succeed in conquering the Crusader camp, the Crusaders had succeeded in holding their new position, to the north of the city. Saladin himself retreated on October 15 to Kharuba, and at this stage both armies established winter encampments, as the rain converted the entire coastal plain into an impassable swamp. The ceasefire lasted five months, and in the spring of 1190 the war continued.

Episode 2

On April 25, 1190 the army of Saladin began to approach Acre. At first, they encamped near Tell Keisan. Then, Saladin and his personal entourage moved to Tell el-‘Ayadiya. On April 27, 1190 the Christian forces succeeded in reaching the walls of the city. To prevent the city’s fall, Saladin sent forces to divert the Christians from the city to the position of his army (‘Imad al-Din el-‘Isfahani 1972:215). The attack failed and the Christian forces retreated to their previous positions. Throughout the spring and summer of 1190, the war between the two sides continued without any side gaining the upper hand.

Episode 3

In the beginning of October, 1190, Frederick duc de Souabe arrived at Acre with the remnants of the German forces. Several days later, in a display of strength, he led an attack on the Muslim forces. The Christian army crossed the plain between Tell el-Musaliba and Tell el-‘Ayadiya. The advance force of the Muslim army camped at Tell el-‘Ayadiya (a spot held in turn by various units of Saladin’s army) and hand-to-hand combat ensued. When the news reached the sultan, he rode toward Tell Keisan accompanied by large forces, and the Christians, observing this movement, retreated (Baha ed-Din 1897:214; Beha al-Din RHC

CHAPTER 3: STRATA 5–1: THE EARLy ISLAMIC. CRUSADER, AND MAMLUK PERIODS 107

Or 3:187; Abu Shama RHC Or 4–5:478; ‘Imad al-Din al-‘Isfahani 1972:252).

Episode 4

Around November 11–12, 1190, a large Christian force set out to attack the Muslim supply depots in Haifa. They first tried to secure their home front by attacking the Muslim forces to the north and east of the ‘Akko Plain. The Christians encamped for the night near the wells of Tell Hajal (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:196; ‘Imad al-Din al-‘Ispahani 1972:263; Baha ed-Din 1897:223). In response, the sultan ordered a retreat of the guard from Tell el-‘Ayadiya southward, to Tell Keisan, and redeployed his army. In the morning, the Christians turned toward Haifa, moving southward along the eastern bank of the Nahal Na‘aman streambed. They crossed the stream in the area of Kurdana and encamped on the opposite bank. The Muslims attacked during the night, and the next day, the Christians realized that they were surrounded. In addition, they learned that the Muslims had emptied the storage depots at Haifa. The Christians retreated.

Episode 5

In the spring of 1191, the kings of France and England arrived at Acre. The arrival of these reinforcements raised moral in the Christian camp. In the Muslim camp moral was low, as expected reinforcements had not materialized, and soldiers began to desert. In June, Philippe Auguste conducted a number of unsuccessful attacks against the city. Simultaneously, Saladin returned, re-establishing his headquarters on Tell el-‘Ayadiya (‘Imad al-Din el-Isfahani 1972:295–296; Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:217).

Episode 6

In July 1191, the Christian attacks on the city became more frequent and the city’s defenses weakened. The besieged requested permission from the sultan to begin negotiations on terms of surrender, but Saladin refused. On July 11, 1191, another attack was launched, which led to negotiations. The next day, July 12, 1191, Acre surrendered. According to the terms of the treaty, the inhabitants of the city and the soldiers of the guard were to be considered prisoners

of war, but could be traded for Christian prisoners, a ransom of 200,000 gold dinars, and the return of the ‘true cross’. On August 11, Saladin sent the first shipment of prisoners and part of the ransom money. However, the Christians were not satisfied with the shipment; a number of high-ranking Christians who were supposed to have been included were missing. Richard the Lionheart, who was keen to set out for Jerusalem following the conquest of Acre, used this as an excuse to be rid of the Muslim prisoners. On August 20, 1191, King Richard announced that Saladin had violated the terms of surrender, and ordered the death of all the prisoners (Runciman 1954:54). Some 2700 Muslim prisoners were brought in chains from the city to the plain between Tell el-‘Ayadiya and Tell Keisan, where they were slaughtered (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:246; ‘Imad al-Din al-‘Isfahani 1972:330). Saladin watched the proceedings from an observation point at the foot of Tell el-‘Ayadiya (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:246).

identifiCation of the site

The historical sources mentioned above make clear that all the sites were in close proximity to Acre, but it is difficult to identify them with certainty. One source of difficulty is the three sets of names: (a) the names as they appear in the historical sources, (b) the names in Arabic; (c) and the Hebrew names provided by the Israel Government Naming Committee. Unfortunately, the historical and Arabic names do not necessarily correspond. a. The historical sources include the following names: Tell el-‘Ayadiya, Tell Hajal, Turon de Saladin, and the village of Hadia.b. The Arabic names of sites apparently connected to the events are: Tell Keisan, Khirbet Tantur, and Tell el-‘Ayadiya .c. The Hebrew names of these sites and their map locations are: Tel Kison (Tell Keisan), map ref. NIG 2143/7512; Horbat Turit, map ref. NIG 2130 7580; and Horbat ‘Uza, map ref. NIG 2144 7577.

The following discussion analyzes the topography and landscape as described in the historical sources in relation to the settlement data, and suggests identifications of the various sites and the sequence of events in the field.


The Identification of Turon de Saladin

Prawer identified Turon de Saladin with Tell Keisan (1984:39). Frankel, on the other hand, suggested identifying the place with Tell el-‘Ayadiya (1988:271–272). Frankel‘s identification is apparently supported in the Latin sources, which describe the deployment of the Muslim forces such: “Saladin extended his army to a tower (Turon) which is located near the city of Acre and is called to this day Turon de Saladin” (Anon RHC Occ 2:126). The Arab chronicles state that Saladin arranged his army in two flanks and a central column, with the end of the right flank reaching Tell el-‘Ayadiya. Thus, it appears that Prawer was mistaken in his identification of Tell Keisan (located in the center of the area) as Turon de Saladin, and Tell Keisan should be identified with Tell el-‘Ayadiya (located on the right/northern flank).

Prawer further identified Tell el-‘Ayadiya of the historical sources with Khirbet el-‘Aydiah—today Horbat ‘Uza (Prawer 1984:39). This is obviously because of the similarity of the names. However, the topographical conditions are incompatible with such an identification, and Tell el-‘Ayadiya should be identified with H. Turit, as Frankel suggested (1988:271–272).

The Identification of Horbat ‘Uza with Tell Hajal and the Village Hadia

From the topographical descriptions of the Arab chroniclers, it is evident that Tell el-‘Ayadiya was a high place “facing Tell el-Musaliba (Tel ‘Akko) and overlooking Acre and the Christian camps” (Abu Shama RHC Or 4–5:411), and “a high hill facing Tell el-Messelin (Tel ‘Akko) from which the city of Acre and the camps of the enemy can be observed” (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:138). Horbat Turit is 90 m above sea level (asl), and both Tel ‘Akko and the city of Acre can be observed from the summit. In contrast, H. ‘Uza is 25 m asl and neither the tell nor the city of Acre can be seen. Assuming that Tell el-‘Ayadiya is H. Turit, there are still a number of questions concerning the topography of H. Turit:1. In the description of the deployment of the Muslim forces, it appears that the edge of the right flank reached Tell el-‘Ayadiya, where they camped for an extended period. This would necessitate a nearby perennial water source. However, there is no water source at the

site and a well cannot be dug on the summit. Therefore, the question is raised as to where the forces of the right flank encamped.2. Arabic sources describe a bazaar that grew up near the camp of the sultan. However, a bazaar cannot exist without a perennial water source. Thus, it is unlikely that it was located on the summit of the hill. Therefore, the site of the bazaar must also be located.

In light of these questions, and the locations of the sites in the area, we suggest that the site of the camp of the right flank of Saladin’s army, the location of the bazaar, and the nearby water source, are to be identified with H. ‘Uza and the well in close proximity, which are about one kilometer to the east, at the foot of H. Turit (Tell el-‘Ayadiya). From a general survey of the sources, it is clear that the site was called La Hadia already in 1178. Furthermore, it can now be suggested that there was a connection between the location of the bazaar, Tell Hajal of the historical sources, and H. ‘Uza. This suggestion is supported by the words of the Arab chronicler Beha al-Din, who describes Tell Hajal as a hill at whose foot wells are located (RHC Or 3:196). Indeed, an ancient stone building stands above a well to this day at the foot of H. ‘Uza, near where the ‘Akko–zefat Road passes by the mound. Thus, it appears that the site had two names: La Hadia to the Franks and Tell Hajal to the Muslims.

The reason that the Arab chroniclers of the period as well as scholars of our day have confused H. ‘Uza and Tell el-‘Ayadiya is apparently the close proximity of the two sites, H. Turit and H. ‘Uza, and the similarity of the names (Tell el-‘Ayadiya and La Hadia). Thus, for example, Prawer suggests locating Tell Hajal at H. Turit (1984:38); ‘Imad al-Din, in his description of the transfer of the sultan’s headquarters, states that it was transferred to Tell el-‘Ayadiya (‘Imad al-Din el-‘Isfahani 1972:215), while Beha al-Din describes the same event, but claims that the sultan moved his belongings and headquarters to Tell Hajal (RHC Or 3:153).

Another factor contributing to the confusion is the story of the slaughter of the Muslim prisoners in August 1191 by Richard the Lionheart. It is stated that Saladin “advanced to the wells located at the foot of Tell el-‘Ayadiya and from there observed the slaughter of his soldiers” (Beha al-Din RHC Or 3:246). However, it appears that the wells were near Tell Hajal, and both of these sites are only about one kilometer from H. Turit (Tell el-‘Ayadiya).


the stratigraphy of strata 5–1

Nimrod Getzov

stratUM 5b

Evidence for Stratum 5b consists of sherds, dated to the Early Islamic period, which are later than Stratum 6 and earlier than Stratum 5a. It should be noted that the presence of these sherds was noticed more as the excavation reached the base of the medieval strata, but in no case could they be connected with any clean assemblage. Walls, whose tops were revealed when the floor of Stratum 4 in Sq J6 was removed, apparently belong to Stratum 5b or 5a. However, the bases of the walls were not uncovered at the end of the excavation season and it is difficult to establish their stratigraphic context.

stratUM 5a (Plan 3.1)

This stratum was discerned in two places: Locus 338, the dirt fill cut by the foundation trench of W300 of Stratum 4, and L363b, a deep pit situated in front of the opening in the center of this wall (see Plan 3.1). The location of the pit in front of the central opening of the largest building in Strata 4–3 indicates that the pit had certainly gone out of use by the time the building was constructed. An analysis of the ceramic finds shows that Stratum 5a is to be dated to the first half of the twelfth century, the beginning of Crusader rule in the Land of Israel.

stratUM 4 (Plan 3.1)

The principle feature in this stratum is a large, square building with thick walls that was apparently a farmhouse or manor. Only the northern wing of the building was exposed, consisting of the northern wall (W300; Fig. 3.2, Plan 1.6), 41 m in length from the northeastern to the northwestern corners, and a row of three rooms along this wall. An opening was discerned in the northern wall. This wall was apparently the front of the building, and may have been the building’s only entrance. The opening is 1.1 m wide, with a low step in front that was made from a lintel from an earlier structure (Fig. 3.3). Parallel to the northern wall, another wall (W320) separated the row of rooms from the center of the building, which probably contained a courtyard.

The opening led into an entrance hall whose plan is still unclear. The hall’s length (west to east) is 8.5 m and its width, apparently 5 m. Benches were constructed along the eastern partition wall and to the west of the opening. Opposite the opening stood a number of walls of unclear function.

In the eastern part of the northern wing was a long hall, 23.5 m long and 5 m wide. An opening in W320, 0.9 m wide, led to the western side of the hall. There was apparently another, wider, opening (5.5 m) to the east of the hall, but this was blocked during Stratum 3 or already in Stratum 4. In the western part of the hall stood a square pillar base (Fig. 3.4), which apparently supported the ceiling. Nearby, along a section of the northern wall, was a bench, similar to those in the entrance hall.

On one of the paving stones near the opening in W320, a square gameboard of marelles (Nine Mens’ Morris) was engraved (Fig. 3.5). Similar gameboards are known from Crusader sites in Israel, for example at Kochav Ha-yarden (Belvoir; Ben-Dov 1975:106, bottom left); ‘Atlit (Johns 1936: Fig. XXV:1, 2), and other sites (Boas 1999:168–170; Sebbane 1999).

To the west of the entrance hall, part of another room was found (Fig. 3.6), although the scope of the excavation did not enable us to establish if this room was the continuation of the rooms of the northern wing or the first room of the western wing. The northern wall of this room also had a bench.

Part of a room from the eastern wing was uncovered in Sq K5, but its inner walls were not uncovered and its dimensions are unclear. On the floor of the room rested a pair of iron sickles (see Fig. 3.41:1, 2) and a small amphora (see Fig. 3.22:9).

The outer walls of the farmhouse (Fig. 3.2) were built on strong foundations of three courses of dressed stones. The upper part of the walls, one or two courses of which had been robbed, were built of ashlar blocks. The stones of the outer walls were reinforced with mortar made of burnt lime. In addition, many sherds, which had been taken from the refuse piles of the Byzantine potters, were inserted between the courses. The inner walls were dry constructed of fieldstones, except for the benches built along the northern wall and the pillar base in the large hall, which were constructed in a similar manner to the outer walls. The floors of all the rooms were made of beaten and packed lime, often incorporating flat stone slabs.

110

Plan

3.1

. Pla

n of

Str

atum

5a

and

Stra

tum

4.


Fig. 3.4. Plastered pillar base in Stratum 4, looking southeast.

Fig. 3.2. Wall 300 of Stratum 4. The wall facade with foundation and upper stone courses. To right, a threshold; below, W411 of Stratum 8. Looking south.

Fig. 3.3. Lintel in secondary use in Stratum 4.

Outside the Stratum 4 farmhouse, along the eastern wall, a narrow, well-plastered water channel was discerned (0.2 m; Fig. 3.7). The orientation and connection of the channel to this wall would seem to indicate that it belongs to Stratum 4, although this attribution is uncertain. It may have been constructed at a later stage. The slope of the channel from north to south suggests that it conveyed water from the well to the cistern that was, perhaps, located in the building, or to the irrigated field next to it.

In front of the northern facade was a courtyard paved with a thin layer of beaten lime, whose elevation

Fig. 3.5. A gameboard engraved on the paving stones of Stratum 4.


corresponds to that of the step in front of the entrance. The floor of the courtyard was damaged by later activities, most recently by a telephone ditch dug parallel to the front wall that disrupted the archaeological sequence. Despite the damage to the courtyard, it was evident from the sections of Sq H7 that the floor extended c. 8 m from the front of the building.

In this courtyard north of the farmhouse, where most of the excavation took place, were many walls and pits from Strata 4–1, most of them later than Stratum 4. A single wall, W308, can probably be related to the building of Stratum 4 based on its elevation. However, this connection was also disturbed by the telephone ditch.

stratUM 3 (Plans 1.2, 1.4, 3.2)

Most of the activity in this stratum consisted of the reconstruction and expansion of the farmhouse from Stratum 4. The opening in the northern facade was widened to 1.5 m and a threshold was installed, which was raised 0.22 m (Fig. 3.8). The floor of the entrance hall was also raised to a similar height, and was now paved entirely with stone slabs. The widening of the opening and the raising of the floors are evidence that the building from Stratum 4 was destroyed and that the remains from Stratum 3 represent the reconstruction,

Fig. 3.6. A room in the northwestern corner of the Stratum 4 building; looking north.

Fig. 3.7. Wall 350. To its left, a plastered water channel; looking south.


Fig. 3.8. Stratum 3 Floor 306; to left, W300 and a threshold from Stratum 3. Looking east.

and not just the repair, of the existing building. It is difficult to determine the activities of Stratum 3 in other parts of the building, but it appears that most of the

partition walls found in the northeastern hall (Fig. 3.9), and the partition walls built in the room to the west of the entrance, belong to this stratum. The building

Fig. 3.9. Partition walls of Stratum 3 on the Stratum 4 floor in the northern hall. To left, W300; to right, W320; and in front, W315. Looking west.

114

Plan

3.2

. Pla

n of

Str

ata

3–1.


was extended 14 m to the west. Its northern facade now reached 55 m in length (Fig. 3.10). From the new northwestern corner another wall continued northward in line with the western wall. As this wall (W100; Fig. 3.11) was built with only one face of stones, it can be concluded that it was a supporting wall for the courtyard in front of the building. This support was necessary due to the expansion of the structure toward the western slope.

In Sqs H6–7, it was evident that the floor of the northern courtyard had been raised to the height of the new opening, and, like its predecessor, was paved with a layer of lime. Between the two layers was a fill of material originating from the Byzantine strata that included an abundance of potter’s refuse, but isolated sherds from the Middle Ages provide evidence of the date of the fill. An additional courtyard (L102) constructed in front of the western supporting wall (W100) was also paved with a layer of lime.

North of the building, and probably resting upon part of the courtyard in front of the building, was evidence of additional sparsely constructed buildings, usually only segments of foundation courses built of fieldstones and stones in secondary use that had been taken from earlier structures. The extremely fragmentary condition of the remains made a reconstruction of their plans difficult.

Recent development has further disrupted the plan of these buildings. The northern border of the construction

Fig. 3.10. Wall 300. Note the meter scale on the corner of the Stratum 4 farmhouse; in front,

an addition in Stratum 3. Looking east.

Fig. 3.11. In front, W100 of Stratum 3; to right, W109 of Stratum 7; below, buildings from Stratum 10. Looking southeast.


was destroyed when the road was paved in 1963 and the telephone cable ditch truncated the connection of the buildings with the farmhouse.

The structures to the north of the farmhouse are evidence of continuous building activity, and reveal internal construction stages. These buildings were attributed to Stratum 3 based mainly on their elevation, which was higher than the courtyard from Stratum 4, and also on their stratigraphic location below the remains of Stratum 2, at the latest—the last stratum in which buildings were constructed at the site. However, it should be stressed that the attribution to Stratum 3 is a suggestion without sufficient foundation.

stratUM 2 (Plans 1.2, 1.4, 3.2)

Very fragmentary remains of poorly constructed buildings were found from this stratum. They were erected following the destruction of the farmhouse that stood at the summit during Strata 4–3.

Most of the remains were found in three excavation squares:

Square I6. As mentioned, partition walls from Stratum 3 were found here. Above these walls, of which usually only one or two courses remained, another level of walls was uncovered. These walls were certainly built after the abandonment of the Stratum 3 settlement. They were poorly constructed, usually of one row of stones (Fig. 3.12).

Square F7. Stone floors (L113, L118) were laid above the building remains attributed to Stratum 3. It was not possible to discern the plan of the buildings to which these floors belonged.

Squares E6–7. To the west of W100, which, as mentioned, was a supporting wall in Stratum 3, a terrace wall was uncovered (W101), which may have been built by farmers following the abandonment of the farmhouse. This terrace was constructed above the lime floor of Stratum 3, and therefore, postdates it, but it cannot be definitely assigned to Stratum 2. It is possible that additional walls found in Sqs G7 and H7 can also be attributed to Stratum 2, but this cannot be substantiated.

stratUM 1

Evidence of agricultural activity and a number of pits, characterized by concentrations of dark black ash, are attributed to this stratum. This ash, which was found close to the surface, is the main foundation for attributing the remains to Stratum 1. One of the ash pits is large and wide (L316), excavated near W320. In the center of W320 was a partition wall and a number of smaller pits that were also characterized by an abundance of black ash (L309, L349). Evidence of agricultural activity consists of a row of niches close to the northern face of W300 within Sq J6 (Fig. 3.13) that were apparently animal stalls. A single tomb of a child (L128), found near the surface in Sq G6, may also be attributed to this stratum.

a trenCh on the Western slope

On the western slope of the tell was a very wide trench, c. 8 m wide and preserved to a depth of c. 2 m. The trench is clearly evident in the northern and southern sections of Sqs D6 and E6 (Fig. 3.14). It is difficult to understand the function of the trench and whether it encircled the entire tell. However, it can be stated with certainty that it extended parallel to W100, which

Fig. 3.12. The strata in Sq I6. A Stratum 4 floor; to right, Stratum 3 W325 and in front, Stratum 1 W358.

Looking east.


Fig. 3.13. Animal stalls from Stratum 1 on W300, looking east.

Fig. 3.14. The northern trench in Sqs D–E6, looking southwest.


enclosed the Stratum 3 building from the west. The trench does not reach W100, terminating c. 5 m from the wall. The chronological context of this trench is unclear.

the stratigraphiC ConneCtion With the finds froM the 1963 exCavations (Ben-Tor 1966: Fig. 10)

Strata 5–1 were described in the excavation report of 1963 as Stratum 1. Wall 300 (W1 in the 1963 report) was uncovered, apparently in a better state of preservation. Its remains were visible on the surface, as was a segment of the Stratum 3 floor (Ben-Tor 1966: Locus 1). Various walls that were exposed to the north of the farmhouse should probably be attributed to Stratum 3. These walls, however, were fragmentary, as in the present excavation, and do not contribute to the general plan.

the Coins froM strata 5–1

Danny Syon3

desCription of the Coins

Ten coins dating from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries CE were found:4

1. IAA Reg. No. 60957. A Crusader billon denier of Baldwin III, minted in Jerusalem in very large quantities from 1143 until the end of the twelfth century.2. IAA Reg. No. 60959. A Byzantine coin from the time of Manuel I Komnenos, minted in Thessalonika between 1143 and 1180 CE (Hendy 1969:120).3, 4. IAA Reg. Nos. 60960, 60961; Coin Catalog No. 21. Two coins from the Zengid Dynasty in Damascus, one dated to 1146–1174, the other to 1174–1183.5. IAA Reg. No. 60958; Coin Catalog No. 20. A French-feudal billon denier from Provence, minted in the name of Duke Theobald (II or III) between 1125 and 1152. This is a relatively rare find, although a few other French-feudal coins are known from Acre, one from the excavations of the Courthouse Site (Syon 1997:88), and others on the surface and published by Metcalf (1975). Belaubre (1986:207) attributes this coin to the time of Theobald II (1125–1152). 6. IAA Reg. No. 60962. An Ayyubid coin of el-Aziz Muhamed from Haleb in Syria, dated to 1216–1236.

7–10. IAA Reg. Nos. 60963–60966. Four Mamluk coins from the fourteenth century CE. Two are from the Damascus mint, between 1310–1346 and 1347–1351 CE. The other two cannot be identified further.

Five modern coins were also found, on the surface: a silver Turkish coin dated 1917, and four coins from the British Mandate period (1927–1942).

Chronology

Only four of the coins were found in stratified loci; the rest are from the surface. The French-feudal coin was found in L336a, attributed to Strata 7–4. One of the Mamluk coins was recovered in L352, attributed to Stratum 8 (fourth century CE). Another Mamluk coin, one of the unidentified Mamluk coins above (IAA Reg. No. 60966), lay on Floor 382, attributed to Strata 4–3 (twelfth–thirteenth centuries CE). It is unclear whether the coin dates to the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

The twelfth-century Crusader coin from L137 is attributed to Strata 3–2 (thirteenth–fourteenth centuries). These coins were very common. It is reasonable to assume that they continued to be used also in the thirteenth century.

The numismatic finds are evidence of relatively intensive activity at the site during the twelfth century, which corresponds with the ceramic finds. It is probably a coincidence that only two coins of the thirteenth century were recovered, as a rich ceramic assemblage dates to this period. The Mamluk coins provide evidence of activity following the conquest of Acre in 1291, which also corresponds with the ceramic finds. One of the coins (IAA Reg. No. 60961) can be assigned, albeit tentatively, to the period between the victory of Saladin in the Battle of Hittin in 1187 and the Third Crusade in 1191.

the early islaMiC, CrUsader, and MaMlUk pottery5

Edna J. Stern and Ayelet Tatcher

This section presents the pottery from Strata 5–1, which dates to the Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk periods. The main architectural element from these strata is the large building—farmhouse—that stood at the summit during Strata 4–3, in which two occupation phases were discerned. Many sherds were found,


scattered without any architectural context, in the layers of earth that divided the architecture of the Byzantine strata and the foundations of the Crusader buildings (Stratum 5b–a). It is possible that the dwellings from these periods were situated outside the excavated area, or that the builders of the farmhouse ‘shaved’ the structures of these strata down to the Byzantine stratum, thereby leaving only the layer of earth with sherds. Based on both the stratigraphic and typological analyses, Stratum 5 was divided into two phases, 5b and 5a. Stratum 5b is represented by sherds from the Early Islamic period (ninth–eleventh centuries CE). Stratigraphically, Stratum 5a is the period preceding the construction of the farmhouse and comprises an assemblage of vessels in use during a single period. As will be demonstrated based on the ceramic finds, this stratum can be dated to the beginning of the twelfth century.

Strata 4–1 represent the construction of the farm-house and the succeeding phases of its occupation. It was difficult to define clean loci containing pottery of one time period in the various strata, and many baskets were mixed with sherds from all the periods discussed here, as well as Byzantine sherds. The mixed loci and the occasional inverse stratigraphy indicate the ongoing use of the building and clearance down to the original floors by later inhabitants to facilitate further occupation. Ceramic analysis shows that the Stratum 4 farmhouse was erected during the twelfth century. It is possible, based on historical considerations, that it was destroyed during the conquest of Saladin in the year 1187.

Stratum 3 represents the second occupation level in the building, after it was reconstructed. This level can be dated to the thirteenth century CE, based on the ceramic finds, as will be shown below. The original building went out of use at the end of the thirteenth century, possibly with the conquest of Acre in 1291. Stratum 2, dated to the fourteenth century, represents another stage of use of the building, identified mainly by sherds, found in the building, that postdate the Crusader period. Stratum 1 represents very scanty occupation that did not leave architectural remains and dates to the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries. This stratum was discerned mainly on the basis of the later pottery and coins.

Due to the problems in defining clean loci in Strata 4–1, all the vessels presented here from these strata are divided according to typological groups. A date

is assigned to the group in the summary of each type, when possible. If not, an estimated date is given. There are types whose date is certain, while others have a wide chronological range.

In the ceramic assemblage presented here both local, as well as imported wares, well known from sites outside of Israel, are represented. The proximity of H. ‘Uza to the port-city of Acre resulted in the presence of an abundance of imported wares at the site. The many imported wares strengthen the assumption that the inhabitants of H. ‘Uza during the Crusader period were most likely Franks (see below, p. 190).

The proximity of the site to Acre enables us to compare the ceramic assemblage from the site to the Crusader-period assemblage from the latest excavations at Acre (Stern 1997, 1999b; Stern and Waksman 2003).6

All the rim sherds found in the excavation were counted, and the results are presented in the discussion of each type, beginning with Stratum 5a. The registration number assigned to each sherd comprises the locus number followed by the basket number. The description of the fabric of the vessels is according to Munsell Soil Color (1990). In the drawings of glazed vessels, the color of the glaze is not always indicated, but the presence of glaze and its color is always mentioned in the text. A stain in the glaze of a different color from the background color is indicated by shading in the drawing. In all the drawings of glazed vessels, the area of the glaze on the outside of the vessel is indicated by a dotted line, and a broken line indicates the area of the slip. Only in the drawings of cooking pots and cooking bowls is glaze on the inside of the vessel indicated by dots.7

stratUM 5b: the ninth–tenth CentUries (abbasid–fatiMid period)

The pottery presented here includes Fine Buff Ware, Black-Burnished Ware, a ‘tongue’-handled oil lamp, and various glazed bowls. Sherds from these vessels were found mainly outside the building, in fills between Stratum 7 and Stratum 4.

At the time this asemblage was studied, research on Early Islamic pottery in Israel was not well established, as few excavations had yet been published. As the finds from H. ‘Uza were few and unstratified, it was not possible to shed new light on the study of pottery from this period. Thus, the vessels were dated based on the few published excavations (mainly Avissar 1996; Arnon 1999).


Unglazed Ware

Only a few vessel types of Unglazed Ware were found in this stratum. They include Fine Buff Ware jugs, Black-Burnished Ware vessels of various shapes, and an oil lamp.

Fine Buff Ware (Fig. 3.15:1). Jugs of a group previously known as ‘Mefjer Ware’ were found in this stratum. These thin-walled vessels of light colored, levigated and well-fired fabric were first published from Khirbet el-Mefjer (Baramki 1944:66 [Ware 2], 71–72 [Wares 20, 21]). Now they are usually termed ‘Fine Buff Ware’ (Avissar 1996:155; Arnon 1999:225). These vessels, including jugs, juglets, and amphoriskoi, are sometimes made in a mold or with incised or applied decoration (‘barbotine’), and are dated from the end of the eighth until the eleventh centuries. The jugs continued to be produced with small changes until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when they bore less decoration and the fabric had a greener shade (Stern 1997:40, Nos. 19–21). Jug bases similar to that of No. 1 were found, for example at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:156, Type 2, Fig. XIII.128:2) and Caesarea (Arnon 1999:225–226, Fig. 3:b).

Fig. 3.15:1. Jug; Reg. No. 320-3067/1.Fabric, pale yellow 2.5y7/3; a few small brown inclusions.

Black-Burnished Ware Vessels (Fig. 3.15:2–4). Two types of Black-Burnished Ware vessels were found. The first type (Fig. 3.15:2, 3) is a bowl with a flat base, straight vertical walls, and a simple rim. The shape of the second type (Fig. 3.15:4) is unique: a flat, rectangular tray-like vessel, which stands on pointed legs and has round depressions.

The better-known first vessel belongs to a pottery type that imitates black stone vessels (soapstone). Those here are undecorated, but specimens with an incised decoration filled with white material are also known (Avissar 1996:122–123, Type 12, Fig. XIII.75). These vessels had a wide distribution throughout Israel and Transjordan. They were common at the end of the Umayyad and Abbasid periods, eighth–ninth centuries (Magness 1994; Avissar 1996:123).

Vessels of the second type, while less frequent, seem to have been common in Egypt, Israel, and Syria. They were apparently in use for only a short time, in

the ninth century (Rosen-Ayalon 1973:260–262). Two vessels similar to No. 4 were published from Israel. One, from Khirbet el-Mefjer, has an identical pointed leg, but with a drop-shaped depression, and is dated to the ninth century (Baramki 1944: Figs. XVI:21; 16:13). The other has a round tray, a cone-shaped leg truncated at the end, a round depression, and incised decoration filled with a white material, consisting of a fish and geometric motifs (Porat and Stern 1998:30–31, Fig. 57:11).

Fig. 3.15:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 137-1153/1.Fabric, black 2.5y 2/0; many white quartz grits and large inclusions. Black-burnished slip.

Fig. 3.15:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 137-1152/1.As No. 2.

Fig. 3.15:4. Vessel with depressions and a pointed leg; Reg. No. 337-3210/1.Fabric, black 2.5y 2/0; many white quartz grits and large inclusions. Burnished and scraped.

Lamp (Fig. 3.15:5). One complete mold-made lamp with a very thick wall was found. A protruding ridge runs from the base to the filling hole and another ridge encircles the mouth. The shoulder of the lamp is decorated in relief with parallel wavy lines. The thick, high ‘tongue’ handle folds slightly inward. The base is flat and wide and follows the pointed-oval shape of the lamp. The general shape of the lamp is strongly reminiscent of examples from the Umayyad period, but the high, thick handle, the thick wall, and the flat base distinguish it from Umayyad lamps. This lamp type was distinguished at Bet She’an and extensively discussed by Hadad (1999:203–213, Type 1). A mold for the preparation of such lamps was found at Bet She’an and Ramla. Hadad suggested that this type was first produced toward the end of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century, and was in use at least until the eleventh century. Similar lamps were found in the House of Leonitis at Bet She’an (Zori 1966: Pl. 9:C, left), in the Schloessinger collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:136, No. 562), and at Deir Qruch on the Golan Heights (Zvi Ma‘oz, pers. comm).

Fig. 3.15:5. Complete lamp; Reg. No. 327-3149/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; delicate, with a few small limestone inclusions.


Glazed Wares

A number of glazed bowls, decorated in various styles, are presented here. In general, the glazed bowls from this period are characterized by light colored fabric and are glazed on both sides. The base is usually a low ring and the rim is usually everted.

Polychrome Splashed and Mottled Sgraffito Glazed Ware (Fig. 3.15:6–8). These bowls have a polychrome glaze and incised sgraffito design, light colored fabric, thin walls, and a ring base. White slip covers the vessel, including the base. Over the slip is a lead glaze in shades of light yellow, upon which green, purple, and brown splashes appear. The incised patterns are simple, usually appearing in a radial arrangement often consisting of a double-outlined triangular motif filled with a wavy band (No. 8), or variations on this pattern. Such vessels are widespread throughout the Islamic world during the ninth to eleventh centuries,

mainly in Iran, at Nishapur, Susa, Samarra, and Siraf; in northern Syria, at al-Mina and Antioch; in Israel, at yoqne‘am and Khirbet el-Mefjer; and in Jordan, at ‘Amman (Avissar 1996:81–82, Type 7, Fig. XIII.7 and see references therein).

Fig. 3.15:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 336-3240/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; soft, with a few limestone grits and inclusions.

Fig. 3.15:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 378-3829/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/3; fine, sandy, with a few small limestone inclusions. White slip below green and yellow splash glaze; incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.15:8. Body sherd of a bowl; Reg. No. 394-3949/1.Fabric, pink 7.5yR 7/3; soft, with a few limestone grits and single large limestone inclusions. White slip below

Fig. 3.15. Pottery from Stratum 5b (ninth–tenth centuries).

1 2 3

5

6

8

4

7

9

10

11 12

100


green, yellow, and brown splash glaze on the interior and the exterior; incised decoration on the interior.

Green Monochrome Sgraffito Glazed Bowl (Fig. 3.15:9). This is a monochrome glazed bowl with incised decoration. The bowl seems to correspond to Polycrome Splashed and Mottled Sgraffito Glazed Ware, based on the shape of the vessel, the ware, and the glaze on both sides (Avissar 1996:82, Type 9, Fig. XIII.9).

Fig. 3.15:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 124-1194/1.Fabric, pale yellow 2.5y 8/3; delicate, very sandy, with a few small black grits. White slip below green glaze, inside and out; two parallel incised lines on the base interior.

‘Fayumi’ Ware (Fig. 3.15:10). One bowl of the well-known imported Egyptian Fayumi Ware was found at H. ‘Uza. The bowl is made of light colored, soft fabric with glaze on the exterior and interior. The inside is decorated with radial stripes in polychrome glaze. Similar bowls were found in Israel at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:82, Type 10, Fig. XIII.10) and Caesarea (Arnon 1999:226, Fig. 6:e, f).

Fig. 3.15:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 332-3137/2.Fabric, exterior white 10yR 8/2, to interior—pink core, 7.5yR7/3; very soft with many air bubbles and a small amount of sand. Turquoise glaze on the exterior, black-purple stripes on a turquoise background on the interior.

Two Inscribed Ceramic Fragments

Nitzan Amitai-Preiss

Inscribed Ceramic Vessel(s). Two stamped inscribed fragments, either from the same vessel or from two similar vessels (of a jar or pipe). No parallels were found; the shape of the vessels is unclear. Based on the mica temper, the sherds derive from an imported vessel.

Both vessel fragments present the same inscription within a double-ridged rectangle, the outer frame engraved and the inner frame in relief. The single-word inscription, also in relief, reads:

Blessing برکة

The four letters are connected to each other despite the fact that the rā´ is not supposed to connect to the following letter. The script is of the ‘arrowhead’ type, and the letter kā´ is vowelled by a fatha. The inscription can be dated AH 290–390/900–1000 CE. A somewhat similar clay stamp impression was unearthed at Jalame. Here too, the one-word inscription appears within a rectangular-shaped stamp. The name ‘‘Alī ’ was read by Prof. Moshe Sharon, who dated it to the ninth century (Davidson 1988:256, Fig. 8-23).8

Fig. 3.15:11. Body sherd of stamped jar; Reg. No. 303-3011/2.Fabric, exterior yellowish-red 5yR 4/6, to interior— dark gray core, 10yR 4/1; sandy, with many large mica and flint inclusions.

Fig. 3.15:12. Body sherd of stamped jar; Reg. No. 137-1143. As No. 11.

stratUM 5a: the first half of the tWelfth CentUry (early CrUsader period)

Most of the sherds presented from this stratum are from L338; Locus 363b and L345 also yielded many sherds from this timespan. Stratum 5a was identified and defined mainly based on the finds from this locus, which consists of earthen fills that are earlier than Stratum 4, into which the northern wall of the farmhouse had penetrated. Sherds similar to those from L338 found in other loci outside the building are also included in this stratum. Typologically, it was possible to differentiate between the material from Strata 5b and 5a based on the variety of vessel types in L338, which undoubtedly comprises a single-period assemblage. The pottery from L363b and L345, both west of L338 and with the same stratigraphic character, completes the picture.

The pottery assemblage from this stratum includes jugs of both Fine Buff and Fine Red Wares, cooking ware, and glazed bowls of various types. The vessels from L338 form a very homogeneous group. They were restored and are almost complete; the variety of types indicates that this is a household assemblage. Although no coins were retrieved from this locus, the ceramic finds suggest a date in the first half of the twelfth century for this stratum (see pp. 172–173).

As some of the glazed-bowl types have a wide chronological range (from the twelfth to the thirteenth


centuries), a more detailed discussion will appear in the section on pottery from Strata 4–1.

Unglazed Ware

Jugs and juglets made of a fine buff or red fabric are the only unglazed wares found in this stratum.

Fine Buff Ware (Fig. 3.16:1–5). The drinking vessels of Fine Buff Ware are made of light colored fabric typical of the twelfth century, a stage when the fabric was still buff colored (see p. 120).

Fig. 3.16:1. Juglet; Reg. No. 338-3217/3.Fabric, light yellow 5y 8/3; tempered with a small amount of grog.

Fig. 3.16:2. Jug; Reg. No. 338-3192/1.Fabric, light yellow 2.5y 8/3; many small black grits.

Fig. 3.16:3. Handle; Reg. No. 338-3214/2.Fabric, white 2.5y 8/2; very fine, very few small pieces of grog; many air bubbles.

Fig. 3.16:4. Juglet; Reg. No. 338-3217/4.Fabric, light yellow 5y 8/3; small yellow grits and large and small pieces of grog.

Fig. 3.16:5. Jug; Reg. No. 338-3196/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; a few small limestone grits and large inclusions. White slipped (2.5y 8/2) on the exterior.

Fine Red Ware (Fig. 3.16:6, 7). These sherds of jugs are similar in shape to the drinking vessels of light colored ware mentioned above, but are of slipped and burnished Fine Red Ware. Jugs of this type are not common in Israel. Similar vessels have been found only at Caesarea, dated to the Abbasid–Fatimid period (Boas 1992:165, Fig. 78:4), and at Fustat in Egypt, where they were dated to the Fatimid period (Scanlon 1974:68; Pl. XVI:2, 3).

Fig. 3.16:6. Jug; Reg. No. 338-3192/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with very few small limestone grits.

Fig. 3.16:7. Jug; Reg. No. 338-3233/4.Fabric, dark red 2.5yR 3/6; sandy, with very few tiny limestone grits; well levigated. Wide horizontal burnished stripes on the exterior.

Glazed Ware

Cooking WaresThe cooking-ware assemblage comprises two main types: closed cooking pots and open baking dishes. These vessels represent transitional types from the Early Islamic to the Crusader periods.

Cooking Pots (Fig. 3.16:8–10). The cooking pots in this stratum have a globular body with a slight ridge at the base of the neck and a slightly everted (Nos. 8, 9) or vertical simple (No. 10) rim. The fabric is fine and, when fired, becomes hard and metallic. These cooking pots usually have raised horizontal loop handles and sometimes, degenerate curled ledge handles (as on No. 8). Usually, they have dark purple to dark brown lead glaze on the interior of the base and splashes of glaze on other parts of the body.

The main differences between the cooking pots of the Early Islamic period and those of the Crusader period are in the shape of the rim and the fabric. The Early Islamic-period cooking pots feature upright rims with a channel between the rim and the neck, and the fabric is sandy (Avissar 1996:132–133, Types 2–4), while in the beginning of the Crusader period, rims are upright without a channel, and the fabric is finer and less sandy (Avissar 1996:135, Type 6). As stated above, the cooking pots of this stratum are transitional forms between the Early Islamic and the early Crusader types, and may correspond to Type 5 at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:132–133, Fig. XIII.92).

A cooking pot resembling No. 9 was found at Caesarea (Boas 1992:155, Fig. 70:2) and dated to the Abbasid–Fatimid period.

Fig. 3.16:8. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 338-3233/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with very few small limestone grits.

Fig. 3.16:9. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 338-3202/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with a few small limestone grits; well levigated.


Fig. 3.16:10. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 338-3202/2.Fabric, red 2.5 yR 4/8; sandy, with a few large limestone inclusions; well levigated.

Baking Dishes (Fig. 3.16:11–13). The baking dishes resemble those of the Early Islamic period, characterized by a folded-out rim and glaze only on the base of the vessel (Avissar 1996:139, Type 13). This type of vessel apparently continued in use until the beginning of the twelfth century, gradually developing into a bowl with a simple rim and glaze on the interior toward the rim, as known from the beginning of the Crusader period (Avissar 1996:142, Type 15). Both types of dishes have slightly raised horizontal handles or sometimes, a degenerate curled ledge handle.

Apparently, the typical Early Islamic baking dish does not vanish with the appearance of the Franks in the Land of Israel. Instead, the vessel changes in shape sometime around the beginning of the twelfth century to the baking dish known from the Crusader period. A dish similar to the ones from H. ‘Uza was found at Caesarea (Boas 1992:162, Fig. 76:7), dated to the Abbasid/Crusader period.

Fig. 3.16:11. Baking dish; Reg. No. 338-3192/3.Fabric, dark brown 7.5yR 3/2, black 7.5yR 2/0 at the base. Glaze on the interior of the base.

Fig. 3.16:12. Baking dish; Reg. No. 338-3214/3.Fabric, exterior dark brown 7.5yR 3/2, to interior—red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy; well levigated. Glaze on the interior of the base.

Fig. 3.16:13. Baking dish; Reg. No. 338-3192/4.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy. Glaze on the interior of the base.

Glazed TablewareSix different types of glazed bowls were found. The first three types are apparently local, the last three imported. Some of these bowl types appear also in Strata 4–1.

Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on Exterior (Fig. 3.17). The bowls are made of brick red or reddish brown, sandy fabric with limestone inclusions. The bowls have a shallow hemispherical shape, a simple

Fig. 3.16. Pottery from Stratum 5a (first half of the twelfth century): Fine Buff Ware, Fine Red Ware, and Cooking Ware.

5

68

12 3

4

7

9

10

11 12

13


Fig. 3.17. Pottery from Stratum 5a (first half of the twelfth century): Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on Exterior.

1 2

3

4

5

or thickened rim, and a very wide, low ring base. The interior and exterior of the vessel, including the base, are always coated with a thick buff-white or pinkish-white slip. These bowls are usually decorated in the interior with incisions made with a narrow or wide instrument and are glazed with green, yellow, or color splash glaze in green-yellow-brown without the incised decoration.

Bowls of this type have been found at excavations in Israel at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:87–90, Types 25–30), Caesarea (Pringle 1985:183–188, Figs. 6:37, 38; 8:48; 9:50; 10:51; 11:49; Arnon 1999:227, Fig. 9:e, f), Bene Beraq (Finkelstein 1990:39, Fig. 5:13–15), and Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 34:25, 33; 35:12). Recently, such bowls were uncovered at sites in northern Israel, e.g., ‘Akko, Kfar yassif, H. Kalil, Ramat yishay, Horfesh, Tiberias, Kh. el-Khurrumiya, and at sites in the Hula Valley (Stern and Stacey 2000). Outside of Israel, a group of similar bowls

was recovered from a shipwreck at Serçe Limani, off the coast of Turkey (Jenkins 1992). Numismatic evidence dates the ship to the third decade of the eleventh century. Jenkins (1992:64) suggests that this type continued for one or two generations, but no later than the end of the eleventh century. This suggestion is based on an analysis of the decorations on the bowls and other artistic criteria. Comparison of the incised decoration on these bowls with the bowls found at H. ‘Uza and at other sites in Israel mentioned above reveals that the decoration on the bowls from Israel is of lower quality, a degeneration of the more complex and attractive designs on bowls influenced by Fatimid art. This may either point to a slightly later date for the bowls of H. ‘Uza and Israel in general, or may indicate that the bowls from the shipwreck were of ‘export quality’, and the local bowls were produced for the local mass market. Evidence from excavations in Israel indicates that these bowls continued in use at


least until the beginning of the twelfth century, as they are found in Crusader assemblages in Israel (see also Avissar 1996:89–90).

A Levantine provenance for these vessels is suggested, although the possibility that a similar type of bowl was manufactured in a few different production centers in the Levant and in Egypt cannot be ruled out (Stern and Stacey 2000:173–174, Fig. 3:1–5). It seems that this type developed into Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A and Sgraffito A types—typical of the Crusader period (see below, pp. 144, 148). There is a resemblance in the fabric, the slip (although in the latter type the exterior is not slipped), and the glaze. It is also possible to observe the development of the shapes of these types.

Fig. 3.17:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3233/1.Fabric, red 10R 4/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip on the exterior and the interior. Light yellow glaze; incised decoration on the interior (see Color Pl. 1:1).

Fig. 3.17:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3195/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip on the exterior and the interior. Pale yellow glaze; incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.17:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3233/2.Fabric, dark red 2.5yR 3/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip below yellow glaze on the rim and the interior; incised decoration on the interior (see Color Pl. 1:2).

Fig. 3.17:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3217/1.Fabric, light red 2.5yR 4/2 to reddish-brown 2.5yR 3/4; fine and sandy, with a few small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip under yellowish-brown glaze on the rim and the interior; incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.17:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3205/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip under green glaze on the interior; incised decoration on the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A (Fig. 3.18:1). This type, known from Crusader assemblages in Israel and the surrounding region, makes its first appearance here in the twelfth century, and is apparently of local

Levantine production. Similar bowls were found at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:90–91, Type 34, Fig. X111.22:2), Caesarea (Pringle 1985:177, Fig. 3:15; Arnon 1999:227, Fig. 11:o), and Tell ‘Arqa (Thalmann 1978:25, Fig. 38:4).

Fig. 3.18:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 363b-3663/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. Buff slip below yellow glaze on the rim and the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted B (Fig. 3.18:2). Bowls with slip-painted stripes are known from Crusader and Mamluk assemblages in Israel and the surrounding region. This bowl, found in an assemblage from the beginning of the twelfth century, apparently represents the first appearance of the type in Israel. In shape, it is reminiscent of the Early Islamic bowl with the everted rim, although the fabric is red and gritty, which is more characteristic of the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. Based on the ware and the distribution, the bowl is apparently of local manufacture (for further details see below, p. 147).

Slip-painted bowls with a profile similar to that described here were found in the excavations at Migdal Ha-‘Emeq together with bowls of Common Glazed War—Monochrome A, in an unstratified context (Shalem 1996:40, Fig. 33:14; and unpublished pottery from the site—Dina Shalem, pers. comm.). A bowl with a similar profile was found at yoqne‘am, dated there to the thirteenth century (Avissar 1996:96, Type 44, Fig. XIII.32:1).

Fig. 3.18:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3195/3.Fabric, reddish-brown 2.5yR 4/4; small amount of quartz sand and large limestone inclusions. Slip-painted stripes under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Alkaline-Glazed Vessels (Fig. 3.18:3–10). This is a homogeneous group of cups and bowls made of similar fabric and similarly glazed.

The cups have upright walls (Nos. 3–5), with vertical or diagonal grooves on the exterior. The glaze was applied to the interior and exterior of the cup up to the carination.

The bowls have a variety of rims—wide ledge rims (No. 6), vertical walls with a simple rim (No. 7), and slightly everted rims (Nos. 8, 9), with glaze applied to


the interior of the vessel only. The base is typically a ring base with a triangular section (No. 10).

The fabric is light colored. Glaze was applied without a layer of slip beneath it, the most common colors being light blue, purplish-brown, green, and white with color splashes of light blue and purple-brown. The glaze is apparently alkaline. Sixty-four vessels of this type were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

The shape and fabric of the bowls resemble those of bowls from the Early Islamic period, although the bowls from H. ‘Uza do not have glaze on the exterior of the vessel. Apparently, these vessels represent a later development of the Early Islamic vessel types. The shape and fabric are reminiscent of vessels painted in a variety of designs in black or purple (manganese) beneath transparent glaze, imitating Luster Ware

Fig. 3.18. Pottery from Stratum 5a (first half of the twelfth century): Monochrome A and Slip-Painted B Wares; and Imported Glazed Wares—Alkaline-Glazed, Egypt, and Byzantine.

5

6

8

1 2

3 4

7

910

11

12

13


vessels. These vessels, named ‘Underglazed Painted Ware’, were found in well-stratified deposits at Caesarea and Fustat, and date from the eleventh century to well into the Crusader period (Arnon 1999:227, Fig. 9:g, h).

The origin of the vessels from H. ‘Uza presented here is uncertain. A somewhat similar, but not identical, type was found at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:82–85, Type 11, Fig. XIII.11). Vessels of this type were recovered from the excavations of the Hospitaller Complex at Acre (unpublished) and at Caesarea (Boas 1992:165–166, Fig. 78:10, 11), where they were dated to slightly prior to the Crusader period, representing the earliest stage of the type. These vessels are absent in the ceramic assemblage from the excavation of the Courthouse Site at Acre, which indicates that they are earlier than the thirteenth century (Stern 1997). Similar vessels were found at Hama, in particular cups with grooves on the exterior of the vessel, but there they were made of frit, not pottery (Poulsen 1957:150, Fig. 473).

Fig. 3.18:3. Cup; Reg. No. 363b-3575/2.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. White glaze on the interior and the exterior, with brown and light blue splash glaze reaching to the shoulder carination on the exterior; vertical grooves on the exterior.

Fig. 3.18:4. Cup; Reg. No. 394-3949/2.Fabric, light reddish-brown 2.5yR 6/4; sandy; many air bubbles. Light blue glaze on the interior and exterior walls up to the shoulder carination; diagonal grooves on the exterior (see Color Pl. 1:3).

Fig. 3.18:5. Cup; Reg. No. 363b-3575/1.Fabric, pink 7.5 yR 7/4; sandy. Dark brown glaze on the interior and exterior walls up to the shoulder carination; diagonal grooves on the exterior (see Color Pl. 1:4).

Fig. 3.18:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 394-3967/1.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy, with very few small limestone grits; air bubbles. Bluish-green glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.18:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 382-3828/1.Fabric, exterior pale brown 10yR 7/4, to interior— reddish yellow 5yR 6/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits and large inclusions. Dark brown glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.18:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 144-1241/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; sandy, with a few small black grits and large limestone inclusions. White glaze with light blue and brown splotches on the interior.

Fig. 3.18:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 317-3052/1.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy; many air bubbles. Light bluish-green glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.18:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 363-3663/2.Fabric, light brown 7.5 yR 6/4; sandy, with a few small limestone grits; many air bubbles. Dark brown glaze on the interior.

Imported Glazed Bowls—Egypt (Fig. 3.18:11, 12). There are two similar vessels with similar ring bases, of light pinkish-brown fabric, colored glaze on the interior and transparent glaze on the exterior, including the base. Bowl 11 has a yellow glaze; Bowl 12 has a green glaze with dribbles of blackish-brown. The fabric, the shape of the vessel, the opaque glaze on the interior and transparent glaze on the exterior, and the decoration, indicate that these vessels probably originated in Egypt. They resemble vessels from Fustat and Fayum, dated to the eleventh century (Frierman 1975:27–30, Fig. 9). These vessels may be a later development of the Fayumi Wares (see above, p. 122). Similar vessels were found at Caesarea (Boas 1992:161, Figs. 74:18; 77:10, 11), dated to the Abbasid–Fatimid and Fatimid–Crusader periods.

Fig. 3.18:11. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3214/1.Fabric, pink 7.5yR 7/4; soft and sandy. yellow glaze on the interior, transparent glaze on the exterior.

Fig. 3.18:12. Bowl; Reg. No. 338-3211/1.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy. Apple-green glaze with black dribbles on the interior and greenish transparent glaze on the exterior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Ware (Fig. 3.18:13). This bowl belongs to a group imported to Israel from the twelfth century onward. For further details on this type, see pp. 154–156.

Fig. 3.18:13. Bowl; Reg. No. 363-3596.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; a few small limestone grits. White slip under light yellow glaze on the rim and the interior.


strata 4–1: the tWelfth–foUrteenth CentUries (CrUsader and MaMlUk periods)

Strata 4–1 represent the phase of large-scale construction in the Crusader period—the two Crusader-period occupation levels, and later occupation during the Mamluk period. It was not possible to discriminate between the various strata during the excavation— instead of constructing new floors in each successive occupation, the builders cleaned the original stone floor. Thus, there were no remnants of accumulated material. This phenomenon is well known from other excavations of these periods. As a result, the various vessel types presented here were dated mainly on the basis of parallels to similar vessels from published sites and to vessels from the recent excavations at Crusader-period ‘Acre, where Crusader pottery was well defined.

All the pottery is presented according to typological categories. The unglazed ware is presented first, followed by cooking vessels and glazed tableware. Glazed tableware is classified according to provenance groups. Therefore, vessels of different decoration techniques are presented together.

Unglazed Wares

Unglazed wares include also handmade vessels and a small group of basins. The wheel-made wares include undecorated or decorated bowls, basins, lids, a cup, jugs, flasks, antiliya pots, jars, and amphoras. The common feature of all the vessels presented here is that they are undecorated, with the exception of the handmade wares decorated with red paint. These vessels are simple, functional, everyday vessels designed to store, transfer, prepare, and sometimes, to serve food. Most reports published to date on Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk pottery concentrate on the glazed wares; less is available on the unglazed wares. There is no doubt that research is lacking. This is unfortunate, as much can be learned from these vessels about trade and production centers during these periods.

Undecorated and Decorated Handmade WaresThese plain, handmade vessels were apparently fired in simple, open kilns, based on the uneven firing of most of the vessels and the softness of the fabric. The fabric is coarse, brown to buff in color, with a gray core, and contains many grits, inclusions, and sometimes, traces of straw. The closed vessels were apparently fashioned

by hand with the aid of a cloth, which sometimes left its negative impression on the vessel surface (Franken and Kalsbeek 1975:167–166, Figs. 50, 51). This ware is divided into two main groups: undecorated, simple handmade wares and painted handmade wares. Both groups are similar in fabric, manufacture, and shape, and they are probably related. Petrographic analysis may perhaps explain the relationship between the two groups.

Apparently, this type of ware occurs in the twelfth century and is very popular in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. These handmade vessels appear as early as the eleventh century, e.g., at Kh. el-Khurrumiya and Tiberias, pointing to the fact that their production is part of a local Palestinian tradition (Stern and Stacey 2000:175, Fig. 4:11, 12). This type of pottery was produced and used mainly in the local villages and is found mainly in rural sites such as the Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar), St. Mary of Carmel, yoqne‘am (Caymont), and Emmaus (el-Qubeibeh; see references below). For example, in the thirteenth century, only a few vessels of this type were found in Frankish Acre (Stern 1997:40), while at H. Bet Zeneta, a village 7 km southeast of Acre, the majority of the pottery was of this type (Getzov 2000). It remains unclear if this ware was in use already by the Frankish inhabitants of H. ‘Uza in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, or if it is from the later occupation of the site in the fourteenth century.

Undecorated Handmade Ware (Fig. 3.19). The vessels found at H. ‘Uza are mainly bowls and basins; cooking pots, jugs, and lids also appear. The shapes of the vessels are simple and practical. A bowl similar to Fig. 3.19:1 was found at Emmaus (Bagatti 1947:135, Fig. 32:11, 12) and a basin similar to Fig. 3.19:2 was unearthed at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:128–130, Type 33, Fig. XIII.86:3) and Dibon (Tushingham 1972:84, Fig. 8:27). Bowls similar to Fig. 3.19:3 are known from the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:140, Fig. 41:4) and St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:95, Fig. 3:1). At H. ‘Uza, 39 vessels of this type were retrieved.

Fig. 3.19:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 397-3965/2.Fabric, exterior dark gray 5y 3/1, to interior—black core, 2.5y 2/0; many straw traces and a few small white grits.

Fig. 3.19:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 321-3098/4.Fabric, exterior dark grayish-brown 10yR 4/2, to interior—dark gray core, 2.5y 3/0; many straw traces, many small limestone grits, and large limestone inclusions.


Fig. 3.19:3. Basin; Reg. No. 382-3948/7.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/6, to interior—black core, 7.5yR 2/0; many straw traces, a few large quartz and limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:4. Lid; Reg. No. 382-3828/3.Fabric, dark gray 5y 4/1; straw traces and large inclusions of dolomite and limestone. Light brown slip on the interior.

Fig. 3.19:5. Basin; Reg. No. 328-3158/1.Fabric, exterior dark gray 7.5yR 4/0, to interior—light brown-gray core, 10yR 6/2; many straw traces and a few large limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:6. Basin; Reg. No. 155-1329/1.Fabric, exterior brown 7.5yR 5/4, to interior—black core, 7.5yR 2/0; many straw traces and large gray inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3141/3.Fabric, exterior pale brown 10yR 7/3, to interior—dark gray core, 10yR 4/1; a few small light gray grits, a few large light gray inclusions, and many small shiny crystals of calcite or quartz. Incised decoration on the rim and the handle.

Fig. 3.19:8. Small jar; Reg. No. 118-1092/9.Fabric, exterior reddish-brown 5yR 4/4, to interior—brown core 10yR 4/3; very few small white grits and large limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:9. Small jar; Reg. No. 118-1092/8.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; a few small limestone grits and very few large limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:10. Small jar; Reg. No. 118-1092/2.Fabric, pale brown 10yR 7/3; many straw traces, small limestone grits, and large inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:11. Small jar; Reg. No. 398-3907/2.Fabric, very dark gray 10yR 3/1; a few straw traces, many small light gray grits, large inclusions, and small calcite crystals.

Fig. 3.19:12. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 321-3102/2.Fabric, light gray-brown 10yR 6/2; very fine, many traces of straw and a few limestone inclusions (up to 1 cm).

Fig. 3.19:13. Jar; Reg. No. 321-3102/1.Fabric, dark gray 2.5yR 3/0; many straw traces, many small limestone grits, and large inclusions.

Fig. 3.19:14. Jar sherd; Reg. No. 328-3147/4.Fabric, exterior brown 7.5yR 5/4, to interior—dark gray-brown core, 10yR 4/2; very fine, with many straw traces and large calcite crystals. Plastic thumb decoration on the exterior.

Decorated Handmade Ware (Fig. 3.20). These are simple, handmade vessels, typically bowls, basins, lids, and jugs, with various geometric designs painted in red to dark brown. The surface of the vessel was usually smoothed prior to painting. The geometric designs were often painted on the exterior, usually in recurring geometric patterns organized in registers and bordered by horizontal lines. The patterns are densely arranged on the surface (horror vacui), often with spirals or wavy lines, lending an impression of movement. Designs on vessels of this type from two sites in Transjordan have been analyzed by Franken and Kalsbeek (1975:168–173) and Khadija (1992). It is interesting to note that the painted patterns on the vessels are consistent and repeat throughout the region of distribution. It is unclear if the vessels were produced in one center, whence they were exported to areas of distribution, or whether they were produced and later decorated in imitation of designs on transportable objects such as embroidery or woven rugs. Support for this hypothesis can be seen on the basin illustrated in Fig. 3.20:3, which is identical to a basin found at Dibon in Transjordan (Tushingham 1972:84, Fig. 8:33), and in the usually similar shape of the jugs, as well as painted designs of intersecting half-circles on the interior below the rim, as on Fig. 3.20:5. Answers to such questions can be provided only by studying the composition of the ware and the shape of the vessels, and comparing the painted designs, both as single patterns and as design compositions on the surface of the vessels. These studies and comparisons will enable us to reach more wide-ranging conclusions concerning the connections between Transjordan, Israel and southern Syria in this period. At H. ‘Uza, 48 vessels of this type were found.

These vessels have a wide distribution throughout Israel, southern Syria, and Transjordan. For their distribution at sites in these regions, see Avissar (1996:132, 168–169),


Fig. 3.19. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Undecorated Handmade Ware.

5

6

1 2

3

4

8

7

9

10

11

12

13 14


Pringle (1984:97), and Smith (1973:241). In Israel, they are also found at St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:97–99), Caesarea (Pringle 1985:176, Fig. 2:2), the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:140–142), yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:132, Type 34, 168–169, Type 28), Mt. Tabor (Battista and Bagatti 1976: Table 28:1—middle one in upper row), La Fève (Kedar and Pringle 1985:178–189, Fig. 4:1), Nazareth (Bagatti 1984:177–181), Kh. al-Mina (Grabar et al. 1960:238), Capernaum (Loffreda 1982:95, Fig. 13), Bethany (Saller 1957:283, Fig. 56), and Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:145, 150). In Syria, they appear at Hama (Poulsen 1957:270–274) and in Transjordan, at Pella (Smith 1973:240–242), Dibon (Tushingham 1972:84), and Rujm el-Kursi (Khadija 1992), dated approximately from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries.

A design similar to that of a horned animal like that on Bowl 3, but on a different vessel type, was found at Hama (Poulsen 1957:272, Fig. 1013). A jug, whose neck and design were similar to that of No. 5, is known from Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:150, Fig. 45:12). A painted design reminiscent of the design on No. 8 decorated a jug from the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:141, Fig. 43:9).

Fig. 3.20:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 329-3127/1.Fabric, pale brown 10yR 7/3; a few straw impressions and very few large limestone inclusions. Pink slip, covered with a design in reddish-brown paint. A hole is drilled below the rim.

Fig. 3.20:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 344-3237/5.Fabric, dark brown-gray 10yR 3/2; many straw traces and large carbonized inclusions. Pink slip on the interior, upon which is a design in dark brown-red paint.

Fig. 3.20:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 310-3040/1.Fabric, dark gray 2.5y 3/0 to light yellowish-brown 10yR 6/4; very fine, with traces of straw. Reddish-yellow slip on the exterior, pink slip on the interior, upon which is a design of an animal with horns and a continuous wave in very dark brown paint.

Fig. 3.20:4. Basin; Reg. No. 124-1153/1.Fabric, pale brown 10yR 7/3; large limestone inclu-sions; many air bubbles. Buff slip, decorated with a design in reddish-brown paint.

Fig. 3.20:5. Jug; Reg. No. 314-3045/1.Fabric, dark gray 10yR 4/1; straw traces and a few small gray grits. Pink slip, upon which is a design in reddish-brown paint on the interior and the exterior.

Fig. 3.20:6. Jug; Reg. No. 321-3861/1.Fabric, pink 5yR 7/4 to light brown 10yR 7/4; very fine, with small amounts of sand and a few large gray and limestone inclusions. Light yellow slip, upon which is a design in reddish-brown paint on the interior and the exterior.

Fig. 3.20:7. Jug; Reg. No. 105-1026/1.Fabric, exterior light brown 7.5yR 6/4, to interior, very dark gray core, 7.5yR 3/0; many fine traces of straw. Pink slip, with a design in brown paint on the interior and the exterior.

Fig. 3.20:8. Jug; Reg. No. 121-1107/1.Fabric, uneven firing produced color changes from the exterior to the interior, from a surface varying from yellow to red 5yR 6/6, to light brown 10yR 6/3, to dark gray core 10yR 3/1, and very dark gray; sand, straw traces, and very few large limestone inclusions. Pink slip on the interior and the exterior, upon which is a design in reddish-brown paint.

Fig. 3.20:9. Body sherd of jug; Reg. No. 344-3237/1.Fabric, exterior yellowish-brown 10yR 5/4, to interior—black core, 2.5y 2/0; very fine, many straw traces, and many large gray inclusions. Pink slip, covered with a design in reddish-brown paint on the exterior.

Handmade BasinsThe basins in Fig. 3.21:1, 2 are of very crude ware containing many large inclusions, small limestone grits, and grog. The vessels were fired to a light orange-brown color with a darker core. These basins have a thick flattened rim, protruding on the inside, and a flat base. Occasionally, the basins have a combed decoration on the rim and on the exterior walls. Basins 1 and 2 differ in character from the handmade wares described above. This type was recovered only in Crusader assemblages, as opposed to those described above, which were found in Crusader, but mainly in Mamluk assemblages. At H. ‘Uza, four basins of this type were found.


In the excavations of the Hospitaller Complex at Acre, there were many basins of this type, one identical to Fig. 3.21:2. Similar basins were found at yoqne‘am, dated to the Crusader period (Avissar 1996:127–128, Type 31, Fig. XIII.84), and at Caesarea (Brosh 1986: Fig. 4:21).

Fig. 3.21:1. Basin; Reg. No. 142-1195/2.Fabric, exterior light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4, to interior—light brown 10yR 6/3, to gray 5y 6/1; coarse sand and stones, large limestone inclusions and pebbles.

Fig. 3.21:2. Basin; Reg. No. 124-1209/1.Fabric, exterior light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4, to interior—light gray-brown 10yR 6/2; sandy, with

large limestone inclusions, small limestone grits, and grog; air bubbles. Incised decoration on the rim.

Wheel-Made WaresThe wheel-made wares found at H. ‘Uza have a large variety of shapes, utilized for different purposes. Some are of local manufacture and others are imported.

‘Acre Bowls’ (Fig. 3.21:3, 4). These are simple bowls identical to the ‘Acre Bowls’ found in the excavations at Acre (Stern 1997:37–39, Fig. 4:1–5; E.J. Stern 1999a:260, Fig. 3). The bowls are very simple, with a hemispherical body, a short ledge rim, and a flat base upon which string-cut marks are visible. The ware is very coarse and gritty, covered with a pink or whitish

Fig. 3.20. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Decorated Handmade Ware.

5

6

8

1 2

4

3

7

9


self-slip. Occasionally, there are variations in the shape of the rim.

The coarseness of the fabric and of the potters’ workmanship indicate that this type of simple bowl was mass-produced. Large quantities of these were unearthed in the courtyard of the Hospitallers Complex, where apparently, these bowls served the brothers, the pilgrims, and the sick, who stayed in the hospice. Over-fired kiln wasters found in the Hospitaller Complex and analytical analysis indicate that the ‘Acre Bowls’ were produced locally at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:173).

The ‘Acre Bowls’ clearly belong to the Crusader settlement at H. ‘Uza. Until recently, such bowls were found only in Acre and in nearby rural sites, such as Lower Horbat Manot (Stern 2001:286, Fig. 6:4) and Horbat Sefat ‘Adi (unpublished). Two examples of ‘Acre Bowls’ were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.21:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 322-3076/1.Fabric, light red 10R 5/4 to light olive-gray 5y 6/2; sandy, with a few large limestone inclusions. Buff-colored self-slip on the interior.

Fig. 3.21:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 323-3076/2.Fabric, reddish-brown 2.5yR 5/4; sandy, with small, light gray grits. Buff-colored self-slip on the interior.

Lid (Fig. 3.21:5). This lid is shaped like a bowl with a handle inside. On the base are string-cut marks. The type was popular over a long period, from the end of the Byzantine through the Umayyad periods (Magness 1993:248). Similar lids were retrieved in Crusader assemblages, for example, at Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978, Fig. 35:10) and in the Hospitaller Complex at Acre.

Fig. 3.21:5. Lid; Reg. No. 302-3009/1.Fabric, reddish-brown 5yR 4/4 to brown 10yR 5/3; sandy, with a few small white grits and large inclusions.

Cup (Fig. 3.21:6). A unique find, this small cup is reminiscent of a demitasse. There are no exact parallels, but small ceramic measuring vessels from an excavation at Acre may be connected to a chemist’s shop (Syon and Tatcher 1998:19), suggesting that this vessel is a measuring device.

Fig. 3.21:6. Cup; Reg. No. 322-3116/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; quartz sand and very few large limestone inclusions.

Spouted Jugs (Fig. 3.21:7–11). Few jug sherds were found. These belong to a type of simple spouted jug with a narrow, bulging neck and an everted rim; the body of this type is usually globular, and the base is either a ring or a flat base. These jugs date to the Mamluk period. Displayed here are fragments of a rim and neck (No. 7), spouts (Nos. 8–10) and a ring base (No. 11). Similar jugs were found at the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:141–142, Figs. 43:13), yoqne‘am, Jerusalem, Abu Ghosh, and Nazareth (Avissar 1996:167–168, Type 25, Fig. XIII.151, and see therein for further references), and at the nearby Mamluk village at Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:132, Fig. 4:46–48). Sixteen jugs were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.21:7. Jug; Reg. No. 328-3131/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6, light colored surface; small white grits and a large quantity of a shiny mineral (quartz?).

Fig. 3.21:8. Spout; Reg. No. 300-3003/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; small gray grits and large limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.21:9. Spout; Reg. No. 328-3141/2.Fabric, reddish-brown 2.5yR 4/3; many small light colored grits.

Fig. 3.21:10. Spout; Reg. No. 339-3198/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; a few small, light gray grits and very small mica grits.

Fig. 3.21:11. Jug; Reg. No. 116-1093/1.Fabric, light yellow 5y 7/3; very few small black grits.

Flasks (Fig. 3.21:12–15). Two types of flasks were found, wheel-made and mold-made. The flasks date to the Mamluk period and are made of light brown fabric with a buff-colored exterior. The wheel-made flasks have ridges on the neck, whose upper part is wide and lower part, narrow (Nos. 12, 13). Two handles emerge from the base of the neck and the body is globular. Similar vessels were found at yoqne‘am, Jerusalem, Bethany, Emmaus, and Abu Ghosh (Avissar 1996:169–170, Type 31, Fig. XIII.157, and see therein for further references), and Acre (Stern 1997:39–40, Fig. 4:18).

The mold-made flasks are decorated with geometric and floral designs, sometimes with figures or inscriptions (Nos. 14, 15). At H. ‘Uza, five flasks were


found, two wheel-made and three mold-made. Flasks of this type are known as Mamluk flasks and date to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Day 1935:2–10). They were apparently also in use during the Crusader period, in the thirteenth century, as indicated by a flask rim similar to No. 14, from the Courthouse Site excavations at Acre (Stern 1997:39–40, Fig. 4:18). Recently, a complete mold-made flask was uncovered in a clear Crusader context from the thirteenth century at Acre. For an example of a design similar to No. 14,

see Day 1935: Pl. III, and for a design similiar to No. 15, see Day 1935: Pl. II.

Fig. 3.21:12. Flask; Reg. No. 328-3155/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; very few small and large limestone inclusions and a small amount of grog.

Fig. 3.21:13. Flask; Reg. No. 321-3098/1.Fabric, light olive-brown 2.5yR 5/3; sandy, with a few large yellowish inclusions.

Fig. 3.21. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): ‘Acre Bowls’, a lid, a cup, spouted jugs, flasks, and an antiliya vessel.

7

8 10

3

54 6

9 11 12

13 14 15 16

1

2


Fig. 3.21:14. Flask; Reg. No. 301-30071/1.Fabric, light gray 5y 7/2; sandy, with large yellowish inclusions; air bubbles.

Fig. 3.21:15. Flask; Reg. No. 328-3131/2.Fabric, light gray 5y 7/2; very few large brown inclusions.

Antiliya Vessel (Fig. 3.21:16). The upper part of a cylindrical vessel, which was apparently used as an antiliya pot (also known as a nuria jar). This vessel was used to draw water from wells. The rope was attached to the depression below the neck. While similar vessels have been found in our region, they are not always identified as antiliya vessels. Complete vessels were discovered in a well in the Hospitaller Complex at Acre; in ‘Atlit, where the neck is slightly higher (Johns 1936: Fig. 14:12); at the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:144, Fig. 44:25); and at Hama (Schiøler 1973:99, Fig. 74:60 379).

Fig. 3.21:16. Antiliya vessel; Reg. No. 173-1684/1.Fabric, exterior reddish-brown 2.5yR 4/3, to interior—dark brown core 7.5yR 4/2; sandy, with a few small limestone and calcite grits.

Jars (Fig. 3.22:1–8). This group includes three types of jars. The first group, illustrated in Fig. 3.22:1–3, definitely dates to the Crusader period. These jars have a high neck grooved with wheel ridges and a thick or out-turned folded rim. Two handles extend from mid-neck to the body. Typically, the fabric is very similar to that of the ‘Acre Bowls’, but is sandier, and thus seems to be of local production. The jars are similar in shape and ware to jars from the excavations at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:168–169, Fig. 2 and unpublished material), at Caesarea (Brosh 1986: Fig. 5:6; Pl. V:7), ‘Atlit (Johns 1936: Fig. 14:11), yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:155, Type 18, Fig. XIII.125), and Tell Arqa (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988: Fig. 13:1; Pl. VII:2:1, 2). Ten of these jars were found at H. ‘Uza.

The second type, in Fig. 3.22:4–6, belongs with certainty to the Mamluk period. These jars have a folded rim and a high neck (the rims are folded more than those of the Crusader period). Sometimes, below the rim, there is a ridge decorated with thumb impressions. The ware is red, well levigated, and well fired, and thus very different from the Crusader jars. The jars are

of similar shape and ware to those found at sites from the Mamluk period (end of the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries), such as yoqne‘am, Nazareth, Emmaus and Capernaum (Avissar 1996:153–155, Types 14, 5, Figs. XIII.121, XIII.122), and at the Mamluk village at Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:132, Fig. 4:49–51). Jars similar to No. 4 have been found at Emmaus (Bagatti 1947:110, Fig. 26:1), Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Stève 1950: Pl. G:31), and Capernaum (Loffreda 1982:421, Fig. 10:7), and jars similar to that in Fig. 3.22:5, at Nazareth (Bagatti 1984:177, Fig. 60:6) and yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:153, Fig. XIII.122:2). A jar similar to No. 6 was found at Emmaus (Bagatti 1947:110, Fig. 26:8). Six jars of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

The third group consists of Jars 7 and 8, which are different in shape from the previous types, although they are made of a red-brown, well fired ware, similar to the second group. Only the neck and beginning of the body have survived from No. 7. The neck is ridged and the handle is located on the shoulder of the vessel, with a red-painted band at the joint between the neck and the shoulder. Jar 8 is almost complete; the rim is simple, the neck is high, and the handle extends from the neck to the shoulder. This jar is somewhat reminiscent of the jars from the Crusader period, but the ware is entirely different, resembling the Mamluk jars. It is possible that these jars bridge a transition between the Crusader and Mamluk jar types. Jar 7 has parallels at Nazareth (Bagatti 1984:176, Fig. 59:2) and Emmaus (Bagatti 1947:110, Fig. 26:7). A similar jar was unearthed at Hunin, in an assemblage dated to the Ayyubid period (Idan Shaked, pers. comm).

Fig. 3.22:1. Jar; Reg. No. 372-3790/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits and large inclusions. Pink slip 5yR 7/3 on the interior.

Fig. 3.22:2. Jar; Reg. No. 142-1195/1.Fabric, exterior reddish-brown 2.5yR 5/4, to interior— brown core 7.5yR 5/3; sandy, with many small limestone grits. Light gray slip 10yR 7/2 on the interior.

Fig. 3.22:3. Jar; Reg. No. 382-3948/4.Fabric, reddish-brown 2.5yR 5/4; sandy, with many small limestone grits. Light gray slip 10yR 7/2 on the interior.


Fig. 3.22:4. Jar; Reg. No. 328-3135/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; many small white grits. Thumb impressions below the rim.

Fig. 3.22:5. Jar; Reg. No. 116-1118/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; large limestone inclusions, large pieces of grog, and very small mica grits.

Fig. 3.22:6. Jar; Reg. No. 328-3347/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; many small limestone grits and a few large limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.22:7. Jar; Reg. No. 132-1131/2.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 4/6, to interior—very dark gray core, 10yR 3/1; a few small white grits and very

Fig. 3.22. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Jars and amphoras.

56

8

1

23 4

7

9

10

11 12 13 14


few large limestone and calcite inclusions. Light red paint on the neck and the shoulder.

Fig. 3.22:8. Jar; Reg. No. 135-1142/2.Fabric, reddish-brown 5yR 4/4, light gray surface; sandy, with small, light gray grits; many air bubbles.

Amphoras (Fig. 3.22:9–14). This group includes three types of amphoras, well known from recent excavations at Acre. There is no doubt that this group belongs to the Crusader period. The first type has a simple rim and a long, narrow, and cylindrical neck. The handle extends from slightly below the rim to the shoulder. The elongated body has wide wheel marks and narrows toward the rounded base. A complete example of the first type (No. 9) was found and restored. Number 10, a rim and a handle incised with an X, is another example. Parts of amphoras of Type 1 were found in the Hospitaller Complex at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:169 and unpublished material), as well as in Nazareth, where a complete, very similar, although not identical, amphora was published (Bagatti 1984:176, Fig. 58:6, Table 69:1). Outside of Israel, similar amphoras were found in Istanbul, where they are dated to the end of the twelfth century (Hayes 1992:76, Fig. 26:6, and see there parallels with Romania); and Ras, in Serbia, where the pottery is dated to the end of the eleventh–thirteenth centuries (Popović 1989:128–130, Fig. 6:1, 2).

A sherd of the rim and neck of an amphora with high handles (No. 11) represents the second type. This type features a slightly everted rim and handles that extend from the rim, rise above it and fold downward to the shoulder of the vessel. The neck is high, the shoulder lightly carinated, the body, which has crude wheel ridges, narrows toward the base. The handles have the negative impressions of organic temper, probably straw. Two amphoras of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

Amphoras of the second type are well known throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin and date to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Günsenin 1989:270–274, Figs. 8–11). Examples have been found in Israel at Acre (Stern 1997:39–40, Fig. 4:10–12; Stern and Waksman 2003:160, and unpublished material) and ‘Atlit (Pringle 1986a:463, Pl. IV); at Tell Arqa on the Lebanese coast (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988:26–27, Pl. VIII:1); and at Paphos (Megaw 1972:334, Fig. 27; Rosser 1985:86, Fig. 3), where they derive from strata that preceded the earthquake

destruction layer of 1222 CE. This evidence is valuable as a means of dating the type. The vessels are known from Greece at Athens (Megaw 1972:334, n. 40), Sparta, and many other sites (Sanders 1993:283); at Istanbul (Hayes 1992:76, Type 61, Fig. 26:10); in areas near the Black Sea in Bulgaria, Romania, and Russia; and in Turkey and Italy (Günsenin 1989:271–274). It has been suggested that this type was imported from Greece or the northern coast of Asia Minor (Sanders 1993:283). Petrographic analysis conducted on an amphora from Acre supports this premise (Goren 1997:72–73).

The third type of amphora is the least well known. Two rims (Nos. 12, 13) and one base (No. 14) were found. This type was first identified in the Courthouse Site excavations at Acre (Stern 1997:39–40, Fig. 4:13, 14), and recently, a complete vessel was found at Caesarea, which enables an understanding of the shape of the amphora (Avner Raban and yael D. Arnon, pers. comm.). The amphora has a thick rim and a ridge on the neck; below this ridge are two thick handles. The neck widens downward. The base is a low ring base with a protruding disc in the center. In both the excavations at H. ‘Uza and the Hospitaller Complex at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:160), a similar rim and base were found in close proximity, which would appear to indicate that they belong to the same vessel. A petrographic analysis conducted on an amphora of this type from the Courthouse Site excavation at Acre indicated that it was produced in the area of southern Lebanon (Goren 1997:72). Three examples of this type were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.22:9. Amphora; Reg. No. 379-3820/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/3; small black and limestone grits, very few small mica grits, and large limestone inclusions; well levigated.

Fig. 3.22:10. Amphora; Reg. No. 142-1202/3.Fabric, brown 7.5yR 5/4; many small mica grits, very few small limestone grits. Incised cross on the handle.

Fig. 3.22:11. Amphora; Reg. No. 124-1186/1.Fabric, reddish-brown 5yR 6/4, pink surface; many straw impressions, a few small white grits, few very small mica grits and very few large mica inclusions.

Fig. 3.22:12. Amphora; Reg. No. 144-1241/3.Fabric, reddish-brown 5yR 6/4, buff surface; sandy, with a few small white and black grits.


Fig. 3.22:13. Amphora; Reg. No. 328-3150/2.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; sandy, with many small black grits, and a few large black and limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.22:14. Amphora; Reg. No. 328-3150/1.Fabric, exterior light brown 10yR 7/3, to core—yellowish-red 5yR 5/6 to reddish brown (unevenly fired?) 5yR 4/4; small white grits and a few calcite and quartz crystals.

Cooking Ware (Fig. 3.23)

The cooking ware is divided into closed vessels—cooking pots—and open vessels—baking dishes. The cooking pots have been further divided into two types: Crusader-period cooking pots and Mamluk-period cooking pots. The definition of Crusader cooking pots is based on comparison with cooking pots found in the excavations at Acre, where only the Crusader phase was represented.

The development of the cooking pot, in shape, ware, and glaze, can be traced from the Early Islamic to the Mamluk periods. 1. Shape: The thin-walled cooking pots (3–4 mm) from the Crusader period are a continuation of the Early Islamic cooking-pot tradition as far as the thickness of the walls and the general shape of the vessel is concerned, but the rim is fashioned differently. In the Early Islamic period, rims were usually upright with a groove between the rim and the neck, while in the Crusader period, they were usually folded outward, less often upright, and without a groove. These cooking pots belong to the beginning of the Crusader period, i.e., the twelfth century, and perhaps, to the beginning of the thirteenth century. Toward the end of the thirteenth century, cooking pots with thicker walls (5–6 mm) gradually became more frequent alongside the thin-walled pots, which continued in use. By the Mamluk period, thick-walled pots with a variety of rims were common. 2. Ware: In the beginning of the Crusader period, the typical thin-walled cooking-pot ware was reddish-brown, well fired, and with a tendency to shatter. In the thirteenth century, the ware was coarse and sandy. Thick-walled cooking ware was made of this fabric. Toward the Mamluk period, the ware became lighter colored with a softer texture (see, for example, the Red Tower, Pringle 1986b:146).3. Glaze: The thin-walled pots usually have a purple-brown glaze concentrated on the inside of the base,

sometimes on the exterior, while on the shoulder there are splashes of glaze, or a painted wavy line. In contrast, the thick-walled pots have glaze in shades of brown, which sometimes are applied on the entire interior from the base to the rim, and dribbling onto the exterior of the rim, or are only applied on the base with glaze painting on the rim.

Crusader-Period Cooking PotsPresented below are locally manufactured cooking pots and one imported example, probably from Cyprus.

Levantine Cooking Pots (Fig. 3.23:1–9). These cooking pots can be further divided into thin-walled (Nos. 1–3, 6) and thick-walled pots (Nos. 4, 5, 7–9). They have globular bodies and rims that are vertical (No. 1), everted (Nos. 2–6) or molded (Nos. 7, 8). These pots have many parallels from sites in Israel; thus, only a few examples are provided here to illustrate their wide distribution. A pot similar to No. 1 was found at Caesarea (Pringle 1985:177, Fig. 7:7 and see therein for additional parallels), a pot similar to No. 2, at Acre (Stern 1997:40–42, Fig. 5:22), a pot similar to No. 3, at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:135–136, Type 7, Fig. XIII.94:3 and see therein for additional parallels), a pot similar to No. 5, at Caesarea (Brosh 1986:71, Fig. 4:10), a pot similar to No. 8, at Acre (Stern 1997:40–42, Fig. 5:30), and an example similar to No. 9, at ‘Atlit (Johns 1936: Fig. 14:4). In total, H. ‘Uza. yielded 70 Crusader-period cooking pots.

Cooking pots of this type have been found at many sites in Israel and Cyprus, where they were probably imported from the Levantine coast during the thirteenth century (see Megaw and Jones 1983:262 for the spectrographic analysis conducted on a cooking pot of this type from Paphos. For the distribution of these cooking pots, see Pringle 1986a:464, Map 5). Recent analysis has shown that cooking pots similar to the examples from H. ‘Uza were manufactured in the Levant, most probably in the area of the Lebanese coast (Stern and Waksman 2003:173–175).

Fig. 3.23:1. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 122-1114/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/8; sandy; well levigated. Glaze on the lower interior.

Fig. 3.23:2. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 315-3058/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy; well levigated. Glaze splashes on the exterior.


Fig. 3.23:3. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 119-1101/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with a few small limestone grits.

Fig. 3.23:4. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 134-1136/1.Fabric, exterior yellowish-red 5yR 4/6, interior—dark reddish-brown core, 5yR 3/3; sandy, with very small mica grits. Splashes of glaze on the exterior.

Fig. 3.23:5. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 144-1246/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with a few very small limestone grits. Glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.23:6. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 385-3889/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with very few small black grits. Splashes of glaze on the exterior.

Fig. 3.23:7. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 372-3729/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/8; sandy, with very few small black grits. Glaze on the rim and splashes on the interior.

Fig. 3.23:8. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 321-3098/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with very few small limestone grits and very few small mica grits. Glaze on the rim.

Fig. 3.23:9. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 124-1167/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. Glaze on the rim and the interior and drips of glaze on the exterior. Knife marks on the interior of the base.

Imported Cypriot Cooking Pot (Crusader Period) (Fig. 3.23:10). This cooking pot was probably imported from Cyprus. A complete pot of this type was found at Paphos (Megaw 1971:124, Fig. 3:6), which Megaw describes as handmade and apparently produced locally somewhere in Cyprus. Sherds of a cooking pot of this type were found in Israel at Acre in the Courthouse Site excavations (Stern 1997:43, Fig. 5:37) and in the excavations at the Hospitaller Complex (Stern and Waksman 2003:170), and at ‘Atlit (Johns 1934:144; Pl. LVII:3). A petrographic analysis conducted on the Courthouse Site example indicates that the pot was not locally produced, and was most probably imported from Cyprus (Goren 1997:72–73). It is surprising that a simple vessel would be imported from Cyprus; it may have been brought for its contents rather than for the pot itself.

The discovery of this vessel type at three different sites in Israel indicates that a single example did not arrive incidentally, but rather that the substance inside was imported from Cyprus.

Fig. 3.23:10. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 382-3828/2.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 4/6, to interior—dark reddish-brown core, 5yR 3/4; small gray-yellow, gray and black grits, and large inclusions.

Mamluk-Period Cooking Pots (Fig. 3.23:11–16). These wheel-made cooking pots from the thirteenth century continue into the fourteenth century. They are classified as Mamluk because no examples have been discovered in any undisturbed Crusader context at Acre or at other sites and they occur frequently in Mamluk contexts. They have a globular body and an everted rim. Among the few examples of similar cooking pots that have been published are pots from yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:136–137, Type 10, Fig. XIII.97), Capernaum (Loffreda 1982:420, Fig. 9:9, 10), and the Mamluk village at Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:132, Fig. 3:37–40). Twenty-three examples were found at H. ‘Uza, along with handmade cooking pots (see above, Fig. 3.19:14).

Fig. 3.23:11. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 391-3907/1.Fabric, exterior brown 7.5yR 4/3, to interior—black, core 7.5yR 2/0; small limestone grits, large inclusions, and many calcite inclusions (up to 2.5 mm).

Fig. 3.23:12. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 319-3055/2.Fabric, light red 2.5yR 6/6; large pieces of grog and coarse sand.

Fig. 3.23:13. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 327-3140/2.Fabric, dark gray 10yR 4/1; sandy, with large round quartz inclusions (up to 1 mm).

Fig. 3.23:14. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 316-3049/2.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 4/6, to interior—dark gray-brown core, 10yR 4/2; grog and small limestone grits.

Fig. 3.23:15. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 300-3000/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with a few large limestone inclusions.

Fig. 3.23:16. Cooking pot; Reg. No. 121-1114/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 4/8, to interior—dark gray-brown core, 10yR 3/2; sandy, with small mica grits.


Fig. 3.23. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Cooking Ware.

5

68

1

2 3

4

7

9

10

11

12

13 14

1516

17 18

1920

21

22


Baking Dishes (Fig. 3.23:17–21). These are open vessels with out-flaring or upright walls, and glaze on the interior. Baking dishes changed slightly in the transition between the Crusader and Mamluk periods. The walls became a little thicker, the color and quality of the ware went from well fired red to more friable light red, and the glaze changed, as in the cooking pots (see above). These baking dishes have many parallels from sites in Israel; a few examples are provided to illustrate their wide distribution. Baking dishes similar to No. 17 were found at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:142, Type 16, Fig. XIII.103); baking dishes similar to No. 19, at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:143, Type 18, Fig. XIII.105) and Capernaum (Loffreda 1982:420–421, Fig. 9:13); and baking dishes similar to No. 20 were found at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:144, Type 19, Fig. XIII.106:1), the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:146, Fig. 48:45, 46), and St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:99, Fig. 5:27, 28) Forty-eight examples were found at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.23:17. Baking dish; Reg. No. 382-3948/6.Fabric, exterior, red surface darker than 2.5yR 5/6, to interior—black core, 7.5yR 2/0; sandy; well levigated. Glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.23:18. Baking dish; Reg. No. 321-3098.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with large limestone inclusions and many large quartz inclusions. Glaze on half the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.23:19. Baking dish; Reg. No. 384-3889/2.Fabric, light red 2.5yR 6/6; large amounts of clean quartz sand. Glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.23:20. Baking dish; Reg. No. 316-3049/1.Fabric, exterior light brown 7.5yR 6/4, to interior—light red 2.5yR 6/6; a few small limestone grits and grog. Glaze on half the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.23:21. Baking dish; Reg. No. 382-3882/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/8; sandy, with very few small limestone grits. Glaze on the interior.

Cooking Cup (Fig. 3.23:22). This vessel resembles the baking dishes, but is deeper and has a smaller diameter. The fabric and glaze are the same as those of the cooking wares. Glaze was applied on the interior. This vessel type is rare in Crusader and Mamluk asssemblages. A

similar cup, but with horizontal handles, was found at Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978: Fig. 32:8).

Fig. 3.23:22. Cooking cup; Reg. No. 121-1167/1.Fabric, exterior reddish-brown 2.5yR 4/4, to interior—very dark gray 10yR 3/1; many small limestone grits and a few large limestone inclusions. Green glaze on the interior and dribbles of glaze on the rim and the exterior.

Glazed Tableware

Glazed tableware is very common at H. ‘Uza. There are a large variety of types, manufactured in different areas and decorated in different techniques. The glazed tableware is presented in two main groups: Common Glazed Wares, which seem to be of local Levantine production, and Imported Glazed Wares. The division within these two groups is made according to production areas, which usually correspond in form, fabric, and date, and according to chronology, if possible.

The decoration techniques in these periods consist of different treatments of the vessel body, full or partial application of slip, incised decoration, glaze in one or more colors, and a combination of these elements. The main types of decoration are: 1. Monochrome Glazed. These begin to appear with the first use of glazed wares in Israel. The shape of the vessels, the composition of the fabric, and the glaze differ from period to period. At H. ‘Uza, various types of monochrome bowls were found, both locally made and imported. They were usually treated with a lead-based glaze. The vessels were wheel-made, smoothed, and slipped on the interior in shades of white to cream. The vessels were fired, after which the glaze was applied and the vessels were refired. 2. Reserved-Slip. Part of the bowl remains unslipped. After the application of the glaze and the second firing, the slipped part takes on the color of the glaze and the unslipped part is several shades darker. 3. Slip-Painted. These are glazed bowls decorated with a brush-painted design in slip. In this technique, a pattern is painted on the vessel with a light colored slip when the vessel is leather hard. After the preliminary firing, the glaze is applied and the vessel is refired. The final result is a pattern in the color of the glaze while the background is several shades darker. Bowls of this type apparently appear in Israel from the twelfth century onward (see Fig. 3.18:2 from Stratum 5a). In Greece,


bowls decorated in this technique begin to appear in the eleventh century (Sanders 1999:160–161). At H. ‘Uza, the slip-painted bowls are either locally manufactured, imported from the area of Byzantium, or from Cyprus (slip-painted jugs were also found). 4. Sgraffito. A number of vessels exhibit incised decoration, among them locally made wares and imports from the area of Byzantium, the Aegean area, Cyprus, and Port St. Symeon on the Syrian coast. All these types were produced using the same technique. The main difference between them is in the thickness of the instrument used to incise the designs on the vessel wall and the repertoire of the motifs. When the vessel was leather hard, a layer of slip was applied, and the design was incised with a pointed tool that removed some of the slip and uncovered the surface, which was darker than the slip. A layer of glaze was then applied and the vessel was fired. After firing, the incised areas appeared darker than the background. 5. Glaze-Painted. Various vessels decorated with colored glaze were found in the excavations. The decoration was

made with different colors painted on the first layer of glaze. These vessels have various origins.

These wares were locally made, imported from the regions of Byzantium, Cyprus, North Africa, and northern and southern Italy and Sicily. Some of the vessel types, are splashed with patches of a different-colored glaze.

Common Glazed WaresCommon Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on the Exterior (Fig. 3.24). These vessels appear at H. ‘Uza from the beginning of the twelfth century and continue to appear in Strata 4–1. At H. ‘Uza, 35 bowls of this type were found in Strata 4–1 (for a discussion of this type, see pp. 122–123).

Fig. 3.24:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 323-3077/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, small limestone grits and large inclusions. Pinkish-white slip on the exterior and the interior. Glaze varies in color from yellow to green on the interior. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.24. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on the Exterior.

5

1 2

3 4

6


Fig. 3.24:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 379-3829/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; small stone grits and apparently a few small mica grits. Buff slip on the exterior and the interior. Green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.24:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 319-3055/1.Fabric, red 10R 5/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits and a few large inclusions. Buff slip on the exterior and the interior. Green glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.24:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 137-1166/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip on the exterior and the interior. Green glaze on the interior and drips of glaze on the rim and the exterior.

Fig. 3.24:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 349-3259/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits and large inclusions. Pinkish-white slip on the exterior and the interior. Green glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.24:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 303-3011/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with few small limestone grits and occasional large inclusions. Pinkish-white slip on the exterior and the interior. Polychrome glaze in green, brown, and yellow on the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A (Gritty Glaze; Fig. 3.25:1). A hard red or reddish-brown sandy fabric, containing limestone grits and inclusions, is typical of this group. The surface is rough because of the small inclusions in the fabric. The slip is very thin and therefore, the glaze appears in a number of shades. Most of these vessels are bowls with a narrow ledge rim and a sharp carination at the shoulder (see Fig. 3.18:1) or smaller bowls with a narrow ledge rim, without a sharp carination (Fig. 3.25:1). Other examples of these bowls display a very wide ledge rim. They have low, wide, ring bases, similar to those of the ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on the Exterior’ bowls. At H. ‘Uza, 112 bowls of this type were recovered.

These bowls, a homogeneous group known from Israel, Lebanon, and Cyprus, have been found at Acre (Stern 1997:45, Fig. 6, No. 49; Stern and Waksman 2003:170–171, Fig. 5, left and unpublished material), yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:90–93, Types 34, 35, Figs.

XIII.22, XIII.23), Caesarea (Pringle 1985:177, Fig. 3:12–15), Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:143, Fig. 34:1); Tell ‘Arqa (Thalmann 1978: Fig. 34:1), and Tripoli in Lebanon (Salamé-Sarkis 1980:190–191, Fig. 31:73, 64, Pls. LIX:1, LXXII:9), and Paphos (Megaw 1971:123, Fig. 2:2). This group dates from the beginning of the twelfth through the thirteenth centuries. Based on the distribution of the vessels, this type appears to be typical of the Levantine coast, and is apparently the source of the example from Cyprus. Recent chemical and petrographic analyses have shown that glazed bowls similar to the bowls from H. ‘Uza were indeed manufactured in the Levant, most probably the area of the Lebanese coast. The results also show that these bowls were made of clay similar to the fabric of the ‘Levantine Cooking Pots’ (above, p. 139, Stern and Waksman 2003:173–175).

Fig. 3.25:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 132-1131/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with small limestone grits. Buff-colored slip under yellow glaze on the rim and the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome B (Smooth Glaze; Fig. 3.25:2–9). This group includes various monochrome bowls with carinated walls, a low ring or high trumpet base, and green or yellow monochrome glaze. At H. ‘Uza, 128 bowls of this type were found.

This bowl type has a wide distribution in Israel, Transjordan, and the Aegean region. Bowls with this body shape are decorated with both slip-painting and incision. Based on the ware it appears that most of the monochrome bowls are of local origin. This family includes the ‘Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted B’, ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito B’, and ‘Common Glazed Ware—Glaze Painted’. However, as with the slip-painted bowls, there is one example whose fabric contains mica, which indicates that the vessel was not manufactured in Israel and must be an import. Vessels with green monochrome glaze and a similar profile to those identified as local ware are known from Sparta from the beginning of the thirteenth century (Sanders 1993:263, Fig. 2:15).

Vessels similar to No. 4 were retrieved at the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:147, 149, Fig. 49:51) and at St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:103, Fig. 7:41). A vessel similar to No. 5 was found at St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:103, Fig. 7:42). A vessel with a base similar to that of No. 6 but with green glaze was


recovered at H. Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:214–215, Pl. 7.18:16).

A few bowls of this type, mainly the finer slip-painted bowls, were published from assemblages excavated in Israel, Lebanon, and Transjordan. Similar monochrome bowls were found at Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:132, Fig. 29); H. Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:214–215, Pl. 7.18:15–18); Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:124, Pl. 8/7:1–20); St. Mary of Carmel, dated to the end of the thirteenth century (Pringle 1984:103, Fig. 7:41–47); the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:147–149, Fig. 49:50–51); and Emmaus (Bagatti 1947:127, Fig. 31:1–6); Tripoli in Lebanon, where they were dated to the end of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries (Salamé-Sarkis 1980:186–191, Figs. 29–31); and Heshbon in Transjordan (Lawlor 1980: Fig. 1:1515). Based on the parallels, a wide chronological range is apparent, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries.

Some of the bowls presented here date to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of the Crusader period, although most belong to the end of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries, and even the beginning of the fifteenth. For example, a high trumpet base similar to Fig. 3.25:9 was found in Jerusalem in an assemblage

dated to the last quarter of the fourteenth century (Tushingham 1985:148, Fig. 41:32), while the light colored ware of Bowls 4, 6, and 7 would seem to date them to the fourteenth or even the beginning of the fifteenth centuries.

Fig. 3.25:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 301-3016/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with small mica grits; well levigated. White slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.25:3. Bowl; Reg No. 328-3165/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/8; various types of sand and small limestone grits. White slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.25:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 131-1130/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; sand and a few large limestone inclusions. Buff slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.25:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3146/3.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; small brown/black grits and large limestone inclusions. Pinkish-white slip on the rim and the interior. yellow glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.25. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A, Monochrome B, and Reserved-Slip Wares.

5

12

3

4

6 7 8

910


Fig. 3.25:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3146/2.Fabric, exterior pink 7.5yR 7/4, to interior—reddish-yellow 5yR 6/6; large inclusions of limestone and other pebbles. Pinkish-white slip under yellow glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.25:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3127/3.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; large flint and small mica inclusions. White slip under green (uneven) glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.25:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 384-3916/1.Fabric, dark reddish-brown 5yR 3/4; a few small limestone grits. Light colored slip on the rim and the interior below green-brown glaze on the interior and the exterior.

Fig. 3.25:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 374-3193/1.Fabric, reddish-yellow 5yR 6/8; slightly sandy, with few very small white grits. White slip on the interior and drips on the exterior. Light yellow glaze on the interior with isolated glaze splotches on the exterior.

Common Glazed Ware—Reserved-Slip (Fig. 3.25:10). These bowls differ from the monochrome bowls discussed above in that part of the bowl remains unslipped. After the application of the glaze and the second firing, the slipped part takes on the color of the glaze and the unslipped part becomes several shades darker. Usually, the glaze is yellow, sometimes with green splashes on various parts of the vessel. The typical bowl is shallow with a short ledge rim. At H. ‘Uza, the reserved-slip bowl is of the Crusader period. Bowls of this type are known only from other coastal sites and were found at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:170–171, Fig. 5: right and unpublished material) and at Caesarea, dated to the thirteenth century (Pringle 1985:179, Fig. 4:22–25; Arnon 1999:227, Fig. 11:k, m). Use of the reserved-slip technique of decoration continued during the Mamluk period. Examples of such bowls were found at Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:126–127, Fig. 1:10, 11) and yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:96, Type 46, Fig. 34:1–5).

Recent chemical and petrographic analyses have revealed that reserved-slip glazed bowls similar to those found at H. ‘Uza were manufactured in the Levant, most probably in the area of the Lebanese coast. The results also demonstrate that these bowls were made of a clay similar to that of ‘Levantine Cooking Pot’

and ‘Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A’ (Stern and Waksman 2003:173–175). At H. ‘Uza, one sherd from the slipped part of the bowl was found, with green color splash on the rim.

Fig. 3.25:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 142-1202/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy. White slip under pale yellow glaze on the rim and the interior and green color splashes on the rim.

Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted. There are two subgroups in this category: A, which is typical mainly of the coastal area and whose chronological range is limited to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries; and B, which appears in Crusader (twelfth–thirteenth centuries) and Mamluk assemblages (thirteenth–fourteenth centuries). The differences between these two subgroups can be seen in the fabric, the style of decoration and the quality of the glaze (see below). Forty-nine Common Glazed Slip-Painted bowls were found at H. ‘Uza.

Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted A (Low Quality Glaze; Fig. 3.26:1, 2): These bowls have a wide ledge rim or a simple rim, and a low ring base. The fabric is red and sandy. The linear design consists of very wide lines painted with thinned slip. The glaze is of very poor quality and in some cases was not preserved. When the glaze was preserved, it is a transparent yellowish color.

Similar bowls were found at Acre (Stern 1997:47–48, Fig. 7:64–66; Stern and Waksman 2003:170–171: Fig. 5, bottom, and unpublished material), at Caesarea (Pringle 1985:179–183, Fig. 5:26–29; Arnon 1999:227, Fig. 10:k, l), Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978:25, Fig. 33:2; Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988:1920, Fig. 10:2, Pl. V.I), and in Cyprus, where they were apparently imported from the Levantine coast (Rosser 1985:89, Fig. f: 3; Pl. 15).

Recent chemical and petrographic analyses have shown that slip-painted glazed bowls similar to those from H. ‘Uza were manufactured in the Levant, most probably in the area of the Lebanese coast (Stern and Waksman 2003:173–175).

Fig. 3.26:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 118-1092/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; large sand granules and very few small limestone grits. Stripes of white slip under transparent glaze on the interior and drips of glaze on the exterior.


Fig. 3.26:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 327-3164/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; large sand granules of various types and a few small limestone grits. Stripes of white slip under transparent glaze on the rim and the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted B (Smooth Glaze; Fig. 3.26:3–12): These bowls have a ledge, a simple, or a cut rim, and sometimes, a carination. A number of subgroups can be discerned based on style of decoration, color, and quality of ware. The first subgroup is made of red ware with small white limestone grits (Fig. 3.26:3–7). This ware is also typical of ‘Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A’, ‘Common Glazed Bowls—Sgraffitio and Slip on the Exterior’, some of the ‘Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome B’, and some of the ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito’. This is apparently a local fabric used to produce pottery during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The second subgroup is comprised of light red ware or yellowish-red ware (Fig. 3.26:8–12), characteristic of some of the ‘Common Sgraffito’ and ‘Monochrome’ vessels. It is apparently a local fabric used to make pottery from the fourteenth century onward. Two of these bowls (Fig. 3.26:9, 12) contain a few small mica grits. Although the style of decoration is identical to the other vessels of this subgroup, the origin of these two is questionable. The decoration of both subgroups can be divided into two types. The first ware group has decoration composed of stripes, dots, and circular shapes. The brushstrokes are relatively thick and thin slip is used. In contrast, the brushstrokes of the second group are thinner and the slip is thick and stands out on the surface of the vessel (Fig. 3.26:10). This element is used even for more complex designs with incision into the slip. The designs are composed mainly of straight lines that crisscross to create net patterns. In both groups the glaze is of good quality. Further research is required to identify the origin of the various groups.

A bowl similar to Fig. 3.26:5 was found at Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Stève 1950:138, Fig. 32:14); a bowl similar to Fig. 3.26:6, at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:96, Type 44, Fig. XIII.32:1); and bowls with a base and decoration similar to Fig. 3.26:7, at Bethany (Saller 1957:278, Fig. 55:5633, 7321). Bowls similar to Fig. 3.26:12 were found at Pella (Smith 1973, Pl. 72:404, 1019) and Bet She’an (Zori 1966: Pl. 10:F).

The slip-painted bowls have a wide distribution in Israel. Such vessels are found, for example, at Giv‘at

yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:126–127, Fig. 1:12); H. Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:213–214, Pl. 7.18:12, 13); Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:214; Pl. 8.7:23); yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:96, Types 44, 45, Figs. XIII.32, 33); Bet She’an (Zori 1966: Pl. 10:F); Khirbet el-Mefjer (Baramki 1944:70, Fig. 11:7, 8); Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:143); Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Stève 1950:137–138, Figs. 32:8, 9, 12, 14, 16–18; 55); and Pella, where they are labeled Group C (Smith 1973:238–239, Pl. 72:494, 1019).

Fig. 3.26:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 133-1168/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with a few large limestone inclusions. Stripes and dots on white slip under yellow glaze on the interior and drips of glaze on the exterior.

Fig. 3.26:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 315-3075/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with very small limestone grits. Stripes and dots on white slip under yellow glaze on the interior and drips of glaze on the exterior (see Color Pl. 1:5).

Fig. 3.26:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 315-3075/4.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; a few small black grits, small limestone grits, and large inclusions. Stripes in white slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior. Marks of wheel burnishing on the exterior.

Fig. 3.26:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 384-3867/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with a few small gray inclusions; well levigated. Stripes of white slip under light green glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.26:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 321-3113/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits. Stripes and spiral designs in white slip under green glaze on the interior, pink slip under glaze splashes on the exterior.

Fig. 3.26:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 321-3101/1.Fabric, reddish-yellow 5yR 6/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. A net pattern painted in white slip under yellow glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.26:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 301-3016/2.Fabric, light red 2.5yR 6/6; sandy, with very few large limestone grits, few very small mica grits. Stripes painted in white slip under yellow glaze on the interior.


Fig. 3.26:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 300-3000/1.Fabric, light red 2.5yR 6/6; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. Stripes painted in thick white slip under yellow glaze on the rim and the interior. Below the rim are a number of incisions made after the slip-painting but prior to application of the glaze.

Fig. 3.26:11. Bowl; Reg. No. 321-3101/2.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy; well levigated; a few air bubbles. Stripes painted in white slip under light green glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.26:12. Bowl; Reg. No. 321-3101/3Fabric, light red 2.5yR 6/6; sandy, with many very small mica grits. A net pattern painted in thick white slip under yellow glaze on the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted Spout of Jug (Fig. 3.26:13). The spout is in the shape of a horned animal and painted with stripes of white slip under a yellow glaze. Spouts of this shape begin to appear from the eighth century and apparently continue in use until the thirteenth century. This object can be dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries based on the style of decoration. Similar spouts from the Umayyad period were found, e.g., at Caesarea (Brosh 1986:68, Fig. 2:4 and see therein for further parallels), yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:171, Fig. XIII.158:4), and Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 34:11). Spouts dating to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries were found in Iran (Grube 1976:171, No. 119) and at Hama (Poulsen 1957:263, Figs. 259–261).

Fig. 3.26:13. Spout of zoomorphic jug; Reg. No. 121-1113/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; fine; well levigated. Stripes of white slip under yellowish glaze on the exterior.

Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito A (Gritty Glaze; Fig. 3.27:1–5). These bowls belong to the same group as the Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A, with the addition of an incised decoration, sometimes executed with a very fine instrument (Fig. 3.27:5). Their description, distribution, provenience, and date are identical to those of the monochrome bowls (see above).

Fig. 3.27:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 105-1044/1.Fabric; red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy. White slip under yellow glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 311-3062/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with small limestone grits. White slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior. Incised stripes on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 349-3943/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with a few small grits and large limestone inclusions. White slip under green glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 372-3759/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with many small limestone grits and large inclusions. White slip under yellow glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 394-3949/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with many small limestone grits and large inclusions. White slip under green glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito B (Smooth Glaze; Fig. 3.27:6–10). This group, like that of ‘Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted B’, can be divided into two or even three ware groups. The first group is made of a sandy red fabric with small, white limestone grits (Fig. 3.27:6). The ware is similar to ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on Exterior’ and to ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito A’, and belongs to the same group. The second (Fig. 3.27:7–9) group is also made of a red fabric, but has no grits or very few small white limestone grits, and the fabric is much better levigated than that of the previous group. The third ware group is made of red-orange or yellowish-red fabric, which is apparently typical of a later period, as with ‘Common Glazed Wares—Slip-Painted Bowls’. The single example of this type displays a combination of incised decoration and splotches of green glaze (Fig. 3.27:10). Eight bowls decorated with incision were uncovered at H. ‘Uza.

Local sgraffito vessels from the Crusader and Mamluk periods are common in Israel and similar vessels have been found, for example, at H. Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:215–216, Pl. 7/18:23–24), Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:214, Pl. 8.7:29, 30), Nazareth (Bagatti 1984:185–190, Figs. 65, 66), Mt. Tabor (Battista and Bagatti 1976: Table 28:2, 3), Capernaum (Loffreda 1982:420, Fig. 9:1, 4), the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:150, Fig. 50:70, 71), Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:143, 148–


Fig. 3.26. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted A and B, and Slip-Painted Wares.

56

12 3

4

7 8

910

11

12 13


149), and Bethany (Saller 1957:278, Fig. 55:55, 84, 174, 178, 27). The parallels date these vessels from the twelfth century to the end of the Mamluk period (the end of the fourteenth century).

Fig. 3.27:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 315-3046/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/8; sandy; well levigated. Light colored slip on the rim and the interior under light green glaze on the interior, drips of glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 316-3057/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy; well levigated. Pinkish slip on the entire surface of the vessel under yellow glaze with green splotches on the interior and splashes of glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 315-3046/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy. White slip under yellow glaze. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 124-1194/2.Fabric, reddish-brown 2.5yR 4/4; fine, sandy, with small limestone grits. White slip under olive-green glaze on the interior. Incised decoration on the interior (see Color Pl. 1:6).

Fig. 3.27:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 321-3096/1.Fabric, exterior yellowish-brown 10yR 5/4, to interior—reddish-yellow 5yR 6/6; sandy. White slip on the rim and the interior under yellow glaze with green splotches on the interior, and dribbles of yellow glaze on the exterior from the rim downward. Incised decoration on the interior.

Common Glazed Ware—Glaze Painted (Fig. 3.27:11–14). Based on their shape and ware, the bowls presented here belong to the first ‘Common Glazed Ware’ group (Monochrome A, Reserved-Slip, Slip-Painted A and Sgraffito A). The typical ware is a red sandy fabric with small white grits similar to that of the ‘Common Glazed Wares’ mentioned here. These bowls have a ledge rim and a low ring base similar to the bases of ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito A’.

These vessels are rare. Usually, the painting was brown on a yellow background. On Bowl 3.27:14, the background is greenish-yellow and the paint is green and brown. It is difficult to reconstruct the patterns

depicted, as no complete vessels have survived. No parallels to these vessels have been published from other sites in Israel or elsewhere. Four bowls of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.27:11. Bowl; Reg. No. 300-3003/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; fine, sandy, with small limestone grits. Buff slip on the interior and exterior of the vessel under yellow glaze on the rim and the interior. Dark brown glaze paint (see Color Pl. 1:7).

Fig. 3.27:12. Bowl; Reg. No. 106-1066/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with many small limestone grits and a few large limestone inclusions. Buff slip under yellow glaze on the rim and the interior. Dark brown glaze paint on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:13. Bowl; Reg. No. 124-1174/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/6; large and small inclusions. White slip under greenish-yellow glaze. Painted with green and brown glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.27:14. Bowl; Reg. No. 388-3913/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with small limestone grits. White slip under yellow glaze and dark brown glaze paint on the interior (see Color Pl. 1:8).

Imported Glazed Ware

Imported Glazed Ware—Monochrome Bowls with Thin Wash under a Monochrome Glaze (Fig. 3.28:1, 2). This is a group of bowls with similar characteristics—the ware, the glaze, and the hemispherical shape of the vessel, with a ledge rim. When the ledge is wide there is a protruding ridge in the middle. The typical ware is pale red, sometimes buff with white and black grits and large white inclusions. Occasionally, mica appears in the fabric as well. The glaze was applied over a very thin coat of off-white or white wash so that the resulting color was inconsistent, ranging from shades of olive green to mustard yellow. Bowls of this type were also found in the excavations of the Courthouse Site at Acre (Stern 1997:43, Fig. 6:43, 44) and in the Hospitaller Complex, where complete examples were recovered; at Caesarea (Brosh 1986:69, Fig. 2:8); and at Tripoli (Salamé-Sarkis 1980: Fig. 30:15, 16). It appears that this type dates to the thirteenth century, and was imported to Israel, as attested by a petrographic analysis carried out on a bowl from Acre. The place of manufacture for this type is still


Fig. 3.27. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito A, Sgraffito B, and Glaze Painted Wares.

5

12

3 4

86 7

119 10

1412 13


unknown (Stern 1997:43; Goren 1997:72–72). At H. ‘Uza, four bowls of this type were found.

Fig. 3.28:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 315-3075/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; many small limestone grits. Green-brown glaze on the rim and the interior.

Fig. 3.28:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 340-3381.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; many small limestone grits and a few large inclusions. Gray wash under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Roulette Ware (Fig. 3.28:3). Only one example of this type was found. The bowl has a cut rim and a roller-stamped decoration made with a rotating instrument, which produced a series of well- arranged indentations in parallel lines on the exterior wall of the vessel. The bowl has green glaze on the interior, some of which has dripped onto the exterior.

Bowls of this type are rare in Israel, and have been published only from the excavations in Crusader contexts at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:172). It seems that this type, named ‘Roulette Ware’, was imported from Venice in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. This type was first distinguished among the finds of the excavations at Corinth, by Morgan (1942:173–174), and was later studied by Mackay (1967:254–255). Gelichi (1984) identified ‘Roulette Ware’ in northeastern Italy. Based on kiln wasters, which were found in the Venetian lagoon area, and on mineralogical analysis of this ware, he demonstrated that the ware was produced in the area of Venice. He dated it from the last quarter of the thirteenth to the mid-fourteenth centuries.

It may be that ‘Roulette Ware’ was imported here in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, during the last decades of the second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, by the Venetian merchants who took an active part in the maritime trade at Acre. This find reflects the importation of various types of glazed ceramics from Italy during the last decades of the second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, of which large quantities were found at Acre (Stern and Waksman 2003:172 and unpublished material). The find from H. ‘Uza relates to Gelichi Type a, which has been found in northeastern Italy, Split, and Corinth (Gelichi 1984:51).

Fig. 3.28:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 327-3164/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; sandy, with very few small limestone grits and many small mica grits.

Pinkish-white slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Shoulder-Carinated Bowl (Fig. 3.28:4). A sherd of the upper part of a carinated bowl was found. The ware is orange-brown and contains mica grits, and was therefore probably imported. The bowl has green glaze over white slip on the interior, and on the exterior the glaze reaches slightly below the rim. One example of this type was recovered at H. ‘Uza.

Similar bowls were found at different sites in Israel, e.g., at Giv‘at yasaf, dated to the fourteenth–fifteenth centuries (Stern 1999a:129–130, Fig. 2:20); and at St. Mary of Carmel, where Pringle states that these vessels were made of two kinds of ware, one resembling the ware of the vessel under discussion (Pringle 1984:99–101; Figs. 6:31–32; 7:33, 35). However, the vessels there do not have a slip under the glaze, and some of the pottery may be of later date, after the thirteenth century (Pringle 1984:94). A bowl with a profile identical to the one from H. ‘Uza was found at Tripoli, where the monochrome group of vessels is dated to the end of the thirteenth–beginning of the fourteenth centuries (Salamé-Sarkis 1980:186–191, Fig. 29:18). The dating of this type to the fourteenth–fifteenth centuries is based on the fact that this bowl type is absent in Crusader ceramic assemblages at Acre and at other sites, but is present at sites that date to a later period (Giv‘at yasaf) or at sites that contain Crusader and later pottery, which were not always well separated (e.g., St. Mary of Carmel and Tripoli).

Apart from its appearance in the Levant, bowls of this type occur at other Mediterranean sites, such as Kouklia, Cyprus (Maier and von Wartburg 1997:194, n. 30), where von Wartburg suggested that carinated bowls may be of Italian origin; and Split (Buerger 1979:67), where a Venetian, Byzantine, or North African origin was proposed, the first being most likely. Additional support for an Italian source for these vessels can be found in the similarity of their profile to Italian types, for example the Sgraffito type of ‘S. Bartolo’, produced in Venice and dated to the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries (Saccardo 1993:214–232, Table III:6; Francesca Saccardo, pers. comm.). Buerger (1979:67) and von Wartburg (Maier and von Wartburg 1997:194, n. 30) have already pointed to the fact that bowls with carinated shoulders may be of Italian origin. Therefore, it is suggested here, that


this type of carinated bowl was imported to Israel from Italy, and should be dated to a period after the fall of the second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Fig. 3.28:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 382-3888/1.Fabric, brown 7.5yR 5/4; many small mica grits. Buff slip under green glaze on the rim and the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Glazed Jugs (Fig. 3.28:5, 6). These two sherds apparently belong to the same jug. The ware is orange with a few mica grits. Thus, the vessel was probably imported. The jug has a very narrow neck with three lines incised at the joint of the handle. The body is spherical with distinct wheel marks. The olive-green glaze was apparently applied directly onto the vessel without a slip layer. A similar jug may have been found at St. Mary of Carmel, although it is described in the text without an illustration (Pringle 1984:101, No. 38). In recent excavations at Acre, similar jugs were found in Crusader-period contexts. The origin of this type of jug remains unknown.

Fig. 3.28:5. Glazed jug; Surface.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; very few small limestone grits and a few small mica grits; well levigated. Olive-green glaze on the exterior.

Fig. 3.28:6. Glazed jug; Reg. No. 382-3948/5.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; very few small limestone grits and a few small mica grits; well levigated. Olive-green glaze on the exterior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Wares. This is a family of glazed bowls, imported from the Byzantine area, which shares the same shape, fabric, and glaze, but is decorated in different techniques. The bowls and dishes have plain and vertical rims, a straight or slightly curving body, or an angle near the rim and a low ring base. The vessels are occasionally coarsely potted, the wall thickness uneven, indicating mass production. The fabric is mainly red and, occasionally, orange or light brown with white grits. The interior of the bowls is coated with a layer of white slip (excluding the ‘Slip Painted’; there, the slip was used to paint the designs), with a thinner layer on the exterior. The slip on the interior is then coated with a transparent lead glaze, which is colorless, yellow, or green. The various techniques of decoration are classified here in the different groups: Sgraffito, Slip-Painted, Green and Brown Painted, and Green and Brown Painted Sgraffito. The Byzantine Glazed Wares are dated to the second half of the twelfth and the early thirteenth centuries. This group of wares was imported to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem from the area of the Byzantine Empire. The distribution of Byzantine Wares was mainly in the Byzantine Empire, in modern Greece, Turkey, Romania, South Italy, and Cyprus, and also in the Levant—Syria, Lebanon, and Israel (François 1997:233, Fig. 2). Recently, a number of production centers were identified within the Byzantine Empire (Nicaea, Ganos, Pergamon, Thebes, and Corinth; for references, see Armstrong 1997:6). Shipwrecks with Byzantine Wares as cargo found in

Fig. 3.28. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Imported Glazed Ware—Monochrome Bowls with Thin Wash under a Monochrome Glaze, Roulette Ware, carinated bowl, glazed jugs.

1

2

3

4

5

6


the Aegean Sea demonstrate the volume of production and trade of this type of ware (Armstrong 1997:5–6). Byzantine Glazed Wares were found in excavations in Corinth; Morgan established a classification of types by chronological development based chiefly on art historical considerations (Morgan 1942). However, evidence from the shipwreck cargos (Armstrong 1997) and research on pottery from Corinth by Sanders (1999) has shown that Morgan’s dating system is no longer reliable. Until recently, the typology and terminology that Morgan established was used to describe the different groups of Byzantine glazed wares. Here, recent terminology, based mainly on Armstrong 1997, Sanders 1999, Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, and Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999, is used.

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Fine Sgraffito (Fig. 3.29:1–4): This group comprises bowls that were decorated with fine delicate incisions, which included spirals, scrolls, and vegetal motifs, as well as human and animal figures. This group has two main styles of decoration: (a) geometric or floral designs within concentric bands; and (b) figures, mainly birds, but also animals and fish, on a free field (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999:19, 27–36; Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:58–80). This is the Developed Style according to Morgan’s typology (1942:127–135).

At H. ‘Uza, two bowls of the first decoration style (a) are presented (Fig. 3.29:2, 3), and one, of the second (b; No. 4). Nine bowls of both styles were found.

Bowls with decoration similar to that of No. 2 have been found, for example, at Paphos (Megaw 1972:342; Fig. 22, second row from left, in the middle), and at the Port of St. Symeon, northern Syria (Lane 1938:43, Pl. XX:1A). A bowl with decoration similar to that of No. 3 was found in Athens (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999:31, Cat. No. 10). Bowls with an incised fish design similar to that of No. 4 were found at Corinth (Morgan 1942:131; Pl. XLII:i, j) and Thebes (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999:28–29, Cat. Nos. 5, 6).

Fig. 3.29:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 382-3939/1.Fabric, reddish-brown 5yR 5/4; small limestone grits. White slip on the rim and the interior of the vessel under transparent glaze. Thin white slip on the exterior.

Fig. 3.29:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 133-1188/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; small limestone and small gray grits. White slip on the entire surface of

the vessel. yellow glaze on the interior and splashes of transparent glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.29:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 148-1246/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/8, to interior—reddish-brown core, 5yR 5/4; sand, small limestone grits, and large inclusions. White slip under transparent yellow glaze on the interior. Incised decoration on the interior. Thin white slip on the exterior (see Color Pl. 2:1).

Fig. 3.29:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 336-3209/1.Fabric, exterior yellowish-red 5yR 5/6, to interior—reddish-brown core, 5yR 5/4; sand and few large limestone inclusions. White slip under pale yellow glaze on the interior. Incised decoration of fish on the interior of vessel.

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Incised Sgraffito (Fig. 3.29:5): In this group, the bowls are decorated with a broad incision, executed with a gouge. Occasionally, there is a combination of incisions made with both a fine tool and a gouge as in the example presented here. Bowls of this type are decorated with figures of warriors and hunters, birds, and with geometric and floral designs (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999:19–20, 44–56; Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:85–100), and belong to the ‘Incised Sgraffito Free Style’ of Morgan (1942:155). At H. ‘Uza, one bowl of this type was found.

Fig. 3.29:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 111-1067/2.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; very few small mica grits; well levigated. White slip under green glaze on the interior and incised decoration on the interior (see Color Pl. 2:2).

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Slip-Painted (Fig. 3.29:6–8): Many vessels of this type from Corinth were published extensively by Morgan; there, the typical decoration is dotted or linear (Morgan 1942:95–103). At H. ‘Uza, only linear designs, which include designs composed of spirals or various circular elements, were found. These date to the twelfth-century phase of this ware. The glaze is usually yellowish (as are the examples from H. ‘Uza), less frequently in shades of green (Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:53–57).


Fig. 3.29. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Fine Sgraffito, Byzantine Incised Sgraffito, Byzantine Slip-Painted, Byzantine Green and Brown Painted, and Byzantine Green and Brown Painted Fine Sgraffito Wares.

5

1 2 3

4 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13

The decoration on No. 8 resembles those of bowls found at Corinth (Morgan 1942:100, Fig. 76) and in the Benaki Museum (Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:57, No. 88). At Panagia, in southeastern Greece, bowls with decorations similar to No. 7 (Armstrong 1989:6, No. 8, Fig. 2) and No. 8 were found (Armstrong 1989: Pl. 3, Fig. 2:1). Thirteen bowls of this type were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

Vessels of this type have not been discovered at many sites in Israel, and have been published only from Bet She’an and yoqne’am (Boas 1991:179–180,

Fig. 1:5–7; Avissar 1996:106, Type 65, Fig. XIII.49). A few bowls were retrieved in the excavation of the Hospitaller Complex in Acre. At Paphos, a sherd of one of these bowls was published and dated to the twelfth century (Megaw 1972:342, Fig. 22, bottom right).

Fig. 3.29:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 111-1067/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; sand and small limestone grits. Spiral designs painted in white slip under yellow glaze on the interior. Thin, pinkish-white slip on the exterior.


Fig. 3.29:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 142-1202/1.Fabric, exterior yellowish-red 5yR 5/8 1 mm thick, to reddish-brown 5yR 5/4 on interior; a few large sand and limestone inclusions. Spiral designs painted in white slip under yellow glaze on the interior. White slip on the exterior (see Color Pl. 2:3).

Fig. 3.29:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 327-3126/1.Fabric, reddish-yellow 5yR 6/8; small gray grits and larger inclusions. Spiral designs in white slip under light yellow glaze on the interior. White slip on the exterior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Green and Brown Painted (Fig. 3.29:9–12): In this group, a decoration was brush-painted in green and brown matt or glossy paint over white slip and under transparent glaze. The decorations consist of rows of green and brown stripes, triangles, diamonds, pointed ovals, spirals, concentric circles, and broad bands—sometimes looped, used as borders near the rim. Less common are figural subjects. In Greece, this type existed for quite a long time, from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries. It seems that only types dating to the twelfth century (Morgan Types II and III; 1942:75–80) were imported to Israel, and that they are quite rare here. Vessels from Morgan’s third group (1942:77–80) apparently appear at H. ‘Uza, dated to the second quarter of the twelfth century. The vessels from H. ‘Uza are similar to those from Corinth in both shape and decorative designs. For example, the rim from Corinth is similar to Fig. 3.29:9 (Morgan 1942:78, Fig. 56:A) and the bases from Corinth are similar to No. 11 (Morgan 1942:78, Fig. 56:B) and No. 12 (Morgan 1942:78, Fig. 56:A). Bowl 10 has an identical pattern to that of a bowl from Corinth, where the vessel was divided into four sections; in each section, alternating green and brown lines stand at right angles to the adjoining section (Morgan 1942:78; Pl. XXIII:b). On the sherd from H. ‘Uza, the joint between two sections can be discerned. Support for the suggestion that these vessels originated in the Aegean region can be found in the results of the spectrographic analysis conducted on a bowl of this type from Paphos by Megaw and Jones (1983:263). Twenty of these vessels were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

Such vessels are rare in Israel and have been published only from yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:105–106, Type 64, Fig. XIII.48). They were apparently

less common than the Fine Sgraffito Wares, and were imported only for a limited time during the twelfth century.

Fig. 3.29:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 311-3062/2.Fabric, exterior yellowish-red 5yR 5/8, to interior—reddish-brown core, 2.5yR 5/4; a few small limestone grits and very few large limestone and quartz inclusions. White slip over the entire vessel under a transparent glaze on the rim and the interior. Green and brown stripes painted on the interior below the rim.

Fig. 3.29:10. Body sherd of a bowl; Reg. No. 382-3882/1.Fabric exterior yellowish-red 5yR 5/8, to interior—reddish-brown 5yR 5/4; sand, small limestone grits and very few large limestone inclusions. White slip over the entire vessel under a transparent glaze and green and brown stripes on the interior.

Fig. 3.29:11. Bowl; Reg. No. 333-3133/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; sand and small limestone grits. White slip over the entire vessel under a transparent glaze and green and brown paint on the interior.

Fig. 3.29:12. Bowl; Reg. No. 327-3154/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; small amount of sand, and very few small limestone grits. Light colored slip under a transparent glaze. Green and brown paint on the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Green and Brown Painted Fine Sgraffito (Fig. 3.29:13): This group is a combination of incised decoration and green and brown painted decoration. The sgraffito decoration is executed with fine incisions, with motifs similar to those of the ‘Fine Sgraffito’. These bowls date to the first half of the twelfth century (Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:81–84).

Vessels of this type were found at Athens (Frantz 1938:442–445, Figs. 5, 6), Corinth (Morgan 1942:140–142), Thessaloniki, northern Greece, and the Middle Balkans (Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:81), at various sites in central southeastern Greece (Armstrong 1989:42), and at Paphos (Megaw 1972:342). Such vessels have not been published from Israel. One example of this type was uncovered at H. ‘Uza.


Fig. 3.29:13. Bowl; Reg. No. 382-3948/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/8, to interior—reddish-brown core, 5yR 5/4; very small amount of sand and small limestone grits. White slip on the interior and traces of slip on the exterior. Transparent glaze and painting in yellow, green, and brown. Incised decoration on the interior (see Color Pl. 2:4).

Imported Glazed Ware—Aegean Wares (Fig. 3.30:1–4). This group of bowls is generally shallow, with low and wide ring bases (No. 3) or smaller bases (No. 4). The rims are simple (No. 1) or in-turned and beveled (No. 2). The fabric is coarse, light reddish-brown to red or light purplish-red with large white inclusions. The bowls are coarsely potted; occasionally wheel ridges are on the exterior of the vessel, which is covered with a thin layer of white slip. The glaze is limited to the interior of the vessel and is usually light yellow. Sometimes green splotches appear, such as on Bowl 4. The interior of the vessel is decorated with thick-lined incisions. The designs are sometimes free style and sometimes repetitive. Eight bowls of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

This group was first defined and named ‘Early Thirteenth-Century Aegean Glazed Ware’ by Megaw (1975), based on the finds from his excavation at Paphos, where many bowls were unearthed in the destruction of the palace caused by the earthquake of 1222 CE. Since Megaw’s first definition of this type, similar vessels have been found in surveys, excavations, and shipwrecks (Armstrong 1991:340–346). These vessels appear to be related to the original ‘Aegean Ware’, and for this reason Armstrong (1989:45) has suggested renaming the type ‘Aegean Wares’. Megaw (1975:38) stated that the type has close affinities with some Byzantine wares, and Morgan has grouped similar bowls in his ‘Free Style Incised-Sgraffito’ (1942:154–155). Here, the traditional grouping of these types is used, although it seems that the Byzantine Wares and ‘Aegean Wares’ belong to one large family (and see also Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:85–100). The nature of their connection must await further research.

‘Aegean Wares’ were mainly distributed in the Byzantine Empire, in what is now modern Greece, Turkey, Crimea, Italy, and Cyprus, and in the Levant—Syria, Lebanon, and Israel (François 1997:234, Fig. 4). In Israel, ‘Aegean Wares’ have been found at Acre, ‘Atlit, yoqne‘am, Caesarea, Jaffa, Emmaus

(see distribution map in Pringle 1986a:458, Map 1; notice the exchange of symbols between this ware and the Zeuxippus Ware), and recently, at Bet She’an, Jerusalem, and Ashqelon (Boas 1991:64).

A bowl similar to Fig. 3.30:1 was found in Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:143, Fig. 38:2) and in yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:110–111, Type 72, Fig. XIII.56:3). Bowls similar to No. 2 were found Paphos; and at Crimea, on the Black Sea (Megaw 1975:38–39, Pls. 15.2, 17.2). Bowls with decoration similar to that of No. 2 were found in central southeastern Greece (Armstrong 1989:18, Pls. 7:30; 10:41; Fig. 19:41) and bowls similar to No. 3 were found in Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985:143, Figs. 34:26; 36:7) and Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978:26, Fig. 36:70).

Fig. 3.30:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 112-1071/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/8, to interior—reddish-brown 5yR 5/4; a few small limestone grits and large inclusions. White slip on the rim and the interior of the vessel under yellow glaze. Thin white slip on the exterior. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.30:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 315-3058/1.Fabric, exterior reddish-yellow 7.5yR 6/6, to interior—red 2.5yR 5/6 (core) and reddish-brown 5yR 5/4; a few small stone and limestone grits and very few large limestone inclusions. Buff slip on the rim and the interior under transparent glaze. Incised decoration on the interior. Thin white slip on the exterior (see Color Pl. 2:5).

Fig. 3.30:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 341-3213/1.Fabric, red 5yR 5/8; a few small limestone grits. Pink slip on the interior and the exterior. yellowish glaze and incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.30:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 124-1223/1.Fabric, exterior reddish-yellow 7.5yR 5/6 to interior—red 2.5yR 5/6; a few small limestone grits. Pinkish-white slip on the entire surface of the vessel under light yellow glaze with green splotches on the interior.

Imported Glazed Wares—‘Champlevé’ Wares (Fig. 3.30:5, 6). The bowls from this group were decorated with a slightly different technique than the bowls discussed above. The vessel was first slipped. Rather than incise a pattern with a small point, a thin layer of the slipped surface of the vessel was removed from


the background of the central pattern and a thin incised line was used to draw the details of the central pattern. After glazing the vessel, the central pattern took on the lighter shade of the glaze, and the background, which was lower and without slip, became darker, thus achieving a play of colors as well as levels. The patterns are composed of human or animal figures; plant motifs within a central medallion at the bottom of the interior; or are spread freely across the interior of the vessel. The design of the central medallion usually contains a hare (Fig. 3.30:5), and may contain a lion or a deer (Fig. 3.30:6). At H. ‘Uza, two bowls decorated in this style were found, both yellow-glazed and bearing animal designs. Both vessels were slipped and glazed on the exterior down to the beginning of the base.

Vessels of this type are not common in assemblages from Israel. They have been published only from yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:109–110, Type 70, Fig. XIII.54). In the report of the pottery from Corinth, a group of vessels that Morgan (1942:162–166) calls ‘Incised Ware’ includes vessels decorated in this style. Vessels of this type have been published from excavations at Sparta, where the chronological range is from the end of the twelfth to the second quarter of the thirteenth centuries (Sanders 1993:260–261). At Sparta, two unglazed vessels that were apparently kiln wasters were dated to the second quarter of the thirteenth century (Sanders 1993: Nos. 5, 10), thus confirming the Aegean origin of this ware. A group of bowls decorated in this technique with hares, apparently originating from a shipwreck in the northwestern Aegean Sea, is probably also of Aegean origin. This group was dated to the end of the twelfth century (Armstrong 1991:339–340, Nos. 6–12). It seems that this type of bowl should be considered part of ‘Byzantine Wares’ (see also Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999:20, 57–70; Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikiou, and Bakirtzis 1999:101–112).

Vessel 5 strongly resembles, both in the shape of the base and the decoration, a vessel uncovered at Sparta and dated to the end of the twelfth–beginning of the thirteenth centuries (Sanders 1993:261, No. 111; Fig. 4; Pl. 24). The design is very similar to that on a vessel from Corinth (Morgan 1942: Pl. LII, I:b). The base of No. 6 is very similar to the profile of a vessel from Corinth (Morgan 1942:163, Fig. 140:C).

Fig. 3.30:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 163a-1464/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/8; many limestone inclusions and small mica grits. Off-white slip on the

interior under yellow glaze and dribbles of transparent glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration of an animal on the interior.

Fig. 3.30:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3175/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; a few small black and gray grits. White slip on the interior under yellow and brown glaze; yellow glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration of an animal on the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Zeuxippus Ware (Fig. 3.30:7). The main shape of this group of bowls is delicately hemispherical, with extremely thin walls. The bowls have simple, occasionally slightly everted or ledge rims, and the bases are ring bases with a slightly everted foot that may be low or higher. The fabric is very fine, hard and well fired, red, orange or purple in color, with occasional white grits. The interior is covered with a thick layer of white slip. The glaze is usually very glossy. The decoration consists of both thin and wide incisions that create different patterns on the interior and on occasion splashes of different colored glaze. Occasionally, the upper part of the exterior is decorated with loops or tongues of slip.

This is a well-known Byzantine pottery type defined and named by Megaw, who divided the group into four classes (Megaw 1968; 1989). Further research has shown that this family of vessels has many branches, differentiated by decoration, color of glaze, and firing technique, and that it is not a homogeneous group produced in one geographical area, but is, in fact, a mixture of products manufactured in different centers around the Mediterranean, not only in the Byzantine territories (Sanders 1993:257; Berti and Gelichi 1997:85). The place of manufacture of the Zeuxippus vessels is still not known for certain, but they probably originated in the Aegean region. Scientific analysis of Zeuxippus Ware has been conducted by several scholars, emphasizing the difficult questions that the type poses. Megaw and Jones (1983:263) suggested an Aegean origin. Boas (1994:118) observed two distinct groups for the seven sherds of Class II that he analyzed; he suggested that one group was manufactured in Cyprus and the other at an unknown site (this data should be treated with caution, as only a few sherds were sampled). Class II finds from Italy that were analyzed seem to indicate an Aegean origin as well (Berti and Gelichi 1997:91–93).


The bowls from H. ‘Uza represent Megaw Class 1b. In Greece, a Zeuxippus derivative that is actually a late development of Class 1b has been identified. The derivative was apparently produced at a number of centers, and manufactured at least until the third quarter of the thirteenth century (Armstrong 1993:310, 332). It has been published mainly from sites in Greece (Armstrong 1989; 1993), although it certainly occurred at other places, but was not identified as such. Bowls of this type were unearthed in the excavations at Acre (Stern 1997:54–56, Fig. 12:87–94; Stern and Waksman 2003:171–172, Fig. 6 and unpublished material). Zeuxippus Ware, including all its classes, was distributed throughout the Byzantine Empire, in modern Greece, Albania, Cyprus, southern Russia, and Turkey, and also in northern Italy, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt (Pringle 1986a:457–458, Map 1; notice the exchange of symbols between the Zeuxippus and Aegean wares; François 1997:234, Fig. 3). A bowl similar in shape and decoration on the exterior to Fig. 3.30:7 was found in the baths of Zeuxippus in Istanbul (Megaw 1968:71, Fig. 2:10, Pl. 15:3). Four bowls of Zeuxippus Derivative were found at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.30:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 322-3130/1.Fabric, brown 10yR 5/3 (top) to light brown 7.5yR 6/4 (bottom); large limestone and quartz inclusions. Buff slip on the interior under yellow glaze. Incised decoration of three parallel lines below the rim on the interior; traces of a tripod on the interior. On the exterior, a design was formed by a play of yellow and brown tongues of slip and glaze that extend toward the middle of the vessel (see Color Pl. 2:6).

Imported Glazed Ware—Thirteenth-Century Cypriot Slip-Painted (Fig. 3.30:8–11). This ware is characteristically well levigated and well fired. The fabric is red to red brown, rarely orange brown or buff brown, with white grits and inclusions. The core or part of the surface may be gray due to firing conditions. The typical shape is a hemispherical carinated bowl with a ledge rim or a horizontal, slightly convex rim. The high ring base tends outward at the foot. Slip-painted designs are usually composed of loops or zigzags in concentric rings around the rim of the bowl, or spirals, in various combinations.

This type was manufactured in southwestern Cyprus in the Paphos region, as attested by several kiln sites

that were excavated and surveyed in Paphos, Lemba and Kouklia (Papanikola-Bakirzis 1996:215–216; von Wartburg 1997:336). Neutron Activation Analysis and petrographic analyses conducted by Boas (1994:118) confirm that the vessels found in Israel were manufactured in Cyprus. These vessels were produced from the beginning of the thirteenth until the early fourteenth centuries (von Wartburg 1997:340), or the end of that century (Papanikola-Bakirzis 1996:218). At Alexandria, fourteenth-century Cypriot pottery produced at Lapithos was found (François 1999:113, 123, Fig. 28:309) in addition to the thirteenth-century types (François 1999:112–113). The absence of the fourteenth-century types in Israel indicates that after the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (in 1291 CE), the Cypriot pottery type ceased to be imported to Israel. Eight bowls of this type were recovered at H. ‘Uza.

This type also includes jugs with simple rims, tall cylindrical necks, and round bodies. The handle extends from the middle of the neck to the shoulder. The type has a high ring base, similar to the base of the bowls, and the decoration on the jugs is also similar to that of the bowls. At H. ‘Uza, a handle sherd (Fig. 3.30:11) was retrieved with a decoration of horizontal stripes typical of the type, similar to that on a handle from Acre (Stern 1997:49–50, Fig. 9:73).

Vessels of this type occur mainly at sites that were under Frankish control during the thirteenth century in Israel, along the Syrian coast, in Egypt, and, of course, Cyprus. In Israel, they occur at Acre, St. Mary of Carmel, ‘Atlit, Caesarea and Jaffa (Pringle 1986a:460, Map 2), and yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:112, Type 74, Fig. XIII.58). These vessels are one of the most common imports to Israel during the Crusader period. At Arsuf (Apollonia), this type constitutes 90% of the imported wares (Boas 1994:108). Further research of this type has shown that the distribution of these vessels in Israel is not limited to the coast, but also reaches inland, to sites that were not necessarily settled by the Franks (Stern 1995:328, Fig. 4).

A bowl with a decoration similar to that on Fig. 3.30:8 was found at Acre (Stern 1997:48–50, Fig. 8:69) and at Tripoli (Salamé-Sarkis 1980:170, Fig. 13:6). A bowl with decoration similar to that on No. 9 was discovered in the area of Polis (Dikigoropoulos and Megaw 1948:81, Pl. VIII:a), and an example similar to No. 10, at St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:103, Fig. 6:50).


Fig. 3.30:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 301-3381/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy; air bubbles; well levigated. White slip-painted zigzag design under light yellow glaze on the interior and the exterior.

Fig. 3.30:9. Bowl; Reg. No. 300-3004/1.Fabric, reddish-brown 5yR 4/4; a few large black inclusions and large limestone inclusions. White, slip-painted spiral design under yellow glaze on the interior (see Color Pl. 2:7).

Fig. 3.30:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 384-3889/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/6, to the reddish-gray core—5yR 5/2; sand, large limestone inclusions, and small mica grits. White slip-painted design under yellow glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.30:11. Jug handle; Reg. No. 301-3016/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; a few small limestone grits. White slip-painted stripes under yellow glaze.

Imported Glazed Ware—Thirteenth-Century Cypriot Sgraffito (Fig. 3.30:12–18). These bowls belong to the same family as ‘Cypriot Slip-Painted’ vessels, and are identical in ware, shape, and date. The bowls are glazed, have various incised decorations, and on occasion, additional glaze colors. At H. ‘Uza, examples of a variety of decorations were found. Bowls 12 and 13 represent rims with three incised parallel lines on the interior and a zigzag slip-painted motif on the exterior. Bowls 14 and 15 bear the design of a circle cut by lines, No. 16 has a circle cut by lines joined by thin lines to another design, No. 17 is an example of the key-shape design, and No. 18 has an incised decoration with green and yellow splotches. Sixteen bowls of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

Bowls with rims similar to that of Bowl 12 were found at Caesarea (Pringle 1985:190, Fig. 12:65) and at Palm Island on the Lebanese coast (Salamé-Sarkis 1980:169–170, Fig. 13:1, 2). Bowls similar in decoration and with a base like that in Nos. 14 and 15 were recovered at the sugar mill excavated in Kouklia-Palaepaphos (von Wartburg and Maier 1989:186–187, Fig. 11). A bowl with incised decoration similar to No. 14 was unearthed at Caesarea (Boas 1991:116, Fig. 12:3); bowls with decoration similar to No. 15 are widespread and were found at Acre (Stern 1997:51, Fig. 10:77), yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:111–112, Type 73, Fig. XIII.73:4), St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984:104, Fig.

7:60), and ‘Atlit (Johns 1936:53–54, Pl. XXVII—right row center). A bowl with decoration similar to No. 16 was found at Acre in the Courthouse Site excavations (Stern 1997:51, Fig. 10:80); and a bowl with an incised key design similar to No. 17, at ‘Atlit (Johns 1932:129, Pl. LIII:6). The distribution of these bowls is similar to that of the Cypriot slip-painted group.

Fig. 3.30:12. Bowl; Reg. No. 117-1114/1.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with small limestone grits; air bubbles; well levigated. White slip on the interior under yellow glaze; a zigzag design painted in white slip on the exterior of the rim. Incised decoration of three parallel lines below the rim on the interior.

Fig. 3.30:13. Bowl; Reg. No. 382-3948/3.Fabric, red 2.5yR 4/8; sandy, with small limestone grits; air bubbles; well levigated. White slip on the interior under yellow glaze and on the exterior, to below the rim. Incised decoration of three parallel lines below the rim on the exterior.

Fig. 3.30:14. Bowl; Reg. No. 340-3381/2.Fabric, exterior brown 7.5yR 5/4, to interior—red 2.5yR 5/6; sandy, with a few small gray grits; well levigated. White slip under yellow glaze on the interior. Incised decoration of a circle cut by five lines circumscribed by another circle. Tripod scars on the interior of the bowl (see Color Pl. 2:8).

Fig. 3.30:15. Bowl; Reg. No. 124-115/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/6, to interior—dark brown-gray 10yR 4/2; a few small limestone grits. White slip on the interior under yellow glaze. Incised decoration of a circle cut by seven lines.

Fig. 3.30:16. Bowl; Reg. No. 397-3965/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 5/6, to interior—dark brown-gray 10yR 4/2; a few small black and limestone inclusions. White slip and light yellow glaze and two green-painted lines on the interior. Incised decoration of a circle cut by seven lines, with additional lines extending out of it.

Fig. 3.30:17. Bowl; Reg. No. 340-3212/1.Fabric, exterior reddish-brown 5yR 4/4, to interior—dark reddish-gray 5yR 4/2; sandy, with a few small limestone grits. White slip on the interior under yellow glaze. Incised key design.


Fig. 3.30. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Imported Glazed Ware—Aegean, ‘Champlevé’, Zeuxippus, and Thirteenth-Century Cypriot Slip-Painted and Sgraffito Wares.

5

1 2

3 4 6

7 8 9 10

11 12

14 15 16

13

17 18


Fig. 3.30:18. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3147/1.Fabric, exterior red 2.5yR 4/6, to interior—dark gray core, 10yR 4/1; a few small limestone grits. White slip under light yellow glaze with green and dark yellow splotches, and incised decoration, on the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—Port St. Symeon Wares (Fig. 3.31:1–5). The typical fabric of the Port St. Symeon Wares is light brown buff, light orange buff, or pinkish buff with many small white grits and a few medium-sized white inclusions. The ware is coarse. The typical shape is a hemispherical bowl with a ledge rim and a slight ridge at the joint between the body and the rim (Fig. 3.31:2). Hemispherical bowls with a straight rim, slightly thickened at the end (No. 1), or with thumb impressions on the thickened end (No. 3), were also found. All the bowls have a low ring base. These vessels are decorated with incisions and green, yellow, and brown splotches under a slightly tinted transparent glaze. Characteristic decoration is geometric or floral incised designs arranged within concentric bands. At times, figures of animals, birds, monsters, and humans appear (Lane 1938:48–50). Eleven bowls of this type were unearthed at H. ‘Uza.

These vessels are named after the place where they were apparently manufactured: the port of St. Symeon, the Crusader name for the port of Antioch. The area was under Frankish control from the beginning of the twelfth century until 1268, when it was conquered by the Mamluks. Evidence that this ware was produced at the site comprises potters’ refuse and numerous sherds of this type, which were uncovered in the excavations (Lane 1938:45–53, Pls. XXI–XXVII). Recent research reveals that ‘Port St. Symeon Ware’ was not manufactured at one center at al-Mina, but at other sites, in Turkey, as well. In Sardis (western Anatolia), local production of polychrome sgraffito bowls, very similar to the Port St. Symeon Ware, was identified by scientific analysis (Scott and Kamilli 1981:685–687). In Misis (Mopsuestia) in Cilicia, vessels very similar to Port St. Symeon Ware, as well as wasters, which indicate that they were produced there, were found (Hild and Hellenkemper 1990:358, Figs. 312–315). Unpublished material from southern and eastern Turkey establishes that there were manufacturing centers in these areas producing pottery of the same style as Port St. Symeon Ware (Joanita Vroom, pers. comm.). For this reason, we name this type ‘wares’, since this is a group of similar wares manufactured at different

centers but first defined at Port St. Symeon. The definition of the different workshops producing pottery in the St. Symeon style awaits further investigation. Scientific analysis of some Port St. Symeon wares that were imported to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem confirmed that they were manufactured in the area of Antioch (Boas 1991:208–210; Goren 1997:72–73; Stern 1997:56).

Bowls similar to No. 1 were found at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:113, Type 75, Fig. XIII.59:1) and Alexandria (François 1999:114, Fig. 30:328, Pl. 14:328). Bowls with rim decoration similar to No. 2 were uncovered at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:113, Type 75, Fig. XIII.59:4), ‘Atlit (Johns 1934:143, Pl. LIV:1), and Fustat (Kubiak 1970:117, Fig. 2, bottom row from right).

This ware has a wide distribution in Israel, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt, mainly at Frankish sites, but also at sites that were under Muslim control during this period. In Israel, the ware has been found at Acre, St. Mary of Carmel, ‘Atlit, Caesarea, Apollonia/Arsuf, Jerusalem, Bet She’an (Pringle1986b:458–459, Map 1), and yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:113, Type 75, Fig. XIII.59).

Fig. 3.31:1. Bowl; Reg. No. 134-1142/1.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; sandy, with many small limestone grits. White slip under light yellow glaze with yellow and green splotches on the interior and greenish-yellow glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration on the interior.

Fig. 3.31:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 327-3164/4.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/3; sandy, with a few small black grits. White slip under light yellow glaze with green and yellow splotches on the interior and yellow glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration on the rim.

Fig. 3.31:3. Bowl; Reg. No. 327-3140/1.Fabric, dark gray 7.5yR 4/0; many very small white grits. White slip under light yellow glaze with green and yellow splotches on the interior. Light green glaze on the exterior. Incised decoration on the interior, thumb impressions on the outer rim.

Fig. 3.31:4. Bowl; Reg. No. 382-3948/2.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy, with many small limestone grits. White slip on the interior under light green glaze with green and yellow splotches. Incised decoration on the interior (see Color Pl. 2:9).


Fig. 3.31:5. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3127/2.Fabric, light brown 7.5yR 6/4; sandy, with few small limestone grits and large inclusions. White slip under yellow glaze with green splotches on the interior. Incised decoration of a circle encasing two wavy lines.

Imported Glazed Ware—Proto-Maiolica (Fig. 3.31:6, 7). The Proto-maiolica vessels are made of light colored, almost whitish ware, as the clay used to produce these

vessels originated from river deposits containing little iron, and when fired in oxidizing conditions takes on a light color (Buerger 1978:29). These vessels were glazed with an opacified tin glaze, as opposed to the lead-based glaze most common among the glazed wares discussed here. Following the application of the tin glaze on the interior of the vessel, a design was painted in a combination of colors in purple/brown, blue/green, and yellow. Another layer of transparent glaze was

Fig. 3.31. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Imported Glazed Ware—Port St. Symeon Wares, Proto-Maiolica, North African Cobalt and Manganese, and Frit Wares.

5

1 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

10 11


applied over this tin glaze. The designs were usually geometric, floral, or of animal and human figures. The most common design was a central medallion with a gridiron pattern. The painted designs on the vessels and the choice of colors vary in accordance with their place of production in southern Italy and Sicily (for further details on the designs and the sources, see Whitehouse 1980:78–80; for a photograph of complete vessels from ‘Atlit and Acre, see E.J. Stern 1999a:265, Fig. 9).

Proto-maiolica was first discovered in the excavations at Corinth, and later, in the excavations at ‘Atlit. The ware was considered an eastern product, earlier than the Italian Maiolica Ware known from the time of the Renaissance. Since then, large quantities of Proto-Maiolica Ware have been found at various sites in southern Italy and Sicily. There is now no doubt that these vessels were produced in southern Italy and Sicily and imported to the eastern Mediterranean region (Whitehouse 1980:77). The results of Neutron Activation Analysis and petrographic analyses conducted by Boas indicate that all the examined examples were manufactured in Italy (Boas 1991:211). The Proto-Maiolica vessels arrived in our region on Italian ships that docked at southern Italian and Sicilian ports on their route from the western Mediterranean to the eastern coast (Pringle 1982:111–112). Proto-Maiolica Ware has been found in the eastern Mediterranean in Israel, Syria, Egypt, and Cyprus. Most of the sites are located within the borders of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and sites near the Mediterranean coast (Pringle 1982:110–111, Fig. 1).

Proto-Maiolica was produced in Sicily and southern Italy during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and imported to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem during the thirteenth century (Pringle 1982:110). In the past, it had been thought that these vessels were produced as early as the end of the twelfth century, but further research indicates that they began to be manufactured only in the mid-thirteenth century (Sanders 1989:189–194), which corresponds to the finds from the Latin East.

At H. ‘Uza, only isolated sherds of Proto-Maiolica vessels were found. An additional sherd was published from the Ben-Tor excavations at H. ‘Uza (Ben-Tor 1966:23; Pl. III:7).

Fig. 3.31:6. Bowl; Reg. No. 102-1039/7.Fabric, light brown 10yR 6/3; very fine and airy, with sand and small limestone grits. White glaze with blue and brown glaze paint on the interior.

Fig. 3.31:7. Bowl; Reg. No. 328-3141/1.Fabric, light reddish-brown 5yR 6/4; sandy; well levigated. Painting in blue, brown, and buff glaze on the interior.

Imported Glazed Ware—North African Cobalt and Manganese (Fig.3.31:8, 9). These vessels are made of light yellowish sandy ware and decorated with patterns painted in blue and brown tin-glaze over a white opaque glaze. The painted patterns consist of geometric, vegetal, and animal motifs, and pseudo-script designs. Most of the vessels are bowls or basins with very thick walls. They originate in Tunis, and were manufactured there during the Almohade and Hafsides periods. Vessels of this type were found at sites in Tunis, Italy, and southern France, and date from the end of the twelfth to the beginning of the fourteenth centuries (Whitehouse 1980:81; Pringle 1985:199–200; Daoulatli 1994:106–107). Whitehouse (1980:81) suggested a connection between the import of this ware to Italy and the appearance of Proto-Maiolica Ware there. A bowl similar to Fig. 3.31:8 was found in Italy (Cabona et al. 1980:120, Fig. 27). Three vessels of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

It appears that during the thirteenth century, this vessel type was imported to Israel together with the Proto-Maiolica Ware. Until now, only one such vessel has been published, from Caesarea (Pringle 1985:199–200, Fig. 16:90). The excavations at Acre have yielded additional sherds of bowls and basins of this type (Stern and Waksman 2003:172 and unpublished material). Vessels of this type were also uncovered in Alexandria (François 1999:99–100, Figs. 22, 23).

Fig. 3.31:8. Bowl; Reg. No. 300-3010/1.Fabric, exterior light yellow 5y8/3, to interior—light brown core, 10yR 8/4; sandy; well levigated. Buff white background glaze on the interior and the exterior, blue glaze paint on the interior, and brown-purple on the rim.

Fig. 3.31:9. Base of bowl; Reg. No. 327-3164/2.Fabric, light brown 10yR 7/4; fine, sandy, with small brown grits. Buff white background glaze, blue and brown glaze paint on the interior (see Color Pl. 2:10).

Imported Glazed Ware—Frit Ware (Fig. 3.31:10, 11). Very few vessels of this type were found. These vessels were made of a whitish, gritty material, which became sandy after firing. They belong to the type of vessels


painted in black under an alkaline-based, turquoise glaze. They probably originated in Syria and are known as ‘Raqqa Ware’ (Poulsen 1957:157–182), although there is some doubt whether they were manufactured in Raqqa (Porter 1981:9–11, 13–24). They are dated to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Six of these vessels were uncovered at H. ‘Uza.

Based on the distribution of these vessels, Pringle (1986b:461–463, Map 4) reached the conclusion that they were common both within the borders of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and without, and were in use in both village and urban sites. Vessels of this type were found at Crusader ‘Acre (Stern 1997:63–64, Fig. 17:120–123; Stern and Waksman 2003:171 and unpublished material), well illustrating the fact that although Muslims and Christians were at war, commerce in merchandise such as ceramics took place during this period.

Fig. 3.31:10. Bowl; Reg. No. 144-1246/2.Fabric, white 10yR 8/2; fine, sandy. Dark blue paint under turquoise glaze on the interior.

Fig. 3.31:11. Jug; Reg. No. 322-3076/3.Fabric, gray 10yR 5/1; fine, sandy. Dark blue paint under turquoise glaze on the interior.

Lamps (Fig. 3.32)

Four types of lamps were found. They represent all the lamp types common during this period in Israel. For practical reasons, we present here the glazed and unglazed lamps together. The first type (Fig. 3 .32:1) is a closed, mold-made lamp that continues the Byzantine–Early Islamic tradition. Similar lamps were found at Bet She’an and were defined there as Type 8, dating from the late twelfth to the first half of the thirteenth centuries (Hadad 1999:217; Figs. 4:16, 17, 9:31, 32). These lamps are identical in shape to the Mamluk type, but differ in the shape of the handle and the decoration. They date from the second half of the thirteenth to the fourteenth centuries (Hadad 1999:217–218; Figs. 4:18, 9:34). According to the shape of the handle, it seems that the lamp from H. ‘Uza is of the Ayyubid-period type, thus dating to the Crusader occupation of the site. A potter’s workshop that produced lamps of this type was excavated at Nebi Samwil, not far from Jerusalem (Magen and Dadon 1999:76–78) and lamps of this type have a wide distribution in Israel, Jordan, and

Syria (Hadad 1999:217–218). In Acre, a few examples of such lamps were found in Crusader-period contexts (unpublished material), indicating that they were used by the Frankish population. One example of this type was found at H. ‘Uza.

The second type (Fig. 3.32:2–5) is a closed wheel-made lamp with a strainer at the base of the short neck, a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder, a rounded body, an elongated nozzle that protrudes from the body, and a flat base. Lamps of this type are usually glazed in green monochrome and are very common at Crusader sites in Israel. They have been found at yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:195–196, Type 4; Fig. XV.29–38), Montfort (Dean 1927:34, Fig. 47), ‘Atlit (Johns 1934:144; Pl. LVII:d), in the excavations of the Hospitaller Complex at Acre, and Damascus (Toueir 1973:211; Pl. v:4). Four lamps of this type were found at H. ‘Uza.

The third type (Fig. 3.32:6) is a wheel-made lamp with one reservoir, a squat body, a low disk base, and a handle extending from the shoulder. This type is unusual and less well known. It may be a squat version of the previous type. The lamp is glazed and painted with bands of slip. Only one exact parallel was found, from Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978:28; Fig. 37:4). A fragment of a glazed lamp that may be of the same type was found at Bet She’an, dating to the second half of the thirteenth to the fourteenth centuries (Hadad 1999:219–220, Type 12; Figs. 5:21, 10:38). Only one example of this type was found at H. ‘Uza.

The fourth type (Fig. 3.32:7, 8) is a saucer lamp or beehive-shaped lamp, comprising a bowl with an inner reservoir of oil. These lamps are wheel-made and usually have a handle extending from the reservoir to the rim of the bowl. Here we have two variants; Lamp 7 is earlier, with thin walls and a larger reservoir. This variant is unglazed and attributed to the eleventh–twelfth centuries. Lamps of this type were found at Kh. el-Khurrumiya, dated to the end of the eleventh century (Stern and Stacey 2000: No. 17). At Bet She’an, Hadad dates this type to the twelfth to thirteenth centuries (Hadad 1999:215–217, Type 7; Figs. 4:14; 5; 9:29, 30). Lamps of this type also occur at H. ‘Erav in Western Galilee (Ilan 1986:506, Photo 15), yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:196–197, Type 5, Fig. XV.39), Nazareth (Bagatti 1984:201, Fig. 61:12), and Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978:28, Fig. 37:2, 3). The second variant, No. 8, represents a further development in the shape of this type; the walls are thicker, the bowl is larger and


pinched, and the reservoir is smaller, sometimes no longer functional. This variant has many parallels both within and without Israel. Examples from Israel include Bet She’an, dated to the second half of the thirteenth to the fourteenth centuries (Hadad 1999:218–219, Type 11; Figs. 5:20, 10:37); Montfort (Dean 1927:34, Fig. 48); ‘Atlit (Johns 1934:144; Pl. LVII:c); and St. Mary of

Carmel (Pringle 1984:103; Fig. 7:39). Examples from outside Israel are from Hama (Poulsen 1957:278–280, Figs. 1064–1067); Tell Arqa (Thalmann 1978:28; Fig. 37:1); Rujm el-Kursi (Amr 1984:202–203); Cyprus (Du Plat Taylor 1938:84); and Fustat (Kubiak 1970:15; Figs. 15, 16), where kiln wasters of this type were also found. Eleven lamps of this type were discovered at H. ‘Uza.

5

1 2 3

6 87

4

Fig. 3.32. Pottery from Strata 4–1 (twelfth–fourteenth centuries): Lamps.


Fig. 3.32:1. Lamp; Reg. No. 124-1145/1.Fabric, exterior light red 2.5yR 6/6, to interior—light brown core, 7.5yR 6/4; many small limestone grits and large inclusions. Mold-made from two parts, with a pulled up and folded handle. Linear geometric design on the shoulder.

Fig. 3.32:2. Lamp; Reg. No. 372-3737/2.Fabric, light yellow 2.5y 7/3; very fine and sandy. Glaze on the interior and the exterior in varying shades of green.

Fig. 3.32:3. Base of a lamp (lower part of Lamp 2); Reg. No. 300-3002/1.Fabric, pale brown 10yR 7/3; fine and sandy, with very few small mica grits. Glaze on the exterior and the interior in varying shades of green.

Fig. 3.32:4. Lamp; Reg. No. 300-3003/3.Fabric, light yellow 2.5y 8/3; fine and sandy. Green glaze.

Fig. 3.32:5. Lamp; Reg. No. 372-3729/2.Fabric, brown 7.5yR 5/4; fine, with a few small mica grits. Signs of burning on the edge of the mouth.

Fig. 3.32:6. Lamp; Reg. No. 124-1186/2.Fabric, red 2.5yR 5/8; fine, airy and sandy, with very few small limestone grits. Bands of white slip under yellow glaze on the upper half of the exterior.

Fig. 3.32:7. Lamp; Reg. No. 133-1191/1.Fabric red 2.5yR 4/6; sandy, with few small limestone grits and very few large inclusions; well levigated.

Fig. 3.32:8. Lamp; Reg. No. 301-3020/1.Fabric, yellowish-red 5yR 5/6; sandy, with very few small limestone grits. Buff slip under green-yellow glaze on the interior with dribbles of slip and glaze also on the exterior.

Varia (Fig. 3.33)

A tile fragment painted in brown and blue. Only one such object was found in the excavations, and it is unclear where this tile originated.

Fig. 3.33. Tile; Reg. No. 127-1126/1.Fabric, pale brown 10yR 8/4; sandy and chalky. White slip on both faces. On the upper surface is a design in blue paint under a transparent glaze (see Color Pl. 2:11).

Quantitative analyses of the Strata 4–1 Pottery

A rim count of all the ceramics from Strata 4–1 was conducted in order to establish the relationships between the different ceramic types. Only general conclusions can be drawn from the quantitative analyses because it was almost impossible to distinguish between the Crusader and Mamluk strata. Rims were chosen because they are the most characteristic part of the vessel. Clearly, the number of rims does not represent the absolute number of vessels, but the method confines this study to one counting system, and thus enables the relative frequency of each type to be shown and quantitative analyses to be carried out. As the results reflect the two occupation phases combined, more distinct conclusions regarding the Crusader or the Mamluk occupation, or a comparison between the two periods, cannot be made. The type counts and their relative frequencies are presented in Table 3.1 and Fig. 3.34.

Figure 3.35 displays the relative frequencies of the various imported glazed wares found at H. ‘Uza. From this analysis, it appears that half of the imported glazed vessels are of Byzantine types dating to the twelfth century. This data substantiates the relatively early date (twelfth and early thirteenth centuries) of the H. ‘Uza assemblage compared to that known from the Courthouse Site and the Hospitallers Complex in Acre (for a quantitative comparison of H. ‘Uza and the sites from Acre, see Stern 1995: Fig. 5). Half of the assemblage of imported glazed vessels dated to the thirteenth century was from Cyprus. This proportion is in contrast to the situation observed at the two sites mentioned above in Acre, where the Cypriot pottery

Fig. 3.33. Ceramic tile fragment (twelfth–fourteenth centuries).


Color Plate 1. Pottery from Stratum 5a, first half of the twelfth century (early Crusader period): (1) Fig. 3.17:1; (2) Fig. 3.17:3; (3) Fig. 3.18:4; (4) Fig. 3.18:5; (5) Fig. 3.26:4; (6) Fig. 3.27:9; (7) Fig. 3.27:11;

(8) Fig. 3.27:14. Not to scale.

1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8


1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9 10 11

Color Plate 2. Imported pottery from Strata 4–1, twelfth–fourteenth centuries (Crusader and Mamluk periods): (1) Fig. 3.29:3; (2) Fig. 3.29:5; (3) Fig. 3.29:7; (4) Fig. 3.29:13; (5) Fig. 3.30:2; (6) Fig. 3.30:7;

(7) Fig. 3.30:9; (8) Fig. 3.30:14; (9) Fig. 3.31:4; (10) Fig. 3.31:9; (11) Fig. 3.33. Not to scale.


Table 3.1. Pottery Type Count, Strata 4–1: The Twelfth–Fourteenth Centuries (Crusader and Mamluk Periods)Type No. Pottery Group Quantity

1 Undecorated Handmade Ware 39

2 Decorated Handmade Ware 48

3 ‘Acre Bowls’ 2

4 Basins 4

5 Spouted Jugs 16

6 Flasks 5

7 Jars (Crusader) 10

8 Jars (Mamluk) 8

9 Amphoras (Crusader, Levantine) 3

10 Amphoras (Crusader, Imports) 4

11 Varia: Unglazed local ware: lid, cup, antiliya vessels 3

12 Varia: Local glazed ware: cooking cup and other glazed bowls 4

13 Levantine Cooking Pots (Crusader period) 70

14 Imported Cypriot Cooking Pot (Crusader period) 5

15 Cooking Pots (Mamluk period) 23

16 Baking Dishes (Crusader) 38

17 Baking Dishes (Mamluk) 10

18 Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on the Exterior 35

19 Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A (gritty glaze) and Reserved-Slip and Sgraffito A (gritty glaze) and Glaze Painted 111

20 Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome B (smooth glaze) and Slip-Painted B (smooth glaze) and Slip-Painted Jug Spout and Sgraffito B (smooth glaze)

193

21 Common Glazed Ware—Slip-Painted A (low quality glaze) 5

22 Imported Glazed Ware—Monochrome Bowls with Thin Wash under a Monochrome Glaze, Roulette Ware, Shoulder-Carinated Bowl, Glazed Jugs, ‘Champlevé’ Wares, Proto-Maiolica

12

23 Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Wares: Fine Sgraffito, Incised Sgraffito, Slip-Painted and Green and Brown Painted, Green and Brown Painted Fine Sgraffito

44

24 Imported Glazed Ware—Aegean Wares 8

25 Imported Glazed Ware—Zeuxippus Ware 4

26 Imported Glazed Ware—Thirteenth-Century Cypriot Slip-Painted and Sgraffito 24

27 Imported Glazed Ware—Port St. Symeon Wares 11

28 Imported Glazed Ware—North African Cobalt and Manganese 3

29 Imported Glazed Ware—Frit Ware 6

30 Lamps 17

Fig. 3.34. The quantitative relationships between the ceramic types in Strata 4–1.

020406080

100120140160180200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Type

Num

ber o

f Ves

sels


Byzantine Fine Sgraffito9%

Byzantine Slip-Painted14 %

Byzantine Green and Brown Painted

23 %

Aegean Wares8%

Zeuxippus Ware4%

Thirteenth-Century Cypriot Slip-Painted Bowls

8%

Thirteenth-Century Cypriot Sgraffito

17 %

Port St. Symeon Ware12 %

Proto-Maiolica2%

North African Cobalt and Manganese

3%

Fig. 3.35. Relative frequency of the Imported Glazed Bowls.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5H. ‘Uza

Acre—Courthouse Site

H. Bet Zeneta

1 Local glazed tableware2 Imported tableware3 Cooking ware4 Undecorated wheel-made vessels5 Handmade vessels

Freq

uenc

y

Fig. 3.36. Quantitative comparison of general ceramic types between H. ‘Uza, Acre, and H. Bet Zaneta.

comprises about a quarter of the imports, and the Proto-Maiolica and the St. Symeon Wares comprise almost half of the assemblage of imported glazed vessels (Stern 1995: Fig. 5). However, at the excavated site of a residential and commercial quarter in Acre, the

Cypriot wares outnumber the other imports, similarly to H. ‘Uza (Stern and Waksman 2003:170, Fig. 4).

In Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.36, a simplified comparative analysis is presented of two other sites—the Courthouse Site in Acre (Stern 1997:36, Table 1) and H. Bet Zeneta


(Getzov 2000), which are in close proximity to H. ‘Uza.10 Horbat ‘Uza and H. Bet Zeneta are villages, while the Courthouse Site assemblage was used by the army, posted in the Crusader Tower. From these quantitative analyses, it is apparent that in the rural sites the percentage of local glazed tableware was higher than in Acre. The difference in the percentage of the local glazed tableware between H. ‘Uza and H. Bet Zeneta may be explained by the strong presence of twelfth-century material at H. ‘Uza with types of the ‘Local Glazed Wares A’ (Monochrome, Slip-Painted and Sgraffito), and the absence of the twelfth-century pottery types at H. Bet Zeneta, which is dated exclusively to the thirteenth century. At Acre, the percentage of imported glazed wares is highest, almost the same as the local glazed ware at H. ‘Uza. This high percentage is due to the fact that imports arrived through Acre, which was the port city, and that it was a city occupied mainly by the Franks, who were the main consumers of this ware. At H. ‘Uza, the percentage of the imported glazed wares is much higher than at H. Bet Zeneta. This seems to be due to the proximity of H. ‘Uza to Acre, and to the fact that it was a Frankish village. The percentage of the cooking ware is almost the same at all sites, pointing to the fact that this is the average percentage of cooking ware in household assemblages. The percentage of undecorated wheel-made vessels from Acre outnumbers those from the other two rural sites. The ‘Acre bowls’ are probably the reason for this phenomenon. At the Courthouse Site, they comprise 20.1% of the pottery assemblage; they may also take the place of some of the local glazed bowls. Regarding the handmade vessels, it is clear that in Acre their percentage is very small. A difference may be observed between their percentage at H. ‘Uza, where they comprise 10.9%, and H. Bet Zeneta, where they comprise 43.3%, which is almost

half of the assemblage. The difference between H. ‘Uza and H. Bet Zeneta may be explained by chronology. The handmade ware is more dominant in the thirteenth century. Another reason for this difference is that Bet Zeneta was a village of indigenous inhabitants, while H. ‘Uza was a Frankish village. In any case, it is clear that the handmade wares are more characteristic of the rural sites than the urban sites.

Unfortunately, we are unable to compare the quantitative data from H. ‘Uza with other excavated sites in Israel, apart from those mentioned above. Most of the sites with published pottery dating from these periods were published without quantitative data. Those that were published with such data used a different counting system; thus, the data cannot be compared to the data from H. ‘Uza.

sUMMary of the Medieval pottery 10

In the above discussion, we have surveyed the pottery assemblages from the Early Islamic period (ninth–tenth centuries), through the Crusader period (twelfth–thirteenth centuries), to the Mamluk period (fourteenth–fifteenth centuries). The scarcity of Early Islamic pottery and the lack of architectural remains lead us to conclude that the settlement during this period was small, and situated, if at all, in an unexcavated area of the site. Based on comparisons of the small amount of pottery found at H. ‘Uza with that of other sites, we propose a date in the Early Islamic period (ninth–tenth centuries) for Stratum 5b.

In the following stage, Stratum 5a, the pottery assemblage originates entirely from fills into which the wall foundations of the farmhouse were dug. No numismatic evidence was found to provide an approximate date for this stratum; thus, the dating is based exclusively on the pottery assemblage. We dated

Table 3.2. a Comparative analysis of Pottery Groups between Horbat ‘Uza and Two Nearby SitesPottery Group H. ‘Uza ‘Acre—Courthouse Site H. Bet Zanita

N % N % N %

1. Local glazed tableware 348 46.6 36 11.9 106 23.3

2. Imported tableware 117 15.6 133 44.0 2 0.4

3. Cooking ware 138 18.4 61 20.0 75 16.5

4. Undecorated wheel-made vessels 51 6.8 72 23.4 70 15.4

5. Handmade vessels 82 10.9 2 0.7 197 43.3

6. Oil lamps 13 1.7 - - 5 1.1

Total 749 100.0 304 100.0 455 100.0


Stratum 5a to between the mid-eleventh and the mid-twelfth centuries based on the dates of the pottery types. The assemblage as a whole was compared to excavated assemblages from other sites.

Ceramic assemblages from northern Israel, containing similar types and dated to a similar time span, were recently published from yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996), Caesarea (Arnon 1999:227, Fig. 9), and Kh. el-Khurrumiya (Stern and Stacey 2000; there the assemblage was dated to the mid-to-late eleventh century due to the absence of late twelfth-century ceramic types and historical circumstances). In these pottery assemblages, a unique type of glazed bowl, ‘Common Glazed Ware—Sgraffito and Slip on Exterior’ (see Fig. 3.17), is characteristic of this short time span. This type can be used as a fossile directeur for the time spanning the mid-eleventh century to the mid-twelfth century. Although it is difficult to separate the pottery assemblage of the mid-to-late eleventh century from that of the beginning-to-mid-twelfth century, a date in the beginning-to-mid-twelfth century is suggested for the Stratum 5a assemblage. This is based on the fact that this assemblage seems to be of a single-period household, and contains two ceramic forms that date to the first half of the twelfth century—‘Common Glazed Ware—Monochrome A’ (see Fig. 3.18:2) and ‘Imported Glazed Ware—Byzantine Ware’ (see Fig. 3.18:13). Dating the assemblage to the first half of the twelfth century connects the assemblage to the beginning of Frankish occupation in the Holy Land during the first decades following the Crusader conquest. The contribution of this assemblage is most important as an example of a pottery assemblage from the transitional stage between the Early Islamic period and the Crusader period, a stage not well known among scholars. At the beginning of the Crusader period, use of local types continued. Only toward the mid-twelfth century did imported pottery types begin to appear.

The Crusader and Mamluk periods (Strata 4–1) are presented here as a single unit, unlike the earlier strata, as the stratigraphy in the building was not sufficiently clear to enable separate assemblages to be distinguished and identified. Thus, the assemblages of the various strata could not be defined based on parallels alone. It appears that there were two occupation levels within the farmhouse during the Crusader period, and one or two phases during the Mamluk period. In most cases, the new inhabitants cleaned down to the floor level and most of the baskets contained mixed sherds from

the various phases, including Byzantine sherds. In certain cases, the date of vessels, especially the better known imported wares, could not be established. This pertains to cooking pots and jars as well. Most of the differentiation between the Crusader and Mamluk assemblages was based on comparisons with the Crusader-period pottery unearthed at the excavations recently conducted at Acre (Stern 1995, 1997; Stern and Waksman 2003 and unpublished material), and the assemblage from the small Mamluk-period village, Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b). The close geographical proximity between Acre, Giv‘at yasaf, and H. ‘Uza reinforces this comparison.

The Crusader-period assemblage at H. ‘Uza is apparently the most significant assemblage from the medieval period, showing close connections to Crusader Acre, and, as shown above, appears to be a rural Frankish ceramic assemblage. The great variety of twelfth-century ‘Byzantine Wares’ (see Figs 3.29) within the Crusader-period assemblage from H. ‘Uza is noteworthy. Until now, such a variety of Byzantine wares has been published only from yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996:105–108). The finds from these two excavations can help us understand the extent of these imports in the twelfth-century Crusader Kingdom. The proximity of H. ‘Uza to the port of Acre certainly contributed to the presence of these vessels, and the data from yoqne‘am show that these vessels are also found in twelfth-century assemblages at inland sites, farther from the coast. One should expect to find these wares in a twelfth-century assemblage; the limited data about the scope of these wares in Israel is due to the poor state of published ceramics from this period. The discovery at H. ‘Uza of Proto-Maiolica Ware (see Fig. 3.31:6, 7) and North Africa Cobalt and Manganese Wares (see Fig. 3.31:8, 9), which are usually rare at rural sites, indicates the strong connection with Crusader Acre. Pringle (1982:112) suggests the Proto-Maiolica Ware be connected to Italian traders who arrived from the east, based on their distribution in the east. The possibility that these vessels also reached the local population, as in the case of H. Bet Zeneta, a village of indigenous inhabitants where Proto-Maiolica was found (Getzov 2000:96*, Fig. 25:5), should not be discounted. The discovery of ‘Acre bowls’ (see Fig. 3.21:3, 4) also indicates a strong connection with Crusader Acre.

The Crusader pottery assemblage from H. ‘Uza features various types of imported wares comprising many of the Crusader types known from the excavations


at Acre (Stern 1997; Stern and Waksman 2003 and unpublished material). The pottery was imported from different areas of the Mediterranean Basin that had direct or indirect commercial ties with the Crusader port of Acre—Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, northern and southern Italy and Sicily, Tunis, and Syria (Fig. 3.37).

The Crusader assemblage from H. ‘Uza resembles published Frankish Crusader assemblages from the eastern Mediterranean basin, such as the Saranda Kolones fortress at Paphos (Megaw 1971, 1972; Rosser 1985); al-Mina (Lane 1938), Tripoli (Salamé-Sarkis 1980) and Tell ‘Arqa (Thalmann 1978; Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988); Alexandria (François 1999); Acre (Edelstein and Avissar 1997; Stern 1997; Pringle 1997a; Stern and Waksman 2003; and unpublished material); ‘Atlit fortress (Johns 1932; 1934; 1936); Caesarea (Pringle 1985; Brosh 1986; Boas 1992; Arnon 1999); St. Mary of Carmel (Pringle 1984); and yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996).

Well-dated local medieval pottery assemblages from northern Israel are scarce. Therefore, the Mamluk

phase was difficult to date with precision. It appears that the area of the farmhouse was inhabited mainly during the fourteenth century. The absence of a type of glazed bowl known as ‘yellow and Green Gouged Ware’ may point to a gap between the Crusader and Mamluk occupation of the site. This type was lacking at yoqne‘am as well (Avissar 1996:96), although it was found in the nearby Mamluk village at Giv‘at yasaf (E.J. Stern 1999b:125–126, Fig. 1:5–9), but absent from the Crusader-period assemblage at Acre. ‘yellow and Green Gouged Ware’ was unearthed at sites in Israel, Jordan, and southern Syria, mainly in post-Crusader contexts (E.J. Stern 1999b:126).

Although we are unable to differentiate between Crusader and Mamluk pottery, there are a number of vessels that apparently belong to the latter phase. It is interesting that apparently only two vessels, Fig. 3.28:3, 4, are overseas imports in this period (there is always the possibility that they belong to the end of the thirteenth century—to the Crusader stage of H. ‘Uza’s occupation). Two factors may account for the lack of

Tunis

Venice

Gela

Brindisi

Thebes

Corinth

Ganos

Nicaea

Pergamon

LembaPaphos

Raqqa

) Port St. Symeon (Antioch

Beirut

Acre

Roulette Ware

Byzantine Fine Wares

Aegean Wares

Proto-Maio

lica

War

e

Zeuxippus Ware

Cobalt and Manganese WaresCypriot CP

13th c. Cypriot Glazed Ware

St. Sym

eon Wares

Frit Ware

0 2m

H. ‘Uza

Fig. 3.37. Map of the provenance of the imported medieval pottery found at H. ‘Uza.


imported wares from the phase from the fourteenth century. First, there was less maritime activity during the Mamluk period; hence, fewer pottery vessels were imported to Israel (a situation which must be examined at other Mamluk sites in Israel). Secondly, the sporadic village occupation at H. ‘Uza in this period did not generate a need for extra wares. This assumption can be supported by the small quantity of Syrian Alkaline-Glazed Ware known from the fourteenth century.

When comparing the assemblage of H. ‘Uza to that from the Mamluk village site at Giv‘at yasaf, it is obvious that many more imported types were found at Giv‘at yasaf. Apparently, the Giv‘at yasaf site was a thriving village with strong connections to Venetian merchants. In the fifteenth century, these merchants traded vigorously in agricultural goods, mainly cotton, and were stationed at Acre (Arbel 1988; E.J. Stern 1999b). The comparison of the pottery assemblage from H. ‘Uza with that from Giv‘at yasaf and the appearance of a number of types of later date at H. ‘Uza (fifteenth or sixteenth centuries) show that H. ‘Uza was inhabited only sporadically in the fifteenth century, and seems not to have been a village, but merely a seasonal occupation or transient settlement. No ceramic tobacco pipes, typical of the seventeenth century on, were found; therefore, it would seem that during these periods the area of the farmhouse was no longer inhabited.

the glass vessels froM strata 5–111

Yael Gorin-Rosen

The late glass finds recovered at H. ‘Uza are very important to the study of Late Islamic and medieval glass production in Israel. Although the quantities are much smaller in comparison to the Late Roman−early Byzantine glass vessels, they represent important types that were in daily use, as well as a few luxury vessels. The dating of these vessels is based primarily on stratigraphic evidence and some comparative material from other sites.

Bowls

Bowls with Incurving Rims (Fig. 3.38:1−4). Four rim fragments represent wide, deep bowls, characterized by an incurving rim, a thick, curving wall, a flat or slightly concave base, and a diagnostic fabric, usually identified

by low-quality colorless glass. The bowls differ in the angle of their curve and the additional decoration.

Bowls with incurving rims appeared during the ninth–tenth centuries (see references below) and were in use until the Mamluk period. Examples related to both periods were found at Bet She’an. One, a colorless bowl, came from a context dated to the second half of the eighth through the eleventh centuries (Hadad 1998: Fig. 26:455); the other, made of light yellow glass, derived from a twelfth–fourteenth-century context (Hadad 1998:152, Fig. 55:920).

Bowls 1−3 were found in L338, which was attributed to Stratum 5a and dated by the pottery finds to the first half of the twelfth century (see above, p. 122). Based on examples from unpublished excavations in Israel, it is possible to chart the development of the bowls’ shape from cylindrical bowls with slightly incurving rims from the ninth–tenth centuries to the later types with curved walls and in-curving rims similar to ceramic holemouth jars, which appeared in decorated glass during the Mamluk period, e.g., the glass vessels with marvered decoration from Hama (Riis 1957:63−64, 66; Figs. 186; 189; 190; 196; 197).

Bowls 1 and 2 represent a type that was common during the ninth century. Two fragments of this type were found at yoqne‘am, dated to the Early Islamic period (Lester 1996:204, Fig. XVII.3:1−2, and see therein for further references). Vessels with a similar shallow groove below the rim were found in Stratum I at Susa, dated to the ninth century (810−880 CE; Kervran 1984:211, 213−214, 220−221; Fig. 9:6, 7); and in a well at Tepe Madraseh, Nishapur, dated to the tenth century (Kröger 1995:53−55; Figs. 35, 36).

Bowl 4 has the same general shape, with mold-blown decoration on the body and a tooled-out rim. The bowl was made by blowing into a primary mold, which creates a very shallow mold-blown design consisting of closely spaced horizontal ovals in staggered rows. A colorless glass bowl with a similar shape found at Hama, which is decorated with a mold-blown elongated ribbing design (Riis 1957:49, Fig. 119), was dated after parallels to the tenth century. The shape, decoration, and fabric, as well as the context, date Bowl 4 to the medieval period.

Fig. 3.38:1. Bowl, rim and wall fragment; Reg. No. 338-3204.Colorless glass covered with a thick black crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. Thickened and rounded


rim, with a shallow horizontal step below the rim. Curving wall, widening to a globular body. Rim D 11 cm.

Fig. 3.38:2. Bowl, rim and wall fragment; Reg. No. 338-3204.Colorless glass covered with a thick black crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. Thickened and rounded rim, with a shallow horizontal step below the rim. Curving wall, widening to a globular body. Rim D 13 cm.

Fig. 3.38:3. Bowl, two rim and wall fragments; Reg. No. 338-3228.Colorless glass covered with a hard black and silver crust, severely pitted. Rounded rim, slightly incurving. Almost upright thin wall, slightly widening at the body. Two applied horizontal turquoise trails 0.4 cm below the rim. Rim D 17 cm.

Fig. 3.38:4. Bowl or jar, small fragment of rim and wall; Reg. No. 127-1120.Light bluish-green bubbly glass with green streaks, covered with a thick black crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. Incurving rim with a flared-out pointed edge. Curving wall, widening to a globular body. The body is decorated with a very shallow mold-blown design consisting of closely spaced horizontal ovals in staggered rows. Rim D 14 cm.

Jars

Jars with Wide Mouth and Short Flaring Rim (Fig. 3.38:5−8). Four vessels were identified as jars, characterized by an open mouth and a flaring rounded rim, a very short neck, and a globular body. Their fabric was also of typical low-quality colorless glass. They differ in their size and the thickness of the wall. Small and medium-sized jars appeared during the ninth century and continued into the Mamluk period, when the jars became larger.

The large jars were very popular during the Crusader period and have a wide distribution, e.g., at Bet She’an, Acre, and Sarafand el-Kharab (Gorin-Rosen 2004:62, Fig. 1:10, see nn. 5−7, and further discussion). They may have been used for one of the sugar products that became very common during this period.

The entire shape of the vessel was probably similar to a colorless jar from Hama, dated to the tenth−twelfth

centuries (Riis 1957:32−33, Fig. 24). A large group of jars, varying in size, some of which were also decorated with mold-blown patterns, was found among the glass vessels in the Serçe Limani shipwreck, dated to the first third of the eleventh century (van Doorninck 1990:58, 60, Fig. 77). Van Doorninck also noted the low quality of the fabrics, and that the glassware retrieved from this shipwreck was made chiefly for the masses and daily use (1990:60).

The glass from this ship probably originated in one of the glasshouses in our region. These jars represent one of the traditional local shapes also produced later in the local glass workshop, which is dated to the medieval period.

Jars 5 and 6 represent the thin-walled, small versions. Such jars, unearthed at Bet She’an in context, dated from the second half of the eighth to the eleventh centuries (Hadad 1998:111, Fig. 48:816−819). Hadad noted that these jars are absent among assemblages of later vessels, which are dated to the twelfth−fourteenth centuries. At H. ‘Uza, these jars, as well as Nos. 7 and 8, were uncovered in Stratum 5a, dated by the pottery assemblage to the first half of the twelfth century (above, p. 122).

Jar 7 is the largest specimen, having the same shape as Jars 5 and 6, but thicker walls. Number 8 is characterized by its uneven rim, partly out-folded and partly rounded, and very thick walls. Jars with similar rims were found at yoqne‘am, dated to the Early Islamic period (Lester 1996:204, Fig. XVII.1:1, 3, and see therein for references and discussion). Similar jars were found at Bet She’an in a context dated to the second half of the eighth through the eleventh centuries (Hadad 1998:110−111, Fig. 48:810–812; the last example is asymmetrically folded, like No. 8). A larger jar from Bet She’an was dated from its context to the twelfth−fourteenth centuries (Hadad 1998: Fig. 58:982). A jar of this type was found at Nishapur, dated to the tenth century (Kröger 1995:62−63, Fig. 59).

Fig. 3.38:5. Small jar, rim and wall fragment; Reg. No. 338-3204.Colorless glass covered with a thick black and silver crust, and iridescence. A rounded rim splayed out to a shelf, with a short neck and sloping shoulder. Thin wall. Rim D 5 cm.

Fig. 3.38:6. Jar, rim and wall fragment; Reg. No. 338-3228.


Fig. 3.38. Glass vessels.

5

6

4

7

8

9

10

11

3

2

1

12

13

14

15 16 17


Colorless, bubbly glass covered with sand deposits, black spots, and slight iridescence. Low quality bubbly glass. Out-splayed rounded rim with a short wide neck and a wide sloping shoulder. Thin wall. Slight remains of mold-blown decoration below the shoulder. Rim D 6 cm.

Fig. 3.38:7. Jar, rim and wall fragment; Reg. No. 338-3228.Colorless glass covered with thick black and silver crust, iridescence, and pitting. Unevenly out-splayed rounded rim, a very short wide neck, and a very wide sloping shoulder. Careless workmanship. Rim D 9 cm.

Fig. 3.38:8. Jar, rim and wall fragment; Reg. No. 338-3228.Colorless glass with a light green tinge covered with thick brown and silver weathering, iridescence, and pitting. Irregular, unevenly out-splayed rim, partly rounded, and partly folded out, forming a wide tubular fold; a short wide neck and a near-horizontal shoulder. Very thick wall. Rim D 9 cm.

Bottles (Fig. 3.38:9−13)

Five fragments here represent different types of bottles. The bottles vary in size, shape, and date, and are therefore discussed separately. Fragments 9 and 10 belong to a large group of small perfume bottles with a funnel-shaped mouth, a cylindrical or rectangular body, and a solid base. This group appeared during the Early Islamic period (for a discussion on this group see Lester 1996:206−207, Group A), and continued, albeit in smaller quantities and with variations, into the Late Islamic and medieval periods.

Bottle rim 9, with the beginning of a shoulder, is a common type, probably locally made. Similar bottles were found at yoqne‘am, dated to the Early Islamic period (Lester 1996:206−208, Fig. XVII.6:7, 8). The H. ‘Uza example was found in L315, which is attributed to Strata 4−3, dated to the medieval period. Therefore, the fragment may represent either a later version of the type or an earlier bottle found in a later stratum.

Number 10 has a square body and a solid base. Bases of this type were widely distributed in the Islamic world, e.g., at Yoqne‘am (Lester 1996:206−208, Fig. XVII.6:7). Thick cylindrical bases of cosmetic bottles were found at Tiberias in Strata II (early Fatimid 980−1033) and I (late Fatimid 1033−1100), and at

yoqne‘am, in Crusader and Mamluk contexts (Lester 2003:158, 160−161, Fig. 3:30, 31, and see therein for further references). The latest published example of a small square bottle is from Monfort, dated to the thirteenth century (Dean 1927: Fig. 47). Number 10 was found in L148, attributed to Strata 3−2, which is dated to the medieval period.

Rim 11 is upright, rounded and thick, with a cylindrical thick neck. The color and weathering are characteristic of Islamic and medieval glass vessels. Bottles with upright rims, at the end of a tall, cylindrical neck with thick walls, were found at Acre in a Crusader context, as yet unpublished.12

Bottle 12, with a flared rim and a short, wide cylindrical neck, also has a parallel at Bet She’an, in a context dated from the second half of the eighth to the eleventh centuries (Hadad 1998: Fig. 40:661). The bottle was unearthed in L338, attributed to Stratum 5a, which is dated by the pottery assemblage to the first half of the twelfth century (see above, p. 122). The simple shapes, the fabrics of Nos. 11 and 12, and the context of No. 12, indicate that these bottles should be assigned to local production in the twelfth century.

Bottle 13 represents a very common bottle type, featuring an out-splayed, horizontal or slanting, thick shelf-like rim, widely distributed in the Islamic world. In Israel, early examples were found at Caesarea, dated to the late ninth–mid-tenth centuries (Pollak 2003:167, 169; Fig. 3:41, 43, 44—plain, 50, 51—decorated). Later examples were unearthed at Tiberias and dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries (Lester 2003:160, Fig. 2:16, 17). Many bottles of this type, called carafes, were among the glass vessels in the Serçe Limani shipwreck, dated to the first third of the eleventh century (van Doorninck 1990:58, 60, Figs. 72, 73). A similar rim was discovered at al-Mina, dated to the ninth−tenth centuries (Lane 1938:63−64, 66, Fig. 10:J). Complete bottles of this type, made of colorless or yellowish-green glass, were found at Nishapur, dated to the ninth−tenth centuries (Kröger 1995:79, 81−82, Figs. 107−109).

The carafe had a wide geographical distribution during the ninth century. It became very popular during the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Fig. 3.38:9. Bottle, rim, neck and beginning of wall; Reg. No. 315-3122.Light greenish glass covered with patches of iridescence, lime deposits, and pitting. Slightly flared


cylindrical neck, ending in an irregular, rounded, thickened flaring rim. Narrow shoulder. Rim D 2 cm.

Fig. 3.38:10. Bottle, base and wall fragment; Reg. No. 148-1246.Dark greenish-blue glass (almost dark turquoise) covered with sand deposits, a thick black crust, and iridescence. Flat, thick, uneven base of a small, square-sectioned bottle. Thick wall. Carelessly fashioned. Base 1.8 × 1.9 cm.

Fig. 3.38:11. Bottle, small fragment of rim and neck; Reg. No. 323-3115.Light greenish glass covered with sand deposits and a black and silver crust. Upright rounded rim and a vertical cylindrical neck. Rim D 4 cm.

Fig. 3.38:12. Bottle, rim and neck fragment; Reg. No. 338-3204.Colorless glass with a yellowish tinge covered with a black and silver crust, and iridescence. Flared, rounded rim and a wide cylindrical neck, quite short, with the beginning of a shoulder. Careless workmanship. Rim D 4.5 cm.

Fig. 3.38:13. Bottle, small rim fragment; Reg. No. 149a-1261.Colorless with yellowish tinge covered with black weathering (removed) and iridescence. Bubbly glass. Rounded thickened rim spreading out to a shelf. Rim D 5 cm.

Bases

Pushed-In Tubular Base-Rings (Fig. 3.38:14−17). Bases 14−17 are of different subtypes and probably belong to bowls, beakers, or jugs, dated mainly to the medieval period. Pushed-in tubular bases were very common during the Roman and Byzantine periods, continued in smaller numbers into the Islamic periods, and became very popular again during medieval times. The characteristic colors and fabrics, as well as the workmanship, assign Nos. 14−17 to the medieval period. Groups of these bases were found in the Crusader Tower at Acre (Gorin-Rosen 1997:81−82, Fig. 2:12−17, and see therein for further references). A base similar to No. 15 was found at Bet She’an in a context dated to the

twelfth to fourteenth centuries (Hadad 1998:152, Fig. 55:929).

Base 16 is almost complete, and rises with part of the wall. The tubular base ring is upright. A similar base was discovered in Acre at the Courthouse Site, dated to the Crusader period (Gorin-Rosen 1997:81−82, Fig. 2:13, and see therein for further references). Another base was found in the Red Tower, Phase C, dated from the late twelfth to the time of its destruction c. 1265 (Pringle 1986b:160−162, Fig. 53:21). A similar base, although produced from dark purple glass, was unearthed at Bet She’an, dated to the twelfth−fourteenth centuries (Hadad 1998:152, Fig. 55:928).

Number 17 is a high pushed-in base with a tooled-out ring-base. The high kick is one of the characteristic features of the medieval period. Number 17 is a thick, high kick ‘dome-shape’, probably belonging to a beaker or a jug. Bases of this type were uncovered at many sites, but only a few have been published so far, e.g., a base found in Acre at the Courthouse Site, dated to the Crusader period (Gorin-Rosen 1997:81−82, Fig. 2:16, and see therein for further references).

Fig. 3.38:14. Base fragment; Reg. No. 300-3010.Colorless glass with a purple tinge, covered with iridescence, and severely pitted. Low pushed-in tubular base with flat floor. Low-quality glass. Base D 5 cm.

Fig. 3.38:15. Base fragment; Reg. No. 300-3010.Colorless, poor-quality glass covered with black and silver crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. Hollow base-ring. Base D 9 cm.

Fig. 3.38:16. Almost complete base and wall fragment; Reg. No. 133-1165.Colorless with yellowish-green tinge. Bubbly glass covered with a thick, black crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. High concave pushed-in tubular base. Large scar with remains of glass and metal from the pontil, D 1.8 cm. Deep rounded wall. Base D 5.6 cm.

Fig. 3.38:17. Base fragment of a beaker or a jug; Reg. No. 336a-3330.Colorless glass with a greenish tinge covered with patches of white and silver crust, iridescence, and pitting. High pushed-in base with high kick. Remains of glass and metal from the pontil. Base D 7 cm.


Jugs or Juglets

Thick Trail Handle (Fig. 3.39:1). Handle 1 probably belongs to a jug or a juglet. It is a trail handle drawn from the shoulder upward, with a fold on its upper part. A very similar handle made of colorless glass comes from Hama, dated to the medieval period, from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries (Riis 1957:36−37, Fig. 51). An unpublished vessel with similar handles was found at Baniyas.13

Fig. 3.39:1. Handle with small wall fragment; Reg. No. 332-3132.Colorless glass with greenish-yellow tinge, covered with a thick black and silver crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. Wide thick rounded strip handle, with a fold at both joining points. Very low-quality glass. Length 2.8 cm.

Decorated Vessels

Vessels with Mold-Blown Decoration (Fig. 3.39:2−4). Three fragments of vessels decorated with mold-blown designs were recovered.

Base 2, preserved slightly better than the other examples, probably belongs to a bottle or jug with honeycomb decoration on the body, starting from the rosette on the center of the base. This fragment was found in L338, which is attributed to Stratum 5a, dated by the pottery assemblage to the first half of the twelfth century (see p. 122). A small fragment of light purple glass with mold-blown honeycomb decoration was found at yoqne’am with pottery dated to the beginning of the twelfth century (Lester 1996:213−214, Fig. XVII.15:2, and see therein for further discussion).

The honeycomb is one of the most common mold-blown patterns from the Late Roman period. See, for example, the beakers from H. ‘Uza (pp. 90–92), which continue into the Early Islamic period, and later.

The geometric pattern on the center of Base 3 is poorly preserved. The fragment was found in L149a, attributed to Strata 4−1, i.e., the post-Byzantine period. This small fragment could belong to a small bottle or jug dated to the Early Islamic or the medieval period.

Number 4, a fragment of a concave wall, is probably part of the body center of a bottle or jug. The mold-blown honeycomb design is fairly regular. The fragment was found in L137, attributed to Strata 3–2, and dated

by pottery to the Crusader and Mamluk periods (see p. 118). The characteristic fabric, as well as its context, assigns it to the medieval period.

Fig. 3.39:2. Complete base and beginning of wall; Reg. No. 338-3204/3228.Colorless glass with a greenish tinge, covered with patches of bronze and silver crust, iridescence, and pitting. Concave base, with a mold-blown rosette design beginning from the center of the base and continuing upward on the walls. Pontil scar D 1 cm. Base D 4.4 cm.

Fig. 3.39:3. Small base fragment; Reg. No. 149a-1261.yellowish-green glass covered with a black and silver crust, iridescence, and pitting. Thickened concave base with a large pontil scar, D 1.1 cm. Mold-blown decoration, unclear design, probably of a star-shaped pattern or a rosette continuing upward to the body.

Fig. 3.39:4. Body fragment; Reg. No. 137-1152.Colorless glass covered with a thick black and silver crust, iridescence, and severe pitting. Curving wall. Mold-blown honeycomb design of slightly irregular pentagons, visible on both the exterior and interior of the wall.

Prunted Beaker (Fig. 3.39:5). One of the most characteristic vessels of the medieval period, mainly during the Crusader occupation in Israel, is the prunted beaker (Gorin-Rosen 1997:82−84, Fig. 2:20−26, for further discussion of this type). The beaker is decorated with applied prunts on its body and usually has a wound trail base. Most of the vessels found in Israel until now, especially those unearthed at Acre, were made of colorless, usually thin-walled, glass, and were of rather good workmanship. Examples were recovered from the glasshouse at Sumelaria, at Monfort, Bet She’an, yoqne‘am, and Jaffa (Gorin-Rosen 1997:83, and therein for further references).

Compared with fragments found recently, this specimen from H. ‘Uza differs in its greenish tinge, thick walls, and careless workmanship. Therefore, we suggest that this beaker was made in a local workshop. Until now, the few vessels of this type found in Israel were of high quality and were assigned an origin in the West. Some vessels showing lower standards of workmanship may be from local workshops, but these too followed the tradition of colorless glass. However,


the prunts are more in the western tradition. Therefore, the H. ‘Uza fragment represents a different attitude to the production of this traditional type. This fragment was found in L134, attributed to Strata 3−2, dated mainly to the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries (see p. 118).

Fig. 3.39:5. Beaker. Part of base and wall fragment; Reg. No. 134-1142.Light green bubbly glass with iridescence and sand deposits. Pushed-in concave bottom with an uneven trail-wound base, and a large scar, D 1.2 cm, with remains of glass and metal from the pontil. Vertical wall with applied prunts; three survive. Base D 5 cm.

Beaker with Enamel Decoration (Fig. 3.39:6). Vessels with enamel decoration are found both in the East and the West from the Late Islamic to the early medieval periods. It is widely accepted that the first enameled vessels date to the Ayyubid period, although there is a possibility that the technique was mastered in the Fatimid period (Carboni 2001:323). This group is known for the gilding and variegated palette of applied colors, e.g., red, blue, yellow, green, white, and black. The shapes vary and the decorations consist of friezes filled with geometric, floral, faunal, and arabesque

motifs, and some have inscriptions. The vessel is usually blown and then painted with colors, when it is reheated at a low temperature to let the color fuse into the glass.

In Israel, only a small number of vessels bearing this type of decoration have been found. Only one, a decorated beaker from Monfort,14 was published, dated to the thirteenth century (Brosh 1999:266, right, 270).

The fragment from H. ‘Uza probably belongs to a beaker. The characteristic colorless glass with the multicolored enamel arabesque within a horizontal frieze is typical of the early Eastern enameled beakers. The importance of the H. ‘Uza fragment is that it was found in situ in a well-excavated area, L341, which is attributed to Strata 4−3, dated to the Crusader period (twelfth−thirteenth centuries; see p. 118).

Four beakers with very similar enamel arabesque decorations are in well-known private collections. Three, identified as Ayyubid and attributed to Syria or Egypt, date to the thirteenth century (L’Orient de Saladin 2001:190, Cat. Nos. 199−201), and are in the Nasser D. Khalili collection, London; one, attributed to Syria and dated to 1250−1275 (Carboni 2001:334−335, Cat. No. 87), is in the al-Sabah Collection, Kuwait National Museum. Referring to the nest of three beakers mentioned above, Carboni suggested that the al-Sabah

Fig. 3.39. Glass vessels.

65

4321


beaker is the second smallest of the nest, as well as a similarly decorated bottle with a long neck, in Canada, which may have been part of the same set (Carboni 2001:334, and see therein for further references).

A very similar fragment was found at al-Mina, in northern Syria, and dated to the thirteenth century, before 1268 (Lane 1938:72−74, Fig. 13:D). Lane assigned this fragment to Lamm’s group reichlich emaillierte, grossfigurie Aleppo-Gruppe (Lane 1938:73, Lamm, Gläser, Pl. 132, 15, 19, 26). Regarding the enameled fragments from al-Mina, Lane noted his disappointment that none of the glasses at a Crusader site were decorated to order with Western designs for the European settlers (Lane 1938:74). The same obtains for the material from H. ‘Uza; there is not a single fragment that might have come from the West, in general, and not just from the enameled group.

Fig. 3.39:6. Body fragment; Reg. No. 341-3248.Colorless glass decorated with blue, red, and white enameled paint; gilt. Vertical or slightly slanting wall with a horizontal decorated band consisting of (from the lower part upward): a horizontal red outline; a wide gold band; a row of dots between two red outlines; a central band with trilobed arches made of rows of dots between two red outlines filled with vegetal decoration painted in red outlines filled with blue and gold. The design is not carefully drawn.

Summary

The importance of the medieval glass vessels from H. ‘Uza is based on their stratigraphic origin and chronology. The group of vessels from L338 includes fragments of bowls (Fig. 3.38:1−3), jars (Nos. 5−8), a bottle (No. 12), and a mold-blown vessel (Fig. 3.39:3) attributed to Stratum 5a, dated by the pottery to the first half of the twelfth century (see p. 122). Although most of these vessels have parallels in Early Islamic contexts dated to the ninth–tenth, or even the eleventh century, they are assigned to the medieval period. Based on the shapes, fabrics, and mainly on the context, there is no reason to date these vessels differently. On the contrary, they probably represent a local glass production of the twelfth century, identified here for the first time. In addition to this group, two decorated vessels, the prunted beaker (Fig. 3.39:5) and the enameled glass beaker (Fig. 3.39:6), are dated to the thirteenth century. It is possible that the former came

from a local workshop during the Crusader period, while the enameled beaker probably arrived from a central glasshouse, most likely in Syria.

an Inscribed Glass Weight

Nitzan Amitai-Preiss

A glass weight was found in the course of the excavations.

Glass Weight (Fig. 3.40). A dark blue Islamic glass weight, of irregular circular shape. The inscribed face of the weight contains a two-line inscription within a circle:

Made by ‘Umar عمل عمر

Launois (1959:143; No. 16) dates this disc type of weight to the Mamluk period.

Fig. 3.40. Arabic-inscribed glass weight.

MisCellaneoUs finds froM strata 5–1

Ayelet Tatcher

Metal objeCts

A variety of metal finds, some of them well preserved, originated from the medieval strata. The assemblage covers the Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk periods, as well as finds originating in earlier strata. A large part of the assemblage derived from a stratum sealed between two floors from the Crusader period, and is, therefore, well dated. However, objects that originated in mixed contexts are harder to date, as most of the objects represent types that were in use throughout all the above periods, with little if any change.


Work Tools (Fig. 3.41:1, 2)

The medieval settlement at H. ‘Uza was agricultural in nature. Thus, it is surprising that no agricultural tools were found except for two excellently preserved sickles. The sickles were in a locus from the Crusader strata (4–3), and can be dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. They are quite different in shape from earlier sickles and no exact parallels were found.

Fig. 3.41:1. Elliptical blade; Reg. No. 379-3824.Iron. Attached to the blade is a bent, pointed extension for fastening to a wooden(?) handle.

Fig. 3.41:2. Elliptical blade; Reg. No. 379-3824.Iron. From the blade a strap was fastened to the wooden handle(?).

Horseshoes (Fig. 3.41:3–5)

Three almost complete horseshoes and a number of fragments of additional horseshoes were uncovered. One example, Fig. 3.41:3, was recovered in a locus from Crusader Strata 4–3, and can be dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. The other two horseshoes were found in Crusader–Mamluk assemblages.

Two types of horseshoes are represented here. One type (Fig. 3.41:3, 4) is small and wide, the inner hollow small and square. Similar horseshoes were found at Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Stève 1950:148–149, Fig. 36:3), Bet yerah (Delougaz and Haines 1960: Pl. 48:13), Kokhav Ha-yarden (Ben-Dov 1975:106), and Mezad ‘Ateret (Boas 1999:163–164, Fig. 6.2:10). The other type (Fig. 3.41:5) is large and narrow with a wide inner hollow, rounded in the center. Horseshoes of similar shape and size were retrieved from ‘Atlit (Johns 1936:43, Fig. 8), yoqne‘am (Khamis 1996: Fig. XVIII.2:2), and H. Bet Zeneta (Getzov 2000:98–99, Fig. 30:7–12). The finds from ‘Atlit and Bet Zeneta can be dated to the thirteenth century, while at yoqne‘am, the stratigraphic context is unclear.

No information has been published on the stratigraphic context of the second type (Fig. 3.41:5), although it can be assumed that the Crusader fortresses at Kokhav Ha-yarden and Mezad ‘Ateret were destroyed at the end of the twelfth century. It appears that the first type, common during the twelfth century, evolved into the second type, which was in use during the thirteenth century.

Fig. 3.41:3. Horseshoe; Reg. No. 342-3451.Iron. Width: 9.5 cm.

Fig. 3.41:4. Horseshoe; Reg. No. 133-1190.Iron. Width: 8 cm.

Fig. 3.41:5. Horseshoe; Reg. No. 315-3122. Iron. Width: 12 cm.

Arrowheads (Fig. 3.41:6–9)

Three different arrowheads were found. Only one (Fig. 3.41:8) derived from a locus from the Crusader strata (4–3) and can be dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. The other arrowheads originated in mixed assemblages; based on parallels, they date from the middle of the Byzantine period to the medieval period.

Fig. 3.41:6. Arrowhead; Reg. No. 302-3017.Iron. Triangular section with equal sides. Length: 3 cm. Width including point: 5.2 cm. A similar arrowhead was found at Sardis (Waldbaum 1983:38; Pl. 4:74), dated to the Byzantine period.

Fig. 3.41:7. Arrowhead; Reg. No. 100-1018.Iron. Rhomboid section. Length: 3 cm. Width: 1 cm. Length including point: 6 cm. Similar arrowheads were found at H. Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:243, Pl. 8.1:23–24) and at Kokhav Ha-yarden (Ben-Dov 1975:107), dated to the medieval period.

Fig. 3.41:8. Arrowhead; Reg. No. 394-3951.Iron. Square section. Length: 4.5 cm; length including point: 6.5 cm (found in a sealed locus between two Crusader floors). Similar arrowheads were found at H. Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:243, Pl. 8.1:17–22), dated to the medieval period; the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b:166–167, Fig. 56:21), dated to the thirteenth century; and ‘Atlit (Johns 1936: Fig. 16:4), dated to the Crusader period.

Military Equipment (Fig. 3.41:9, 10)

Two bronze objects were apparently fragments of military equipment.

Fig. 3.41:9. Helmet(?) fragment; Reg. No. 342-3219.Bronze. A thin layer of metal with a stamped, flattened pattern of circles. The fragment originated in a


Crusader–Mamluk assemblage dated to the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries. A similar object was found at Montfort Fortress (Dean 1927: Fig. 53:a, b).

Fig. 3.41:10. End of scabbard; Reg. No. 382-3953.Thin bronze plate, folded over and attached from behind. The decoration on the front was made by flattening a thin layer of metal; two holes can be discerned above the decoration. Length to break: 4 cm. Width: 1.7 cm. Apparently, this was the end of a leather scabbard, which did not survive. It was found in the locus sealed between two Crusader floors, and dates to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries.

Nails/Tacks (Fig. 3.42:1–6)

Many nails and tacks were found in the excavation. Below are a number of examples that differ in shape, material, and function. Apart from two nails (Nos. 3, 4) that originated in clear loci dated to the Crusader period (twelfth–thirteenth centuries), all the nails/tacks were found in mixed assemblages from the Byzantine period on.

Fig. 3.42:1. Tack; Reg. No. 363-3603.Bronze. Mushroom-shaped; gold-coated. Length: 1.5 cm. Apparently used to decorate wooden furniture.

Fig. 3.41. Metal objects.

4

1 2

5

6 87

3

9 10


Similar tacks were found at Sardis (Waldbaum 1983:69, Pl. 22:341), dated to the early Byzantine period, and at Corinth (Davidson 1952:142, Pl. 72:1039, 1041), dated to the Byzantine period.

Fig. 3.42:2. Horseshoe nail(?); Reg. No. 100-1944.Bronze. The pointed extension has a square section and is bent into a ring. Total length: 3.4 cm. D of head: 1 cm. For further discussion and comparisons see Green (1966:305–308, Fig. I).

Fig. 3.42:3. Nail; Reg. No. 341-3249.Iron. Square section. Length: 9.5 cm. D of (irregular) head: 2.5 cm. A similar nail was found at ‘Atlit (Johns 1936: Fig. 15:14), dated to the medieval period.

Fig. 3.42:4. Nail; Reg. No. 121-1109.Iron. Square section. Length: 15.5 cm. Round head, D 4 cm. Folded twice into a J-shape. Such nails were used in thick wooden doors and boards. Similar nails were found at the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b, Fig. 60:48, 49), dated to the thirteenth century.

Fig. 3.42:5. Nail; Reg. No. 124-1220.Iron. Square section. Length: 18.5 cm. Irregular head. A similar nail was found at Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:149, Pl. 9:122), dated to the Byzantine period; and at Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Stève 1950: Fig. 36:6, 9, 10), dated to the medieval period.

Fig. 3.42:6. Reg. Nail; No. 363-3754.Iron. Round section. Length: 10 cm. Round head, D 1.5 cm.

Furniture and Hanging Implements (Fig. 3.42:7–9)

Apart from one hook (Fig. 3.42:8), found in the stratum sealed between two Crusader floors dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries, the other objects originated in mixed assemblages dating from the Byzantine period on.

Fig. 3.42:7. Hanging hook; Reg. No. 100-1008.Iron. Length: 6.8 cm. Pointed at both ends. A similar hook was found at ‘Atlit (Johns 1936: Fig. 15:5), dated to the Crusader period.

Fig. 3.42:8. Hanging hook; Reg. No. 315-3051.Iron. Length: 6 cm. Width: 2 cm. A loop for hanging at the upper end, a hook at the lower end. A similar hook was found at Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:149, Pl. 9.5:22), dated to the Byzantine period.

Fig. 3.42:9. Three links of a chain, each link shaped like an ‘8’; Reg. No. 124-1176.Iron. Length: 3 cm. Width: 1.5 cm. Similar chains were found at Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:149, Pl. 9.3:3), dated to the Byzantine period; and at Montfort Fortress (Dean 1927: Fig. 53:u), dated to the Crusader period.

Rings (Fig. 3.42:10–13)

All the rings originated in the medieval strata apart from one (Fig. 3.42:11), which was found in a mixed assemblage.

Fig. 3.42:10. Ring; Reg. No. 340-3399.Bronze. Triangular section. D 2.2 cm.

Fig. 3.42:11. Ring; Reg. No. 124-1153.Bronze. Outer D 3 cm; inner D 2.2 cm. Width: 4 mm.

Fig. 3.42:12. Reg. No. 113-1079. Ring;Bronze. D 2 cm. Width: 3 mm.

Fig. 3.42:13. Ring; Reg. No. 309-3038.Copper-coated iron. Outer D 4 cm; inner D 3 cm. Similar rings from the Roman and Byzantine periods were discovered at Sardis (Waldbaum 1983:132–133, Pl. 49:857–868) and Meron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981:149, Pl. 9.5:12, 13, 17, 18), and from the Crusader period at the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b: Fig. 54:1, 2).

Jewelry (Fig. 3.42:14, 15)

Two pieces of jewelry were unearthed, both made of bronze.

Fig. 3.42:14. Earring; Reg. No. 392-3952.Bronze. Elliptical. A ring at one end, pointed at the other. The ring was found in a Stratum 3 pit and dates to the thirteenth century. Similar earrings, from the


Byzantine period, were discovered at Pella (Smith 1973: Pl. 68:360) and at Sardis (Waldbaum 1983:124, Pl. 46:737, 738).

Fig. 3.42:15. Cross-shaped medallion; Reg. No. 382-3968.Bronze. Irregular square, 2.6 × 2.6 cm. A loop is attached to one side; length: 1 cm. It was recovered from the stratum sealed between two Crusader floors and is dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. Similar

medallions were retrieved at Corinth (Davidson 1952:259, Pl. 110:2087, 2088), dated to the tenth century on.

Clothing and Accesssories (Fig. 3.42:16–21)

Various objects, apparently clothing accessories, were found. Some were ornamental in nature, others functional.

Fig. 3.42. Metal objects.

5

1

2

36

87

4

9

10 11 1213

14

15 16

17

18

19 20 21


Fig. 3.42:16. Object; Reg. No. 342-3219/2.Copper. Iron tacks flank both sides of a perforation. This item, which ornamented a leather or wooden object, derived from Strata 3–2, dated to the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries.

Fig. 3.42:17. Disk; Reg. No. 382-3834.Copper. Round with central perforation. D 2 cm; D of perforation: 3 mm. Around the perforation is an eight-petalled rosette encircled by a raised line. This object was either a clothing accessory or a piece of jewelry, and was unearthed in Strata 4–3, dated to the Crusader period.

Fig. 3.42:18. Link; Reg. No. 394-3951/1.Bronze. Length: 3.2 cm. Width: 3.6 cm. The long sides are thick with a triangular section; the short sides have a round section. This item, apparently used on clothing or leather equipment, derived from the stratum sealed between two Crusader floors and dates to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries.

Fig. 3.42:19. Buckle; Reg. No. 385-3923.Iron. Irregular hemispherical shape. Height: 5.7 cm. Width: 1 cm. The buckle was found in the stratum sealed between two Crusader floors, and dates to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. Similar buckles, uncovered at the Red Tower (Pringle 1986b, Fig. 56:15) and Montfort Fortress (Dean 1927: Fig. 53:g), are dated to the Crusader period.

Fig. 3.42:20. Ornament; Reg. No. 128-1122.Silver. Apparently bears an Arabic inscription. This item was in a tomb from Stratum 1, dated to the fourteenth century on.

Fig. 3.42:21. Make-up applicator; Reg. No. 387-3901.Bronze. Total length: 14 cm; length of spoon: 3.5 cm. Round section. The stick was found in Strata 2–1, dated to the Mamluk–Ottoman periods.

stone

Several stone objects, both functional and ornamental, were unearthed at H. ‘Uza.

Fig. 3.43:1. Hand-held grinding stone; Reg. No. 382-3922.White limestone. Outer D 43 cm; inner D of hole for pouring the produce 10 cm; D of side hole 3.5 cm. The grinding stone was discovered in the stratum sealed between two Crusader floors and is dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. The source of these grinding stones is apparently from the Celtic region; the time of their arrival in Israel is unknown (Rafael Frankel, pers. comm.).

Fig. 3.43:2. Bowl; Reg. No. 121-1114.Pyroxenite(?). Decorated on the exterior with vertical lines (pared with a knife). The bowl was found in Stratum 3 and is dated to the thirteenth century. Similar stone bowls were found in the Hospitaller Complex at Acre (Edna J. Stern, pers. comm.).

Fig. 3.43:3. Whetstone(?); Reg. No. 141-1189.Dark gray. The whetstone was found in a mixed assemblage.

Fig. 3.43:4. Pendant; Reg. No. 322-3130.Light gray. This object was discovered in Strata 2–1, dated to the Crusader–Mamluk periods.

Fig. 3.43:5. Mortar; Reg. No. 175-124.Marble. One-fourth of the mortar was preserved. The lower part of the handle ends with a volute and a spout is carved into the upper part. Similar undecorated mortars made of marble were found in Crusader-period contexts at ‘Atlit (Johns 1934b: Fig. 10) and in the Hospitaller Complex at Acre (Edna J. Stern, pers. comm.), and made of limestone—at Kokhav Ha-yarden (Ben-Dov 1975:106, bottom left), and H. Bet Zanita (Getzov 2000:98, Fig. 28:1–3).

bone

One object was recovered.

Fig. 3.43:6. Bone object; Reg. No. 3247/344.This object was recovered from Stratum 3 and dated to the thirteenth century.


Fig. 3.43. Stone and bone objects.

2

1

3

4 5 6


3Fig. 3.43No. Locus Stratum Object Material

1 382 4–3 Grinding stone Limestone

2 121 3 Bowl Pyroxenite(?)

3 141 5–3 Whetstone(?) Stone

4 322 2–1 Pendant Stone

5 124 7–2 Mortar Marble

6 344 3 Object Bone

a CrUsader toMbstone

Edna J. Stern

A small fragment (Reg. No. 340-3212; c. 17 × 13 cm) of a marble slab with shallow incisions was found near the surface in mixed debris, dated to Strata 3–1 (Fig. 3.44). On one face of the fragment is an incised margin filled with incised crescents, which alternate with one row turning to the left and the other to the right. To the left of this design is the letter E, incised in ornamented Gothic script. Simple carvings are evident on the other face.

This fragment was apparently part of a marble chancel screen in a Byzantine-period church (fifth–sixth centuries; Aviam 1994:84, Fig. 190), which was reused in the Crusader period as a tombstone, when the design and the inscription were engraved. The tombstone honored an individual buried at H. ‘Uza. In a later period, when the site’s population had changed, the slab was smashed, and the pieces scattered.

This marble tombstone fragment is of great importance. It was no doubt part of an elaborate incised tombstone of a type known as a ‘carved slab tomb marker’ (Boas 1999:230–233). Based on comparisons to similar whole tombstones from Cyprus that carry an incised representation of the deceased, their attributes and inscriptions, it is possible to reconstruct the incised design on the small fragment as a knight dressed in a hauberk (chain-mail armor). Around the main design would have been an inscription containing the name of the deceased, his title, and the date of his death (Enlart 1987:361–362, Figs. 322–324). The identification of the design of crescent motifs with a hauberk is based on comparisons with artistic descriptions of hauberks on illuminated manuscripts dating to the Crusader period. In these manuscripts, the hauberk is depicted with the same crescent motif as the one on our tombstone. An example for such a depiction can be seen on a miniature

from the Westminster Psalter by Matthew Paris (c. 1250), describing a knight (Rozenberg 1999:127, Fig. 3). The tombstone of the knight Brochard of Charpignie from Cyprus, dated to the thirteenth century, may be an exact parallel for the tombstone from H. ‘Uza; apparently, the hauberk there was also depicted with the same crescent motif, although this is not clear from the drawing. In comparison to this tombstone, it seems that the fragment from H. ‘Uza depicts the feet of the knight, covered with part of the hauberk (Enlart 1987:361, Fig. 322). It is interesting to note that Enlart (1987:362) points out that sometimes the tombstone masons in Cyprus reworked pieces of antique marble, which is the same phenomenon observed here. From these data, the conclusion can be drawn that the tombstone from H. ‘Uza was of a high-ranking individual, most probably a knight.

Marble slab tombstones with human depictions are not customarily found in Israel. Until now, only three speciments of such tombstones had been discovered. A marble tombstone of a bishop dated to the year 1258 was found near Jaffa and may have originally been located in a church in Jaffa. The incised design consists of a depiction of the bishop, an angel, and an inscription (Pringle 1993:269, Pl. CXC; Boas 1999:231–233). The lower third of a tombstone found in Acre seems to be that of Archbishop Willam of Nazareth, dating to the year 1290. The incised design includes a depiction of the archbishop, a kneeling figure at the lower left, and an inscription. It seems that this tombstone came from one of the churches in Acre (Prawer 1974; Boas 1999:233). A third fragment, from a tombstone of unknown provenance, is now in

Fig. 3.44. The Crusader tombstone.


the Carmelite Monastery, Stella Maris Museum, Haifa. The tombstone bears a depiction of the face of a male figure with closed eyes and part of an inscription of the name of the deceased—Hugo (Rozenberg 1999:5). The tombstone from H. ‘Uza apparently dates to the thirteenth century, based on examples from Israel and Cyprus.

The burial customs of the Franks in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem were fairly similar to those practiced in their countries of origin. The Franks buried their dead in three types of locations: (1) cemeteries situated outside the city walls, as are known from Jerusalem, Acre, and ‘Atlit; (2) cemeteries in the churchyard, next to the parish church, practiced mainly in the smaller settlements, such as those at Jezre’el and Emmaus, but also in larger settlements such as Jerusalem, Acre, Nazareth, and Caesarea; (3) burials inside churches, mainly of kings, priests, and knights of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Such burials are known in Jerusalem, at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Church of St. Mary in Jehoshaphat; and in ‘Atlit, Caesarea, yoqne‘am, and Emmaus (Boas 1999:226–228; Re’em 1999).

The question arises, what is a tombstone, most likely of a knight, doing in a rural site such as H. ‘Uza in the thirteenth century? Apparently, the tombstone is of an individual buried at the site, perhaps one of the knights who owned the village. As to where he was buried, it may be suggested, with great caution, that the presence of this tombstone here indicates the presence of a parish church at the site, and that the knight was buried in the courtyard or the church.

Horbat ‘Uza in the Middle ages

Nimrod Getzov, Edna J. Stern, and Ayelet Tatcher

historiCal iMpliCations

Medieval historical sources reveal that H. ‘Uza was occupied by the Franks during the period of the First Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, in the twelfth century. During this period, the site was a village called Hadia (the Frankish pronounciation of the Arabic ‘Aydiah).

Between 1189 and 1191, continuous battles took place between the Crusader armies and the Muslim forces under Saladin. According to Arab chroniclers, H. ‘Uza was also called Tell Hajal during this time. The site is mentioned by these chroniclers as being close

to Tell el-‘Aydiah (Turon de Saladin), which served several times as the headquarters of Saladin. It is almost certain that some of the Muslim soldiers camped then at Tell Hajal. Civilian activities—a bazaar—grew up at the site around the soldiers’ camp, using the wells at the site.

Tell el-‘Aydiah was abandoned after the battles ended. The site of H. ‘Uza was never again mentioned as Tell Hajal. It can be assumed, based on a Frankish document of 1255, that the site was resettled during the second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, when it was called Hadia, and was still in the hands of the Franks in 1283, when the peace treaty between them and the Mamluks was negotiated.

arChiteCtUre and stratigraphiC seqUenCe

The upper five strata uncovered during the excavations are to be attributed to the Middle Ages.

Stratum 5b is represented by sherds from the Early Islamic period, which have no architectural context. The finds from Stratum 5a are also meager and include earthen fills (L338) and a pit (L363b).

In Stratum 4, a large building was constructed at the site, of which sturdy foundations, floors, and the lower course of the walls are preserved. The foundation trench of the northern facade wall cut through the fills of the earlier strata. The walls of the building were constructed of ashlar stones mortared with a lime cement, and with a core of small fieldstones. This technique is characteristic of Frankish settlements that were examined during the survey of Western Galilee (Frankel and Getzov 1997:40*). Furthermore, this construction method, as well as other structural elements, are typical of Frankish buildings throughout Israel (Ellenblum 1992; Boas 1999:217–225). The structure can be identified as a farmhouse or a manor house (Ellenblum 1998:179–181; Boas 1999:68–70).

During Stratum 3, the farmhouse from Stratum 4 was reconstructed; the floors were raised and the building was expanded using a similar construction method. At the same time, additional buildings were apparently constructed to its north. It can be assumed that there was now a small village at the site in which the farmhouse was the central structure. Ellenblum (1998:180) has discussed the phenomenon of a farmhouse constructed in an isolated area and a village that developed later around it.

Associated with Stratum 2 are the activities of inhabitants who occupied the spaces between the


ruined buildings, leaving very few traces of poorly built structures. Stratum 1 is represented by a few pits and a line of animal troughs. These remains can also be related to seasonal transient occupation.

A wide trench discovered in the west of the excavation area may have functioned as a moat. The stratigraphic data do not enable a clear attribution of this trench to any of the strata discerned during the excavation.

the finds

The pottery analysis reveals that the beginning of the medieval settlement can be dated to between the ninth and tenth centuries, which we attribute to Stratum 5b. The fills attributed to Stratum 5a yielded pottery dated to between the second half of the eleventh to the first half of the twelfth centuries. We suggest dating the assemblage to the first half of the twelfth century. Despite the small size of the assemblage, it is of great significance as it represents one of the first assemblages uncovered in Israel that can be attributed to this period.

The pottery from Strata 4–1, which was mixed and therefore analyzed as a single unit, includes a very wide variety of pottery types from the Crusader and Mamluk periods, thus enabling the creation of an extensive catalog of contemporary pottery types. Although few of the vessels are complete, this assemblage can serve as a solid base for our knowledge of the pottery of northern Israel in the Crusader and Mamluk periods.

From the analysis of the pottery assemblage, it is evident that most of the activity during the time of these strata can be dated from the second half of the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. A few finds are indicative of activity during the fifteenth century and even later. The finds include many imported wares, similar to Frankish assemblages discovered at coastal towns such as Acre, ‘Atlit, and Caesarea, and the inland town of Caymont (Tel yoqne‘am). The assemblage is different from the one found at H. Bet Zeneta, an autochthonous village in Western Galilee, in the larger numbers of imported wares (Getzov 2000). A comparison between these two sites demonstrates the difference between the ceramic assemblages of villages comprising an indigenous population (H. Bet Zeneta—few imports) and of villages of Frankish inhabitants (H. ‘Uza—many imports).

Ten of the coins from H. ‘Uza can be attributed to the Middle Ages, dating from the twelfth century to the middle of the fourteenth century.

The miscellaneous finds from the medieval strata are similar to finds known from other sites of the same period, and indicate the spread of the iron industry. Prominent among these finds are horseshoes, of types known from Israel during the Crusader period. Two iron sickles found on the floor of the Stratum 4 building are indicative of agricultural activity at the site.

The arrowheads, the helmet fragment, and the end of a scabbard, which were found in the Crusader strata, reveal the presence of hostilities that accompanied settlement at the site, the most prominent being the war waged between 1189 and 1191. The other metal objects—parts of furniture, hanging utensils, jewelry, and clothing, the square gameboard of marelles (Nine Men’s Morris) engraved on a paving stone, and the decorated marble mortar, all provide a glimpse into everyday life during this period.

The fragment of the elaborate incised marble tombstone from H. ‘Uza is of great importance in understanding the nature of Frankish settlement at this site in particular and at Frankish rural estates in general. The fact that a knight was buried at a rural estate strengthens Ellenblum’s (1998) theory, in his study on Frankish rural settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, that the Frankish landowners lived in their rural estates, and not in the nearby urban centers (Ellenblum 1998: esp. pp. 194–204). In his discussion on the village of La Hadia (H. ‘Uza), he writes “The proximity of La Hadia to Acre could raise the possibility that the owners of the land lived in Acre, although the distance between the two places is too great for commuting between Acre and the village” (Ellenblum 1998:156). The tombstone found at the site not only demonstrates that the landowner lived at H. Uza, but also that he was buried there. The fact that the landowner wished to be buried in his rural estate, and not in one of the cemeteries or churches in Acre, demonstrates his strong connection to his land.

ConClUsions

Based on the historical evidence, the architectural finds, the pottery, and other finds, an overall picture of settlement at Horbat ‘Uza in medieval times can be reconstructed.

Settlement at H. ‘Uza renewed after a short gap from the Byzantine period during Abbasid or Fatimid rule, although outside of the excavation area. The traces of this settlement were defined as Stratum 5b.


At the beginning of the Crusader period, during the first half of the twelfth century, the excavated area was occupied, but only a pit and earthern fills were uncovered, and no architecural remains. These fills were defined as Stratum 5a. It is suggested, with a great deal of caution, that this stratum reflects the beginning of Frankish settlement at the site. This suggestion is based on the imported Fine Byzantine Ware recovered from this stratum.

The large building constructed during the second half of the twelfth century belongs to Stratum 4. The constuction method and finds from this stratum indicate that the site was inhabited by Franks. This architectural evidence corresponds with the historical sources, showing that Frankish settlement of Western Galilee began only in the mid-twelfth century CE (Ellenblum 1998:282).

The building uncovered in Stratum 4 was smaller in the size and the width of its walls than the Crusader fortresses, but larger than a single-family dwelling. Therefore, we suggest that it was a farmhouse (on Crusader farmhouses, see Pringle 1997b:11–13; Ellenblum 1998:179–181; Boas 1999:68–70). In a document from this period, the village at the site is said to belong to Galterius Seagius, and was called Hadia. Thus, we can identify it as a Frankish farmhouse, serving as the residence of the owner of the village and the surrounding land.

During the years 1189–1191, battles between Crusaders and Muslims took place, during which time the Muslim army camped at the site and a civilian bazaar developed alongside the army camp. It would

appear that the trench uncovered in the west of the excavation area is connected with these wars.

The finds from Stratum 3 indicate that in the thirteenth century, during the second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the farmhouse was renovated and expanded; a small village probably developed around it. The farmhouse is part of a Frankish settlement to which belong a wide variety of finds, mostly imported wares. A Crusader document from this period also provides evidence that the site was a Frankish settlement called La Hadia and belonged to Roland Anthelmus. The nature of the end of the occupation of this stratum is unknown. The farmhouse did not suffer violent destruction or fire, and may have been deserted. We suggest, on the basis of the historical events, that this occurred around the year 1291 (or some years prior to it), with the fall of Acre and the second Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Based on the evidence from the pottery and the coins, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, occupation continued at the site. It appears that Stratum 2 dates to this period. The finds are insufficient to establish whether there was continuity or if the Stratum 2 inhabitants settled at the site following a hiatus of a number of decades. It is certain that these inhabitants were not Franks.

The pottery from the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries reveals that seasonal settlers occupied the site. Evidence of their activities consists of troughs and pits, attributed to Stratum 1. These settlers were shepherds or farmers who camped at the site while working the fields. Perhaps these farmers built the troughs to feed their plow animals.

notes

1 For example, l’Estoire de Anon Empereur, which comprises the continuation of the writings of William of Tyre. 2 Names of places and persons are written according to Prawer (1970).3 This section was written in 1994 and partially updated in 2000.4 The Muslim coins were kindly identified by Ariel Berman, of the Israel Antiquities Authority.5 The manuscript was completed in 1995. It was updated in 2000 by one of the authors (E.J.S.) with a selected number of recent publications, due to the great advance in the study of medieval pottery. Since then, more reports on medieval pottery that are relevant to this study have been published.

We wish to mention the main publications, and to suggest consulting them for further reading. These include: Arnon 2008; Avissar and Stern 2005; Blackman and Redford 2005; Gabrieli 2008; Hadad 2002; Kletter and Stern 2006; Milwright 2003; Sanders 2003; Stacey 2004; Waksman and von Wartburg 2006; Waksman et al. 2008. It should be noted that sometimes, examples of vessels best representing specific types were chosen for illustration, irrespective of provenance.6 The excavations conducted at ‘Akko, from which ceramic material is mentioned here, are (1) The Courthouse Site—the ceramic finds from the excavation represent the last decades prior to the fall of Acre in 1291 CE (Stern 1997); (2) The


Hospitaller Complex (Avissar and Stern 1994, 1998; Stern 1999a, 1999b, 2006; Stern and Syon, in preparation). The pottery is dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries; (3) ‘The Knights Parking Lot’, situated in the northeastern part of the old city. Here, a dwelling and commercial quarter were excavated in 1995 by D. Syon and A. Tatcher (Syon and Tatcher 2000; Stern and Syon, in preparation). The pottery is also dated to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. The pottery from the two latter excavations was studied by E.J. Stern (in preparation). For results of chemical and petrographic analyses of some of these types, see Stern and Waksman 2003; Waksman et al. 2008; Shapiro, in preparation.7 The pottery figures were drawn by Natalie Messika, to whom we are grateful.8 We would like to thank the excavators for their permission to study these objects and for providing this reference.9 The rim sherds from the Courthouse Site at Acre and H. Bet Zeneta were counted in the same manner as those from H. ‘Uza.10 We wish to thank Adrian Boas and Miriam Avissar, who saw the material while it was being processed and assisted

us. Thanks are also due to Anastasia Shapiro, who helped during the preliminary stages of preparing the material for processing. Finally, warm thanks to Nimrod Getzov, who helped in all the stages of preparing the medieval pottery for publication, especially in the quantitative analyses of the pottery.11 The bibliography presented here is up-to-date as of 2004.12 The author expresses her appreciation to Ayelet Tatcher, for entrusting her with the research and publication of these glass finds.13 Thanks are due to Vassilios Tzaferis, the director of the excavations at Baniyas, for allowing the use of this information before its publication in the final report.14 This vessel was identified mistakenly by the excavators, who describe it as a hanging lamp of the ‘mosque lamp’ type, made of transparent glass above and blue glass below, and decorated with several zones of a calligraphic inscription in gold-enameled Arabic (Dean 1927:34−36, Fig. 50).

referenCes

Medieval soUrCes

Abu Shama. Le livre des deux jardins. Histoire des deux règnes, celui de Nour ed Din et celui de Salah ed-Din (French transl.). RHC Or 4–5. Paris.

Anon. L’ Estoire de Eracles Empereur. RHC Occ 2. Paris.Beha al-Din-Ibn Shaddad. Anecdotes et beaux traits de la vie

du Sultan youssof. (French transl.) RHC Or 3. Paris.Baha ed-Din. The Life of Saladin. C.W.Wilson transl. (PPTS

13). London. 1897.Hubert M.J. and Lamont J.L. 1976. The Crusade of Richard

Lion-Heart by Ambroise. New york.‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani. Conquète de la Syrie et de la

Palestine par Saladin. H. Masse. transl. Paris 1972.

general soUrCes

Amr A.J. 1984. Some Ayyubid Pottery Lamps from Rujm el-Kursi and Other Related Mamluk Examples. Berytus 32:201–209.

Arbel B. 1988. Venetian Trade in Fifteenth–Century Acre: The Letters of Francesco Bevilaqua (1471–1472). Asian and African Studies 22:227–288.

Armstrong P. 1989. Some Byzantine and Later Settlements in Eastern Phokis. ABSA 84:1–47.

Armstrong P. 1991. A Group of Byzantine Bowls from Skopelos. OJA 10:335–346.

Armstrong P. 1993. Byzantine Thebes: Excavations on the Kadmeia 1980. ABSA 88:295–335.

Armstrong P. 1997. Byzantine Glazed Ceramic Tableware in the Collection of the Detriot Institute of Arts. Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 71, 1/2:4–15.

Arnon y.D. 1999. Islamic and Crusader Pottery (Area I, 1993–94). Caesarea Papers 2. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 35:225–251.

Arnon y.D. 2008. Caesarea Maritima, the Late Periods 700–1291. BAR International Series.

Aviam M. 1994. The Christian Settlement in the Western Galilee in the Byzantine Period. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Avissar M. 1996. The Medieval Pottery. In A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and y. Portugali. Yoqne‘am I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 75–172.

Avissar M. and Stern E. 1994. ‘Akko, the Citadel. ESI 14:22–25.

Avissar M. and Stern E. 1998. ‘Akko, the Old City. ESI 18:13–14.

Avissar M. and Stern E. 2005. Pottery of the Crusaders and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 25). Jerusalem.

Bagatti B. 1947. I m monumenti di Emmaus el-Qubeibeh e dei Dintorni. Jerusalem.

Bagatti B. 1984. Gli scavi di Nazaret II: Dal secolo XII ad oggi. Jerusalem.

Barag D. 1979. A New Source Concerning the Ultimate Borders of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. IEJ 29:197–217.


Baramki D.C. 1944. The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer. QDAP 10:65–103.

Battista A. and Bagatti B. 1976. La fortezza Saracena del Monte Tabor (A.H. 609–15 A.D. 1212–18). Jerusalem.

Belaubre J. 1986. Histore numismatique et monetaire de la France medievale. Paris.

Ben-Dov M. 1975. Crusader Fortresses in Israel. Qadmoniot 8.4:102–113 (Hebrew).

Ben-Tor A. 1966. Excavations at Horbat Usa. ‘Atiqot (HS) 3:1–24 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–3*).

Berti G. and Gelichi S. 1997. “Zeuxippus Ware” in Italy. In H. Maguire ed. Material Analysis of Byzantine Pottery. Washington. Pp. 85–104.

Blackman J. and Redford S. 2005. Neutron Activation Analysis of Medieval Ceramics from Kinet, Turkey, especially Port Saint Symeon Ware. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42:83–186.

Boas A.J. 1991. A Provenance Study of Some Fine Table-Wares Imported into the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.

Boas A.J. 1992. Islamic and Crusader Pottery (c. 640–1265) from the Crusader City (Area TP/4). Caesarea Papers. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 5:154–166.

Boas A.J. 1994. The Import of Western Ceramics to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. IEJ 44:102–122.

Boas A.J. 1999. Crusader Archaeology. The Material Culture of the Latin East. London.

Brosh N. 1986. Pottery of the Eighth–Thirteenth Centuries C.E. (Strata 1–3). In L.I. Levine and E. Netzer eds. Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, 1975, 1976, 1979, Final Report (Qedem 21). Jerusalem. Pp. 66–89.

Brosh N. 1999. Between East and West: Glass and Minor Arts in the Crusader Kingdom. In S. Rozenberg ed. Knights of the Holy Land—The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Exhibition Catalog, Israel Museum). Jerusalem. Pp. 266−271.

Buerger J.E. 1978. Late Medieval Glazed Pottery in Italy and the Surrounding Area. Ph.D. diss. Columbia University. New york.

Buerger J.E. 1979. The Medieval Glazed Pottery. In S. McNally, J. Marasovic, and T. Marasovic eds. Diocletian’s Palace III. Split. Pp. 5–124.

Cabona I.D., Gardini A., Mannoni T., and Milanese M. 1980. Contributi dell’ archeologia medievale ligure alle conoscenze dei prodotti ceramici nel Mediterraneo Occidentale. In La céramique mediévale en Méditerranée Occidentale Xe-XVe siécles. Valbonne 11–14 septembre 1978. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherce Scientifique. No. 584. Paris. Pp. 113–123.

Carboni S. 2001. Glass from Islamic Lands. The al-Sabah Collection, Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyyah (Kuwait National Museum). New york.

Daoulatli A. 1994. La céramique de la fin du XIIe et du début du XIIIe siècle: La rigueur Almohade (1160–1230). Le bleu et le brun Hafsides: XIIIe–XVIe siècles. In Couleures de Tunis, 25 siècles de céramique. Paris. Pp. 106–114.

Davidson G.R. 1952. Corinth XII: The Minor Objects. Princeton, N.J.

Davidson G. R. 1988. Excavations at Jalame, Site of a Glass Factory in the Late Roman Palestine. New york.

Day F. 1935. Some Islamic Pilgrim Bottles. Berytus 2:2–10.Dean B. 1927. A Crusader’s Fortress in Palestine: A Report

of Excavations Made by the Museum, 1926 II (Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: New York) reprinted as The Crusaders Fortress of Monfort, with Introduction by M. Benvenisti (Jerusalem 1982).

Delougaz P. and Haines R.C. 1960. A Byzantine Church at Khirbat al-Karak (OIP 85). Chicago.

Dikigoropoulos A.I. and Megaw A.H.S. 1948. Early Glazed Pottery from Polis. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (1940–48):77–93.

van Doorninck F.H. 1990. The Serçe Limani Shipwreck: An Eleventh-Century Cargo of Fatimid Glassware Cullet for Byzantine Glassmakers. First International Anatolian Glass Symposium April 26th–27th, 1988. Istanbul. Pp. 58−63.

Du Plat Taylor J. 1938. Medieval Graves in Cyprus. Ars Islamica 5:55–86.

Edelstein G. and Avissar M. 1997. A Sounding in Old Acre. ‘Atiqot 31:129–136.

Ellenblum R. 1992. Construction Methods in Frankish Rural Settlements. In B.Z. Kedar ed. The Horns of Hattin. Jerusalem. Pp. 168–189.

Ellenblum R. 1998. Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge.

Enlart C. 1987. Gothic Art and the Renaissance in Cyprus. D. Hunt transl. London.

Finkelstein I. 1990. Soundings at Ancient Bene-Beraq. ‘Atiqot (HS) 10:29–40 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 13*–14*).

François V. 1997. Sur la circulation des céramiques Byzantines en Méditerranée orientale et occidentale. La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Actes du VIe Congrès de l’AIECM2. Aix-en-Provence 13–18 Novembre 1995. Aix-en-Provence. Pp. 231–236.

François V. 1999. Céramiques médiévales à Alexandria (Études alexandrines 2). Cairo.

Frankel R. 1988. Topographical Notes on the Territory of Acre in the Crusader Period. IEJ 38:249–272.

Frankel R. and Getzov N. 1997. Map of Akhziv (1), Map of Hanita (2) (Archaeological Survey of Israel). Jerusalem.

Franken H.J. and Kalsbeek J. 1975. Potters of a Medieval Village in the Jordan Valley. New york.

Frantz A. 1938. Middle Byzantine Pottery in Athens. Hesperia 7:429–467.

Frierman J.D. 1975. Medieval Ceramics, VI to XIII Centuries. Los Angeles.

Gabrieli R.S. 2008. Towards a Chronology—the Medieval Course Ware from the Tomb on Icarus Street, Kato Paphos. Report of the Department of Antiquites, Cyprus 2008:423–454.

Gelichi S. 1984. Roulette Ware. Medieval Ceramics 8:47–58.Getzov N. 2000. Excavations at Horbat Bet Zeneta.

‘Atiqot 39:75*–106* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 202–204).


Goren y. 1997. Excavation of the Courthouse Site at ‘Akko: Preliminary Petrographic Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage. ‘Atiqot 31:71–74.

Gorin-Rosen y. 1997. Excavation of the Courthouse Site at ‘Akko: Medieval Glass Vessels (Area TA). ‘Atiqot 31:75−85.

Gorin-Rosen y. 2004. Glass Vessels from a Salvage Excavation at Sarafand el-Kharab, Nes ziyyona. ‘Atiqot 46:59−64 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 131*−132*).

Grabar O., Perrot J., Ravani B., and Rosen M. 1960. Sondages à Khirbet el Minyeh. IEJ 10:226–243.

Green C. 1966. The Purpose of the Early Horseshoe. Antiquity 40:305–308.

Grube E.J. 1976. Islamic Pottery of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir Collection. London

Günsenin N. 1989. Recherches sur les amphores Byzantines dans les Musées Turcs. In V. Déroche and J.M. Spieser eds. Recherches sur la céramique byzantine. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Athens: 8–10.4.1987. Athens. Pp. 267–276.

Hadad S. 1998. Glass Vessels from the Umayyad through Mamluk Periods at Bet Shean (7th−14th Centuries CE). Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Hadad S. 1999. Oil Lamps from the Abbasid through the Mamluke Periods at Bet Shean, Israel. Levant 31:203–224.

Hadad S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean (Qedem Reports 4). Jerusalem.

Hakimian S. and Salamé-Sarkis H. 1988. Ceramiques medievales trouvées dans une citerne à Tell Arqa. Syria 65:1–34.

Hartal M. 1997. Excavation of the Courthouse Site at ‘Akko: The Architecture and Stratigraphy in Area TA. ‘Atiqot 31:3–30.

Hayes J. W. 1992. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul II: The Pottery. Princeton.

Hendy M.F. 1969. Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire–1081–1261. Washington, D.C.

Hild F. and Hellenkemper H. 1990. Kiliken und Isaurien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5). Vienna.

Ilan Z. 1986. The Excavation of the Western Church at Horvat ‘Erav (Iri’bbin). In M. yadaya ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities. Matte Asher. Pp. 503–509 (Hebrew).

Jenkins M. 1992. Early Medieval Islamic Pottery: The Eleventh Century Reconsidered. Muqarnis 9:56–66.

Johns C.N. 1932. Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle ‘Atlit. QDAP 1:111–150.

Johns C.N. 1934. Medieval Slip Ware from Pilgrims’ Castle, ‘Atlit. QDAP 3:137–144.

Johns C.N. 1936. Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle, ‘Atlit (1932–3; Stables at the South-West of the Suburb). QDAP 5:31–74.

Kedar B.Z. and Pringle D. 1985. La Fève: A Crusader Castle in the Jezreel Valley. IEJ 35:164–179.

Kennedy C.A. 1963. The Development of the Lamp in Palestine. Berytus 14:67–115.

Kervran M. 1984. Les niveaux islamiques du secteur oriental du Tépé de l’Apadan III: Les objets en verre, en pierre et en métal. Cahiérs de la DAFI 14:211−236. Paris.

Khadija L. 1992. Designs on Painted Ayyubid/Mamluk Pottery from Rujm el-Kursi, 1990 Season. ADAJ 36:345–356.

Khamis E. 1996. The Metal Objects. In A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and y. Portugali. Yoqne‘am I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 218–235.

Kletter R. and Stern E.J. 2006. A Mamluk-Period Site at Khirbet Burin in the Eastern Sharon. ‘Atiqot 51:173–214.

Kröger J. 1995. Nishapur. Glass of the Early Islamic Period. New york.

Kubiak W.B. 1970. Crusaders Pottery of al-Mina found at Fustat. Folia Orientalia 12:113–123.

Lane A. 1938. Medieval Finds at al-Mina in North-Syria. Archaeologia 87:19–78.

Launois M.A. 1959. Estampilles et Musulmans en verre du cabinet des mèdailles. Cairo.

Lawlor J. 1980. The 1978 Excavation of the Hesban North Church. ADAJ 24:95–105.

Lester A. 1996. The Glass from yoqne’am: The Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk Periods. In A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and y. Portugali. Yoqne‘am I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 202–217.

Lester A. 2003. Glass Bottles and Vials from Tiberias. Annales du 15 Congrès de l’association internationale pour l’histoire du verre. New york–Corning 2001. Nottingham. Pp. 158−164.

L’Orient de Saladin 2001. L’Orient de Saladin l’art des Ayyoubides. Exposition présentée à l’Institute du monde Arabe. Paris.

Loffreda O.F.M. 1982. Documentagione preliminare degli oggetti. Della xiv campagna di scavi a Cafarnao. LA 32:409–426.

Mackay T.S. 1967. More Byzantine and Frankish Pottery from Corinth. Hesperia 36:249–320.

Magen y. and Dadon M. 1999. Nebi Samwil (Shmuel Hanavi–Har Hasimha). Qadmoniot 32.2:62–77 (Hebrew).

Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramics Chronology, c. 200–800 CE. Sheffield.

Magness J. 1994. The Dating of the Black Ceramic Bowl with a Depiction of the Torah Shrine from Nabratein. Levant 26:199–206.

Maier F.G. and von Wartburg M.L. 1997. Excavations at Kouklia (Palaipaphos). Eighteenth Preliminary Report: Seasons 1993–1995. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1997:177–194.

Megaw A.H.S. 1968. Zeuxippus Ware. ABSA 63:68–88. Megaw A.H.S. 1971. Excavations at Saranda Kolones

Paphos. Preliminary Report on the 1966–69 and 1970–71 Seasons. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 117–146.

Megaw A.H.S. 1972. Supplementary Excavations on a Castle Site at Paphos, Cyprus, 1970–71. DOP 26:322–342.

Megaw A.H.S. 1975. An Early Thirteenth-Century Aegean Glazed Ware. In G. Robertson and G. Henderson eds. Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice. Edinburgh. Pp. 34–45.

Megaw A.H.S. 1989. Zeuxippus Ware Again. In V. Déroche and J.M. Spieser eds. Recherches sur la céramique


byzantine. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Athens: 8–10.4.1987. Athens. Pp. 259–266.

Megaw A.H.S and Jones R.E. 1983. Byzantine and Allied Pottery: A Contribution by Chemical Analysis to Problems of Origin and Distribution. ABSA 78:235–263.

Metcalf D.M. 1975. Some Hoards and Stray Finds from the Latin East. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 20:139–152.

Meyers E.M., Kraabel A.T., and Strange F. 1976. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbat Shema‘, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970–1972 (AASOR 42). Durham.

Meyers E.M., Strange J.F., and Meyers C.L. 1981. Excavations of Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977. Cambridge, Mass.

Milwright M. 2003. Modest Luxuries: Decorated Lead-Glazed Pottery in the South of Bilad al-Sham (Thirteenth to Fourteenth Centuries). Muqarnas 20:85–111.

Morgan C.H. 1942. Corinth XI: Byzantine Pottery. Cambridge, Mass.

Munsell 1990. Munsell Soil Chart. New york.Papanikola-Bakirtzi D. 1996. Medieval Glazed Pottery of

Cyprus: Paphos and Lapithos Ware. Thessaloniki (Greek; English summery, pp. 213–220).

Papanikola-Bakirtzi D. 1999. Byzantine Glazed Ceramics, The Art of Sgraffito. Athens.

Papanikola-Bakirtzi D., Mavrikiou F.N., and Bakirtzis C.H. 1999. Byzantine Glazed Pottery in the Benaki Museum. Athens.

Pollak R. 2003. Early Islamic Glass from Caesarea: A Chronological and Typological Study. Annales du 15 Congrès de l’Association Intenationale pour l’Histoire du Verre. New york–Corning 2001. Nottingham. Pp. 165−170.

Popović M. 1989. Importation et production locale de céramique à ras. In V. Déroche and J.M. Spieser eds. Recherches sur la céramique byzantine. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Athens: 8–10.4.1987. Athens. Pp. 119–130.

Porat L. and Stern E.J. 1998. Ramat yishay. ESI 18:30–31. Porter V. 1981. Medieval Syrian Pottery (Raqqa Ware).

Oxford.Poulsen V. 1957. Les poteries. In P.J. Riis and V. Poulsen.

Hama, fouilles et recherches 1931–1938. IV, 2. Les verreries et poteries mediévales. Copenhagen. Pp. 117–283.

Prawer J. 1970. Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jerusalem. Paris.

Prawer J. 1984. A Crusader Tomb of 1290 from Acre and the Last Archbishops of Nazareth. IEJ 24:241–251.

Pringle D. 1982. Some More Proto-Maiolica from ‘Athlit (Pilgrims Castle) and a Discussion of its Distribution in the Levant. Levant 14:104–117.

Pringle D. 1984. Thirteenth Century Pottery from the Monastery of St. Mary of Carmel. Levant 16:91–111.

Pringle D. 1985. Medieval Pottery from Caesarea: The Crusader Period. Levant 17:171–202.

Pringle D. 1986a. Pottery as Evidence of Trade in the Crusader States. In G. Ariardi and B.Z. Kedar eds. I comuni italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme. Genoa. Pp. 449–475.

Pringle D. 1986b. The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar) Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks (A.D. 1099–1516) (British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem Monograph Series 1). London.

Pringle D. 1993. The Churches of the Crusader Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1. Cambridge.

Pringle D. 1997a. Excavations in Acre, 1974: The Pottery of the Crusader Period from Site D. ‘Atiqot 31:137–156.

Pringle D. 1997b. Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological Gazetteer. Cambridge.

Re’em A. 1999. Burial Customs in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. In S. Rozenberg ed. Knights of the Holy Land—The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Exhibition Catalog, Israel Museum. Jerusalem. Pp. 292–297.

Riis P.J. 1957. Les verreries. In P.J. Riis and Poulsen Vagn. Hama, Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938, IV²—Les Verreries et Poteries médiévales. Copenhagen. Pp. 30–116.

Rosen-Ayalon M. 1973. Medieval Islamic Compound Vessels. Eretz Israel 11:258–262. (Hebrew; English summary, p. 31*).

Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8). Jerusalem.

Rosser J. 1985. Excavations at Saranda Kolones, Paphos, Cyprus. 1981–1983. DOP 39:81–95.

Rozenberg S. ed. 1999. Knights of the Holy Land. The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Exhibition Catalog, Israel Museum). Jerusalem.

Runciman S. 1954. A History of the Crusades III. Cambridge.Saccardo F. 1993. Contesti Medievali nella Laguna e Prime

Produzioni Graffite Veneziane. In Gelichi S. ed. La Ceramica nel Mondo Bizantino tra XI e XV Secolo e I suoi Rapporti com L’Italia. Atti del Convegno, Siena 1991. Florence. Pp. 201–239.

Salamé-Sarkis H. 1980. Contribution à l’histoire de Tripoli et sa region à l’époque des Croisades. Paris. Pp. 156–237.

Saller S.J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953). Jerusalem.

Sanders G.D.R. 1989. Three Peloponnesian Churches and Their Importance for the Chronology of Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Century Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. In V. Déroche and J.M. Spieser eds. Recherches sur la céramique byzantine. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Athens: 8–10.4.1987. Athens. Pp. 189–199.

Sanders G.D.R. 1993. Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988–91, Preliminary Report 1: Medieval Pottery. ABSA 88:251–286.

Sanders G.D.R. 1999. Corinth Workshop Production. In D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi ed. Byzantine Glazed Ceramics, The Art of Sgraffito. Athens. Pp.159–164.

Sanders G.D.R. 2003. An Overview of the New Chronology for the 9th to 13th Century Pottery at Corinth. In Ch. Bakirtzis ed. VIIe Congrès International sur la Céramique


Médiévale en Méditerranée. Thessaloniki 11–16 Octobre 1999. Athens. Pp. 35–44.

Scanlon G.T. 1974. The Pits of Fustat: Problems of Chronology. JEA 60:60–78.

Schiøler T. 1973. Roman and Islamic Water Lifting Wheels. Odense.

Scott J.A. and Kamilli D.C. 1981. Late Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Sardis. In Actes du XVe congrès international d’études byzantines. Athènes-Septembre 1976 II. Art et archéologie * Communications B. Athens. Pp. 679–696.

Sebbane M. 1999. Board Games: A Crusader Pastime. In S. Rosenberg ed. Knights of the Holy Land. The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Exhibition Catalog, Israel Museum. Jerusalem. Pp. 287–291.

Shalem D. 1996. Migdal Ha-‘Emeq. ESI 15:36–41.Shapiro A. In preparation. Petrographic Analysis of Crusader-

Period Pottery from the Old City of Acre. In E.J. Stern. ‘Akko, the Excavations of 1991–1998 III: The Crusader- Period Pottery (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.

Smith R.H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis I. Wooster.Stacey D. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The

Early Islamic Periods. (IAA Reports 21). Jerusalem.Stern E. 1999a. ‘Akko, the Old City. HA–ESI 109:10*–13*.Stern E. 1999b. Old ‘Akko, the Fortress. HA–ESI 110:13*–

14*.Stern E. 2006. La Commanderie de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers

à Acre. Bulletin Monumental 164-1:53–60.Stern E.J. 1995. Export to the Latin East of Cypriot

Manufactured Glazed Pottery in the Twelfth–Thirteenth Centuries. In N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith. Cyprus and the Crusades. Nicosia. Pp. 325–335.

Stern E.J. 1997. Excavation of the Site at ‘Akko: The Pottery of the Crusader and Ottoman Periods. ‘Atiqot 31:33–70.

Stern E.J. 1999a. Ceramic Ware from the Crusader Period in the Holy Land. In S. Rozenberg ed. Knights of the Holy Land. The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Exhibition Catalog, Israel Museum. Jerusalem. Pp. 258–265.

Stern E.J. 1999b. The Pottery of the Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries from Giv‘at yasaf (Tell er-Ras). ‘Atiqot 37:126–136 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 174*).

Stern E.J. 2001. The Excavations at Lower Horbat Manot: A Medieval Sugar Production Site. ‘Atiqot 42:277–308.

Stern E.J. 2006. La Commanderie de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers à Acre. Bulletin Monumental 164–1:53–60.

Stern E.J. In preparation. ‘Akko, the Excavations of 1991–1998 III: The Crusader-Period Pottery (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.

Stern E.J and Stacey D.A. 2000. An Eleventh Century Pottery Assemblage from Khirbat al-Khurrumiya. Levant 32:171–177.

Stern E.J. and Syon D. In preparation. ‘Akko, the 1991–1998 Excavations II: The Late Periods (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.

Stern E.J and Waksman S.y. 2003. Pottery from Crusader Acre: A Typological and Analytical Study. In Ch. Bakirtzis ed. VIIe Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée. Thessaloniki, 11–16 October 1999. Athens. Pp. 167–180.

Syon D. 1997. the Excavations of the Courthouse Site at ‘Akko: The Coins from Area TA. ‘Atiqot 31:87–89.

Syon D. and Tatcher A. 2000. ‘Akko, Ha-Abirim Parking Lot. ESI 20:11*–16*.

Thalmann J.P. 1978. Tell Arqa (Liban Nord) Campagnes I–III (1972–1974). Syria 55:1–151.

Toueir K. 1973. Ceramiques Mameloukes à Damas. BEO 26:209–217.

Tushingham A.D. 1972. The Excavations at Dibon in Moab, The Third Campaign 1952–53. AASOR 40:77–85.

Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I. Toronto.

de Vaux R. and Stève A.M. 1950. Fouilles à Qaryet el `Enab, Abu Gosh, Palestine. Paris.

Waldbaum J.C. 1983. Metalwork from Sardis, The Finds Through 1974. Cambridge, Mass.

Waksman S.y. and von Wartburg M.L. 2006. “Fine-Sgraffito Ware”, “Aegean Ware”, and other Wares: New Evidence for a Major Production of Byzantine Ceramics. Report of the Department of Antiquites, Cyprus 2006: 396–388.

Waksman S.y., Stern E.J., Segal, I., Porat N., and yellin J. 2008. Elemental and Petrographic Analyses of Local and Imported Ceramics from Crusader Acre. ‘Atiqot 59:157–190.

von Wartburg M.L. 1997. Lemba Ware Reconsidered. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1997:323–340.

von Wartburg M.L. and Maier F.G. 1989. Excavations at Kouklia. (Palaepaphos) 15th Preliminary Report: Seasons 1987 and 1988. Report of the Department of Antiquites, Cyprus 1989:177–189.

Whitehouse D. 1980. Proto-Maiolica. Faenza 66:77–83.Zori N. 1966. The House of Kyrios Leontis. IEJ 16:123–134.

Gorin-Rosen Y. 2009. The Glass Vessels from Strata 5–1. In N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y....

Documents

Transcript of Gorin-Rosen Y. 2009. The Glass Vessels from Strata 5–1. In N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y....