Or ‘AqivA: A MAusOleuM And A Threshing FlOOr FrOM The rOMAn–ByzAnTine PeriOds

AllA nAgOrsky

inTrOducTiOn

In July–August 2000, a salvage excavation was conducted at Or ‘Aqiva (map ref. 1920–32/7131–42; Nagorsky

2003; Fig. 1) prior to construction of a new neighborhood.1 The site, situated 2 km northwest of Caesarea and 10

m asl, was covered by a recent sand dune. Remains of a wall built of finely dressed limestone blocks and scattered

fragments of sarcophagi were recorded in the survey that preceded the excavation. The excavation revealed that

the wall belonged to a mausoleum (Plan 1), next to which additional fragments of sarcophagi from the Roman

period were found. The excavation also uncovered a surface, most probably a threshing floor, from the beginning

of the Byzantine period (Plan 1). Several excavations previously carried out nearby also yielded remains from the

Roman and Byzantine periods (Fig. 1).

Eighteen probes (each 1.5 × 3.0 m, average depth 2.5 m; Plan 1) were opened to the south, east and west of the

mausoleum; they were first dug mechanically to remove the sand of a recent dune, and then excavated manually.

The water table was reached in all the probes at a depth ranging from 1.3 m near the mausoleum to 2.5 m in the

southern part of the excavation area. Upon the removal of the sand dune, it became clear that the mausoleum was

surrounded by yellow sand that yielded no finds, but the soil in the western part of the excavation area, where the

threshing floor was unearthed, was darker, less sandy and contained numerous small finds.

The MAusOleuM

The mausoleum is a rectangular structure (c. 3.4 × 4.5 m; Plan 2) oriented along a north–south axis. Its outer

walls, preserved to a maximum height of four courses, were built of finely dressed limestone blocks. The western

and eastern walls (0.25 m wide) are built of one row of narrow stones. The northern and southern walls are much

wider (1.3 m wide): the southern wall is built of three rows of narrow stones in its western part, and of two lines

of wide, accurately hewn blocks in its eastern part; the northern wall is built of three rows of narrow stones. The

walls were set on two foundation courses. The lower course (0.4 m high) was built of smoothly dressed stones

and large fieldstones, while the upper course (0.7 m high) consisted of small fieldstones mixed with gray cement

Hadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129

AllA NAgorsky2

(Fig. 2). The sand right below the foundation was wet, indicating how near the water table was and explaining

the need for such a massive foundation.

The mausoleum comprised three burial cells (each c. 0.75 × 2.20 m, 0.5–0.6 m deep; Fig. 3), all aligned in

an east–west direction, separated from each other by a single row of long, narrow stones reaching two courses

high. Their floors were built of flat stones arranged across the width of the cells (not on plan). Headrests, made

of one to three stone slabs, were installed at the eastern edge of the cells. The cell floors, including the headrests,

were covered with a thin layer of gray plaster; the plaster was fully preserved in the northern cell, and partially

preserved in the other two cells.

714000

713800

713600

713400

714200

714400

714600

714000

713800

713600

713400

714200

714400

714600

192

200

192

400

192

600

192

800

193

000

192

200

192

400

192

600

192

800

193

000

0 200m

Quarriess

Building, well, water channel

Layerof ceramics

Limekiln,winepress

RoadReservoir

Reservoir

The Excavation

3

1

10A

8

4

9

13

11

7

Building

Cemetary

Sarcophagi

12Road

2

5

10B

10C

6

Quarry, limekiln

Quarry

Road

Sarcaphagus

Fig. 1. Or ‘Aqiva: remains from the Roman and Byzantine periods.

Or ‘AqivA 3

Plan 1. Excavation plan.

0 20m'מ

Recent dune

Mausoleum

Grayish soil

Yellow sand

Threshing floor

Probe

Plan 2. The mausoleum, plan and sections.

0 2mמ׳2-2

1.00

2.00

0.00

1

2

4

3

1

2

3

4

8.44

8.24

9.00 8.89 7.55

8.29

8.26

1-1

1.00

2.00

0.00

4-4

1.00

2.00

0.003-3

1.00

0.00

AllA NAgorsky4

Fig. 2. The mausoleum, looking south.

Fig. 3. The mausoleum’s northern and central cells, looking east.

Or ‘AqivA 5

The excavation around the mausoleum uncovered collapsed stones that had fallen on an ancient surface to its

west. The surface (max. thickness 0.15 m) abuts the top of the foundation courses and comprises small stones,

potsherds, marble fragments and animal bones. Three of the surface’s stones have a triangular profile, suggesting

that they were part of a cornice.

Numerous human bones were discovered inside the mausoleum and around it. One skull was placed on the

ancient surface, one meter to the west of the mausoleum (Fig. 4). Despite the bones’ poor state of preservation, it

was possible to determine that they belonged to at least two individuals, 9 and 20–22 years old.2

The Finds

Pottery.— A comparison of the pottery sherds from the mausoleum and its surroundings with ceramics from

Caesarea dates these finds to the Late Roman–Byzantine periods. These include such vessels as a carinated

bowl with a molded rim (Fig. 5:1; Johnson 2008: No. 387); a cooking pot, Magness’s (1993) Form 1, Variant A,

which she dates to the second–third centuries CE (Fig. 5:2); and a Palestinian Baggy Jar (Fig. 5:3; Johnson 2008:

No. 1018). Also found were three upper parts of amphorae—one with a triangular knob rim (Fig. 5:4; Johnson

2008: No. 1350), one with a wide neck and an outward rim (Fig. 5:5; Johnson 2008: No. 1234) and the last with

a knob rim (Fig. 5:6; Johnson 2008: No. 1363); and three imported amphora bases—an amphora spike toe (Fig.

5:7; Johnson 2008: No. 1384), an amphora toe with a mushroom cap (Fig. 5:8; Johnson 2008: No. 1401) and

an amphora toe (Fig. 3:9; Johnson 2008: No. 1283). The finds included three jug fragments. One, with a wide,

Fig. 4. The skull found near the mausoleum, looking east.

AllA NAgorsky6

Fig. 5. Pottery form the mausoleum.

5

64

7

8 9 10 11

32

1

12

100

No Vessel Locus Basket Description

1 Bowl 10 1001-1 Orange clay, gray core, few large white grits, mica

2 Cooking Pot

13 1010-1 Orange clay, gray core

3 Jar 10 1000-2 Orange clay, few small white grits

4 Amphora 13 1009 Brown clay, numerous very small white grits

5 Amphora 11 1017 Orange clay, few large white grits

6 Amphora 13 1010-2 Orange clay, gray core, few large white grits

7 Base of Amphora

11 1013 Orange clay, few large white grits

8 Base of Amphora

11 1012 Light brown clay

9 Base of Amphora

13 1005 Brown-orange clay, few very small white grits, mica

10 Jug 13 1003 Orange clay, light brown slip

11 Jug 15 1011 Brown clay

12 Jug 11 1029 Brown clay, red slip

everted rim and light brown slip (Fig. 5:10), has a parallel from a sealed locus in Caesarea, which is dated to the

first–second centuries CE (Johnson 2008: No. 1419). Another fragment has a flanged rim (Fig. 5:11; Johnson

2008: No. 1419), and the third bears red slip (Fig. 5:12; Johnson 2008: No. 751).

Or ‘AqivA 7

Sarcophagi.— Remains of at least two sarcophagi (0.9 m width; Fig. 6) were detected within a five-meter radius

from the mausoleum. The sarcophagi were carved out of local limestone, and had gabled lids decorated with

four acroteria in the corners. The outer surface of the lids was smoothed, whereas the inside surface was roughly

hewn. Within the sarcophagi were hewn headrests.

Discussion

Burials in mausolea were popular in the Roman period and were adopted by various populations across the Roman

Empire. The mausolea were usually small, roofed buildings; at times, a door was installed at the entrance leading

into it. Mausolea comprised either a burial chamber built above the ground or a subterranean vault or cell. The

deceased were placed either in sarcophagi or directly in the cells, as indicated by skeletal remains that were found

both inside mausoleum cells and in sarcophagi, either within the mausolea or nearby. Sometimes, the sarcophagi

were placed on the roof of the mausoleum or on built pedestals within the mausoleum (Tsafrir 1984:163). For

instance, the elaborate mausoleum at ‘Askar, in the Samarian Hills, contained numerous sarcophagi within

the structures, and several may have been set on the roof (Tsafrir 1984:160; Damati 1985–1986:87; Magen

2005:272–283). Some mausolea were beautifully decorated, as the abovementioned one at ‘Askar, and those at

Sebastia (Hamilton 1939), Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978:10) and Gush Ḥalav (Vitto and Edelshtein 1974).

Damati (1985–1986:105) stated that “small mausolea ... were especially common in Samaria and the Sharon

plain.” Remains of burials in mausolea or in sarcophagi dating from the Roman period were discovered in at

least four excavations situated in Or ‘Aqiva and its vicinity. In 1980, a decorated sarcophagus carved from

local limestone was discovered in Or ‘Aqiva, along with a gabled lid with acroteria-decorated corners (Fig. 1:6;

Fig. 6. Fragments of sarcophagi.

AllA NAgorsky8

Siegelmann 1983; 1992:66*). In 1993, a small Roman-period cemetery was excavated in the nearby floodplain

of Naḥal ‘Ada. The cemetery consisted of two graves and three decorated sarcophagi placed on the ground. The

only reported lid was gable-shaped, with acroteria-decorated corners (Fig. 1:5; Lipkunsky 1998). In 1997, nine

sarcophagi were found near the Byzantine road connecting Caesarea with Shuni (Fig. 1:2; Peilstöcker 1999). One

of these sarcophagi had a flat lid, whereas five others had gabled lids, three of which were adorned with four or

six acroteria. In 1996 and 1999, a Roman cemetery was excavated at Giv‘at Ha-Po‘alim, north of Binyamina, c.

6 km northeast of the excavation area. The excavations revealed four cist graves built of dressed kurkar blocks,

one hewn grave and two mausolea. One mausoleum had three burial cells, with a sarcophagus in its central cell

(Nudel 1999). The other mausoleum, however, bore no evidence of sarcophagi (Haiman 2009). When sarcophagi

were used for burial, they were simply placed on the ground, and at times were surrounded by walls (Siegelmann

1992:66*; Lipkunsky 1998). The headrests installed in the cells of the mausoleum unearthed in the excavation

indicate that the cells were intended for burial without the use of sarcophagi. These various burial methods found

within a rather small geographic area—the Sharon plain and Samaria—suggest that there were no specific rules

for burial practices in sarcophagi and mausolea during the Roman and Byzantine periods.

The architectural features of the mausoleum at Or ‘Aqiva, as well as the pottery finds associated with it date

the mausoleum to the Roman period. Although the fragments of sarcophagi found near the mausoleum in our

excavation cannot be typologically defined, we do know that their manufacturing technique and the shape of their

lids were common in Samaria and the Sharon plain at the end of the first century and during the second century

CE (Reich 1982:102; Damati 1985–1986:99–100).

The Threshing FlOOr

The soil in the western part of the excavation area was gray or dark brown-gray and less sandy than the soil in the

eastern part, where the mausoleum was erected. This was most probably agricultural soil purposely brought from

outside the site and laid here (see Frumin 2017); this soil yielded numerous small potsherds, marble fragments,

tesserae and animal bones (not studied). At the northwestern end of the western area, where the ground rises

slightly above its surroundings, a roughly rectangular enclosure with rounded corners (c. 9 × 14 m; Plan 3; Fig.

7)—apparently, a threshing floor—could be discerned; its western edge lay beyond the limits of the excavation

area. It differed in soil color from its surroundings along straight, clearly visible lines: it comprises a dense,

compact layer of ḥamra delimited by a line of small fieldstones.

A small probe (L12; 0.8 × 1.0 m) was excavated in the northwestern corner of the ḥamra enclosure. As the

ground originally sloped from north to south, the southern part of the hamra layer was thicker than its northern

part (0.35 m vs. 0.15 m, respectively), making it almost level, with only a mild slope. The probe revealed that the

compact hamra comprised two layers. The upper layer of ḥamra (7–20 cm thick) was almost clean, but yielded

several elongated flint items, possibly threshing-board spikes (now lost). The lower layer of hamra (thickness

Or ‘AqivA 9

Fig. 7. The threshing floor, looking northwest.

Plan 3. The threshing floor, plan and section.

0 5m'מ

Recent dune

Ancient dune

Bedding

Hamra

11

1-19.00

11.00

10.00

9.709.53

9.709.52

9.68

L129.54

9.90

9.79

9.73

9.91

AllA NAgorsky10

0.2–0.3 m), which served as a bedding, was rich with large potsherds from the Roman and early Byzantine periods

(first century BCE – fifth century CE), as well as glass shards, animal bones, flint items, marble fragments and

sea shells (not studied; Fig. 8); it yielded also three coins (late third – early fifth centuries CE; see Bijovsky,

below). This bedding covered a layer of yellow-brown sand (thickness 0.9–1.0 m), probably an ancient dune; the

sand was moist at its bottom, an indication that the water table lied immediately below.

The Pottery

All the pottery originated in the bedding layer of hamra excavated in the probe (L12). It seems that the potsherds,

dating from the first century CE to the early Byzantine period, were brought from Caesarea to be used as building

material. Among the vessels were a red-slipped bowl with a flat base (Fig. 9:1; Johnson 2008: No. 672); a shallow

bowl with rounded walls (Fig. 9:2; Johnson 2008: No. 253); a cooking pot with a short neck (Fig. 9:3), whose

closest parallel comes from Area V/4 in Caesarea (Magness 1994:134–135, Fig. 1:15); a cooking pot with an

outward rim (Fig. 9:4; Johnson 2008: No. 970); a casserole with flaring body walls (Fig. 9:5; Magness 1994: Fig.

1:5–7; Johnson 2008: No. 817); a cooking-pot lid (Fig. 9:6; Johnson 2008: No. 977); a flat-bottomed cooking pan

(Fig. 9:7; Johnson 2008: No. 921); a Palestinian Baggy Jar (Fig. 9:8; Johnson 2008: No. 1062); an amphora with

an inverted knob rim (Fig. 9:9; Johnson 2008: No. 1318); a western Mediterranean amphora with a red-painted

inscription on the rim (Fig. 9:10; see Finkielsztejn, below; Jelson et al. 1994:118, No. A 80); two amphorae with

rounded-off rims (Fig. 9:11, 12; Johnson 2008: Nos. 1315, 1340); a base of an Aegean amphora (Fig. 9:13; Jelson

et al. 1994:108, No. A 61); and an amphora’s spike toe (Fig. 9:14; Johnson 2008: No. 1379).

Fig. 8. The threshing floor’s bedding.

Or ‘AqivA 11

Fig. 9. Pottery from L12.

5 64

78

9

10

11

321

12

10013 14

No Vessel Basket Description

1 Bowl 1032-7 Light brown clay, red painted

2 Bowl 1026-21 Orange clay, brown core, few small white grits

3 Cooking Pot 1032-30 Brown clay, few small white grits

4 Cooking Pot 1002 Dark brown clay, a lot of small white grits

5 Casserole 1021-1 Brown clay, large white grits

6 Cooking Pot Lid 1026-14 Orange clay, few small white grits

7 Cooking Pan 1026-1 Dark brown clay, black core

8 Jar 1026-4 Orange clay, few small white grits

9 Amphora 1026-2 Orange clay, few large white and gray grits, mica

10 Amphora 1026-3 Pinkish brown clay, a lot of small black grits, mica. Red painted inscription on the neck

11 Amphora 1026-5 Brown clay, few black and white grits, mica

12 Amphora 1026-6 Orange clay, few small black grits

13 Amphora 1026-7 Brown clay, few small black grits

14 Amphora 1021-3 Orange clay, gray core, few small white grits, mica

AllA NAgorsky12

A TiTulus PicTus On An AMPhOrA neck

Gerald Finkielsztejn

A titulus pictus, a painted informative inscription on a ceramic vessel, was found on the neck of an amphora

found in the threshing-floor bedding (Fig. 9:10).3 The amphora is most likely of Knidian origin, judging by the

profiles of its short, everted rim with rounded edge and of its slightly bulging neck; these are found mainly in

contexts dating from the second century BCE, and at times from the first century BCE as well. The fabric is

pinkish brown, with a large number of very small, black inclusions and a small amount of white inclusions and

mica. The surface of the vessel still bears a thin greenish white wash.

The inscription is painted in red. Although the first and last letters were damaged by two breaks, it clearly

comprised five Greek letters: a cursive alpha, the loop of which was chipped away—a letter common in this type

of Hellenistic-period painted inscriptions—a chi, an iota and two lambdas (see Korzakova 2010). These can be

read as a name starting with ΑΧΙΛΛ[, such as Ἀχιλλεύς (Achilles). The person bearing this name was probably

the owner of the vessel and its content. Similar examples suggest that he may have ordered the merchandise, and

thus his name was painted at some stage of delivering the order, probably while the vessel was stored at the port

of destination (Finkielsztejn, forthcoming [a]). Another possibility is that this person was a military officer, since

it was common in the garrison milieu that an officer’s name would be incised on amphorae, most probably after

they were delivered (Finkielsztejn, forthcoming [b]).

The cOins

Gabriela Bijovsky

Three bronze coins were found in the bedding of the ḥamra threshing floor, unearthed in the probe (L12). They

date from the end of the third century to the beginning of the fifth century CE.

1. Reg. No. 127, L12, IAA 92117.

Probus (276–282 CE), Antioch.

Obv: IMP C MAV[R PROBVS F AVG] Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped.

Rev: CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: Є; in exergue: XXI

Silver plate, antoninianus, ã, 2.45 g, 23 mm.

RIC 5/2:119, No. 920.

2. Reg. No. 1021, L12, IAA 92119.

Julian II (355–361 CE).

Obv: [DN IVLIANVS NOB] CAES Bust r., bareheaded, cuirassed and draped.

Or ‘AqivA 13

Rev: [SPES REIPVBLICE] Virtus stg. facing, holding spear and globe. Mintmark illegible.

Æ, â, 1.3 g, 12 mm.

Cf. LRBC 2:100, No. 2639.

3. Reg. No. 1027, L12, IAA 92118.

403–408 CE.

Obv: [---] Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped.

Rev: CONCOR[DIA AVGGG] Cross. Mintmark illegible.

Æ, á, 0.71 g, 10 mm.

Cf. LRC: Arcadius, Pl. 10:253.

Discussion

Threshing floors served in antiquity for separating grains from the chaff. This was done in a two-step process.

First, the harvested stalks of grain were spread over the threshing floor, and a threshing sledge—a wooden sledge

or board with flint, stone or metal spikes, yoked to a beast—was pulled around the floor to separate the grain

heads from the stalks (Isa. 41:15–16). The same result was achieved at times by having oxen walk over the stalks

(Deut. 25:4) or by beating the stalks with heavy sticks or flails (Judg. 6:11). The broken stalks would then be

winnowed (Ruth 3:2; Isa. 30:24): they were tossed into the air with a pitchfork, usually made of wood, allowing

the wind to blow the lighter chaff to one side, while the heavier grains fell on the ground, to be gathered later on.

Threshing floors were owned either by an entire village or by a single family. They were usually located outside

the village, in places easily accessible from the grain fields. Since they were often built in high places—to take

advantage of soft and steady winds that facilitate the winnowing (Dar 1986:191)—and offered a sizable level

surface, these installations were often used as landmarks (Gen. 50:10; 2 Samuel 6:6) or as meeting places (1

Kings 22:10).

Although most of the reported threshing floors are circular or roughly circular in shape, quite a few rectangular

ones, like the one in Or ‘Aqiva, have been uncovered. Another rectangular-like threshing floor (10 × 12 m)

with rounded corners, delimited by a low enclosing wall, was found in a Roman Villa near Boscoreale, Italy

(White 1970:422–423), and two others, both large, were found near Neo Chorio in Cyprus (Whittaker 2003:383).

Threshing floors vary in size. Small ones may have been used for threshing with animals—without a sledge or

with flails—whereas large ones may have had a pair of animals working simultaneously, as may have been the

case in our Or ‘Aqiva threshing floor.

Threshing floors have smooth surfaces, often paved with various materials, such as round cobbles or tiles, or

utilizing a bedrock outcrop (Dar 1986:191). Nevertheless, unpaved, earthen threshing floors are also common,

such as those found in the ‘Uvda Valley in the ‘Arava (Avner 1998:162) and in Cyprus (Whittaker 2003:383).

AllA NAgorsky14

Threshing floors are usually installed with a deliberate, mild slope, as in Or ‘Aqiva, so that rain water does not

accumulate on it.

cOnclusiOns

The results of this small excavation at Or ‘Aqiva enrich our understanding of the socio-economic organization of

the population living in the Sharon plain and in Samaria in the Late Roman–Byzantine periods. The excavation

yielded a mausoleum and a threshing floor in an agricultural field to its west. The soil in the agricultural field and

the earth containing debris used as bedding for the threshing floor were brought into the site at the beginning of

the Byzantine period; both postdate the mausoleum.

The division of the rather small excavation area into two distinct parts, the eastern one with a mausoleum built

on yellow send, and the western one with agricultural soil and a threshing floor, suggests that this area belonged

to one family, with the mausoleum serving, perhaps, as the family’s burial place. It is plausible that the Byzantine-

period building located about 100 m southeast of the mausoleum (Fig. 1:1; Nagorsky 2005) was the residence of

the owners of this plot of land.

Nearby excavations in Or ‘Aqiva yielded several quarries, two limekilns, a winepress and two reservoirs near

the Byzantine road leading from Shuni to Caesarea (Neeman 1996 [Fig. 1:12]; Peilstöcker 1999 [Fig. 1:2]; 2006

[Fig. 1:10A, 10B, 10C]; Hussein 2004 [Fig. 1:3]; Yannai 2009 [Fig. 1:4]; Massarwa 2010 [Fig. 1:9]; Shadman

2010 [Fig. 1:13]; Said 2011 [Fig. 1:11]). The mausoleum and the threshing floor at Or ‘Aqiva were found not

far from this road. A threshing floor of such impressive size, an agricultural field with soil brought from outside

the site, several quarries, a winepress, reservoirs and limekilns—all these point to production activities in one

or two family estates (See Fig. 1:1, 8) that possibly supplied harvested produce (see Frumin 2017) and stones to

inhabitants of both small and large settlements in the vicinity. The location of the threshing floor in an agricultural

field near a main road no doubt facilitated both access to the field and the delivery of the harvested produce to

nearby markets.

An excavation conducted c. 200 m to the northeast (Fig. 1:8; ‘Ad 2009:54*–55*) yielded a large, round, paved

plaza, which sloped slightly to the east. Traces of clay were preserved on flagstones, and its bedding was made

of dark soil mixed with numerous pottery sherds. The plaza was surrounded by an agricultural field enriched

with soil from an off-site location; it contained large amounts of sherds and other debris. The function of the

installation was not established at the time of the excavation, but it is seems plausible that this was a threshing

floor. Along with the water channel, the well and the agricultural field found in this excavation, it may have

belonged to a neighboring farm, owned by another family (see Oren 2011 [Fig. 1:7]).

All this seems to indicate a social-spatial organization based on family farms, as suggested by Ayalon, Sharvit

and Qidron (1988–1989:115), following a survey they conducted in Ẓur Natan, in the Samarian foothills.

Or ‘AqivA 15

Identifying approximately 25 clusters of agricultural installations located 100–200 m from each other and

comprising elements similar to those found at Or ‘Aqiva, Ayalon, Sharvit and Qidron argued that each cluster

represents the landholdings of a single family.

nOTes1 The excavation (Permit No. A-3265), undertaken on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and financed by the Ministry of Construction and Housing, was directed by the author, with the assistance of Michael Cohen (area supervision), Yossi Nagar (anthropology), Yehezkel Dangor (administration), Avi Hajian, Viatcheslav Pirsky and Yaniv Agmon (surveying and drafting), Tsila Sagiv and Clara Amit (photography) and Irena Lidsky-Reznikov (drawings). Viviana R. Moscovich and Dafnah Strauss edited the article.2 I thank Yossi Nagar for examining the bones. 3 My thanks go to the excavator, Alla Nagorsky, who allowed me to read and publish this inscription. It should be noted that upon discovering the inscription, Ms. Nagorsky suggested the same reading I offer here.

reFerences

‘Ad U. 2009. Or ‘Aqiva: Remains of a Farming Complex and Irrigation System from the End of Byzantine–Beginning of the Early Islamic Periods in the Agricultural Hinterland of Caesarea. ‘Atiqot 61:49*–60* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 133–134).

Avner U. 1998. Settlements, Agriculture and Paleoclimate in ‘Uvda Valley, Southern Negev Desert, 6th–3th Millennia BC. In A.S. Issar and N. Brown eds. Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change. Dordrecht–Boston–London. Pp. 147–202.

Ayalon E., Sharvit Y. and Qidron A. 1988–1989. Grouped Installations from the Roman-Byzantine Period in the Fields of Ẓur Natan. Israel — People and Land 5–6:93–121 (Hebrew).

Damati E. 1985–1986. The Sarcophagi of the Samaritan Mausoleum at ‘Ascar (‘Ein Suchar). Israel — People and Land 2–3:87–107 (Hebrew).

Dar S. 1986. Landscape and Pattern: An archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 BCE–636 CE (BAR Int. S. 308). Oxford. Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming a. Maresha Excavations Directed by A. Kloner: Amphoras and Stamped Amphora Fragments (1989-

2000) (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming b. Bet She’an IV: The Amphora Stamps from Tel Iztabba (1948, 1951, 1977, 1991–1994). In G. Mazor,

W. Atrash and G. Finkielsztejn. Hellenistic Nysa-Scythopolis: The Amphora Stamps and Sealings (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.Frumin S. 2017. Or ‘Aqiva: A Geobotanical Overview. HA-ESI 129 (18 July). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.

aspx?id=25238&mag_id=125 (accessed 18 July, 2017).Haiman M. 2009. Binyamina. HA-ESI 121 (November 17). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1250&mag_

id=115 (accessed December 17, 2012).Hamilton R.W. 1939. The Domed Tomb at Sebastya. QDAP 8:64–71. Hussein M. 2004. Or ‘Aqiva (North) (A). HA-ESI 116 (June 7). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=55&mag_

id=108 (accessed December 17, 2012).Jelson J.P., Fitzgerald M.A., Sherwood A.N. and Sidebotham S.E. 1994. The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the

Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Projects 1980–85 (BAR Int. S. 594). Oxford.

AllA NAgorsky16

Johnson B.L. 2008. The Pottery. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima. Areas CC, KK and NN. Final Report, Volume I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 13–207.

Korzakova H. 2010. Indices of Greek Inscriptions. In A. Kloner, E. Eshel, H.B. Korzakova and G. Finkelsztein eds. Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons (IAA Reports 45). Jerusalem. Pp. 237–239.

Lipkunsky D. 1998. Or ‘Aqiva (East). ESI 20:37*. LRBC 2: R.A.G. Carson and J.P.C. Kent. Part II: Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498. In Late

Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498. London 1965. Pp. 41–114.LRC: P. Grierson and M. Mays. Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection:

From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius. Washington, D.C 1992.Magen Y. 2005. Flavia Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period (JSP 5). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: Circa 200–800 CE. Sheffield.Magness J. 1994. The Pottery from Area V/4 at Caesarea. AASOR 52:133–146.Massarwa A. 2010. Or ‘Akiva. HA-ESI 122 (July 12). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1430 (accessed

December 17, 2012). Nagorsky A. 2003. Or ‘Aqiva. HA-ESI 115:33*–34*.Nagorsky A. 2005. Or ‘Aqiva. HA-ESI 117 (March 13). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=102&mag_id=110

(accessed December 17, 2012). Neeman Y. 1996. Or ‘Aqiva, Byzantine Road. ESI 15:52–54.Nudel S. 1999. Binyamina, Giv‘at Ha-Po‘alim. HA-ESI 109:40*.Oren E. 2011. Or ‘Akiva. HA-ESI 123 (June 23) http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1697&mag_id=118

(accessed December 17, 2012). Peilstöcker M. 1999. Or ‘Aqiva (North). HA-ESI 110:35*. Peilstöcker M. 2006. Or ‘Aqiva (North). HA-ESI 118 (January 2). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.

asp?id=284&mag_id=111 (accessed December 17, 2012). Reich R. 1982. Archaeological Sites within the Boundaries of the City of Natanya. In A. Shmueli and M. Brawer eds. Sefer Natanya.

Tel Aviv. Pp. 101–114 (Hebrew). RIC 5/2: P.H. Webb. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part II. London 1933.Said A.S. 2011. Or ‘Aqiva. HA-ESI 123 (December 27). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1890&mag_

id=118 (accessed December17, 2012). Shadman A. 2010. Or ‘Aqiva. HA-ESI 122 (July 2). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1416&mag_id=117

(accessed December17, 2012).Siegelmann A. 1983. Or ‘Aqiva. ESI 2:87.Siegelmann A. 1992. Roman and Byzantine Remains in the Northern Coastal Plain. ‘Atiqot 21:63*–68* (Hebrew; English summary

p. 178).Stern E. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976) I: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period (Qedem 9). Jerusalem.Tsafrir Y. 1984. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest. Jerusalem. Vitto F. and Edelshtein G. 1974. The Mausoleum at Gush Halav. Qadmoniot 7:49–55 (Hebrew).White K.D. 1970. Roman Farming. Ithaca.Whittaker J.C. 2003. The Threshing Sledges and Threshing Floors in Cyprus. In P.C. Anderson, L.S. Cummings and T.K. Schippers

eds. Le Traitement des Recoltes. Un Regard sur la Diversite du Neolithique au Present. Actes des Xxiiie Rencontres Internationales d’Archeologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, 17–19 Octobre 2002. Antibes. Pp. 375–387.