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.