The Settlement History of Nazareth in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period - ‫תולדות‬

‫היישוב בנצרת בתקופת הברזל ובתקופה הרומית הקדומה‬

Author(s): Yardenna Alexandre and ‫ירדנה אלכסנדר‬
Source: 'Atiqot / ‫ כרך‬,2020 / ‫ התש"ף‬,‫&עתיקות‬lrm; 98 (2020 / ‫)התש"ף‬, pp. 25-92
Published by: Israel Antiquities Authority / ‫רשות העתיקות‬

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26910307

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to 'Atiqot / ‫עתיקות‬

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
‘Atiqot 98, 2020

The Settlement History of Nazareth

in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period

Yardenna Alexandre

Introduction

In three short seasons in 2009 and 2011, a small-scale archaeological excavation was carried
out next to the Franciscan Church of the Annunciation compound in central Nazareth
(Naẓerat), prior to the conversion of an Ottoman-period building into the International Mary
of Nazareth Center (map ref. 228190/734250; approximately 120 sq m; Figs. 1; 2:A).1 The
excavation was limited to the area designated for a new entrance lobby into the building,
and was restricted on three sides by buildings—the Sisters of St. Joseph Convent on the
west (Fig. 2:B), the Mary of Nazareth Center building on the north, and a private house

1
The excavations (Permit Nos. A-5740, A-6080) were undertaken to investigate the archaeological remains in
the small area designated by the Chemin Neuf Community proprietors for the construction of the entrance
lobby. The excavations were conducted in three stages: Permit No. A-5470, carried out during two weeks
in September 2009 (25 sq m) and during three weeks in December 2009 (enlargement to 100 sq m), and
Permit No. A-6080, carried out for three weeks, from February to March 2011 (c. 20 sq m; a small area not
accessible in 2009). This third stage of the excavation, which took place after construction works that covered
the site were completed and included purpose-built roofing, was undertaken with the aim of preserving the
archaeological remains as an exhibit for the visitors to the Center. The excavations were directed by the author,
with the assistance of Yosef Yaaqobi (administration), Anastasia Shapiro (GPS), Assaf Peretz (photography),
Yinon Shivtiel (photography of Figs. 23, 24), Rivka Mishayev, Yelena Nemichenicher and Mendel Kahan
(surveying and drafting). The present report was prepared by the author with the assistance of Dov Porotsky
(final drafting), Anastasia Shapiro and Elena Ilana Delerzon (Fig. 2), Leea Porat (pottery restoration), Hagit
Tahan-Rosen (pottery drawing), Edna Stern (medieval pottery consultation), Edward Mussallam, curator of the
Franciscan museum in Nazareth (consultation on ancient Nazareth), Hila Rosenstein and Helena Kupershmidt
(metal laboratory), Donald T. Ariel (numismatics), Yael Gorin-Rosen (glass), Ayala Lester (bronze lamp)
and Nimrod Marom (archaeozoology). The Chemin Neuf Community staff and the contractors working on
their behalf at the site provided considerable help and encouragement throughout the project. The author is
extremely grateful to all. The author is indebted to David Gurevich, for his academic generosity and thorough
editing process that made a most significant contribution to the content and final form of the article.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 1. Location map of Nazareth, showing settlements mentioned in this article.

and courtyard on the east.2 The southern boundary of the excavation was the old narrow
el-Bishara Annunciation road that runs between the Franciscan Church of the Annunciation
compound and the Mary of Nazareth Center, traversing the length of Nazareth to the spring
at Mary’s Well (Fig. 2).
The principal remains exposed in the present excavation were of a late Hellenistic- to
Early Roman-period dwelling that incorporated a three-level complex of subterranean pits
or silos. Additional limited remains of an earlier building dating to the Iron Age, and of an
overlying building dating to the Crusader and Mamluk periods, were also uncovered.
In this article, the description of the present excavation is preceded by a summary of
the previous archaeological research that has been carried out in the area. The discussion
focuses on the early settlement history of Nazareth: the Iron Age (tenth–eighth centuries
BCE) and the late Hellenistic to Early Roman periods (late second century BCE to early
or mid-second century CE). The analysis, based on the archaeological data and the early
written sources, offers an insight into settlement in Nazareth in these periods.

2
The archaeological remains of the Early Roman-period house are accessible to visitors to the International
Mary of Nazareth Center. It is sincerely hoped that a conservation of the fragile remains will be carried out in
the near future, and that some careful and faithful restoration work will be undertaken in order that the many
visitors to the site will gain a coherent glimpse into the village of Nazareth of this period.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 27

Fig. 2. Map of Nazareth, showing the location of the present excavation and other sites.

History of Research
Until the mid-nineteenth century, historical Nazareth was a small village situated on a
chalky limestone slope in a saucer-shaped basin, surrounded by hills on all sides. Its copious
perennial spring, traditionally known as the Virgin’s Fountain or Mary’s Well, was located

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 3. General view of the initial excavation (25 sq m), looking south;
the Church of the Annunciation compound is in the background.

beyond and northeast of the settled village (Fig. 2:C), while a much smaller spring may have
flowed seasonally within the village (Bagatti 2001:30–32). The location of old Nazareth on
the slope, with a small wadi to its west and a steep drop to its east, is illustrated in a 1839
lithograph by David Roberts (Roberts 1855, reproduced in Alexandre 2012a:149, Fig. 8.3).
From the mid-nineteenth century onward, Nazareth expanded rapidly into a large town
that encompassed the spring area and spread over the surrounding hill slopes. The area
of the small ancient settlement is dominated today by the large (c. 28 dunam) Franciscan

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 29

stone-walled compound (hereon the Franciscan compound) that encloses the Church of the
Annunciation, the Convent of Terra Santa and the Church of St. Joseph (Fig. 2:D, E, F).
At the turn of the twentieth century, and again in 1955–1956, extensive archaeological
excavations were undertaken in the Franciscan compound in the wake of large-scale
development works. These excavations revealed some evidence for occupation in the Middle
Bronze Age, the Iron Age, and the Roman, Byzantine and Crusader periods (Vlaminck 1900;
Viaud 1910; Bagatti 1969; 2002). The Church of St. Joseph was constructed in 1911 along the
lines of a newly uncovered Crusader-period church, and over various earlier archaeological
remains, some of which are still accessible in the basement below the church. The modern
Church of the Annunciation was constructed in the 1960s, incorporating the reconstructed
northern wall of the huge, but mostly ruined, Crusader basilica and the underlying remains
of a Byzantine basilical church.
In addition to the excavations within the Franciscan compound, from the later part of
the twentieth century onward, a few small-scale salvage excavations were carried out near
old Nazareth, exposing archaeological remains from various periods—from the Bronze
Age to the Ottoman period (see Alexandre 2012a:5–9 for a summary of these excavations).
Excavations carried out at Mary’s Well in 1997 and 1998, revealed water channels and
fountain houses from the Roman, Crusader, Mamluk and Ottoman periods (Alexandre
2012a).
Over the years, several rock-hewn burial caves were uncovered during the construction of
houses in Nazareth, mostly on the western hill-slope of Nebi Sa‘in, above the old town (for
references, see Alexandre 2012a:9). Even though most of the caves were not systematically
excavated, the majority were recognized as Roman-period Jewish loculi, or kokhim, burial
caves (Fig. 2). A couple of Early Roman-period rock-hewn loculi burial caves, which were
uncovered long ago in the precinct of the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, located about 100
m west of the present excavation (Fig. 2:G), were recently reexamined (Dark 2012:165).
An additional shaft burial from Iron IB–IIA, reusing a Middle Bronze I–II burial cave, was
excavated on the slope south of the Church of the Annunciation (Fig. 2:H; Alexandre 2018).

Architecture and Stratigraphy

Three building strata were identified in the excavation: Stratum III, from Iron IIA–B (tenth–
early eighth centuries BCE); Stratum II, from the late Hellenistic to the Early Roman period
(late second century BCE–first third of the second century CE); and Stratum I, from the
Crusader to Mamluk period (twelfth–fifteenth centuries CE).
In the excavated area, the bedrock sloped down to the southwest (gradient about 17%,
descending about 2 m over a distance of 12 m). The walls of Strata III and II were set
directly on bedrock. The exposure and the state of preservation of Stratum II was poor;
the Stratum I walls, as well as three concrete bedrock-cast foundation blocks of a modern
building, damaged and covered over the earlier walls of Stratum II.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30 Yardenna Alexandre

Stratum III: The Iron Age

A stone wall and the fragmentary remains of a rock-hewn channel were attributed to
Stratum III (Plan 1). Wall 156, oriented north–south, was built of large- and medium-sized
roughly hewn fieldstones directly on the bedrock and stood up to eight courses high (Plan
1: Sections 1–1, 4–4; Fig. 4). Only the eastern outer face of W156 was exposed, as the wall

Plan 1. Strata III and II, plan and sections.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 31

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
32 Yardenna Alexandre

was located at the western edge of the excavation and was overlain by the Ottoman-period
Sisters of St. Joseph convent wall. The northern end of the Stratum III wall formed an
integrated corner with another, just visible, east–west oriented stone wall (W175; Fig. 5).
These walls were probably the corner of a Stratum III building situated under the convent.
A thin (c. 0.2 m thick) accumulation layer on the bedrock next to these walls (L157, L159,

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 33

Fig. 4. Stratum III W156 and Stratum II W105

built against it, looking west.

Fig. 5. Stratum III, the corner of W156 and W175, looking southwest.

L163–L165, L167, L169, L170, L172) yielded diagnostic Iron Age pottery sherds that date
the original construction and use of the wall to Iron IIA–B. Some Early Roman-period
sherds were also found here, and are attributed to the reuse of the wall (see below). A few
animal bones found on the bedrock (L170, L172)3 were identified as sheep/goat and cattle
(see Marom, this volume).

3
Due to the several technical stages of the excavation, numerous loci were assigned.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 6. Stratum III, rock-hewn Channel 107 and overlying cover slab,
looking north.

Fig. 7. Stratum III, Channel 107, intersected by rock-hewn base of

Stratum II W108, looking south.

At the southeastern corner of the excavation, a very short section of a small rock-hewn
channel, running northeast–southwest, was exposed within the rock-hewn base of a Stratum
II wall (Channel 107 in W108; inner cavity of channel c. 2.5 m long, 0.3 m wide, c. 0.3 m
high; Plan 1: Sections 1–1, 2–2; Fig. 6). Channel 107 must have been encountered and cut by
the Stratum II builders when hewing out the surrounding bedrock for the Stratum II basement
room (L112; Fig. 7). The channel still retained a single, worn rectangular stone cover slab

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 35

that seems to have been secondarily incorporated in the overlying, beaten-earth make-up of
the Stratum II crushed chalk floor (L116 below L103). The channel was attributed to Iron
Age Stratum III, as it could only have functioned prior to the rock-hewing activities carried
out for the construction of the Stratum II building. The few small late Hellenistic sherds
that were found in the debris inside the channel do not date its construction or functioning
period. A large, roughly arch-shaped hollow cut in the adjacent rock-hewn wall (L118 in
W149) may have been the original, subsequently damaged, eastern continuation of the
Stratum III channel, but this element could not be investigated, as it extended beyond the
excavation limits (Plan 1: Section 1–1).

Stratum II: Late Hellenistic– Early Roman Periods

In Stratum II, the remains of a building consisting of a few small rooms were exposed (Plan
1). The walls were mostly poorly preserved due to later building activities, but it seems that
the rooms were part of a single house that may have extended beyond the excavation limits.
A general photograph of the building could not be taken for several reasons: (1) the
Stratum II walls were both damaged and covered by the wide Stratum I walls and by the
modern concrete foundations; (2) the site was flooded by winter rains when the photographs
of the intermediate stage of the excavation were taken; (3) an overhead, broad-view
photograph was not possible at the final stage of the excavation as the ancient remains were
now obscured by a new low concrete roof. In addition to all these exigencies, the significant
subterranean elements of the house are not visible in overhead photographs. Consequently,
a relatively detailed description of the house is provided here, with reference to the plan and
the sections, in order to comprehensively explain the building and its components, while
the photographs mostly illustrate specific details. The list of loci and walls is provided for
further clarification (Appendix 1).
The house comprised three parallel east–west walls (W108, W105, W129, from south
to north), laying about 4 m apart from each other. The central section of the middle wall
(W105) was just visible, incorporated within and built over by the overlying Stratum I
W106, while its western end abutted the still-standing Stratum III wall (W156; Figs. 4, 8).
In addition to the reused Iron Age wall (W156), three new parallel walls (W115, W111,
W149) ran north–south between W105 to W108, delimiting three small rooms south of
W105. The reconstruction of the walls delimiting the rooms to the north of W105 is more
conjectural. A north–south wall (W155) probably adjoined the western end of W129, but
most of W155 and the proposed junction of the walls was obscured by the later overlying
Stratum I W133 (Fig. 9). It seems that an additional north–south wall must have run from
W105 to W129 in the central area of the excavation, separating the western room from the
eastern one, but the location of this conjectured wall was entirely built over by the wide
Stratum I W106. The easternmost wall (W149) probably continued northward from W105
and formed a corner with the possible easterly continuation of W129. Five rooms of the
house (L112, L125, L135, L153, L117) are described here, counterclockwise.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 8. Stratum II, W105 abutting Stratum III W156, looking southwest;
Room 153 is located behind W105, with the short, stone-walled corridor
housing the subterranean pit complex supported by scaffolding.

Fig. 10. Stratum II sloping rock-cut

foundation W108 and bedrock Floor 112,
looking south.

Fig. 9. Stratum II W155 and Stratum I W133,

looking south.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 37

Fig. 11. Stratum I W110, bedrock and overlying Stratum II fieldstone W105,
forming a corner with bedrock W149 on the right, looking north.

Room 112.— Room 112 was a semi-basement room (3.5 × 2.5 m), whose walls comprised
bases hewn out of the sloping bedrock overlain by roughly worked fieldstone courses (Plan
1: Sections 1–1, 2–2; Figs. 10, 11). The rock-cut eastern wall base (W149) was 0.9 m
high, while the rock-cut bases of the southern and northern walls sloped down from east to
west following the natural slope of the bedrock (W108: 0.25–0.90 m high; W105: 0.3–0.6
m high). It was the hewing of W149 and W108 that cut off Stratum III Channel 107 and
the arched hollow (L118). The western wall (W111) had only a minimal rock-hewn base
(c. 0.1 m high), overlain by a row of stones, but this wall was destroyed by overlying
Stratum I W106 (Plan 1: Section 2–2; Fig. 12). The walls of Room 112 were originally at
least 1.2 m high, and access into the room may once have been via an entrance in the western
wall (W111), or via steps or a ladder leading down from the presumed, but no longer extant,
overlying room. The uneven bedrock surface of Room 112 was partially covered by a thin
(c. 0.2 m) packed, light brown accumulation layer exhibiting cream-colored chalky floor
patches (L112, including L109) that yielded a few animal bones, identified as sheep and
goat (see Marom, this volume) and a few late Hellenistic sherds. This room was reused in
Stratum I, when a thick wall (W110; Fig. 11) was built directly on the bedrock floor, the later
occupation presumably removing most of the Stratum II accumulation layer (see below).

Courtyard 125.— To the north of Room 112, there was an area that was probably an internal
courtyard in the house. Courtyard 125 (4.5 × 3.5 m estimated dimensions; Fig. 13) was
delineated on the south by W105, and on the north by W129, whose two extant stone
courses were just visible within and protruding out of Stratum I W106, while its former
continuation here was marked only by a few faint cuttings in the bedrock. On the east, it

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 12. Single stone course Stratum II W111 underlying Stratum I

W106A, looking west; uneven bedrock Floor 112 is a continuum with
the rock foundations of W111 and W108.

was probably delimited by the presumed stone-built northern continuation of W149 and
on the west, by the conjectured wall underlying Stratum I W106. The courtyard’s uneven
bedrock surface sloped down from northeast to southwest, and was marked with several
shallow cuts that would have directed run-off water into a small cistern (L150) located in
the courtyard (Fig. 14; Plan 1: Sections 2–2, 3–3). A small cupmark hollow located north of
the cistern at a slightly higher elevation may have trapped dirt or may have been intended
to hold a water jar. Cistern 150 was a small, wide, bell-shaped rock-hewn cistern with a
narrow tallish neck and a circular opening with a stepped rim for a lid (1.8 m deep; neck
0.3 m high, diam. of opening 0.4 m). The absence of plaster coating the cistern walls may
be due to erosion from constant water seepage. The cistern was found packed almost to the
brim with an intentional fill that we removed with extreme difficulty due to the narrow neck
(Fig. 15). The fill comprised earth, chalky stone chips from stone-working and hundreds of
smashed pottery sherds, almost all from the Early Roman period, apart from a few residual
late Hellenistic and even fewer Iron Age sherds (weight of all sherds from Cistern 150,
including L131—16.4 kg), and in addition, a soft chalk vessel fragment and a sheep/cattle
bone (see Marom, this volume). The pottery in the fill indicates that the cistern ceased to
function for water storage around the end of the Early Roman period.
In the southern part of Courtyard 125, a roughly rectangular cavity (L126) was
haphazardly hewn out of the courtyard bedrock surface, carving out deeper the northern
rock-hewn face of W105 (L126; 0.8 m deep; Plan 1: Section 2–2; Figs. 13, 16). Hewn into
its uneven floor was a deep, narrow, rock-hewn pit with a circular opening, still lidded with
a matching circular stone slab, and its interior hewn with a steep step to facilitate descent
(L132; 1.4 m depth down to step, 2 m max. depth; Fig. 17). Pit 132 contained a very small

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 39

Fig. 13. Courtyard 125, general view to the south, during the intermediate stage
of the excavation (c. 100 sq m), under rainwater.

Fig. 14. Stratum II Cistern 150 and the Fig. 15. Stratum II, the narrow opening and
cupmark in Courtyard 125, looking west. the stepped rim of Cistern 150, looking west.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 16. Stratum II Courtyard 125, rectangular rock-hewn hollow (L126)

covering lidded Pit 132, looking west.

quantity of light brown soil that had seeped in, with some chalky limestone chips and a
few Early Roman sherds. On the eastern side of the rectangular cavity there were signs of
some rough but discontinued rock-hewing (L130). A few stone floor slabs lay at the original
courtyard level at the eastern and western ends of the rectangular cavity (L127; Fig. 16).
These slabs may have been part of a floor that covered over the rectangular cavity, possibly
concealing it from view. The thin accumulation layer on the courtyard’s bedrock floor and
in the rectangular cavity (L120/L125/L126) produced a few sherds of Early Roman-period
date.
The above evidence points to three consecutive phases in Courtyard 125. It seems
that the bedrock surface of the courtyard originally sloped down gradually to W105. It is
probable that only at the second stage, the rectangular cavity (L126) and Pit 132 within it,
were haphazardly hewn out. The cavity and the pit were intentionally covered with some
stone slabs, or possibly some wooden planks, thus concealing the pit. In the third and final
stage, the rectangular cavity overlying the lidded empty pit was filled with earth.

Room 135.— This room (estimated dimensions 4.5 × 3.5 m) was delimited on the south
by W105, on the east by a conjectured wall (underlying Stratum I W106), and on the north
by W129 (Plan 1: Section 3–3; Fig. 18). The western wall comprised the northern part of
the still-standing Stratum III W156 and new W155, later built over by Stratum I W133. A
simple entrance was installed between these walls (W156, W155) that may have been the
main entrance into the house (Fig. 4). Room 135 had a thin cream-colored, crushed chalk
floor that ran up to the walls along the eastern side of the room (L135; Plan 1: Section 3–3;
Fig. 19). On its western side, this floor was cut by modern concrete foundations earthworks.
Room 135 produced a few late Hellenistic and Early Roman sherds. North of W129, a

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 41

Fig. 17. Stratum II, the circular opening of Pit 132,

showing its rock-cut step and lower bedrock floor.

Fig. 18. Stratum II W129 incorporated within Stratum I

W106 and intersected by the concrete foundation, looking east.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 19. Stratum II Room 135, the extant narrow strip of the Stratum II crushed
chalk floor (also designated L135), looking north.

Fig. 20. Stratum II W115 incorporating two upstanding slabs and the
bedrock-layer corner with W105, looking east.

small niche (L134), partially hewn into the bedrock and partially lined with some large
fieldstones, may have been a wall cupboard accessed from Room 135 (Fig. 18).

Room 153 and the Underground Pit Complex.— This small, semi-basement room (3.5 ×
3.0 m), housed a small built passage or corridor, beneath which is a complex of subterranean

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 43

Fig. 21. Stratum II, the short, walled corridor in Room 153,
roofed with stone slabs, looking south.

pits or silos (Plan 1: Sections 1–1, 4–4; Fig. 8). The room was bordered on the north by
W105, on the west by reused Stratum III W156 and on the south by W108. The eastern
wall (W115) was narrower (0.45 m wide) than the other walls, and it had a minimal
rock-hewn base (c. 0.1 m high) that formed a continuum with the bedrock bases of the
adjoining walls (W105, W108). The poorly preserved superstructure of W115 consisted of
three worn, smallish upstanding ashlar blocks, spaced along the wall 0.6–0.9 m apart, and
small fieldstones filling the intervening spaces (Fig. 20). This ‘pier-and-rubble’ technic is
characteristic of Phoenician sites in the Hellenistic period, and is unusual in lower Galilee.
Inside Room 153, a short narrow passage (L158; c. 1.5 m long, 0.7 m wide) was walled
on both sides by large, upstanding ashlar stone slabs (W160, W161; largest slab: 0.90 ×
0.25 × 0.80 m) set on a few small stones leveling out the sloping bedrock (Fig. 21). The
northern end of the passage abutted W105. Its southern end was blocked with a large upright
stone slab visible in the southern section of the excavation, where it was overlain by a
single extant stone roofing slab. Therefore, the short low passage was originally roofed
over. Passage 158 was found intentionally blocked with fieldstones and earth. The filling
contained many Early Roman pottery sherds, including a Herodian knife-pared lamp and
a single coin of Emperor Claudius (50/51 CE; see below) that was found on the bedrock
floor. In effect, this was part of a short, roofed passageway concealing the access to the
underground pit complex, and its continuation and entrance must have originally been from
the southern, stone-blocked side that was inaccessible at the time of the excavation.
A circular opening with a worn, stepped rim (diam. 0.5 m) was cut in the sloping-down
bedrock floor of Passage 158 (Fig. 22). It led down into a bell-shaped, rock-hewn pit that
was found intentionally packed with a fill (L168). The fill in Pit 168 was removed, revealing

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 22. Stratum II, the interior of Pit 168, Fig. 23. Stratum II, view from Pit 174 up into
once emptied, viewed from Room 153; Pit 173 and Pit 168.
note the slab covering the entrance into the
second pit.

Fig. 24. Stratum II, the rough chisel marks in the

lowest Pit 174.

another circular opening with a stepped rim (diam. 0.4 m) cut into its floor, partially covered
by a large, roughly rectangular stone slab that led down into a second bell-shaped pit (L173).
Pit 173 (1.6 m deep) contained only a small amount of fill that had seeped in from the pit
above, and once this fill was removed, a third circular opening hermetically covered by
a circular stone slab, was exposed in its floor, leading down into a third bell-shaped pit
(L174; Plan 1: Sections 1–1, 4–4; Fig. 23). Pit 174 (1.8 m deep) was empty and its floor also

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 45

exhibited the initial, but discontinued, hewing-out of another circular contour. A noteworthy
detail is that the circular openings of the three pits were placed slightly offside and not
directly beneath one another, enabling the difficult descent into the pits without the danger
of falling right down into the pit below. The pits’ walls were hewn with a 20 mm wide
chisel. It was observed that the walls of the upper pit were more carefully hewn than those
of the two lower pits (Fig. 24). A small niche cut in the wall of each of the two lower pits
was probably a ledge for an oil lamp.
The large quantity of intentional fill in Pit 168 and the small quantity that had seeped into
Pit 173 consisted of earth, stones, limestone chip waste from stone-working and enormous
quantities of sherds. The pottery overwhelmingly comprised Early Roman as well as some
residual Hellenistic sherds, and a few Iron Age sherds (the sherds from Pit 168, including
L171, weighed a total of 44.9 kg!). In addition, there were a couple of small fragments of
basalt Olynthus millstones (not illustrated) and grinding bowls (Fig. 37), four fragments of
soft chalk vessels, a few animal bones identified as sheep/goat, cattle, chicken and donkey
(see Marom, this volume), a small glass lump (see below) and some charcoal traces.

Room 117.— This small space or room is located between Rooms 153 and Room 112,
delimited by four walls (W108, W111, W105, W115). This space was entirely built over
and obscured by Stratum I W106/106A and the tiny bedrock floor area exposed here (L117)
exhibited only a few late Hellenistic sherds.
In the narrow strip excavated to the south of W108, the bedrock surface was exposed at
an elevation about 1 m higher than the bedrock surface to the north of this wall in Room 112.
The fragmentary remains of a thin, cream-colored, crushed chalk floor (L103, including its
chalky makeup layer L116) were uncovered here. The higher elevation of the bedrock and
the overlying chalk floor (Floor 103) supports the understanding that the row of Rooms 112,
117 and 153 were semi-basement rooms that must have had overlying ground-floor rooms
via which they were accessed. Although Floor 103 was badly damaged by the modern
earthworks, leaving only a narrow strip of the floor at the southern edge of the excavation
(Plan 1: Section 1–1; Fig. 25), it was observed that the crushed chalk floor ran up to the
top extant course of W108. Floor 103 and its underlying makeup on the bedrock (L116)
produced a fragment of a loaf-shaped, basalt grinding stone (Fig. 37:1) and a few Early
Roman pottery sherds.

Summary of Stratum II
The house yielded small quantities of late Hellenistic and Early Roman pottery. The large
quantities of Early Roman pottery came from the fills blocking up Cistern 150, Pits 168
and 173 and overlying Passage 158. The pottery in these fills comprises the typical range of
‘Lower Galilean Early Roman household wares’. In addition, the fills contained a few chalk
vessel fragments, a few glass shards, a few basalt grinding stone fragments and a few animal
bones, as well as a few residual late Hellenistic and Iron Age sherds. Our understanding is
that the large quantities of pottery sherds and the fragments of the other items, which were

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 25. Stratum II Floor 103 and W108, looking south.

found in the pits, constitute the household wares of the Stratum II house. At some specific
point in time, the vessels were collected and intentionally disposed of in the pits, entirely
blocking them up. The contemporaneous pottery in the fill in the pits and in the rooms
suggests that the pits were filled in about the same time as the house was abandoned.
Notwithstanding the small scale of the excavation and the fragmentary nature of the
remains, the architectural evidence led to the understanding that a simple house comprising
small rooms and an inner courtyard was inhabited in the late Hellenistic and the Early
Roman periods. The soft Nazareth rock slope on which the house was built, was hewn out
to form semi-basement rooms, rock foundation courses of the stone walls, and underground
lidded pits that were accessed from the interior of the house. These hollowed-out pits may
have served as cisterns, silos and underground hideouts.

Stratum I: The Crusader to Mamluk Periods (Plan 2)

A wide north–south wall (W106/106A) was built directly overlying the Stratum II crushed
chalk floor (L135) on the bedrock, incorporating and overriding two of the Stratum II
walls (W129, W105), its southern end abutting the southern Stratum II wall (W108; Plan
1: Sections 1–1, 2–2, 3–3; Fig. 13). Wall 106 (9.9 m long, 1.6–1.9 m wide, 0.4–0.6 m high
with two to three extant courses) comprised two separate segments (W106 and W106A)
divided by a narrow space (L114) that may have been created to allow water drainage
(Fig. 26). Additional elements, namely a single row of three ashlar stone slabs (designated
W111C, possibly Stratum II stones in secondary use), a wall built of large fieldstones
abutting Stratum II W149 (W110; Fig. 11), and an adjoining jumble of fieldstone collapse
(designated W148), were also contemporaneous. An additional wall (W133) ran parallel to
the west of W106/106A, overlying the extant courses of Stratum II W155 (Fig. 9).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 47

Plan 2. Stratum I (for sections, see Plan 1).

Above the Stratum II accumulation layer, a small quadrangular installation, flimsily built
of a single row of upstanding stone slabs (L151; Fig. 27), stood leaning against the top
course of the still-standing Stratum III W156. A couple of basalt grinding bowl fragments
and a few Crusader and mostly Mamluk sherds were found within the installation (L151,
L146, L152). Crusader and mostly Mamluk sherds were also found in the dark brown
earth accumulation loci associated with W110 (L104, L141, L143, L144, L147) and with
W133 (L145), as well as in the overlying surface loci. A hammered brass sheet open lamp
was found with the Mamluk pottery in the fill (L145). The many animal bones found in a
few Stratum I loci comprised predominantly sheep and goat, but also cattle, pig, donkey,
equid, dog, chicken, cat and camel (L104, L144, L145, L147; see Marom, this volume).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
48 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 26. Stratum I W106 and W106A divided by a narrow space,

looking west; see also Fig. 12.

Fig. 27. Stratum I, installation L151, built against Stratum III W156,
looking east.

The Stratum I accumulation debris was easily distinguishable in the excavation by its darker
brown color and its looser, and more organic, consistency than the lighter brown, more
packed, drier consistency of the Stratum II layers.
The wide Stratum I walls did not form a coherent structure, but may have been the
foundations of a large, possibly vaulted building. A plaster floor (no locus number, elevation
351.00 m asl) and the base course of a wall overlying it, observed in the upper part of the
southern section cut by the mechanical earthworks prior to the excavation, may have been
the superstructures contemporary with these walls (Plan 1: Section 1–1; Fig. 25).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 49

The Pottery

About 880 pottery rim sherds were retrieved in the excavation, dating to Iron Age II and
the late Hellenistic, Early Roman, early Byzantine, Crusader and Mamluk periods. The Iron
II pottery was mainly on the bedrock adjacent to Stratum III W156. The Hellenistic and
Early Roman pottery originated mostly from the elements of the Stratum II building. The
few Crusader and more plentiful Mamluk sherds appeared in the accumulations associated
with the Stratum I walls. The scant early Byzantine sherds appeared mostly in the Stratum I
accumulation layers but were not associated with architectural remains. The excavation did
not yield loci with restorable pottery or entirely clean assemblages; the pottery assemblages
often included intrusive or residual sherds. However, the pottery repertoires in the loci were
sufficiently clear to date those loci to the specific periods. Parallels from selected sites are
cited in the pottery description tables for the pottery of all the periods.

The Iron Age (Fig. 28)

The Iron Age sherds (56 rim sherds) came mostly from the thin accumulation layer loci on
the bedrock next to Stratum III W156 (30 rims). A few residual Iron Age sherds (15 rims)
appeared among the large quantities of Early Roman pottery in Cistern 150 and Pit 168. A
few others (11 rims) were found in Stratum I and in surface loci. Despite the small quantity
of sherds and limited vessel forms present, it is evident that the pottery comprises vessels that
are characteristic of the tenth to mid-eighth centuries BCE (Iron IIA–B) repertoires from the
major tell sites in northern Israel, e.g., Bet Sheʼan, Ḥaẓor, Megiddo, Ta‘anakh and Yoqne‘am.
Smaller assemblages of similar Iron IIA–B pottery have also been uncovered at the Iron II
sites excavated within the Nazareth hill range (Fig. 1), e.g., at Ḥorbat Malṭa (Covello-Paran
2008:32–46), Tel Gat-Ḥefer (Alexandre, Covello-Paran and Gal 2003:159–164) and Karm
er-Ras, next to Kafr Kanna (Alexandre, in prep.).4 At Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit, 21 km northwest of
Nazareth, a rich Iron IIA stratified pottery repertoire was uncovered in a storage fort, and a
smaller Iron IIB repertoire was retrieved from slightly later buildings in the village in adjacent
Areas A and B (Gal and Alexandre 2000). Therefore, it seems that the Iron Age pottery from
Nazareth exhibits a similar material culture to that predominant throughout northern Israel.

Bowls
Carinated Bowl.— The bowl fragment has a thickened, slightly inturned rim and an orangey
slip (Fig. 28:1). It was probably the upper part of a carinated bowl, the most common Iron

4
At Karm er-Ras, a low hill adjacent to Kafr Kanna, 25 small salvage excavations have been carried out,
exposing significant settlement remains from Iron II and the Persian, Hellenistic, late Hellenistic, Roman and
Byzantine periods (Alexandre 2015; in prep.). Remains of a walled settlement dated to Iron II were exposed.
In the Roman period, remains were exposed of a Jewish village with parts of houses, ritual baths (miqva’ot),
underground hideouts, local Galilean pottery and chalk vessels.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
50 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 28. Stratum III, Iron Age pottery.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 51

Fig. 28

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels

1 Bowl 170 1156/1 Fairly well-levigated light brown Gal and Alexandre 2000:34–
clay, matt orangey slip on int., 35, 167: Type B I
lighter orange on ext.
2 Bowl/plate 170 1156/2 Light brown clay, matt red-slipped Gal and Alexandre 2000:38,
int. 169: Type B VI
3 Bowl 164 1139/1 Black-on-Red ware, concentric Gal and Alexandre 2000:71–
bands and circles 73: Type BOR Ia
4 Large bowl 172 1166/1 Soft biscuit ware, irregular red slip Gal and Alexandre 2000:36:
on int. and ext. Type B II variation
5 Krater 172 1170/2 Gray core, matt red-slipped int. and Gal and Alexandre 2000:40,
on rim ext. 157, 170: Types K II, K III
6 Cooking pot 172 1170/1 Dark red cooking ware, gray core Gal and Alexandre
2000:40–42: Type CP I
7 Cooking pot 141 1081/1 Gray (burned) cooking ware, black As No. 6
core
8 Cooking pot 125 1037/2 Dark red cooking ware, gray core, Gal and Alexandre 2000:43,
gray from burning 157–158: Type CP III
9 Cooking pot 165 1141/1 Dark red cooking ware, gray core As No. 8
10 Cooking pot 170 1164/1 Dark red cooking ware, gray core As No. 8
11 Jug 167 1148 Orangey, white grits Gal and Alexandre 2000:56:
Type J 1c

IIA–B bowl form. A shallow plate with straight sides and a red-slipped interior continuing
over the rim (Fig. 28:2) is a characteristic Iron IIB form.

Black-on-Red Bowl (Fig. 28:3).— The ring base of a large Black-on-Red bowl is like the
many Cypriot Black-on-Red bowls uncovered in the Iron IIA storage fort at Ḥorbat Rosh
Zayit.

Kraters
A large closed bowl or krater, made of a light-colored, soft clay and entirely covered with an
irregular matt red slip (Fig. 28:4). This is an unusual krater form. Its fabric and finish comply
well with the soft, biscuit-like fabric of a red-slipped ring base carinated bowl uncovered in
the Iron IIA fort at Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit. A krater with a thickened curved triangular rim and a
red-slipped interior continuing over the rim (Fig. 28:5) is a more characteristic Iron IIA–B
krater form, the rims becoming more triangular in profile in Iron IIB.

Cooking Pots
Cooking pots were the most common vessels in the Nazareth assemblage; both the
triangular rim (Fig. 28:6, 7) and the ridge rim (Fig. 28:8–10) forms were present. The

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
52 Yardenna Alexandre

triangular rim cooking pots are characteristic of Iron IIA and the ridged rim cooking pots
appear in Iron IIB.

Jugs (Fig. 28:11)

A single small jug sherd with a narrow neck and a ridged rim. It bears some similarity to
jugs from Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit.

The Hellenistic Period (Fig. 29)

The Hellenistic pottery (119 rim sherds) was uncovered in various contexts. Some residual
Hellenistic sherds were retrieved from Stratum I accumulation layers and in surface loci
(33 rims), and several appeared with the predominantly Early Roman pottery in the Stratum
II pits (28 rims). In Room 112 in the Stratum II house, the thin accumulation layer on the
bedrock (L109, L112) produced only Hellenistic sherds (13 rims). In the thin accumulations
in Rooms 135 and 153, and in Courtyard 125, Hellenistic sherds (45 rims) were retrieved
together with Early Roman sherds. The Hellenistic pottery, mostly found together with the
more plentiful Early Roman pottery, led to the understanding that the Stratum II house was
built in the late Hellenistic period and that it continued to be occupied continuously in the
Early Roman period.
The Hellenistic pottery repertoire comprised predominantly storage jars, with a few
cooking vessels, a mortarium bowl, a jug and a single fine-ware bowl. While some of the
vessel types appear at other sites in the earlier part of the second century BCE, most of
the vessel types point to a date in the late Hellenistic period, in the later part of the second
century BCE.
Few Hellenistic repertoires have been published from the Lower Galilee. Parallels to
the Nazareth vessels are found in the well-stratified rich pottery repertoires from the coastal
city of Tel Dor (Guz-Zilberstein 1995, including classification into types and discussion), as
well as from Yoqne‘am (Avissar 1996), and from Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim, a small site located
19 km west of Nazareth, where Hellenistic-period vessels found in Cistern G/R were dated
to the mid-second century BCE (Młynarczyk 2009; see Fig. 1). Some references are made
to the pottery from Gamla in the central Golan, where additional parallels are found, and
where the late Hellenistic jar forms have been shown to reflect Judean influences (cf. Berlin
2006).

Bowl (Fig. 29:1).— The ring base of a bowl with a central ‘omphalos’ depression made of
a well-levigated light brown fabric with a worn red slip on the interior is a shallow bowl
or plate, designated as a fish plate. Such plates were common at Dor, where they are dated
from the mid-third to the early first century BCE. Fish plates with omphalos bases and
drooping rims, found at Yoqne‘am and at Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim, are dated to the second
century BCE.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 53

Fig. 29. Stratum II, late Hellenistic pottery.

Mortarium (Fig. 29:2).— The mortarium bowl has a rolled rim made of a buff gritty ware.
Mortaria are found in Persian and Hellenistic contexts, as at Dor and Yoqne‘am, where they
appear as late as the early second century BCE.

Cooking Pots.— A rounded-body casserole (Fig. 29:3) with vertical strap handles, a short
straight neck and an outflaring-concave lip (used for holding a lid), is a typical form of
second-century BCE open cooking pots found at Dor. A globular cooking pot with a vertical
neck and flattened ledged-out rim (Fig. 29:4) is a characteristic contemporaneous closed
cooking pot form.

Storage Jars (Fig. 29:5–13).— The storage jars comprise several different jar types that
reflect a chronological development in the forms and wares. A single jar with a rounded rim,
no neck and a short, slightly sloping shoulder, made of semi-fine ware (Fig. 29:5) is like the
straight, short-shoulder ridged jars at Dor, attributed to the second century BCE. Several
whitish-buff bag-shaped jars with short necks and thickened rounded or slightly triangular-
shaped rims (Fig. 29:6, 7) are a common type at Dor (‘Buff-Ware Bag-Shaped Jars with

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
54 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 29

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels/Types

1 Bowl/plate 112 1014/3 Shallow bowl with ompholos Guz-Zilberstein 1995:292–293, Fig.
base, fine light brown, worn 6.3:22–27, Type BL 4d
matt red-slipped int. Avissar 1996: Fig. X.I:12–17 M
Młynarczyk 2009:102, Fig. 4:9–11
2 Mortarium 112 1014/1 Buff gritty ware Guz-Zilberstein 1995:295, Fig. 6.9:1–
bowl 7, Type BL 14
Avissar 1996: Fig. X.2:4, 5
3 Open 117 1025/1 Dark red cooking ware, gray Guz-Zilberstein 1995:299, Fig.
cooking pot ext. 6.20:7–9, Type CP 5
Avissar 1996: Fig. X.4:3
Mlynarczyk 2009:101, Fig. 3:9
4 Cooking pot 112 1014/5 Dark red cooking ware, gray Guz-Zilberstein 1995:298, Fig.
ext., blackened from burning 6.17:10, Type CP 2
Avissar 1996: Fig. X.3
Młynarczyk 2009:101, Fig. 3:5, 6
5 Storage jar 113 1021/1 Light orangey brown, semi- Guz-Zilberstein 1995:312, Fig.
fine ware 6.38:1, 4, Type JR 3b
6 Storage jar 159 1120/2 Whitish buff, squared Guz-Zilberstein 1995:311, Figs. 6.35,
thickened rim 6.36, Type JR 1a–b
Avissar 1996: Fig. X.6:1 (light
reddish brown clay)
Młynarczyk 2009:99, Fig. 2:1–3
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.1:5–7
7 Storage jar 112 1014/2 Whitish buff, rounded As No. 6
thickened rim
8 Storage jar 113 1021/2 Light reddish brown, tapering Guz-Zilberstein 1995:311, Figs.
thickened rim 6.37:1, 2, Type JR 1c
Berlin 2006:48, Figs. 2.22, 2.23,
‘Large jars with rounded rims’
9 Storage jar 158 1128/4 Reddish As No. 8
10 Storage jar 159 1120/1 Light reddish brown, tapering As No. 8
thickened rim
11 Storage jar 112 1014/4 Light reddish brown
12 Storage jar 130 1044 Light brown fabric Berlin 2006:48, Figs. 2.24, 2.25
13 Storage jar 157 1187 Light brown fabric As No. 12
14 Jug 159 1120/3 Whitish buff Guz-Zilberstein 1995:308, Fig. 6.30,
Type JG 11
Avissar 1996: Fig. X.7:4

Outturned Thickened Rims’), where they are dated to the third and second centuries BCE.
Similar jars dated to the second century BCE were found at Yoqne‘am and Sha‘ar Ha-
‘Amaqim, as well as near the spring at Nazareth.
Most of the storage jars in the assemblage were bag-shaped, with short necks and
thickened everted rims that tapered toward the lip (Fig. 29:8–10). These jars differed from

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 55

the buff-ware jars with thickened rims in two main features: the rims were more tapered, and
they were manufactured of a light reddish brown or occasionally a reddish ware. These jars,
less common at Dor, are dated tentatively between 125–63 BCE. At Gamla, in the central
Golan Heights, many similar jars with either tapered rims or more rounded rims, appear
both in a buff and in a brown fabric, and are dated between the late second and the late first
century BCE. The brown fabric is identified there as manufactured at Shiḥin, near Ẓippori
in the Lower Galilee. The light reddish brown ware of the Nazareth jars was probably of
local Lower Galilean manufacture, although it was not analyzed petrographically. A single
example of a light reddish brown-fabric jar with a taller neck and a thickened rim was found
(Fig. 29:11).
A few bag-shaped jars exhibited an everted, or squared, rim jutting out from the neck, and
were made of a light brown fabric (Fig. 29:12, 13). This rim form became the characteristic
jar form in the first century CE (see Fig. 31:1, 2), but the thicker-walled rims and necks are
the earliest examples of this jar type, and probably first appeared in the early first century
BCE.5 A similar observation was made regarding the late Hellenistic jars at Karm er-Ras
(Alexandre, in prep.). Storage jars with a variety of squared rims are common at Gamla,
where they date from the early first century BCE to 67 CE.
The few Hellenistic-period, bag-shaped storage jars uncovered in the excavation exhibit
several different forms that reflect a chronological sequence. The same development was
observed at the site of Karm er-Ras next to Kafr Kanna, and at other Lower Galilean sites
(Alexandre, in prep.). The earlier jars are buff ware, thick-walled jars with thickened rims
that continue the Persian and the Early Hellenistic storage-jar tradition (Fig. 29:6, 7). During
the second century BCE, the buff-ware jars are superseded by jars with thinner walls and
more tapered rims that are now manufactured in a softer, light brown or reddish brown
ware (Fig. 29:8–10). Subsequently, in the early first century BCE, the jars continue to be
manufactured in the light brown ware, and the tapered rim is replaced by a squared rim (Fig.
29:12, 13). The squared-rim jar develops smoothly into the thinner-walled squared-rim jar
that was the characteristic Lower Galilean jar in the Early Roman period (Díez Fernández
1983: Type T1.3; see below). While the buff fabric jar with the thickened rounded neck
is similar to the jars from Dor, the light brown fabric jar with the more tapered rim shows
an affinity to contemporary Judean jar forms, for example from the Hasmonean palace at
Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002:22, Pl. 3:12, 16, 17) and from the Jewish Quarter excavations in
Jerusalem (Geva 2003:122–123, Types SJ 2a and 2b, Fig. 5.1). The squared-rim jar is also
similar to Judean forms (Bar-Nathan 2002:28–29, Pl. 3:18–20; Geva 2003:123–124, Fig.
5.1: Type SJ 3a). The Judean influence in the first century BCE jar forms was observed
at Gamla, where it was interpreted as reflecting the emigration of Jews from Judea to the
Galilee and the Golan (Berlin 2006:48, nn. 23, 24, 143). The late Hellenistic pottery forms

5
Unfortunately, the rim thickness is hardly distinguishable in the figures.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 Yardenna Alexandre

from Nazareth and from other sites in the Lower Galilee also support the Judean affiliations
(Alexandre, in prep.).

Jug (Fig. 29:14).— A single rim sherd of a whitish buff fabric, wide-necked globular jug,
has parallels at Yoqne‘am and at Dor, where it is noted that this jug form is the continuation
of a local Persian tradition.

The Roman Period (Figs. 30–32)

Roman-period pottery was the most abundant in the excavation, totaling about 528 rim
sherds, of which some were residual, appearing in Stratum I and in surface loci (48 rims).
The thin accumulation layers in most of the Stratum II rooms exhibited small Early Roman
sherds (63 rims) together with some small late Hellenistic sherds (see above), but no
restorable vessels or partial vessels. The clear majority of the Roman pottery came from
the fills in the underground cavities (Table 1): Cistern 150—96 rims, Pit 168—232 rims,
and Pit 173—37 rims; as well as in Corridor 158—47 rims. The pottery illustrated in the
figures originated predominantly from the pits, where the assemblage offered a wider range
and the sherds were larger than those on the floors. The impression obtained is that the
pottery that was found in the pits originated in the house and is representative of the Early
Roman-period occupation layer. The pottery is typical of the Galilean repertoire, comprising
predominantly casseroles, cooking pots and storage jars, with a few kraters, jugs, juglets,
bowls, lids and lamps. This composition is characteristic of domestic dwellings.
The cooking-ware vessels are almost all forms that were manufactured at the Kefar Ḥananya
potteries, located about 27 km to the north of Nazareth, and are classified here according to
the well-established Galilean pottery classification (Adan-Bayewitz 1993). Most of the non-
cooking-ware vessels, specifically the kraters, jars and jugs, are forms that were manufactured at
the Shiḥin potteries, located next to Ẓippori, about 5 km northwest of Nazareth (see Fig. 1), and

Table 1. Early Roman Pottery Forms from the Stratum II Pits

Pottery Bowl Krater Cooking Pot Storage Jar Juglet, Other Total
Typei KH Shiḥin KH KH KH KH Díez Fernández Díez Fernández Jug
Form Form Form Form Form Type T1.3 Type T1.5
Pit No. 1B 3A 3B 4A 4B
150 3 6 2 21 25 5 26 4 4 96
168 5 14 26 45 3 34 5 80 16 4 232
173 2 1 7 5 6 1 13 1 1 37
132 1 2 2 5
Total 8 22 30 73 10 65 13 119 21 9 370
i
KH = Kefar Ḥananya.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 57

are defined according to Díez Fernández’ Galilean typology (Díez Fernández 1983). Illustrated
within Díez Fernández 1983:28–29 are examples of several similar vessels from Bagatti’s 1950s
excavations at Nazareth. Additional parallels were from Ẓippori (Sepphoris), located 4 km to
the northwest of Nazareth (Fig. 1), which exhibits a closely similar Early Roman repertoire
(Balouka 2013). In absolute chronological terms, the pottery with a chronological range from
c. 63 BCE to c. 135 CE is defined here as Early Roman, the pottery from c. 135 CE to c. 250
CE—as Middle Roman, and the pottery from c. 250 CE to c. 360 CE—as Late Roman. At
Ẓippori (Balouka 2013:18), the Early Roman pottery was divided into two subperiods: ‘Early
Roman 1’ (1–70 CE) and ‘Early Roman 2’ (70–135 CE).
The pottery was not subjected to a systematic petrographical analysis. However, a
microscopic examination (× 40) by Anastasia Shapiro of a few cooking-ware sherds
indicated that these were probably manufactured at the Kefar Ḥananya potteries.
The fairly well-established chronological ranges of the cooking ware and storage-jar
types, as well as the absence of types with later chronological ranges, indicate a date range
for the pottery assemblage in Pits 150, 168 and 173—from the late first century BCE to the
mid-second century CE. Pit 132 was not filled-in; it yielded only five vessels rims that must
have seeped into the pit, and that are more characteristic of the first century CE than of the
second century CE.

Bowl (Fig. 30:1).— A single, very thin-walled bowl or cup with an outturned rim has
parallels in the delicate-ware bowls at Ẓippori, where they are attributed to the ‘Early
Roman I’ period (until 70 CE). Some similar delicate bowls were found at Karm er-Ras
(Alexandre, in prep.).

Cooking Ware Bowl (Fig. 30:2).— The few open bowls, all charred from use, were Kefar
Ḥananya Form KH 1B cooking ware bowls, a bowl used for a lengthy period of time, dated
from the late first or early second to the mid-fourth century CE. At Ẓippori, these bowls
appear in ‘Early Roman II’ contexts (70–135 CE). They were common in the second to third
centuries CE.

Kraters (Fig. 30:3, 4).— There were several kraters of this type manufactured at Shiḥin.
Their form develops over the course of the Roman period, and the Nazareth kraters comply
with the krater form common at Ẓippori, dated to the late first and the second centuries CE.
These kraters are also common at Karm er-Ras (Alexandre, in prep.).

Open Cooking Pots or Casseroles (Fig. 30:5–15).— Two casseroles that were not Kefar
Ḥananya forms had a V-shape carination on the walls and a short ledge-rim (Fig. 30:5, 6).
Similar casseroles came from Ḥorbat ‘Aqav in the southern Carmel, as well as from several
Judean sites, where they are dated to the first and second centuries CE. A single example of
a horizontal handle that came from a shallow casserole with two small horizontal handles
(Fig. 30:7) is a casserole form that was rare at Ẓippori. A similar casserole was found at

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
58 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 30. Stratum II, Early Roman-period bowls and cooking pots.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 59

Fig. 30

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels, Types

1 Bowl 126 1041/1 Delicate closed bowl Balouka 2013: Pl. 7:8
2 Bowl 150 1111/3 Reddish cooking ware Adan-Bayewitz 1993:91–97, Form KH 1B
Balouka 2013:32–33
3 Krater 168 1158/2 Shiḥin Ware Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992:196, Fig.
5:1
Díez Fernández 1983:131, 177, Type 21.2
Balouka 2013:46, Pl. 12:7, 8, Type KR 1
4 Krater 131 1047/1 Shiḥin Ware As No. 3
5 Casserole 168 1155/2 Dark red, thin Calderon 2000:95, Pl. III:46, 4753, Casserole
Type 1A
6 Casserole 168 1158/3 Dark red cooking ware, As No. 5
charred
7 Casserole 101 1001/1 Dark red cooking ware, Calderon 2000:95–97, Pl. III:53, Casserole
charred Type 3
Balouka 2013:30, Type OCP7a
8 Open 126 1041 Dark red cooking ware, Adan-Bayewitz 1993:111–119, Form KH 3A
cooking pot charred Díez Fernández 1983:124–125, 164, Type
14.1
9 Open 168 1146/2 Dark red cooking ware, As No. 8
cooking pot charred
10 Open 134 1058/2 Dark red cooking ware Adan-Bayewitz 1993:119–124, Form KH 3B
cooking pot Díez Fernández 1983:125, 165: Type 14.2
11 Open 158 1130/2 Dark red cooking ware As No. 10
cooking pot
12 Open 150 1099/1 Dark red cooking ware As No. 10
cooking pot
13 Open 168 1158/1 Dark red cooking ware As No. 10
cooking pot
14 Open 120 1030/2 Dark red cooking ware As No. 10
cooking pot
15 Open 103 1004/1 Dark red cooking ware As No. 10
cooking pot
16 Cooking pot 158 1128/2 Dark red cooking ware Adan-Bayewitz 1993:124–125, Form KH 4A
Díez Fernández 1983:119–120, 154, Type
10.5
17 Cooking pot 173 1171/1 Dark red cooking ware As No. 16
18 Cooking pot 150 1111/1 Dark red cooking ware Adan-Bayewitz 1993:126–128, Form KH 4B
Díez Fernández 1983:120, 155, Type 10.6a
19 Cooking pot 168 1158/2 Dark red cooking ware As No. 18
20 Cooking pot 158 1128/1 Dark red cooking ware As No. 18

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
60 Yardenna Alexandre

Ḥorbat ‘Aqav, where the vessel is dated from the late first to the early second century CE.
Additional Judean examples are cited.6
The many other open cooking pots are the two characteristic Kefar Ḥananya casserole
forms. The rounded-profile casserole (Fig. 30:8, 9), classified as Form KH 3A with a
date range from the mid-first century BCE to the mid-second century CE, is the type less
common in the Nazareth house. The more common, carinated-profile casserole (Fig. 30:10–
15), classified as Form KH 3B, has a date range from the early second to the late fourth
century CE. Both these open cooking pot forms were also found in Bagatti’s excavations in
Nazareth. The long duration of Form KH 3B renders it less useful for defining the end of the
occupation in the Nazareth house.

Cooking Pots (Fig. 30:16–20).— The closed cooking pots are all Kefar Ḥananya forms,
consisting of Forms KH 4A (Fig. 30:16, 17), dated from the mid-first century BCE to the
mid-second century CE, and the far more common Form KH 4B (Fig. 30:18–20), dated
from the mid-first to the mid-second century CE. Cooking pots of both these forms were
found in Bagatti’s Nazareth excavations. The absence of the later Kefar Ḥananya cooking-
pot Forms KH 4C and KH 4D, supports the abandonment of the Nazareth house by the
mid-second century CE.7

Storage Jars (Fig. 31:1–10).— Almost all the storage jars can be classified into two jar
types. A few are light brown or reddish brown ware jars with everted squared rims and a
depression or ridge at the base of the neck, exhibiting some variety in the rims (Fig. 31:1,
2). These jars were classified by Díez Fernández as Type T1.3 (1983:107, 135), and are the
Early Roman-period development of the late Hellenistic squared-rim jars. At Ẓippori, the
above-mentioned form is attributed to ‘Early Roman I’ phase, from the late first century
BCE to c. 70 CE.
There was a single storage jar made of a heavier, light yellowish brown ware that must
have been of a different manufacture (Fig. 31:3).
The overwhelming mass of the jars (Fig. 31:4–10) are ridge-neck jars with everted rims
and an interior gutter at the lip, classified by Díez Fernández as Type T1.5 (1983:137).
These T1.5 jars all seem to have been made of a similar reddish brown thin metallic ware
that has been identified as the ware of the Shiḥin potteries (Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder
1992:196, Fig. 5:1). At Ẓippori, the ridge-neck jars are dated from the first to the end of the
third centuries CE. At Karm er-Ras these jars first appear in the latter half of the first century
CE (Alexandre, in prep.). The thinnish walls of most of the Nazareth jars support a date

6
The Judean parallels to this small casserole form raise the possibility that these vessels actually arrived from
Judea.
7
The KH 4C type is considered to appear by the early second century CE (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:128–130).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 61

Fig. 31. Stratum II, Early Roman-period jars and jugs.

early in the range, probably in the early and mid-second century CE, as the jar walls seem
to become thicker over time (Díez Fernández 1983:139, Type T.1.7).

Small Jar (Fig. 31:11).— A single example of a relatively uncommon, thin-walled small jar,
with a fairly narrow neck and a flattened rim, is made of Kefar Ḥananya cooking ware. It is
dated from the early second to the early third century CE. Fairly similar vessels came from
Ẓippori and from Ḥorbat Ḥazon.

Jugs and Juglets (Fig. 31:12–15).— The most common jugs had conical necks and rounded
rims with a ridge beneath the rim (Fig. 31:12, 13), and were probably produced at the Shiḥin
potteries. Two jugs of this type from Bagatti’s 1955 Nazareth excavations are illustrated by
Díez Fernández. At Ẓippori, this jug is considered to appear from the first century BCE to
the early second century CE. The globular ribbed body of a small juglet had a narrow neck
and probably a cup-shaped mouth; it was also made of Shiḥin ware (Fig. 31:14). This vessel

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
62 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 31

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels/Types

1 Storage jar 163 1131/1 Reddish Díez Fernández 1983:107, 135, Type T1.3,
including No. 26 from Nazareth
Balouka 2013:37, Pl. 4, Type SJ I
2 Storage jar 126 1041/2 Light brown As No. 1
3 Storage jar 132 1051/2 Light yellowish
brown
4 Storage jar 125 1037/1 Reddish brown Díez Fernández 1983:107–108, 137, Type T1.5,
including No. 49 from Nazareth
Balouka 2013:37, Pls. 3:10–12; 17:1–10, Type SJ 2
5 Storage jar 134 1058 Reddish, gray As No. 4
core
6 Storage jar 126 1041/2 Reddish brown As No. 4
7 Storage jar 125 1038/1 Reddish brown As No. 4
8 Storage jar 158 1130/1 Reddish brown As No. 4
9 Storage jar 125 1038/2 Grayish brown As No. 4
10 Storage jar 103 1009/1 Reddish brown As No. 4
11 Small jar 150 1112/2 Reddish, thin Bahat 1974: Fig. 4:11
Adan-Bayewitz 1993:135–138, Form KH 5A
Balouka 2013:34, Pl. 8:19– 21
12 Jug 168 1163/2 Reddish brown Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992:196, Fig. 5.3
Díez Fernández 1983:116, 151, Type 9.3
Balouka 2013:42, Pls. 1:25, 26; 6:1–4, Type JG 1
13 Jug 168 1158 Reddish brown As No. 12
14 Juglet 113 1018/1 Reddish brown Balouka 2013:45, Pl. 6:9–13, Type JT1
15 Jug 168 1146/1 Reddish Bahat 1974: Fig. 4:15
Adan-Bayewitz 1993:143–144, Form KH 6B

is dated at Ẓippori from the first to early second century CE. The wide ‘hooked’ rim of a
jug (Fig. 31:15) is made of Kefar Ḥananya cooking ware and is dated to the second–third
centuries CE. A similar jug was found at Ḥorbat Ḥazon.

Unidentified Vessels and Lids (Fig. 32:1–4).— A few out-splaying serrated rims and wide
necks of an unclear vessel form were found (Fig. 32:1–3). Similar rims were found on
unusual-shaped bowl forms at Ẓippori, where they are defined as bowls or lids and are
attributed a chronological range in the second and third centuries CE. The examination of
the ware indicated that they were manufactured at Shiḥin. A single thin-walled rim fragment
is also from an unidentified vessel, possibly a lid or saucer (Fig. 32:4).

Lids (Fig. 32:5, 6).— A small bowl-shaped vessel with an incurved rim and a string-cut base
(Fig. 32:5) is a lid rather than a bowl and is found in Early Roman-period contexts at Ẓippori

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 63

Fig. 32. Stratum II, Early Roman-period unidentified vessels and lids.
No. Vessel Locus Basket Description/Ware Parallels/Types
1 Vessel 150 1107 Reddish brown Balouka 2013:49, Pl. 24:3–10
2 Vessel 150 1110 Reddish brown As No. 1
3 Vessel 168 1157/1 Reddish brown As No. 1
4 Lid? 158 1119/1 Reddish brown, thin
5 Lid 173 1171/2 Reddish brown Balouka 2013:49, Pl. 7:3–7
6 Lid? 159 1120/9 Light brown, coarse production

and at Karm er-Ras (Alexandre, in prep.). A carelessly manufactured thick-walled lid is not
a characteristic Roman-period form (Fig. 32:6).

Lamps (not illustrated).— Four fragments of Early Roman knife-pared lamps were found,
one on the bedrock surface (L164), two in the pit fills (L168, L173) and one in Corridor
158. The small fragment from Pit 168 was part of the bowl of a miniature-sized knife-pared
lamp, possibly with a diameter of 4 cm. These lamps, also known as ‘Herodian lamps’, are
ubiquitous in Early Roman Galilean towns and villages. A chemical analysis of lamps from
many sites has shown that most of the examined lamps from the Jewish settlements in the
Galilee were manufactured near Jerusalem (Adan-Bayewitz et al. 2008).8

8
The lamps were mislaid in storeroom reorganization before they were drawn and photographed.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
64 Yardenna Alexandre

The Early Byzantine Period (Fig. 33)

Only 29 rim sherds were attributed to the early Byzantine period. Since the sherds were
not associated with buildings uncovered in the excavation but came predominantly from
the Stratum I accumulations, this pottery may have come from an adjacent early Byzantine
building, possibly the Byzantine basilical church uncovered in the excavations in the adjacent
Franciscan compound, where similar pottery vessels were retrieved (Bagatti 1969:77–114,
272–298).

Fig. 33. Late Roman and Early Byzantine-period pottery (surface and accumulation loci).
No. Vessel Locus Basket Description/Ware Parallels, Types
1 Bowl 128 1054 Reddish cooking ware Adan-Bayewitz 1993:103–109,
Form KH 1E
2 LRRW bowl 120 1030/1 Fine levigated, red-slipped int. Hayes 1972:372–373, CRS Form 1
and ext. (Hayes’ term: LR’D’W)
3 LRRW bowl 135 1061 Fine levigated, orange-slipped Hayes 1972:328–338, PRS Form 3
int. and ext., black worn band (Hayes’ term: LRC)
on rim
4 LRRW bowl 128 1056 Fine levigated, red-slipped int. Hayes 1972:343–346, PRS Form
and ext., black worn band on rim 10 (Hayes’ term: LRC)
5 Cooking pot 167 1148 Reddish cooking ware Adan-Bayewitz 1993:132–135,
Form KH 4E
6 Lid 101 1001 Buff-gray Johnson 1988:219–220
7 Roof tile 122 1032 Terracotta

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 65

Bowl (Fig. 33:1).— A couple of rim sherds of open cooking-ware bowls classify as Kefar
Ḥananya Form 1E bowls, the latest form produced at the Kefar Ḥananya potteries, with a
date range from the mid-third to the early fifth century CE.

Late Roman Red Ware Bowls (LRRW; Fig. 33:2–4).— There are a few imported bowls,
including a bowl classified as Cypriot CRS Form 1, with a date range from the late fourth
to the late fifth century CE; a Phocean PRS Form 3, with a date range in the fifth to sixth
centuries CE; and a Phocean PRS Form 10, dated to the late sixth century CE on.

Cooking Pot (Fig. 33:5).— A single sherd of a wide, high-necked cooking pot was classified
as Kefar Ḥananya Form 4E, which is the latest cooking pot form manufactured at Kefar
Ḥananya, with a date range from the early fourth to the early fifth century CE.

Lid (Fig. 33:6).— A single bell lid is characteristic of the Late Roman period in the fourth
century CE, as at Jalame.

Ceramic Roof Tile (Fig. 33:7).— A fragment of a locally manufactured baked clay tegula or
roof tile with a raised border was found in the fill above the Stratum II bedrock floor (L113).
Based on similar roof tiles throughout the country, the tile is to be attributed to the Late
Roman–early Byzantine period. Its presence in the Stratum II fill was intrusive, possibly
due to the modern construction works that were carried out at the present location.

The Crusader Period (Fig. 34)

The accumulation layers in the Stratum I building contained a few sherds of medieval
pottery, indicating that the walls may have been constructed in the Crusader period and
continued in use in the Mamluk period.
The scant Crusader-period sherds were found together with the more predominant Mamluk-
period pottery uncovered in the Stratum I accumulations, in proximity to Stratum I W106
and W110 (L104, L143, L147) and in the small square installation (L146). The Crusader-
period pottery consisted of a few glazed bowls and a cooking pot. It is classified and dated
in accordance with Avissar and Stern’s classification, where parallels and further discussion
may be found (Avissar and Stern 2005). Parallels are cited from the Crusader-period pottery
uncovered in the excavations carried out at Mary’s Well in Nazareth (Alexandre 2012a:61–69).

Bowl with Gritty Yellow Glaze (Fig. 34:1).— This bowl has a ledged rim, a thin random
sgraffito line and a yellow gritty-glaze over white wash producing a yellow and brown
glazed finish. These bowls were locally made in the Levant and are characteristic of the
Crusader period; they were common in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries CE but did not
continue into the Mamluk period (Avissar and Stern 2005:8–9, Fig. 3.3:3). Several bowls of
this type were retrieved in the excavations at Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
66 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 34. Stratum I, Crusader-period pottery.

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels
1 Bowl 147 1103/1 Gritty yellow glaze and Avissar and Stern 2005:8–9, Fig. 3.3:3, Type
sgraffito, red clay I.1.2.1, Bowls with Gritty Yellow Glaze
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.3:1–4
2 Bowl 147 1091/1 Blue and dark purplish- Avissar and Stern 2005:37–38, Fig.
brown glaze, light brown clay 14:4, Type I.3.4.1, Egyptian Bowls with
Monochrome Alkaline Glaze
3 Bowl 143 1083/1 Fine sgraffito and cream Avissar and Stern 2005: Type I.4.3 Byzantine
glaze, red clay Fine Sgraffito Bowl
4 Bowl 147 1103/1 Cream glaze, brown clay Avissar and Stern 2005:45, Type I.5.1,
Aegean Monochrome Ware
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.4:5–7
5 Bowl 145 1087/1 Brown incised lines and dark Avissar and Stern 2005:51–52, Fig. 20:3,
yellow glaze, brown clay Type I.6.3, ‘Zeuxippus Influenced Ware’
6 Cooking 104 1012/1 Globular with outturned rim, Avissar and Stern 2005:9, Fig. 39:2, Type II.2.1
pot brown clay Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.5:1, 2

Egyptian Bowl with Monochrome Alkaline Glaze (Fig. 34:2).— A shallow bowl with a ledge
rim has a blue and dark purplish brown glaze on the interior and over the rim. These bowls
appear at the end of the eleventh and in the twelfth centuries CE, and are considered to have
been manufactured in Egypt.

Byzantine Fine Sgraffito Bowl (Fig. 34:3).— A bowl with curving sides has a fine sgraffito
multiple-line decoration, and a transparent glaze over a white slip with cream-color. These
bowls are dated to the twelfth century CE.

Aegean Monochrome Ware Bowl (Fig. 34:4).— A shallow bowl with a simple rim,
transparent glaze over a white slip with cream-color. It is possible that this bowl had a
sgraffito decoration. These bowls date to the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries CE.
Similar bowls with sgraffito decoration were found at Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 67

‘Zeuxippus Influenced Ware’ (Fig. 34:5).— A bowl with an everted rim, a thick layer of
white slip with tongues dripping over the exterior, incised parallel lines near the rim, and a
shiny yellow glaze with dark yellow and brown hues. These bowls are dated to the thirteenth
century CE.

Cooking Pot (Fig. 34:6).— A globular cooking pot with a small out-turned rim made of a
dark brown clay. These cooking pots are dated to the second half of the twelfth century CE
and the first half of the thirteenth century CE. Similar cooking pots were found at Mary’s
Well in Nazareth.

The Mamluk Period (Figs. 35, 36)

The Mamluk pottery consisted of about 130 diagnostic sherds that were retrieved predominantly
from the Stratum I accumulations adjacent to thick-walled W106, W110 (accumulations
L104, L147) and W133 (accumulations L128, L145), as well as from the surface (L101). The
assemblage contained glazed and plain bowls, cooking pots, storage jars and jugs, including
a variety of hand-painted wares. The vessels are classified and dated according to Avissar
and Stern’s classification, where a comprehensive discussion and parallels are found (Avissar
and Stern 2005). Parallels are presented from the similar Mamluk-period pottery repertoire
uncovered at Mary’s Well in Nazareth (Alexandre 2012a:69–84).

Monochrome Glazed Bowls (Fig. 35:1, 2).—The bowls have curved or carinated profiles,
thickened rims, and green glaze over white slip. The bowl in Fig. 35:1 is entirely glazed
with a shiny, deep green slip, while the more matt-greenish brown slip of the bowl in Fig.
35.2 covers the interior, dripping over the rim. These are the most common glazed bowls
in the Mamluk period, dating from the late thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries CE and later.
Similar bowls were found at Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

Yellow-Glazed Bowl with Slip-Painted Decoration (Fig. 35:3).— A bowl with a slightly
outflaring rim; it had a white slip-painted net pattern and yellow glaze on the interior. These
bowls were popular in the Mamluk period during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries CE.

Bowl with Molded Decoration (Fig. 35:4).— A molded sherd with a well-melted and well-
adhering yellow glaze, belongs to a vessel type dated to the fourteenth century CE.

Soft-Paste Bowl with Black and Blue Painted Decoration (Fig. 35:5).— A small body sherd
of a bowl with a ledge rim with black-blue on white soft-paste decoration. These bowls
were manufactured in Syria between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries CE. A couple of
similar bowls were found at Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
68 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 35. Stratum I, Mamluk-period pottery.

Italian Monochrome Sgraffito Bowl (Fig. 35:6).— A base sherd of a green-glazed bowl with
a thin-line sgraffito design. These bowls are of Italian manufacture, dated to the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries CE.

Italian Glazed Basin (Fig. 35:7).— A basin with a straight-sided wall, a low carination
and a squared rim. The vessel was covered with a dark green glass on its interior and

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 69

Fig. 35

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels

1 Bowl 104 1012/2 Curved profile, green glaze, light Avissar and Stern 2005:12–13, Fig. 4,
brown clay Type I.1.4, Monochrome glazed bowls II
Alexandre 2012a:73, Fig. 3.9:1, 2
2 Bowl 104 1012/3 Carinated profile, green glaze As No. 1
turning brownish, light reddish
brown clay
3 Bowl 147 1091/2 Shallow with slightly outflaring Avissar and Stern 2005:19, Fig. 7.3, Type
rim, slip-painted, yellow glaze, I.1.6.1–I.1.6.2, Bowls with Slip-Painted
reddish brown clay Decoration
4 Bowl 147 1091/5 Body sherd with molded Avissar and Stern 2005:22–24, Type I.1.7,
decoration and shiny yellow slip Bowls with Molded Decoration
on int. and ext., light brown clay
5 Bowl 147 1091/4 Body sherd with black and blue Avissar and Stern 2005:75, Type I.2.3.3,
glazed decoration, white soft- Soft-Paste Ware Painted in Black and Blue
paste clay under Transparent Colorless Glaze
Alexandre 2012a:75, Fig. 3.10
6 Bowl 145 1089/1 Base with thin sgraffito design Avissar and Stern 2005:73, Type I.9.5,
and green glaze, red clay Italian sgraffito, imported
7 Basin 147 1103/3 Dark green, carinated, red clay Avissar and Stern 2005:74, Fig. 34:9, 10,
Type I.9.7, Italian basin, imported
8 Bowl 145 1085/3 Large, protruding rim, red clay Avissar and Stern 2005:84, Fig. 36:5, Type
II.1.2.3, Mamluk Large Plain Bowls
Alexandre 2012a: Figs, 3.8:2
9 Cooking 147 1098/1 Globular with ledge rim and dark Avissar and Stern 2005:92, Fig. 39:10,
pot brown glaze splash on rim, light Type II.2.1.5, Mamluk Globular Cooking
brown clay Pots
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.11:1
10 Cooking 104 1011/1 Yellow glazed int., orangey clay, Avissar and Stern 2005:97, Fig. 41:6, 7,
bowl black from burning Type II.2.3.4, Mamluk Cooking Bowls
with Out-turned Rim
Alexandre 2012a:3.11:6
11 Storage 147 1091/6 Mamluk, reddish clay Avissar and Stern 2005:102, Fig. 42:7, 8,
jar Type II.3.1.4, Mamluk Storage Jars
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.12
12 Jug 101 1005/2 Green-glazed neck, red clay
13 Jug 104 1012/4 Swollen neck, reddish brown Avissar and Stern 2005:109–110, Fig.
clay 45:4, 5, Type II.4.2, Jugs with Swollen
Neck
14 Jug 147 1103/4 Profiled swollen neck, brownish As No. 13
clay

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 Yardenna Alexandre

exterior. These basins are found in the late fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth
centuries CE.

Large Plain Bowl (Fig. 35:8).— A large plain bowl with a thickened ledge rim. These bowls
are common from the late thirteenth to the fifteenth century CE. Similar plain bowls were
discovered at Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

Globular Cooking Pot (Fig. 35:9).— The rim sherd of a globular cooking pot exhibits a
ledge rim and a splash of shiny dark brown glaze on the rim. These cooking pots date to
the fourteenth, and probably also to the fifteenth centuries CE. Similar cooking pots were
retrieved at Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

Cooking Bowl (Fig. 35:10).— The outflaring profile sherd of a cooking bowl with an out-
turned rim, a yellow-glazed interior and a slight protrusion where the horizontal handle had
broken off. These cooking bowls were manufactured in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
CE and probably later. Similar cooking bowls were found at Mary’s Well Nazareth.

Storage Jar (Fig. 35:11).— A long and plain-necked sherd with a thickened rim was part
of a storage jar that would have had a bulbous, slightly piriform body and two handles on
the shoulder. These are standard jars in the Mamluk period and were in use from the late
thirteenth to the fifteenth century CE. Several whole jars were found at Mary’s Well in
Nazareth, where they must have been used for the transportation of water.

Glazed Jug (Fig. 35:12).— A fragment of a jug neck exhibiting thin sgraffito and a green
glaze.

Jugs with Swollen Neck (Fig. 35:13, 14).— These two bulging necks were fragments of
spouted jugs with squat globular bodies. They were manufactured from the thirteenth to
fifteenth century CE and probably later.

Handmade Vessels with Geometric Painted Decoration (Fig. 36:1–3).— Several handmade
jugs and jars were found in the Stratum I accumulation layer. They were decorated in black,
occasionally in red, geometric patterns. These handmade vessels with elaborate patterns
flourished from the fourteenth to the fifteenth century CE. Several examples were found at
Mary’s Well in Nazareth.

Wheel-Made Pinched Lamps (Fig. 36:4).— A simple bowl with a pinched nozzle is
characteristic of the Mamluk period. This vessel had a nozzle burned from use. The lamp
exhibited a woven pattern on its base from the cloth on which it was standing prior to
firing.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 71

Fig. 36. Stratum I, Mamluk-period pottery.

No. Vessel Locus Basket Description Parallels, Types

1 Jug 101 1005/1 Handmade, red decoration, Avissar and Stern 2005:113, Figs. 47, 48, Type
light brown clay II.4.4 Handmade Vessels with Geometric Painted
Decoration
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.16
2 Jar 147 1091/3 Handmade, black decoration, As No. 1
light brown clay
3 Jug 147 1085/1 Handmade, black decoration, As No. 1
light brown clay
4 Lamp 147 1103/5 Open pinched lamp, orangey Avissar and Stern 2005:128, Fig. 53:5, Type
brown clay, burned nozzle III.3.1 Wheelmade Pinched Lamps
Alexandre 2012a: Fig. 3.18

Other Small Finds

The excavation yielded various non-pottery small finds which are presented below (Figs.
37, 38). Faunal remains are published separately (see Marom, this volume).

Basalt Grinding Vessels (Fig. 37)

Basalt grinding stones were an essential part of the domestic equipment necessary for
household food preparation. Altogether, 15 fragments of basalt grinding vessels were

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 Yardenna Alexandre

Fig. 37. Basalt grinding vessels.

No. Vessel Stratum Locus Basket

1 Loaf-shaped grinding stone II L103 1004
2 Tripod grinding bowl II L164 1139
3 Tripod grinding bowl II Pit 168 1163
4 Grinding basin II/I L147 1134

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 73

uncovered in the excavation, almost all of them from Stratum II contexts, including two
from Courtyard 125, four from Pit 168, one from Pit 173 and one from Room 103. The
basalt fragment (Fig. 37:1) from Stratum II Floor 103 may be residual, as it was from
a loaf-shaped grinding stone that is characteristic of Iron Age sites. A small fragment of
an Olynthus millstone (not illustrated), characteristic of the Hellenistic to Early Roman
periods, was found in Pit 168. One three-legged grinding bowl (Fig. 37:2) came from
bedrock Surface 164 together with some Iron Age and Early Roman sherds, and another
similar fragment (Fig. 37:3) originated from Stratum II Pit 168. A large flat grinding basin
(Fig. 37:4) came from a mixed Stratum II/I accumulation layer (L147).

Chalk Vessels (not illustrated)9

Altogether ten fragments of chalk or soft-limestone vessels were retrieved from Stratum
II, in the rectangular cavity (L126, L130), the cistern (L150 and in L131) and the upper pit
in the three-pit complex (L168). These were mainly body fragments of mugs and small,
medium-sized and large bowls. The fragments were of the common chalk vessel types that
have been found at many Jewish settlements in Early Roman Galilee (Reed 2009, and see
discussion therein).
Chalk vessels were used by the Jewish population in Judea and in the Galilee in the late
Second Temple period, and after 70 CE, in the Roman period. According to Jewish rabbinic
law, stone vessels were impervious to ritual impurity: “stone vessels…are not subject to
impurity, neither by Torah law nor by decree of the scribes” (BT Sabbath 58a). The soft
limestone or chalk vessel industry first developed in the Jerusalem area in the late Second
Temple period, the latter half of the first century BCE (Magen 2002:162). In the Early Roman
period, chalk vessels were manufactured in Lower Galilee, specifically at two sites near
Reina in the Nazareth hills, c. 3 km north of Nazareth (Gal 1991; Amit and Adler 2010:139–
141). Based on the many chalk vessel fragments found in archaeological excavations at
Jewish settlements in Galilee, the use of these stone vessels may have continued here into
the Middle Roman period (second–third centuries CE) and even the Late Roman period
(fourth century CE) (Amit and Adler 2010:142).

Bone Artifacts (Fig. 38:1–4)

Four small bone artifacts were uncovered. The pendant and the two spatulas came from the
Stratum III Iron Age accumulation layer on the bedrock next to Iron Age W156 (L172).
A fragment of a disc-shaped object, possibly a spoon, came from the overlying Stratum
III/II accumulation layer (L165) in which both Iron Age and Roman-period pottery were
collected.

9
The chalk vessel fragments selected for drawing were mislaid (with the lamps, see n. 9), during storeroom
reorganization before they could be drawn or photographed.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 Yardenna Alexandre

Pendant (Fig. 38:1).— A gently faceted, club-shaped bone pendant with a suspension
hole and a polished surface was found. Similar pendants were found in Iron Age burials
in Nazareth (Vitto 2001:164–165, Fig. 4) and at Har Yona near Nazareth (Alexandre 2003:
Fig. 3:5; 2018), and in Iron II contexts in the City of David in Jerusalem, where it was noted
that the club-shaped pendants may be a uniquely Israelite type of jewelry as they are almost
exclusively found in Israel (Ariel 1990:136).

Fig. 38. Bone artifacts (1–4), a weight (5), a loomweight (6) and a brass lamp (7).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 75

Fig. 38

No. Artifact Stratum Locus Basket Description Parallels

1 Pendant III L172 1166B Bone; perforated hole; length Ariel 1990:136
5.6 cm Vitto 2001:164–165, Fig. 4
Alexandre 2003: Fig.3:5
2 Spatula III L172 1166C Bone; 7.4 × 2.2 cm Ariel 1990:127–134, Fig. 14
3 Spatula III L172 1166A Bone; width 1.7 cm As No. 2
4 Disc or III/II L165 1141 Bone; incised circles; extant Ariel 1990:142
spoon fragment length 3.9 cm
5 Weight? I W106 1143 Gray sandstone; spherical;
rough surface; diam. 2.4 cm,
weight 13 g.
6 Loomweight II Pit 150 1107 Rough clay with many straw Aviam 2005:195, Fig. 158
inclusions; pyramidal; height
7.6 cm
7 Lamp I L145 1085 Brass; diam. 7.9 cm

Spatulas (Fig. 38:2, 3).— The two thin spatulas were carved from flat rib bones and have
a rounded back end, while the front end of the complete spatula was worked to a broad
point and has smoothed polished surfaces. Bone spatulas are common in Jerusalem and
are found throughout Israel and the Near East. In Israel, they appear in contexts ranging
from the Iron Age to the Early Roman period, the overwhelming majority coming from
Iron II contexts.10

Circular Disc or Spoon (Fig. 38:4).— A fragment of a circular disc (diam. c. 5 cm) was
decorated with circle-and-dot designs and a petal of a stylized rosette, surrounded by two
concentric circles. An almost complete spoon with a floral and dotted circle design was
found in Jerusalem, where it may date to the Early Roman period (Ariel 1990:142), and a
similar artifact from Gamla, identified as a hairpin head based on part of the rod that was
preserved, likewise dated from the Early Roman period (Farhi 2016:241).

Possible Weight-Stone (Fig. 38:5)

A small gray sandstone ball with a fairly rough surface was found between the stones of
Stratum I W106. It could have been used as a weight-stone (13 g).

Clay Loomweight (Fig. 38:6)

A roughly manufactured pyramidal-shaped burned clay perforated loomweight was found
amongst the large quantities of pottery in the fill in Cistern 150. Many similar pyramidal-
shaped clay loomweights were uncovered in Early Roman Yodefat (Aviam 2005:195, Fig.

10
See Ariel 1990:127–134 for a comprehensive discussion.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
76 Yardenna Alexandre

158) and at Karm er-Ras (Alexandre 2018). The pyramidal clay loomweight was in use
in the early Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, disappearing around the end of the first
century CE with the appearance of the horizontal loom that did not require loomweights
(Shamir 1996:147–148).

Metal Objects
An open metal lamp (Fig. 38:7), which was manufactured from a piece of hammered brass
sheet, has slanting walls, a ring-shaped base, inward-turning extremities and a small spout.11
This simple lamp has no decoration. The lamp was discovered damaged, with grooves
and ridges over the entire surface, as well as a small hole in its walls. It was dated to the
Mamluk period based on the associated Mamluk pottery (L145). The lamp belongs to a type
that is characterized by an open form with a simple, flowing outline. Open clay lamps of
this type were abundant from the Mamluk to the Ottoman periods (Pringle 1984:101, Fig.
7:39; Tushingham 1985: Fig. 43:16; Stern 2001:291; Avissar and Stern 2005:128, Fig. 53:5;
Alexandre 2012a:82, Fig. 3.18:1–5), but there are no contemporaneous metal parallels in
the Egypto-Syrian region. However, earlier, in the eleventh century CE, a Fatimid-period
workshop in Tiberias manufactured lamps made of a hammered sheet: one lamp with a
round body, a ring-shaped base and a faceted spout and another lamp with a portable cover
decorated with groups of dots are known (Khamis 2013: Nos. 159, 160).
In addition, the excavation yielded six iron nails that came from the Stratum I layer (not
illustrated).

Glass Objects (not illustrated)

The glass finds came from the Stratum I loci and consisted of a few small fragments dating
to the Mamluk period and single glass fragments from the Byzantine and Umayyad periods
(fifth–seventh centuries CE; not illustrated). The sole glass artifact in Stratum II was
retrieved from the intentional fill in Pit 168. It was a medium-sized lump of greenish bluish
colored glass (max. dimensions 5.5 × 4.0 cm) covered by a chalky material that may have
been waste from a Roman-period glass kiln.12

Coin (not illustrated)

A single coin of Emperor Claudius was uncovered on the floor of Corridor 158, which led
into the three-story pit complex. The coin was minted in ‘Akko-Ptolemais in 50–51 CE. The
coin provides support for the functioning of the complex in the latter half of the first century
CE, possibly in the context of the preparations for the First Jewish–Roman War in 66–67 CE.13

11
The metal lamp was studied by Ayala Lester, who composed the description presented here.
12
The glass artifact (L168/1150) was studied by Yael Gorin-Rosen (IAA internal report, A6080/2011).
13
The coin (IAA No. 144151) was identified by Donald T. Ariel.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 77

Discussion: The Early Settlement History of Nazareth

The present small-scale excavation exposed limited archaeological remains from Iron II,
and the late Hellenistic, Early Roman, early Byzantine, Crusader and Mamluk periods.
Additional archaeological data on Nazareth have accumulated from previous excavations
and surveys. The discussion in this article offers an analysis of the available information in
the context of the historical-geographical environment of Nazareth in the Lower Galilee.

Iron Age II
The Stratum III walls were dated to Iron IIA–B (tenth–eighth centuries BCE) by the pottery
exposed on the bedrock adjacent to W156 and W175. The walls were probably part of a
building that stood just south of the excavated area.
Limited evidence for an Iron Age occupation was uncovered in the excavations carried
out near the Crusader Church of the Annunciation in the 1950s (Fig. 2:D). On this site,
Iron II pottery was retrieved in two of the several rock-hewn bell-shaped silos. Bagatti
understood these as underground elements that must have been in the basement stories of
the Iron Age houses (Bagatti 1969:44, 73, 269–272, Figs. 9, middle; 33, bottom; 211:24, 25;
214; Silo Nos. 22, 57). It is possible that some of the other rock-cut silos were first hewn out
in the Iron Age. However, the intensive reuse of this area in later periods—involving large-
scale rock-hewing and construction—may have removed any pottery evidence that could
date the original time of the construction and its occupation periods.
In addition, three separate burial caves, excavated 200–300 m downhill to the south and
southwest of the Franciscan compound (Fig. 2:H, J), contained burials and accompanying
pottery vessels and other grave goods that were attributed to the transitional Iron IB–IIA
time frame (Loffreda 1977 [unprovenanced pottery]; Vitto 2001; Alexandre 2018). The
above-mentioned limited settlement remains and burial caves imply that an Iron I–II village
existed in proximity of the present-day Franciscan compound; the village’s cemetery areas
were located slightly downhill, on its southern and southwestern periphery.
The similarity of some of the transitional Iron IB–IIA pottery forms in the Nazareth
burial caves to the limited Iron IIA–B pottery forms uncovered in the Nazareth settlement,
and more comprehensively, to the Iron IIA–B repertoires from northern Israel, supports a
continuity of settlement in Nazareth, and generally, in northern Israel, from Iron IB to Iron
IIA–B, from the late eleventh to the eighth centuries BCE. The absence of any Late Bronze
Age remains to date in Nazareth suggests that the new Iron IB inhabitants may have settled
at an unpopulated site.
Interestingly, two of the Nazareth transitional Iron IB–IIA burial caves exhibited
simple bone pendants that were almost identical to the bone pendant found in the present
excavation (Fig. 38:1; cf. Vitto 2001: Fig. 4.1; Alexandre 2018). A fourth, similar, bone
pendant was retrieved from another Iron IB–IIA burial cave in Har Yona, Naẓerat ‘Illit,
about 3 km northeast of old Nazareth (Alexandre 2003: Fig. 3:5). The presence of the four
similar pendants in four different Iron Age excavations in Nazareth and its vicinity points to

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 Yardenna Alexandre

a shared cultural feature and consolidates the view attributing a cultural significance, albeit
undeciphered, to these simple bone pendants (Vitto 2001:164–165; cf. Ariel 1990:136).
In his regional survey of Lower Galilee, Gal deduced that in Iron I (twelfth–eleventh
centuries BCE), the southern part of central Lower Galilee, especially the Nazareth hill
range and the Bet Neṭofa Valley, witnessed a new wave of settlement comprising very small
sites, mostly located close to springs or small streams (Gal 1992:84–94). In Iron IIA (tenth–
ninth centuries BCE), some of these sites developed into rural settlements (e.g., ‘En Ẓippori,
Ḥorbat Malṭa, Tell el-Wawiyat), while the Bronze Age tell sites (Tel Gat-Ḥefer and Yafi‘a)
became Iron IIA fortified towns (Fig. 1). Gal’s conclusions have since been corroborated
by excavations carried out at the above-mentioned sites.14 At Nazareth, only Iron I pottery
was noted in Gal’s survey. The remains uncovered in the present excavation indicate that at
Nazareth as well, the Iron I presence developed into an Iron IIA–B settlement.
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but according to biblical descriptions
of the settlement process in this area, it is associated with the tribal inheritance of Zebulun
(Joshua 19:10–15). Neighboring Yafi‘a is mentioned as a border site of Zebulun, and
Nazareth was probably a small internal site within Zebulun’s territory. It is also not known
whether Nazareth was the ancient name of the Iron Age village. According to the biblical
account, at the time of the United Monarchy, the Nazareth hill range was probably an integral
part of Solomon’s districts together with the Jezreel Valley and Yoqne’am, and subsequently
became part of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 4:12).
Following Iron IIB, the village of Nazareth seems to have been abandoned and to
date, there is no evidence for settlement in Nazareth for over five centuries until the late
Hellenistic period (between the late eighth and the mid-second century BCE). An occupation
gap of over two centuries is attested in the Galilee and is to be attributed to the Assyrian
conquest of Galilee by Tiglath-Pileser III in 732 BCE and the ensuing deportation of most
of its Israelite population, as recorded in the biblical and Assyrian sources (2 Kings 16:29;
Gal 1992:108–109; Tadmor and Yamada 2011:62–63, No. 22). Some limited evidence has
accumulated for the existence of two new, very small-scale and short-lived, settlements in
the Naḥal Ẓippori basin with transitional pottery attributed to the seventh century BCE,
of possible survivors of the Assyrian deportation (Gal 2009:78–80; Oshri and Gal 2010).
Nazareth itself may have been abandoned until the late Hellenistic period.

The Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods

The Late Hellenistic–Early Roman House.— The Stratum II house comprised ground floor
Room 135, Courtyard 125, with a small rock-hewn cistern and a camouflaged rock-hewn pit,
and a row of small semi-basement rooms (from west to east: Room 153, Room 117, Room
112) incorporating a three-story underground pit complex. A schematic reconstruction of

14
‘En Ẓippori—Dessel, Meyers and Meyers 2001; Ḥorbat Malta—Covello-Paran 2008; Yafi‘a—Alexandre
2012b; Tel Gat-Ḥefer—Alexandre, Covello-Paran and Gal 2003.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 79

the house is presented in Fig. 39. The few late Hellenistic potsherds, which were found on
the floors among the Early Roman pottery, indicate that the Stratum II house was probably
first constructed in the mid- to late second century BCE.
Additional limited evidence for a late Hellenistic presence in Nazareth was previously
found in the excavations carried out in the vicinity of Mary’s Well (Alexandre 2012a:13–16,
57–59, Fig. 3.1). This evidence comprised a few short stone walls, ten Hasmonean coins of
Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE),15 and some late Hellenistic sherds (late second–early

0 4

Fig. 39. Stratum II, reconstruction of the house in the Early Roman period
(drawing by Stephen Rosenberg).

15
Although Jannaeus coins continued in circulation into the Early Roman period.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
80 Yardenna Alexandre

first centuries BCE). The pottery from the present excavation is similar to that retrieved
near the spring. The limited evidence points to the establishment of a new, small Jewish
settlement in Nazareth in the latter part of the second century BCE.
The Stratum II house continued to be settled into the Early Roman period. The local
Early Roman Galilean pottery (without any imported or luxury vessels) and the chalk
vessels, which were found on the floors and in the pits, are typical of the Jewish houses in
Galilee in the Early Roman period. Similar household repertoires were found in the nearby
Jewish village of Karm er-Ras near Kafr Kanna (Alexandre, in prep.), in the large-scale
excavations of the western-summit residential quarter in Ẓippori (Balouka 2013) and in
several other Galilean villages of this period. Some of the pottery forms point to connections
with Judea. The preference for Jerusalem-manufactured lamps observed at Nazareth and
at other Galilean settlements reflected ties with the Jerusalem area (Adan-Bayewitz et al.
2008). The chronological range of the pottery assemblage in the house and the pits, and the
absence of vessels with later chronological ranges, indicate that the house was occupied
until about 135–150 CE.

The Early Roman Village of Nazareth.— Additional limited remains of Early Roman-period
houses were found during excavations in the adjacent Franciscan compound in the past.
In this location, Bagatti identified many rock-hewn elements as the subterranean storage
facilities of houses of the Roman-period village and rock-cuttings on the surface as the
possible negatives of foundations (Bagatti 1969:27–28). The presence of many kokhim
(loculi) burial caves on the slope near the Roman village but no burials within the Franciscan
compound area further corroborates the conjectured boundaries of the Jewish village in
the Early Roman period (Fig. 2). Agricultural installations on the slope below the English
hospital, the site of the Nazareth village project today, about 700 m southwest of the present
excavation, reflect exploitation of agricultural lands beyond the ancient settled village (Fig.
2:K; Pfann, Voss and Rapuano 2007).
The earliest literary mention of Nazareth is in the New Testament as the childhood home
of Jesus (Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38, 56). The identification of the Early Roman village
with present-day Nazareth was challenged by Rene Salm, who proposed that ancient Nazareth
must have been situated inside present-day Yafi‘a (Salm 2008; 2015) and claimed that the
identification of the Early Roman village inside modern Nazareth is a religious hoax. However,
the numerous archaeological remains exposed so far in the boundaries of the old center of
Nazareth clearly testify to a Jewish village of the Early Roman period at this site (Fig. 2).
The present excavation joins the previous findings and supports this understanding. It is true
that remains of the same period have also been exposed in present-day Yafi‘a (Alexandre
2012b). However, this fact does not justify transferring the identification of Early Roman
Nazareth there, which ignores the archaeological findings in present-day Nazareth and
disregards the long-existing tradition that links the modern city with the New Testament
location. In the Early Roman period, Nazareth and Yafi‘a were two separate small villages
located on separate hills 3 km apart (Fig. 1).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 81

The Underground Complexes of Stratum II.— The excavation yielded rock-hewn

subterranean cavities accessed from the Stratum II house: two pits in Courtyard 125 and
a three-story pit complex in semi-basement Room 153. In the courtyard, the bell-shaped
pit (L150) was a small cistern that collected run-off water from the roof. Rock-hewn bell-
shaped pits (L168–L171, L173, L174) in the basement would have served as short- and
long-term storage facilities, specifically for agricultural produce.
Several constructional features indicate that the pits were intentionally camouflaged
and difficult to access. The narrow, lidded pit (L132) in Courtyard 125 was hewn out of a
covered-over camouflaged sunken rock-hewn space, and it was too narrow to be an effective
storage space for food supplies. The opening into the three-storied lidded pit complex in
Room 153 was covered over and camouflaged by short, low, narrow Corridor 158. The
upper pit was carefully hewn, while the two lower ones were carved out more carelessly,
suggesting that they were hewn out at a later stage. These features indicate that, in addition
to the long-term storage of agricultural produce, the pits were intended for concealing their
contents from sight, possibly agricultural produce for tax evasion, and even people, during
times of imminent danger.
In previous excavations in the adjacent Franciscan compound, several similar
subterranean elements were discovered, hewn into the bedrock surface that was exposed
over a large area beneath the Byzantine and Crusader buildings, below and around the
Church of the Annunciation (Fig. 2:D). In the area of the Franciscan Convent of Terra
Santa (Fig. 2:E), many grottoes and silos were uncovered, but the records were lost in the
course of World War II (Bagatti 1969:219). Below the Church of St. Joseph (Fig. 2:F),
an astonishing rock-hewn interconnecting four-story pit or silo complex was excavated in
1890 and in 1909–1910 (Viaud 1910:134–135, 142–144; Bagatti 1969:223–227, No. 62).
Near the Church of the Annunciation, the excavations exposed many rock-cut elements,
including silos, cisterns, interconnecting corridors, grottos, basins, winepresses, cellar
stores, and small rock-cuttings. Some of the silo complexes comprised two- and three-
story pits with interconnecting corridors (Bagatti 1969:44–72, Silo Nos. 24, 46, 48, 51–53;
see Pl. XI for location of elements). Additional rock-cut elements included an agricultural
press, cellar stores with rock-hewn cup-holes for jars, as well as many cisterns (Bagatti
1969:35, 44, 52–58, 60–65, Nos. 6, 24, 34–37, 40–42). Two square plastered pools with
narrow steps, one in the area of the Church of the Annunciation and the other with a mosaic
floor in the area of the Church of St. Joseph, were interpreted as pre-Byzantine baptismal
basins (Bagatti 1969:116–122, 228–232, Figs. 72, 188), but were actually winepressing
installations (Taylor 1993:244–251).16
Regarding these previous findings, Bagatti resolved that pits or silos, which contained
Roman pottery, functioned as basement elements over which houses probably once stood.

16
Several underground rock-hewn cavities and passages are known to have been exposed below buildings
outside the Franciscan compound without archaeological excavations (e.g., below the Greek Orthodox
monastery; Fig. 2:L). These cavities have not been dated.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
82 Yardenna Alexandre

The walls of those houses had been removed by later activities (Bagatti 1969:27–28).
Due to the subsequent Byzantine- and Crusader-period reuse, Bagatti did not conclude
unequivocally that the underground complexes belong to the Early Roman period. In light
of the present excavation, it is probable that many of the rock-hewn elements uncovered in
the previous excavations were, in fact, installations in the basements of houses in the small
Early Roman-period Jewish village.
The findings correlate with similar discoveries in many Jewish villages of the Early
Roman period in Galilee.17 At Yafi‘a, 3 km southwest of Nazareth, a three-story complex
was described and illustrated (Guérin 1880:104; Conder and Kitchener 1881:353–354).
Also in Yafi‘a, three individual bell-shaped pits or silos, which were damaged by Byzantine-
period quarrying, were excavated. Inside one of the silos, a few burned sheep bones were
found, next to a charred Early Roman cooking pot (Alexandre 2012b). Josephus testified
on the fierce battle that was fought at Yafi‘a in 67 CE, ending in a decisive Jewish defeat,
contemporary with the siege of Yodefat (Jotapata) in the course of the First Jewish Revolt
(The Jewish War 3.289–306).
Another example is Karm er-Ras (identified as Cana of Galilee), 4 km north of Nazareth,
where two separate Early Roman houses with rock-hewn underground silos were excavated.
One house exhibited three camouflaged rock-hewn units below a single house, together
with mid-first century CE pottery and Jerusalem-minted coins dating to the second year of
the First Jewish Revolt (67 CE). Another house had an extremely well-camouflaged large
bell-shaped rock-hewn pit that contained a pile of eleven pristine storage jars, of the type
that began to be manufactured in the latter part of the first century CE (Alexandre 2008:77*;
in prep.).
Additional camouflaged rock-hewn pits in the basements of houses dated to the Early
Roman period have been exposed at other Galilean sites, including Yodefat (Aviam
2008:45*), Khirbat Wadi Hamam (Leibner 2010:227) and Kabul (Zidan and Alexandre
2012).
Turning back to the Stratum II house in Nazareth, if the camouflaged pits were meant
to conceal people at times of imminent danger, a possible historical context is the period of
preparations before the First Jewish Revolt that broke out in Galilee in 66–67 CE. During
the battle of Yodefat in 67 CE, the Roman army searched the hiding places in the town (The
Jewish War 3.336). The Roman army attacked nearby Yafi‘a (The Jewish War 3.289–306).
In this geographical and historical context, there can be no doubt that in 66–67 CE, the
villagers of Nazareth were actively involved in the defensive preparations in the wake of the
Roman threat. To date, no evidence has been found at Nazareth for a destruction at the time
of the First Jewish Revolt. The findings demonstrate that the village continued to be settled.

17
For a survey of some of the sites, see Shahar 2003.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 83

The Pottery in the Pits and the Issue of Ritual Purity.— The pottery repertoire in the house
and in the pits was dated to the Early Roman period till the early second century CE. The
absence of Middle to Late Roman pottery forms (such as the Kefar Ḥananya cooking pot
Forms KH 4C and KH 4D) suggests that this house was abandoned around the early to mid-
second century CE, when the cistern, the pits and the corridor were intentionally blocked.
The examination of the huge quantities of pottery sherds that were retrieved from the pits,
altogether about 70 kg, led us to the understanding that the pottery vessels in the house
may have been collected, smashed and intentionally thrown into the pits together with
earth, small masonry chips, and a few other artifacts, which were then entirely blocked,
up to the pits’ brim. The small quantities of pottery extant in the house are more or less
contemporaneous to the extremely large concentrations of pottery in the pits. This suggests
that this specific house was abandoned about the same time, or at the most, slightly after the
pits were filled in. A similar phenomenon of pits full of pottery was recorded by Bagatti in
the earlier Nazareth excavations in Silo Complex No. 48, where six interconnected silos are
described as “completely filled with earth and objects, especially sherds” (Bagatti 1969:67).
It is tentatively proposed that the mass disposal of the pottery in the pits may have been
related to the Jewish practice regarding ritual defilement caused by contact with a corpse.
The Babylonian Talmud records Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakai’s order to remove all the pottery
vessels from his house before his death in order to avoid their contamination (BT Beraḥot
26b). Jewish religious law required that ritually-defiled ceramic vessels be smashed: “it
cannot be purified save through breakage” (Sifra Shemini 7; see Amit and Adler 2010:125,
n. 16). It is possible that some ritual defilement event, such as corpse impurity, led to the
disposal of all the household vessels into the pits.
The ritual purity observance was also evident from the chalk vessel fragments that
were found in the present excavation. Similar chalk vessel fragments may not have been
recognized and consequently not retained by the previous excavators of Nazareth. Another
element reflecting the Jewish observance of ritual purity in Early Roman Galilean settlements
was a miqveh used for ritual immersion (Reich 1997). Since the present excavation was of a
very small scale, it is not surprising that a miqveh was not encountered. Miqva’ot were not
discovered in the previous excavations in Nazareth.18
Ritual purity was a central concern of the Jewish population of Judea and Galilee in
the Early Roman period (Amit and Adler 2010:122). When the Temple stood, purity was
required, not only for the priests but also for the pilgrims and for the agricultural produce
that was brought to the Temple. In addition to the priests, many lay Jews ate their food
when they were in a state of purity (Amit and Adler 2010:122–123, n. 3). Consequently, the
elements reflecting ritual purity observance in Nazareth, as well as in many other Galilean

18
In the previous excavations in Nazareth, two square plastered pools with narrow steps, one in the area of
the Church of the Annunciation and the other with a mosaic floor in the area of the Church of St. Joseph,
were interpreted as pre-Byzantine baptismal basins (Bagatti 1969:116–122, 228–232, Figs. 72, 188). Several
features, including the side steps, the mosaic paving and the sherds in the plaster indicate that these were
almost certainly winepressing installations (Taylor 1993:244–251).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 Yardenna Alexandre

villages, may also have been used by lay Jews and do not necessarily reflect the presence
of a priestly element.

Jewish Priestly Courses in Nazareth.— A few arguments may support a suggestion that
priestly families lived in Nazareth before 70 CE. Nazareth is mentioned in the list of 24
Jewish priestly courses in Galilean villages (Klein 1924; Leibner 2009:404–419). Several
stone plaque fragments and wall plaster fragments, with Hebrew inscriptions bearing parts
of this list have been uncovered in archaeological excavations (Leibner 2009:404–419).19 A
fragment of the inscription from the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima from the third–fourth
centuries CE reads “[The eighteenth priestly course Hapizzez] Nazareth” (after Avi-Yonah
1962). Two small fragments of the list were discovered in Nazareth (Eshel 1991). In the
Late Roman period, the list of the priestly courses was used in the synagogue liturgy (Levine
2005:519–529). Previous studies suggested that priestly influx into Galilee occurred from
the period following the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE) to as late as the fifth century CE.
However, Leibner (2009:404–419) observed that the list of sites is composed completely
of villages that had been settled by Jews already during the Hasmonean period. Leibner
considered that the list of priestly courses was compiled with the site list at a later date.
The possibility that some priestly families had already lived in the Galilean village before
70 CE, and that they played a role in the spread of concern for ritual purity observance, is
worthy of further examination (Alexandre, in prep.).

The archaeological evidence from this and previous excavations brings into focus the small
Jewish village of Nazareth, characterized by some Jewish and Judean characteristics in the
material culture that have been observed in Jewish villages in Galilee. The Early Roman
village of Nazareth developed from the initial late-Hellenistic hamlet or village that was
first settled in the latter part of the second century BCE, possibly during the reign of the
Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus I (135–106/5 BCE). The understanding that Nazareth and
several other villages in central Lower Galilee were settled by Jewish inhabitants from the
Hasmonean kingdom of Judea was proposed several decades ago, predominantly leaning on
the literary sources (Bar-Kochva 1977). This viewpoint has since been corroborated by the

19
The division of the priests into 24 courses for a rotation system of service in the Temple appears in I Chronicles
24:7–18. Klein reconstructed a list of 24 Galilean villages settled by the 24 priestly courses based on places
mentioned in seventh-century CE eulogies that mourned the fate of these priestly courses and surmised that
the source of the list was from the second–third centuries CE (Klein 1924:1–29).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 85

archaeological data that has been excavated and surveyed at several Galilean sites (Leibner
2012).20

The Early Byzantine Period

No architectural evidence from the Middle to Late Roman periods was uncovered in the
present excavation. However, the small quantity of early Byzantine pottery uncovered in
the fills overlying the Early Roman house implies a presence in the late fourth to early fifth
centuries CE.21 The more fragmentary remains underlying the church were identified as a
Late Roman fourth-century CE ecclesiastical synagogue or a synagogue-church building
(Bagatti 1969:114–146). The discussion on the religious affinity of the inhabitants of
pre-Byzantine Nazareth as Jews or Jewish Christians lies beyond the scope of this report
(Taylor 1993:253–267). Four limestone column bases that are preserved in the Franciscan
compound were reported as originating from the Byzantine-period synagogue of Nazareth
(Bagatti 1969:233, Fig. 190). The remains of a fifth-century CE Byzantine basilical church
were uncovered in the adjacent area of the Church of the Annunciation. From this time
onward, Nazareth appears as a site in the Christian pilgrims’ itinerary in Galilee.

The Crusader–Mamluk Periods

The wide walls uncovered may have been part of a Crusader-period vaulted building that
may have still stood in the Mamluk period. The great three-apsed Crusader basilica (48 × 27
m), whose remains were uncovered in the earlier excavations in the Franciscan compound,
was destroyed at the time of the Mamluk conquest in the year 1263 CE (Bagatti 2002:31–
55). The extant remains were subsequently partially incorporated in the twentieth-century
church. The excavations at Mary’s Well exposed the remains of a Crusader-period fountain
house that underwent changes in the Mamluk period (Alexandre 2012a:21–46).

20
The comprehensive analysis of the numismatic evidence, specifically the distribution of the coins of the early
Hasmonean rulers as John Hyrcanus I, further supports the beginning of Jewish settlement of the Galilee
within the last third of the second century BCE (Syon 2015:161–165). A discussion of the various alternative
scenarios proposed by scholars for the settlement of Galilee in the Early Roman period is a vast subject and
lies far beyond the scope of this report. Suffice it to say that the various interpretations proposed by scholars
over the last century regarding the origin of the Jewish population, such as the Israelite survivors after the
Assyrian conquest of 732 BCE, the local Phoenician population, and the Iturean converts to Judaism, should
now be considered as secondary, minor factors, at the most. For comprehensive summaries, see Freyne 1980;
2006; Leibner 2012.
21
Among this pottery, we may count the latest Kefar Ḥananya bowl Form 1E, the latest Kefar Ḥananya cooking
pot Form 4E, some Late Roman Red Ware bowls, and a lid.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
86 Yardenna Alexandre

Summary

The Iron Age remains from the present excavation, and from previous excavations in
Nazareth, support the view that Nazareth was settled in Iron I and Iron IIA–B (Stratum III,
ninth–eighth centuries BCE).
The remains of the late Hellenistic- to Early Roman-period house (Stratum II, first
century BCE–early second century CE) overlay the earlier floors, reusing the Iron II wall.
The finds from this period testify to the Jewish identity of the house occupants and the
observance of ritual purity. Also, the filling-in of the pits with extremely large quantities of
household pottery may reflect the occupants’ concern for ritual purity observance.
The pottery in the house aligns with the conclusions that a Jewish hamlet was settled
in Nazareth in the late Hellenistic–Hasmonean period (late second century BCE), and that
it developed into a village during the Early Roman period (first century BCE–first century
CE). The archaeological data from the present excavation ratifies the proposal that in the
late Hellenistic period, Jews from Judea settled in new villages and settlements in Galilee
(cf. Leibner 2012:468–469).
While some of the underground pits were probably originally basement components of
the house that functioned as storage facilities, there are several indications that the complexes
were expanded and intentionally camouflaged. It is proposed that the camouflaged pits were
prepared for hiding purposes, in the historical context of the First Revolt of the Jews against
the Romans in 66–67 CE. The pottery evidence in the house and in the pits indicates that
this particular house continued to be occupied after the revolt, into the early second century
CE, and that it was then abandoned.
The continuation of the village in Nazareth is reflected in the third- and fourth- century
CE pottery that was discovered by the previous excavations in the Franciscan compound
(Bagatti 1969: Figs. 220–231). The transition from the earlier Jewish village to a Christian
settlement in the Byzantine period (fifth–sixth centuries CE) is signaled by the Byzantine
church remains in the Franciscan compound and is also recorded by the early pilgrims who
visited the site (Bagatti 1969:20–24, 77–114). However, the present excavation did not shed
any new light on the Middle- to Late Roman-period settlement in Nazareth.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 87

A ppendix 1: List of Loci and Walls

Locus Stratum Plan Elevation (m) Description
No. No. Top Bottom
101 I 2 350.74 349.88 Surface, exposed after mechanical digger work
102 I 2 350.50 350.20 Accumulation and stone collapse
103 II 1 350.50 350.20 Floor 103, small area of crushed chalk floor on the bedrock
104 I 2 350.19 349.52 Accumulation and stone collapse
107 III 1 350.25 349.45 Rock-hewn channel
109 II 1 350.04 349.21 Bedrock floor
112 II 1 349.52 349.22 Room 112, bedrock floor with crushed chalk patches
113 II 1 349.80 349.10 Bedrock floor with chalk patches
114 I 2 349.95 349.35 Gap between W106 and W106A (including the area to its
west, above W115)
116 II 1 350.15 349.72 Makeup layer of Floor 103
117 II 1 349.54 349.23 Room 117, bedrock
118 III 1 349.22 349.10 Rock-hewn channel
120 II 1 350.77 350.45 Surface, exposed after mechanical digger work
121 I 2 350.73 350.38 Surface, exposed after mechanical digger work
122 II 350.00 349.12 = L113; part of bedrock floor
123 II? 350.00 349.70 = L116; part of floor make-up
124 II 350.00 349.19 = L109
125 II 1 350.80 350.40 Courtyard 125, sloping bedrock floor
126 II 1 350.20 349.39 Rectangular rock-hewn area
127 II 1 350.82 350.50 Stone partition delimiting L126
128 I 2 350.38 349.92 Fill or accumulation
130 II 1 349.50 348.47 Small rock-hewn area in L126
131 II 1, 349.96 349.56 = Pit 150; upper accumulation in rock-hewn pit
2–2,
3–3
Pit 132 II 1 349.53 347.39 Rock-hewn pit
134 II 1 350.12 349.65 Rock-hewn space delimited by wall
135 II 1 349.92 349.70 Room 135, crushed chalk floor cut by concrete foundations
140 I 2 351.40 350.90 Bedrock overlain by modern fill
141 I 2 351.00 350.61 Bedrock overlain by modern fill
142 II 350.80 349.27 = L130, L126
143 I 2 350.65 349.90 Accumulation from Mamluk period, disturbed
144 I 2 349.92 349.65 Accumulation from Mamluk period, disturbed
145 I 2 350.50 349.95 Accumulation from Mamluk period, disturbed
146 I 2 350.49 349.80 Accumulation from Mamluk period, disturbed
147 II/I 2 350.30 349.14 Accumulation from Mamluk period, disturbed
Pit 150 II 1, 350.30 348.21 Rock-hewn pit, cistern
2–2,
3–3
151 I 2 350.70 350.05 Quadrangular installation, made of stone slabs

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 Yardenna Alexandre

Appendix 1. (cont.)
Locus Stratum Plan Elevation (m) Description
No. No. Top Bottom
152 I 2 350.35 350.01 Dark brown accumulation
153 II 1 350.01 349.40 Room 153, reddish brown accumulation on sloping
bedrock
154 I 2 349.95 349.52 Accumulation from Mamluk period, disturbed
157 III 1 349.60 349.40 Reddish brown accumulation
158 II 1 349.60 349.05 Narrow corridor (1.5 × 0.7 m) leading to the three-story pit
complex
159 III 1 349.40 348.68 Reddish brown accumulation on bedrock
162 349.36 349.30 Stones and disturbed fill
163 III 1 349.52 349.32 Accumulation, disturbed
164 III 1 349.52 348.99 Accumulation, disturbed
165 III 1 350.05 349.81 Reddish brown accumulation
166 II/III 1 349.80 349.69 Reddish brown accumulation
167 III 1 349.70 349.52 Reddish brown accumulation
Pit 168 II 1, 4–4 348.82 346.71 The upper pit of the three-level subterranean complex;
includes L171
169 III 1 349.52 349.30 Reddish brown accumulation
170 III 1 349.33 348.99 Reddish brown accumulation
171 II 1 347.20 346.71 Lower part of Pit 168
172 III 1 349.50 348.99 Reddish brown accumulation
Pit 173 II 1, 4–4 346.71 344.91 The middle-positioned pit of the three-level subterranean
complex
Pit 174 II 1, 4–4 344.91 342.95 The lower pit of the three-level subterranean complex
W105 II 1, 2 350.71 349.20 Stone wall on hewn bedrock base
W106 I 2 350.77 349.50 Large stone wall foundation
W106A I 2 350.23 349.40 Sothern part of large stone wall foundation
W108 II 1, 2 350.29 349.20 Stone wall on hewn bedrock base
W110 I 2 350.42 349.25 Irregular stone wall
W111 II 1 349.60 349.26 Stone wall on hewn bedrock base
W111C I 2 350.23 349.85 Three large stone blocks in secondary use
W115 II 1, 2 349.73 349.10 Stone wall on hewn bedrock base
W129 II 1, 2 350.68 349.77 Stone wall on low hewn bedrock base
W133 I 2 350.41 349.75 Stone foundation
W148 I 2 349.79 349.25 Irregular stone wall fragment
W149 II 1 350.11 Rock-hewn foundation
W155 II 1, 2 349.50 349.15 Stone wall visible below W133
W156 III 1, 2 350.67 348.48 High-standing stone wall on bedrock
W160 II 1 349.66 349.05 Stone slab partition of the Corridor 158
W161 II 1 349.75 349.05 Stone slab partition of the Corridor 158
W175 III 1 350.47 348.87 Short wall segment, oriented east–west

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 89

References

Adan-Bayewitz D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat Gan.
Adan-Bayewitz D., Asaro F., Wieder, M. and Giauque R.D. 2008. Preferential Distribution of Lamps
from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century BCE–70 CE).
BASOR 350:37–85.
Adan-Bayewitz D. and Wieder M. 1992. Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several
Techniques for Fabric Characterization. JFA 19:189–205.
Alexandre Y. 2003. An Iron Age IB/IIA Burial Cave at Har Yona, Upper Nazareth. ‘Atiqot 44:183–
189.
Alexandre Y. 2008. The Archaeological Evidence of the Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras (Kfar Kanna)
in the Lower Galilee. In O. Guri-Rimon ed. The Great Revolt in the Galilee (Hecht Museum
Catalogue 28). Haifa. Pp. 73*–79*.
Alexandre Y. 2012a. Mary’s Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods (IAA
Reports 49). Jerusalem.
Alexandre Y. 2012b. Yafi‘a. HA–ESI 124 (October 3). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_
eng.aspx?id=2084&mag_id=119 (accessed April 18, 2017).
Alexandre Y. 2015. Karm er-Ras near Kafr Kanna. In D.A. Fiensy and J.R. Strange eds. Galilee in
the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods 2: The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns,
and Villages. Minneapolis. Pp. 146–157.
Alexandre Y. 2018. Burial Caves from the Intermediate Bronze, Middle Bronze and Iron Ages at
Nazareth. ‘Atiqot 93:1–44.
Alexandre Y. In preparation. Cana of Galilee: Excavations at Karm er-Ras 1999–2011. IAA Reports.
Alexandre Y., Covello-Paran K. and Gal. Z. 2003. Excavations at Tel Gat-Ḥefer in the Lower Galilee,
Areas A and B. ‘Atiqot 44:143–170.
Amit D. and Adler Y. 2010. The Observance of Ritual Purity after 70 C.E.: A Reevaluation of the
Evidence in Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries. In Z. Weiss, O. Irshai, J. Magness and
S. Schwartz eds. “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I.
Levine. Winona Lake. Pp. 121–143.
Ariel D.T. 1990. Worked Bone and Ivory. In D.T. Ariel. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985
Directed by Yigal Shiloh II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory,
and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 119–148.
Aviam M. 2005. Yodefat: A Case Study in the Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee
during the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. diss. Bar Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew; English
summary, pp. i–v).
Aviam M. 2008. The Fortified Settlements of Josephus Flavius and Their Significance against the
Background of the Excavations of Yodefat and Gamla. In O. Guri-Rimon ed. The Great Revolt in
the Galilee (Hecht Museum Catalogue 28). Haifa. Pp. 39*–52*.
Avissar M. 1996. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. In A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali.
Yoqne‘am I: The Late Periods (Qedem 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 48–59.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 Yardenna Alexandre

Avissar M. and Stern E.J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA
Reports 26). Jerusalem.
Avi-Yonah M. 1962. A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea. IEJ 12:137–139.
Bagatti B. 1969. Excavations in Nazareth I: From the Beginning till the XII Century (SBF Collectio
Maior 17). Jerusalem.
Bagatti B. 2001. Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee (SBF Collectio Minor 37). Jerusalem.
Bagatti B. 2002. Excavations in Nazareth II: From the 12th Century until Today (SBF Collectio
Maior 17). Jerusalem.
Bahat D. 1974. A Roof Tile of the Legio VI Ferrata and Pottery Vessels from Ḥorvat Ḥazon. IEJ
24:160–169.
Balouka M. 2013. Roman Pottery. In E.M. Meyers and C.L. Meyers. eds. The Pottery from Ancient
Sepphoris (Duke Sepphoris Excavation Reports I). Winona Lake. Pp. 13–129.
Bar-Kochva B. 1977. Manpower, Economics and Internal Strife in the Hasmonean State. In H. van
Effenterre ed. Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique (Actes du Colloque national, Paris 14–16
octobre 1976) (Colloques internationaux du CNRS 936). Paris. Pp. 167–196.
Bar-Nathan R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1987
Excavations III: The Pottery. Jerusalem.
Berlin A.M. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutmann
Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem.
Calderon R. 2000. Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In Y. Hirschfeld. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations:
Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 91–165.
Conder C.R. and Kitchener H.H. 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine I: Galilee. London.
Covello-Paran K. 2008. Excavations at Ḥorbat Malṭa, Lower Galilee. ‘Atiqot 59:5–79.
Dark K. 2012. The Byzantine Church of the Nutrition in Nazareth Rediscovered. PEQ 144:164–184.
Dessel J.P., Meyers C.L. and MeyersE.M. 2001. Tel ‘En Ṣippori, 2000. IEJ 51:99–105.
Díez Fernández F. 1983. Cerámica común romana de la Galilea: Aproximaciones y diferencias con
la cerámica del resto de Palestina y regiones circundantes. Madrid.
Eshel H. 1991. A Fragmentary Hebrew Inscription of the Priestly Courses? Tarbiz 61:159–161
(Hebrew; English summary, p. VII).
Farhi Y. 2016. Worked Bone Artifacts. In D. Syon. Gamla III, 2: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations
1976–1989; Finds and Studies (IAA Reports 59). Jerusalem. Pp. 229–260.
Freyne S. 1980. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study
of Second Temple Judaism (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and
Christianity in Antiquity 5). Wilmington.
Freyne S. 2006. Archaeology and the Historical Jesus. In J.H. Charlesworth ed. Jesus and Archaeology.
Grand Rapids. Pp. 64–83.
Gal Z. 1991. A Stone-Vessel Manufacturing Site in the Lower Galilee. ‘Atiqot 20:25*–26* (Hebrew;
English summary, p. 179–180).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nazareth from the Iron Age to the Late Roman Period 91

Gal Z. 1992. Lower Galilee during the Iron Age (ASOR Dissertation Series 8). Winona Lake.
Gal Z. 2009. The Lower Galilee between Tiglath-Pileser III and the Beginning of the Persian Period.
Eretz-Israel 29:77–81 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 284*–285*).
Gal Z. and Alexandre Y. 2000. Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA
Reports 8). Jerusalem.
Geva H. 2003. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations
in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas
A, W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem.
Guérin V. 1880. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine III: Galilée
I. Paris.
Guz-Zilberstein B. 1995. The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the
Hellenistic and Roman Periods. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor; Final Report I, B: Areas A and
C. The Finds (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 289–433.
Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London.
Johnson B.L. 1988. The Pottery. In G.D. Weinberg ed. Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory
in Late Roman Palestine. Columbia, Mo. Pp. 137–226.
Khamis E. 2013. Tiberias: Excavations in the House of the Bronzes; Final Report II: The Fatimid
Metalwork Hoard from Tiberias (Qedem 55). Jerusalem.
Klein S. 1924. Selected Articles on the Study of the Land of Israel. Vienna (Hebrew).
Leibner U. 2009. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Galilee: An
Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 127).
Tübingen.
Leibner U. 2010. Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): The Synagogue and the
Settlement. JRA 23:220–237.
Leibner U. 2012. The Origins of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee in the Second Temple Period:
Historical Sources and Archaeological Data. Zion 77:437–469 (Hebrew; English summary, pp.
XXXIII–XXXIV).
Levine L.I. 2005. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2nd ed.). New Haven–London.
Loffreda S. 1977. Ceramica del Ferro I trovata a Nazaret. LA 27:135–144.
Magen Y. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Ḥizma and
the Jerusalem Temple Mount (JSP 1). Jerusalem.
Marom N. This volume. Faunal Remains from Nazareth.
Młynarczyk J. 2009. Hellenistic and Roman-Period Pottery from Sha‘ar-Ha‘Amaqim. In A. Segal,
J. Młynarczyk and M. Burdajewicz eds. Excavations of the Hellenistic Site in Kibbutz Sha‘ar-
Ha‘Amaqim (Gaba) 1984–1998: Final Report. Haifa. Pp. 97–119.
Oshri A. and Gal Z. 2010. A Seventh-Century BCE Site near Tel ‘En Ẓippori. ‘Atiqot 63:15–25.
Pfann S., Voss R., and Rapuano Y. 2007. Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm
(1997–2002): Final Report. BAIAS 25:19–79.

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 Yardenna Alexandre

Pringle D. 1984. Thirteenth-Century Pottery from the Monastery of St. Mary of Carmel. Levant 16:
91–111.
Reed J. 2009. Chalkstone Vessels. In E.M. Meyers and C.L. Meyers eds. Excavations at Ancient
Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs (Meiron Excavation Project 6). Winona Lake. Pp. 296–305.
Reich R. 1997. Ritual Baths. In E.M. Meyers ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the
Near East 4. New York–Oxford. Pp. 430–431.
Roberts D. 1855. The Holy Land, Syria, Idumea, Arabia, Egypt and Nubia I. London.
Salm R. 2008. The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus. Cranford, N.J.
Salm R.J. 2015. NazarethGate: Quack Archeology, Holy Hoaxes, and the Invented Town of Jesus.
Cranford, N.J.
Shahar Y. 2003. The Underground Hideouts in Galilee and Their Historical Meaning. In P. Schäfer
ed. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against
Rome (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 100). Tübingen. Pp. 217–240.
Shamir O. 1996. Loomweights and Whorls. In D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot eds. Excavations at the
City of David 1878–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem.
Pp. 135–170.
Stern E.J. 2001. The Excavations at Lower Ḥorbat Manot: A Medieval Sugar-Production Site. ‘Atiqot
42:277–308.
Syon D. 2015. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site
Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction (Numismatic Studies and Researches XI). Jerusalem.
Tadmor H. and Yamada S. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) and
Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian
Period 1). Winona Lake.
Taylor J.E. 1993. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford.
Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I. Toronto.
Viaud P. 1910. Nazareth et ses deux églises de l’Annonciation et de Saint-Joseph d’après les fouilles
récentes pratiquées. Paris.
Vitto F. 2001. An Iron Age Burial Cave in Nazareth. ‘Atiqot 42:159–169.
Vlaminck B. 1900. A Report of the Recent Excavations and Explorations Conducted at the Sanctuary
of Nazareth. Washington, D.C.
Zidan O. and Alexandre Y. 2012. Kabul. HA–ESI 124 (December 31). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.
il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2177&mag_id=119 (accessed June 23, 2017).

This content downloaded from

148.230.10.141 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:23:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms