Area A (map ref. 248060–80/711840–60). While digging the trench for the electric cable, a wide wall, built of small travertine stones, was discovered. Due to the conditions of the area, the nature of the infrastructures and their proximity to the road, it was not possible to open an excavation square in this spot. In the square opened c. 3 m to the south along the presumed course of the wall, only soil fills, a few basalt stones, probably not building stones, and modern refuse were found, as well as a minute amount of potsherds dating to different periods. It therefore seems that the wall, which probably served as a foundation for the city’s eastern wall, terminated at the point where it was damaged.
 
Area B (map ref. 247945–55/711813–8; Fig. 2) was opened c. 150 m west of Area A, along the continuation of the trench for the cable. Two parallel walls (W12, W16), aligned east–west, were exposed. Wall 12 (Fig. 3) was severed by the electric company’s trench and by an older trench. Two phases of construction were discerned in the wall. A single course was exposed of the first phase (width 0.7 m). The full height of the wall in this phase was not ascertained; however, it seems that the top of its foundation was at the same elevation as that of Wall 16 (below). The wall was built of two rows of stones: dressed basalt stones on the southern exterior face of the wall and fieldstones on the northern inner face, with a core of small fieldstones. In the second phase, apparently after the upper courses of the wall were destroyed or dismantled, the top of the wall was made level and a single course of dressed basalt stones was set on their narrow side above the southern face of the wall. One of the stones used in this phase was a large doorjamb in secondary use. This manner of construction is characteristic of water channels, although no other evidence of such was found.
Only a section of the northern exterior face of Wall 16 was exposed (Fig. 4); it extended just 1.7–2.0 m south of Wall 12. This face was built of meticulously worked basalt stones, in whose interstices were remains of mortar. A wide opening (width 2.15 m) was set in the wall. It consisted of a threshold, composed of four basalt stones, in which sockets for a hinge and bolt holes were drilled. The doorjambs were built of ashlars and survived three courses high (1 m) on the eastern side and two courses on the western side. The opening led into a building, of which only a small area that had a tamped earth floor, was exposed. Numerous pieces of plaster, found near the wall and inside the opening, indicate that the wall was coated with plaster. Signs of burning were discerned near the opening and close by was a fragment of a round platter made of bituminous stone (diam. c. 0.8 m; Fig. 5), smoothed on the upper side and coarsely worked on its bottom side.
The space between the two walls (L13, L14) was probably a narrow street or an alley. Eight coins (below, Nos. 7–14) were found in that space, on the floor that consisted of tamped earth mixed with potsherds. A probe cut below the level of the alley and opposite the doorway (L17) revealed a layer of basalt stone-dressing chips that served as a foundation for the door threshold; it was not ascertained what this layer was founded upon.
 
Finds. Fragments of pottery vessels that dated to the Ottoman period were found on the surface (L11), as well as six coins from different periods (below, Nos. 1–6). A mixed ceramic assemblage was recovered from the space between the walls and next to them; most of the potsherds dated to the Byzantine period and some were from the Roman and Early Islamic periods. The assemblage included a cooking pot (Fig. 6:1) and a jar (Fig. 6:2) from the second–third centuries CE; bowls (Fig. 6:3–5), a cooking pot (Fig. 6:6), an amphora (Fig. 6:7) and a lamp (Fig. 6:8) from the fifth–seventh centuries CE; and a cooking krater (Fig. 6:9) and a jar (Fig. 6:10) from the seventh–eighth centuries CE. In addition, a lid (Fig. 6:11), which cannot be dated with certainty, numerous fragments of roof tiles and non-diagnostic glass fragments were found.
 
A total of fourteen coins were recovered from the excavation (Table 1). Coins 1–6, including an Ayyubid and a Mamluk coins, were discovered on the rather disturbed surface and are not indicative of the time when the walls were built. Nevertheless, the chronological range for most of the surface coins coincides with that of the coins from the space between the walls and the dating of the pottery vessels.
Table 1. The numismatic finds
 
No.
Locus
Basket
IAA No.
Period
Ruler
Date of coin
Mint
Fig.
1
11
108
 
Late Roman (?)
Illegible
fourth century CE
 
 
2
109
 
Illegible
 
 
3
107
106499
Byzantine
Anastasius I
498–506/7 CE
Constantinople
 
4
111
106502
Constans II
641–645 CE
Constantinople
 
5
104
106504
Ayyubid
Saladin (1174–1189 CE)
 
Damascus
7
6
106
106505
Mamluk
al-Nasir Nasir al-Din Muhammad (third reign, 1310–1341 CE)
 
 
 
7
13
127
106496
Late Roman
Maximianus
305–306 (?) CE
Alexandria (?)
 
8
123
106497
 
Late fourth century CE
 
 
9
119
106500
Byzantine
Justin II
568/9 CE
Nicomedia
8
10
124
106501
 
Late sixth century CE
 
 
11
120
106503
Early Islamic
Abbasid
Eighth century CE
 
 
12
14
116
106498
Late Roman
 
Late fourth century CE or fifth century CE
 
 
13
117
 
Illegible
 
 
 
14
118
 
 
Illegible
 
 
 
 
Coin No. 3 was struck in the first years following the monetary reform carried out by Anastasius I in 498 CE, when the use of tiny bronze coins was suspended and the use of big coins that are of relatively large denominations had begun.
 
The quality of construction of Wall 16, its state of preservation and the exceptional width of its doorway indicate that it belonged to a monumental building. In light of the ceramic finds and the large quantity of roof tiles, it can be concluded that the building had a tile roof and was erected in the Byzantine period. One can assume that this was a public building, probably a church, as evidenced by the orientation of the walls and the round platter of bituminous stone, the likes of which were used for tables in churches of this period. The proximity of Wall 12 to the public building points to the dense urban fabric in which the building was erected. The proximity of the building to the city wall is likely to attest, if this was indeed a church, that the course of the wall was planned so that it included the building within the city limits.