Area A (Fig. 2)
Stratum II (Byzantine period). Bedrock was exposed in the southern part of the square, sloping gently toward the east and having signs that it had been smoothed and a rock-cutting was noted on it. A habitation layer (L521) that dated to the Byzantine period overlaid bedrock. Remains of a colorful mosaic floor (L516; Fig. 3), which was installed on a bedding of a layer of cement above small stones and potsherds, were discovered. The mosaic consisted of small white tesserae and was decorated with a repeated bud-like pattern occurring in black, pale red and white. Signs of later repairs to the mosaic pavement were discovered and it was overlain with the remains of a higher floor of mortar and soil, which pointed to later use. The orientation of the decorated mosaic shows that this room was entered from the northeast. A cistern (L515; see below) was discovered in Stratum III in the area north of the mosaic floor. It is assumed that the cistern was being used during the Byzantine period and the mosaic floor may have been part of a central courtyard in a building, which was mostly situated beyond the excavation area. Other artifacts discovered in this stratum included three stone cornices, fragments of stone pillars and a broken marble slab that bore several Greek letters (not deciphered); all of these may indicate that the structure was a public building or a villa dating to the fifth–seventh centuries CE.
Stratum III (Early Islamic period). Three construction phases were exposed. The earliest phase consisted of a thick foundation of small stones and fragments of an ancient floor, overlain with a crushed chalk floor (L508). A coin from the time of Alexander Jannaeus (78–76 BCE: Coin No. 2, below) was discovered in the layer of soil above the floor. The chalk floor probably abutted a built wall (W4), at whose top was a doorstep. Wall 4 formed a corner with another wall (W2) and it seems that this was the northern corner of some building. A cistern (L515) with a capstone was discovered north of W4. Due to safety considerations, only the cistern’s shaft was excavated and two coins were discovered; one from the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (Coin No. 1, below) and the other from the reign of Antoninus Pius (Coin No. 5, below). A built surface that was partially paved (L506) was exposed around the cistern. Channels in the surface conveyed water into the cistern from the south and east (L510). At least two square installations were built at the level of the capstone in the middle phase and the cistern’s opening was deliberately blocked with small and medium stones and architectural elements in secondary use in the late phase. It seems that the building and the adjacent cistern continued to be used, albeit with slight modifications, in the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods (seventh–eleventh centuries CE).
The finds recovered from Area A consisted of several other coins (below), including one from the time of Alexander Jannaeus (Coin No. 3, below), a coin from Nero’s reign (54–68 CE; Coin No. 4, below) and one from the time of Heraclius (614–618 CE; Coin No. 6, below). The glass artifacts (below) included lumps of raw glass and vessel fragments that dated mainly to the Late Byzantine and the beginning of the Umayyad periods, with a few dating to the Abbasid and Fatimid periods. The ceramic finds included kraters (Fig. 4:1–3), cooking vessels (Fig. 4:4, 5) and a jar (Fig. 4:6) dating to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods (seventh–eighth centuries CE), a plain bowl (Fig. 4:7), a bowl decorated with incising and yellow and green splashed glaze (Fig. 4:8), splash glazed bowls (Fig. 4:9, 10), a burnished black bowl decorated with incised peacocks (Fig. 5), a jar (Fig. 4:11) and jugs (Fig. 4:12–15), dating to the Abbasid period (ninth–tenth centuries CE), as well as bowls coated with an alkali glaze (Fig. 4:16, 17), a cooking krater (Fig. 4:18) and a cooking pot (Fig. 4:19) that dated to the Fatimid period (eleventh century CE). Potsherds from the Early Islamic period and a cattle prod (Fig. 6) were found in the robber trench of a wall that probably dated to the Byzantine period, west of Floor 516. Shells (below) from the Early Islamic period were also discovered in the area.
Area B (Fig. 7)
Stratum II (Byzantine period). A large heap of small and medium-sized stones (L407; Fig. 8) that was inclined from north to south, in accordance with the slope of the hill, was exposed. Many potsherds from the Byzantine period were found among the stones. While dismantling the southern part of the stone heap a coin that dated to the end of the fourth–beginning of the fifth centuries CE (Coin No. 7, below) was discovered. A wall (W4) built of fieldstones and oriented east–west was exposed adjacent to the southern side of the heap. Another wall (W3), exposed above W4 and built of fieldstones, was preserved three–four courses high. It seems that the two walls were intended to contain the stones and prevent their rolling down the slope.
Stratum III (Early Islamic period). Remains of a wall, set on gray soil and at a higher elevation than the stone heap, were exposed in the southern part of the area. The wall, built of one row of medium and large stones, was oriented east–west and preserved three courses high (the wall was dismantled during the excavation). Another wall (W1; width 0.9 m) was exposed at the level above the stone heap. Wall 1, aligned east–west and built of stones in secondary use, was preserved a single course high. A plaster floor (L402) abutted the southern side of W1.
The finds in the area included two coins that were discovered on the surface, one from the time of Constans II (651–655 CE; Coin No. 8, below) and the other from the Umayyad period (c. 738–740 CE, Coin No. 9, below); meager glass remains, including industrial glass waste and fragments of vessels that ranged in date from the Byzantine to the Umayyad periods and an iron arrowhead (Fig. 9). Part of a square pottery vessel, which had a pedestal decorated with kerbschnitt (Fig. 10) and dated to the Umayyad–Abbasid periods, was discovered when dismantling the stone heap.
Area C (East; Fig. 11)
Remains of a building that was founded on bedrock in the Late Roman period (first half of the fourth century CE; Stratum I) were uncovered. A second building was constructed above it in the Byzantine period (Stratum II) and a third structure that dated to the Umayyad–Abbasid periods
(seventh–eighth centuries CE; Stratum III) was exposed atop the Byzantine building.
Stratum I (Late Roman period). The excavation reached bedrock, which had marks of smoothing and quarrying. Layers of reddish brown soil (Loci 122, 123), which contained potsherds from the Roman period, were discovered on bedrock. A layer of cement (L120) and the foundation of a built wall (W3), preserved two courses high, were discovered in the northern side of the square. Levels of soil (L121) that contained potsherds dating to the Late Roman period abutted the foundation of W3. Levels of earth and stone fill (Loci 116, 117) superposed the levels of soil; two coins were discovered in the upper level (L117); one dated to the time of Crispus (317–326 CE; Coin No. 11, below) and the other to the reign of Constantine II (335–341 CE; Coin No. 13, below). Two superposed crushed chalk floors overlaid the levels of fill. The upper floor (L112) was a shade of white and the bottom floor (L114) was pale red. Two coins were discovered in the bedding of Floor 114: one in memory of Constantine I (337–341 CE; Coin No. 12, below) and the other dating to the fourth century CE (Coin No. 16, below).
Stratum II (Byzantine period). A wall (W1), whose foundation trench (L118) severed floors and foundations in Stratum I, was exposed. Wall 1, in whose center a pillar was incorporated to probably support the roof, was built of large ashlars (average size 0.45×0.55×1.00 m). The wall was preserved four courses high (1.9 m) and the pillar had survived two courses high. The wall, coated with a thick layer of gray plaster, was abutted by a floor of tamped plaster (L108; Fig. 12), which was laid on a bedding (L110) that covered the top of W3 from Stratum I. Three coins were discovered in the floor bedding; two coins dated to the end of the fourth century CE (383–395 CE; IAA 106016, 106022; below) and the third dated to the fifth century CE (IAA 106021; below). Two coins were discovered on the floor, one from the reign of Theodosius II (395–408 CE; IAA 106018, below) and the other from the reign of Justinian I (537–553/4 CE; IAA 106017; below). Based on the finds, the construction of the building should be dated, at the very latest, to the end of the fourth–beginning of the fifth centuries CE; it was used until the Late Byzantine period in the seventh century CE.
Stratum III (Early Islamic period). Wall 2 was built against the southwestern side of W1. It consisted of stones in secondary use, including a column drum and a doorjamb. The alignment of W2 was identical to that of W1 and it seems that the builders of the structure were familiar with the older wall and utilized it for their needs. A coin from the Umayyad period (c. 720–750 CE; IAA 106020) was discovered on a coarse plaster floor (L111) that abutted W2. A heap of small stones that included a column drum was revealed on the floor adjacent to W2 and was dismantled during the excavation. It seems that these stones originated from a later phase of the building, possibly even a phase after the structure was abandoned. A light colored habitation level (L103) was exposed north of W1, slightly higher than Floor 111.
The numismatic finds recovered from the area (Syon, below) included several other coins that were illegible, as well as a coin dating to the reign of Phocas (604/5 CE; IAA 106021) that was discovered on the surface. The glass artifacts (Gorin-Rosen, below) included fragments of vessels from the Byzantine and Umayyad periods, among them bowls, wine goblets, bottles and lamps, as well as lumps of raw glass that were brought to the site for melting and were mostly pale blue–pale green in color, with a few pale green–pale yellow. In addition, lumps of debris that were formed at the bottom of the furnace were found. The waste did not include any blown glass debris and it was apparently brought to the site as fill from a nearby industrial area; it seems that the glass waste dated to the end of the Byzantine and the beginning of the Umayyad periods. The mollusks (Ktalav, below; Fig. 13) from this layer included four fragments of shells (Aspatharia rubens) that are indigenous to the Nile River in Egypt, which were discovered in Stratum III, and two shells from the Mediterranean Sea, retrieved from Stratum II.
Area C (West; Fig. 14)
Stratum II. The top of a wall (W3), which was not excavated due to safety precautions, was discerned. Its construction method indicates that the wall was apparently related to the
Byzantine-period structures, revealed in Area C (East).
A plastered pit (L202; 2.9×2.9 m), filled with soil and building stones, was exposed above the top level of the wall in Stratum II. Pieces of modern metal and concrete were discovered in the pit, from its very bottom to the surface level, indicating that the pit was probably used at the time of Saffuriya village. The fill in the pit contained mixed potsherds that ranged in date from the Byzantine period until the modern era, two coins (Syon, below), one from the second century CE (IAA 106014) and the other from the reign of Mustafa III (1754–1757 CE; IAA 106013), a fragment of a marble bowl, adorned with an incised cross on its rim, and glass artifacts (Gorin-Rosen, below), including fragments of bowls, a base of a wine goblet and a broken edge of a window that dated to the end of the Byzantine and beginning of the Umayyad periods, as well as pieces of glass bracelets, dating to the Ottoman period.
Area D (Fig. 15)
Floors of gray cement mixed with potsherds and small stones were overlain one atop the other on the bedrock (Floors 5–7) and between them were layers of soil (Loci 313, 315) that contained finds dating to the Byzantine period. A coin dating to the time of Maurice Tiberius (594/5 CE; IAA 106012) was discovered when Floor 5 (L312) was dismantled. A wall (W1) was exposed; its foundation trench severed these floors and hence it postdated them. Floor 4 (L311) abutted W1. Two other floors (3, 2) above Floor 4 were severed by a foundation trench that was ascribed to a later phase of the building. Remains of the later phases were not preserved, except for those of a plaster floor that belonged to the uppermost floor level (1). The finds recovered from the soil fill above Floor 1 (Loci 304, 307) and in the layers between Floors 1 and 2 (L309) dated the two floors to the Byzantine period (fifth–seventh centuries CE). It seems that the wall and the floors were part of a larger building or installation that was erected in the Byzantine period and renovated several times. During the course of these renovations, several floors were built one atop the other and W1 was repaired.
The numismatic finds (Syon, below) included three more coins (IAA 106009, 106010, 106011), which were discovered in the surface layer and in the repairs of the upper floor and dated to the third–fourth centuries CE. The glass artifacts (Gorin-Rosen, below) included vessel fragments that dated from the end of the Byzantine to the beginning of the Umayyad periods, including bowls, wine goblets, bottles and lumps of raw glass, which evidenced a workshop that operated in the vicinity and has not yet been located.
Remains of buildings, as well as floors and habitation levels that were used in residential dwellings, were exposed in the excavations. The remains dated to three main periods: Late Roman (fourth century CE), Byzantine (from the mid-fourth to the beginning of the seventh centuries CE) and Early Islamic (seventh–eleventh centuries CE). The polis Diocaesarea existed in Zippori during the Roman and Byzantine periods. Its impressive remains have been uncovered in excavations of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, within the precincts of the Zippori national park. The excavations in Moshav Zippori have shown that the inhabited area of Diocaesarea extended along the southern slope of the hill and into the built-up area of the Moshav. The excavations of the polis yielded a few remains that dated to the Early Islamic period and even fewer architectural complexes from this period (S. Ward, 2000. Sepphoris in the Islamic Period. In Y. Schwartz, Z. Amar and I. Ziffer, eds. Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, Arie Kindler Volume, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv. Pp. 147–154). The uncovered remains, dating to the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods (seventh–eleventh centuries CE), were discovered throughout the entire excavation area. These finds shed new light on the history of the settlement at Zippori during these periods, which may have been situated on the southern slope of the hill, where the village of Saffuriya was located. The continuity of the settlement from the Byzantine to the Early Islamic periods, as discovered in the excavation at Moshav Zippori, is known from other sites in the Lower Galilee (Map of Nahalal , 1982; ESI 18:30–31).
The two excavations at Moshav Zippori yielded many glass artifacts, including fragments of vessels and a large amount of glass industrial waste (Figs. 16–18). The finds from the two excavations are very similar and mostly date to the Late Byzantine and the beginning of the Umayyad periods. Some of the finds date to the Early Islamic period, particularly the Abbasid period, and a single item is dated to the Ottoman period. Most of the finds were discovered in Area A (Fig. 16:1–6, 8–13), which was the richest in glass artifacts.
Glass Vessels from the Late Byzantine and the Beginning of the Umayyad Periods
These vessels represent very common types that are known from many sites in Israel and Transjordan. Some of the vessels’ forms continued earlier ones and their dates are based on the quality of the fabric and the assemblage in which they were found. A very similar assemblage of glass vessels was discovered in the excavation at Ramat Yishay (HA-ESI 119).
Bowls (Fig. 16:1, 2).
The bowl in Fig. 16:1, made of very pale blue glass, is slightly covered with a few lime deposits. It has a flared, out-folded hollow rim (diam. 13.8 cm) and its wall is very delicate. This bowl represents a very common type that first appeared in the Roman period and continued interminably until the Umayyad period. Based on the quality and shade of the glass, as well as its work and the context in which it was discovered, the bowl seems to date to the Late Byzantine and the beginning of the Umayyad periods. Other fragments of bowls with folded out rims, which differed from each other in the angle of the rim’s inclination and the width of the fold, were discovered in the excavation, as well as fragments of raised hollow base-rings that are characteristic of this bowl type.
A large fragment of a flared and rounded rim (diam. 11 cm; Fig. 16:2) belongs to a small bowl or wineglass.The glass is a very pale shade of blue, similar to the first bowl, and slightly covered with lime deposits and patches of silvery-milky weathering.The side of the vessel is quite thick and curved.
Wineglasses (Fig. 16:3–7).
The determination of the vessels as wineglasses relies primarily on the identification of their bases. The wineglasses’ rims are often very similar to those of bottles and bowl-shaped lamps. One of the rims (diam. 10.4 cm; Fig. 16:3) represents such an instance. The big fragment (height 11.5 cm), which probably belonged to a large wineglass, has a rounded rim that flares slightly. The slanted side of the vessel is quite thick and curves toward the base. The glass is a very pale shade of blue, covered with silvery iridescent weathering and pitting. The quality of the glass is inferior; it contains numerous small bubbles and it has marks of blowing spirals.
A small rim fragment (Fig. 16:4) is made of pale yellowish green glass, covered with sandy deposits and patches of milky, white creamy weathering. The rim (diam 7.8 cm) flares slightly and was folded-in tightly with heat; the side of the vessel is thin. The fragment was identified as a wineglass based on its angle of inclination, diameter and the delicate manner of its work, although most of the in-folded rims belong to bottles. It seems that the inward fold was meant to thicken the rim, while secondary heating refined its thickness and rendered it the right size for a wineglass rim.
An upright, rounded rim (diam. 9 cm; Fig. 16:5) is made of colorless glass with a pale green tinge, decorated with turquoise trails. The fragment has practically no weathering, yet black impurities are discerned inside the turquoise. The ornamentation consists of a thick trail applied to the edge of the rim and other thinner trails below the rim. These trails were reheated and fused into the wall. Wineglass rims decorated in this manner were discovered at numerous sites and are dated to the Byzantine and/or the beginning of the Umayyad periods.
A number of wineglass bases of two main types were discovered. One type, characterized by a hollow base-ring (not drawn), first appeared at the beginning of the Byzantine period and became very popular throughout the period, continuing until the Umayyad period. The second type has a solid base, made by applying hot glass to the stem and fashioning it with a tool, whose marks can be seen around the base (Fig. 16:6, 7). This type is typical of the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods.
The base fragment in Fig. 16:6 (diam. 4.8 cm), made of olive-green glass, is covered with patches of sand, lime encrustations and milky-creamy weathering, especially on its bottom. This fragment is a thick cylindrical stem with the beginning of the wineglass’ bowl. The base is solid and was carelessly worked with a tool that left marks on its upper part. A rough pontil scar (diam. 1.3–1.4 cm) is seen on its bottom.
The base fragment in Fig. 16:7 (diam. 4.2 cm) is made of greenish blue glass and covered with silvery iridescent weathering and pitting. It displays a cylindrical stem, which widens toward the bowl, of which only the beginning had survived. The solid base was fashioned by a tool that left marks on its upper part. A rough scar (length 1.2 cm) is seen on the base.
Bottles (Fig. 16:8).
Several types of bottles, characteristic of the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods, were discovered. One type, the most prevalent in this period, is a small bottle whose rim is folded-in, pressed or flattened, with a short cylindrical neck and a globular or barrel-shaped body (not drawn). The second is typified by a cylindrical neck, a rounded or folded-in rim and a decoration of thin or thick trails applied to the neck (not drawn).
The bottle in Fig. 16:8 represents another type that has an upright or folded-in rim. This fragment, made of pale bluish green glass, is covered with slight sandy deposits overlying pitting and iridescent weathering and the glass contains numerous bubbles. The upright, folded-in and hollow rim is asymmetric (diam. 6.8 cm). In addition to bottle rims, fragments of concave, low and plain bottle bases that date to the Late Byzantine period were discovered.
Oil Lamps (Fig. 16:9–12).
Two main types of lamps were discovered: bowl-shaped oil lamps (Fig. 16:9, 10) and stem lamps (Fig. 16:11, 12). Bowl-shaped lamps are characterized by an out-folded hollow rim and three small ear-shaped handles that extend from the wall up to the rim. They are most common in the Byzantine period and continue to appear in the Umayyad period.
The fragments in Fig. 16:9, 10, made of greenish blue glass with olive green veins, are covered with patches of sandy deposits and creamy silvery weathering. The poor quality glass contains many bubbles and black impurities.
The stem lamps belong to two types; the first has a hollow cylindrical stem (not drawn) and is common to the Byzantine period, continuing into the Umayyad period. The second is composed of lamps that have a solid cylindrical base with tooling marks, which form a kind of beaded stem. This lamp first appeared in the Late Byzantine period and was very popular in the Umayyad period. The stem in Fig. 16:11, made of light blue glass that contains many small and large bubbles, is covered with some sandy deposits and milky-creamy weathering. The end of the stem was tooled with tongs, which constricted it and left marks on the stem. A small truncated pontil scar (diam. 0.8 cm) is seen on the base. The stem in Fig. 16:12, made of glass with uneven green and olive-green hues, is covered with some sandy deposits and patches of milky-creamy weathering. The stem was constricted by tooling its end with tongs that created horizontal ridges of sorts, two of which are preserved. A truncated pontil scar (diam. 0.8 cm) is seen on the base. This stem is thinner and more delicate than that of Fig. 16:11. The latter two lamps were discovered in the same place, together with at least two more fragments of stem lamps of the same type.
Glass Production Waste (Figs. 17, 18).
Glass production is divided into two categories; the first is the production of raw glass and the second – the production of vessels and objects. Debris of both production categories is similar, yet each category has several characteristics that are typical and allow its identification. The debris recovered from this excavation consisted of evidence for raw glass, as well as some fragments that could have originated in a workshop for glass vessels.
The glass waste included chunks of raw glass ready for melting. Most of the chunks are of a greenish blue shade and some are yellowish green, clean of debris and meant for melting in the glassmaker’s furnace. A large quantity of chunks was discovered in Locus 103, at the eastern side of Area C. Lumps that comprised a layer of glass and debris beneath it, which were mostly formed at the bottom of the glassmaker’s furnace as a result of settling debris, were also discovered. Two such lumps were found in L103; the large one of the two has a shape that indicates it came from the corner of the furnace. In addition, lumps of glass mixed with debris that probably originated from furnaces of raw glass were found, as well as a few fragments of bricks with a thin layer of glass from the upper part of the furnace. This is typical debris of raw glass furnaces, as known from other excavations, e.g., at Bet Eliezer (ESI 13:42–43).
The waste from the excavation apparently came from glass furnaces, although it did not contain any glass-blowing debris. Manufacture of glass-blown vessels is usually typified by large quantities of blowing debris in the vicinity of the furnace. Hence, a plausible explanation for this absence is that most of the debris belonged to raw glass industry nearby, or the waste was taken from a nearby industrial zone as fill material.
Large amounts of glass industrial waste from the Byzantine period were discovered in the Zippori excavations, both on the acropolis and in the area of the lower city (Gorin-Rosen, Y. 2000. The Ancient Glass Industry in Israel: Summary of the Finds and New Discoveries. In M.D. Nenna ed. La route du verre: Ateilers primaires et secondaires du second millénaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Âge [ Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 33]. Lyon. P. 57).
Glass Vessels from the Early Islamic Period (Fig. 16:13–16)
Several fragments, which point to a presence in the Early Islamic period, particularly during the Abbasid and Fatimid periods, were discovered.
The bowl in Fig. 16:13, made of very pale greenish blue glass, is coated with pitting and black silvery and iridescent weathering and the interior is encrusted with sand deposits. The rim (diam. 16 cm) is upright and rather thick, with a depression and an exterior ridge below it. The bowl is dated to the Early Islamic period, based on its fabric and the shape of the rim; however, this definition is not conclusive. The nature of its weathering is different than that of the other vessels in the same square. The shade of the glass is similar to the color of vessels that are dated to the Late Byzantine period, but the weathering is different. The shape of the rim occurs at the end of the Roman period and reappears in the Abbasid period.
Three of the vessels in the glass assemblage were discovered in Area C (Fig. 16:14–16). The bowl’s rim fragment in Fig. 16:14 is made of very light greenish blue glass. It is coated with pitting and silvery weathering and has patches of pitting and milky weathering on the interior. The poorly preserved rim (diam. 8.2 cm) is inverted and adorned with a tonged, diamond pattern, which is fragmentary but can be reconstructed based on vessels decorated in a similar manner. This decorative technique appeared in the Umayyad period and was used extensively in the Abbasid period.
The bottle fragment in Fig. 16:15, made of pale greenish blue glass, is pitted and covered with lime deposits and silvery black weathering. The fabric resembles that of the bowl in Fig. 16:14. This bottle fragment displays a whole rim and part of a neck. The rim (diam. 4 cm) is asymmetric, rounded and slightly everted. Characteristic to the vessel is a tubular hollowed fold, tooled out beneath the funnel mouth. Neither the glass nor the workmanship is of particularly good quality. Bottles and jugs that have an open or closed exterior fold first appeared in the Umayyad period and continued to occur for a long period of time in various forms. The bottles differed in the fabric quality of glass and the workmanship. The bottle fragment is ascribed to the Umayyad period, based on its form and fabric.
The bottle fragment in Fig. 16:16, made of colorless glass, is quite pitted and covered with silvery black and iridescent weathering. This fragment displays a flat base (diam. 1.2 cm) that is slightly concave and has a pontil scar in its center (length 0.6 cm). The wall is very thinand it seems that this was a small cylindrical bottle. The fabric of the bottle resembles the glass used in the Early Islamic period, especially at the beginning of the ninth century CE. Most of the small cylindrical bottles of the Early Islamic period are characterized by a thickened base, as well as occasionally walls, unlike the bottle in Fig. 16:16, which is thin and delicate, although made of similar glass and covered with typical weathering.
A Glass Artifact from the Ottoman Period (Fig. 16:17)
A bracelet fragment, made of dark colored glass that is practically opaque, was discovered in Area A. It has green patches with a yellow and orange bichrome spot between them. The bracelet is covered with shiny weathering and pitting and the poor quality glass contains impurities. The inner wall of the bracelet is smooth and straight and the thick bracelet has a pointed, triangular cross-section.
This is the latest glass artifact recovered from the excavation; similar bracelets are mostly dated to the Ottoman period.
The excavation yielded 34 coins, eight of which could not be identified (six in Area C and two in Area A). Most coins are quite common and in a bad state of preservation. Follows a catalog arranged chronologically by area.
1. Reg. No. 5069, L515, IAA 106005.
Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80–76 BCE.
Obv.: [---] Anchor.
Rev.: [---] Star in circle.
Æ pruta, 1.19 g, 13 mm.
2. Reg. No. 5048, L508, IAA 106003.
Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80–76 BCE.
Æ pruta, 0.38 g, 9 mm. Identification by size and shape
3. Reg. No. 5026, L505, IAA 106001.
Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80–76 BCE.
Obv.: [---] Traces of anchor.
Æ pruta, 0.73 g, 11 mm.
4. Reg. No. 5007, L500, IAA 106000.
Nero, Caesarea, 54–68 CE.
Obv.: [---] Bust of Nero right (partly off flan). Rectangular countermark: KAI.
Rev.: [---] Tyche of Caesarea. Details obscure.
Æ, ↑, 8.63 g, 22 mm. Corroded.
5. Reg. No. 5066, L515, IAA 106004.
Diocaesarea (Zippori) under Antoninus Pius, 138–161 CE, Zippori.
Obv.: [AYK]AI AN–TwNINOC EY Head right, laureate.
Rev.: [Δ]Ι[Ο]ΚΑΙ•Ι‰ΡΑ ΑCY AYTO Hera standing left, holding patera (?) in her right.
Æ, ↑, 5.95 g, 18 mm.
6. Reg. No. 5035, L505, IAA 106002.
Heraclius, Alexandria, 614–618 CE.
Obv.: [---] Cross.
Æ, 6 nummi, ., 2.5 g, 16 mm.
7. Reg. No. 4044, L409, IAA 106008.
Late Roman, latefourth–early fifth centuries CE.
Obv.: [---]PF AVG Bust right.
Rev.: Victory (?).
Æ, 1.25 g, 11 mm.
8. Reg. No. 4014, L400, IAA 106006.
Constans II, Constantinople, 651–655 CE.
Obv.: Emperor facing front, holding sceptre and cross on globe.
Rev.: M To left A/N/A; above, star. Unclear countermark.
Æ follis↑, 3.02 g, 17 mm.,
9. Reg. No. 4015, L400, IAA 106007 (Fig. 19).
Umayyad, c. AH 120 (738–740 CE), Beisan.
Obv.: In square: لا اله \ الا الله \ وحده
Rev.: محمد \ رسول \ الله Fish.
Æ fals7, 2.96 g, 12 mm.,
10. Reg. No. 2011, L200, IAA 106014.
Autonomous, second century CE, Tyre.
Obv.: Head of Tyche right, with turreted crown.
Rev.: [---] Palm tree, details not clear. At left: Δ.
Æ, ↑, 2.64 g, 14–16 mm.
11. Reg. No. 1118, L116, IAA 106024 (Fig. 19).
Crispus (as caesar), Rome, 317–326 CE.
Obv.: CRISPVS NOBIL CAES Young bust right, laureate and cuirassed.
Rev.:. PRINCIPIA IVVENT[VTIS] Soldier advancing right, holding spear and shield. In left field: A.
Æ, ↓, 2.77 g, 18 mm.
12. Reg. No. 1149, L115, IAA 106019.
Constantine I (posthumous), 337–341 CE, Antioch.
Obv.: DV CONSTANTI–NVS PT AVG[G] Head right, veiled.
Rev.: Constantine in quadriga ascending to heaven. In exergue: SMANB
Æ, 4, 1.88 g, 15 mm. Found adhering to a potsherd.
13. Reg. No. 1108, L116, IAA 106023.
Constantine II, 335–341 CE, Arles.
Obv.: CONSTANTI–[---]VG Bust right.
Rev.: GLORI–A EXER–[CITVS] Two soldiers flanking one military standard.
Æ, ↓, 1.29 g, 17 mm.
14. Reg. No. 1066, L110, IAA 106022.
Late Roman, 383–395 CE, Heraclea(?).
Obv.: [---] Bust right.
Rev.: [SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory advancing right, dragging captive. In exergue: [S]MH[?]
Æ, -, 1.28 g, 12 mm.
15. Reg. No. 1054, L110, IAA 106016.
Late Roman, 383–395 CE.
Obv/: [---] Bust right with pearl diadem.
Rev.: [SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory advancing right, dragging captive.
Æ, ↓, 0.77 g, 12 mm.
16. Reg. No. 1143, L114, IAA 106025.
Late Roman, fourth century CE.
Obv.: [---] Bust right.
Rev.: [---] Emperor advancing right, dragging captive (?).
Æ, 4, 1.63 g, 16 mm.
17. Reg. No. 1058, L108, IAA 106018.
Theodosius II, 395–408 CE.
Obv.: [---]THEODO [--- Bust right.
Rev.: [CONCORDIA AVGGG] Cross.
Æ, ↑, 0.8 g, 10 mm.
18. Reg. No. 1053, L110, IAA 106015.
Late Roman, fifth century CE (?).
Æ, 0.54 g, 10 mm.
19. Reg. No. 1055, L108, IAA 106017.
Justinian I, Carthage, 533/4–537 CE.
Obv.: DN[---]Aµ Bust right, cross on breast.
Rev.: M Above, cross; below: B. In exergue: KART
Æ follis, 2, 11.34 g, 27 mm.
20. Reg. No. 1063, L100, IAA 106021.
Phocas, Nikomedia, 604/5 CE.
Obv.: [---] Bust facing with pointed beard and consular robes, holding cross on globe.
Rev.: XX Above, cross; to right: III. In exergue: NIK[O]
Æ half follis, 7, 5.65 g, 23 mm.
21. Reg. No. 1060, L111, IAA 106020 (Fig. 19).
Umayyad, 720–750 CE, Hama.
Obv.: لا اله \ الا الله \ وحده
Rev.: محمد \ رسول \ الله
Æ fals., 3.66 g, 12–14 mm.,
22. Reg. No. 2006, L201, IAA 106013.
Mustafa III, 1757–1774 CE, Tunis(?).
Rev.: Obliterated, except for date: ۱۱٨۸۵
š, 0.10 g, 12 mm.
23. Reg. No. 3038, L306, IAA 106011.
Elagabal, Tyre, 219–222 CE.
Obv.: ---]M AV ANTONIN[--- Bust right.
Rev. [TV–RI–O]RVM Tyche in center facing, placing hand on trophy and crowned by small nike standing on column at right. Below, murex (?)
Æ, ↑, 15.82 g, 28 mm.
24. Reg. No. 3036, L305, IAA 106010.
Late Roman, 383–395 CE.
Obv.: [---] Bust right.
Rev.: [SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory advancing left, dragging captive. At left, christogram(?)
Æ, ↑, 1.21 g, 14 mm.
25. Reg. No. 3004, L303, IAA 106009.
Late Roman, fourth century CE.
Obv.: [---] Bust right.
Æ, 1.11 g, 13 mm.
26. Reg. No. 3039, L333, IAA 106012.
Maurice Tiberius, Constantinple, 594/5 CE.
Obv.: ---]MVR-TI[--- Bust facing, wearing crown with cross.
Rev.: K To left A/N/N/[O]; To right: XIII; Below: Δ.
Æ half follis, ↑, 5.35 g, 19–23 mm.
Ten shells, handpicked by the excavators, were recovered from Areas A and C in the excavations (Fig 13). The shells were identified by comparison to the National Mollusk Collection in the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Area A yielded three shells that dated to the Early Islamic period. A fragment of Chambardia rubens (L500) was found on the surface. Few more fragments, probably belonging to a single specimen of Chambardia rubens and a complete shell of Potamides conica, which is a brackish water dweller, were found in a domestic context (Loci 506, 517).
The fragments of Chambardia rubens
(Fig 13) might have been used as inlay material, and imply connections between the Zippori residents and Egypt during the Early Islamic period. Fragments of Chambardia rubens from the Early Islamic period were also found at the Amman Citadel (Reese D.S., Mienis H.K. and Woodward F.R. 1986. On the Trade of Shells and Fish from the Nile River. BASOR 264:79–84), at Sde Boqer (Heller J. and D. Bar-Yosef, 1985. Molluscs from the Excavation at Sde Boqer. In Y.D. Nevo, Sde Boqer and the Central Negev, 7th–8th century AD. Jerusaelm. P. 33) and at Ramla south (HA-ESI 118; HA-ESI 121; HA-ESI 121).
Area C. A single square was excavated and three levels were discerned. The upper Level III contained the remains of a structure from the Early Islamic period (Loci 101, 102, 103). Four fragments of the bivalve Chambardia rubens, originating from the Nile River, were retrieved from this level. Locus 105 was a transition phase between the upper Early Islamic layer and the intermediate Byzantine layer. The single fragment of Chambardia rubens probably originated in the Early Islamic layer. The intermediate Level II contained the remains of a structure from the Byzantine period (L108). Two complete shells of the species Bulla striata, originating from the Mediterranean, were retrieved from this level. No shells were found in Level I.
David Hadash, Noa Raban-Gerstel and Guy Bar-Oz
The faunal remains from the 2003 salvage excavation of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods at Zippori comprised a total of 138 complete and fragmentary identified bones. The Byzantine and Early Islamic deposits were based primarily on caprine, with sheep and cattle represented. The small percentage of young individuals at both contexts suggests that animals were raised and exploited primarily for their secondary product uses: dairy products and wool for sheep and goat; milk and labor for cattle. The main difference in livestock exploitation strategies between the two occupational phases is the high percentage of cattle in the Byzantine deposit. This phenomenon could reflect the presence of high status land owners. Yet, it could result from increased exploitation of cattle for labor. The latter hypothesis is supported by the presence of several cattle bones with mild pathological alterations caused by extensive labor exploitation.