Mezad Shorer

Mezad Shorer is today located within the Bedouin village of Qasr es-Sirr, about 5 km north of Dimona, on the west bank of Nahal ‘Aro‘er. A survey conducted during the British Mandate period documented a large ashlar structure (25 × 63 m) that was identified as a fortress (Kirk 1938:214). Later surveys identified the structure as a way station (Gihon 1975:164) and documented the surrounding area buildings, tumuli and flint scatterings (Paran and Sonntag 2012; S-366/2012; S-782/2017; S-867/2018; S-926/2019). In the region of Rekhes Yeroham, about a kilometer northeast of the current excavation area, agricultural terraces, buildings and a tomb dating from the Byzantine to the Islamic periods were uncovered (Mamalya 2021).

The current excavation took place on a low hill to the west of Nahal ‘Aro‘er. Two excavation areas (A, B) were opened 40 m apart from each other; remains of a large structure (Area A), probably a farmstead, dating from the Late Byzantine–Early Islamic periods, and a field wall (Area B) of unknown date were excavated.

Area A (Fig. 2) yielded the remains of a single-phase building whose general plan is unclear, although it was probably rectangular. Several walls were uncovered (W112, W116, W117, W120, W122, W132, W140; width c. 0.6 m), most of which were built of two rows of large and medium-sized fieldstones with a core of small fieldstones; they were preserved to a maximum height of eight courses. The floor of the building was made of tamped loess soil. The building’s inner walls divided it into rooms. Two tabuns (L130, L141; Fig. 3), a pillar base (L155) and a circular installation (L114) built of fieldstones were found in the building’s rooms. The building had two perimeter walls (W111, W148) whose foundations were deeper than those of the building’s walls. Numerous collapsed stones were found on a steep slope to the north of W111 (Fig. 4). The two walls probably formed a corner and served as retaining walls to stave off erosion and prevent collapse down the steep slope.

One of the building’s rooms (L126) yielded a coin from 383–395 CE (IAA 165701). Finds from throughout the area of the building include Late Byzantine pottery sherds, stone artifacts and animal bones (below), as well as a few non-diagnostic fragments of glassware and pieces of metal.

The pottery assemblage is varied and includes an FBW bowls (Fig. 5:1, 2), LRC bowls (Fig. 5:3, 4), a bowl (Fig. 5:5), a cooking pot (Fig. 5:6), jugs (Fig. 5:7,) and a juglet (Fig. 5:9). The pottery dates from the Late Byzantine period, although Bowl 1, 2 of types that may only have begun to appear in the Umayyad period (second half of the seventh century CE).

Area B. The eastern slope of the hill contained the remains of a southwest–northeast fieldstone wall preserved to the height of a single course. No dateable finds were recovered.

Yael Abadi-Reiss

Five stone artifacts were found in Area A, all broken and bearing clear signs of wear. Two of the vessels are made of basalt, two of iron-rich sandstone and one of metamorphic sandstone; all are made of non-local raw materials that were brought to the site. It is possible that the sandstones originated from the Ramon Crater, where quarries for such raw materials were identified and researched, and the basalt could originate from Transjordan or northern Israel.

Four of the objects are flat, rounded lower grinding stones with a hole in the center, of the hand-mill type. Three of the grinding stones have a flat work surface and a flat opposing surface (Fig. 6:1) and one has a flat work surface and a rounded opposing surface (Fig. 6:2). The fifth artifact is broken and therefore unidentifiable.

Lower grinding stones of the hand-mill type are common finds at Byzantine and Early Islamic sites and are among the most common household tools. The fact that the stones are broken indicates that they were worn out long before being abandoned along with the site; it also indirectly attests to the prolonged use of the querns at the site.

Tehila Shadiel

Fourty-two animal bones were found were found in Area A during the excavation (Table 1). Out of the entire assemblage, eight goat/sheep bones (Capra/Ovis), eight songbird bones (Passeriformes sp.; no further identification) and two gazelle bones (Gazella gazella) were identified. The remaining bone fragments were classified only by body size: 24 bones of medium-sized mammals (sheep/goat) and two bones of large mammals (cattle or horse).

Table 1. Breakdown of Animal Bones from the Excavation

	Sheep/goat	Songbirds	Common gazelle	Medium-sized mammals	Large mammals	Total
L100			1			1 (2%)
L102				3		3 (8%)
L104			1			1 (2%)
L105	1					1 (2%)
L107	1			7		8 (19%)
L108	1	6				7 (17%)
L110				3	2	5 (12%)
L114	1					1 (2%)
L125	1			6		7 (17%)
L135	1					1 (2%)
L142				5		5 (12%)
L144	1					1 (2%)
L199	1					1 (2%)
Total	8 (19%)	6 (14%)	2 (5%)	24 (57%)	2 (5%)	42 (100%)

 

The breakdown of the skeletal parts in the assemblage (Table 2) shows a prevalence of meat-rich cuts, based on the high percentage of limb and long bones and the relatively few body parts with little meat, such as toes and skulls.

Table 2. Breakdown of skeletal parts in assemblage (after Stiner 2002).

Six of the bones in the assemblage (14%) retain epiphyses (bone ends), all of which are fused. This indicates that the animals were butchered after reaching maturity and were used mainly for secondary products, such as wool and milk. However, the fact that most of the bones lack epiphyses should be taken into account. The assemblage contains no teeth to determine the individuals’ ages based on tooth wear. No cut or burn marks were observed on the bone fragments. Signs of predators’ gnawing were observed on eight bones in the assemblage. The small assemblage of bones recovered from the excavation suggests that the settlement’s economy and nutritional source was based mostly on domestic livestock, with some hunting of wild game.

The building excavated in Area A probably functioned as a large farmstead during the transition from the Byzantine to the Early Islamic period (sixth–seventh centuries CE). Although the building showed no signs of ashlar construction, the preserved remains may belong to the ashlar building surveyed in the past at the site, or to another building that stood nearby.