it from consideration, as we can now do, then the case for Nazareth in Hellenistic times is weakened beyond repair, for the remaining shards are more easily dismissed. [269]
The Church of St. Joseph material
In August, 1970, Bagatti excavated a 6×15 meter area next to the Church of St. Joseph. The express purpose of this excavation was to verify the existence of traces of settlement at the turn of the era—more particularly, traces of the house of the Holy Family itself. As Bagatti writes in the following passage, such traces had evaded prior attempts:
Scavando la chiesa medievale, per ricostruirla col titolo di S. Giuseppe a Nazaret, nel 1892 i francescani si limitarono a ricavare la pianta dei muri senza preoccuparsi dei piccoli oggetti. In questo modo restarono visibili dei resti: a) crociati con alcuni ricorsi della chiesa; b) bizantini con porzioni di pavimento musivo, una vasca quadrata ed una cisterna a pera; precristiani con grotte e sili riuniti con corridoi. Mancava, proprio, la testimonianza archeologica del periodo principale, del I secolo, a cui la tradizione raccolta dal P. Quaresmi nel 1620 e ripristinata dal P. Viaud, voleva far risalire l’abitzione della S. Famiglia.
È vero che lo studio-storico-teologico del P. Testa mostrava l’ambiente come un luogo abitato dai giudeo-cristiani, e quindi dava appoggio alla tradizione mantenuta nell’ambiente familiare, però la prova archeologica mancava. Per costatare la permanenza della vita sul posto è stato intrapreso lo scavo nella zona adiacente alla chiesa stessa, sul lato di nord. Esso è stato tenuto nel mese di Agosto del 1970, previo permesso del Dipartimento delle Antichità di Israele. [270]
Thus begins Bagatti’s article, “Scavo Presso la Chiesa di S. Giuseppe a Nazaret.” We shall put aside the Bagatti-Testa claim “that the area was settled by Jewish-Christians,” a thesis convincingly rebutted by Joan Taylor in her book, Christians and the Holy Places . On the other hand, we shall concentrate on the archaeological evidence Bagatti brings forward in this excavation, namely, one hundred small pottery shards. They date to many periods, including the Iron and the Byzantine, and most are no larger than 3–4 inches at their maximum extent (no scale is provided).
It is important to note that this was a re-excavation by Bagatti of a site first dug in 1892. As a result, the area was greatly disturbed and no stratigraphy was either possible or attempted. A further compromising aspect is that the small finds came from a pile of material evidently discarded by the first diggers. Older finds were sometimes above more recent ones, and the archaeologist states that some of the objects described may not even have come from the area in which they were found. Bagatti writes (p. 6):
It was out of the question to find intact [stratigraphic] levels with characteristic objects since the zone [of the excavations], at least in part, was disturbed [ manomessa ]… [I]t was not possible to discern distinct levels, but only an accumulation of material coming in great part from the area of the church itself. For this reason, sometimes older remains were found in higher positions than more recent ones. (Emphasis added.)
Given these untoward circumstances, it is indeed hazardous to attempt any conclusions based on the finds from this excavation. Bagatti claims that three of the recovered shards are Hellenistic. We will contest that claim below, but here it can be noted that their presence in the assemblage would be exceptional, for the remaining ninety-seven shards are Iron Age, Middle-Late Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval. Furthermore, the three fragments in question are “mutilated” and far too small to provide a reliable reconstruction of complete artefacts, even for an experienced eye. Their form must remain entirely conjectural—the three shards may be parts of pots, jars, craters, or other vessels, with or without spouts, etc
The Church of St. Joseph material
In August, 1970, Bagatti excavated a 6×15 meter area next to the Church of St. Joseph. The express purpose of this excavation was to verify the existence of traces of settlement at the turn of the era—more particularly, traces of the house of the Holy Family itself. As Bagatti writes in the following passage, such traces had evaded prior attempts:
Scavando la chiesa medievale, per ricostruirla col titolo di S. Giuseppe a Nazaret, nel 1892 i francescani si limitarono a ricavare la pianta dei muri senza preoccuparsi dei piccoli oggetti. In questo modo restarono visibili dei resti: a) crociati con alcuni ricorsi della chiesa; b) bizantini con porzioni di pavimento musivo, una vasca quadrata ed una cisterna a pera; precristiani con grotte e sili riuniti con corridoi. Mancava, proprio, la testimonianza archeologica del periodo principale, del I secolo, a cui la tradizione raccolta dal P. Quaresmi nel 1620 e ripristinata dal P. Viaud, voleva far risalire l’abitzione della S. Famiglia.
È vero che lo studio-storico-teologico del P. Testa mostrava l’ambiente come un luogo abitato dai giudeo-cristiani, e quindi dava appoggio alla tradizione mantenuta nell’ambiente familiare, però la prova archeologica mancava. Per costatare la permanenza della vita sul posto è stato intrapreso lo scavo nella zona adiacente alla chiesa stessa, sul lato di nord. Esso è stato tenuto nel mese di Agosto del 1970, previo permesso del Dipartimento delle Antichità di Israele. [270]
Thus begins Bagatti’s article, “Scavo Presso la Chiesa di S. Giuseppe a Nazaret.” We shall put aside the Bagatti-Testa claim “that the area was settled by Jewish-Christians,” a thesis convincingly rebutted by Joan Taylor in her book, Christians and the Holy Places . On the other hand, we shall concentrate on the archaeological evidence Bagatti brings forward in this excavation, namely, one hundred small pottery shards. They date to many periods, including the Iron and the Byzantine, and most are no larger than 3–4 inches at their maximum extent (no scale is provided).
It is important to note that this was a re-excavation by Bagatti of a site first dug in 1892. As a result, the area was greatly disturbed and no stratigraphy was either possible or attempted. A further compromising aspect is that the small finds came from a pile of material evidently discarded by the first diggers. Older finds were sometimes above more recent ones, and the archaeologist states that some of the objects described may not even have come from the area in which they were found. Bagatti writes (p. 6):
It was out of the question to find intact [stratigraphic] levels with characteristic objects since the zone [of the excavations], at least in part, was disturbed [ manomessa ]… [I]t was not possible to discern distinct levels, but only an accumulation of material coming in great part from the area of the church itself. For this reason, sometimes older remains were found in higher positions than more recent ones. (Emphasis added.)
Given these untoward circumstances, it is indeed hazardous to attempt any conclusions based on the finds from this excavation. Bagatti claims that three of the recovered shards are Hellenistic. We will contest that claim below, but here it can be noted that their presence in the assemblage would be exceptional, for the remaining ninety-seven shards are Iron Age, Middle-Late Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval. Furthermore, the three fragments in question are “mutilated” and far too small to provide a reliable reconstruction of complete artefacts, even for an experienced eye. Their form must remain entirely conjectural—the three shards may be parts of pots, jars, craters, or other vessels, with or without spouts, etc
Similar Books
