. Nevertheless, Bagatti claims both a reconstruction and a Hellenistic dating for two (or possibly all three) of the shards.
Other problems attend Bagatti’s presentation. The photos accompanying the text are poor, and shadow obscures the greater portion of the visible surfaces of the objects portrayed. This renders it impossible for the reader to obtain a clear idea of the artefacts. An additional, but less grievous impediment is that the description, drawing, and photograph numbers do not correspond with one another. For example, photo 13:1 = drawing 17:15. When applied to one hundred objects, one can appreciate the unwieldiness of this Byzantine presentation. Regarding the three “Hellenistic” shards, Bagatti writes:
Del periodo ellenistico si notano le pentole col labro rientrante nell’interno (fig. 13, 2–3). Dell’ultimo ellenistico o romano è la base verniciata (fig. 13,1) sfortunatamente molto mutila . [271]
We will ignore the “greatly mutilated” shard, itself sufficient reason to disqualify it as evidence for any period. In addition, Bagatti admits that it could be Roman. As regards the other two pieces, it is well known that vessels with incurved rims—though common in Hellenistic ware [272] —were not unique to that period. This too disqualifies these pieces as demonstrably Hellenistic evidence. Incidentally, it is surprising that the archaeologist’s descriptions do not match the diagrams, for the drawings of the two objects in question do not show a “rim turned inwards.”
Most decisive, however, is the fact that the diagrams provided for the two artefacts show the upper portions of characteristic Roman cooking pots, with small handles set close to the rim and thin walls that facilitated the rapid transmission of heat. The photo corresponding to one shard ( Scavo 13:2 = 17:1) also shows the “sliced” handle typical of such Roman ware. Hayes dates the appearance of this type to c. 100 CE. [273]
Ancillary problems, touched on above, make it difficult to use any of the hundred shards from this excavation as evidence for any period:
1. The area of the excavation was disturbed
2. The shards may have come from outside the area
3. No stratigraphy was determined
4. The recovered pieces are often too small to establish the form, type, and dating for the artefacts from which they came
In addition, we have mentioned that the diagrams of the objects at critical points do not match the descriptions. Finally, Bagatti provides no typological parallels. These are all reasons enough to disqualify these small pieces as “Hellenistic” evidence. Over-riding all these considerations, however, is the fact that there is nothing demonstrably Hellenistic about the shards. Bagatti seems to realize this, for in a Communication regarding this excavation (published in the Revue Biblique later that year), he surprisingly omits mention of the Hellenistic age and includes only the Iron, Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader eras in his results:
On trouva d’abord un niveau moderne; puis commencèrent à apparaître des tessons de l’époque du fer, certains autres des époques romaine et byzantine, enfin ceux d’époque croisée immédiatement sur le rocher. On obtint ainsi une stratification inversée, ce qui montrait clairement que le remplissage provenait bien de l’église . [274]
Even though the word “Hellenistic” is not present in the above passage, it had again entered the primary literature of Nazareth through the main article, to which the Communication is but a footnote, as it were. We indeed read of Hellenistic finds in Bagatti’s subsequent references to the St. Joseph site. Thus, the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1977): “Potsherds from the Israelite, Hellenistic , Roman, and Byzantine periods and the Middle Ages were also found” (emphasis added). [275] An identical assertion is made in the Italian’s 1993 NEAEHL article,
Other problems attend Bagatti’s presentation. The photos accompanying the text are poor, and shadow obscures the greater portion of the visible surfaces of the objects portrayed. This renders it impossible for the reader to obtain a clear idea of the artefacts. An additional, but less grievous impediment is that the description, drawing, and photograph numbers do not correspond with one another. For example, photo 13:1 = drawing 17:15. When applied to one hundred objects, one can appreciate the unwieldiness of this Byzantine presentation. Regarding the three “Hellenistic” shards, Bagatti writes:
Del periodo ellenistico si notano le pentole col labro rientrante nell’interno (fig. 13, 2–3). Dell’ultimo ellenistico o romano è la base verniciata (fig. 13,1) sfortunatamente molto mutila . [271]
We will ignore the “greatly mutilated” shard, itself sufficient reason to disqualify it as evidence for any period. In addition, Bagatti admits that it could be Roman. As regards the other two pieces, it is well known that vessels with incurved rims—though common in Hellenistic ware [272] —were not unique to that period. This too disqualifies these pieces as demonstrably Hellenistic evidence. Incidentally, it is surprising that the archaeologist’s descriptions do not match the diagrams, for the drawings of the two objects in question do not show a “rim turned inwards.”
Most decisive, however, is the fact that the diagrams provided for the two artefacts show the upper portions of characteristic Roman cooking pots, with small handles set close to the rim and thin walls that facilitated the rapid transmission of heat. The photo corresponding to one shard ( Scavo 13:2 = 17:1) also shows the “sliced” handle typical of such Roman ware. Hayes dates the appearance of this type to c. 100 CE. [273]
Ancillary problems, touched on above, make it difficult to use any of the hundred shards from this excavation as evidence for any period:
1. The area of the excavation was disturbed
2. The shards may have come from outside the area
3. No stratigraphy was determined
4. The recovered pieces are often too small to establish the form, type, and dating for the artefacts from which they came
In addition, we have mentioned that the diagrams of the objects at critical points do not match the descriptions. Finally, Bagatti provides no typological parallels. These are all reasons enough to disqualify these small pieces as “Hellenistic” evidence. Over-riding all these considerations, however, is the fact that there is nothing demonstrably Hellenistic about the shards. Bagatti seems to realize this, for in a Communication regarding this excavation (published in the Revue Biblique later that year), he surprisingly omits mention of the Hellenistic age and includes only the Iron, Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader eras in his results:
On trouva d’abord un niveau moderne; puis commencèrent à apparaître des tessons de l’époque du fer, certains autres des époques romaine et byzantine, enfin ceux d’époque croisée immédiatement sur le rocher. On obtint ainsi une stratification inversée, ce qui montrait clairement que le remplissage provenait bien de l’église . [274]
Even though the word “Hellenistic” is not present in the above passage, it had again entered the primary literature of Nazareth through the main article, to which the Communication is but a footnote, as it were. We indeed read of Hellenistic finds in Bagatti’s subsequent references to the St. Joseph site. Thus, the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1977): “Potsherds from the Israelite, Hellenistic , Roman, and Byzantine periods and the Middle Ages were also found” (emphasis added). [275] An identical assertion is made in the Italian’s 1993 NEAEHL article,
Similar Books
