Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:34:40.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Roman-period trade in ceramic building materials on the Levantine Mediterranean coast: evidence from a farmstead site near Ashqelon/Ascalon, Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2024

Anat Cohen-Weinberger
Affiliation:
Israel Antiquities Authority
Nir-Shimshon Paran
Affiliation:
Israel Antiquities Authority
Itamar Taxel
Affiliation:
Israel Antiquities Authority
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The production and distribution of ceramic building materials (CBM) in the Roman period have long attracted the attention of archaeologists, as they provide clues to aspects of trade, identity, and technological and architectural traditions. However, there has been a notable scarcity of studies focusing on plain CBM in the southern Levant, particularly in the Mediterranean coastal region. This study concentrates on CBM (bricks, tubuli, drainage pipes, and roof tiles) from a Roman-period wealthy farmstead (Khirbat Khaur el-Bak) near the city of Ashqelon/Ascalon, apparently owned by a serving member of the military or a veteran. The petrographic analyses indicate that apart from the locally produced drainage pipes, the CBM were imported from overseas, namely Cilicia and Beirut. The results shed light on CBM trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, and on the complex nature of the population and material life in and around Roman Ashqelon, which included local and foreign elements.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Special attention has been paid in the past to the study of ceramic building materials (henceforth: CBM) of the Roman period, mainly due to the impressions of private names, military legions, and auxiliary units that they often bear.Footnote 1 Research on undecorated or unstamped CBM, however, has been extremely limited considering their abundancy at Roman-period sites. While CBM have attracted the interest of archaeological material scientists, who have investigated aspects such as their origin and the processing of raw materials,Footnote 2 there remains a notable gap in the investigation of CBM originating from the southern Levantine coast. CBM production and distribution are associated with numerous aspects of cultural identity, technological and architectural traditions, and trade. The study of trade in roof tiles can enhance our comprehension of cultural diffusion patterns while also shedding light on various economic aspects, including market dynamics, price fluctuations, demand, and competition. The Roman Empire had an interest in the industrial production of CBM for economic reasons. Moreover, in some cases, the use of CBM is considered evidence for politically motivated building campaigns.Footnote 3 The extent of CBM production, trade, and consumption makes it a significant resource for archaeologists, who can learn much about ancient economy and exchange patterns through the study of CBM.Footnote 4 Impressions bearing the abbreviated names of Roman legions serve as the focus of many studies of CBM in the southern Levant.Footnote 5 These include the well-known impressions of the Roman Tenth Legion FretensisFootnote 6 and the Sixth Legion Ferrata.Footnote 7 Other impressions include those of Colonia Aelia Capitolina and of private individuals and veterans from Jerusalem and its vicinity.Footnote 8 Petrographic analyses indicate that all the Roman- and Byzantine-period CBM from Jerusalem and its vicinity were made from local clays or marls of the Cenomanian Moza Formation.Footnote 9 CBM stamped by the Sixth Legion Ferrata from northern Israel, found mainly near the legionary camp at Legio, Kefar ‘Othnay,Footnote 10 were also locally produced.Footnote 11 Several studies were conducted on Roman CBM found in Jordan, where a local manufacture has been suggested.Footnote 12 However, no such studies have yet been conducted on CBM from sites along the southern Levantine Mediterranean coast, even though several Roman-period cities thrived in the region, such as Caesarea and Ashqelon (Fig. 1), and were likely characterized by a common way of using CBM.Footnote 13 Suitable clays for CBM could be found almost anywhere, while, on the other hand, they were bulky and costly to transport. Therefore, the common assumption has been that CBM were made near to construction sites.Footnote 14 However, CBM in the Roman Empire were sometimes traded over considerable distances, using river, coastal, and overseas transport.Footnote 15 Evidence for long-distance transportation is provided by stamp impressions, provenance studies, and attestations of CBM in shipwrecks.Footnote 16

Fig. 1. Geographic locations mentioned in the article. (Prepared by Yuliya Gumenny, Israel Antiquities Authority.)

The 13 CBM presented in this study originated in a Roman-period bathhouse that formed part of a farmstead excavated on the northern fringes of the site of Khirbat Khaur el-Bak, ca. 4 km northeast of ancient Ashqelon (Roman-period Ascalon), on the southern Mediterranean coast of Israel (Fig. 1). The CBM discussed provide an opportunity to examine their provenance through petrographic analyses. In addition, four CBM (roof tile) samples from the Roman basilica excavations in AshqelonFootnote 17 have also been analyzed, in order to compare the Khirbat Khaur el-Bak samples to more or less contemporaneous finds from a neighboring site and to investigate the degree of uniformity in the patterns of consumption and distribution of CBM in the region. The petrographic results, considered in combination with other characteristics of the site, enable a discussion of the identity of the population of Khirbat Khaur el-Bak and its interregional connections. Moreover, this study contributes to our understanding of CBM manufacture and trade patterns in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Khirbat Khaur el-Bak in the hinterland of Ashqelon

Khirbat Khaur el-Bak, located on the plain south of the local stream of Naḥal Evtaḥ, was excavated in 2017–18 prior to construction activity to the north of the modern city of Ashqelon.Footnote 18 The excavation yielded architectural remains and other features attributed to three major periods: Hellenistic (2nd–early 1st c. BCE), Roman (mid-/late 1st–4th c. CE), and Byzantine–Early Islamic (late 4th/5th–early 8th c. CE).

The Roman period represents the main occupation phase at the site in terms of construction intensity. The Roman-period remains can be interpreted as belonging to a wealthy farmstead consisting of three main components: a winepress, a bathhouse, and a storehouse or residential structure(s).Footnote 19 The identification of the site as a farmstead is based on the combination of the above-mentioned elements, located in proximity to each other, while the bathhouse specifically indicates the rather elevated status of the site (see further discussion below).Footnote 20 It seems that all these units were constructed more or less simultaneously, that is, around the mid-/late 1st c. CE (Fig. 2). The remains occupy an area of about 30×30 m, though the overall extent of the farmstead complex is unknown, since the remains of the residential/storage structures surely continued to the east and northeast of the excavated area, as indicated by walls which extend into the edges of the excavation. Based on pottery, glass, and coins, the farmstead functioned between the middle or later part of the 1st c. to the early 4th c. CE.Footnote 21 The end of this phase is characterized by the abandonment of the winepress and bathhouse and their conversion into refuse dumps.Footnote 22 The relatively poor state of preservation of the residential and storage buildings and their reuse in the Byzantine period prevent a firm conclusion as to whether they too were abandoned in the early 4th c. or remained in use more or less continuously (though not necessarily on the same scale and by the same population). At any rate, the domestic nature of the refuse discarded in the winepress and bathhouse (as indicated by its heterogeneity; that is, the presence of ceramic, glass, stone and metal objects, and animal bones) suggests that this material originated in the nearby residential and storage buildings and represents the clearance of those buildings, apparently by new occupants of the site at the end of the Roman/beginning of the Byzantine period.

Fig. 2. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: plan of excavation area. (Prepared by Elena Delerson, IAA.)

The bathhouse, which yielded the CBM discussed in this article, is a small building (ca. 8×16 m) built with a west–east orientation, whose plan can be almost fully reconstructed, although most of its floors (and doorways) were not preserved (Figs. 3–4). The bathhouse consisted of the following spaces: an entrance room/courtyard (vestibulum), a dressing room (apodyterium), a cold room (frigidarium), a warm room (tepidarium), a hot room (caldarium), a furnace room (praefurnium), and a water reservoir, in addition to an underground drainage system (composed of ceramic pipes). It represents a variant of the block- or ring-type bathhouse,Footnote 23 arranged in two parallel rows composed of the cold and hot rooms, respectively.

Fig. 3. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: aerial view of the Roman-period bathhouse, looking north. (Photo by Emil Aladjem, IAA.)

Fig. 4. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: aerial view of the Roman-period bathhouse, looking west. (Photo by Emil Aladjem, IAA.)

The bathhouse walls had fieldstone foundations, which probably supported upper courses built of dressed stones that were almost completely dismantled. The vestibulum was poorly preserved, and the debris that covered its floor contained fragments of ceramic roof tiles, which suggests that the bathhouse's vestibulum was roofed; this is the only location in the bathhouse that yielded roof tiles. The tepidarium and caldarium were founded on a platform made of small fieldstones. The hypocaust systems of both the tepidarium and caldarium had a total of 33 suspensurae (maximum preserved height 0.68 m) with roughly fixed spaces between them. The suspensurae were built of square, rectangular, or (rarely) round fired bricks. A short channel built of vertically set bricks connected the tepidarium and caldarium and was designated to carry a flow of hot air from the caldarium's hypocaust to the tepidarium. At the western end of the bathhouse, the elongated, narrow furnace (praefurnium) that was connected to the caldarium's hypocaust was located. The furnace had two L-shaped walls built of square and rectangular bricks. The short sections of these walls (which delimited the caldarium's hypocaust from the west) were thinner than their long sections and were lined from the west with similar bricks coated with mortar.

The hypocaust of the tepidarium and the caldarium, as well as the furnace, were found filled with a uniform debris layer, which also covered the surrounding wall foundations. The debris was composed of ashy earth, fragmentary and complete bricks, numerous fragments of square-sectioned tubuli (ceramic heating pipes), pieces of mortar and plaster (a few of which bore yellow and red paint), marble slabs of various colors (one complete and a few fragmentary), and elongated marble fragments covered with gray mortar. The mortar and marble slabs most probably belonged to the tepidarium and caldarium floors and/or walls (which were not preserved), while the elongated marble fragments seem to have originated from another part of the superstructure. The tubuli likely ran along the inner face of the bathhouse walls, both within and above the hypocaust. As the bathhouse walls were destroyed down to their foundation courses, no tubuli were found in situ. Other components of the debris included (mostly fragmentary) pottery, glass, animal bones, a few metal objects, and an unidentified coin; these finds most probably represent refuse discarded into the bathhouse simultaneously with or shortly after its abandonment and partial dismantling. The latest pottery and glass found in the accumulations inside and outside the bathhouse date its abandonment, demolition, and subsequent conversion into a dump to the early 4th c. CE.

The Khirbat Khaur el-Bak CBM

The Khirbat Khaur el-Bak bathhouse yielded four types of CBM: roof tiles, bricks, tubuli, and drainage pipes, with the latter three categories representing the great majority of finds (bricks were also partially used in the construction of the nearby winepress – see below).

Roof tiles

The tiles include lower/flat and upper/convex tiles (tegulae and imbrices, respectively). All are made of the same coarse yellowish-orange fabric. The illustrated tegula has a flange with a curving outer edge and inner and upper straight (knife-cut) edges (Fig. 5: 1). It can be associated with Mills's tegula Type FSS3/2,Footnote 24 attributed to Phase 6 in Beirut and dated from ca. 70 CE until the mid-2nd c.;Footnote 25 this fits the date of the Khirbat Khaur el-Bak bathhouse and its associated tiles. The imbrices are of two types: one with a convex-rounded cross-section (the so-called Sicilian style; Fig. 5: 2),Footnote 26 and the other with a more flattened, faceted cross-section (the Corinthian style; Fig. 5: 3).Footnote 27 The two imbrex types and tegulae were sampled for petrographic analysis.

Fig. 5. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: selected roof tiles. (Scans by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon. Photos by Dafna Gazit. Prepared by Marina Shuisky, IAA.)

Bricks

Five types of bricks were identified in the remains of the Roman-period bathhouse, at least one of which was also used in the construction of some of the walls of the nearby winepress. All of the bricks were made of a coarse, rather brittle yellowish, yellowish-orange, or yellowish-gray fabric. The most common type is roughly square (average dimensions 18.5×18.5 cm), with raised, oblique-sectioned edges. Consequently, the bricks have one more flattened and one slightly sunken surface, and their thickness is ca. 2 cm in the center and 2.7 cm along the edges (Fig. 6: 1–3). The second type is somewhat larger (20.5×21.5 cm), with slightly thickened edges, but a roughly even thickness (2 cm) throughout (Fig. 6: 4). The third type is rectangular (13.5×20.5 cm) and resembles the first type in its slightly oblique edges and uneven thickness of 1.8–2.5 cm (Fig. 6: 5). The fourth brick type is the largest; the illustrated example is incomplete (32 cm length, 25 cm known width) and hence it is unknown whether originally it had a square or a rectangular shape. It has oblique-sectioned edges, and its thickness varies from 2.5 cm in the center to 5 cm along the edges (Fig. 6: 6). The fifth and least common type is round (ca. 20 cm in diameter), with a thickness varying from 2.5 cm along the edges to 2.8 cm in the center (Fig. 6: 7). Bricks of the first to third and fifth types were used in the construction of the bathhouse suspensurae and other elements, including the L-shaped walls that framed the furnace. Bricks of the fourth type were probably used in the construction of the bathhouse floors, mainly of the caldarium and/or tepidarium. The bricks used in the construction of some of the winepress walls seem to be of the first and/or second types. Samples for petrographic analysis were taken from the first, third, fourth and fifth brick types (Table 1).

Fig. 6. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: selected bricks. (Scans by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon. Photos by Dafna Gazit. Prepared by Marina Shuisky, IAA.)

Table 1. Inventory and results of the petrographically analyzed CBM from Khirbat Khaur el-Bak.

Tubuli

All of the tubuli fragments found at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak are made of a coarse yellowish or yellowish-brown fabric, and they all belong to the rectangular box type, with rectangular or square air holes. They can be divided into two variants in terms of their width and depth: one is 9×9 cm (Fig. 7: 1) and the other is 14×14 cm (Fig. 7: 2), though both have the same thickness (ca. 1.4 cm); none of the tubuli fragments are complete in length, but the largest was at least 21 cm long. Similar tubuli have been published from several Roman-period contexts, for example, from the Jerusalem area.Footnote 28 Both variants were sampled for petrographic analysis.

Fig. 7. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: selected tubuli (1, 2) and drainage pipe sections (3, 4). (Scans by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon. Photos by Clara Amit and Dafna Gazit. Prepared by Marina Shuisky, IAA.)

Drainage pipe sections

Pipe sections belonging to the bathhouse drainage system are represented here by two complete examples. The first, made of a coarse reddish-brown fabric, is fashioned in a regular pipe section form, namely with one wide and one narrow end and a sharply-carinated “shoulder” below the narrow end (43 cm length, 12 cm narrow inner diameter, 15 cm wide inner diameter; Fig. 7: 3). The second pipe section, made of a coarse orange-brown fabric, is different, with an almost uniform width and ribbed walls (38.5 cm length, 9 cm narrow inner diameter, 10 cm wide inner diameter; Fig. 7: 4).

Petrographic analysis

Thirteen fragments of CBM from Khirbat Khaur el-Bak were petrographically analyzed: three roof tiles (one tegula and two imbrices), three square bricks, two rectangular bricks, one rounded brick, two tubuli, and two drainage pipe sections (Table 1). These samples serve as representative examples that encompass the entire CBM assemblage unearthed during the excavations, selected through a visual assessment of their morphological and fabric characteristics. All samples were cut to standard (30 μm) thin sections and analyzed under a polarized light microscope.Footnote 29 This led to a classification of the sampled CBM into four petrographic groups according to the characteristics of their raw materials. The raw materials of the analyzed CBM were compared to previously analyzed materials from the area of Ashqelon,Footnote 30 as well as the four roof tiles (three tegulae and one imbrex) sampled from the Ashqelon basilica.Footnote 31

Results

GROUP 1 – This group is represented by a single pipe (Fig. 7: 4) and characterized by an isotropic, non-calcareous matrix with abundant silt-sized quartz grains comprising ~15% of the paste. The sand-sized non-plastic components comprise ~10% of the paste and include mainly rounded to sub-rounded quartz grains of 200–300 μm, and a few coarse quartz grains of ≤1.2 mm. Other sand-sized components include a few feldspar grains and calcareous rock fragments, as well as rare chert fragments and fine hornblende and oxyhornblende (Fig. 8). A few elongated voids of vanished burnt-out straw are also visible.

Fig. 8. Photomicrograph of a drainage pipe section (Table 1: 1, Group 1; Fig. 7: 4). Quartz grains embedded in non-calcareous silty matrix. xpl (crossed polarized light). (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

GROUP 2 – This group is represented by a single pipe (Fig. 7: 3) characterized by an isotropic, non-calcareous matrix with 5–10% very fine silt-sized quartz grains. The sand-sized non-plastic components comprise 10% of the paste and include mainly rounded to sub-rounded quartz grains of 200–500 μm and fragments of calcareous sandstone (kurkar) ≤1.2 mm (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9. Photomicrograph of a drainage pipe section (Table 1: 2, Group 2; Fig. 7: 3). Quartz grains and kurkar fragment embedded in non-calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

GROUP 3 – This group, to which the bricks (Fig. 6: 1–3, 5–7) and tubuli (Fig. 7: 1–2) belong, is characterized by a calcareous matrix with foraminifera that are often silicified. The foraminifera are poorly preserved and, with some degree of uncertainty, are identified as the Miocene genus Borelis sp. and the Miocene to Recent genus Orbulina d'Orbigny. Black, ferruginous, and opaque elliptical oolites and other shapes of iron oxides appear in the matrix, as well as a few appearances of glauconite pellets. The sand-sized non-plastic components are unevenly distributed, comprising 20–30% of the paste, while sub-angular and sub-rounded quartz grains of ≤300 μm predominate. A few quartz grains are coated by dark black ferruginous cement. Calcareous rock fragments of ≤300 μm are common, and coarse fragments of ~2 mm are rare. Algae fragments are common, their preservation allowing for their identification as Amphiroa sp. A few angular chert fragments, sandstone fragments with a dark black cement, and, rarely, highly weathered basalt fragments also appear (Figs. 10–14).

Fig. 10. Photomicrograph of a tubulus (Table 1: 9, Group 3; Fig. 7: 2). Quartz grains, algae, calcareous rocks, weathered basalt and sandstone fragments embedded in calcareous matrix with discrete foraminifera. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Fig. 11. Photomicrograph of a rounded brick (Table 1: 5, Group 3; Fig. 6: 7). Quartz grains, Amphiroa sp. sandstone and calcareous rock fragments embedded in calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Fig. 12. Photomicrograph of a tubulus (Table 1: 9, Group 3; Fig. 7: 2). Alga, calcareous rock, weathered basalt and sandstone embedded in calcareous matrix with discrete foraminifera. Silicified foraminifera appear above the basalt fragment. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Fig. 13. Photomicrograph of a square brick (Table 1: 7, Group 3; Fig. 6: 2). Ferruginous elliptical oolite and fine quartz grain embedded in calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Fig. 14. Photomicrograph of a rectangular brick (Table 1: 4, Group 3; Fig. 6: 6). Amphiroa sp. Alga fragment and quartz grain embedded in calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

GROUP 4 – The three roof tiles from Khirbat Khaur el-Bak (Fig. 5: 1–3) and the four roof tiles from the Ashqelon basilica are attributed to this group, characterized by a dark brown matrix with silt-sized calcareous components. The sand-sized non-plastic components comprise ~20% of the paste, and the dominant component is olivine-iddingsite (up to ~300 μm) (Fig. 15). These minerals are derived from dunite, which is the olivine-rich end-member of the peridotite group of mantle-derived rocks. Other sand-sized components include a few calcareous rock fragments (up to 1 mm), serpentine, orthopyroxenes, highly weathered gabbro, and basalt. The serpentine color changed to brown-orange due to oxidation during the firing process (Fig. 16). The imbrex (Table 1: 11) is also characterized by a significant quantity of silt-sized mica laths, as well as a radiolarian chert fragment.

Fig. 15. Photomicrograph of an imbrex roof tile (Table 1: 11, Group 4; Fig. 5: 3). Olivine and olivine-iddingsite grains embedded in dark brown matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Fig. 16. Photomicrograph of a tegula roof tile (Table 1: 13, Group 4; Fig. 5: 1). Serpentine. The dark brown matrix appears in the bottom of this image. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Interpretation

The characteristics of petrographic Groups 1 and 2 suggest a local provenance for the raw materials, in the area of Ashqelon. The geological setting of the coastal site of Ashqelon is associated with Quaternary sand dunes and kurkar rocks, as well as alluvial soil of the Kurkar Group.Footnote 32 The area is also characterized by dark brown grumusolic soils and residual dark brown soils.Footnote 33 The non-calcareous silty matrix with abundant sand-sized quartz grains and kurkar fragments fits the locally developed soils well. Previous studies indicate that ceramic vessels made of these soils are most common in Ashqelon.Footnote 34

The abundant quartz grains in the raw material of Group 3 are expected to appear in the raw materials local to Ashqelon and its vicinity. However, other components such as the Amphiroa sp. coralline alga, sandstone, ferruginous oolites, Miocene foraminifera, and basalt fragments indicate that the raw material is not local to the region of Ashqelon. The following considerations indicate that the Beirut region is the most suitable site for the identified set of components.

Quaternary sediments cover most of the Levantine coast and can vary considerably in composition. On the southern Levantine coast, the main source of the sand deposits are Nile sediments, dominated by quartz grains with a few accessory feldspar, and “heavy minerals.”Footnote 35 On the northern Levantine coast, from Akko northwards, including the restricted sandy coasts of Lebanon, this type of deposit diminishes and the sediments become increasingly calcareous with bioclastic grains and a significant appearance of coralline algae.Footnote 36 In this region, the coralline algae of the genus Amphiroa occur in bioclastic coastal sediments of Quaternary to Recent age and, in several localities, constitute nearly 70% of the sand components.Footnote 37 Raw materials used for pottery from sites on the coast of northern Israel and Lebanon (e.g., Tyre, Sarepta, and Sidon) contain fragments of Amphiroa sp. alga.Footnote 38 The significant occurrence of the Amphiroa sp. alga in Group 3 indicates a north Levantine coastal provenance for these CBM.

A gradual decrease in the quantity and size of sand quartz grains is evident as the distance from the source, the shores of the Nile Delta, increases.Footnote 39 It is noteworthy that sand-sized quartz still appears in significant quantities along several northern Levantine coasts, and the sand composition can vary considerably within a short distance.Footnote 40 The foraminifera in Group 3 are most likely derived from Miocene rocks. The Borelis occurs exclusively in the Miocene deposits, having disappeared since the Pliocene,Footnote 41 while the Orbulina d'Orbigny ranges from the Miocene to Recent deposits.Footnote 42 A sequence of Middle to Late Miocene Age limestones occurs along the Lebanese coast. These are termed the “Jebel Terbol Formation” near Tripoli and the “Nahr el-Kalb Formation” near Beirut.Footnote 43 The environs of Ras Beirut are characterized by Miocene to Recent calcareous coastal sand dunes, marl, chalk, and clays.Footnote 44 Lower Cretaceous shales, iron-rich sandstone, and marl appear immediately to the east of Beirut, together with Upper Cretaceous limestone series.Footnote 45 The area of Beirut is characterized by substantial volumes of Quaternary coastal ochre sand.Footnote 46 The Lower Cretaceous sandstone appears to be the origin of the coastal ochre sands of Beirut and its surroundings.Footnote 47 Basalt and pyroclastic rocks appear in significant exposures in Mount Lebanon, mostly north of the Beirut–Zahle line, also occurring in the Albien Formations of Lebanon.Footnote 48 These fragments were most likely transported to the coastal strip of Beirut from inland sites, where the Jurassic and Cretaceous volcanic formations are exposed. The sandstone, the ferruginous oolites, and the ferruginous-coated quartz grains in the thin sections may derive from the Lower Cretaceous sediments.

CBM from Beirut were previously analyzed and characterized by an abundance of quartz grains,Footnote 49 like petrographic Group 3. However, other components that appear in Group 3 have not been described in the fabric of the bricks from Beirut.Footnote 50

The raw material of Group 4 is not characteristic of the geology of Israel, indicating that the analyzed roof tiles from Khirbat Khaur el-Bak and the Ashqelon basilica excavations were imported to the site from an area of ultramafic igneous rocks. Ultramafic rocks, such as dunite, typically occur at the base of ophiolite sequences, where slabs of mantle rocks have been thrust onto continental crust. In the Eastern Mediterranean, ultra-basic rocks are exposed in several locations, among them the Troodos ophiolite in Cyprus, the southeastern Anatolian and the peri-Arabic ophiolite belts in Turkey, and the Baër-Bassit ophiolite in northern Syria.Footnote 51 Hence, the CBM of Group 4 were traded over substantial distances.

Within Group 4, one roof tile from Khirbat Khaur el-Bak (Table 1: 11) exhibits some distinct variations, yet its overall characteristics align with the ultramafic geological profile seen in the rest of the group. This observation hints at the possibility that this specific roof tile may have originated from a different workshop within the broader vicinity of the ophiolitic rock formations. Roof tiles found in Beirut are similar to Group 4, characterized by serpentine and volcanic inclusions. Mills suggested that they were imported from Cilicia.Footnote 52 During the Roman period, Rough and Flat Cilicia were highly active in the production of diverse amphorae that found their way to destinations such as Cyprus, the northern Levant, and Egypt.Footnote 53 Cilicia was a prominent region of ceramic production during this era, extending its distribution network to reach as far south as the northern coast of Israel, as has been previously noted in connection with the export of clay sarcophagi.Footnote 54 NAA has shown that these sarcophagi form a group with roof tiles that were manufactured in several workshops in Cilicia.Footnote 55 A petrographic analysis of sarcophagi from northwestern Israel and Cyprus has shown that their clay also matches that of the Cilician coast.Footnote 56 The abundance of sarcophagi found in Adana and Mersin, particularly concentrated in Tarsus, strongly indicates the presence of workshops in at least one of these central and eastern Cilician locations. These areas are closely linked to the Mersin ophiolite.Footnote 57 The petrographic affinities of the Group 4 CBM are similar to those of the sarcophagi, strengthening the attribution of their source to Cilicia.

Discussion and conclusions

While residential buildings, storerooms, and a winepress (as well as sporadic agricultural installations, such as an oil press) are expected for a rural farmstead, the presence of a bathhouse is unusual. The Khirbat Khaur el-Bak bathhouse, although small, contained all the basic components of a Roman bathhouse, and its interior decoration included a color mosaic floor, marble floor (and wall?) tiles, and painted plaster walls. Until the end of the Second Temple period/late 1st c. CE, most local bathhouses were built in typical private contexts; that is, mansions and palaces (including those of Herod and his successors). Later in the Roman period, the construction of bathhouses – both private and public – spread to urban settlements, waystations, and military outposts, as well as chosen farmsteads and villages.Footnote 58 For the Middle and Late Roman period, to which the farmstead complex at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak belongs, private bathhouses have been found at a handful of rural sites, usually identified as affluent mansions/villas associated with the Roman military population (including veterans), which employed specialist builders and architects familiar with bathhouse construction.Footnote 59 Notable examples are Moẓa, ‘En Ya‘al, and Ramat Raḥel, to the west and south of Jerusalem, and Khirbat ‘Urqan el-Khala and Ḥorvat ‘Ethri, near Bet Guvrin/Eleutheropolis in the Judean foothills east of Ashqelon (see Fig. 1).Footnote 60 In accordance with the above data, we suggest that the inhabitants of the Khirbat Khaur el-Bak farmstead were associated with the Roman army, leading us to infer that they practiced polytheistic beliefs. This is also suggested by the strong polytheistic background of the majority of the population of Ashqelon and its vicinity in Roman times,Footnote 61 and by two molded ceramic escutcheons in the form of Dionysos (?) heads, which decorated wine jugs/oinochoai, and a Bet Naṭṭif-type horseman ceramic figurine that were found in the refuse deposits that filled the bathhouse and winepress at the site.Footnote 62 The fabric and shape of the escutcheons suggest that they were manufactured in the Roman Tenth Legion pottery factory, which was established during the late 1st or early 2nd c. CE and excavated at the Jerusalem Convention Center.Footnote 63 The presence of a jug (or jugs) decorated with Dionysos heads and originating from Jerusalem at the Khirbat Khaur el-Bak farmstead indicates not only commercial contacts but also cultural affinity between the two locations. It is even possible that the farmstead's owner was a Roman army veteran who settled with his family on granted land, as was probably the case for some of the other Roman-period wealthy farmsteads mentioned above.Footnote 64 Moreover, prior to the Late Roman or Byzantine period, the tradition of using tiled roofs was never embraced by the local population in the southern Levant, and was largely absent from domestic and public architecture, both inland and along the coast. Even the local elite, who often embraced Greco-Roman cultural trends, did not adopt the construction of tiled roofs. Still, whether the inhabitants of Khirbat Khaur el-Bak were of local or foreign origin (or a mixture of both, even if formerly affiliated with the Roman army), the construction of a private bathhouse reflected the adoption, at least in part, of a Roman lifestyle, although the reasons for this remain unknown.Footnote 65

Contrary to the tentative assumption that CBM were locally produced, the petrographic analysis of CBM from the Khirbat Khaur el-Bak bathhouse undoubtedly indicates that most of them, with the exception of the drainage pipe sections, were imported from distant locations; these finds correspond with the imported roof tiles from the Ashqelon basilica. The presence of imported roof tiles within the basilica implies that the materials found in the nearby farmstead's bathhouse were not unique to that structure. This hints at extensive trading patterns in CBM along the coastal region, with a focus on their utilization in public buildings such as basilicas and bathhouses, primarily by foreigners. Further research is required to confirm if similar practices existed in other contemporary coastal locations.Footnote 66

The drainage pipe sections most likely originated in some neighboring, as yet unidentified workshop(s). As the production of cylindrical-sectioned pipe sections did not necessitate special skills or technology, they could be produced by local potters specializing in other wheel-made ceramics designated for the local market.Footnote 67 In addition, drainage pipes were used in various architectural contexts – domestic, public, and industrial – and were consequently in rather high demand, which could be met by local factories. The production of roof tiles deviates from the well-established wheel-made manufacturing process of pottery vessels and drainage pipe sections, requiring distinct sets of skills and technological traditions. The meticulous craftsmanship of roof tiles involved the use of molds, which was alien to the local ceramic tradition in the time period under discussion (with the exception of certain lamp types). Achieving this level of quality demanded highly skilled potters who had inherited and honed this tradition over generations. Therefore, the roof tiles (from both Khirbat Khaur el-Bak and Ashqelon) were imported from areas where there was a long tradition of building with this technique, e.g., Cilicia. In a manner akin to the situation observed at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak, where CBM were sourced from heterogeneous locales – tiles from Cilicia and tubuli and bricks from Beirut – several studies have shown that CBM from different sites were made up of a range of fabric types and included imported and locally produced examples.Footnote 68 Reynolds suggested that during the Roman period, Beirut relied almost entirely on imports for its tile supply and did not set up its own tile industry.Footnote 69 Similarly, Mills shows in his research that the roof tiles in Beirut were almost entirely imported (mainly from Cilicia), while bricks were locally produced in Beirut and other northern Levantine sites.Footnote 70

Cilician roof tiles have been found in Syria and Lebanon at Ras el-Bassit/Posideium, Ḥoms, Beirut, and Tyre.Footnote 71 In the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, at the Galilean sites of Ḥorvat Kur and Qana, locally made roof tiles were used alongside tiles imported from eastern Cilicia, perhaps around the Gulf of Iskenderun.Footnote 72 Khirbat Khaur el-Bak and Ashqelon are the southernmost Levantine sites at which Cilician roof tiles have thus far been documented.

The imported CBM used at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak were most likely purchased by the site's inhabitants at nearby Ashqelon, which was one of the major harbor towns of the southern Palestinian coast and functioned as the very gateway to the Mediterranean for the city's hinterland population.Footnote 73 Mills's studies show, based on data related to Hellenistic–Late Antique shipwrecks in the Mediterranean, that in the 1st and 2nd c. CE (the time period associated with the construction of the Khirbat Khaur el-Bak farmstead), the proportion of wrecks that carried roof tiles as their only or primary cargo was approximately 10%; specifically, the 1st-c. proportion of shipwrecks with roof tile cargoes was the highest throughout the examined period, although the overall quantity of tiles shipped in Late Antiquity (5th and 6th c. CE) was higher than in the 1th c.Footnote 74 Imported CBM could have arrived at Roman Ashqelon regularly, then been stored at designated warehouses and sold to occasional buyers; alternatively, they may have been especially ordered for specific building projects in the city and its vicinity, such as the construction of a bathhouse.Footnote 75 The convenient and accessible sea routes undoubtedly contributed to the preference for CBM supply to Ashqelon from Beirut and Cilicia.

The extensive use in Beirut of Cilician roof tilesFootnote 76 implies that both the Cilician tiles and the Beirut-produced bricks and tubuli found at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak were brought together (to Ashqelon's harbor) from Beirut, which functioned at times as a secondary distributor of Cilician tiles.Footnote 77 In this scenario, the Cilician roof tiles may have been transported to Beirut as their ultimate destination. Subsequently, in Beirut they could have been combined with other CBM for shipment to Ashqelon. This scenario highlights the role of Beirut as a staging area for CBM aggregation and redistribution. Alternatively, it is possible that the CBM under discussion arrived in a single shipment, but that the ship was first loaded with tiles in Cilicia and then continued to Beirut to be loaded with bricks and tubuli before heading to Ashqelon on the southern Levantine coast. This scenario emphasizes the possibility that the ship's journey may have included multiple stops for the acquisition of CBM from different regions. Both scenarios offer plausible explanations for the presence of imported CBM at Ashqelon and the potential roles of both Cilicia and Beirut in their distribution and transportation. Despite the extensive production of CBM by the Tenth Legion in JerusalemFootnote 78 and the apparent (commercial?) contacts and cultural affinity between the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of Khirbat Khaur el-Bak, the CBM supplied to the latter site originated in overseas locations rather than in local production centers, such as the one near Jerusalem. Small quantities of CBM produced in Jerusalem were found in JaffaFootnote 79 and Caesarea,Footnote 80 located ca. 55 and 90 km from Jerusalem, respectively, but apparently not in and around Ashqelon. Perhaps the proximity of a harbor town (Ashqelon), regularly engaged with mass imports of various goods, influenced the inhabitants of Khirbat Khaur el-Bak to purchase the roof tiles together with the other imported CBM needed for the bathhouse construction in Ashqelon, rather than transporting the tiles from distant Jerusalem. Architectural traditions involving CBM go back a long way, to the Persian period, in Beirut.Footnote 81 They were also used when building the Roman Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus, established in Beirut in the late 1st c. BCE by veterans of two Roman legions, who apparently introduced westernizing influences, including an intensive use of CBM.Footnote 82 The legionary CBM production in Jerusalem began at the end of the 1st c. CE, with the main phase of production in the following century.Footnote 83 It is therefore possible that the import of CBM by Roman Ashqelon occurred slightly before the beginning of local production of such items by the Roman army in Jerusalem, or at least before the intensification of this industry, namely when locally produced CBM were virtually unavailable for coastal communities, such as those living in and around Ashqelon.

The fact that roof tiles (and other CBM) were documented at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak primarily in relation to the bathhouse – with no examples securely associated with the dwelling/storage structures themselves (suggesting that they had flat, i.e., Levantine-style roofs) – supports Mills's claim that CBM were “a valuable commodity in [their] own right” and that, specifically, “the possession of a tiled roof [was] very expensive, and therefore, a major status signifier.”Footnote 84 Hence, in many rural settlements (e.g., in the Ḥoms region in Syria, used by Mills as an example), “roof tiles were reserved for a single structure per settlement.”Footnote 85 Russell also contends that CBM in North Africa were considered profitable commodities in their own right, with high-quality CBM being actively sought after.Footnote 86 Therefore, the CBM imported from Cilicia and Beirut likely had distinctive characteristics that rendered them appealing trade commodities, given the population's familiarity with these materials from their places of origin. At Khirbat Khaur el-Bak, the very existence of a bathhouse (a rare element in Levantine rural contexts of the 1st–2nd c. CE) into which a variety of (local and mainly imported) CBM were incorporated can on the one hand be linked to the assumed military/ex-military and perhaps foreign identity of the site's inhabitants, while on the other hand emphasizing the contrast with indigenous communities and vernacular architecture, echoing the above-mentioned picture reflected in Beirut.Footnote 87

Despite the limited dataset, mostly associated with a single site (in addition to a few comparative samples from Ashqelon), the present study sheds further light on CBM trade and consumption in the Roman Eastern Mediterranean, and consequently on the economy, architectural landscape, and cultural and ethnic dynamics of the hinterland of a major southern Levantine coastal town – Ashqelon. Moreover, this study stresses the importance of integrating petrographic analysis into the study of a given excavated site alongside the interpretation of artifactual and architectural remains. Hopefully, further interdisciplinary studies of CBM from the southern Levant will contribute to our knowledge about their production centers, their scales and modes of distribution, and their architectural and cultural contexts of usage.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Joe Uziel for editing the English text, and to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments.

Footnotes

1 E.g., Tapio Reference Tapio1975.

3 E.g., McComish Reference McComish2012, 30, 37, 111.

5 Following the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Roman legionary and auxiliary units introduced the use of CBM into the local architectural landscape, including local production, as evidenced first and foremost at the site of the Jerusalem Convention Center (Arubas and Goldfus Reference Arubas, Goldfus and Geva2019; Cohen-Weinberger et al. Reference Cohen-Weinberger, Levi and Be'eri2020). CBM were similarly introduced by the army into other Roman colonies (see, e.g., McWhirr Reference McWhirr and McWhirr1979a; McWhirr Reference McWhirr and McWhirr1979b; Darvill and McWhirr Reference Darvill and McWhirr1984; Kurzmann Reference Kurzmann2006; Mills Reference Mills2013a; Mills Reference Mills, Lavan and Mulryan2013b; Hamari Reference Hamari, Äikäs, Lipkin and Salmi2011; Hamari Reference Hamari2019, 96).

13 For roof tiles in the Roman basilica at Ashqelon, see Boehm et al. Reference Boehm, Master and Blanc2016, 302, 315.

14 Darvill and McWhirr Reference Darvill and McWhirr1984.

16 E.g., Rautman Reference Rautman2003, 213–15; Bardill Reference Bardill2004, 4–5 and n. 6; Mills Reference Mills2013a, 6.

17 The sampled roof tiles were found in the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) excavations conducted at the Ashqelon basilica in 2016, 2018, and 2021 under the direction of S. Ganor and R. Bar-Nathan (see Bar-Nathan and Ganor Reference Bar-Nathan, Ganor, Dell'Acqua and Peleg-Barkat2021). Roof tiles found in previous excavations of the basilica (see Boehm et al. Reference Boehm, Master and Blanc2016) were not sampled in this study.

18 For a preliminary report, see Taxel et al. Reference Taxel, Paran and Weiss2020. The salvage excavations, on behalf of the IAA, were directed by N. S. Paran and I. Taxel.

19 It is not fully clear whether the remains unearthed in the eastern part of the area belonged to one or two (virtually adjacent) buildings. Regardless, since the remains in the southern section of this area can be reconstructed as a large hall divided into three parallel spaces by two rows of pillars, this unit is tentatively identified as a storehouse. The scantier remains to the north may have belonged to another building, perhaps a residence.

20 For the discussion of farmsteads and rural “estates” in Roman Palestine, see Safrai Reference Safrai1994, 47–57.

21 The pottery, glass, and coins from the excavations were studied by I. Taxel, T. Winter, and G. Bijovsky (all of the IAA), respectively.

22 The earliest Roman-period coin found at the site is of an unidentified ruler, from the Ascalon mint, dated to the 1st–2nd c. CE. The earliest securely datable Roman-period ceramics from the site include EST A, B, and D (Cypriot sigillata) bowls dated to the middle of the 1st c. CE, while the latest pottery found in the refuse deposits dates to the 4th c. CE, although not later than its first quarter.

23 Hoss Reference Hoss2005, 49–66, 98; Kowalewska Reference Kowalewska2021, 5.

24 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 29, Fig. 2.10.

25 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 52, Fig. 3.12, Table 3.40.

26 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 32, Fig. 2.12: Imbrices 2.1, 2.2.

27 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 32, Fig. 2.12: Imbrices 1.1, 1.5.

28 See Rosenthal-Heginbottom Reference Rosenthal-Heginbottom2019, 100, nos. 733, 734, with references.

29 For more details on the method of petrographic sampling, see, e.g., Whitbread Reference Whitbread1995; Vaughan Reference Vaughan, Pike and Gitin1999; Quinn Reference Quinn2022.

31 All the roof tiles were found in L20017, which represents the makeup of one of the basilica's Roman-period floors.

32 Sneh and Rosensaft Reference Sneh and Rosensaft2008.

36 E.g., Avnimelech Reference Avnimelech1943, 67; Orni and Efrat Reference Orni and Efrat1964, 35; Rohrlich and Goldsmith Reference Rohrlich and Goldsmith1984, 100; Gur and Goldsmith Reference Gur and Goldsmith1988; Nir Reference Nir1989, 12–15; Sivan Reference Sivan1996.

38 E.g., Wyckoff Reference Wyckoff and Enrich1939, 95; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Bourriau and Serpico2000, Section 5.1, Fig. 18c, top right-hand corner; Bettles Reference Bettles2003, 163, Appendix VI; Ownby and Griffiths Reference Ownby and Griffiths2009.

40 Emery and George Reference Emery and George1963, 7; Sanlaville Reference Sanlaville1977, 162–64; Nir Reference Nir1989, 12–15; Bettles Reference Bettles2003, Pls. 103–6, 111–12; Goren et al. Reference Goren, Finkelstein and Na'aman2004, 109–10, 165; Ownby and Griffiths Reference Ownby and Griffiths2009.

43 Walley Reference Walley1997, 104.

48 Walley Reference Walley1997, 97.

49 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 48 (Pl. 4. BER1.1–1.3), 55.

50 There are very few relevant petrographic analyses of CBM or ceramic vessels from Beirut (see, e.g., Griffiths et. al. Reference Griffiths, Glanfield, Sayegh, Elayi and Sayegh1998, for analyzed Iron Age and Persian-period amphorae). However, several studies suggested provenance in Beirut for pottery (e.g., Köhler and Ownby Reference Köhler and Ownby2011; Waksman et al. Reference Waksman, Stern, Segal, Porat and Yellin2008; Shapiro Reference Shapiro and Stern2012; Stern et al. Reference Stern, Waksman, Shapiro and Waksman2020) and clay tablets (Goren et al. Reference Goren, Finkelstein and Na'aman2004) from various periods that were found in Egypt and the Levant. These studies indicate that components derived from the Lower Cretaceous formations were used in the local ceramic industry. The abundance of quartz grains in Amarna Tablet 141 from Beirut (e.g., Goren et al. Reference Goren, Finkelstein and Na'aman2004) suggest it was produced with the same raw material as our Group 3.

52 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 48 (BER2.1 and BER2.2), 56.

58 Hoss Reference Hoss2005, 45–66; Kowalewska Reference Kowalewska2021, 69–78.

59 Kowalewska Reference Kowalewska2021, 8, 121, 123.

60 Moẓa: ‘Ad et al. Reference ‘Ad, Bar-Nathan, Taxel, Atrash, Overman and Gendelman2022; ‘En Ya‘al: Edelstein Reference Edelstein1990; Edelstein Reference Edelstein1993; Ramat Raḥel: Gadot et al. Reference Gadot, Freud, Tal, Taxel, Lipschits, Gadot and Freud2016a; Gadot et al. Reference Gadot, Tal, Taxel, Lipschits, Gadot and Freud2016b; Khirbat ‘Urqan el-Khala: Ganor et al. Reference Ganor, Ganor, Klein and Klein2010a; Ganor et al. Reference Ganor, Klein, Ganor and Klein2010b; Klein Reference Klein2011, 42–44; Ḥorvat ‘Ethri: Zissu et al. Reference Zissu, Ganor, Jackson-Tal, Klein, Klein, Sasson and Levy-Reifer2020. At Moẓa and Ḥorvat ‘Ethri, only indirect evidence for a bathhouse was found, mainly in the form of tubuli fragments and other bathhouse-related elements.

61 CIIP III, 244–49; Di Segni et al. Reference Di Segni, Tsafrir and Green2017, 1127–29; Fuks Reference Fuks2001, 49–71, 96–121. For a full review of the literary sources on Ashqelon from Hellenistic to Byzantine times, see Di Segni et al. Reference Di Segni, Tsafrir and Green2017, 997–1127.

62 See also Klein Reference Klein2010, 328–32, for the presence of Bet Naṭṭif-type figurines as a characteristic of the polytheist population in Judea.

63 Rosenthal-Heginbottom Reference Rosenthal-Heginbottom2019, 124, 132–33, 136–37, 206, nos. 846–48.

64 For the settlement of veterans in the Judean countryside from the 2nd c. CE onwards, see also Klein Reference Klein2011, 314–20; for Roman army units and individuals in Ashqelon, see CIIP III, 245–56.

65 Kowalewska Reference Kowalewska2021, 126; Uytterhoeven Reference Uytterhoeven2011, 323–25, for a similarly ambiguous picture regarding the identity of the owners of houses with private baths in Asia Minor.

66 Connections with Beirut extended beyond the exchange of material goods and are further demonstrated by the presence of soldiers originating from that city. For instance, a pay slip found at Masada and dated to 72–75 CE belonged to a Roman soldier from Beirut. Cotton and Geiger Reference Cotton and Geiger1989, 35–56, Pl. 64A.

69 Reynolds Reference Reynolds1997–98.

70 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 49, 55, 69, Table 3.33, Figs. 4.1, 4.2.

73 Pierce and Master Reference Pierce, Master and Huster2015, 119–20.

74 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 6, 8, Figs. 1.4, 1.5; Mills Reference Mills, Lavan and Mulryan2013b, 580, Figs. 4–5.

75 Mills Reference Mills2013a, 106, who suggested similar scenarios for the import of roof tiles to Beirut. Excavations at Tel Ashqelon, the core of the ancient city, revealed the remains of two Roman-period bathhouses (Stager et al. Reference Stager, Schloen, Master, Press, Aja, Stager, Schloen and Master2008, 243–44, 293), but these have not yet been fully published and no data related to the CBM used in their construction are available.

77 The commercial contacts between Roman Ashqelon and Beirut are also indicated by the discovery of several Phoenician amphora types at Khirbat Khaur el-Bak, produced in Beirut and southern Phoenicia/western Galilee, and presumably marketed via Beirut.

79 Barag Reference Barag1967, 169.

80 Goren Reference Goren, Arubas and Goldfus2005, 194; Peter Gendelman, pers. comm. 2022. In the time of Hadrian, units of the Tenth Legion participated in the construction of the aqueduct to Caesarea. Nine inscriptions attesting to this project were incorporated into the aqueduct (CIIP II, 1200–1209).

85 In a similar way, it has been recently proposed that Hellenistic roof tiles from Jerusalem should be attributed to part of a structure related to the Seleucid presence in the city (possibly the Akra; Vukosavović et al. Reference Vukosavović, Cohen-Weinberger, Gadot, Bocher, Bejarano and Shalev2022).

86 Although it is uncertain whether CBM were indeed used as ballast cargoes. Russell Reference Russell, Mugnai, Nikolaus and Ray2016.

87 On these issues, see also Mills Reference Mills2013a, 104–5, 109, 113–15; on architectural styles as expressions of identity in rural Palestine in later centuries, see Taxel Reference Taxel2018, 122–24.

References

‘Ad, U., Bar-Nathan, R., and Taxel, I.. 2022. “The Roman veterans’ settlement at Moẓa c. AD 70–130.” In Cities, Monuments and Objects in the Roman and Byzantine Levant: Studies in Honour of Gabi Mazor, ed. Atrash, W., Overman, A., and Gendelman, P., 148–56. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Adelhardt, W., Gaertner, H.-R., Hoppe, P., Magnusson, N. H., Mollat, H., Tessensohn, F., Toloczyki, M., Trurnit, P., and Voges, A.. 1998. International Geological Map of Europe and the Mediterranean Regions 1:1,500,000: Sheet F6 Halab. Hannover: Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe.Google Scholar
Almagor, G., and Hall, J. K.. 1980. “Morphology of the continental margin of northern Israel and southern Lebanon.” Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 29: 245–52.Google Scholar
Al-Shorman, A. H. B., Al-Muheisen, Z. H., Khalayleh, R. M.. 2023, and Al-Daire, J. A.. “The mineralogical, chemical, and physical properties of ceramic building materials: Khirbet Edh-Dharih in southern Jordan (first century BC–seventh century AD).” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 11, no. 4: 390418.10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.11.4.0390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arubas, B., and Goldfus, H.. 1995. “The kilnworks of the Tenth Legion Fretensis.” In The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. Humphrey, J. H., 95107. JRA Suppl. 14. Ann Arbor: JRA.Google Scholar
Arubas, B., and Goldfus, H.. 2019. “The Legio X Fretensis kilnworks at the Jerusalem International Convention Center.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries, 1998–2018, ed. Geva, H., 184–94. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Aviam, M., and Stern, E. J.. 1997. “Burial caves near Ḥ. Sugar.” ‘Atiqot 33: 89102. (Hebrew with English summary, p. 16*)Google Scholar
Avnimelech, M. 1943. “The geological history of the Coastal Plain, Nahariyya and its adjacent area.” Yedioth-Israel Exploration Society 10, no. 2–3: 6674. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Bahat, D. 1974. “A roof tile of the Legio VI Ferrata and pottery vessels from Ḥorvat Ḥazon.” IEJ 24: 160–69.Google Scholar
Bakler, N. 1989. “Regional geology.” In Excavations at Tel Michal Israel, ed. Herzog, Z., Rapp, G., and Negbi, O., 198202. Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 8. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Barag, D. 1967. “Brick stamp-impressions of the Legio X Fretensis.” ErIsr 8: 168–82. (Hebrew with English summary, p. 73*)Google Scholar
Bardill, J. 2004. Brick Stamps of Constantinople. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Nathan, R., and Ganor, S.. 2021. “The basilica of Ashkelon between Herod and the Severan dynasty.” In The Basilica in Roman Palestine: Adoption and Adaption Processes, in Light of Comparanda in Italy and North Africa. Workshop 5–6 December 2019, Tübingen, ed. Dell'Acqua, A. and Peleg-Barkat, O., 109–31. Rome: Quasar.Google Scholar
Be'eri, R., and Levi, D.. 2018. “Pottery production in Jerusalem in the Second Temple period until the Second Jewish Revolt in light of the Crowne Plaza Hotel and Jerusalem International Convention Center excavations.” Cathedra 168: 738. (Hebrew with English abstract, p. 211)Google Scholar
Ben-Shlomo, D. 2012. “Petrographic analysis of stamped roof tiles from the Jewish Quarter.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. 5. The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T), Final Report, ed. Gutfeld, O., 393–95. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Bes, P. 2020. “Long-distance imported pottery at Horvat Kur (Galilee, Israel): Categories and quantities.” RCRFActa 46: 559–67.Google Scholar
Bettles, E. 2003. Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A Multi-Disciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period (539–332 BC). BAR International Series 1183. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Betts, I. M. 1985. “A Scientific Investigation of the Brick and Tile Industry of York to the Mid-Eighteenth Century.” PhD diss., Bradford Univ.Google Scholar
Blow, W. H. 1956. “Origin and evolution of the foraminiferal genus Orbulina d'Orbigny.” Micropaleontology 2: 5770.10.2307/1484492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, R., Master, D. M., and Blanc, R. Le. 2016. “The basilica, bouleuterion, and civic center of Ashkelon.” AJA 120: 271324.10.3764/aja.120.2.0271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchbinder, B. 1975. “Stratigraphic significance of the alga Amphiroa in Neogene Quaternary bioclastic sediments from Israel.” Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 24: 4448.Google Scholar
Butcher, K. 2003. Roman Syria and the Near East. Los Angeles: Getty Publications with the British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. W. 2021. “The development of water pipes: A brief introduction from ancient times until the industrial revolution.” Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of the Construction History Society at Queens’ College, Cambridge, United Kingdom, August 2021. https://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.arct.cam.ac.uk/files/p_33campbell.pdfGoogle Scholar
CIIP II. 2011. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae. Vol. 2. Caesarea and the Middle Coast, 1121–2160, ed. Cotton, H. M., Eck, W., Isaac, B., and Ameling, W.. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
CIIP III. 2014. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae. Vol. 3. South Coast 2161–2648, ed. Ameling, W., Cotton, H. M., Eck, W., Isaac, B., Kushnir-Stein, A., Misgav, H., Price, J., and Yardeni, A.. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, G. N., and BouDagher-Fadel, M.. 2020. “Insights into the Cenozoic geology of North Beirut (harbour area): Biostratigraphy, sedimentology and structural history.” UCL Open Environment 2. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2003. “Petrographic analysis of bricks from Area VI.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benyamin Mazar. Final Reports Vol. II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods, ed. Mazar, E., 199. Qedem 43. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2004. “A petrographic study of the Early Bronze Age pottery from Ashqelon, Afridar–Area E.” ‘Atiqot 45: 101–4.Google Scholar
Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2007. “Petrography of Middle Bronze 2 Age Pottery: Implications to Understanding Egypto-Canaanite Relations.” PhD diss., Tel Aviv Univ. (Hebrew with English summary, pp. I–IV)Google Scholar
Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2019. “Petrographic analysis of Middle Bronze Age II vessels from burial pits in Ashqelon.” ‘Atiqot 97: 8996.Google Scholar
Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2022. “Petrographic analysis of selected vessels.” In Ashqelon Barne‘a, Vol. 2, ed. Golani, A., 9199. IAA Reports 70. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.10.2307/j.ctv2x1nq07.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Weinberger., A., Levi, D., and Be'eri, R.. 2020. “On the raw materials in the ceramic workshops of Jerusalem, before and after 70 C.E.” BASOR 383: 3359.Google Scholar
Cohen-Weinberger, A., Szanton, N., and Lieberman, T.. 2022. “IVL impressions and their implications for the production of ceramic building materials in Aelia Capitolina.” Tel Aviv 49: 98114.10.1080/03344355.2022.2057023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, H., and Geiger, J.. 1989. Masada II. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Craig, A. H. 2013. “Tubuli and their Use in Roman Arabia, with a Focus on Humayma (Ancient Hauarra).” M.A. diss. Victoria Univ., Victoria.Google Scholar
Dan, J., Marish, S., and Saltzman, G.. 1975. Soils of the Ashqelon–Yad Mordekhay Region. Soil and Water Pamphlet 153. Bet Dagan: Volcani Center Institute. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Dan, J., and Raz, Z.. 1970. Soil Association Map of Israel, 1:250,000. Bet Dagan: Volcani Center Institute. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Darvill, T., and McWhirr, A.. 1984. “Brick and tile production in Roman Britain: Models of economic organisation.” WorldArch 15, no. 3: 239–61.Google Scholar
Di Segni, L., Tsafrir, Y., and Green, J.. 2017. Onomasticon of Iudaea-Palaestina and Arabia in the Greek and Latin Sources, Vol. 2, pt. 2. Arabia, Chapter 5—Azzeira: Research Bibliography and Maps. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Dubertret, L. 1945. Carte géologique au 50.000e: feuille de Beyrouth. Beirut: République libanaise, ministère des travaux publics.Google Scholar
Dubertret, L. 1962. Carte géologique du Liban, Syrie et bordure des pays voisins, 1:1,000,000. Paris: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.Google Scholar
Dubertret, L. 1966. “Liban, Syrie, et bordure des pays voisins.” Notes et Mémoires sur le Moyen-Orient 8: 251–58.Google Scholar
Edelstein, G. 1990. “What's a Roman villa doing outside Jerusalem?” Biblical Archaeology Review 16: 3242.Google Scholar
Edelstein, G. 1993. “A Roman villa at ‘Ein Ya‘el.” Qadmoniot 103–4: 114–19. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Edwards, D. 2009. “Qana roof tiles: Preliminary report.” In A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, ed. Rodgers, Z., 225–27. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
El Kareh, G. 2010. “The basal cretaceous sandstone of Lebanon past, present and future: Climate change threats.” In The 1st International Applied Geological Congress, Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University – Mashad Branch, Iran, 26–28 April 2010, 1515–21. [s.n.] https://conference.khuisf.ac.ir/DorsaPax/userfiles/file/pazhohesh/zamin%20mashad/271.pdfGoogle Scholar
Emery, K. O., and George, C. J.. 1963. The Shores of Lebanon. Beirut: American University of Beirut.Google Scholar
Fragnoli, P., Boccalon, E., and Liberotti, G.. 2023. “Designing a ‘yellow brick road’ for the archaeometric analyses of fired and unfired bricks.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 59: 231–46.10.1016/j.culher.2022.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuks, G. 2001. A City of Many Seas: Ashkelon during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Gadot, Y., Freud, L., Tal, O., and Taxel, I.. 2016a. “Sub-Sector AWS1: Squares S–BB/6–14.” In Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni's Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. 1, ed. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., and Freud, L., 213–31. Tel Aviv University, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 35. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns; Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Gadot, Y., Tal, O., and Taxel, I.. 2016b. “Sub-Sector ACS3: Squares Q–V/20–23.” In Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni's Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. 1, ed. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., and Freud, L., 172202. Tel Aviv University, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 35. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns; Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ganor, A., Ganor, S., Klein, A., and Klein, E.. 2010a. “Bet Guvrin (north).” HA–ESI 122. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1618&mag_id=117.Google Scholar
Ganor, A., Klein, A., Ganor, S., and Klein, E.. 2010b. “A Roman villa at ‘Urkan el-Khala northwest of Eleutheropolis.” Qadmoniot 139: 2629. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Gass, I. G., Macleod, C. J., Murton, B. J., Panayiotou, P., Simonian, K. O., and Xenophontos, C.. 1994. The Geology of the Southern Troodos Transform Fault Zone. Nicosia: Geological Survey Department.Google Scholar
Gavish, E., and Friedman, G. M.. 1969. “Progressive diagenesis in Quaternary to Late Tertiary carbonate sediments: Sequence and time scale.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 39, no. 3: 9801006.Google Scholar
Glass, J. 1980. “Petrological analysis of a type A tegula.” In Tell Keisan (1971–1976), Une cité phénicienne en Galilée, ed. Briend, J. and Humbert, J.-B., 8788. Fribourg: Editions universitaires.Google Scholar
Goren, Y. 2005. “Appendix: The pottery technology.” In Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha'uma) 1: A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, The Tenth Legion's Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Small Finds, ed. Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., 192–94. JRA Suppl. 60. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., and Na'aman, N.. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 23. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. 2003. “Petrographic analysis of Middle Bronze Age burial jars from Sidon.” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 17: 1721.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. R., Glanfield, D. A., and Sayegh, H.. 1998. “Fabric analysis of jars and amphorae from Loci 130 and 135–138.” In Un quartier du port phénicien de Beyrouth au Fer III/ Perse: les objects, ed. Elayi, J. and Sayegh, H., 4551. Transeuphratène 6. Paris: Gabalda.Google Scholar
Gur, B., and Goldsmith, V.. 1988. “Beach sediments of the northern Carmel Coast.” Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 37: 2336.Google Scholar
Gutfeld, O., and Nenner-Soriano, R.. 2012. “Stamp impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from the cardo and the Nea Church.” Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. 5. The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T), Final Report, ed. Gutfeld, O., 378–92. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Hamari, P. 2011. “Signifying Roman in the east: Identity and material culture in Roman archaeology.” In Archaeology of Social Relations: Ten Case Studies by Finnish Archaeologists, ed. Äikäs, T., Lipkin, S., and Salmi, A.-K., 77102. Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Hamari, P. 2017. “The roofscapes of Petra: The use of ceramic roof tiles in a Nabataean-Roman urban context.” In Forms of Dwelling: 20 Years of Taskscapes in Archaeology, ed. Rajala, U. and Mills, P., 85113. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Hamari, P. 2019. “Roman-Period Roof Tiles in the Eastern Mediterranean: Towards Regional Typologies.” PhD diss., Univ. of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hoss, S. 2005. Baths and Bathing: The Culture of Bathing and the Baths and Thermae in Palestine from the Hasmoneans to the Moslem Conquest. BAR International Series 1346. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Klein, E. 2010. “The origins of the rural settlers in Judean mountains and foothills during the Late Roman period.” New Studies on Jerusalem 16: 321–50. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Klein, E. 2011. “Aspects of the Material Culture of Rural Judea During the Late Roman Period (135–324 CE).” PhD diss., Bar-Ilan Univ., Ramat Gan. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Köhler, C. E., and Ownby, M.. 2011. “Levantine imports and their imitations from Helwan.” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 21: 3146.10.1553/AEundL21s31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewska, A. 2021. Bathhouses in Iudaea/Syria-Palaestina and Provincia Arabia from Herod the Great to the Umayyads. Oxford: Oxbow.10.2307/j.ctv1qz69bbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzmann, R. 2006. Roman Military Brick Stamps: A Comparison of Methodology. BAR International Series 1543. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.10.30861/9781841719757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laflı, E., and Buora, M.. 2021/2022. “Terracotta sarcophagi from the eastern Mediterranean.” Mediterranean Archaeology 34–35: 83116.Google Scholar
Lieberman, T., Cohen-Weinberger, A., Solomon, A., Hagbi, M., Uziel, J., and Ecker, A.. 2022. “It’s not just another brick in the wall: The ceramic building materials of Colonia Aelia Capitolina.” IEJ 72: 89112.Google Scholar
Lund, J. 2015. A Study of the Circulation of Ceramics in Cyprus from the 3rd Century BC to the 3rd Century AD. Gӧsta Enbom Monographs 5. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.10.2307/jj.608283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Master, D. M. 2001. “The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE: A Petrographic Study.” PhD diss., Harvard Univ.Google Scholar
Master, D. M. 2003. “Trade and politics: Ashkelon's balancing act in the seventh century B.C.E.” BASOR 330: 4764.Google Scholar
McComish, J. M. 2012. “An Analysis of Roman Ceramic Building Material from York and its Immediate Environs.” MA Thesis, Univ. of York.Google Scholar
McWhirr, A. 1979a. “Tile-kilns in Britain.” In Roman Brick and Tile: Studies in Manufacture, Distribution and Use in the Western Empire, ed. McWhirr, A., 97190. BAR International Series 68. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.10.30861/9780860540731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhirr, A. 1979b. “Origin of legionary tile-stamping in Britain.” In Roman Brick and Tile: Studies in Manufacture, Distribution and Use in the Western Empire, ed. McWhirr, A., 253–60. BAR International Series 68. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.10.30861/9780860540731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, P. 2005. “The Ancient Mediterranean Trade in Ceramic Building Material: A Case Study in Carthage and Beirut.” PhD diss., Univ. of Leicester.Google Scholar
Mills, P. 2013a. The Ancient Mediterranean Trade in Ceramic Building Materials: A Case Study in Carthage and Beirut. Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 2. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Mills, P. 2013b. “The potential of ceramic building materials in understanding Late Antique archaeology.” In Field Methods and Post-Excavation Techniques in Late Antique Archaeology, ed. Lavan, L. and Mulryan, M., 573–94. Late Antique Archaeology 9. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Montana, G., Randazzo, L., Barca, D., and Carroll, M.. 2021. “Archaeometric analysis of building ceramics and ‘dolia defossa’ from the Roman imperial estate of Vagnari (Gravina in Puglia, Italy).” JAS: Reports 38: 103057, 1–14.Google Scholar
Nir, Y. 1985. “Israel.” In The World's Coastline, ed. Bird, E. C. F. and Schwartz, M. L., 505–11. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Nir, Y. 1989. Sedimentological Aspects of the Israel and Sinai Mediterranean Coasts. Geological Survey of Israel Internal Report. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Orni, E., and Efrat, E.. 1964. Geography of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press.Google Scholar
Osband, M. 2014. “Ceramic Ecology of the Golan in the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods.” PhD diss., Bar-Ilan Univ.Google Scholar
Ownby, M., and Griffiths, D.. 2009. “The petrographic analysis of beach sand from Sidon to determine its utility for ceramic provenance studies.” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 29: 5667.Google Scholar
Parks, D. A., Aviam, M., and Stern, E. J.. 1997. “Clay coffins from Agia Napa: Makronisos and their connections.” In Agia Napa: Excavations at Makronisos and the Archaeology of the Region, ed. Hadjisavvas, S., 189–96. Nicosia: Agia Napa Municipality.Google Scholar
Parks, D. A., and Neff, H.. 2002. “A geochemical vector for trade: Cyprus, Asia Minor and the Roman East.” In Geochemical Evidence for Long-Distance Exchange, ed. Glascock, M. D., 205–14. Westport: Bergin and Garvey.10.5040/9798216187578.ch-010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parlak, O., Karaoğlan, F., Rizaoğlu, T., Nurlu, N., Bağci, U., V. Hӧck, A. Ӧztüfekçi Önal, S. Kürüm, and Y. Topak. 2012. “Petrology of the İspendere (Malatya) ophiolite from southeast Anatolia: Implications for the Late Mesozoic evolution of the southern Neotethyan Ocean.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications 372: 219–47.10.1144/SP372.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S. 1984. “Ceramic building materials.” In Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, Vol. 1, pt. 2, The Avenue du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo: The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site, ed. Fulford, M. G. and Peacock, D. P. S., 242–46. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Pierce, G. A., and Master, D. M.. 2015. “Ashkelon as maritime gateway and central place.” In The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon – Ashkelon 5: The Land Behind Ashkelon, ed. Huster, Y., 109–24. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. S. 2022. Thin Section Petrography, Geochemistry and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Archaeological Ceramics. Oxford: Archaeopress.10.2307/j.ctv2nwq8x4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautman, M. L. 2003. A Cypriot Village of Late Antiquity: Kalavasos-Kopetra in the Vasilikos Valley. JRA Suppl. 52, Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. 1997–98. “Pottery production and economic exchange in second century Berytus: Some preliminary observations of ceramic trends from quantified ceramic deposits from the Aub-Leverhulme excavations Beirut.” Berytus 43: 35110.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. 2005. “Levantine amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: A typology and analysis of regional production trends from the 1st to the 7th centuries.” In LRCW 1: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry (Barcelona, 14–16 March 2002), ed. M, J.. Esparraguera, Gurt i, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M. A. Cau Ontiveros, 563611. BAR International Series 1340. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, V., and Goldsmith, V.. 1984. “Sediment transport along the southern Mediterranean: A geological perspective.” Geo-Marine Letters 4: 99103.10.1007/BF02277079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2019. Jerusalem: The Western Wall Plaza Excavations 2: The Pottery from the Eastern Cardo. IAA Reports 64. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 2016. “Imported building materials in North Africa: Brick, stone and the role of return cargoes.” In De Africa Romaque: Merging Cultures Across North Africa, ed. Mugnai, N., Nikolaus, J., and Ray, N., 173–84. London: Society for Libyan Studies.Google Scholar
Safrai, Z. 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sanlaville, P. 1977. Etude géomorphologique de la région littorale du Liban. Publications de l'Université libanaise 1. Beirut: Publications de l'Université libanaise.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. 1997. “Petrographic analysis of Roman clay sarcophagi from northwestern Israel and Cyprus.” ‘Atiqot 33: 24.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. 2012. “Petrographic analysis of the Crusader-period pottery.” In Akko I: The 1991–1998 Excavations: The Crusader-Period Pottery, Part 2, ed. Stern, E. J., 103–26. IAA Reports 51. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.10.2307/j.ctt1fzhfr5.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, A. 2017. “Petrographic examination of tiles, bricks and mortaria from Legio.” ‘Atiqot 89: 4147.Google Scholar
Sivan, D. 1996. Paleogeography of the Galilee Coastal Plain During the Quaternary. Geological Survey of Israel Report GSI/18/96. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. (Hebrew with English summary)Google Scholar
Smith, L., Bourriau, J., and Serpico, M.. 2000. “The provenance of Late Bronze Age transport amphorae found in Egypt.” Internet Archaeologist 9. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.9.6.Google Scholar
Sneh, A., and Rosensaft, M.. 2008. Geological Map of Israel 1:50:000. Ashqelon, Sheet 10–III. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.Google Scholar
Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D., Master, D. M., Press, M. D., and Aja, A.. 2008. “Stratigraphic overview.” In The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon: Ashkelon 1, Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), ed. Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D., and Master, D. M., 215325. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Stern, E. J., Waksman, S. Y., and Shapiro, A.. 2020. “The impact of the Crusades on ceramic production and use in the southern Levant: Continuity or change?” In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Food and Foodways in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Waksman, S. Y., 113–46. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée.10.4000/books.momeditions.10159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapio, H. 1975. Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D. An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 9: 1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Taxel, I. 2018. “Late Antique Ionic column capitals in the countryside of central Palestine between provincial trends and classical traditions.” Studies in Late Antiquity 2, no. 1: 84125.10.1525/sla.2018.2.1.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taxel, I., Paran, N. S., and Weiss, S.. 2020. “Khirbat Khaur el-Bak (North).” HA–ESI 132. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25740&mag_id=128.Google Scholar
Tepper, Y., David, J., and Adams, J. M.. 2016. “The Roman VIth Legion Ferrata at Legio (el-Lajjun), Israel: Preliminary report of the 2013 excavation.” Strata 34: 91123.Google Scholar
Tomber, R. 1987. “Evidence for long-distance commerce: Imported bricks and tiles at Carthage.” RCRFActa 25–26: 161–74.Google Scholar
Uytterhoeven, I. 2011. “Bathing in a ‘western style’: Private bath complexes in Roman and Late Antique Asia Minor.” IstMitt 61: 287346.Google Scholar
Vaughan, S. J. 1999. “Contributions of petrography to the study of archaeological ceramics and man-made building materials in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean.” In The Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology, ed. Pike, S. and Gitin, S., 117–25. London: Archetype.Google Scholar
Vukosavović, F., Cohen-Weinberger, A., Gadot, Y., Bocher, E., Bejarano, O., and Shalev, Y.. 2022. “Hellenistic roof tiles in Jerusalem.” JHP 6: 5774.Google Scholar
Waksman, S. Y., Stern, E. J., Segal, I., Porat, N., and Yellin, J. 2008. “Elemental and petrographic analyses of local and imported ceramics from Crusader Acre.” ‘Atiqot 59: 157–90.Google Scholar
Walley, C. 1997. “The lithostratigraphy of Lebanon, a review.” Lebanese Science Bulletin 10: 81108.Google Scholar
Weksler-Bdolah, S., Bar-Nathan, R., Cohen-Weinberger, A., and Di Segni, L.. 2022. “‘(Work) of CILO’: An impression of a Roman-period private stamp from the Western Wall Tunnels.” ‘Atiqot 106: 239–55.Google Scholar
Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4. Athens: British School of Athens.Google Scholar
Wilkes, J. J. 1979. “Importation and manufacture of stamped bricks and tiles in the province of Dalmatia.” In Roman Brick and Tile: Studies in Manufacture, Distribution and Use in the Western Empire, ed. McWhirr, A., 6572. BAR International Series 68. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Williams, D. F., and Lund, J.. 2013. “Petrological analyses of ‘pinched-handle’ amphorae from the Akamas Peninsula, western Cyprus.” In The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus, ed. Lawall, M. L. and Lund, J., 155–64. Gösta Enbom Monograph Series 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.10.2307/jj.608268.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyckoff, D. 1939. “Petrography of pottery.” In Early Pottery of the Jebeleh Region, ed. Enrich, A. M. H., 89101. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Zissu, B., Ganor, A., Jackson-Tal, R. E., and Klein, E.. 2020. “The Late Roman period settlement at Horvat ‘Ethri, Judean Shephelah.” In Ashkelon and its Vicinity. New Studies of the Southern Coastal Plain and the Judean Foothills in Honor of Dr. Nahum Sagiv, ed. Klein, E., Sasson, A., and Levy-Reifer, A., 161204. Tel Aviv: Resling. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Zumoffen, G. 1926. Carte géologique du Liban. 1:200,000. Paris: Henry Barrère.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Geographic locations mentioned in the article. (Prepared by Yuliya Gumenny, Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: plan of excavation area. (Prepared by Elena Delerson, IAA.)

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: aerial view of the Roman-period bathhouse, looking north. (Photo by Emil Aladjem, IAA.)

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: aerial view of the Roman-period bathhouse, looking west. (Photo by Emil Aladjem, IAA.)

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: selected roof tiles. (Scans by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon. Photos by Dafna Gazit. Prepared by Marina Shuisky, IAA.)

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: selected bricks. (Scans by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon. Photos by Dafna Gazit. Prepared by Marina Shuisky, IAA.)

Figure 6

Table 1. Inventory and results of the petrographically analyzed CBM from Khirbat Khaur el-Bak.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Khirbat Khaur el-Bak: selected tubuli (1, 2) and drainage pipe sections (3, 4). (Scans by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon. Photos by Clara Amit and Dafna Gazit. Prepared by Marina Shuisky, IAA.)

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Photomicrograph of a drainage pipe section (Table 1: 1, Group 1; Fig. 7: 4). Quartz grains embedded in non-calcareous silty matrix. xpl (crossed polarized light). (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Photomicrograph of a drainage pipe section (Table 1: 2, Group 2; Fig. 7: 3). Quartz grains and kurkar fragment embedded in non-calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Photomicrograph of a tubulus (Table 1: 9, Group 3; Fig. 7: 2). Quartz grains, algae, calcareous rocks, weathered basalt and sandstone fragments embedded in calcareous matrix with discrete foraminifera. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 11

Fig. 11. Photomicrograph of a rounded brick (Table 1: 5, Group 3; Fig. 6: 7). Quartz grains, Amphiroa sp. sandstone and calcareous rock fragments embedded in calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 12

Fig. 12. Photomicrograph of a tubulus (Table 1: 9, Group 3; Fig. 7: 2). Alga, calcareous rock, weathered basalt and sandstone embedded in calcareous matrix with discrete foraminifera. Silicified foraminifera appear above the basalt fragment. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 13

Fig. 13. Photomicrograph of a square brick (Table 1: 7, Group 3; Fig. 6: 2). Ferruginous elliptical oolite and fine quartz grain embedded in calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 14

Fig. 14. Photomicrograph of a rectangular brick (Table 1: 4, Group 3; Fig. 6: 6). Amphiroa sp. Alga fragment and quartz grain embedded in calcareous matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 15

Fig. 15. Photomicrograph of an imbrex roof tile (Table 1: 11, Group 4; Fig. 5: 3). Olivine and olivine-iddingsite grains embedded in dark brown matrix. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)

Figure 16

Fig. 16. Photomicrograph of a tegula roof tile (Table 1: 13, Group 4; Fig. 5: 1). Serpentine. The dark brown matrix appears in the bottom of this image. xpl. (Photo by Anat Cohen-Weinberger.)