The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (43 page)

The tombs under the Church of the Annunciation

Bagatti writes: “The Church of the Annunciation is situated on a small hill surrounded by ancient graves south of Saint Joseph’s Church.”
^[609]
It is a revealing statement, because the tradition has identified only two Roman-era tombs in the vicinity (numbers 70 and 73). Many more tombs, however, have been suspected. Mansur noted “natural protrusions under the Church of St. Joseph” and a “bulging extension” near the CA, all which he thought were once tombs.
^[610]
He noted similar “protrusions” and “extensions” under the 100-meter Franciscan monastery, excavated in 1930. Most of these possibilities, at least in the venerated area, must forever remain unverified, for this plot of land has long since been reshaped by the assiduous attentions of the Church.

It should be noted that several tombs of the Bronze Age, studied in Chapter 1, are located either under or immediately next to the Church of the Annunciation (tombs 1, 7, 8). Tomb 1 is located between five and ten meters south of the Byzantine structure. Tombs 7 and 8 are approximately ten meters apart from one another and are located under the Byzantine, Medieval, and modern structures. The fact that the area under the Shrine of the Annunciation was a necropolis in the Bronze and Iron Ages is not in doubt. The question we shall now consider is whether this hallowed ground also served as a necropolis in Roman times.

In a particularly revealing paragraph, Père Viaud raised the possibility already in 1910 that many tombs existed under the “courtyard” of the CA, that is, under the western half of the structure. Of course, he was excavating before the construction of the large modern edifices, and thus had access to many structures which have since been destroyed. Viaud writes:

Sépulchres
.— Devant cet escalier, à un mètre environ vers l’ouest, nous avons mis à jour plusieurs sépulcres de l’époque des croisés [
T. 27
]. Ils sont placés dans une sorte de chambre creusée dans le roc et dont l’entrée était à l’Orient. Peut-être était-ce primitivement une chambre sépulchrale de l’époque byzantine, ruinée avec la première église et réutilisée par les croisés. Ceci justifierait l’opinion du P. Meistermann, qui voit dans les deux citernes situées dans la cour, à gauche [
10+
], d’anciennes chambres sépulchrales transformées. Quant à celle du droit [
11
], nous allons voir que si elle est aussi une ancienne chambre sépulchrale transformée, cette transformation a eu lieu du temps même des croisés.
^[611]

The reference numbers in brackets are used below to refer to the various structures Viaud mentions. It is clear from his statement that this section of the CA alone contained no less than four pre-Crusader tombs, three of which were converted into cisterns. Meistermann suggested others. Kopp allows as many as five tombs under the CA, all dating to the Roman-era. Bagatti himself does not dispute three tombs, though he argues for their later dating. We shall consider the most significant tombs below.

A note is in order regarding the sea-change in attitude that Bagatti, in the post-War years, attempted to effectuate regarding the Nazareth tombs. As has been mentioned, he was the first to truly recognize the danger that Roman-era tombs posed for the tradition. However, in the earlier part of the century the Catholic attitude was completely different. From the preceding citation, it is evident that Meistermann sees an old tomb in virtually every cistern under the venerated area. Viaud mentions several tombs contiguous to the Chapel of the Angel, and Kopp writes that the entire venerated area was a necropolis. The modern researcher can only be thankful to the forthrightness of these early investigators. Why, we may wonder, were Fathers Viaud, Meistermann, and Kopp so enthusiastic about finding Roman-era tombs at Nazareth?

The answer lies in the texts themselves. The priests were looking for tombs of the Holy Family, and were thrilled at the search. Viaud continually asks: “What could this be?” He constantly tries to link what he is seeing to the Holy Family. This includes the tombs. What Viaud really wanted to find was the tomb of Joseph, and the tomb of Mary. He even entitles one of his sections: “
Est-il de saint Joseph
?”
^[612]

 The alacrity of these early researchers in documenting tombs proved a headache for Bagatti. His task was to neutralize, as much as possible, all of the funerary claims made by his predecessors. The task was not easy, but he did it very well. Most of the tombs of Meistermann, Viaud, and Mansur are not even mentioned in Bagatti’s
Excavations in Nazareth
. He speaks of tombs under the CA only when absolutely necessary. This is the case in regards to locus 27 (see below), where Bagatti refutes prior contentions that the tomb went back to Roman times. The Italian also allows very brief mention of Tomb 29 in his tome, yet without any comment whatsoever. Both these tombs, as it happens, adjoin the Chapel of the Angel.

Artefacts and tombs

The artefacts found also contribute to our understanding of the venerated area’s history. We recall that fourteen bow-spouted oil lamps are the earliest datable evidence from Roman Nazareth.
^[613]
All but two of them came from the venerated area, or from close by. This is not surprising, perhaps, since only there have major excavations been conducted. Five of the lamps came from kokh tombs (one tomb yielded two examples). Because the kokh-type tomb first appeared in the Galilee
c
. 50 CE,
^[614]
we can therefore date these five oil lamps after that time. What is presently of interest is that for topological reasons, we have seen that habitations were not possible in the venerated area (above, p. 241
f
.). This means that the remaining nine bow-spouted lamps found there
^[615]
were either funereal or were linked to agricultural activity (placed in nitches, etc.). In this connection, Varda Sussman writes: “Most oil-lamps surviving from antiquity were discovered in tombs.”
^[616]
This is cause for pause, for
the tradition denies that even a single Roman lamp from the venerated area came from a tomb.
We may also bear in mind that for every example of pottery or of an oil lamp that has survived, either whole or in part, there are probably a number of additional items that have not survived, or that are represented today only by mutilated and undatable shards. This renders the Church’s position all the more precarious.

The exact find spot for four of the itemized bow-spouted lamps is not known (Chapter 4,
Illus
.
4.3
, nos. 6–9), though they came from the venerated area:

Even though we do not know exactly where they were found, we are certain that they come from the area excavated, that is, from the zone situated near to the Shrine of the Annunciation and that of St. Joseph.
^[617]

Another five bow-spouted lamps (nos. 1–5) were found in the area, but their archaeological contexts are only vaguely given. This is a general problem in Nazareth archaeology. Unfortunately, the lack of stratigraphical method in the Franciscan excavations is coupled with imprecision—and even complete uncertainty—regarding the exact find spots (and hence contexts) of many artefacts reported in Bagatti’s
Excavations in Nazareth
. It is of course regrettable, and can unfortunately mask a good deal of misinformation.

Yet, if these nine bow-spouted oil lamps were
not
funerary, then only two possibilities remain: they were either domestic, or they were used in connection with agricultural work. Regarding the former possibility, we have seen that domestic habitations could not have existed on the hillside which, besides sloping steeply, is characterized by scores of cavities in the ground. As regards the latter, it is of course theoretically possible that all these lamps were used in connection with agricultural activity. But there is certainly no obvious connection—after all, agricultural activity was carried out during the day.

Though the tradition today denies the existence of Roman Period tombs in the venerated area, it has not always done so. Nor can it deny the existence of such tombs close by. Tomb 70—a kokh tomb from the Roman Period—lies a scant 30 meters south of the CA. It contained seventeen oil lamps from many eras, including three bow-spouted lamps.

In his discussion of stone vessels,
^[618]
Bagatti does not give the precise location of the two handles, and locates their find spot generally in “the Byzantine atrium.” A review of his terminology shows that this is a rectangular area, 20 by 15 meters, in the western zone of the CA (including the massive cistern, no. 10). The Italian writes that “Small pieces of ‘Herodian’ lamps found at the threshold and a little inside show clearly how this place was in use already in the first century” (
Exc
. 46). It is possible to link these “Herodian” lamps to rumors of tombs mentioned by Viaud and Meistermann (see below).

Arguably the earliest oil lamp found at Nazareth was a unique example of Smith’s Type 1,
^[619]
an unornamented bow-spouted lamp which we called an “outlier.” It’s find spot is locus 51c (
Exc.
299). In antiquity this was part of an extensive agricultural installation roughly 20 m north of the CA. That installation includes a massive plastered cistern (L. 51) over five meters deep and five meters wide, together with nearby storage pits and channels. It is evident that the cistern was not made by the very first settlers to the basin, for it is simply too impressive and clearly would require (and support) a substantial number of people The entire installation is complex, and shows that the area was worked in more than one era. Thus, Bagatti mentions a “Crusader” wall (
Exc.
71), a ceiling “remade with the repaving from the room above,” “in the modern period the complex was touched up,” and so on.

Certainly, this area (presently under the Franciscan Convent) was once a busy and multi-layered site, used for various purposes over many centuries. A careful examination of Bagatti’s text and diagrams
^[620]
raises a number of questions that will probably never be answered. Especially noteworthy are several small, underground chambers for which the archaeologist gives no clear
raison d’être.
He notes “a little room (e),” attached through a corridor “to another one, which is a little irregular (f).” These are part of the locus 52, which no doubt predated the huge cistern cutting into it. Another small room (53 h) lies a few meters to the west. These underground chambers do not appear to be either for storage of grain or liquid, nor are they large enough for habitation. They are, in fact, roughly the size of kokhim tombs. One chamber has “an elbow to the west” (52 f) which in the diagram looks like a possible kokh shaft. With all the reworking this area has undergone, it is now impossible to reconstruct the exact features of the earliest installation. However, I do not believe it can be ruled out that the single bow-spouted lamp found in locus 51c may be a remnant of an early kokh tomb.
^[621]

As regards the area under the Church of the Annunciation itself, already at the turn of the nineteenth century Père Viaud wrote about and diagrammed a grave (T. 29) several feet north of the Chapel of the Angel—the locus where the Virgin Mary ostensibly spoke with the Archangel Gabriel.
^[622]
Viaud wondered if St. Joseph himself might have been buried there. The priest also signaled other burials nearby. One is a scant two meters south of the Chapel of the Angel (o/p in
Illus
.
5.4
). Another is ten meters away, on the western side of the Chapel (T. 27).
^[623]

In the 1930s Kopp examined all these burials. He noted with astonishment that the house of Mary was surrounded by graves and that the sanctuary itself was built over a “Jewish kokhim tomb.”
^[624]
We shall now consider the most important of these burials in turn.

Tomb 27

Figures:

Viaud 1910 “Sépulcres” (p. 35, Fig. 2); “Tombeau” (p. 81, Fig. 36)

Kopp
1939–40  (JPOS 19, p. 113) Pl IX, “H”

Bagatti 1955, Tavola I, no.15.

Bagatti 1969 Pl. XI no. 27; Fig. 9 no. 27 (p. 38)

Discussion:

Viaud 1910:52: “sépulcres de l’époque des croisés” or “byzantine”

Kopp 1938:197: “eine typische Kokimanlage”