The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (49 page)

Compeating surveys?

Until the NVFR, the only published report dealing with the area of the Nazareth Village Farm was a brief two-paragraph precis in
Hadashot Arkheologiyot
(1999; English p. 90, Hebrew p. 113). It is entitled "Nazerat (Nazareth) Area, Survey" and is authored by Mordechai Haiman. Haiman received a Ph.D. in archaeology from Hebrew University in 1993 and the Nazareth survey was conducted in April, 1997. At that time Haiman was director of the survey department for the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), a post he held from 1994 to 2003. This respected and well-published archaeologist continues to be very active in the Holy Land.

It is most surprising that Haiman's brief Nazareth report is not even mentioned in the NVFR bibliography, for that report constitutes the only previous scholarly record regarding the hillside area under present scrutiny. It may be that Haiman's précis did not meet all the hopes of the NVF backers, for the Israeli archaeologist omits any mention of evidence from the turn of the era and, indeed, points to the Late Roman period as being represented at the Nazareth Village Farm (the entire Haiman report is cited below)—entirely consistent with our findings in these pages. Also of note is that in the concluding NVFR "Acknowledgements"
[sic.]
section (pp. 77–78)
another
survey is alluded to, one which took place at the Nazareth Village Farm also in 1997, but in the month of February, not April. This was a proprietary survey, one carried out by UHL and CSEC (who fundamentally share the same staff). There is no paper trail for this in-house survey other than the publications (internet, NVFR) of UHL/CSEC. In those publications, the February survey has apparently supplanted the "official" IAA survey of April, which in turn has been downgraded to a mere "GPS survey" receiving hardly an afterthought:

The survey of the site at Nazareth was conducted on behalf of the University of the Holy Land (UHL) and its subsidiary, the Center for the Study of Early Christianity (CSEC), in February 1997, under the direction of Ross Voss with Stephen Pfann, Yehudah Rapuano, and Jan Karnis. The GPS survey was undertaken by Mordechai Haiman.

Of the names listed above only Mordechai Haiman has, to my knowledge, a Ph.D. in the field of archaeology. It may seem ironic to some that his report is given so little acknowledgment and not even listed in the NVFR bibliography. Haiman's report is so short that it is cited here in full:

Nazerat (Nazareth) Area, Survey

Mordechai
Haiman

During April 1997 a survey was undertaken in an area of c. 0.5 sq. km in a wadi to the south of Nazareth Hospital (map ref. 17800–900/23300– 400), prior to development. The survey, on behalf of the Antiquities Authority and sponsored by the Center for the Study of Early Christianity, was conducted by M. Haiman and R. Voss (team leader), with the assistance of L. Barda (surveying and mapping by means of the GIS and GPS systems).

The survey area is located about one kilometer west of ancient Nazareth. On the banks of the wadi, agricultural terraces (max. height of preservation c. 3 m), three watchmen's booths, a wine press, the remains of two structures, of which segments of ashlar walls survived, plastered water conduits and displaced building stones were recorded. Sherds, mostly dating to the Late Roman period (2nd–4th centuries CE), were scattered on the surface.

Not long after publication of the above, a different view appeared, first on the Internet (unsigned and copyrighted by the "University of the Holy Land").
^[711]
Entitled, "Summary of Excavations of the Nazareth Village," this unofficial Internet report possesses the same structure as the long (and equally unofficial?) NVFR now under consideration. Both the online report and the NVFR have similar introductions and then move on to consider "Area A: A dry farm,'' and finally areas B and C in turn. They also both contain the same principal allegations, most importantly, the following nebulous claim: "Potsherds were found on the surface of the terraces dating from various periods beginning with the early to late Roman period."

The marvelously imprecise phrase "early to late Roman period" occurs repeatedly in the NVFR (
pre-70
pp. 19, 24, 28, 32, 56). Presumably, the shards Haiman examined, "scattered on the surface," are those treated in the two UHL reports (Internet, NVFR) "found on the surface of the terraces." The question, then, devolves upon the dating of those shards. This brings us to a consideration of the important final pages of the NVFR, authored by Rapuano.

The Nazareth Village Farm pottery

The section dealing with the pottery is found in the NVFR under the rubric "Appendix 2," pages 68–77. It is authored by Y. Rapuano and begins:

The ceramic finds from the Nazareth Village Farm excavations were for the most part quite fragmentary, as might be expected of pottery recovered from agricultural installations and terraces.

We have already noted (p. 125) that small fragments offer a precarious basis for determining the date, form, and type of an artefact. In the case of the NVF, the fragments are sometimes "tiny." Yet Rapuano still ventures a dating for them. This may be one reason his report is fairly peppered with tentative words such as
possibly, probably, evidently, appeared to be,
etc
. (italicized in Appendix 6a). Indeed, as his report progresses he appears to become increasingly tentative, and the final pages (from 42:4 onwards) have scarcely an entry without one of those qualifying words. Additionally, whenever a shard is alleged by the archaeologist to date to the Hellenistic period, or even to I CE, one of these equivocal words is to be found. In other words, Rapuano is (by his own admission) on shaky ground when alleging pre-70 CE evidence.

Problems of double-dating

Surprises await him who patiently itemizes all of Rapuano 's findings. We recall that Bagatti, in an embarrassing but revealing lapse, assigned the same shard on one page to the Iron Age and on another page to Roman times (above p. 176). Rapuano is capable of not one, but three similar gaffes. If this happened once we might charitably admit the possibility of a mere typo. (The same would hardly be possible in Bagatti's case, due to the accompanying discussion by the Italian archaeologist.) The fact, however, that there are several cases of double-dating in this NNVF report seriously undermines the confidence one can place in it and points, at a minimum, to inordinate sloppiness.

The cases of double-dating are as follows:

(I)  On page 74 of the NVFR Rapuano assigns Fig. 41 :32 to the Ottoman period, and on the next page dates it from "the third century to early fifth century AD." The Ottoman period began in the 14th century, and hence the difference is a millennium or more! Only one of the descriptions ("strap handle of a jar or jug made of Gaza Ware") corresponds to the drawing. That description signals the later artefact—and the item is therefore listed in Appendix 6a as "Ottoman," not Roman.

(2) On page 73 of the NVFR (6th line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 41:1. He describes it as the "plain rim" of a bowl of Adan-Bayewitz Type 1 E ("midthird to early fifth century AD"), and states that the findspot was locus 31 of Area B2. From the diagram it is clear that the shard is indeed part of a rim. On p. 77, however, the archaeologist again itemizes artefact 41: 1. The findspot is now Locus 7 of Area B2. Rapuano describes it as "evidently the rim of an everted-rim bowl, possibly Adan-Bayewitz Form 3B, dated from [the] early second century to the later fourth century AD."

(3)  On page 77 of the NVFR (top line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 43:3. He describes it as "a small bowl with a cupped rim," and states that the findspot was Locus 2 of Area C3. No dating is offered for the shard, which from the diagram is part of a rim. Later,
on the same page,
the archaeologist itemizes artefact 43:3 a second time. The findspot is now Locus 5 of Area C3, and Rapuano describes it as a "krater" dating "from the end of the first century to the mid-third century AD."

From these cases we see that the archaeologist is, presumably, capable of looking at the same shard at different times, forgetting that he already examined it, and coming up with different typologies for it. Needless to say, this hardly bolsters our confidence in his work. In any event, at least one of the furnished datings in each case renders these objects entirely compatible with the conclusion of this book, namely, that Nazareth was settled after the First Jewish War.

Non-Roman evidence

Before proceeding to a discussion of the Roman-Byzantine pottery from the NVF, we note the discussion on pages 39–40 of the NVFR, which presents some additional evidence unearthed at the NVF, and also offers a problematic review of coin evidence from the remainder of the basin.

An interesting shard from "Early Bronze III" is pictured at NVFR:40. The shard measures about 3' × 4' and was found on the surface in an unstratified context. The photo is too small to make out much detail, but the discussion notes "indentation on the underside of the vessel, below the rim, [which] is typical of platters relatively late in the Early Bronze III." This description reminds us of the vessel diagrammed in Chapter One (p. 34, Illus. 1.4, top right) with incisions below the neck. That bowl was among the earliest evidence from the basin, dating 2200–2000 BCE. Those centuries are variously known as the Intermediate Period, Middle Bronze I (Amiran), or Early Bronze III. The latter nomenclature is adopted by the authors of the NVFR, who note that the incision pattern "is typical of platters relatively late in the Early Bronze III." With this shard we apparently have another artefact witnessing to the first settlers of the basin, those who established the Canaanite village later known as Japhia.
^[712]

A complete Gaza Ware bowl (Ottoman Period) is also pictured at NVFR:40, while at NVFR:39 we see the photo of a coin of Tiberius II (578–82 CE). It was found in Area A and "represents the latest Byzantine coin that has been found in the Nazareth area."

The preceding artefacts certainly have their place in the NVFR, but after discussing them the authors suddenly launch into a review of coin evidence
from the rest of the Nazareth basin
. We may wonder why a report, otherwise purely concerned with the Nazareth Village Farm, includes a discussion of coins at Mary's Well (at the distant northern end of the basin), or of Bagatti's numismatic finds in the Venerated Area. The answer may not be far to seek, for it is precisely in the review of those remote loci that several reckless and unsubstantiated claims are made—claims which support a village at the turn of the era.

The Pfann-Voss-Rapuano resumé of Bagatti's coin finds is comprehensive but of little moment. In chronological order, the data are as follows:

— One coin of Gordian III (238–244 CE), found at the "Fright" (above n. 152). This is the earliest coin from the general vicinity. [
Exe.
251]

— One coin of Constantius (337–51 CE) found in the plaster of L. 29.
^[713]
[Exe.
209]

— Three unidentifiable Byzantine coins (probably late IV–early V CE), from 25. [
Exe.
46]

— One coin of Anastasius (491–518 CE) [
Exe.
234]

— More than sixty coins of the Islamic to Mamluk Period. (
Exe.
II: 194–201)

The NVFR then offers the following remarkable statement:

In addition, 165 coins were uncovered by Yardenna Alexandre in the 1997–1998 excavations at Mary's Well, Nazareth. The coins were overwhelmingly Mamluk, but also included a few Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Early Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad and Crusader coins (Alexandre, forthcoming).

The reader may recall our discussion of Ms. Alexandre's small excavation at Mary's Well (above, p. 132
f
.). To repeat what is written there, the archaeologist graciously shared with me (through personal correspondence) an advance copy of her official excavation report, filed with the IAA, which has still not been published. What the Alexandre report states regarding coins is as follows:

A clean-up including the dredging of many l 4–l 5th century small denomination coins, may date [to] the Franciscan efforts in the early 17th century (known from the written records) ...

As I write these lines the short report is in front of me, and it contains no mention of "165 coins," nor a breakdown of the numismatic evidence into the many eras (from Hellenistic to Crusader) alleged by Pfann
et al.
Now, it may be that the "many 14–15th century small denomination coins" noted by Alexandre total 165, a fact perhaps subsequently shared by Ms. Alexandre with the authors of the NVFR, but her report makes absolutely no mention of coins belonging to eras other than the "14–15th century" (cited above). Are we to believe that such incredibly significant evidence as coins from the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Early Roman periods was subsequently divulged to the authors of the NVFR, but escaped the official IAA report? As mentioned in the prior discussion (p. 133), Ms. Alexandre dates certain "fragmentary stone walls" at Mary's Well to Hellenistic times. It is a mystery how those (ostensibly undatable) structural remains are so precisely dated, for the archaeologist gives no reason. Nor, in personal correspondence, did she respond to a request for substantiation of that very claim.