Bagatti’s Excavations , Joan Taylor writes: “Sherds found in rock fissures within the grotto date from Hellenistic to Byzantine times.” [279] Other authors have been similarly misled.
• B . On pages 136–37 of Excavations in Nazareth, we read:
The Objects found under the pavement give us the remains of several periods, but as far as we know nothing beyond the 5 th century. The oldest fragment appears to be the big vase Fig. 79, No. 1, with a small lip on top, which has parallels in Hellenic times and also earlier. Considering their fragmentary nature, [280] it is not easy to be precise, but the type is clear. Equally Hellenistic is the concave collar, No. 4, of which there are samples from the 1 st century B.C.
(i) Two claims of Hellenistic (“Hellenic”) evidence are made by Bagatti in these lines. The first is to a fragment of a “big vase [ i.e ., jar] Fig. 79, No. 1.” The description at Exc . p. 132 describes the fragment as follows: “rim of a wide open vase of clay of a leather colour outside and black inside…” A black and white photo of the shard is offered (fig. 80:1). It appears to be approximately 1 x 3 inches (no scale is given). Bagatti writes (above) that it has parallels in Hellenistic times “and also earlier.” In a footnote he gives two parallels—both to the Iron Age. If the shard were Hellenistic, one can be sure the archaeologist would have provided Hellenistic parallels, for that is the era he claims for it. Bagatti freely admits that the shard could be “earlier.” This is confirmed by the parallels provided, and we shall accordingly consider that it comes from the Iron Age. There is nothing particularly Hellenistic about the artefact, and the word “Hellenic” may again be gratuitous.
(ii) The second reference to Hellenistic evidence occurs in the last sentence of the above citation and regards “the concave collar, No. 4.” Unfortunately, Bagatti’s text and diagram supply only the most general idea of this shard. No photo is provided, and we do not even know the size of the piece in question. The pertinent description ( Exc . 132) reads simply: “mouth of a vase of yellowish clay, well fired, made in haste.” Bagatti claims there are “samples from the 1 st century B.C.,” by which he seems to mean that this shard has similarities with artefacts of I BCE from elsewhere in Palestine. He offers a footnote with parallels. It is tempting to explore those parallels here [281] and to verify whether they are indeed first century BCE. But that does us little good. Though we can learn all we wish about the parallels he furnishes, we are supplied with insufficient information to match or not match the Nazareth shard against them. Finally, Bagatti’s wording is not a rigorous typological match, but simply a similarity. In sum, we cannot admit the shard as evidence of anything, for we know too little about it. This Hellenistic claim must be rejected as unverifiable.
• C. On page 285 of Excavations we read of a shard that Bagatti apparently ascribes to the Roman period, and in whose description we also find the word “Hellenistic.” It is the neck of a cooking pot, “maroon outside, black inside”: [282]
The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224, whether the pieces are parts of one sole vase, or two. The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts. At least from the designs given it is rare to note the thinning of the clay towards the rim, but in reality it exists in many vases of the Roman period , even though not in such a pronounced manner. [ Emphasis added .]
In a footnote, Bagatti provides only Roman parallels for this shard. Similar to the preceding case, the word “Hellenistic” in this description is misleading and entirely gratuitous.
Unsubstantiated Hellenistic claims
We have now reviewed all the material evidence that the primary Nazareth
• B . On pages 136–37 of Excavations in Nazareth, we read:
The Objects found under the pavement give us the remains of several periods, but as far as we know nothing beyond the 5 th century. The oldest fragment appears to be the big vase Fig. 79, No. 1, with a small lip on top, which has parallels in Hellenic times and also earlier. Considering their fragmentary nature, [280] it is not easy to be precise, but the type is clear. Equally Hellenistic is the concave collar, No. 4, of which there are samples from the 1 st century B.C.
(i) Two claims of Hellenistic (“Hellenic”) evidence are made by Bagatti in these lines. The first is to a fragment of a “big vase [ i.e ., jar] Fig. 79, No. 1.” The description at Exc . p. 132 describes the fragment as follows: “rim of a wide open vase of clay of a leather colour outside and black inside…” A black and white photo of the shard is offered (fig. 80:1). It appears to be approximately 1 x 3 inches (no scale is given). Bagatti writes (above) that it has parallels in Hellenistic times “and also earlier.” In a footnote he gives two parallels—both to the Iron Age. If the shard were Hellenistic, one can be sure the archaeologist would have provided Hellenistic parallels, for that is the era he claims for it. Bagatti freely admits that the shard could be “earlier.” This is confirmed by the parallels provided, and we shall accordingly consider that it comes from the Iron Age. There is nothing particularly Hellenistic about the artefact, and the word “Hellenic” may again be gratuitous.
(ii) The second reference to Hellenistic evidence occurs in the last sentence of the above citation and regards “the concave collar, No. 4.” Unfortunately, Bagatti’s text and diagram supply only the most general idea of this shard. No photo is provided, and we do not even know the size of the piece in question. The pertinent description ( Exc . 132) reads simply: “mouth of a vase of yellowish clay, well fired, made in haste.” Bagatti claims there are “samples from the 1 st century B.C.,” by which he seems to mean that this shard has similarities with artefacts of I BCE from elsewhere in Palestine. He offers a footnote with parallels. It is tempting to explore those parallels here [281] and to verify whether they are indeed first century BCE. But that does us little good. Though we can learn all we wish about the parallels he furnishes, we are supplied with insufficient information to match or not match the Nazareth shard against them. Finally, Bagatti’s wording is not a rigorous typological match, but simply a similarity. In sum, we cannot admit the shard as evidence of anything, for we know too little about it. This Hellenistic claim must be rejected as unverifiable.
• C. On page 285 of Excavations we read of a shard that Bagatti apparently ascribes to the Roman period, and in whose description we also find the word “Hellenistic.” It is the neck of a cooking pot, “maroon outside, black inside”: [282]
The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224, whether the pieces are parts of one sole vase, or two. The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts. At least from the designs given it is rare to note the thinning of the clay towards the rim, but in reality it exists in many vases of the Roman period , even though not in such a pronounced manner. [ Emphasis added .]
In a footnote, Bagatti provides only Roman parallels for this shard. Similar to the preceding case, the word “Hellenistic” in this description is misleading and entirely gratuitous.
Unsubstantiated Hellenistic claims
We have now reviewed all the material evidence that the primary Nazareth
Similar Books
