JIA 6.1 (2019) 41–80 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9710 https://doi.org/10.1558/jia.37248 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9729

Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements: A Case Study from Central Israel

Hagit Nol

Universität Hamburg

[email protected]

The development of the chronology of the Early Islamic period (7th-11th centuries) has largely been based on coins and pottery, but both have pitfalls. In addition to the problem of mobility, both coins and pottery were used for extended periods of time. As a result, the dating of pottery can seldom be refined to less than a 200-300-year range, while coins in Israel are often found in contexts hundreds of years after the intial production of the coin itself. This article explores an alternative method for dating based on construction techniques and installation designs. To that end, this paper analyzes one excavation area in central Israel between Tel-Aviv, Ashdod and Ramla. The data used in the study is from excavations and survey of early Islamic remains. Installation and construction techniques were categorized by type and then ordered chronologi- cally through a common stratigraphy from related sites. The results were mapped to determine possible phases of change at the site, with six phases being established and dated. This analysis led to the re-dating of the Pool of the Arches in Ramla from 172 AH/789 CE to 272 AH/886 CE, which is different from the date that appears on the building inscription. The attempted recon- struction of Ramla involved several scattered sites attributed to the 7th and the 8th centuries which grew into clusters by the 9th century and unified into one main cluster with the White Mosque at its center by the 10th-11th centuries. This dating method chiefly utilizes terminus post quem dates and index fossils to differentiate between the 9th and 10th centuries. This article emphasizes the potential of archaeology as an alternative to written sources in the dating of sites and offers a fresh perspective on the history of this region.

Introduction Dating is an essential but challenging task in historical archaeology. In comparison to estab- lished disciplines such as Roman, Bronze Age, and Western European Mediaeval archaeolo- gies, early Islamic archaeology is still struggling to develop a reliable chronology. Dating is chiefly based on pottery and coins, but both are portable and subject to indefinite usage. In some cases, chronology is supported by written sources that are roughly contemporary. Current research is often unable to differentiate between the periods of the 6th to the 8th

Keywords: Early Islam, Ramla, Pool of the Arches, typology of installations, Big Data

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019, Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX 42 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements and the mid-8th to the 10th or 11th centuries based on the archaeology alone. The inability to accurately distinguish between these relatively wide-ranging periods can result in misleading interpretations concerning settlement patterns and social and economic processes of change. This paper proposes the use of construction techniques as a primary dating tool, which has yielded, at least for the 9th and 10th centuries, more accurate dates. It provides a supplemental or an alternative method to analyze regional occupation trends and the development of sites over time. Archaeologically, it provides index fossils and terminus post quem dates for remains in surveys and un-stratified excavations. However, as with all dating techniques, it has its weaknesses, and other methods of dating should be utilized to supplement wherever possible. The method was put to the test for one region in central Israel. No new field work or re- examination of finds was undertaken for this project; only information from published exca- vations and surveys was assembled into a database and cross-referenced by element and type. This approach was inspired by Hodder (1986; Hodder and Hutson 2003) and resemble what is known in the field of Humanities as “big data” analysis (Gattiglia 2015). The first step was to organize the buildings and construction techniques by type, and then a relative chronology based on 30 seasons of excavations from several sites was drawn from Phase A to E. In Ramla, two sites occur in the earliest phase. In the third phase they became clusters, and by the fourth phase they had grown into one cohesive unit. Following this reconstruction, the phases were provided with absolute dates via several methods; first,terminus post quem dates were assigned and tested on one stratigraphic site. Furthermore, the Pool of the Arches in Ramla belonged to phase D, and based on its parallels, was re-dated to 886 instead of 789. Before addressing the data, this article will deal with theory and dating challenges such as terminus post quem and formation processes. The research area of this article forms a triangle on the Mediterranean coast, lying between Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, Ashdod and Ramla in central Israel. Its maximal dimensions are 41 km north- south, 21 km west-east, and 46 km along the shore, totaling an area of about 450,000 km defined geographically by the Southern Coastal Plain. The archaeological research in this region has been intensive, and includes surveys, designated digs and many salvage excavations. The stud- ies up to 2014 have recovered a total of 364 “coordinates” of the 7th–11th centuries from more than 50 sites (Figure 1). At least 20 of the excavations were published as final reports while others were published as interim reports in archaeological news journals. The research area comprises 11 regions from “The Map of Israel” survey project, of which six were published by 2014.1 The most famous and intensively excavated site in the research area is Ramla. Until 2014, more than 100 coordinates with early Islamic remains were recorded inside the municipality of Ramla, with another 20 in the adjacent villages of Mazliah and Yashresh (Figure 2). Some scholars debate over whether to regard Mazliah and Ramla as one site (Avni 2014, 171–173, and fig. 3.16; Gorzalczany 2014, 69–74, 139; Tal and Taxel 2008, 79, 211), but it will be argued that Ramla was composed of several sites, at least in certain phases of its history. In this article, most references to “Ramla” are actually referring to the three modern settlements. Excavations at Ramla include the White Mosque (Figure 3), the Pool of the Arches2 (Figure 4), Marcus Street,

1. Online at http://survey.antiquities.org.il/index_Eng.html#/. 2. Identified also as Biʾr or Birkat al-ʿAnaziyya and the Cistern of Saint Helene; see Van Berchem 1897, 4; Creswell 1940, 161. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 43

Figure 1. The research area. the police station, and Mazliah. Other important sites were Tell Qasile in northern Tel-Aviv, Yavne-Yam and Ashdod-Yam on the coast, Lod, Azor, and a cluster of sites around Rehovot and Nes Ziyyona. Regarding sites names, the current Israeli municipality name, a neighborhood name, or a known attribution (usually in Hebrew) were given in order to distinguish between the Ottoman/Palestinian settlement and the archaeological site, as well as to distinguish them from the toponym in the written sources.

The challenge of dating Two essential characteristics of archaeological thought and practice are categorization and chronology, which concomitantly begs the question of periodization. The process of perio- dization is conducted in several stages of generalization, and includes typology, identifica- tion of index fossils, and the grouping finds into general periods, often correlating to political regimes. As a result, periods of cultural continuity are not representated in the archaeological record within an established sequence.3 Periodization creates static conceptions of time on the one hand and methodological “gaps” of time between periods on the other (see Van der Leeuw 1981, 230–232; Lenzen 1995).

3. Fortunately, cultural periodization has come to largely replace dynastic periodization in the Islamic archaeology of the Levant [editor’s note]. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 44 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

Figure 2. Coordinates with early Islamic remains in Ramla.

Figure 3. Mamluk remains of the White Mosque in Ramla (Source: Limor Noah, https://commons.wiki- .(JPG.המסגד_הלבן_רמלה:media.org/wiki/File

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 45

Figure 4. The subterranean structure of the Pool of the Arches (Photographer: Ron Peled).

The challenge of developing a relative chronology depends on the identification of a suf- ficient number of portable artifacts that can be compared to dated parallels. However, the reliability of a relative chronology is contingent upon the questions being asked. For instance, the classification of periods according to political regimes might be irrelevant to the content being studied. Many objects had long periods of manufacture, and if something was considered to be of value, one can assume that it was used for an extended period of time. Similarly, struc- tures were often subjected to re-use. It should be assumed that objects and architecture served purposes that long surpassed the timeline of any given political regime. The issue of chronol- ogy becomes especially clear when analyzing material culture for everyday use. For example, many pottery and glass types produced in the 6th–7th centuries continued production into the 8th century (e.g. Avni 2014, 31–33; Tal and Taxel 2008, 79; Walmsley 2007, 108). Whitcomb has dealt with this issue by dating the assemblage as a whole. He devised a chronology for the Islamic period that uses time periods of 200 years, disregarding the political dynasties and instead using the peaks of each pottery type as chronological markers (Whitcomb 1987). These problems and solutions, however, are based on the ideal lifecycle of the artifact. This process refers to the production, distribution, consumption, and primary disposal. According to the “Pompeii premise” which was coined by Binford in 1981, archaeological remains derive only from one of these primary contexts. However, Schiffer (1987, 7) argues that the lifecycle of an artifact is much more varied and complex, shifting repeatedly between usage (“systemic contexts”) to non-usage (“archaeological contexts”). After its primary use, the object is sub- jected to further cultural or natural formation processes such as re-use, re-cycle or removal to a secondary refuse, as well as erosion and biodegradation, damage by earthquakes, and bio- turbation.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 46 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements Another layer of challenges relates to the attribution of refuse and refuse-pits to specific groups and dates (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999). While refuse was disposed of by the inhabitants of a site in their own time to a pit they designated for that purpose (answering the “Pompeii premise”), contemporary inhabitants might dispose of remains left by former inhabitants into pre-existing pits as well. The only accurate dates in these scenarios are a terminus post quem for the initial use of the pit by the remains at the very bottom of the fill, and a terminus post quem to the end of its use by the top layers of fill, though these dates can be hundreds of years later than the construction of the pit. This point is crucial for installations, where the fills do not necessarily represent the end of their use.

Dating by coins Coins are often misconstrued as automatic indicators of dates when discovered in archaeologi- cal contexts. While the inscriptions and icons on coins can provide the terminus post quem of an assemblage of artifacts or the structure they were found at, this date can be vast in range, as alluded to by Fulford (1996, 154–155): “a coin may make an almost infinite number of jour- neys before it is lost.” It is impossible to know exactly how long certain coins were circulated as money, and their ambiguity is compounded by their potential secondary uses long after its minting. A case in point is the circulation of 6th and 8th century coins for 200 years noted at sites throughout Greater Syria (e.g. Walmsley 1999, 336; Heidemann 2003, 105). The coins in today’s Israel were used for much longer than 200 years, with Roman and Umayyad types still in use in the 13th and 14th centuries. Table 1 displays coins from several excavations and the contexts they were found in. The amount of coins is represented by ‘c’ (the majority of the data) and pottery is represented by “p.” This examination was possible only for publications that contained lists of loci. Moreover, it was rare to have clear loci such as floors or sealed refuse pits with more than one coin or with coins and other datable artifacts. The distinct patterns that emerge are as follows: Late-Roman to the Umayyad period (4th to 8th century, “the Umayyad pattern”), Late-Roman to Umayyad coins in Abbasid contexts, mid- 8th–9th centuries (“the Abbasid pattern”), and coins dated before 750 in contexts of the 13th– 14th centuries (“the Mamluk pattern”). These patterns reflect a wider phenomenon and are not random, occurring at large-scale sites such as Jerusalem and Banyas, and at smaller sites such as Khirbat Dayrān or Horvat Ma’on. In Schiffer’s terminology, the circumstances that created these patterns could be related to archaeological contexts or systemic contexts. The former is caused by natural and cultural processes such as bioturbation and/or the looting of archaeological sites (e.g. Amitai-Preiss 2010, 265; Cytryn-Silverman 2010, 136–137). According to the systemic contexts, however, peo- ple intentionally kept coins from different periods for purposes of recycling (Farhi 2007), or for secondary use as jewelry or game pieces. One should also keep in mind the possibility of successive circulation or re-circulation of one coin type. The primary sources might explain the use of early coins in the Abbasid and Mamluk periods as being a consequence of a short- age of metals, resulting in a scarcity of contemporary coins that necessitated re-circulation of older ones. Such circumstances would have also encouraged the recycling of coins. This demonstrates that the terminus post quem can be several hundred years later than the date on the coin. The samples here suggest that these patterns occurred elsewhere, therefore, partial contexts with stray coins should be read with caution.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 47 Mamluk Mamluk Mamluk Umayyad Mamluk Umayyad Umayyad Umayyad Umayyad Umayyad Abbasid Abbasid Mamluk Mamluk Abbasid Abbasid Abbasid Mamluk Pattern Abbasid Abbasid

Syon 2011. Bijovsky 2009. Berman 1995. Kool 2013. Vitto 1998. Ariel 2006; Porat 2006 (Figs. 5:4, 7:7). Berman and Bijovsky 2002. Syon and Stern 2014. Kool 2007. Kool 2012. Ariel and Berman 2014. Kool 2014. Reference c c c c c p 14th 13th– 278 coins Farhi 2007. c c c c 9th mid-8th– c c c cccc c c c c cc cc cc cp 8th cp c c c c c cc 6th 7th early c c c c c cc c cccc cc c c c c cc ccc c 5th Till 9 coins 9

hoard in a cistern cccccc cccc floor in a room refuse pit room floor yard Context L12068 L11 L4 L206 L25 L21 L69 L03 L13 L103 L104, L315, L358 L127 L251 L257 L239 L508 L102 Locus loci of Early Islamic sites in Israel which place together artifacts varied dates. Clear

Jerusalem Horvat Rehav Yavne-YamNahal Shahaq Mesillot L3 Neve Ur Kafr Yasīf Banyas Horvat Ma’on Khirbat Dayrān L 354 Lod Tel Ashdod Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya L338, L326 Site Table 1.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 48 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements Relative dating by architecture This study supports an alternative dating method for the Early Islamic period through archi- tecture. Notably, the method presented here does not use floor plans, but construction tech- niques and installation designs. The main advantage of architecture for dating purposes is its fixed nature, while its apparent disadvantage is that it is generally used for long periods of time, and depending on its structural integrity, is subject to continual re-use. However, short term changes (of up to 100 years) can be observed in some architectural techniques and styles. While this method is not new, it is not commonly utilized. In Israel, for example, Porath (2002) established a chronological typology for undated aqueducts from the Late Antique/Early Islamic periods based on the number of plaster layers and their color. In the research area, specific characteristics that stand out as chronologically significant are the containers types, plastering and mortaring methods, and pavement styles. It can be assumed that even when a structure was being used long-term, repairs were made according to contemporary technol- ogy and aesthetics. At the same time, several techniques were employed throughout multiple periods, such as the use of white mosaics. The sites within the research area are abundant with installations including wells, tunnels and hearths. In order to conduct a systematic analysis, all installations were divided into small individual elements and categorized as ‘fragmented installations.’ These elements were organ- ized according to form, size, material, and method of construction. The installations are not interpreted in this article in the attempt to avoid premature assumptions of function, which can have the effect of restricting conceptions (e.g. Hodder 1986, 24–25). To that effect, installa- tions were labeled neutrally; where in pre-existing literature they would be termed as “pits,” “pools” or “cesspits,” here they were labeled as “containers” which has less connotations. Containers that were significant for dating purposes were the bell-shaped plastered container (A, Figure 5:5), the dome-shaped plastered container (B, Figure 5:6), the barrel-vault plastered container (C, Figure 5:3) and barrel-vault un-plastered container (O), the apple-shaped un- plastered container (M, Figure 5:1), and the round-shaped un-plastered container (N, Figure 5:2). Other installations were tunnels or channels covered by stones (CT), clay pipes which reached the container (PiC) and intact jars sunken in the floor (P, Figure 5:4). The latter were of various types such as zīr or amphorae, but excluded the huge dolia (Latin, sing. dolium) or pithoi (Greek, sing. pithas) of 1–1.2 m height and 1.1 m maximum diameter. Other architec- tural elements include polychrome or inscribed mosaic pavements (I), flagstone pavements (J), construction with mortar mixed with gravel (debesh, Db), plaster covered with pottery sherds (ShC) and a layer of loose sherds between layers of plaster (ShL). Portable elements that might be of significance are columns (Cl) and column bases (ClB). Elements that were examined in the tables but which proved insignificant or insufficient were plaster floors (K), pilasters (Pl), open tunnels (G), square plastered containers (D), mortar, and grits in plaster. To establish relative and absolute chronologies of the architectural characteristics, several steps were taken. Briefly, a combined stratigraphy was made according to coordinates with dis- tinguished architectural elements which yielded a relative chronology of six principal phases. Later, these phases were dated. Appendix 1 displays the relevant architectural elements of 30 coordinates with more than one element. Of these coordinates, 14 had a single phase and 16 were stratified. The characteristics were divided into categories: pavement methods (“floor”), containers, tunnels and pipes (“installation”), plastering technique, mortar, and other archi-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 49

Figure 5. Containers from the research area (schematic). tectural elements (“other”). Phases and dates are presented as reported in the publications, starting with the earliest relevant phase. While the original division of phases was used in this analysis, the original dating was not. The first purpose of the display was to identify characteristics that commonly appear together. For example, container “C,” its un-plastered equivalent “O,” and stone-covered tunnels, appear together with debesh construction. At Ramla, another concurrent element is the column base. Another purpose of the display was to establish a relative chronology and to attribute specific characteristics to specific phases. The four to five elements which were just mentioned (when appearing in stratified coordinates) were always in the later phases. The earlier periods, though limited in samples, are characterized by polychrome and inscribed mosaic, as at Na’an, Azor and Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya. Also, the general “mortar” is always earlier than debesh. Next, a united stratigraphy of these coordinates was established. The phases were ordered from A (earliest) to F (latest), based chiefly on the stratigraphy of coordinates 55 (Ramla), 135 (Mazliah), 109 (Naʾan) and 166 (Azor). The group of elements mentioned above were attributed to Phase D, while polychrome mosaics were attributed to Phase A. Phases with similar ele- ments were arranged adjacent to the chief phase. After the initial arrangement, some adjust- ments were made, and it became clear that there were distinguished elements in each phase. At the same time, it was found that some elements represented a wider period than initially suspected, while elements such as plaster floors (K), pilasters (Pl), tunnels (G), or square open containers (D) could not be attributed to any specific phase. A summary of the phases and their possible attributable elements is offered in Table 2. It is important to note that phases E and F have no unique characteristics. Phase B may be dis- tinguished by flagstone pavement (based on one site) but it became common only during the subsequent phase. Phase A is represented by very few samples of polychrome mosaics, which

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 50 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

Table 2. Phases and their distinguished elements.

Element/phase AB C DEF Mosaic pavement (I) v Flagstone pavement (J) ? v v Layer of sherds between plasters (ShL) v Sherds cover on plaster (ShC) v v Debesh (Db) v v Column bases (ClB) v Bell-shaped plastered container (A) v v Dome-shaped plastered container (B) v Barrel-vault container (C/O) v v Apple-shaped un-plastered container (M) v Round-shaped un-plastered container (N) v Intact sunken jars (P) v v v Tunnels covered by stones (CT) v v v v Pipes approaching containers (PiC) v v introduces another challenge, as its only architectural characteristics are repeated later in Ramla during the Fatimid period (Avner 2008; Torgë 2018, 60). Phases C and D are composed of elements that occur in following phases. The solutions are not hermetic, and involve, as in the case of phase D, the presence of index fossils, such as the dome-shaped container, apple- shaped container, round-shaped container, and a layer of sherds between plasters. Another solution could be in the combination of several elements, where as a rule, coordinates with two or more elements from one phase with no later elements, are representative of that phase.

Phasing Ramla through architecture: One possible reconstruction In Ramla, 79 coordinates could be relatively dated according to their architecture. Of signifi- cance, two famous sites can be pinned to specific phases—the Pool of the Arches to phase D, and the White Mosque to phase D or E. In order to keep the evidence independent, both coordinates 79 and 104 were excluded from the former typology and analysis. The Pool of the Arches (Toueg and Arnon 2010) matched several characteristics from phase D. Its roof has the form of a barrel vault (Figure 6) with an attached barrel-vault container, and debesh was used in the construction of the roof and in the infrastructure layers, which include a layer of sherds. Two additional elements that characterize phases D and C are wall construction incorporating sherds and pipes leading to the attached container. Following excavations of the White Mosque, Kaplan (1959) suggested at least two phases for the structure: Umayyad and Mamluk. No Umayyad pottery was unearthed during excava- tions, but scholars have suggested that absent finds might have been hidden under the Mam- luk layers (Cytryn-Silverman 2008; Rosen-Ayalon 2006) or that the Umayyad-period mosque

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 51

Figure 6. Barrel-vault roof of the Pool of the Arches made of debesh (Source: iStock.com/tzahiV). was built elsewhere at the compound (Torgë 2017, 158–159). Despite the limited nature of Kaplan’s publication, it presents sufficient evidence for phasing the early stage of the mosque. The elements include a debesh fill in the walls (“rubble bound by mortar”) and a vaulted ceiling (Kaplan 1959, 106–107), both characteristic of phases D and E. It has also been suggested that the adjacent subterranean cisterns may be part of the mosque’s complex and resemble the Pool of the Arches, indicating contemporaneity (Kaplan 1959; Rosen-Ayalon 2006). The following distribution maps will chart Ramla’s possible development from phases A to E. Some of these coordinates contain only a single attributable characteristic, yielding only a partial picture and therefore a highly tentative date. This is most relevant to phase A which relies only on mosaic floors, and Phase B which is based on flagstone pavement; both elements continue in later phases. Phase A is represented by two possible coordinates (Figure 7A), one near the Stadium (Avni et al. 2008: Areas C1–C3) and the other in the Shoftim neighborhood (Glick and Gamil 1997: Area J), not far from the only well the author is aware of in Ramla (6.7m) (Glick and Gamil 1997: Area C). The tentative phase B has only two more coordinates, with one in Mazliah. In phase C, Mazliah is distinct and the coordinates become site-clusters (Figure 7A). In phase D, in addition to the cistern(s), the former clusters expand, with most appearing to unify into one site, except for Mazliah (Figure 7B). Finally, phase E is more tentative and exhib- its a much smaller site (Figure 7C). This suggested development is different from the detailed reconstruction that was done by Torgë (2017) based on pottery, which will be discussed later.

Absolute dates (terminus post quem) Several methods were employed to date the phases. First, each architectural element was pro- vided with a terminus post quem. These dates were then compared to terminus post quem dates of the stratigraphy from Marcus Street and calibrated by the date of the Pool of the Arches.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 52 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

A

B

C

Figure 7. A) Phase A to C; B) Coordinates in phase D and the subterranean cisterns; C) Phases D and E.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 53 The data from finds in the fills under floors and infrastructures, jars sunken into the floor, and from sherds integrated in plaster was compiled (Table 3). The initial dates attributed to pot- tery by the excavators were not subjected to re-analysis, and no steps were taken to refine the concomitant chronological range. In instances where the excavators did not date the pottery, dates were assigned based on Cytryn-Silverman’s (2010) analysis for ceramics in Ramla. Most

Table 3. Terminus post quem of distinguished architectural elements phase element coordinate dating find and type/date of find terminus reference context post quem AI Lod coin 590 CE 590 Weinberger 2011. Ḥorvat Sherds beneath floor “Byzantine” 501 Elisha 2007. Hermas B-D J Lod Sherds beneath floor 3rd-4th 201 Haddad 2013a. Azor Sherds beneath floor Umayyad 650 Torgë 2005. Kefar basin beneath floor 7th-8th 601 Volynsky and Talmi 2011. Gabirol C-D ShC Ramla Same sherds Buff Ware, Tongue 750 Gudovitch 2010. Date: handle lamp with an Cytryn-Silverman 2010: Arabic inscription 114-115. Mazliah Same sherds “Byzantine” 501 Tal and Taxel 2008: 49. Ramat Aviv Same sherds Late Byzantine 501 Jakoel 2010. Tell Qasile Same sherds Roman 101 Chidioşan et al. 1989. Khirbat Same sherds “Byzantine” 501 Roll and Ayalon 1981. Dayrān C-D A, ShC Ramla Sherds in plaster “Islamic” 650 Sion 2010. Ramla Sherds in plaster 6th–8th 501 Kletter 2009. C-E P Ramla Same jars Late 9th–10th 870 Toueg and Arnon 2011. Ramla Sherds beneath floor Lead glazed ware 750 Kletter 2009. Date: Cytryn- related to jar bowl, Alkaline glazed Silverman 2010: 109-110. fine ware bowl Ramla Bowl in 8th–9th 701 Toueg 2008. infrastructure beneath Sherds beneath floor 10th the latest 901 Toueg 2008. related to jar Ramla Same jars Green glaze 850 Sidi et al. 2008, Fig. 3. Date: (Common Lead Cytryn-Silverman 2010: Glazed Ware?) 110. Ramla Same jar Late 7th–9th 670 Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 101, 136. D M Ramla Sherds beneath 8th–10th 701 Sion 2009. D N Ramla Sherds beneath 9th–10th 801 Toueg 2012. D ShL Mazliah Same sherds Late Umayyad 701 Tal and Taxel 2008: 100. D ClB Lod Sherds beneath “Byzantine” 501 Haddad 2013a. D–E Db Ramla Sherds beneath floor mid-9th–10th 850 Kogan-Zehavi 2004. Bet Dagan Sherds beneath “Byzantine” 501 Gorzalczany and Jakoel related floor 2013. D Db, ClB Tell Qasile Sherds beneath the 9th century 801 Ayalon et al. 1988. Re-date: floor Taxel 2009. Rishon Fill beneath “Byzantine” 501 Haddad 2013b. Leziyyon

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 54 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements of the pottery was given a relatively wide range of dates (e.g. the 8th–9th centuries), thus a theoretical earliest terminus post quem was assigned (e.g. 701 CE). Pottery described as “Byzan- tine” or “Late Byzantine”—both commonly used in Israeli archaeology for the 6th–7th centu- ries—received the terminus post quem 501 CE. The single instances of “Roman” and “Islamic” sherds were assigned terminus post quems of 101 CE and 650 CE respectively. The goal in using this method was to secure the earliest date possible for each element. For example, if sherds beneath a flagstone floor range in date from 201–650 CE, then only the latest date can serve as a secure terminus post quem for the flagstone floor as an architectural element. Elements occur- ring in several phases were assigned a terminus post quem based on the latest phase. For exam- ple, the “jars sunken in the floor” phenomenon occurs in phases C–E but can only be dated securely under phase E. Consolidating the results (Table 4) produced dates for phase A to after 590, phase D to after 801 and phase E to after 901. The excavation in Marcus Street in Ramla (Toueg 2007) yielded clear stratigraphy of four layers. The excavator entitled the phases IV to I and dated them from the 8th–11th centuries (Table 5). Its importance is both in the relative chronology it provides, and the datable sherds contained in three of the living surfaces, which provide terminus post quem dates for the phases. These dates correlate with other terminus post quem dates from other contexts at the site sug- gesting the following: phase B dates to later than 701, phase C dates to later than 801, and phase E dates to later than 901. The terminus post quem of phase D, is also 801. A comparison of all dat- ing methods is displayed in the summary (Table 6).

Dating evidence from the Pool of the Arches The Pool of the Arches enables the calibration of the abovementioned dates based on the date on an inscription at the site (Figure 8), and its distinct architectural elements characteristic of phase D. According to early modern publications, the inscribed date was read as 172/789 and the cistern was attributed to the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (Van Berchem 1897; De Vogüé 1914). Its date and historical context were never re-evaluated (e.g. Avni 2014, 175; Jawda 1986, 219–220; Rosen-Ayalon 2006). In contrast, Jawda identified the site with the toponym Birkat al-Khayzurān (“the pool of the reed”) which is mentioned by Yāqūt as a place close to al-Ramla (Yāqūt [d. 1229] I: 592) and suggested that it was named after Hārūn al-Rashīd’s mother, al-Khayzurān bint ʿAṭāʾ al-Jurashiyya (Jawda 1986, 219–220). The text was originally read by Van-Berchem (1897, 6, pl. 2) as follows: (1) Bism Allāh baraka min Allāh mimmā (2) amara bi-hi (?) al-a[...] k/ṭ[t/b/n]ā[t/b/n] (3) mawlā amīr al-muʾminīn aṭāla (4) Allāh baqāʾahu wa jarā ʿalā yaday ʿAbd A[…] (5) fi dhī al-Ḥijja sa [=sanat] ithnayn wa sabʿīn wa mā- (6) ʾa This can be translated as: (1) In the name of God, blessing of God. This is what (2) commanded him [a name] (3) the client of the commander of believers, may (4) God prolong his life. This work was held by ʿAbd [a name] (5) in al-Ḥijja year 172

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 55

Table 4. A summary of the possible terminus post quem dates (CE) for each architectural element. Elements/ phase AB C D E I 501–590 J 201–650 ShC 101–750 A+ShC 501–650 M 701 N 801 ShL 701 Db+ClB 501–801 P 670–901 Db 501–850 LATEST earliest terminus post quem 590 801 901

Table 5. Dating the strata of Marcus Street excavation.

Original phase IV III II I Original dating 8th 9th 10th 11th Distinguished elements J J, CT C/O, CT, N, ShL C.O, CT, Db, P New phasing B C D E Sherds beneath floor 8th 9th 10th–11th Earliest terminus post quem 701 801 801 901

Table 6. Summary of the phases and dates. dates CE/phase A B C D E terminus post quem of elements 590 801 901 terminus post quem of Marcus Street 701 801 801 901 The Pool of the Arches 886 Possible date 601–700 701–800 801–880 881–960 961–1040

However, this date does not coincide with the dates of the cistern’s parallels, all of which are later. While the cistern in Ramla could theoretically present some aesthetic or technologi- cal innovation which was then adopted in neighboring regions,4 a more reasonable theory is based on the occurrence of the name of the amīr in the inscription in relation to the toponym al-Ramla and the year 273 AH/887 CE, supporting the re-dating of the cistern to 886 CE. The chronological import of the inscription will be discussed in further detail below. Late equivalents of the architecture and script were presented by Creswell and Grohmann but have generally been disregarded by scholars. Creswell introduced several sites he believed to have pointed arches similar to those at Ramla, such as the Nilometer of al-Rawda Island (AH 247/861 CE) and the mosque of Ibn-Ṭūlūn (879) (Creswell 1940, 164; 1958, 103-104; also Warren

4. For innovations, reception, and the flow of knowledge in archaeology, see Van der Leeuw 1981, 237–260. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 56 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

Figure 8. Inscription incised on plaster, after restoration, the Pool of the Arches (Source: https://com- .(JPG.בריכת_הקשתות_-_כתובת_הקיר:mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File

1991). He also noted parallels for the vaulting system in Ramla at three mosques in Sūsa and in Tunisia dating from AAH 206/821 CE to AH 236/850 CE (Creswell 1940, 247; 1958, 268). The script from the Pool of the Arches was identified by Van-Berchem and Grohmann as floriated Kufic or Carmatian. According to Grohmann, its earliest equivalent is from Egypt and dates to 848 CE, almost 60 years later than the proposed date from Ramla. Other examples of floriated Kufic script come from Egypt (861 CE) and from the Hijaz (864 CE). Grohmann sug- gests that the evidence from Ramla is a possible bridge between earlier local Greek traditions in Palestine and Arabic epigraphy (Grohmann 1957, 208, 212). He does not, however, provide an explanation for the long gap between this alleged innovation and its equivalents elsewhere. From the 860s, the script was utilized and continuously developed until at least the early 11th century (Grohmann 1957, 209, 212; Blair 1998, 79; Tabbaa 1994, 121). The following is a new comparison that focuses on the formula of the inscription. The text was divided into five phrases and each phrase was searched in published epigraphy up to AH 600/1204 CE.5 The main goal was to find possible combinations of the five phrases and order them chronologically. Whether dates included in inscriptions should be taken at face value is something worth contesting, but chronological clusters of inscriptions with similar phrases can support their reading, with exceptions highlighting possible discrepancies in dating. In the following analysis, published readings of inscriptions were employed as anchors to compare against the inscription at the Pool of the Arches. None of the inscriptions emerged as incon- gruous in their contexts.6

5. Mainly through the Thesaurus d’epigraphie islamique database of Max Van Berchem Foundation (EPI) (Appendix 2). 6. Inscriptions with no incised dates were excluded, as with the ceramic lamp from Beth Shean which bears © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 57

Years CE Formula Script Vaults roof Arches 781–790 791–800 801–810 811–820 821–830 831–840 841–850 851–860 861–870 871–880 881–890 891–900 901–910 911–920 921–930 931–940 941–950

Figure 9. A summary of the cistern’s equivalents and their dating.

One of the restrictions was the exclusive use of inscriptions from surveys by modern schol- ars, with evidence cited by medieval authors such as al-Maqrīzī or al-Jahshiyārī being excluded. Only textual parallels to the entire phrase were searched and mentioned. For example, the phrase mimmā amara bi-hi is more specific and rarer than mimmā amara, which was excluded. Also, wa-jarā […] ʿalā yaday is less frequent than ʿalā yaday, which was excluded. Phrases which supplemented the “original” phrase, such as bism Allāh al-raḥman al-raḥīm baraka min Allāh, were also excluded from the analysis. The synthesis of this data points to inscriptions that combined four phrases out of five, indi- cating very close parallels to the Pool of the Arches. This includes construction inscriptions from the Dome of the Rock (AH 216/831 CE), Sarmadā in northern Syria (AH 294/906 CE) and Mecca (AH 310/922 CE), as well as epigraphy on a glass weight from Egypt (AH 253/867 CE). The time frame for these parallels is 831–922 CE. Parallels with three out of five phrases, such as those as Medina (AH 194/809 CE), Gaza (AH 274/887 CE), and one textile from Egypt (AH 312/925 CE), widen the timespan to 809–925 CE. Moreover, the phrase jarā […] ʿalā yaday can be found in two inscriptions from AH 194/809 CE and AH 216/831 CE but becomes common in the period from AH 274/887 CE to AH 329/940 CE. The identification of specific parallels of the aforementioned elements (arches, vaults, script, and text) (Figure 9) demonstrates that none of the similarities appear before 801 CE and points to a cluster of dates around 841–880 CE. The closest equivalents are dated to 831–930 CE (marked in dark grey) and the less similar equivalents to 801–930 CE (marked in bright grey). The script has parallels from 841 CE onwards. The vaulting system is known from 821–850 CE,

the phrase bism Allāh baraka min Allāh, although it is generally attributed to the Umayyad period (Hadad and Khamis 1998, 66, 71, no. 11). © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 58 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements while the arches appear to have been used from 861–880 CE. Interpreting the cistern in Ramla as the structure which led to distinct cultural changes in architectural and inscriptional meth- ods is doubtful, therefore, it can be assumed that the inscribed date of 789 CE is too early. An alternative reading of the date on the cistern’s inscription is AH 272/886 CE. The new date coincides with the dates for the use of these types of text, script, and arches, but delays further the use of the barrel vaults. The initial dating assignment could have been an error on the part of the interpreter, Van-Berchem, but more plausibly is attributed to the inscriber, as demonstrated by several examples from that period. The following inscriptions are instances where corrections were made to their inscribed dates according to the inclusion of specific names. An inscription from Gaza which notes the name and title Khumārawayh mawlā amīr al-muʾminīn (the son of Ibn-Ṭūlūn, r. 884–896 CE) and the year AH 174/790 CE was corrected to AH 274/887 CE (EPI 137; Sharon 2009, 48). A textile from Egypt bearing the name and title al-wazīr al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Ḥasan (d. 908 CE) and the year AH 194/809 CE was corrected to AH 294/906 CE (EPI 4747; RCEA III: no. 870). Also, two coins that were minted in Jerusalem (bi-Quds) read AH 117/735 CE and AH 119/737 CE (Ilisch 1993, 32–33, n. 10) were corrected to AH 217/832 CE and AH 219/834 CE according to style and weight. Equivalents are found from the mint of al-Ramla, where the correct year was inscribed (Ilisch 1993, 96–103 n. 14). Another relevant example is an inscription from the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem that was written twice, once with the date AH 116/734 CE and the second time with AH 216/832 CE (EPI 224–225; Le Marquis De Vogüé 1864, 86; Van Berchem 1927, 246–249), mentioning the titles and name ʿAbd Allah al-imām al-Maʾmūn amīr al-muʾminīn, referring to the caliph al-Maʾmūn (r. 813–833 CE). Other supporting evidence for the new reading of the date is the still uncoded name of the amīr who ordered the construction. Searching all possible combinations of the poorly inscribed name “al-a[...] k/ṭ[t/b/n]ā[t/b/n]” in the Jedli search-engine resulted exclusively in the rare name of Ṭabārjī or Ṭatārjī (for Jedli see Haro Peralta and Verkinderen 2016). The name is noted in sources as a high-ranking Tulunid officer (Al-Balawī, 264–272, 315, 338). Moreover, it was reported that this individual had been sent from al-Ramla to Damascus after AH 273/887 CE by Khumārawayh (Ibn ʿAsākir, 408). The historical frame of around 887, if true, matches perfectly the inscription’s re-dating to 886 CE, and the toponym al-Ramla might also be associated with the complex-site Ramla.

Summary: Phases and dates Combining the revised dates of the cistern, Marcus Street and the architectural elements resulted in a tentative absolute chronology (Table 6). The time span of the periods thus created varies from 80 to 100 years. Its main contribution to absolute dating is the distinction between the 9th and 10th centuries, which is a difficult if not impossible task for pottery alone. The phas- ing is artificial and does not correlate to specific political regimes, however, the beginning of phase D may correspond with the Tulunids gaining control of Syria in AH 264/877 CE (Treadwell 2017, 32–34; also Nicol 2007, pl. 1–2). Phase D introduces several new technological innovations in construction, such as the use of debesh (mortar with gravel) and the use of sherds in between plaster layers together with new designs of containers possibly for water storage, dry goods storage and perhaps drainage or refuse. Most notably, the Pool of the Arches was constructed on the order of a Tulunid officer, possibly a governor, who was referred to in the inscription

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 59 as the client of the Abbasid caliph. This is similar to the formula on Tulunid coins, which begs the question of the Tulunids’ autonomy (Grabar 1957; Treadwell 2017, 33).7 The correlation between the new regime and the architectural changes may demonstrate the immediate impact of political culture on material culture. The early phase of the White Mosque coincides with phase D or E and should be dated to the late 9th to the early 11th century. Supporting evidence for the latter is a mosaic floor, but the excavator who recorded it provided little detail (Kaplan 1959, 107). If it was polychrome mosaic, then it should be dated to the Fatimid period, meaning that the mosque was constructed after 961 CE. Moreover, its identification with the mosque of al-Maqdisī in the toponym of al-Ramla (al-Maqdisī, 165), would assign an even later date of 985 for the terminus ante quem. If this information is correct, then the subterranean cistern near the mosque was built almost one century earlier than the mosque itself. While this re-dating contradicts Kaplan’s interpretation of an Umayyad date, it explains the lack of Umayyad-period pottery. According to a recent re- examination of the pottery by Torgë (2017, 144–145), the earliest ceramics from the excavations and in the surrounding area are dated to the Abbasid period (mid-8th–10th centuries). The development of Ramla includes two possible sites during the 7th century and the 8th century, their shift into clusters in the 9th century, and their possible unification in the late 9th century. This reconstruction is different than the one suggested by Torgë (2017), which was based on a critical re-examination of the pottery from excavations in the municipality of Ramla (excluding Mazliah) up to 2015. The primary remains used in the reconstruction were dwelling structures, installations, refuse pits and graves. The phases were divided into 50–130 year-increments, and include the Umayyad period beginning in 701, the Abbasid period start- ing in 751–970 CE, and the Fatimid period ending in 1100. Several Umayyad structures were identified in this manner, from which one area was chosen around the White Mosque. In the next phase (Abbasid) early Islamic Ramla was occupied to its fullest extent, a process com- pleted by the mid-9th–10th centuries. Finally, during the Fatimid period, the site experienced a slight reduction (Torgë 2017, 153–168, maps 2–6). Despite the different reconstruction offered by Torgë, some of her main arguments are simi- lar to the ones presented in this article, and thus support the use of the proposed methods as dating tools. Both studies agree on the intensive period of growth of the site beginning in the early 9th century and reaching its peak during the late 9th–mid-10th century.8 In addition, both studies introduced early architectural elements located across the site (Figure 10).9 The coor- dinates south of the White Mosque mark the early stage of the site, although Torgë widened this cluster to the north. Clustering the northern coordinate of phase B with the coordinates of the site containing Umayyad pottery supports its early existence, however, the location of the northern coordinate of phase A (the Shoftim neighborhood) on the edges of the cluster associated with the early pottery suggests a later date. Indeed, Avner (2008, 24) provides clear 10th century evidence for at least one of the mosaics, but the excavation results await final publication (Glick and Gamil 1997).

7. For other interpretations see: Sharon 2004, 203; Swelim 2015, 110–116. 8. Avni (2011) dated this phenomenon to the 10th–11th centuries. 9. The data is based on published excavations of Umayyad structures: 26, 41, 50, 79, 95, 150 (Torgë 2017, map 2), but the latitude/longitude details are the author’s and may contain errors. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 60 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

Figure 10. Sites from phases A and B in comparison to pottery-based Umayyad structures.

The variations in reconstructions derive from the different dating tools utilized (pottery vs. architecture) and from different approaches. While Torgë reads the territory of Ramla as one site with changing borders, this article suggests the development of several site-clusters. The reconciliation of these two approaches is not straight forward, and the choice to group spe- cific coordinates and not others is subjective and intuitive, as the following maps demonstrate (Figure 11). One map displays five clusters, where the northern one could have been further divided. The second map groups the clusters into one site, which is not unlike Torgë’s approach (see also Avni 2014, fig. 3.16). How one chooses to approach the spatial analysis should involve an examination of the areas of activity of the site, as well as disposal and burial practices that might represent site borders. While such an examination is beyond the scope of this article, the independent growth of the “Vilna” and “Ofer park” clusters in phase C supports the idea that the sites functioned as separate units for at least some period of time (see also Figure 7A). Another difference between the two studies is the variation in dates proposed for the early phases of the site. This article argues for two possible early phases in Ramla, phases A and B, or the 7th-8th centuries. Torgë, on the other hand, assigns the earliest phase as Umayyad, dating it specifically to the early 8th century (Torgë 2017, 153). There is not always a clear way to differentiate between the “late Byzantine” pottery of the late 6th–7th centuries from the “Umayyad” (e.g. Avni 2014, 31), therefore, the early phase of Ramla—based on pottery alone— should be dated to the late 6th to the mid-8th century. Whether this reading coincides with the narrative sources will be discussed in the epilogue. While maps based purely on either pottery or architectural analysis render slightly different portrayals of Ramla, they follow a similar chronology of development.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 61

Figure 11. Alternative clusters in Ramla in the 9th century (phase C).

Unlike the Ramla municipality, dating Mazliah through pottery and numismatics yielded dif- ferent results from the chronology produced by architectural analysis. Based on the re-dating, the site possibly started with one coordinate (the excavation of Gorzalczany and ʿAd 2010) in the 8th century, which grew in the 9th century and peaked in the late 9th/early 10th century. In terms of portable artifacts, however, most coordinates were associated with Byzantine/ Umayyad finds in addition to those of the Abbasid/Fatimid periods (e.g. Gorzalczany 2014, 76; Gorzalczany and Marcus 2010; Tal and Taxel 2008, 47–79). An earthquake at the site was also dated to the early/middle 8th century (Gorzalczany 2014, 127–131). Nonetheless, only one series of excavations has been fully published, and very few of the structures and installations were assigned a 6th century or earlier terminus post quem (e.g. Tal and Taxel 2008, 49). The phasing of architectural techniques and their ability to provide absolute dates should be tested on stratified sites of other regions. Despite some degree of locality of particular designs and technologies, it is likely that some of the features exist in other regions, at least in Egypt and Greater Syria. To expand on this line of research, one might proceed with an analysis of architectural elements from different regions from the same phase to determine the potential range of functions for one element. For instance, “covered tunnels” might be interpreted as sewage lines. Our results can be roughly compared to studies of Caesarea Maritima and Fustat. In Caesarea, Arnon (2008) characterized strata VII (late 8th–early 9th century) with wells and covered cess- pits, strata VI (late 9th-mid-10th century) with flagstone pavement, covered sewage, clay pipes and drains, and strata V (mid-10th-early 11th century) with storage cells covered by a dome

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 62 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements vault with new flagstone pavement (Arnon 2008, 19–22). Despite the functional interpretation of the installations, their assembly correlates with the one presented here for Ramla, although the date for Caesarea is later. Ramla’s phase C (9th century) of flagstone pavement, covered tunnels and clay pipes associated with containers correlates with Caesarea VI (late 9th–mid- 10th century). Caesarea V (mid-10th–early 11th century) might resemble phase D at Ramla (late 9th–mid-10th century) with flagstone pavement and dome-shaped or barrel-vaulted con- tainers. Notably, if the date of phase D in Ramla was in accordance with Caesarea, then the Pool of the Arches would date to the mid-10th century onward. Other supplemental information comes from excavations at Fustat, which may support the affiliation of debesh to the late 9th century. The excavator claimed that in the time of Ibn-Ṭūlūn (r. 868–884 CE) the site saw the introduction of lime-mortar in its construction (Scanlon 1970, 185). The ‘lime-mortar’ is per- haps debesh or a close equivalent.

Epilogue: Dating between archaeology and narratives The results of the analysis have yielded different dates for Ramla that do not coincide with the narratives found in the historical sources. The main contradictions lie in the identification of the White Mosque and the date of the early phase of the site. According to the earliest relevant narrative sources, a mosque was built in al-Ramla sometime in the early 8th century under Umayyad rule. Al-Jahshiyārī (d. 942 CE) states that it was constructed by Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (al-Jahshiyārī, 48–49), while al-Balādhurī (d. 892 CE) and Ibn al-Faqīh (d. after 903 CE) report that Sulaymān began its construction before becoming caliph (715 CE) and that it was completed in the days of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 717–720 CE) (al-Balādhurī, 143–144; Ibn al-Faqīh, 102; repeated by Yāqūt I, 818). Alternatively, al-Maqdisī notes the construction of a mosque and a minaret by Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 724–743 CE) (al-Maqdisī, 165). A mid- 10th century date for the White Mosque leaves the identities of these Umayyad mosques of al-Ramla a mystery. Efforts to identify a philologically-oriented Umayyad mosque in Early or Middle Islamic period contexts is not unique to Ramla. Accordingly, correlating sites with toponyms men- tioned in texts may reveal previously unknown early phases of mosques (e.g. Grafman and Rosen-Ayalon 1999; Lewcock et al. 1983; Marçais 1954, 9–19); and references in texts may sup- port an Umayyad date for mosques, despite the lack of firm evidence (e.g. Safar 1945, 20, 29). The general lack of evidence for many Umayyad and earlier mosques may be due to the fact that they were constructed of perishable materials, however, historical narratives refer to the use of marble, mosaics and iron (e.g. King 1986, 23–31). Moreover, excavations have yielded clay bricks, and even wood and textiles are occasionally preserved. One might reasonably assume that the remains of early mosques are lost due to continuous expansions and renova- tions (Hoyland 1997, 560–561), but this reasoning contradicts the basic terms of archaeology. An alternative explanation is that early mosques exhibited no distinctive characteristics, but evidence from coterminous Umayyad courtyard structures in Greater Syria contradicts this theory (e.g. Genequand 2012, 222–223). It may be as simple as the incorrect identification of a site, or that there were not as many Umayyad/earlier mosques as the narratives suggest. At any rate, this is a recurring theme that should be addressed thoroughly elsewhere. One of the more difficult implications of the dating method presented in this article is its reconciliation with the re-dating of the first site/s of Ramla to the 7th century instead of the

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 63

Figure 12. Coins of al-Ramla mint in central Israel.

Figure 13. Coins of al-Ramla mint around Ramla.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 64 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

Figure 14. Coins of al-Ramla mint in Ramla.

8th. Some of the narrative sources explicitly state that the toponym al-Ramla did not exist before Sulaymān and that it was a place of sand (raml) (al-Balādhurī, 143–144; Ibn al-Faqīh, 102; repeated by Yāqūt I, 818). There are, however, two independent sources suggesting that the name al-Ramla existed prior to Sulaymān. The first is a contemporary document from Khirbat al-Mird dated to the 7th century, that notes the toponym in relation to Ramadan (Grohmann 1963, 49–51, text 42, pl. 18). The second is a narrative by al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) regarding the con- quests of al-Ramla and Īliyāʾ in the 630s (al-Ṭabarī I: 2403). While the latter might be an anach- ronistic mix-up of toponyms with Ludd, as has been suggested (Luz 1997, 30), the reference to the site in multiple sources should not be disregarded. One solution to this puzzle is that the toponym and the site are two different places, at least for part of history. Yet, evidence suggests that the northern cluster of Ramla was part of al- Ramla, possibly as its administrative/economic center before the 10th century. The toponym and the site are connected through the Tulunid officer Ṭabārjī and the aforementioned inscrip- tion at the Pool of the Arches. Further evidence for their connection lies in the spatial distribu- tion of coins from the mint of al-Ramla in the region between Caesarea, Ascalon and Jerusalem, suggesting Ramla was a hub (Figures 12, 13, 14). Based on this information and Sulaymān’s nar- ratives, it appears that one unnamed site-cluster emerged in the 7th century near the Stadium, a second site-cluster appeared in the 8th century in Mazliah, with the northern site-cluster of al-Ramla being established only until the 8th century. Another explanation integrates all texts with the archaeological interpretation. Accordingly, the settlement of al-Ramla existed in the 7th century in the northern cluster and another site was established in the 7th century near the Stadium, unnamed or sharing the name al-Ramla. Then in the early 8th century Sulaymān did not erect a new city but branded the existing site/s as a city. Contemporary evidence that supports this suggestion is a seal from Ashdod-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 65

Figure 15. The possible reconstruction of Ramla and al-Ramla.

Yam, reading “Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik at the city of al-Ramla [?] from the land of Palestine [?], the leader of believers, Muhamad is the messenger of God” (Sulayman / ibn ʿAbd / al-Malik [ ] / fī mad[īnat al-Raml]a / min arḍ / [Filasṭ]īn / amīr al-muʾminīn / Muḥamad rasūl Allāh) (Amitai- Preiss 2014). The seal is unique evidence and reflects intention through media and terminol- ogy. However, the seal delays the connection between Sulaymān and al-Ramla to his time as a caliph (715–717) and not earlier. Coins were minted thereafter, with the earliest date of 73010 (Toueg and Arnon 2011). The interpreted history of Ramla can be described as follows. A site named al-Ramla existed in the 7th century at the northern cluster of Ramla. In the 8th century the site grew slightly and was supplemented by another site, the Stadium cluster. The northern site, or both clus- ters, was named a city, madīna, plausibly by the caliph Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik after 715. Not long afterwards, the city started minting coins. The existing clusters grew, and new ones were introduced during the 9th century, leading to their cohesion as one unit that reached its occupational peak from the late 9th to the 10th century, perhaps as a result of the Tulunids’ interference in the region. The center of the united site was marked by the area around the Pool of the Arches, in the original northern cluster (Figure 15). Ramla’s mosque (at least one of them), was then constructed in the mid-10th century. The notion that the northern cluster was the early site of al-Ramla differs from former iden- tifications of “Umayyad Ramla.” Several archaeologists have argued that the Umayyad site emerged around the White Mosque (e.g. Whitcomb 1995, 492; 2012, 622, fig. 5; Avni 2014, 170, 176; Gorzalczany 2014, 73; Shmueli and Goldfus 2015, 270, 297, fig. 11), while Torgë (2017, 166) 10. For an earlier date based on equivalents, see Ilisch 1993, 24. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 66 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

Figure 16. Lod and its surroundings at the 7th century. proposed that the earliest site developed in Mazliah. This new reconstruction disregards the White Mosque as the focal point of the site and points to a smaller domain of origin. Several questions remain regarding the dating of the earliest site/s. Was the site established before or after the Arab conquests (the 630s according to al-Ṭabarī)? What was the purpose of the new site(s)? How can we reconcile the early architecture in Mazliah, which has a terminus post quem of the 6th century or earlier with the dates provided in the historical sources? These questions are beyond the scope of this article, but they are potential avenues of future research. The explanations provided above for the development of Ramla are all possible, including the site’s existence before the 8th century. Most importantly, the intensity of installations should be attributed to phases D and E (the late 9th to the mid-11th century); this corresponds with the use of barrel-shaped vaulted containers and construction using debesh, both of which are common in this period. Keeping this in mind, future excavators might interpret the stratigra- phy of the site anew. There is no conclusive date for the early sites of Ramla, but they may well have existed before the 7th century. Understanding the development of sites like Ramla is crucial for cultural and social themes such as religion and immigration. Where arechaeological evidence falls short, texts may shed light. For example, the narrative describing the surrender of the people of al-Ramla to the Arabs (al-Ṭabarī I, 2403), implies a Christian population was settled here prior to the conquests. Also, the papyri from Khirbat al-Mird (Grohmann 1963, 49–51) implies that in the 7th century at least some inhabitants of al-Ramla participated in Ramadan and followed the Muslim faith. If this document is indeed from the 7th century, then it suggests that from the early days of the conquests, the site saw some degree of immigration of Muslims, and/or the population of Ramla was encouraged to convert to Islam. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 67 The Muslim essence of al-Ramla is connected to its definition as a miṣr. According to a nar- rative about Sulaymān, he first went to (or settled in) Ludd and then established al-Ramla and its miṣr (al-Balādhurī, 143; Ibn al-Faqīh, 102; repeated by Yāqūt I, 818). The term miṣr (pl. amṣār, verb tamsīr) is commonly interpreted as a garrison town in the context of the 7th century, and a metropolis in contexts of the 9th century onwards (Bosworth 1993). Yet, the earliest texts (from the 9th century) never relate it to military operations, nor exclusively to cities. The most elaborated source is Kitāb al-Amwāl by Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838), where the miṣr is described as a “free zone” from non-Muslim features. He states: “No one from ahl al-dhimma builds there a bī ʿa (church or synagogue), alcohol is not sold there, pork is not acquired, and the bell [of the church] is not struck […]”. Moreover, the domains which went through tamsīr were comprised of settlements where either the population had surrendered or were lands that were not populated which the Muslims demarcated and settled in or were villages or towns (qarya) that had been conquered by force and were divided amongst the conquerors. Following this primary inquiry, tamsīr may be interpreted as cultural colonization by Islam. Accordingly, the miṣr is a landscape or a territory with specific religious characteristics and boundaries. This definition does not assist in dating Ramla but will be considered in its concluding scenarios. From a different angle, a map of 7th century sites in the research area based on construction methods implies the status of Lod as a hub to its surroundings, including Ramla (Figure 16). Lod is the site with the most coordinates for phase A in the studied region. This sub-region might have had a distinct economic system, with each site providing a unique contribution; Ramla providing pottery from the Stadium cluster, the site of the Ben Gurion Airport providing wine, and Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya providing oil and perhaps limestone. According to its waste and to the integration of installations, Lod did not have any of these industries in the 7th century or later. It did have fire installations which manufactured some organic product, perhaps soap or dyes (Nol 2018, chapter 12). Correspondingly, settling around Lod was inter alia, or chiefly, an economically motivated act. To summarize, three possible scenarios can be offered for the motivation and timing of Ram- la’s establishment. First, Ramla was a Christian site at or before the early 7th century which supported the economy of Lod, survived the Arab conquests and immediately afterwards con- verted and/or incorporated Muslim settlers. Its establishment as a miṣr is a later possibility, or it might have transformed into one. Alternatively, Ramla was established as a new settlement in the mid-7th century by Muslims and for Muslims (miṣr). Later, it became the regional eco- nomic center and was settled by Christians and Jews. This theory assumes that the toponym in al-Ṭabarī’s text is a mistake. The final theory poses that Ramla was established immediately after the conquest as estates purchased or granted to Umayyad officials and commanders.11 If it was ever considered a miṣr, it was a much later projection. While all three theories are pos- sible, their credibility depends on the weight given to each line of evidence. The case of Ramla is an example of the potential of the archaeology to highlight errors and fiction in textual sources and bring to light alternative narratives through perspectives offered by the material culture and architectural remains (see also Milwright 2010, 26; Rosen 2006). Even if the dating method this article offers fails to function in other sites and regions, the criticism of text it has promoted cannot be disregarded. It is in the best interest of early Islamic archaeology to explore and develop other reliable methods of dating and interpretation.

11. For estates in Palestine see Lecker 1989. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 68 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements 2006. 2012.

1997.

Artzi

Toueg Reference

Gamil

2008. and

1999. 2010. 2009.

and

2011. 2007.

2010.

2011. 2011.

and

2010.

et al. k

Toueg Kanias Segal Sion Kletter Toueg Sidi Gutfeld Gutfeld Glic Torgë

Pl ʿAzab Pl Shmueli inscribed marble

flagstone Cl,

and

Db Db Db Db ash lime

harcoal mortar mortar grits,Db c Db,

and ash,

es olives ash

and charcoal ShL ShL

grits

oliv Lime, Lime

)

PiC CT?,

P

CT ShC, O G

N, O,

CT ShC

PiC ShC CT? ShL, anean) P

CT PiC broken- P C L, P N, CT?

P, vaulted),

D, jar

P,

B, CT?

N, PiC, F,

( Pithoi )

C, F, C,

B, A, A, Glazed P C, B?, B, PiC, (Umayyad

(not (huge),

P

A, (subterr C KC

J K K K K K K J, (varied) A,

stones J

(inscribed)

I Islamic Islamic K, Islamic Islamic 8

pottery

Early Early 9-10 10-11 Abbasid-Fatimid 9-10 8-11 9-10 9 10 Abbasid Early Early 6 5 6-7 7 I I 11 I 2 1 II II III III Fatimid III IV 8 IV Abbasid single single single single single Phase Dating Floor Installation Plaster Mortar Other Architectural characteristics of selected coordinates.

(18) (20) (43) (57) (71) (82) (85) V(91) Early (109) IV

Ramla Ramla (12) II Ramla Ramla (23) single Ramla (32) single Site Ramla Ramla (55) Ramla Ramla Ramla Ramla Ramla Na’an Appendix 1.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 69 2000.

2013.

2013.

2010. Golani

Hadad

ʿAd Jakoel

and

and

2008.

and and

2013.

2014. 2013a.

Taxel 1998.

2010.

et al. and

oel Masarwa Avissar Haddad Kogan-Zehavi Gorzalczany Jak ʿAd items

bricks ClB? Pl Tal

ClB Weksler-Bdolah ClB ClB Gorzalczany Pl, mud Marble Db

Db ClB? Db mortar mortar mortar mortar mortar Greenish,

grits Db ds ds

sherds

Crushed ShC

grits sher sher shells grits ShC, Sherds ShL,

G?

PiC, M N,

M floor,

walls ShL

PiC

C

E, G

D,

CT

D, CT? E P D N

ver)

L? crushed

, D, O, CT, P B?,

to pit) A, co (flagstone B?, C,

D, C/O, under

(inside

aulted),

D G (v

I

I J K K J, (rare) B, (Greek

stones Stones J I inscription)

10 ad Byzantine J Byzantine J?

Byzantine- Umayyad 8-10 6-7 Byzantine Umayyad Abbasid Byzantine 9-early Late Byzantine- Islamic Late Umayy 8-9 Byzantine Abbasid Roman I I

II II II III 2a IV Byzantine 2b Byzantine Pebbles G IIa IIb 9 IIIa single single single (194)

(162)

(127) (119)

(137) (135) al-

Aviv

(166) V

(152) (146) (156) Dagan

Malot

Lod Lod Lod Mazliah Tel Ẓāhiriyya Khirbat Bet Ramat Mazliah Azor

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 70 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

debesh , Taxel

Date:

2000.

2000.

2007. 2008. 1988.

Brink 2013b.

2014. et al. avor

den

yalon 2009. A Kohn-T Bouchenino

ks) Van Pl Pl Haddad

ClB Yannai

Pl ClB Weksler-Bdolah marble

items ClB, Cl, (marble), (marble),

(mudbric Pl,

Cl Db Cl Db Cl mortar (common) Pl

ShC

ShL ShC lime ShL? Db ClB, Lime, I)

D?

P ShC? Db

D

L O, C C D (K),

O? CT

C?, N, (white

(opposite)

C ‘pit’ JP K (GP)

stones

Stones K,

Byzantine K

4-6 Late Umayyad Abbasid-Fatimid 7 4-8 Byzantine II X Ib 10 Ib XI 2c Byzantine IX 2a 2b Byzantine single single single single

(344) (345) (208) Ic 9

(265)

Dayrān

Zerifin Leziyyon

Yavne Yavne Qasile Binyamin

Yavne

Rishon Tell (211) Ḥorvat (214) (283) Tel Khirbat Yad (302) Gan Gan E=round OPC, G=tunnel, I=polychrome mosaic floor, J=flagstone pavement, K=Plaster floor, L=well, M=Apple-Shaped NPC, N=round NPC, O=Barrel- NPC, N=round NPC, M=Apple-Shaped L=well, floor, K=Plaster pavement, J=flagstone floor, mosaic I=polychrome G=tunnel, OPC, E=round Vault NPC, P=intact sunken jar, PiC=pipe approach the container, Pl=pilaster, PP=pink plaster, RP=red plaster, ShC=sherds cover, ShL=sherds layer, WP=white plaster. A=Bell-Shaped CPC, B=Dome-Shaped CPC, C=Barrel-Vault CPC, , Cl=column, ClB=column base, CT=covered tunnel, D=Square OPC, Db=

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019

Hagit Nol 71

other) Source (EPI/ (EPI/ Source

28331 Sauvaget 1941: 57, no. 2. 14944 28332 96 101 156 224-5 202 1651 12857 4303 4348 8415 Balog 1976: 262. 28342 9177 22132-4 28795 137 32483 30190 wa-jarā

? v aṭāla

v v v+ v v mawlā

? v v v v v v v v v mimmā

? v v v v v v v v v v v v bism Allāh bism

?? v v v v v v v v v State

Israel/Palestine Syria Israel/Palestine Tunisia Egypt Tunisia Israel/Palestine Tunisia Tunisia Egypt Tunisia Egypt Morocco Egypt Israel/Palestine Israel/Palestine Syria Site

Beth Shean Bosra Medina Saudi Arabia Beth Shean Medina Saudi Arabia Medina Saudi Arabia Fustat Jerusalem Tunis Fes Faza'el Bosra Haruniye Turkey

Year CE Year Equivalents to the Pool of Arches’ inscription. AH Year 128 746 162 779 178 795 192 807 194 809 206 822 Sūsa 213 828 226 841 Sūsa 216 831 240 855 Munastīr 245 860 Sūsa 247 861 al-Rawḍa 250 864 263 877 253 867 (Glass weight) 265 879 Cairo 274 887 Gaza 277 891 279 893 135? 753 264-70 878-884 Caesarea Israel/Palestine 270-282 884-895

* * $ $ * Appendix 2.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 72 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements

=

aṭāla

al-muʾminīn;

amīr

wlā ma

=

wlā Nicol 2007: Pl. 7. 4702 33033 4747 42786 RCEA III: no. 904 (Egypt); Elad 1991. 29949 4768, 4348 4840 14358 6985 14359 4839 RCEA III: no. 1084. 5032 15031 ma

v v v v v bi-hi;

a v v v v v amar

v v v v v v v v v v v mimmā

=

v v v v v v v v mimmā

v v v v v v Allāh;

min

aka bar

Turkey? Egypt Syria Saudi Arabia Israel/Palestine Israel/Palestine Azerbaijan Israel/Palestine Saudi Arabia Lebanon Saudi Arabia Allāh yaday.

ʿalā

bism

=

[…]

match.

Allāh

(Textile) Egypt Mecca Hasankeyf Turkey Diyarbakir Turkey Jerusalem Mahd al-Dhahab Saudi Arabia Beylagan Jerusalem (Textile) Egypt Mecca Mecca […]. wa-jarā

phrases

=

bism

ʿ alā yaday wa-jarā

symboles:

279 893 (Cilicia coins) 289 902 294 906 Sarmadā 294 906 295 908 297 910 297 910 297 910 301 914 304 917 308 921 310 922 312 925 310 922 318 930 Nā ʿ ima 320 932 match;*=three

and

baqāʾuhu;

mimmā jarā $ * * * * $ + phrases

Allāh

aṭāla $=four Abreviattions

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 73 Acknowledgments This article is part of the author’s dissertation, supervised by Stefan Heidemann and Donat Wehner. Earlier versions and sections were read also by Steve Rosen, Katia Cytryn-Silverman, Amikam Elad and Amir Gorzalgzany. Thanks goes to them and the article’s anonymous review- ers for their helpful comments. The initial coins survey was done for the GIS project “Coinage, Commerce and Taxation in the Late Medieval Eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1130–1500)” under the direction of Professor Heidemann. Special gratitude goes to Simon Gundelfinger for the search of the missing amīr, to Peter Verkinderen for searching miṣr in the texts, to Alex Walms- ley for providing the background of the regional maps, to Liat Kedar and Benny Nol for photo- graphing, and to Yuval Yekutieli for the inspiration many (many) years back.

Abbreviations and symbols

* Hebrew A Bell-Shaped CPC aṭāla aṭāla Allāh baqāʾuhu B Dome-Shaped CPC bism Allāh bism Allāh baraka min Allāh C Barrel-Vault CPC Cl Column ClB Column base CT Column tunnel D Square OPC Db debesh EPI Thesaurus d’epigraphie islamique, http://www.epigraphie-islamique.org HA-ESI Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel mawlā mawlā amīr al-muʾminīn mimmā mimmā amara bi-hi RCEA Combe, Étienne, Sauvaget, Jean, and Gaston Wiet, 1931-5. Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, vols. I-VI, Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. wa-jarā wa-jarā […] ʿalā yaday

About the Author Hagit Nol has recently defended her PhD dissertation in Hamburg University on settlement patterns during Early Islam in central Israel/historical Palestine. Her new project concentrates on early mosques all over the Islamic world.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 74 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements References ʿAd, U., A. Golani and O. Segal. 2014. “Tel Azor.” HA-ESI 126: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=12654&mag_id=121. Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838). 1989. Kitāb al-Amwāl, edited by M. ʿImāra. Bayrūt and al-Qāhira: Dār al-Shurūq. Amitai-Preiss, N. 2010. “The coins.” In Ramla: Final Report on the Excavation North of the White Mosque, edited by O. Gutfeld, 265–285. Qedem 51. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2014. “Two glass weights from the Ribat at Ashdod-Yam.” In Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast, by Sarah Kate Raphael, 63, 104. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2673. Oxford: Archaeopress. Ariel, D. T. 2006. “Coins from Mesillot.” ʿAtiqot 53: 193–194. Ariel, D. T. and A. Berman. 2014. “Coins from Ḥorbat Maʿon.” ʿAtiqot 78: 63–72* (English Summary: 164). Arnon, Y.D. 2008. Caesarea Maritima, the Late Periods (700–1291 CE). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1771. Oxford: Archaeopress. Avissar, M. 1998. “Lod (A).” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 108: 89–90*. Avner, R. 2008 “Mosaic pavements from the excavations south of the White Mosque.” Qadmoniot 135: 22–24*. Avni, G. 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684335.001.0001 2011. “Continuity and change in urban centers of Palestine during the Early Islamic period: The cases of Jerusa- lem and Ramla.” In Shaping the Middle East: Cities in Transition, edited by K. G. Holum, and H. Lapin, 115–133. Bethesda: University Press of Maryland. Avni, G., M. Avissar, Y. Baruch and H. Torgë. 2008. “New excavations south of the White Mosque.” HA-ESI 120: http://www.hadashot-ESI.org.il/Report_Detail_ Eng.aspx?id=788&mag_id=114. Ayalon, E., E. Gilboa and T. Shacham. 1988. “A public building of the early Arab period at Tell Qasile.” Israel – People and Land 4(22): 35–52*. ʿAzab, A. 2011. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1810&mag_id=118. Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (d. 892). 1866. Kitāb Futūh al-buldān, edited by M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. Al-Balawī, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh ibn Muḥammad al-Madīnī (the 10th century). 1939. Sīrat Aḥmad ibn Ṭūlūn, edited by M. K. ʿAlī. Damascus: Muṭbaʿat al-Taraqqī. Balog, P. 1976. Umayyad, ʿĀbbasid and Ṭūlūnid Glass Weights and Vessel Stamps, Numismatic Studies 13. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Berman, A. 1995. “Appendix: Coins and seals.” In “The Naḥal Shaḥaq Site: An early Islamic settlement in the northern ʿArava,” edited by Y. Israel, D. Nahlieli and Y. Ben-Michael. ʿAtiqot 26: 1–14* (English summary: 113). Berman, A. and G. Bijovsky. 2002. “The coins from Nevé Ur.” ʿAtiqot 43: 177–183. Bijovsky, G. 2009. “Coins from the northwestern suburb.” In Paneas IV: The Aqueduct and the Northern Suburb, edited by M. Har- tal, 179–183. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Binford, L. R. 1981. “Behavioral archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’.” Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.37.3.3629723

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 75 Blair, S. S. 1998. Islamic Inscriptions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bosworth, C. E. 1993. “Miṣr.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 7: 146. Leiden: Brill. Bouchenino, A. 2007. “Building remains and industrial installations from the Early Islamic periods at Khirbat Deiran, Rehovot.” ʿAtiqot 56: 119–144* (English summary: 84–85). Chidioşan, N., E. Ayalon and A. Yosef. 1989. “Eretz Israel Museum.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 93: 64*. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1896. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874, Vol. II. Translated by J. Macfarlane. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Creswell, K.A.C. 1940. Early Muslim Architecture, Vol. II: Early ʿAbbāsids, Umayyads of Cordova, Aghlabids, Ṭūlūnids, and Samānids, A.D. 751–905. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1958. A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2008. “Three Mamlūk minarets in Ramla.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 35: 379–432. 2010. “The ceramic evidence.” In Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, edited by O. Gut- feld, 97–211. Qedem 51. Jerusalem: Isael Exploration Society. De Vogüé, M., Le Marquis. 1914. “La citerne de Ramleh.” Mémoires de l’institut national de France 39: 163–180. https://doi.org/10.3406/ minf.1914.1603 Elad, A. 1991. “Two identical inscriptions from Jund Filasṭīn from the reign of the ʿAbbāsid caliph, al-Muqtadir.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 35(4): 301–360. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852092X00174 Elisha, Y. 2007. “Horbat Harmas.” HA-ESI 119: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=471&mag_ id=112. Farhi, Y. 2007. “A Mamluk coin hoard.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Report Vol. III: The Byzantine Period, edited by E. Mazar, 93–96. Qedem 46. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soceity. Fulford, M. 1996. “Economic hotspots and provincial backwaters: Modelling the Late Roman economy.” In Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, edited by C. E. King and D. G. Wigg, 154–155. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Gattiglia, G. 2015. “Think big about data: Archaeology and the big data challenge.” Archäologische Informationen 38: 113–124. Genequand, D. 2012. Les établissements des élites omeyyades en Palmyrène et au Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 200. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient. Glick, D. and D. Gamil. 1997. “Ramla.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 107: 77–78*. Gorzalczany, A. 2014. “Industry and urban planning in the city of Ramla and its surroundings: Economy and technology in Pales- tine during the Early Islamic Period (ca 634–1099 CE).” Unpublished PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University. Gorzalczany, A. and U. ʿAd. 2010. “Ramla (South).” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1418&mag_ id=117. Gorzalczany, A. and E. Jakoel. 2013. “Bet Dagan.” HA-ESI 125: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=5419&mag_id=120.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 76 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements Gorzalczany, A. and J. Marcus. 2010. “Ramla (South).” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1335&mag_ id=117. Grabar, O. 1957. The Coinage of the Ṭūlūnids. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 139. New York: American Numismatic Society. Grafman, R. and M. Rosen-Ayalon. 1999. “The two great Syrian Umayyad mosques: Jerusalem and Damascus.” Muqarnas 16: 1–15. https://doi. org/10.2307/1523262 Grohmann, A. 1957. “The origin and early development of Floriated Kūfic.” Ars Orientalis 2: 183–213. 1963. Arabic Papyri from Ḥirbet El-Mird, Bibliothéque du Muséon 52. Louvain: Publications Universitaires. Gudovitch, S. 2010. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1563&mag_id=117. Gutfeld, O. 1999. “Ramla (A).” HA-ESI 109: 99–101* (English summary:65). 2010. Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque. Qedem 51. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Hadad, S. and E. Khamis. 1998. “Inscribed pottery lamps from the Early Islamic period at Beth Shean.” Israel Exploration Journal 48: 66–76. Haddad, E. 2013a. “Remains of a public building from the Byzantine period and a farmhouse from the Early Islamic period north of Tel Lod.” ʿAtiqot 76: 23–39* (English summary: 219–220). 2013b. “Rishon Le-Ziyyon.” HA-ESI 125: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=4372&mag_ id=120. Haro Peralta, J. and P. Verkinderen. 2016. “Jedli: A textual analysis toolbox for digitized Arabic texts.” Early Islamic Empire Working Paper Series 2, https:// www.islamic-empire.uni-hamburg.de/en/documents/working-paper-series/wp-jedli.pdf Heidemann, S. 2003. “Die Fundmünzen von Ḫarāb Sayyār im Verhältnis zur lokalen Geschichte.” Mitteilungen der Deutchen Orient- Gesellschaft zu Berlin 135: 103–112. 2010. “Numismatics.” In Cambridge New History of Islam. Vol. 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries, edited by C. Robinson, 648–663. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CHOL9780521838238.018 Hodder, I. 1991 [1986]. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. and S. Hutson. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814211 Hoyland, R. G. 2001 [1997]. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 13. Second ed. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press. Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 1176). 1995. Taʾrīkh Madīnat Dimashq, Vol. 20, edited by ʿUmar ibn Ghrama al-ʿAmarwī. Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr. Ibn al-Faqīh (d. after 903). 1885. Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, edited by M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. Ilisch, L. 1993. Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum Tübingen. Palästina IVa Bilād aš-Šām, Vol. I. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag. Al-Jahshiyārī (d. 942). 1938. Kitāb al-Wuzarāʾ wa-l-kuttāb, edited by M. al-Saqqā, I. al-Ibyārī and ʿA.Ḥ. Shalabī. al-Qāhira: Maṭbaʿat Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī. Jakoel, E. 2010. “Tel Aviv, Ramat Aviv.” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1523&mag_ id=117. Jawda, Ṣ.A.D. 1986. Madīnat al-Ramla mundhu nashāʾihā ḥattā ʿām 492 H/ 1099 M. Beirut: Dār ʿAmmār.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 77 Kanias, T. and R. Toueg. 2012. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 124: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2104&mag_id=119. Kaplan, J. 1959. “Excavations at the White Mosque in Ramla.” ʿAtiqot English Series 2: 106–115. King, G.R.D. 1986. The Historical Mosques of Saudi Arabia. New York: Longman. Kletter, R. 2009. “Ramla, Ha-Palmah Street.” HA-ESI 121: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=1168&mag_id=115. Kogan-Zehavi, E. 2004. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 116: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=27&mag_id=108. Kogan-Zehavi, E. and S. Hadad. 2013. “A building and an olive press from the Byzantine-Abbasid periods at Khirbat el-Thahiriya.” ʿAtiqot 71: 84–112 (Hebrew). Kohn-Tavor, A. 2008. “Horvat Zerifin.” HA-ESI 120: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=814&mag_id=114. Kool, R. 2007. “The coins from Khirbat Deiran, Rehovot.” ʿAtiqot 56: 65–68*. 2012. “The coins from Khirbat el-Thahiriya.” ʿAtiqot 71: 73–77*. 2013. “The coins from the excavation at Lod.” ʿAtiqot 76: 41–43*. 2014. “Coins.” In ʿAd Halom: A Saqiye installation from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods at the foot of Tel- Ashdod, by Y. Baumgarten. HA-ESI 126 (Hebrew, English summary). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=14719&mag_id=121 LaMotta, V. M. and M. B. Schiffer. 1999. “Formation processes of house floor assemblages.” In The Archaeology of Household Activities, edited by P. M. Allison, 19–29. London: Routledge. Lecker, M. 1989. “The estates of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ in Palestine: Notes on a new Negev Arabic inscription.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52(1): 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00023041 Lenzen, C. J. 1995. “From public to private space: Changes in the urban plan of Bayt Rās/Capitolias.” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 235–239. Lewcock, R. G., G. Smith and R. B. Serjeant. 1983. “The architectural history and description of Ṣanʿāʾ Mosques: The Great Mosque.” In Ṣanʿāʾ: An Arabian Islamic City, edited by R. B. Serjeant and R. Lewcock, 323–350. London: The World of Islam Festival Trust. Luz, N. 1997. “The construction of an Islamic city in Palestine: The case of Umayyad al-Ramla.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186300008300 2017. “Lod and Ramla and not Ramlod: On a geographic anomaly and the Longue Dureé of urban history.” In Lod “Diospolis—City of God”: Collected Papers on the History and Archaeology of Lod, vol. III, edited by A. Shavit, T. Daʿadli and Y. Gadot, 21–41*. Lod: Tagliyot. Al-Maqdisī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. after 990). 1906. Aḥsan al-taqāsīm f ī ma ʿrifat al-aqālīm, Description Imperii Moslemici, edited by M.J. De Goeje. 2nd edition, reprint 1947. Leiden: Brill. Marçais, G. 1954. L’architecture musulmane d’occident: Tunisie, Algérie, Maroc, Espagne, Sicile. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques. Masarwa, D. 2013. “Lod.” HA-ESI 125: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2203&mag_id=120. Milwright, M. 2010. An Introduction to Islamic Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edin- burgh/9780748623105.001.0001 Nicol, N. D. 2007. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean. Volume 6: The Egyptian Dynasties. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 78 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements Nol, H. 2018. “Landscaping Early Islam: The history of settlement in central Israel during the 7th–11th centuries through archaeology, terminology and narratives.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg. Porat, P. 2006. “A Late Byzantine–Early Islamic period farmhouse at Mesillot in the Bet Sheʾan Valley.” ʿAtiqot 53: 181–192. Porath, Y. 2002. “Hydraulic plaster in aqueducts as a chronological indicator.” In The Aqueducts of Israel, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 46, edited by D. Amit, J. Patrich and Y. Hirschfeld, 25–36. Dortsmouth: Jour- nal of Roman archaeology. Roll, I. and E. Ayalon. 1981. “Two large wine presses in the red soil regions of Israel.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 113: 111–125. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00310328.1981.11910757 Rosen, S. 2006. “The tyranny of texts: A rebellion against the primacy of written documents in defining archaeological agendas.” In “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, vol. 2, edited by A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji, 879–893. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Rosen-Ayalon, M. 2006. “The White Mosque of Ramla: Retracing its history.” Israel Exploration Journal 56(1): 67–83. Safar, F. 1945. Wāsit, the Sixth Season Excavation. Le Caire: l’Institut français d’archʹeologie orientale. Sauvaget, J. 1941. “Les inscriptions arabes de la mosquée de Bosra.” Syria 22: 53–65. https://doi.org/10.3406/syria.1941.4256 Scanlon, G. T. 1970. “Housing and sanitation: Some aspects of medieval Islamic public service.” In The Islamic City, edited by A. H. Hourani and S. M. Stern, 179–194. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schiffer, M. B. 1996 [1987]. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Segal, O. 2011. “Ramla, Weizmann Street.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1868&- mag_id=118. Sharon, M. 2009. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, vol. 4: G. Leiden: Brill. 2004. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, vol. 3: D–F. Leiden: Brill. Shmueli, O. and B. Artzi. 2006. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 118: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=389&mag_id=111. Shmueli, O. and H. Goldfus. 2015. “The early Islamic city of Ramla in light of new archaeological discoveries, G.I.S. applications,and a re-examination of the literary sources.” In Material Evidence and Narrative Sources, edited by D. Talmon-Heller and K. Cytryn-Silverman, 267–300. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279667_013 Sidi, N., S. Gudovitch and Y. Dagan. 2008. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 120: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=813&mag_id=114. Sion, O. 2009. “Ramla, Railway Station.” HA-ESI 121: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=1237&mag_id=115. 2010. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1486&mag_id=117. Swelim, T. 2015. Ibn Tulun: His Lost City and Great Mosque. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Syon, D. 2011. “Horbat Rehav.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_eng. aspx?print=nopic&id=1635&mag_id=118. Syon, D. and E. J. Stern. 2014. “Excavations at the Dar el-Gharbiya neighborhood of Kafr Yasif: A Crusader estate in the territory of ʿAkko.” ʿAtiqot 79: 233–261.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 Hagit Nol 79 Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Jarīr (d. 923). 1879–1901. Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa-l-mulūk, 15 vols., edited by M.J. De Goeje. Leiden: Brill. Tabbaa, Y. 1994. “The transformation of Arabic writing: Part 2, the public text.” Ars Orientalis 24: 119–147. Tal, O. and I. Taxel. 2008. Ramla (South): An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous Periods, Salvage Excavation Report 5. Tel Aviv. Taxel, I. 2009. “Between Jaffa and Apolonia—Tel Aviv Area during the Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Muslim periods.” In The Hidden History of Tel Aviv, edited by E. Ayalon, 112–139*. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. Torgë, H. 2005. “Azor.” HA-ESI 117: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=131&mag_id=110. 2010. “Khirbat el-Niʿana.” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1455&mag_ id=117. 2017. “The development of Ramla during the Early Islamic period in light of the archaeological evidence.” Unpub- lished PhD thesis, Bar-Ilan University. 2018. “Ramla between al-Muqaddasī and Nāṣir-i Khusraw.” Cathedra 166: 47–68*. Toueg, R. 2007. “Excavation in Marcus Street, Ramla: Stratigraphy.” Contract Archaeology Reports 2: 12–37. 2008. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 120: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=872&mag_id=114. 2011. “Ramla, Bar-Ilan Street.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1770&mag_ id=118. 2012. “Ramla, Ibn Sina School.” HA-ESI 124: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2066&mag_ id=119. Toueg, R. and Y. D. Arnon. 2010. “Ramla, the Pool of the Arches.” HA-ESI 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=1575&mag_id=117. 2011. “Ramla.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1918&mag_id=118. Treadwell, L. 2017. “The numismatic evidence for the reign of Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn (254–270/868-883).” Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25: 14–40. Van Berchem, M. 1897. Inscriptions arabes de Syrie. La Caire: Extrait des mémoires de l’institut égyptien. https://doi.org/10.3406/ crai.1897.70950 1927. Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabcarum, deuxiéme partie Syrie du Sud, Vol. 2: Jerusalem, Ṣakhra, Mémoires de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale 44. Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orien- tale. Van den Brink, E.C.M. 2000. “Barqa (South).” HA-ESI 112: 125. Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1981. “Information flows, flow structures and the explanation of change in human institutions.” In Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity, edited by S. E. Van der Leeuw, 230–312. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Vitto, F. 1998. “Maḥoza D-Yamnin: A mosaic floor from the time of Eudocia?” ʿAtiqot 35: 117–134. Le Marquis De Vogüé, M. 1864. Le Temple de Jérusalem, monographie du Haram-ech-Chérif, Suirie d’un Essai sur la topographie de la Ville-Sainte. Paris: Noblet and Baudry. Volynsky, F. and L. Talmi. 2011. “Rehovot, Kramim Neighborhood.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=1911&mag_id=118. Walmsley, A. 1999. “Coin frequencies in sixth and seventh century Palestine and Arabia: Social and economic implications.” Jour- nal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42(3): 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568520991208644 2007. Early Islamic Syria: An Archaeological Assessment. Bath: Duckworth.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019 80 Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements Warren, J. 1991. “Creswell’s use of the theory of dating by the acuteness of the pointed arches in early Muslim architecture.” Muqarnas 8: 59–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1523154 Weinberger, D. 2011. “Lod, the northern industrial region.” HA-ESI 123: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=1843&mag_id=118. Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2000. “Yad Benyamin.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 112: 123–125 (Hebrew. English summary: *98). Weksler-Bdolah, S. and A. Golani. 2000. “Tel Malot.” HA-ESI 112: 88-89 (Hebrew. English summary: *70). Whitcomb, D. 1987. “Excavation in Aqaba: First preliminary report.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 247–266. 1995. “Islam and socio-cultural transition of Palestine: Early Islamic period (638–1099 CE).” In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, 488–501. London: Leicester University. 2012. “Formation of the Islamic City: A second archaeological period of urban transition.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, edited by R. Matthews and J. Curtis, 619–631. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Yannai, E. 2014. “Yavne.” HA-ESI 126: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=13677&mag_id=121. Yāqūt, Ya ʿqūb ibn ʿAbd Allāh (d. 1229). 1866-1870. Muʿjam al-buldān, Jacut‘s geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Handschriften aus Berlin, St. Petersburg und Paris, 6 vols., edited by F. Wüstenfeld. Leipzig: Brockhaus.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019