Chapter 5 Finds VS. Texts Archaeology and Literary Sources

In their fundamental studies dedicated to the archaeological research of Palestinian and Sinaitic monasticism, Hirschfeld (1992), Patrich (1995) and Dahari (2000) demonstrated the importance of written evidence in practical examination of archaeological remains. The literary and archeological evi- dence complement each other, often making it possible to interpret the most modest remains of monastic dwellings, or to verify settlement patterns and pilgrimage routes. The paucity of detailed literary narrative relating to the presence of Caucasian Christians in the Holy Land makes any attempt to confront the liter- ary and archaeological evidence very challenging. Most of the foreign sources simply mention Armenian and Georgian monks and pilgrims in Palestine, usu- ally referring to them and their languages as part of a list. National sources, mostly hagiographies, are also laconic in their descriptions, focusing on the spiritual side of the monastic or pilgrimage experience. At the same time, the archaeological material associated with Caucasian Christians is abundant enough to allow construction of a typology of the various types of institutions. Among the known complexes where Armenian and Georgian presence was attested, there are two rural coenobia: Bir el-Qutt and Umm Leisun; two or possibly three pilgrimage hospices in : in Musrara, on (“Theodosius and Cyriacus”) and in ; an outstanding example of cem- eterial church: YMCA; and numerous burials. None of these types is specified in literary evidence.

Types of Institutions

Rural Coenobia Two of the monastic sites, previousely described in details – Bir el-Qutt near Shepherds’ Field and Umm-Leisun in the south-eastern part of Jerusalem – belong to the type of ‘rural coenobia’.1 Noteworthy, these two, clearly identi- fied Georgian sites, were built according to local Palestinian standards and could only be attributed to a specific nationality on the basis of epigraphic

1 Taxel 2009a, p. 196.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004365551_006 Finds VS. Texts 213 finds. Their typological and technological characteristics are identical to those of other Byzantine Palestinian monasteries built in areas conducive to agricultural work. The well-preserved complex of Bir el-Qutt near Shepherds’ Field (Fig. 92) can even be regarded as a model of the local coenobitic mon- astery – orthogonal in plan, compact, enclosed and clustered around the cen- tral courtyard, with a small church beside it. Like many monasteries of this type, Bir el-Qutt survived on its own agricultural product, specifically wine and oil production. The complex discovered on YMCA site in the western part of Jerusalem also contained the remains of various agricultural installations, and a complex type winery. Similar wineries were discovered near the Byzantine foundations of The Monastery of the Cross, suggesting the possibility that this site too could belong in the same typological group of rural coenobia. The production of these sites was far too large for the needs of the mon- asteries themselves. As it was demonstrated by Seligman, they would have formed “the rural hinterland” of Byzantine Jerusalem, supplying the needs of the permanent population of the city and its numerous visitors.2

Xenodochia Two of the sites under discussion can be attributed with certainty to the cat- egory of xenodochia – pilgrimage hospices. The first and more impressive is the complex of monastic institutions with pilgrimage services that was discovered to the north of the city of Jerusalem, in the modern Musrara neighbourhood (Fig. 45). Each of the Musrara institutions, including the Armenian monastery located among them, contains all the facilities necessary to provide hospitality for numerous visitors: residential rooms, refectories, chapels, well-developed water supply systems, bathhouses and even burial grounds. It is the largest complex of xenodochia discovered in Jerusalem. Perhaps the complex foun- dation should be related to the nearby St. Stephen’s basilica, one of the major holy sites of the city, which attracted many visitors. It is also possible, that the cluster of Musrara institutions was a result of natural growth in pilgrimage fa- cilities, due to the advantageous location: just outside the city walls, along one of the main roads leading to Jerusalem from the north.3

2 Seligman 2011, pp. 515 f. and esp. pp. 522–524; Table 19.5. 3 Mosaic dedicational inscription, dated to 550/1, discovered in salvage excavations of Antiquities Authority in 2017, mentions the names of the Emperor Justinian and priest Constantine, abbot of the famous Nea church in Jerusalem. The small-scaled excava- tion in Musrara, close to the remains described here, was conducted by David Gelman of IAA; the inscription was deciphered by Leah Di Segni of Hebrew University. For primary