In the Highland’s Depth Volume 9, 2019, pp. 41*–51* DOI: https://doi.org/10.26351/IHD/9/9 ISSN: 2521-9456 (print)

Unfinished Tunnels in Hiding Complexes: Horvat ʻAmmudim in the Lower as a Case Study Yinon Shivtiel and Mechael Osband

Abstract Excavation of a subterranean tunnel discovered in a water cistern at Horvat ‘Ammudim revealed evidence of an unfinished hiding complex dated to the Roman period. The main findings of this excavation, directed by the authors of this paper, are presented here. Important evidence supporting the identification of the tunnel as part of an unfinished complex included oil lamp niches, the location of the tunnel in a cistern, and the overall similarity of the tunnel to similar subterranean complexes in the Galilee and in Judah. The subject of unfinished tunnels has rarely been addressed in the research on hiding complexes.

Over seventy hiding complexes, most of them dated to the Roman period, have been identified in the Galilee (Shivtiel 2019, 97–210). These complexes were hewn out of the local rock, and while they vary in size, quality, and number of chambers, they all contain one or more low tunnels that can only be accessed by crawling and that are connected to chambers (for a brief preliminary description, see ibid., 197–198). In addition, they are all located near or within Jewish settlements. In this paper, we present a recently discovered and excavated hiding complex at the Jewish settlement of Horvat ʻAmmudim. This is a rare example of an unfinished hiding complex, a phenomenon that has not been investigated sufficiently.

The Site of Horvat ʻAmmudim The site (ITM 246754/188719; 220 m above sea level) is located 7.5 km north of the Golani Junction at the eastern edge of the Beit Netofa Valley (fig. 1), near a Roman road (Roll 2009, 10*, Map 4; see also Tepper & Tepper 2013, 96). The site and the surrounding area have been surveyed, some salvage excavations have been done, and a predominantly fourth-century-CE synagogue has been excavated

41* 42* Unfinished Tunnels in Hiding Complexes: Horvat ʻAmmudim in the as a Case Study

(Guérin 1880, 361–362; Kohl & Watzinger 1916, 71–79; Adan-Bayewitz 1982; Levine 1982; Braun 2001; Leibner 2009, 242–249; Zingboym & Dalali-Amos 2013; Cinamon 2014; Cinamon & Porat 2015; Zingboym 2016). The results of all this work demonstrate that the site dates mainly from the Roman and Byzantine periods, but with a marked decline in the latter period.1 In addition, agricultural installations, water cisterns, burial caves, graves and rock-cut caves have been found in the surrounding area (Tepper & Tepper 2013, 96–97). The area to the east of the settlement, where the hiding complex described below was found, was not studied intensely in previous research.

fig. 1: Location of Horvat ʻAmmudim and neighbouring hiding complexes

Excavation of the Hiding Complex Tunnel A subterranean tunnel (ITM 246720/188946; 190 m above sea level) was discovered in 2016 on a slope about 200 m east of the ancient settlement of Horvat ʻAmmudim. The tunnel is located on the west side of a cistern with a collapsed roof (fig. 2).2 The

1 In the survey by Uzi Leibner, the area to the east of the site where the hiding complex was discovered (Area C) did not provide sufficient pottery for dating (Leibner 2009, 246). 2 The discovery of the complex was first brought to our attention by Yizhak Tur. The subterranean tunnel excavation at Horvat ‘Ammudim was directed by M. Osband on behalf of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of (IAA excavation permit no. G-31/2016), with the help of students from Zefat Academic College and the University of Haifa for three days (May 11, Aug. 1 and Aug. 22, 2016). Yinon Shivtiel and Mechael Osband 43* area surrounding this cistern contains burial caves, agricultural installations and some sporadic building remains, most likely dating to the Roman–Byzantine periods.

fig. 2: Plan of Horvat ʻAmmudim’s unfinished hiding complex

The cistern, which was hewn out of the local limestone ( Map), has an irregular oval shape measuring approximately 12x6 m at its maximum length and width. A fig tree is now growing inside it (fig. 3).3 The upper section and part of the opening collapsed at some point in the past, allowing for easy entrance for excavators. Two layers of hydraulic plaster were found inside, covering most of the walls of the cistern. The fig. 3: The cistern in which the tunnel was found, and the fig tree which grows out of it

3 The fig tree stands out in the landscape, which is mostly covered by hawthorn and terebinth trees. Fig trees are not uncommon in ancient subterranean cavities, especially in cisterns. 44* Unfinished Tunnels in Hiding Complexes: Horvat ʻAmmudim in the Lower Galilee as a Case Study

outer layer has a reddish color, whereas the inner layer, applied directly to the cistern walls, is more grayish in color – possibly an indicator of an Early Roman date (Porath 2002). The cistern was filled with alluvium and collapsed material and was not itself excavated. In the area above the cistern (L001), mainly Middle–Late Roman pottery was discovered. In the southwestern wall of the cistern, an opening to a tunnel (fig. 4) was found. It is located 0.6 m below the surface and 1.5 m above the current surface level inside the cistern (not the bottom of the cistern), which contains dirt and rock fill including part of the cistern’s roof. The opening is 1.2 m

high and 1.0 m wide. The tunnel fig. 4: The opening to the tunnel inside the cistern, looking south itself is arched and measures about 0.6 m high and 0.8 m wide. Parts of the tunnel had collapsed from above and were filled with alluvium and collapsed material along with Roman pottery (figs. 5–6). Two soft limestone vessel fragments were found in the tunnel, a small fragment of a grooved rim, possibly from a jar, and the bottom of a hemispherical bowl. These vessels fig.5: The tunnel before excavation are known from Jewish sites dating mainly from the 1st century BCE to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (Adler 2011, 218). The fill in the tunnel contained about 0.8 m of dirt and rock, which was removed and sifted during excavations (L002). The lower layer of dirt, 5 to 15 cm fig. 6: The tunnel at the end of excavation thick above the tunnel floor, was excavated separately from the upper level of dirt. All of the dirt in the tunnel was sifted. The tunnel ends abruptly in the bedrock. Part of the ceiling that had collapsed inwards was missing (L003). Yinon Shivtiel and Mechael Osband 45*

The tunnel is 4.95 m long and then abruptly ends in hard limestone. No side rooms or chambers were found connected to it. In an area 10 m to the northwest (L004) and 7.5 m southwest (L005) of the cistern, possible additional openings were probed but no tunnel was found. These were backfilled. Four niches for oil lamps were found along the tunnel, two on each side (fig. 7; and see also fig. 2 above). The Roman pottery from the fig. 7: One of the four niches for oil lamps which were exposed tunnel was similar to typological inside the tunnel of Horvat ʻAmmudim forms common in the Galilee during the Roman period (Adan-Bayewitz 1993; Balouka 2013; Leibner 2018, 304–342), mainly from about the mid-first century BCE to the fourth/mid- fifth centuries CE (fig. 8; for details see appendix A). Some of the forms of pottery inside the tunnel, such as Kefar Hananya types 3A and 4A (fig. 8: 1–2), seem to have already gone out of use by the first third of the second century (Leibner 2018, 308). While Early fig. 8: Selected pottery from excavation of the Horvat ʻAmmudim tunnel (Locus 002) (Drawings: A.A. Iermolin) Roman pottery was recovered, including stone vessel fragments that are best dated to the Early Roman period, Late Roman pottery was found together with it, making a definitive date within the Roman period difficult to determine. It is worth noting that pottery common in the Late Roman period was found in L001, surrounding the aforementioned cistern; this may be the source of that same type of pottery found in the tunnel. It was also difficult to determine to what extent the pottery was washed in from above or originally left in the tunnel. In our estimation, the Early Roman finds are best explained as being from close to the time when the tunnel was hewn, providing a possible terminus post quem for the tunnel’s construction. 46* Unfinished Tunnels in Hiding Complexes: Horvat ʻAmmudim in the Lower Galilee as a Case Study

Identification of the Subterranean Tunnel as a Hiding Complex A number of factors help identify the excavated tunnel as a hiding complex. First and foremost, the origin of the tunnel in the upper section of a water cistern is common in Galilean hiding complexes (and in Judean ones as well), including those at neighboring sites such as Hoquq, Kh. Mimlah, Kh. Rubadiya, Kh. Natif (Netofa), Kh. Ruma and Mishkena (Shivtiel 2019, 135–136, 139, 148–149, 155–156, 204–205). The complex excavated at Horvat ʻAmmudim is most similar to that found at Kh. Mushtah (ibid., 140–141), where a tunnel was hewn toward the top of the cistern, allowing for its continued use as a cistern even after the hiding complex was created. Soot-free niches identical to those at Horvat ‘Ammudim have also been found in hiding complexes in the Galilee and the Judean foothills. The lack of soot in all four niches can be best explained by their having been hardly or never used. It is consistent with a partial complex that was neither completed nor used, as has been found at Horvat Qisi (Erlich & Shivtiel 2016, 15) and Rosh Maya (Shivtiel 2019, 205). Interestingly, the tunnel in the cistern is located outside of the settlement. Usually, hiding complexes are an integral part of the settlement and are found under houses or public buildings, such as synagogues (Tepper & Shahar 1987e, 280). Only a few hiding complexes have been found outside of settlements – for example, at Gush Halav and at Meroth, where a hiding complex was found inside a burial cave located outside the settlement (Shivtiel 2019, 107–108, 110–112). In this instance, the reason for locating the tunnel outside the settlement may have been geological. The settlement is built on volcanic basalt, while the slope and surrounding agricultural area are made of local limestone of varying degrees of hardness (Arbel Map). Nearly all hiding complexes in the Galilee were hewn out of limestone of varying degrees of hardness. The only exception known to date is at Horvat Evtsam in the eastern Galilee, where a complex was hewn out of volcanic tuff breccia outside the settlement (Shivtiel 2019, 170–171). In our case the villagers likely decided to use the surrounding limestone and chose a location at some distance from the Roman road.

Discussion and Conclusions Uncompleted hiding complexes require further discussion as they are found both in the Galilee and in but have not been subjected to intensive research. These complexes are defined as those containing a tunnel section that does not connect two areas but rather ends in the bedrock and not in a cavity. They tend to be relatively short. In most cases they are part of a larger, functioning hiding complex. Yinon Shivtiel and Mechael Osband 47*

They should not be confused with complexes where a tunnel ends in a collapse or where the end of the passageway is unclear. Examples of uncompleted tunnels in hiding complexes can be found in the Galilee at sites such as I‘billin (Mukari 1999, 26), Meroth, Hoquq, Mimlah, Tur‘an and Kh. Qisi (Shivtiel 2019, 109, 133, 138, 167–168, 199). These complexes contain short tunnels that end abruptly at bedrock. In our opinion, similar examples can also be found in hiding complexes in the Judean foothills, at such sites as Horvat Midras (cistern 6), Rasm Dihna, Horvat ‘Eitun, Rasm er-Rusum, ‘Amuda, Kh. el-Muraq, Horvat Naqiq, Tel Azekah and Horvat Shem Tov (see Kloner 1987a, 139; 1987b, 213; Kloner et al. 1987, 191; Kloner & Tzoran 1987, 220; Solar 1987, 200; Tepper & Shahar 1987a, 176; 1987b, 161; 1987c, 234; 1987d, 148). Complexes with unfinished sections have also been found in southern Samaria, at Kh. ‘Alamit, Kh. ‘Ali, Kh. el-Marajim and Kh. ez-Zeit (Dvir Raviv, personal communication). The quarriers of the unfinished complexes may have stopped their work for a variety of reasons. Lithic hardness differences in the complex are one possible reason. Another is collapse from above, making the entire tunnel no longer useful as a hiding complex. A third possibility is some human factor that caused them to abandon the project, such as an approaching enemy force. One can also not discount a fourth possibility: human error, with the tunnel leading in the wrong direction. At Horvat ʻAmmudim, no lithic differences were found in the different parts of the tunnel; the second possibility – a collapsed roof – seems the most likely reason why the hiding complex was not completed and why the tunnel ends in bedrock relatively close to the surface. This would also explain why there are no connecting cavities, since if the roof collapsed the tunnel was useless for its original purpose. Two important methodological issues in this study are also significant. First of all, it is difficult to date the hiding complexes in the Galilee because, unlike in Judea, the Jewish settlements there lasted beyond the first and second centuries CE. In addition, in many cases potsherds from different periods were washed into the hiding complexes (Shivtiel 2019, 212–213). In the case of Horvat ʻAmmudim, the agricultural area above continued to be used in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. It is not clear if the complex was still in use by then. Second, excavation of the hiding complexes is necessary in order to further our understanding of unfinished tunnels. 48* Unfinished Tunnels in Hiding Complexes: Horvat ʻAmmudim in the Lower Galilee as a Case Study

Bibliography

Adan-Bayewitz 1982: Adan-Bayewitz, D., 1982, The Ceramics from the Synagogues of Horvat ʻAmmudim and Their Chronological Implications, Exploration Journal 32, pp. 13–31.

Adan-Bayewitz 1993: Adan-Bayewitz, D., 1993, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, Ramat Gan. ‏

Adler 2011: Adler, Y., 2011, The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Eretz-Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (164 BCE–400 CE), Ph.D. Dissertation, Ramat Gan (Hebrew).

Balouka 2013: Balouka, M., 2013, Roman Pottery, in: Meyers, E.M. & Meyers, C.L. (editors), The Pottery from Ancient , Winona Lake, pp. 13–129.

Braun 2001: Braun, E., 2001, Soundings at Ḥorbat ʻAmmudim, Lower Galilee, ʻAtiqot 42, pp. 237–242.

Cinamon 2014: Cinamon, G., 2014, Ḥorbat ‘Ammudim (Southwest), Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=10585&mag_id=121

Cinamon & Porat 2015: Cinamon, G. & Porat, L., 2015, Horbat ‘Ammudim (West), Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 127. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=20770&mag_id=122

Erlich & Shivtiel 2016: Erlich, Z. & Shivtiel, Y., 2016, The Shabbat Inscription and the Hiding Places of Hurvat Qisi – Towards Identifying an Unnamed Settlement in the Lower Galilee, ‘Al Atar 19, pp. 5–23 (Hebrew).

Guérin 1880: Guérin, V., 1880, Description Géographique, Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine, tome 3: 1. Galilée, Paris.

Kloner 1987a: Kloner, A., 1987, Hiding Complex at Midras, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 137–145 (Hebrew).

Kloner 1987b: Kloner, A., 1987, Hiding Complex at Rasm Dihana, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 209–216 (Hebrew). Yinon Shivtiel and Mechael Osband 49*

Kloner et al. 1987: Kloner, A., Solar, G., Navon, A. & Alon, D., 1987, Hiding Complex at ‘Eitun, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 186–193 (Hebrew).

Kloner & Tzoran 1987: Kloner, A. & Tzoran, Y., 1987, Hiding Complex at Rasm er-Rusum, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 217–225 (Hebrew).

Kohl & Watzinger 1916: Kohl, H. & Watzinger, C., 1916, Antike Synagogen in Galilaea, Leipzig.

Leibner 2009: Leibner, U., 2009, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee, Tübingen.

Leibner 2018: Leibner, U., 2018, The Pottery, in: Leibner, U. (editor), Khirbet Wadi Ḥamam: A Roman- Period Village and Synagogue in the Lower Galilee, Jerusalem, pp. 304–401.

Levine 1982: Levine, L.I., 1982, Excavations at the Synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim, Israel Exploration Journal 32, pp. 1–12.

Mukari 1999: Mukari, A., 1999, I‘billin, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109, pp. 24–26 (Hebrew).

Porath 2002: Porath, Y., 2002, Hydraulic Plaster of Aqueducts as a Chronological Indicator, in: Amit, D., Patrich, Y. & Hirschfield, Y. (editors), The Aqueducts of Israel, Portsmouth, pp. 25–36.

Roll 2019: Roll, I., 2009, Between Damascus and Megiddo: Roads and Transportation in Antiquity across the Northeastern Approaches to the Holy Land, in: Di Segni, L., Hirschfeld, Y., Patrich, J. & Talgam, R. (editors), Man near a Roman Arch: Studies Presented to Prof. Yoram Tzafrir, Jerusalem, pp. 1*–20*.

Shivtiel 2019: Shivtiel, Y., 2019, Cliff Shelters and Hiding Complexes: The Jewish Defense Methods in Galilee during the Roman Period, The Speleological and Archaeological Evidence, Göttingen.

Solar 1987: Solar, G., 1987, Hiding Complex at ‘Amudah, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 194–201 (Hebrew).

Tepper & Shahar 1987a: Tepper, Y. & Shahar, Y., 1987, Hiding Complex at Azekah, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 171–185 (Hebrew). 50* Unfinished Tunnels in Hiding Complexes: Horvat ʻAmmudim in the Lower Galilee as a Case Study

Tepper & Shahar 1987b: Tepper, Y. & Shahar, Y., 1987, Hiding Complex at Horvat Naqiq, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 160–170 (Hebrew).

Tepper & Shahar 1987c: Tepper, Y. & Shahar, Y., 1987, Hiding Complex at Horvat Shem Tov, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors,), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 226–236 (Hebrew).

Tepper & Shahar 1987d: Tepper, Y. & Shahar, Y., 1987, Hiding Complex at Khirbet el-Muraq, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 146–150 (Hebrew).

Tepper & Shahar 1987e: Tepper, Y. & Shahar, Y., 1987, The Hiding Complexes in the Galilee, in: Kloner, A. & Tepper, Y. (editors), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 279–326 (Hebrew).

Tepper & Tepper 2013: Tepper, Y. & Tepper, Y., 2013, The Road That Bears the People: Pilgrimage Roads to Jerusalem in Times, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Zingboym 2016: Zingboym, O. 2016, “Accepting the Dark in the Area”: A Discussion of a Talmudic Passage on the Basis of Archaeological Findings in Hurvat ʻAmmudim in the Galilee, ʻAl Atar 19, pp. 25–36 (Hebrew).

Zingboym & Dalali-Amos 2013: Zingboym, O. & Dalali-Amos, E., 2013, Horbat ‘Ammudim, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=6478&mag_id=120

Maps

Arbel Map: Bogoch, R. & Sneh, A., 2008, Geological Map of Israel, Arbel: Sheet 4-I, 1:50,000, Jerusalem. Appendix A: The Pottery from the Excavation at Horvat ʻAmudim (see fig. 8 above)

No. Basket Description Date Parallels 1 0003/1 Casserole; Yellowish Red, 5YR mid-1st century BCE– Balouka 2013, 27, OCP1a; 5/4, a few black and white grits first third of nd2 century CE Leibner 2018, 308, KH3a 2 0002/6 Cooking pot with groove in rim; mid-1st century BCE–early/mid- Balouka 2013, 21, CP2; Yellowish Red, 5YR 5/4 2nd century CE Leibner 2018, 308, KH4a 3 0006/2 Storage jar with outturned rim; 1st century–end of the 3rd century Balouka 2013, 37, SJ2 or 3; Yellowish Red, 5YR 5/8, CE (absent by the third decade Leibner 2018, 309, ER many white grits of the 2nd century CE) GrSJ 4 0002/4 Cooking pot with grooves on early 2nd century– Leibner 2018, 312, KH4c rim; Yellowish Red, 5YR 5/6 beginning of the 4th century CE 5 0006/1 Cooking bowl with groove on mid-3rd century CE– Leibner 2018, 313, KH1c rim; Red, 2.5YR 4/6, some end of the 4th century CE black and white grits 6 0002/2 Cooking bowl, 2.5YR 5/8, mid-3rd century– Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 103- some black and white grits early/mid-5th century CE 109, 1E; Leibner 2018: 314, KH1e

51*