113 the Use of Chronological

ARAM, 18-19 (2006-2007) 113-126. doi:L. DI 10.2143/ARAM.18.0.2020724 SEGNI 113

THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN SIXTH-EIGHTH CENTURIES PALESTINE

Dr. LEAH DI SEGNI The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Once upon a time – I am talking of less than twenty years ago – no archae- ologist working in the area once occupied by the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia would have dreamt of dating a church to the Abbasid period, and he would have had psychological difficulties in dating a Christian cult building even to the Umayyad period. The Muslim conquest was felt to have put an end to all building activity, except repairs of existing structures.1 Proof enough of this approach is the unwillingness of the first editor and of several scholars after him to accept an eighth century date for the topographical mosaic in the nave of the Acropolis Church in Ma’in, in spite of the date, year 614 of the province Arabia, or 719/20 AD, inscribed in a tabula ansata at the entrance of the nave.2 True, a few Greek inscriptions of the Umayyad period that provided evidence of some building activity in churches or monasteries were known in Hauran3

1 Typical of this approach is Gatier’s statement at a colloquium in 1990, that “pour le mo- ment, on ne possède aucune église omeyyade, c’est-à-dire dont le plan puisse être consideré comme omeyyade. En revanche, plusiers églises Byzantines ont reçu des aménagements à l’époque omeyyade”. This was Gatier’s conclusion, based on a survey of Greek inscriptions dated between the battle of Yarmuk in 636 and the eighth century, in the area between Homs and Sinai (P.-L. Gatier, “Les inscriptions grecques d'époque islamique (VIIe-VIIIe siècles,) en Syrie du Sud”, in R. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l“Islam, VIIe-VIIIe siècles, Actes du Colloque international, Lyon – Maison de l'Orient Méditerranéen, Paris – Institut du Monde Arabe, 11-15 Septembre 1990, Damas, 1992, pp. 145-158). With these words Gatier refuted the innovating stand taken by Father Michele Piccirillo: see M. Piccirillo, “The Umayyad Churches of Jordan”, ADAJ 28 (1984), pp. 333-341. 2 R. De Vaux dated the pavement to the early seventh century, and connected the dated inscription to repairs after iconoclastic damages, which he was forced to ascribe to Caliph Omar instead of Caliph Yazid II (“Une mosaïque Byzantine à Ma’in (Transjordan)”, RB 47 [1938], pp. 227-258, esp. pp. 255-258). See also A. Alt, “Die letzte Grenzverschiebung zwischen den römischer Provinzen Arabia und Palästina”, ZDPV 65 (1942), pp. 68-76. For the Umayyad date, see M. Piccirillo, “La diocese de Madaba”, Le Monde de la Bible 35 (1984), pp. 35-36; Gatier, IGLJ 2, pp. 184-187, nos. 157-158. 3 At Deir Ayyub, a lintel (of gatehouse?) in a monastery, 25 July 641: W.H. Waddington and P. Le Bas, Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions et explications II, Paris, 1870 [Waddington], no. 2413a; R.E. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia III, Strassburg, 1909 [PA], p. 359. For no good reason Gatier rejects the Umayyad date by adopting a Pompeian era instead of the era of Arabia normally used in this area (“Inscriptions” [above, n. 1], p. 149; cf. Y.E. Meimaris in collaboration with K. Kritikakou and P. Bougia, Chronological Systems in Roman-Byzantine Palestine and Arabia, Athens, 1992, p. 295, no. 500). At Kafr, erection of a martyrium of St. George, 30 April 652: W. Ewing, “Greek and Other Inscriptions Collected in the Hauran”, PEF 1895, p. 277, no. 153; PA III, p. 360; in the same

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 113 06-26-2007, 17:42 114 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

and in Transjordan;4 but its extent appeared to have been limited.5 The scepti- cism of archaeologists about the existence of churches built under Muslim rule was based partly on very real lack of evidence, partly on misunderstanding of existing evidence. This state of things came to an end in 1986 with the discovery of St. Stephen’s Church in Umm ar-Rasas, with its splendid mosaic pavements bearing dates according to the era of Arabia: AD 756 in the presbytery, 785 (later corrected to 718) in the nave.6 Not long later the reality of eighth century churches was vindicated through the identification of an era previously unrec-

village another inscription (PAES III A 5, no. 677) attests the building of an o÷koˇ, but there is no indication that it was a sacred building. For Gatier (ibid., p. 152), the former or both texts are the “exception qui.. semble confirmer la règle”. At Salchad (Triacome), an inscription commemorates the addition of an atrium (aûlß) in 665/6 to a church built in 633/4: Waddington, no. 1997; PA III, pp. 359-360. 4 Ar-Rabba (Areopolis): “Under our most holy metropolitan Stephen êgéneto ™ oîkodomß“ etc., in 687 (F. Zayadine, “Deux inscriptions grecques de Rabbat Moab (Areopolis)”, ADAJ 16 [1971], p. 75): while the context is certainly ecclesiastical, the wording of the inscription (êgéneto ™ oîkodomß) may apply to additions or repairs of an existing building rather than to the erection of a new edifice. At Quweisme near Amman, the “Lower Church” was “completely renovated from the foundation” in AD 717/8: S.J. Saller, “An Eighth-Century Christian Inscrip- tion at al-Quweisme, near Amman, Trans-Jordan”, JPOS 21 (1948), pp. 138-147 (more bibliog- raphy in IGLJ II, no. 53). The date of the martyrium of ar-Resif (Muhezzek) is uncertain: 785 AD by the era of the Martyrs or 607/8 by the era of Bostra? In view of the recent discoveries of eighth-century churches, modern scholars tend to accept the eighth-century date, first suggested by A. Alt, “Epigraphische Bemerkungen zur Geschichte des Christentums in der Palaestina Tertia”, JPOS 8 (1928), p. 201, n. 3. See discussion in Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 317-318, no. 5; Sartre, IGLJ 4, pp. 149-151, no. 115. Brünnow (PA III, p. 303), Ch. Clermont-Gan- neau (Recueil d'Archéologie Orientale 6 [1905], pp. 327-329), and among the moderns L.S.B. MacCoull and K.A. Worp (in M. Capasso, G. Messeri Savorelli and R. Pintaudi, Miscella- nea papyrologica in occasione del bicentenario dell’edizione della Charta Borgiana [Papy- rologica Florentina no. 19], Firenze, 1990, p. 380, n. 7) prefer to reckon the year by the era of Arabia, in spite of the ascending order of the digits. Gatier rejects the evidence as uncertain (“In- scriptions” [above, n. 1], p. 151). 5 Some of the inscriptions (e.g. those of Rabba and Quweisme) may be related to damages caused by earthquakes. Destructive seisms are recorded by the sources in 659, 672 and ca. 710: D.H.K. Amiran, E. Arieh and T. Turcotte, “Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 B.C.E.”, IEJ 44 (1994), p. 266. 6 M. Piccirillo, “Le iscrizioni di Umm ar-Rasas-Kastron Mefaa in Giordania I (1986-1987)”, LA 37 (1987), pp. 180-186. Later Piccirillo (M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Umm al-Rasas Mayfa’ah I. Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, Jerusalem, 1994, pp. 245-246) tentatively adopted the correction of the date of the mosaic at the foot of the bema from AD 785 (∂touˇ ©parxíaˇ ˆArabíaˇ XP) to 718 (XIG), suggested by R. Schick, “The Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Early Abbasid Period, A.D. 759-813”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Confer- ence on the History of Bilad es-Sham, Amman, 1991, pp. 75-78. Gatier (“Inscriptions” [above, n. 1], p. 148) dismissed the eighth century date in the presbytery as no more than a late stage in the redecoration of the building (“pose de la mosaîque geometrique du sanctuaire”), though the excavations have shown that an earlier church below St. Stephen was abandoned when the church of Bishop Sergius was built south of it, in the second half of the sixth century, and the complex of St. Stephen was erected ex novo: see Piccirillo, Umm al-Rasas, pp. 71-108 and esp. pp. 106-107. As to the date of the pavement of the nave, Gatier (ibid., pp. 149-150) prefers to condemn the whole figure as incorrect and to ascribe this pavement to the same bishop Sergius (ca. 575-597) who built the adjoining church, a claim unacceptable on palaeographical as well as on archaeological grounds.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 114 06-26-2007, 17:42 L. DI SEGNI 115

ognised in the Greek inscriptions of the region, namely, the era of creation. In fact, two eras of this type were revealed on either side of the Jordan: in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, a chapel was discovered, dated 6254, that is AD 762 by the Alexandrian era of creation,7 and in Madaba, the long-misunder- stood date of the Church of the Virgin was restored to its true reading, Febru- ary of the fifth indiction, year 6274, that is, February 767, according to the Byzantine era of creation.8 The discovery of another church in the vicinity of Madaba, the chapel of Mary Theotokos on Mount Nebo, dated 6270, indiction 15, that is, between 25 March and 31 August 762, confirmed the use of the same era of creation in Transjordan.9 More evidence of the use of creation eras has recently come to light. At Khirbet es-Shubeika, in northwestern Galilee, excavations have uncovered a church with several building phases: the foundation, seemingly going back to the seventh century, a second stage dated by a Greek inscription to the year of creation 6293, and further phases of occupation, first as a sacred building and later as a dwelling. Year 6293 t±ˇ ktísewˇ is either 785/6 by the Byzantine era (in which Christ’s incarnation is fixed in year 5508 of the world) or 801/2 by the Alexandrian era (in which incarnation is fixed in 5492).10 Lately I was shown an ostracon from Elusa, which seems to contain a conversion from year of the world according to an Alexandrian counting to year of the era of Arabia that was current in the Negev: 6,000 corresponds to 402 of the era of the metropolis, Petra, that is, to AD 507/8.11 This does not necessarily mean that the ostracon was written in 507: it may have served to help the scribe to convert any date of the city into years of the world and vice versa. Still, the archaeological context and the fact that the scribe did not choose as a basis a higher round figure, for instance 6,100, seem to locate the ostracon in the sixth century.12 7 R. Arav, L. Di Segni and A. Kloner, “An Eighth-Century Monastery near Jerusalem”, LA 40 (1990), pp. 313-320. 8 L. Di Segni, “The Date of the Church of the Virgin in Madaba”, LA 42 (1992), pp. 251-257. The new interpretation was made possible by the identification of the first mark as the thousands figure and the restoration of a missing digit indicating the hundreds. For former interpretations of the figure, see Gatier, IGLJ 2, no. 131. 9 L. Di Segni, “La data della cappella della Theotokos sul Monte Nebo. Nota epigrafica”, LA 44 (1994), pp. 531-533. 10 For the excavation, see D. Syon, “A Church of the Early Islamic Period at Khirbet al- Shubeika”, in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of Fr S. Loffreda, Jerusalem, 2003, pp. 75-82; for the inscriptions, see V. Tzaferis, “The Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet al-Shubeika”, ibidem, pp. 83-86. 11 Year 6000 corresponds to 402 of the era of Arabia by the Alexandrian reckoning of Panodorus, rather than by Annianus’ reckoning, the one finally adopted by the Byzantine chroniclers. The era of Panodorus, which still had followers in the sixth century, began on March 21, 5493 before the Christian era, while the era of Annianus began on March 25, 5492 BCE: V. Grumel, La Chronologie, Paris, 1958, pp. 86-94. 12 The ostracon was found in the excavation of a potter’s workshop in Elusa conducted by Haim Goldfus and Peter Fabian (on this excavation, see H. Goldfus and P. Fabian, “Haluza (Elusa)”, HA-ESI 111 [2000], pp. 128, 93*-94*). The ostracon was shown to me on February 9,

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 115 06-26-2007, 17:42 116 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

The era of the world was well known in sixth century Palestine: Cyril of Scythopolis employed the Alexandrian reckoning, treating it as something fa- miliar to his monastic readers.13 A parallel epigraphic usage, therefore, should not surprise us. Yet, undisputable epigraphic examples do not seem to occur in the region before the second half of the eighth century – which is consistent with the earliest attestations of the Alexandrian and Byzantine creation eras in other regions of the empire – or formerly belonging to the empire – between the late seventh and the late eighth century.14 But what about “disputable” examples? Years ago I claimed that the era of creation was already attested in Palestine in the sixth century, though the examples were difficult to spot, and in fact had not been recognized, either because the figure representing the year was abridged, or because it failed to conform to the known models – the Alexandrian, Proto-Byzantine and Byzantine eras – or because of both reasons together. I presented the case of an epitaph from Jerusalem dated “December of the first indiction, year 104”, which could be converted into December 612 according to the Alexandrian counting by the simple device of adding the thousands figure.15 The occurrence of an unidentified era of the world was il- lustrated by the dedicatory inscription of a funerary chapel at Beit Safafa, in the southern fringes of Jerusalem, dated “June of the fourteenth indiction, year 6,200”: this could be interpreted as an early occurrence of the Georgian era of the world or as a mystical era that fixed the Incarnation in 5500. The actual date would be June 596 by the former or June 701 by the latter.16 The case of a creation era both abridged and anomalous was exemplified by three epitaphs from Gaza of unmistakable sixth-century appearance, dated Daisios 14, year 33, indiction 12; Dios 7, year 39, indiction 3, and Dios 29, year 88, indiction 7. From the wording of the epitaphs, the deceased may have been members of

2004 by Dr. Scott Bucking, Research Fellow of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Re- search in Jerusalem. I wish to thank all the persons involved for permission to mention this as yet unpublished find. 13 Cyr. Scyth., Vita Euthymii 40; Vita Sabae 77, ed. E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis, Leipzig, 1939, pp. 60, 182. 14 The Byzantine era appears for the first time in graffiti of the Parthenon dated 693 and 704 AD (CIG, nos. 9350, 9352), while the Alexandrian era first appears in inscriptions from Nubia, where the earliest example is of 799 AD. See Grumel, La chronologie (above, n. 11), pp. 125- 127; C. Foss, “Three Apparent Early Examples of the Era of Creation, ZPE 31 (1978), pp. 241- 242. 15 L. Di Segni, “The Beit Safafa Inscription Reconsidered and the Question of a Local Era in Jerusalem”, IEJ 43 (1993), pp. 165-167. The inscription was first published by M. Avi-Yonah: J. Landau and M. Avi-Yonah, “Excavation of a Family Vault near Beth Safafa”, ’Alon 5-6 (1962), pp. 40-43; SEG XVI, no. 850; XX, no. 493; XXVI, no. 1672. 16 Di Segni, “The Beit Safafa Inscription”, pp. 157-168; ead., “The Date of the Beit Safafa Inscription Again”, IEJ 47 (1997), pp. 248-254. The era of 5500, the mystical basis of Julius Africanus’s calculations, could not reconcile this count to the chronology of the Passion, but Psellus attests its use in the eleventh century; it found followers in the monastic milieu as late as the twelfth century: Grumel, La chronologie (above, n. 11), pp. 122-123.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 116 06-26-2007, 17:42 L. DI SEGNI 117

a religious community or a pietist group.17 The dates can only be explained and made consistent among themselves if they are interpreted as abridged dates of the above-mentioned era with Incarnation in 5500 and with the beginning of the year backdated to September 1. This era is attested in a monastic milieu in Constantinople, in the eleventh-twelfth centuries, and the counting of the creation years in step with the indictional cycle is actually used by Cyril of Scytho- polis in mid-sixth century. Thus the dates of the epitaphs would be 8 June 534, 3 November 539 and 25 November 588, all falling in the proper indiction.18 My suggestion failed to find favour with my fellow-scholars, who were sceptical about the reality of abridged dates, all the more because embracing it, even as a working hypothesis, would have impaired the assumption that creation eras could not be attested in Palestinian inscriptions so much earlier that the occurrences observed in other regions.19 Now I wish to present my propo- sition again, strengthened, I believe, by new evidence emerged since. In 2001 the periodical Majallat Al-Athar published a short account of the excavation of a church at en-Nu’eiyima, between al-Husn and Jarash, accompanied by photos of its mosaic pavement.20 One of the photos shows a six-line Greek inscription commemorating the laying of the mosaic in the martyrium under bishop Leontius “in the year eighth of the eighth indiction.” Year and indiction are not indicated by figures but written out in full. Al-Husn was included in the territory of Bostra, but Khirbet al-Maqatiya and Darbat al-Da- riya, southwest of al-Husn, belonged either to Pella or more likely to Gerasa,21

17 In two of the three epitaphs the deceased are styled “the handmaid of Christ”, “the handmaid of Christ and the saints”; in the third the first lines are missing. First published by Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeological Researches in Palestine II, London, 1896, pp. 411-413, nos. 15-17. 18 Di Segni, “The Date” (above, n. 16), pp. 251-252. Byzantine chroniclers moved back the beginning of the year from the equinox to September 1 only in the eighth or ninth century, but the change appeared in Palestine much earlier. For its adoption by Cyril of Scythopolis, see Schwartz, Kyrillos (above, n. 13), p. 346. 19 D. Feissel, “Bulletin épigraphique”, REG 107 (1994), 595, no. 650, rejected my dating of the Jerusalem epitaph with a matter-of-fact argument: the deceased was described as a “nephew of Areobindus, one of the praetorian prefects (t¬n üpárxwn)”, and since Areobindus is listed as praefectus praetorio Orientis in 553, the epitaph had to be dated December 552, in the first indiction, according to an unknown era starting in 448/9. However, there is no proof that the Areobindus of the inscription was the PPO of 553. The name Areobindus was borne by several men in the highest ranks of the Byzantine administration and army between the fourth and the late sixth century (see J.R. Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II, Cam- bridge, 1980, pp. 143-146; III, 1992, pp. 109-110), and another Areobindus may have held the prefecture ca. 612: the Fasti of the praetorian prefects in the late sixth and early seventh century show more gaps than names. 20 N. Hasawneh, Majallat Al-Athar 4 (2001), p. 34. Father Michele Piccirillo kindly showed me the article at the Flagellation Convent in Jerusalem. The church was later excavated jointly by the Arkansas and Yarmuk universities and a photo of the inscription is posted in the site http:// www.uark.edu/campus-resources/dlevine/ChurchMosaic.html. 21 M. Piccirillo, Chiese e mosaici di Giordania, Jerusalem, 1981, p. 25, n. 30; id., L’Arabia cristiana, Milano, 2002, pp. 76, 200. The inscription of Kh. al-Maqatiya is dated by a Pompeian era of 63 BCE. This era was certainly in use in Gerasa, and probably in Pella (Meimaris, Chron.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 117 06-26-2007, 17:42 118 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

and en-Nu’eiyima, east of them and due north of Jarash, must have belonged to the territory of the latter. We should therefore expect the date to be given according to the Pompeian era of Gerasa, starting in 63 BCE, or at least according to the provincial era of Arabia, but patently neither can be applied here.22 If, however, “year eighth” is considered an abridged date, standing for “year 6008”, it would correspond to 500/1 AD by the Byzantine era, the only creation era as yet attested in Transjordan. The eighth indiction started on the first of September, 499: thus the period from March 25 to August 31, 500 fell in the eighth indiction. The palaeography of the script fits very well this date. Notably, like in the case of the Gaza epitaphs, this inscription too can be linked to a monastic community, for it mentions several men, described as géronteˇ, a term applied to the leading monks of a coenobium or to hermits. If this interpretation is correct, this is an outrageously early appearance of the Byzantine era – almost two hundred years before its first accepted attestation in graffiti of the Parthenon;23 but let us be reminded that in ZPE 1978 Foss discussed a building inscription from a church in Attica dated May 21, 6012, equivalent to May 504 AD, a date in full agreement with the archaeological evidence – though Foss concluded the discussion by rejecting it because “it would be the earliest known example of the era of creation, from a time when its use was not only unparalleled, but even highly improbable.”24 This statement should, in my opinion, be revised, but even if Foss’ criticism is justified, it cannot apply to the Nu’eiyima inscription: here the date does not lend itself to any other interpretation, nor can it be satisfactorily converted into a year of the Christian era except by complementing an omitted digit. As for the early use of the Byzantine era, this would not be the only example in Byz- antine cultural history of an innovation reaching the capital of the Empire after having been elaborated in Palestine. If no alternative explanation of the Nu’eiyima inscription can be found, we should take at least as a working hy-

Systems, p. 88, and cf. A. Stein, Studies in Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Palestinian Coin- age under the Principate, PhD Diss., Tel Aviv University, 1990, pp. 33-39). The inscription of Darbat al-Dariya is dated by the era of Arabia, but considering its location in respect to Khirbet al-Maqatiya, the site can hardly belong to the diocese of Bostra. The choice of the era may reflect the usage of the metropolis, but cannot be justified if the village belonged to the diocese of Pella, a city of Second Palestine. 22 If we consider an abridged date, for the sake of completeness we should take into account also the possibility that it was given by the era of Gerasa or by the era of Arabia, with omission of the hundreds figure; but whatever figure is added, neither era achieves the required coinci- dence of year and indiction. 23 See above, n. 14. 24 Foss, “Three Apparent” (above, n. 14), p. 243. Foss suggests that the letters forming the figure may have been misread or misinterpreted, but the alternative interpretations he offers – indiction or isopsephism – are not convincing. It must be pointed out that, if the figure is a date by a creation era, it needs not be interpreted as a Byzantine era: it may be a Proto-Byzantine era of 5509, which was elaborated much earlier, although it still lacks attestation in early inscriptions and documents.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 118 06-26-2007, 17:42 L. DI SEGNI 119

pothesis, first, that creation eras appeared in inscriptions of the Holy Land already in the sixth century; second, that they were sometimes abridged, at least in their earliest occurrences, and third, that already in this period the Alexandrian era was adopted in Western Palestine and the so-called Byzantine era – or should we perhaps change its name into Jordanian era? – in Provincia Arabia, perhaps in a monastic milieu. Another possible occurrence of an abridged creation year may be the letters TM (marked with a horizontal stroke that identifies them as numbers) on the pavement of St. Constantine at Rihab. The church is dated 623 AD by an inscription, but the figure TM, that is 340, marks repairs following iconoclastic damages.25 (6)340 by the Byzantine era corresponds to 832 AD – a very late date, but not later than the upper pavement of the Kathisma Church near Jeru- salem, which is dated between 821 and 839, if the monogrammed name Basilius prominently traced in the mosaic identifies Basilius II, patriarch of Jerusalem in these years.26 The adoption of creation eras is not the only innovation to be detected in the epigraphic usage of Greek-speakers in late-antique Palestine. Some experi- menting with relatively new eras was done: the era of Diocletian, or era of the Martyrs, was employed, albeit very sparingly;27 examples of post-consulate are attested,28 and some traces are found of an attempt, made apparently under Constantine or Constantius, to introduce a new local era in the western Negev. Here the townlet of Minois, the administrative centre of the imperial estate called Saltus Constantinianus, was elevated to episcopal see and a few sixth- century inscriptions attest a “year of the city” apparently reckoned from an epoch of 331 or 346.29 Vis-à-vis innovation, tradition shows remarkably viability on both sides of the Jordan. Several of the old eras of the Roman period continued in use long after the Muslim conquest, as a series of discoveries in recent years have dem-

25 A. al-Husan, “The New Archaeological Discoveries of the al-Fudayn and Rahab—al- Mafraq Excavation Projects, 1991-2001”, ADAJ 46 (2002), pp. 88-89 and fig. 29 (in Arabic). I wish to thank Father Piccirillo who showed me a photo with a detail of this portion of the mosaic pavement. 26 L. Di Segni, “A Greek Inscription in the Kathisma Church”, in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and D. Chrupcala, One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of Fr S. Lof- freda, Jerusalem, 2003, pp. 187-188. 27 Of the examples presented by G.E. Kirk, “The Era of Diocletian in Palestinian Inscrip- tions”, JPOS 18 (1938), pp. 161-166 and Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 314-318, only two sur- vive critical examination, one at Shivta (Kirk, p. 163-165, no. 5; Meimaris, p. 318, no. 3) and the other at ar-Resif (Muhezzek), see above, n. 4. Another era of the Tetrarchic period was inaugu- rated in 287 or 302 at Shakka (Maximianopolis), in the Hauran: see Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 321-327, nos. 3-7. 28 Only one epigraphically, at Kursi (SEG XXVI, no. 1677; XXX, no. 1697), but several in papyri: PNessana 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30. Cf. Meimaris, Chron. Systems, p. 343. 29 Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 324-325, 328-329, nos. 10-12. On Menois, see TIR, p. 183, s.v. Menois, Maon II.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 119 06-26-2007, 17:42 120 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

onstrated. In the former Provincia Arabia, the era of Bostra appears in Hauran and Transjordan in the Umayyad period, and even in the Abbasid period at Umm ar-Rasas, as was mentioned above;30 the era of Philadelphia (63 BCE) appears in the church of St. Varus at Khilda in 687 and in the “Lower Church” at Quweisme in 718/9.31 In the former Palaestinae, the era of Gadara, 64 BCE, is employed in the Mu’awiya inscription at Hammath Gader, 5 December 662;32 the era of Eleutheropolis (starting in autumn 199 rather than in January 200) is documented in an epitaph from Beersheba dated March 22, 647, in a church at Kh. Istabul, dated June 701, and in two inscriptions in a church at Yattir, dated 682 and 725 AD;33 the era of Gaza of 61 BCE appears in all the building stages of the church at Jabaliyah, the last of which is dated in year 732.34 The era of Arabia was adopted in Elusa when the Negev was still part of that province,35 and continued in use at Nessana and Shivta, villages in the territory of Elusa, well into the early Arab period.36 Based on this evidence, it is permissible to surmise that other city eras too – those at least that were still in use in the first third of the seventh century, before the Muslim conquest, like the eras of Ascalon, of Hippus and of Gerasa37 – survived as long as the cities

30 Gatier, “Les inscriptions grecques d'époque islamique” (above, n. 1), pp. 146-148; Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 295-304, to which may be added the dated churches of St Sergius at Rihab (al-Husan, ADAJ 46 [2002], p. 83) and St. Lot near Zoara (Deir ‘Ein Abata: SEG XLII, no. 1483), both of AD 691. 31 M. Piccirillo, “Le chiese di Quweismeh-Amman”, LA 34 (1984), pp. 332-333; M. Najjar and F. Sa{id, “A New Umayyad Church at Khilda/Amman”, LA 44 (1994), pp. 547-560; Piccirillo, L’Arabia cristiana (above, n. 21), pp. 229-231. 32 SEG XXX, no. 1687; XXXII, no. 1501; XLII, no. 1433. For a new discussion, see L. Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions of Hammat Gader”, in Y. Hirschfeld, The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader. Final Report, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 237-240, no. 54. 33 Beersheba: A. Alt, Die griechischen Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia westlich der ‘Araba, Berlin-Leipzig, 1921, p. 21, no. 28; Kh. Istabul and Yattir: L. Di Segni, “Christian Epigraphy in the Holy Land: New Discoveries”, ARAM 15 (2003), pp. 252-255. 34 On the church of Jabaliyah, see J.-B. Humbert et al., “Mukheitem à Jabaliyah, un site byzantin”, in J.-B. Humbert (ed.), Gaza Méditerranéenne. Histoire et archéologie en Palestine, Paris, 2000, pp. 121-126; on the inscriptions, C. Saliou, “Gaza dans l'antiquité tardive: nouveaux documents épigraphiques”, RB 107 (2000), pp. 390-411. The inscription dated 732 is no. 15, pp. 405-406. Meimaris (Chron. Systems, p. 134, no. 140) ascribes to the era of Gaza also a fragmentary inscription from Sawafir al-Gharbiye, dated Apellaios 723, that is November-De- cember 662 by this reckoning. However, Sawafir al-Gharbiye is not located southeast of Gaza as Meimaris supposed, but between Ashdod and Ascalon to the east (map ref. 122/123, and see TIR, s.v. Saphir). Year 723 must therefore be reckoned by the era of Ascalon, between December 27, 619 and January 25, 620. 35 The Negev and southern Transjordan were transferred to Palaestina under Diocletian: see Y. Tsafrir, “The Transfer of the Negev, Sinai and Southern Transjordan from Arabia to Palaestina”, IEJ 36 (1986), pp. 77-86. The era of Arabia is sometimes called “era of Elusa” or “era of the city” in inscriptions and papyri from the Negev: see for instance G.E. Kirk and C.B. Welles, ‘The Inscriptions’, in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana I, London, 1962, p. 181, no. 114; SEG XXVIII, no. 1395-1396; PNessana, 14, 55, 57. 36 Meimaris Chron. Systems, p. 295, no. 499; SEG XXXI, nos. 1427-1430, 1436-1437, 1441, 1443, 1446; PNessana, 56, 57. 37 The era of Ascalon appears on the chancel screen of a synagogue, dated 709 of the city, that is 605/6 AD (SEG VIII, no. 267), and on the inscription from Sawafir mentioned above

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 120 06-26-2007, 17:42 L. DI SEGNI 121

themselves. One of the characteristics of city eras in the sixth and early seventh century is that they shook free of the city boundaries, thus inducing a co- existence of various chronological systems in the same area. Such is the case, for instance, of the era of Gaza, widely spread outside the city territory, in the western and central Negev,38 and of the era of Eleutheropolis, properly belonging to southern Judaea, the so-called Daroma, but better represented in the Negev.39 In the area of Beersheba, that was part of Third Palestine and thus included in the territory of Elusa, the three eras, of Gaza, of Eleutheropolis and of Elusa were almost equally popular.40 The era of Ascalon is used at least once in Hebron, in the very heart of the Daroma, the territory of Eleuthe- ropolis.41 The era of a metropolis sometimes intrudes in the territory of any city of the province, even if the city had its own era: this is the case of the territory of Ptolemais, where both the era of Tyre and the era of Ptolemais appeared in the fifth century.42 Likewise, the era of Bostra was applied in the inscription of Darbat al-Dariya, although it seemingly belonged to the territory of Gerasa.43 Another novelty that appears in the Greek inscriptions of late-antique Pales- tine is the era of the Hegira. Only a single case was known until now, at Hammath Gader, where it accompanied the era of Gadara in the Mu’awiya inscription.44 This seems natural enough when we observe that, in spite of the

(n. 34), dated 619/20; the era of Hippus in a mosaic pavement at Khisfin, dated July 667 of the city or July 604 (SEG XXVI, no. 1676). The latest inscription dated by the era of Gerasa is a mosaic pavement bearing the date 1 September 611 (C.B. Welles, ‘The Inscriptions', in C.H. Kraeling, Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, New Haven, 1938, pp. 486-487, no. 335). 38 Cf. Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 118-133; PNessana, 45. In his comment of this papyrus the editor maintained that the document was not drawn up in Nessana or in its vicinity, precisely because the era of Gaza was used instead of the era of Elusa (era of Arabia; but in the light of our present knowledge the argument is no longer cogent. 39 The era of Eleutheropolis appears at Kh. Istabul and Yattir (see above, n. 33), at Ruhama in the southern Shephelah (B. Lifshitz, “Inscriptions de Sinaï et de Palestine”, ZPE 7 [1971], pp. 61-62, no. 20), at Beersheba in the northern Negev (Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 305-313; SEG XLVI, no. 1813) and even at Shivta in the central Negev: the inscription from Shivta dated “Indiction 3, Hyperberetaios 13, year 400” (SEG XXXI, no. 1453) must be converted according to the era of Eleutheropolis rather than the era of Arabia, to September 599: see L. Di Segni, Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods, PhD. Diss. (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 814-817. 40 Di Segni, Dated Greek Inscriptions, p. 52, Tb. V. 41 SEG XXXIX, no. 1625. 42 Two churches, one at ‘Evron, the other at Shave Zion, both in the territory of Ptolemais, have inscriptions dated, in the former, by the era of Ptolemais, in the latter, by the era of Tyre: SEG XXXVII, nos. 1509B, 1512, 1514, 1516, 1617; cf. Meimaris, Chron. Systems, pp. 65, no. 7; 138-139, nos. 1-3). It has been suggested that the era of Ptolemais is employed also in the inscriptions of Horvat Hesheq and Carmiel (Kh. Bata) (Meimaris, Chron. Systems, p. 139, nos. 4- 5; SEG XL, no. 1444; XLII, no. 1456), but since both sites were within the boundaries of Second Palestine, I prefer to interpret the figures as dates of the era of Scythopolis, the capital of the province (Di Segni, Dated Greek Inscriptions, pp. 322-324, 331-333). The era of Scythopolis was employed also in a church inscription at ‘Arrabe, which probably belonged to the territory of Sepphoris: SEG XXXVII, no. 1468, Di Segni, ibidem, pp. 349-351. 43 Mentioned by Piccirillo, L’Arabia Cristiana, p. 200: see above, n. 21. 44 See above, n. 32.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 121 06-26-2007, 17:42 122 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

opening cross, this was in fact an official text, modelled on the pattern of building inscriptions in Arabic set up by the Muslim administration.45 Chris- tian inscriptions in Greek dated by a year of the Hegira are rare but not unknown: however, in all the known cases the dating formula is in Arabic or in Syriac, never in Greek; in other words, they are bilingual inscriptions.46 Now the Hegira is recognized for the first time in Greek in a Christian context. A four-line inscription on the mosaic pavement of a church at Tamra in Lower Galilee commemorates the laying of a new pavement, which covered an earlier one. The inscription was set at the eastern end the mosaic carpet of the nave, in front of the bema, and all its left-hand side is lost. Luckily, most of the date has survived, except for the day and part of the month: month of June (?), in the eighth indiction, year one hundred and seven. The numbers are written in full and therefore certain. The only way to harmonize the year and the indiction is by counting the years from the Hegira. Year 107 of the Hegira started on May 19, 725; the eighth indiction fell in 724/5. Year and indiction agree from May 19 to August 31, 725.47 Given the novelty of the era, at least in Christian expressions and in Greek, one would have expected a word of explanation, perhaps the addition kat' ‰Arabaˇ to the word ∂touˇ, like at Hammath Gader, but evidently whoever dictated the inscription felt no obliga- tion to enlighten the public that was exposed to it, just like the producers of the abridged dates of creation felt no need to signal their intention. One last novelty, still pertaining to late-antique Palestine, though not to Christian Palestine. Jews rarely dated their inscriptions. When they did, if they wrote in Greek they used the dates current in the place where they resided: for instance, an inscription in the synagogue of Gaza is dated by the era of Gaza, another, on a chancel screen from Ascalon, bears a date by the era of Ascalon, and Jewish epitaphs in Greek from Zoar are dated according to the era of Ara-

45 Besides the fact that some terms in the Mu’awiya inscription are simply transliterated from Arabic, the mention of two authorities, the caliph and the amir, is frequent in official building inscriptions of the early Arab period in this region: see for instance CIAP I, pp. 103-106 (Afiq 1, 692 AD), 144-146 (Ascalon 1, 771/2); II, pp. 216 (Beth Shean 2, 753 AD), 275 (Caesarea 8, 878- 883 AD). 46 A lamp with Greek inscription is dated by means of an additional inscription in Arabic impressed on it: the date is 211 of the Hegira, i.e. 826 AD. S. Loffreda, Lucerne bizantine in Terra Santa con iscrizioni in greco, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 35, Jerusalem, 1989, p. 187. A few lamps of the type often impressed with Greek formulas bear Kufic inscriptions with dates in the second and third century of the Hegira (eighth and ninth centuries): the earliest Hegira year corresponds to AD 723 (ibidem, pp. 187-188). Gatier, “Les inscriptions grecques d'époque islamique” (above, n. 1), p. 149, mentions a Greek-Syriac bilingual dated in year 96 of the Hegira, 714/5 AD, from the southern Beqa’ – outside the geographical boundaries discussed here, but still indicative of a regional habit. 47 The new pavement had a geometrical pattern and covered an earlier one, decorated with birds. Given the date of the inscription one wonders if the new pavement was laid in order to hide the mosaic with the birds, following the edict of Yazid II and the iconophobic wave triggered by it.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 122 06-26-2007, 17:42 L. DI SEGNI 123

bia.48 When writing in Hebrew or in Aramaic, Jews used three different chronological systems, the commonest being the epoch of the Destruction of the Temple (Hurban ha-bayt), attested in many epitaphs from the cemetery of Zoar, in the synagogue of Nabratein in Galilee, as well as in the Mishnah and in documents from the fifth to the eleventh century. Dates of this era were often accompanied by the mention of the corresponding year of the sabbatical cycle.49 A dating by regnal years of Emperor Justinus, probably the first, appears in the synagogue of Beth Alpha,50 and an inscription in the synagogue of Susiya in southern Judaea bears a date of the creation, according to the Jewish counting.51 The latter, though known to the sages, who made use of it since the fourth century in order to calculate the coming of the messianic age, did not become current until the ninth century.52 It must be stressed that the two typi- cally Jewish systems (the hurban and the Jewish creation era) had never appeared in Greek— until now.53 An arch, probably framing the aron haqodesh in the first building stage of a synagogue recently excavated at Deir Aziz in the Golan, was found dismantled and broken in several pieces, each preserving fragments of a Greek inscription mentioning the donors and invoking a bless-

48 For the chancel-screen, see L. Roth-Gerson, The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem, 1987 (Hebrew), p. 25, no. 3 = CIJ II, no. 964; for the synagogue of Gaza: Roth-Gerson, ibidem, pp. 91-97, no. 21 = SEG XXVIII, no. 1407. For the epitaphs from Zoar (Ghor es-Safi), see SEG VIII, no. 334 (Sartre, IGLJ 4, no. 106, rejects the reading ˆIoudéou; but even so, the stone bears no Christian symbols and the deceased must have been either a pagan or a Jew. The latter is more likely, given the character of the necropolis of Ghor es-Safi); H.M. Cotton and J. Price, “A Bilingual Tombstone from Zo'ar (Arabia)”, ZPE 134 (2001), pp. 277-283. 49 For a list of the epitaphs from Zoar dated by this system, see Cotton and Price, “A Bilin- gual” (above, n. 48), p. 277, n. 3 and table at p. 283. For the Nabratein inscription, see J. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, Tel Aviv, 1978 (Hebrew), pp. 31-33, no. 13 = CIJ II, no. 977. See also S. Stern, Calendar and Continuity. A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCE- Tenth Century CE, Oxford, 2001, pp. 88-89. 50 Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, pp. 72-74, no. 43 = CIJ II, no. 1165. 51 Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, pp. 116-118, no. 76. The synagogue was in use from the fourth to the eighth century, but the inscription may belong to one of the late stages of the synagogue, possibly after the Muslim conquest: Z. Yeivin, “Susiya, Khirbet. The Synagogue”, New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land IV, Jerusalem, 1993, pp. 1417- 1421. 52 B.-Z. Wacholder, “Sephirah”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol 26, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1974 (Hebrew), pp. 233-236; O. Irshai, “Dating the Eschaton: Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Cal- culations in Late Antiquity”, in A. Baumgarten (ed.), Apocalyptic Time, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2000, pp. 113-153. 53 Admittedly, Dan Barag suggested to apply the hurban era to a Jewish inscription, probably from a synagogue, found at Biniyamina, between Dora and Caesarea, which I dated by the era of Dora (D. Barag, “The Dated Jewish Inscription from Binyamina Reconsidered”, ‘Atiqot 25 (1994), pp. 179-181; L. Di Segni, “A Jewish Greek Inscription from the Vicinity of Caesarea Maritima”, ‘Atiqot 22 (1993), pp. 133-136; ead., “The Date of the Binyamina Inscription and the Question of Byzantine Dora”, ‘Atiqot 25 (1994), pp. 183-186). I did not find his proposal convincing, for the very reason that this era was not attested in Greek, and in its Aramaic and He- brew occurrences it was always specified. Later, William Horbury (“A Proselyte's Heis Theos Inscription near Caesarea”, PEQ 129 [1997], pp. 133-137) maintained that the inscription was not dated and suggested a different reading – in my opinion with unconvincing arguments.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 123 06-26-2007, 17:42 124 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

ing upon them. One of the fragments shows very clearly the letters qoppa and sigma. Unfortunately the surface of the stone is badly chipped on either side, so that it is impossible to restore the whole dating formula, and perhaps even the whole figure: it may be 290 or any number up to 299, if the digit of the units is lost. This can only be a date.54 Since the synagogue cannot possibly be earlier than the fourth century, on both historical and stylistic grounds, 290 cannot fit the local era – the era of Hippus of 64 BCE – or any other era of the vicinity;55 neither can it represent a date by the era of Arabia, as the figures are in ascending order.56 The only possible explanation is that the date was given according to a Jewish chronological system. The only one in use at the time was the era of the destruction of the Temple. Presumably the figure was pre- ceded by ∂touˇ and followed by a Greek equivalent of the Hebrew formula lahurban.57 Year 290, counted from Tishrì 69, the probable epoch of this era, corresponds to AD 358/9 – or to any date up to 367/8 (299 of the era). The palaeography of the surviving part of the inscription and the style of the frieze that adorn the arch fit very well a date in the second half of the fourth century. Greek was apparently on the ebb in late-antique Palestine, fighting a loosing war against Aramaic and Arabic.58 Even at this stage, however, it still shows

54 Since this was obviously a dedicatory inscription, the figure can only represent its date or the amount of money donated, or the cost of the building. But since Constantine’s reform, sub- stantial sums were counted in golden coins (solidi) and no donor, unless he was a public figure, could have managed to give 290 solidi, the equivalent of almost fifty yearly salaries of a skilled worker (at a rate of one keration a day, and considering about 300 working day a year: cf. Barsanuphius, Responsiones, 627, ed. S.N. Schoinas, Volos, 1960, p. 300). As to building costs, 170 solidi were required to purchase and furnish an hostelry in Jerusalem; a pound of gold (72 solidi) sufficed to build a church and a bakery for the Nea Laura in the Judaean desert; with 100 solidi Theodosius built a hostelry near his hermit cave and began building his coenobium; 1000 solidi were deemed adequate to erect a fort in the desert (Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 31, 36, 73; Vita Theodosii 3; ed. Schwartz, Kyrillos (above, n. 13), pp. 116, 123, 178, 238. 55 In all likelihood Deir Aziz (map ref. 217/252) was located in the territory of Hippus, like the nearby Khisfin and el-Al, where inscriptions dated by the era of Hippus were found H. Seyrig, Antiquités syriennes IV, Paris, 1953, p. 142, no. 45 (= Syria 27 [1950], p. 247, no. 7); SEG XXVI, no. 1676, Meimaris, Chron. Systems, p. 77, nos. 2-3; cf. TIR, pp. 60, 103, s. vv. el ‘Al; Chaspin). The Golan Heights to the north were included in the territory of Caesarea Philippi-Paneas, whose era – 2 BCE or perhaps autumn 3 BCE – also gives a date too early for the synagogue: in fact, the excavators assigned it a date in the sixth century, based on coins found under the pavement (Z. Ma’oz and H. Ben-David, “Deir ‘Aziz 2000-2001”, HA-ESI 115 [2003], pp. 11-15 (Hebrew); 10*-12*; now this appears to be the date of the second or third stage of building). Bethsaida-Iulias is not far from Deir Aziz, but probably it was never a city, and even if it was, its refoundation as Iulias must be dated before 2 BCE (E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. English version revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black and Martin Goodman, II, Edinburgh, 1979, pp. 171-172). 56 Besides, the border of Arabia is at least 20 km east of Deir Aziz. 57 Perhaps t±ˇ êrjmíaˇ (cf. Jos., Bell. VI, 288, 296) or t±ˇ êrjmÉsewˇ (cf. Luke 21: 20). If there was an idiomatic expression in Greek, corresponding to the Hebrew lahurban or lehurban ha-bayt, I have been unable to discover it. The term hurban does not appear in the Scripture. 58 D. Wasserstein, “Why Did Arabic Succeed where Greek Failed? Language Change in the Near East after Muhammad” SCI 22 (2003), pp. 257-272; R. Hoyland, “Language and Identity: The Twin Histories of Arabic and Aramaic (and: Why Did Arabic Succeed where Greek

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 124 06-26-2007, 17:42 L. DI SEGNI 125

great viability and the ability to lead innovations that would spread far afield. As we have just seen, Jews and Muslims as well as Christians gave their con- tributions to the Greek-speaking and Greek-writing culture of the Holy Land in the sixth-eighth centuries.

ABBREVIATIONS

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan CIAP M. Sharon, Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, I-II, Leiden-Bos- ton-Köln, 1997, 1999 CIG A. Boeck, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1828-1877 CIJ J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, Rome, 1936-1952 Gatier, IGLJ 2 P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Inscriptions de la Jordanie, Tome 2, Région centrale, Paris, 1986 HA-ESI Hadashot Arkheologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel IEJ Israel Exploration Journal LA Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus Meimaris, Chron. Systems Y.E. Meimaris in collaboration with K. Kritikakou and P. Bougia, Chrono- logical Systems in Roman-Byzantine Palestine and Arabia, Athens, 1992 PA R.E. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia, Strassburg, 1904-1909 PAES III A E. Littmann, D. Magie, D.R. Stuart, Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904-5 and 1909, Division III, Sec- tion A: Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Southern Syria, Leiden, 1916-1921 PEF Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PNessana H. Dunscombe Colt, Excavations at Nessana, III: C. J. Kraemer, Non-Liter- ary Papyri, Princeton, N.J., 1958 RB Revue Biblique RAO Recueil d' Archéologie Orientale REG Revue des Études Grecques Sartre, IGLJ 4 M. Sartre, Inscriptions de la Jordanie, Tome 4, Pétra et la Nabatène méridionale, Paris, 1993 SCI Scripta Classica Israelica, Israel Society for the Promotion of Classical Studies, Jerusalem TIR Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani. Judaea- Palaestina, Jerusalem, 1994

Failed?)”, SCI 23 (2004), pp. 183-199; L. Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions in Transition from the Byzantine to the Early Islamic Period”, in H.M. Cotton, J.J. Price and D.J. Wasserstein (eds.), From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East (based on papers delivered at a conference held at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem 30 June- 3 July 2003), forthcoming.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 125 06-26-2007, 17:42 126 THE USE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN 6th-8th CENTURIES PALESTINE

Waddington W.H. Waddington and P. Le Bas, Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions et explications II, Paris, 1870 ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

06-8819_Aram 18-19_06_Segni 126 06-26-2007, 17:42