The Early Byzantine Christian Church

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

Vol. 9

Edited by
Andrew Louth and David Ricks

PETER LANG
Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien
 Bernard Mulholland

The Early Byzantine

Christian Church
An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early
Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations Primarily in Israel
and Jordan, and their Historical and Liturgical Context

PETER LANG
Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National­biblio­
grafie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2013957110

ISSN 1661-1187
ISBN 978-3-0343-1709-2 (print)
ISBN 978-3-0353-0581-4 (eBook)

© Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2014

Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
info@peterlang.com, www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net

All rights reserved.

All parts of this publication are protected by copyright.
Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the
permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution.
This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming,
and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.

This publication has been peer reviewed.

Printed in Germany
 Sixty years after the death of  St. Patrick, Columcille uncovered Patrick’s
tomb, and placed the Saint’s relics in a shrine. Patrick’s tomb was also
found to contain three reliquaries containing the Saint’s cup, the Gospel of 
the Angel, and the ‘Bell of  the Will.’ Columcille distributed the cup to Co.
Down, the Bell to Co. Armagh, and he kept the Gospel for himself. Later
these three holy relics were each given over to the protection of  hereditary
‘keepers.’ The Mulholland sept (with some assistance from the Mallons)
are the hereditary keepers of  the Bell of  St. Patrick, otherwise known as the
‘Bell of  the Will.’  *

Later, in A.D. 1091–1105 a new shrine was crafted for the Bell of  the Will
with a name inscribed upon each of its four sides: Domhnall O’Lachlainn,
King of  Ireland (died A.D. 1121); Domnhall, heir to the abbacy of  St.
Patrick; keeper Chatholan O’Maelchallon (Mulholland); and also artificer
Cudulig O’Immainen of  Co. Cork who crafted the reliquary. Today this
shrine of  the Bell of  St. Patrick resides in the National Museum of  Ireland.

It has been a rare privilege for me to research the Early Byzantine

Christian Church at a time which coincides with the origin myth of 
the Mulholland sept.

This book is dedicated to the Mulholland sept, and to their friends

and allies.

* Milligan (1903), 46–57.

Contents

List of  tables ix

List of  figures xi

Summary xiii

Acknowledgements xv

Chapter 1
Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches 1

Chapter 2
Methodology 13

Chapter 3
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 43

Chapter 4
A second focus of  liturgical activity 79

Chapter 5
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 109

Chapter 6
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes in
Early Byzantine basilical churches? 139
viii

Chapter 7
Conclusion 177

Chapter 8
Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’ 185

Bibliography 195

Index 225
List of  tables

Table 2.1. List of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites, arranged
geographically and with primary sources 36
Table 2.2. Abandonment processes: Constantinopolitan church plan 38
Table 2.3. Abandonment processes: Syrian church plan 39
Table 2.4. Abandonment processes: Roman church plan 40
Table 2.5. Abandonment processes: indeterminate church plans 41
Table 3.1. Constantinopolitan church plan: apsidal plan and
configuration of  the sanctuary 71
Table 3.2. Constantinopolitan churches: side chapel, ambo,
synthronon and bishop’s seat 71
Table 3.3. Syrian church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the
sanctuary 72
Table 3.4. Syrian churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and
bishop’s seat 73
Table 3.5. Single-aisled Syrian churches with south chapels
associated with Syrian plan: south chapel, ambo,
synthronon and bishop’s seat 74
Table 3.6. Roman church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of 
the sanctuary 75
Table 3.7. Roman churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and
bishop’s seat 76
Table 4.1. Diakonikon inscriptions 103
Table 4.2. Constantinopolitan church plans 104
Table 4.3. Syrian church plans 104
x List of tables

Table 4.4. Roman church plans 107

Table 5.1. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Syrian church plans 130
Table 5.2. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Roman church plans 133
Table 5.3. Imported pottery (Grey Ware or Constantinopolitan
Ware, PRSW, ARSW, CRSW & Coptic RSW. Also Gaza
& bag jars are included for Nicopolis ad Istrum) 138
Table 6.1. Constantinopolitan church plans 163
Table 6.2. Syrian church plans 163
Table 6.3. Roman church plans 167
Table 6.4. Indeterminate church plans 171
Table 6.5. Images: Syrian church plans 173
Table 6.6. Images: Roman church plans 174
Table 6.7. Images: indeterminate church plans 175
List of  figures

Figure 2.1. Typical layout of  Early Byzantine monoapsidal basilical

church, with common terms used in the text 34
Figure 2.2. Apsidal variation 35
Figure 3.1. Three church plans evident in the catalogue of sites 45
Figure 4.1. Second focus of  liturgical activity located in side chapels 80
Figure 4.2. Location of diakonikon, and also the second focus of 
liturgical activity in side chapels 92
Figure 8.1. Roman church plan and diakonikon, with a ‘step-wise’
hierarchal structure 194
Summary

In this book the object of study is institutional behaviour in the Early

Byzantine Church in which ritualised activities occur with great frequency.
The aim of  the book was to examine a large sample of church sites to deter-
mine whether there might be evidence for repeated patterns of artefactual
deposition in the archaeological record that could provide evidence for
some of  these activities. Chapter 2 establishes the method used, why arte-
factual evidence is restricted to those artefacts associated with the site when
it functioned as a church, and re-arranged into their original context and
stratigraphy to allow like-for-like comparative analysis across sites with a
similar church plan.
The church sites were limited to the three most common basilical
forms. However in Chapter 3 it is observed that evidence from post holes
for the altar table and chancel screen posts, together with whole or frag-
mentary liturgical furniture, indicated that there are two distinct internal
layouts that can af fect artefactual deposition, i.e. a Π-shaped sanctuary in
front of  the apse, and also a T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary that extends
across each of  the side aisles. This observation led to three new groups of
church sites: Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman. Detailed analysis
of each group revealed further characteristics associated with each group.
The same evidence identified a second focus of  liturgical activity located
in side chapels which is examined in Chapter 4, and further evidence from
five inscriptions indicates that these side chapels functioned as diakonika.
The appearance of relatively large quantities of domestic artefacts,
including amphorae, is examined in detail in Chapter 5 and in the next
chapter the archaeological evidence is scrutinised for any evidence that
the sexes were segregated in the Early Byzantine Church. The evidence
is summarised in Chapter 7, and further avenues of research discussed in
the last chapter.
Acknowledgements

Any work of  this magnitude and complexity has some input from many
sources. I should like to thank those who have read the contents and com-
mented upon them. These include Professor Gabriel Cooney, Dr. Ken
Dark, Dr. Mark Gardiner, Dr. Helen Gittos, Professor Stephen Hill, Dr.
Mark Jackson, Dr. Luke Lavan, Professor Margaret Mullett, Dr. Dion
Smythe, and especially Professor Theresa Urbainczyk. I would also like
to thank Dr. Eliya Ribak and Dr. Ellen Swift who read and commented
upon extracts. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Professor
Andrew Poulter, who made excavation data available to me from the site
at Nicopolis ad Istrum.
Byzantine Studies is a very complex area of research, and I have also
learnt a great deal from fellow members of  the Society for the Promotion
of  Byzantine Studies (SPBS), and I should particularly like to thank both
Antony Eastmond and Kathleen Maxwell for keeping me informed of 
SPBS/BSANA activities. The same must apply to those who attended
the Institute of  Byzantine Studies at the Queen’s University in Belfast,
either as lecturers or students, particularly Professor Jim Crow, Dr. Robert
Jordan and Dr. Dirk Krausmuller. I received invaluable feedback to papers
from those who attended the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 Oxford Byzantine
Society postgraduate conferences, the 2007 and 2008 ‘Sailing to Byzantium’
Postgraduate Forum in Byzantine Studies at the Centre for Medieval
and Renaissance Studies at Trinity College in Dublin, the 41st Spring
Symposium of  Byzantine Studies 4th–6th April 2008 in the School of 
History, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh, and the
2005 and 2007 AHRB Centre for Byzantine Cultural History Graduate
Day at the Institute of  Byzantine Studies at Queen’s University in Belfast.
I also had the great pleasure of working in Israel with Ken Dark on the
Nazareth Project 2009 and with Luke Lavan on the Berlin-Kent Ostia 2010
and 2011 missions in Italy. These periods of  fieldwork proved valuable in
refining my thoughts in relation to this book.
xvi Acknowledgements

Professor Marie-Therese Flanagan, Professor Peter Gray, Professor

David Hayton and Dr. Anthony Hirst have provided invaluable assistance
for which I am grateful. I would also like to thank all the librarians at
Queen’s University, and particularly Florence Gray from the interlibrary
loan section who has been indispensable. I owe a great debt to the secre-
taries at the Institute of  Byzantine Studies at Queen’s University, Belfast
including Valerie Miller, Shema Mondal, and Joanne Robinson. However
special thanks must go to Marie George and Angelina Rotchford who were
of immense help to me. At the School of  History and Anthropology I must
thank Catherine Boone and Frances Mercer. Lastly, I benefited enormously
from grants provided by the DHFETE and DEL, which helped to fund
my postgraduate research.
On a personal note, I would also like to thank the staf f of  Portadown
library and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) for keep-
ing the light of intellectual inquiry burning. In the same vein I would also
like to thank Ken Twyble, Brendan McStravick and family, Sean and Jean
McConville, Alf  O’Muiri and his wife and family, Pat McFlynn and his
wife, and many others who were very supportive over the years.
Chapter 1

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

Our knowledge of any past civilization is based on records, be they written or monu-
mental […] To the extent that written records become inadequate, monumental or
archaeological evidence gains in importance. In this scheme of  things the position of 
the Byzantine Empire is rather peculiar. At first glance, the volume of written material
it has bequeathed to us appears very considerable. But then what is the nature of  this
material? […] these texts have a strange opaque quality; and the more elegant their
diction, the more opaque they become […] They give us the external husk of public
events; and we look in vain for the underlying realities of  life […] For the historian
of  Byzantine civilization the limitations of  this written material have serious impli-
cations. The only means of overcoming them lies, I believe, in the study of material
remains, in other words archaeology. Alas, very little has been done in this respect.1

There has actually been a substantial amount of archaeological research

relating to Byzantine sites, but as Cyril Mango observes archaeologists still
have to overcome many of  the limitations of  the written record.2 Much of 
this archaeological research has been directed at topographical surveys or
individual site excavations, but there has also been some systematic archi-
tectural and structural analysis of early Byzantine church sites in respect
of  liturgy.

1 See Mango (1980), 6–7.

2 The term ‘Byzantine’ is commonly used to refer to the eastern Roman Empire from
the time of emperor Constantine through to the sack of  Constantinople (Istanbul)
in A.D. 1453. Mango states that the Early Byzantine period began in A.D. 324 with
the founding of  the ‘New Rome’ of  Constantinople, and continued until the mid-
seventh century. However my own catalogue of sites extends slightly further past
the eighth century, and it includes some Italian sites. For an introduction to the
subject see Haldon (2000), Angold (2002), or Mango (1980). Also Solovey (1970),
67–76.
2 Chapter 1

This book is in part a response to Mango’s challenge to archaeolo-

gists. I argue that much more can be gleaned from the available evidence
in published archaeological reports than has previously been assumed.3 I
also think that careful examination of data relating to artefacts reveals more
information about what activities took place in Early Byzantine basilical
churches than has previously been noted.
This research is prompted by the appearance of anomalous domestic
artefacts in some Early Byzantine churches. The cave church at the monas-
tic site of  Khirbet ed-Deir was thought to be abandoned after a second
roof collapse caused by an earthquake.4 This church contained 50% of  the
amphorae recovered at the monastery, 33% of  the cooking pots, 25% of  the
jugs, 60% of  the basins, 50% of  the Fine Byzantine Ware bowls, and 100% of 
the Late Roman Red Ware bowls and lids. When the earthquake occurred
this site still functioned as a church and liturgical furniture, including the
altar table, was sealed beneath the debris of  the roof collapse as well. The
paradox here is that this monastery had a large refectory or dining hall
that functioned right up until the earthquake that led to the site being
abandoned. The only post-abandonment activity in the archaeological
record was an occasional campfire set by nomads.5 At the North Church
in Rehovot-in-the-Negev, which is described as a ‘pilgrim church,’ there is
also domestic pottery recovered in the church, and yet there is also thought
to be a refectory in the long room along the south side of  the atrium.6 No
satisfactory explanation is provided to explain the presence of domestic pot-
tery in either church when there was a functioning refectory at both sites.

3 In this I favour Miljenko Jurković’s approach. Jurković argues that: ‘After all, one of 
the most intriguing aspects of research, apart from excavations, is the reevaluation of
existing documentation. This sometimes rather tedious job becomes, in this case, real
detective work. Searches for documents scattered in several countries, in countless
archives, and in several languages, turns into a fascinating inquiry into the nature
of past research, one that leads to a new understanding of  the monument itself.’ See
Jurković (2001), 8.
4 See Hirschfeld (1999), 45 and 49. Also Hirschfeld (1993), 244–259, and Hirschfeld
and Birger (1986), 276–284.
5 See Hirschfeld (1999), 7, but particularly 155.
6 See Tsafrir (1988), 22. Also Tsafrir (1993), 294–302.
Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches 3

These sites appear unusual, but are they? Are these isolated cases, or
are there repeated patterns of artefactual deposition at other church sites
which could suggest that this deposition of domestic pottery is a common
occurrence, and perhaps symptomatic of institutional behaviour in Early
Byzantine basilical churches? What possible reason could there be for large
quantities of domestic pottery in a functioning church?
Institutional behaviour can be exhibited through three types of pos-
sible ritualised activity in Early Byzantine basilical churches: (i) liturgical,
(ii) paraliturgical, and (iii) non-liturgical. Could these activities account
for repeated patterns of deposition of domestic pottery in Early Byzantine
basilical churches?
(i) Liturgical activity. The most common institutionalised behaviour
associated with churches is celebration of  the liturgy in a church sanctu-
ary by the church hierarchy (deacons, priests and bishops). The church
sanctuary is commonly an area in front of and including the apse, which
is demarcated and defined by a chancel barrier. An integral component
of  this liturgical activity is the preparation of  the elements of  bread and
wine in the rite of prothesis (rituals of preparation and oblation). There is
some uncertainty as to where the rite of prothesis took place, and this is
discussed further in the next section. However, if  the rite of prothesis took
place somewhere other than the main altar then it would require a separate
altar, and it is at least possible that if  the area of  the sanctuary in basilical
churches can be identified using whole or fragmentary altar tables and
chancel screens, and also post holes for altar table legs and chancel posts,
then the same evidence might also be used to identify the sanctified place
where the rite of prothesis took place. There is a third location that might
play an ancillary role in the performance of  the liturgy, i.e. the diakonikon
(the ‘house of  the deacons).7
(ii) Paraliturgical activity. Prior to the celebration of  the liturgy the
congregation brought gifts to the church. Among these were gifts of  bread
and wine from which a portion was selected for use in the rite of prothesis.

7 The definition of  the diakonikon as the ‘house of  the deacons’ appears in the
Introduction to the first book in Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, footnote 13.
4 Chapter 1

There is some uncertainty as to where these gifts were deposited, or where

the rite of prothesis took place during the Early Byzantine period. In this
thesis this activity is considered to be ‘paraliturgical activity’ in that it is a
necessary precursor to liturgical performance.
In a detailed analysis of  Ordo Romanus I, Thomas Mathews argued that
in Rome the laity simply brought gifts of wine and bread up to the chancel
barrier.8 From these the clergy selected what was required for the liturgy
and transferred these directly to the altar table. John F. Romano argues
instead that the gifts were placed on altaria (i.e. tables located in the aisles
to either side of  the main altar) and elite men and women would transfer
the gifts of  bread and wine from these altaria to the of ficiating clergy (in
this case the pope and archdeacon).9 During the liturgy Romano thinks
the wine was received in amulae (the capacity of an ama is 8.73 litres and
too large to be carried by an individual) and the wine was then transferred
to the chalice as part of  the preparation, and then poured into a scif fus
(a large vessel) used to give the wine to the clergy and faithful.10 He also
thinks that water might have been added to the wine from a vessel called a
fons. Even though the transfer of a portion of  the gifts straight to the altar
table appears crude and devoid of ritual, this explanation might account for
the presence of domestic pottery near to the chancel barrier surrounding
the church sanctuary. These paraliturgical activities precede the liturgical
performance in the church sanctuary and involve the transport, storage
and distribution of wine and bread inside the church.
Mathews also argued that men and women were segregated in church,
i.e. women in the left aisle and men in the right aisle, when facing the
apse.11 If  this segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine churches can

8 The emperor Justinian I reconquered much of  the Western Roman Empire, and so
the inclusion of sites and liturgies from this region is justified at this time. Mathews
(1962), 73–95, and Mathews (1971), 156. Also Haldon (2000), 22–32, and map 1.
Ordo Romanus I was produced under pope Sergius I (A.D. 687–701). For a detailed
analysis see the recent Ph.D. thesis by Romano (2007).
9 Romano (2007), 286.
10 Romano (2007), 288.
11 Mathews (1962), figure 1.
Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches 5

be confirmed from archaeological evidence, then patterns of artefactual

deposition can be cross-referenced to determine whether there is any cor-
relation with either sex.
There is another view held by J.W. Crowfoot.12 When analysing church
sites in Gerasa, Crowfoot argues that the location and function of  the
diakonikon changes over time. First, he notes that the modern usage of 
the term ‘diakonikon’ is ‘now generally applied to a sacristy at the east end
of  the church where lamps and other properties are kept.’13 However, he
observes that the ‘Diakonikon of  the Testamentum is dif ferent both in place
and function.’ Furthermore he states that ‘in the time of  the Testamentum
it seems that the Diakonikon served also as a Prothesis chapel’ where the
elements (the bread and wine) were prepared in the rite of prothesis before
being transferred to the church sanctuary in a procession.14 He observes that
at Gerasa: ‘All the chapels occupy the position in the church complex indi-
cated in the Testamentum, and in position and appointments they are fitted
to serve as a sort of  Prothesis,’ i.e. they have a chancel rail and a sanctuary
one step higher than the nave, and in some of  the sanctuaries ‘there were
traces of a table corresponding to the altar in a church.’15 However of criti-
cal importance is that during the Early Byzantine period Crowfoot argues
that the rite of prothesis takes place in the diakonikon, which he observes
is located in a side chapel, which is a separate building from the church.
Of particular interest here is Crowfoot’s observation that the Propylaea
Church at Gerasa has a ‘small circular chamber on the north side of  the
atrium which is described in a mosaic inscription on the f loor as the
diaconia,’ and the inscription is dated to A.D. 565. Crowfoot speculates
that it might have functioned either as a place of commemoration or ‘a

12 See the section on ‘The diakonikon.’ Crowfoot (1938), 177–179.

13 If  Crowfoot is correct then the function of  the diakonikon evolves through time,
and the location of  the diakonikon changes so that by the Middle Byzantine period
the diakonikon is located in one of  the apsidal chambers (where they exist) but no
longer hosts the rite of prothesis which by then is conducted in the other apsidal
chamber. See Crowfoot (1938), 177.
14 Crowfoot (1938), 177.
15 Crowfoot (1938), 177.
6 Chapter 1

Diakonikon of another type.’16 This circular chamber is identical in plan

and dimension to the circular chamber to the northeast of the Hagia Sophia
in Constantinople, and has a similar location, i.e. aligned to the north of 
the church.17 This similarity raises the question as to whether the circular
chamber at the Hagia Sophia might also have served as a ‘diaconia’ or a
form of diakonikon during the sixth century?
Mathews has analysed the ‘Byzantine rite’ in the context of  Early
Byzantine church architecture in Constantinople.18 At the Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople (Istanbul) he argued that in the fourth century the circular
chamber to the northeast is the skeuophylakion referred to in earlier texts
where the sacred vessels were kept. The circular chamber or skeuophylak-
ion was also the starting point for the ‘Entrance of  the Mysteries,’ i.e. ‘the
place where the bread and wine for the Eucharist were prepared’ in the
rite of prothesis.19 Mathews argued that the clergy transferred the bread
and wine for the liturgy from the skeuophylakion to the sanctuary of  the
church in the ‘Entrance of  the Mysteries,’ and at the close of  the liturgical
service the ‘f labella, patens, chalices, and other sacred vessels [are returned]
to the skeuophylakion.’20 Mathews relies heavily upon critical analysis of 

16 Crowfoot (1938), 178, and footnote 11.

17 For the ‘diaconia’ at the Propylaea Church in Gerasa see Kraeling (1938), plate XXXV.
For the inscription see Welles (1938), 485–486. For the circular chamber or skeuophy-
lakion at Hagia Sophia see Mathews (1971), figure 49.
18 Mathews (1971). For the Byzantine rite see Brightman and Hammond (1896),
307–457.
19 Mathews and Krautheimer associate the circular chamber with the skeuophylakion of 
the ‘first H. Sophia, completed only in 360.’ See Mathews (1971), 158–161. See also
Krautheimer (1986), 518 and 520. Mathews also argues that both the Hagia Eirēnē
and Hagia Theodōros Sphōrakios also had a skeuophylakion located north of  the
church. Mathews (1971), 13, 158, and 161, and also figure 2 and 49. See also Migne
(1857), 114 and 1188.
20 Mathews (1971), 157 and 159. Mathews thinks that in churches with a north Syrian
church plan there is a chapel located to the right of  the apse and to the right of  the
entrance, and in the Syrian rite the ‘whole ceremony of presenting the gifts took
place within the church itself.’
Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches 7

textual evidence in support of  his argument, but is there any archaeologi-
cal evidence?
It should be noted here that Richard Krautheimer denotes both the
‘skeuophylakion’ and ‘diaconicon’ as a sacristy, and draws an equivalence
between the two terms.21 Krautheimer argues that a pastophory is a room
that served as a diakonikon or prothesis and that as a rule f lanked the apse
of  the church.22 He ref lects that in Early Christian times the diakonikon (or
skeuophylakion) was a sacristy ‘utilized for the reception of  the congrega-
tion’s of ferings and serving as archive, vestry, and library; later used only
for the latter functions.’23 He thinks the prothesis served ‘for the prepara-
tion and storage of  the species of  the Eucharist before Mass’ and to store
the Eucharist afterwards.24 Krautheimer appears to provide more than one
possible location for the diakonikon and prothesis, i.e. either ‘attached to or
enclosed in the church.’25 If  Krautheimer is correct, and the laity brought
gifts of  bread and wine to the diakonikon inside the church, then could the
deposition of domestic pottery in Early Byzantine basilical churches coin-
cide with the location of  the diakonikon and help to identify its location?
What is evident then is that the location of  the diakonikon forms an
important component of  the research question. If  Mathews’ analysis of 
Ordo Romanus I is correct then the laity brought gifts of  bread and wine
to the chancel rail at the end of each aisle and a portion was transferred
directly to the altar table in the church sanctuary. Alternatively the laity
brought these gifts to the diakonikon, i.e. the house of  the deacons, which
might be located either in a room f lanking the apse of  the church, or else
in a side chapel. If  Crowfoot’s analysis is correct then the diakonikon and
the place of prothesis might be located in the same building, i.e. a separate
side chapel located near to the church building.

21 See Krautheimer (1986), 69, and 520.

22 See Krautheimer (1986), 298 and 519.
23 See Krautheimer (1986), 520.
24 Krautheimer (1986), 517–521. See also Butler (1903), 88, and Mango in Featherstone
(1996), 26, and footnote 45. Also Hill (1996), 23.
25 See Krautheimer (1986), 518 and 520.
8 Chapter 1

It is therefore possible that the deposition of domestic pottery in the

archaeological record could coincide with the location of  the diakonikon,
either inside churches or else in side chapels that function as diakonika.
If  the deposition of domestic pottery did coincide with the location of 
the diakonikon this would be interesting, but supporting archaeological
evidence for the location of  the diakonikon in the form of, say, mosaic
inscriptions would still be required.
Also, because Mathews argues that the sexes are segregated in churches
during the Early Byzantine period, it is important to examine archaeologi-
cal evidence to determine, firstly, if  there is any archaeological evidence for
the segregation of  the sexes and, secondly, whether there is any correlation
between this practice and the deposition of domestic artefacts in churches.
(iii) Non-liturgical activity. There are some textual references to non-
liturgical activity in churches that also might account for the presence of
domestic pottery in churches, which are also considered such as the agape,
communal meal or ‘love banquet.’26 Derwas Chitty observes that the hegu-
men at the fifth-century coenobium of  St. Euthymius took his guests to the
inner chamber of  the diakonikon for breakfast after they had viewed the
treasures.27 This reference implies the diakonikon was more of a sacristy, a
place for keeping sacred vessels and treasures, than as a site of  the rite of
prothesis (though of course these two functions are not necessarily mutu-
ally exclusive). Both of  these non-liturgical activities could account for the
deposition of domestic pottery in the vicinity of churches. Also, Mathews
extracts from Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De Ceremoniis three references
to the emperor and patriarch dining together in a number of church sites
at dif ferent times.28 There are problems using this tenth-century compila-
tion, involving the identification and dating of earlier texts embedded in
the compilation.

26 Shepherd (1961), 33. Also Solovey (1970), 103.

27 Crowfoot (1938), 178, and footnote 9. It should be noted however that Hirschfeld,
although he makes reference to Derwas Chitty’s 1920s excavation, makes no men-
tion of a diakonikon at this site. See Hirschfeld (1993), 339–371, and also footnote 1
for a list of  Chitty’s preliminary publications on the excavation.
28 Mathews (1971), 132–133.
Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches 9

In this book the object of study is institutional behaviour in the Early

Byzantine Church in which ritualised activities occur with great frequency.
As this book is primarily an archaeological enquiry it utilises published
peer-reviewed archaeological reports as a primary resource. Liturgical
analysis is limited to determining where the diakonikon might be located
inasmuch as this might coincide with the deposition of domestic artefacts
in churches or their side chapels, and also to determine from some early
liturgical texts what artefacts were used during the liturgical performance.29
In Chapter 2 the method used to interrogate the archaeological evi-
dence is set out. A catalogue of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites was
compiled for the thesis upon which this book is based, and also of  the arte-
facts thought to be deposited when each basilica functioned as a church.30
The church sites are restricted to the three most common basilical plans.
This allows like-for-like analysis between basilicas with the same church
plans, and specifically for comparative analysis of patterns of artefactual
deposition, which is conducted in Chapter 5 and 6.
Furthermore, church excavations are limited to those from the Levant.
Data regarding abandonment processes have been collated (Table 2.2–2.5).
Those sites rapidly abandoned due to fire damage or earthquakes and which
have sealed destruction layers tend to feature strongly in later analysis of
artefactual deposits in Chapter 5 and 6. In the archaeological record there
is also a noticeable switch from Byzantine Christian to Muslim Umayyad
material culture in the mid-seventh century, which is evident in stratigraphic
sequences at many sites.
In Chapter 3 there is a re-evaluation of  the three most common basili-
cal church plans. This book challenges the assumption that church sites can
be treated as one homogenous group. As the catalogue of  Early Byzantine
basilical church sites was compiled it became apparent that there are two
common sanctuary layouts: one is bounded by a Π-shaped chancel barrier
in front of  the apse, and the other by a T-shaped chancel barrier that extends
across both side aisles. As a result of  this re-evaluation, church sites in the

29 For translations of many early liturgies see Brightman and Hammond (1896).
30 Mulholland (2011).
10 Chapter 1

catalogue were placed into four groups: (i) Constantinopolitan, (ii) Syrian,
and (iii) Roman, and a fourth indeterminate group that did not appear to
match any of  these. This action enabled further observations to be made
in regard to defining characteristics for each group. The most important
in light of  the research question is that Constantinopolitan and Roman
church plans tend to have adjacent north chapels that occur as a separate
building, and Syrian church plans an integral south chapel parallel to and
accessed from the south aisle (Table 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7). Furthermore there
is archaeological evidence for another second focus of  liturgical activity in
many of  these side chapels in the form of  liturgical furniture and a raised
bema and in Chapter 4 this evidence is further examined.
Chapter 4 considers the second focus of  liturgical activity located in
side chapels in all three church plans in light of  this new archaeological
evidence. This evidence includes post holes associated with chancel screen
posts and altar table legs, as well as the deposition of whole or fragmentary
liturgical furniture. If  the rite of prothesis requires an altar table cordoned
of f  by a chancel screen, then the same archaeological evidence used to
identify the main focus of  liturgical activity in the church can also be used
to locate where the rite of prothesis took place. As noted above, many side
chapels have evidence for liturgical furniture and a raised bema (see also
Table 4.2–4.4). Lastly, there are six inscriptions (Table 4.1) where the
Byzantines seem to confirm that these same side chapels are also diakonika,
if only in these individual side chapels where they occur.
In Chapter 5 the artefactual evidence (Table 5.1–5.3) is examined in
respect of  the three common basilical church plans, and in relation to the
abandonment processes (Table 2.2–2.5) involved at each site. This book
takes cognisance of structural and archaeological features, but the intention
here is to examine the available archaeology in more detail to determine
whether comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition
might be used to determine what activities took place in Early Byzantine
basilical churches in the Levant, and where they occurred.
In Chapter 6 the available archaeological evidence is examined to
determine whether there is any evidence that the sexes were segregated
in the Early Byzantine Church. An important question is whether there
may be a relationship between segregation of sexes and the deposition of
Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches 11

domestic pottery in churches. This evidence is collated and analysed and

reference also made to other research carried out into the Early Church
in the West.31
The available archaeological evidence is presented in Chapter 7, and
then finally Chapter 8 addresses some outstanding problems and outlines
some areas of  future research that might help to resolve these issues. There
are also other areas of research that have suggested themselves during the
course of  this research that are discussed brief ly.
The style used throughout the book follows the style guide for the
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, and the Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations
style sheet. This normally requires that the first reference to a book or arti-
cle be complete, and subsequent references use the author’s last name and
a shortened form of  the title. In this book the author’s surname, year of
publication (placed in brackets), and the page numbers are used through-
out in footnotes for clarity. The title of  the book or article is omitted from
footnotes on the basis that they can be readily identified in the bibliogra-
phy. There is also an index of church sites prior to the bibliography. The
catalogue of sites and artefacts are available on a disc at the back of  the
original thesis.32

31 For example Mathews (1971), 130–137, and Taft (1998), 27–87. Also Laiou (1981),
233–260, and Laiou (1982), 98–103.
32 Mulholland (2011). The disc is PC compatible, and composed using Access.
Chapter 2

Methodology

This book examines whether comparative analysis of repeated patterns of

artefactual deposition can be used to determine what institutional activi-
ties took place in Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant, and
where they occurred. There are four main components to this approach:
(i) artefacts, (ii) repeated patterns, (iii) Early Byzantine basilical churches,
and then (iv) Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant. This chapter
will consider each of  these in turn to set out how they can be addressed
and why. But first, there are a range of research methods that might have
been used to approach this question, and the more relevant approaches
are considered brief ly.

Overview of  Byzantine archaeology

One of  the commonest forms of archaeological investigation is non-invasive

topographical survey. This is partly because it is often easier to get a licence
for survey and because there is often no expensive post-excavation analysis
required from specialist third parties, although the increased use of complex
computerised systems and equipment can add to the costs.
However perhaps the largest component of archaeological research
into the Byzantine Empire is composed of individual site excavations. These
place individual church sites under intense scrutiny during excavation, and
archaeological reports will often attempt to determine how the site fits
into what is known of  the contemporary period from historical records
and from other similar sites. Although funding for excavation might be
14 Chapter 2

available, often from a university training budget for student archaeolo-

gists, many excavators rapidly move on to another site once their current
excavation is completed and it is rare for an excavation to be published
in full.1 Even then, it seems doubtful that a description of any individual
site could accurately ref lect the complexity of  the Early Byzantine Church
when that institution was composed of at least five patriarchates.2
Where large surveys and analyses of church sites do occur, as Mango has
noted, they often focus largely on architectural and art historical research
methods and approaches. Some surveys opt not to discriminate between the
full range of diverse church plans available in the Early Byzantine period. A
typical survey might include centrally planned domed churches and cross-
planned churches, ambulatory and cave churches, and from single-aisled up
to seven-aisled basilicas. The sheer diversity of church plans is readily appar-
ent in Krautheimer’s extensive work encompassing the Byzantine Empire,
but this diversity is also ref lected even in more restricted regional surveys
and this makes any comparative analysis very dif ficult, if not impossible.3 It

1 In Britain, for example, Mike Heyworth, director of  the Council for British
Archaeology, has recently noted that when excavation reports are eventually pub-
lished these often take the form of rudimentary technical reports. He observes that
‘Full publication of archaeological work is needed, not just technical reports which
fail to analyse and interpret what was found (the infamous “grey literature”). The
results of  fieldwork need to be available to researchers, properly archived in a publicly-
funded local museum.’ See Heyworth (2009), 12–19.
2 Haldon (2000), 131–152.
3 Krautheimer (1986). For Greece see Pallas (1977); Caraher (2003); and Mailis (2011).
For surveys of  Constantinople see Müller-Wiener (1977); and Dark and Kostenec
(2009), 56–68. For Cilicia and Isauria see Hill (1996); and Bayliss (2004). For Pontos
and Trabzon see Bryer and Winfield (1985); and also Crow and Bryer (1997), 283–
289. For Lycia in Turkey see Foss (1994), 1–52; Tsuji (1995); and also Asano (1995),
72–78, and (1998), and also (2010); as well as Nakatani (1995), 42–50. For Anatolia
see Ramsay and Bell (1909) and (2008). For Cappadocia see Teteriatnikov (1996).
On Jordan see Michel (2001). Palestine has several, such as Crowfoot (1941); Bagatti
(1962) and (1984), 307–308; Ovadiah (1970) and (1993); Bottini, Di Segni and Alliata
(1990); Bottini, Di Segni and Chrupcała (2003); Sodini (1993), 139–184; Tsafrir
(1993), 1–16; Painter (1994); Duval (1994), 149–212; and also recent work by Ribak
(2007). For regional surveys of  Nubia see Adams (1965), 87–139; and of  Egypt see
Methodology 15

would seem preferable to conduct comparative analysis between sites that

share the same, or a similar, ground plan and have common reference points.
There is a wide range of  theoretical and general methodological
approaches available to archaeologists when addressing these problems.4
For example, Colin Renfrew has broached the concept of an ‘archaeology
of religion,’ and Timothy Insoll has also strongly argued for the need to
address ‘archaeology of religion’ as opposed to the archaeologists’ recourse
to ‘ritual’ as a useful catchall.5 Some tentative steps have been taken towards
developing a more defined ‘archaeology of  liturgy’ for Christian archaeolo-
gy.6 There has also been more specialised research into specific aspects of  this
complex subject.7 However these concepts have not yet been developed into
a universally acceptable theoretical or methodological approach. Despite
these ef forts Luke Lavan noted as recently as 2007 that ‘Early liturgies, and
very detailed descriptions of church services are few and far between […]
it is still not simple to reconstruct church interiors of  the period.’8

Butler (1884) and Al Syriany (1990). For Syria see Butler (1903); Lassus (1935) and
(1947); Tchalenko (1953–1958); or Malki (1992), and for Armenia see Gandolfo
(1982). For Hungary see Gáspár (2002); and for Macedonia and southern Serbia
see Hoddinott (1963).
4 For an overview see Renfrew and Bahn (2000). Also Johnson (2004), and Trigger
(2005).
5 See Renfrew (1994), 47–54. Also Insoll (2004), and three edited volumes (1999),
(2001), and (2004).
6 See for example Mathews (1971); Taft (1980–1981), 45–75, (1997), 1–35, (1998),
53–87 and also (2004); Parker (2001), 273–326; Lavan, Swift and Putzeys (2007);
Constantelos (2001), 109–143; and also Wallace (1990), 27–38. See also Gittos (forth-
coming). See also Duval (1994), 149–212, and Painter (1994), xvii.
7 For church architecture and liturgy see Xydis (1947), 1–24; Mâle (1960); MacDonald
(1968); Sodini and Kolokotsas (1984); Schultz (1986); Mainstone (1988); Ruggieri
(1991); Ovadiah (1993), 305–309; Piccirillo (2000), 51–113; and also Ousterhout
(1998), 81–120. For liturgical furniture, fixtures and the diakonikon see Michel (2007),
581–606. For the ambo see Jakobs (1987); and Jarry (1963), 147–162. For baptis-
mal fonts see Ben Pechat (1985), and (1989), 165–188, and also (1990), 501–522;
Khatchatrian (1962), and (1982); and also Ferguson (2009). For storage space see
Fiema (2007), 607–623. For objects see Caseau (2007), 521–579, and 625–654.
8 Lavan (2007), 169–170.
16 Chapter 2

Wider comparative studies are rare, such as between the Negev and
Constantinople, or those such as Krautheimer’s that encompass the entire
Byzantine Empire. These serve to illustrate that some church plans are
common throughout the early Byzantine Empire and transcend modern
national boundaries.9 Although there are five regional patriarchates by
the Early Byzantine period it is still not apparent whether each has their
own unique church plan or whether they all shared the same church plan,
or plans.10
Krautheimer’s seminal work reveals the highly complex nature and
development of  Early Christian and Byzantine architecture.11 His former
graduate student Mathews is distinctive for identifying three simple Early
Byzantine church plans, i.e. Constantinopolitan, Syrian, and Roman, from
observation of excavated church sites in Rome and also Constantinople
that were available to him at that time.12 However, Yoram Tsafrir provides
a timely reminder that Mathews’ earlier research is untested beyond the
city limits of  Rome and Istanbul. He states that:

[…] development of  the Christian liturgy also significantly inf luenced the function
and design of parts of  the church, although we are as yet unable to distinguish between
buildings belonging to dif ferent traditions and sects, for example between the Arian,
Nestorian, or Monophysite churches on one hand, and those of  the Orthodox on
the other.13

Given that such divisions existed in the Early Byzantine Christian Church
it may be productive to examine variations in church plans to see if  there
are any observable physical traits that allow some of  them to be assigned
into easily recognisable categories.

9 Kalantzis (1994); Krautheimer (1986); and also Lavan, Swift and Putzeys (2007).
10 Haldon (2000), 131.
11 Krautheimer (1986).
12 Mathews (1962), 73–95, and also (1971).
13 Tsafrir (1993), 6.
Methodology 17

Research method

I earned my first MA in Archaeology in 2001 as a mature student within

the School of  Archaeology and Palaeoecology at Queen’s University in
Belfast.14 Then I put my training into practice by working professionally
as a field archaeologist for two of  the largest commercial archaeological
consultancies in Ireland.15 After this I returned to complete a second MA
in Byzantine Archaeology and Text in 2004 at the Institute of  Byzantine
Studies, which was embedded in the School of  History & Anthropology.
This experience revealed some dif ferences in approaches between
Irish and Byzantine archaeology. The emphasis in Byzantine archaeology
is quite naturally placed upon historical archaeology due to the availabil-
ity of contemporary written material. Analysis of  Early Byzantine church
sites consists largely of architectural analysis as well as liturgical and art
historical study, which tends to ref lect the specialist training of  those car-
rying out the research. As Mango has noted, however, there are consider-
able problems with this approach. In Irish archaeology there is rather a
greater emphasis upon material evidence. There is more emphasis placed
upon forensic excavation and scientific recording of sites, artefacts and
ecofacts by qualified archaeologists and palaeoecologists, so as to determine
stratigraphic sequences and the context in which artefacts are recovered

14 Inf luential references were Environmental and heritage service, Excavation standards

manual (undated), and also School of  Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s
University Belfast, Excavation manual, 5 ( June 2001). See also Barker (1995), Roskams
(2001), and also Adams and Adams (1991).
15 Northern Archaeological Consultancy Ltd. (Unit 33, Farset Enterprise Park, Belfast
BT12 7DY) and then Irish Archaeological Consultancy (120b Greenpark Road, Bray,
Co. Wicklow). In an interview with Mike Pitts, Jim Leary observes that the ‘older
generation can be a bit snif f y about commercial archaeology. And yet, I think that
is where the best archaeology is happening now. There are younger archaeologists
coming in and doing as many sites in one year as the average archaeologist used to
do in a lifetime.’ See Pitts (2011), 66.
18 Chapter 2

to determine what activities occurred and where.16 This scientific method

can complement and enrich other research conducted by Byzantinists to
determine what activities took place and where through analysis of arte-
factual deposits in the archaeological record.
Research for this book ef fectively married these two approaches.
Firstly, Early Byzantine basilical churches were grouped into one of  the
three most common church plans. This allowed like-for-like analysis of 
find spots for artefacts between basilicas with a common church plan,
and also comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposi-
tion. The reasoning behind this approach is that repeated institutional
behaviour involving ritualised activities such as liturgical or paraliturgical
activity might also lead to artefacts being deposited in a manner that will
show up in the archaeological record in repeated depositional patterns.17
Secondly, historical sources were used to identify a list of possible activities
that occur in church and whereabouts. The archaeological evidence was
then analysed in relation to the historical evidence.
This emphasis upon identifying activity areas is important in a
Byzantine context given that many buildings can undergo one or more
changes of use through time, and rooms within a building might host more
than one activity. At some sites structural alterations accompany a change
of use in a building, and this might be all too apparent in architectural
plans, such as the transformation of a Roman bath into the ‘North Church’
at Kalenderhane.18 However where change of use is not accompanied by

16 QUB does not generally follow the single context recording system and individual
contexts are not, as a rule, planned on individual sheets of drawing film. See the
School of  Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast,
Excavation manual, 11 (Belfast, June–July 2010), 25.
17 This method has some similarities with the interdisciplinary approach adopted by
the founders of  the Annales School and reinforced through the development of 
Economic History. As Burguière notes: ‘To make sense, serial sources require massive
data collection. But because they exist in several countries and in fairly standardized
form, they more easily lend themselves to a comparative approach.’ See Burguière
(2009), 91.
18 Striker and Kuban (1997).
Methodology 19

structural alterations, and in the absence of  historical texts, this might
become apparent through analysis of  the artefactual evidence.19

(i) Artefacts

Artefacts can help to determine what activities took place in a building,

where they took place, and whether more than one activity took place
there.20 In terms of  Early Byzantine basilical churches the natural question
is whether there is any correlation between the focus of  liturgical perfor-
mance in the church and archaeological evidence. Is there a relationship
between the location of post holes for altar table legs within the church
sanctuary and chancel screen post holes which define its boundary, and
the deposition of whole or fragmentary liturgical artefacts like altar table
legs and also chancel screens and posts? Should this correlation exist then
the next question is whether, using exactly the same evidence, there is a
second focus of  liturgical activity evident in the archaeological record
which might indicate where the rite of prothesis took place as this would
also have required an altar table located within a sanctified space for the
preparation of  the Eucharist. Crowfoot thinks this rite may have taken
place in the diakonikon.21
This method of enquiry required that a catalogue of  Early Byzantine
church sites be compiled together with those artefacts thought to be depos-
ited in sealed destruction layers when the basilica still functioned as a church
or as it was abandoned.22 Artefacts recovered from other stratigraphic
sequences, such as surface finds, are excluded. This is important because

19 For example, Mango’s reference to the church in Melitene being used as a wood store.
For Melitene see Mango (1980), 90.
20 See for example Hill (1970), 11–58. Also Moorhouse (1993), and Schif fer (1999),
and also Gould and Schif fer (1981). For an example of  the impact of archaeometric
analysis see Joyner (2005), 547–562.
21 Crowfoot (1938), 177–179.
22 See Appendix I in Mulholland (2011).
20 Chapter 2

most published catalogues group artefacts together by type, e.g. glass,

pottery, marble, coins, etc. irrespective of where they were found on site.
With this end in mind, those artefacts in the catalogue thought to be
deposited when the basilica functioned as a church have been reassembled
into their original context so that it becomes apparent what artefacts were
found where, and in association with which other artefacts. Historical evi-
dence indicates that specific artefacts often accompany certain activities,
and if  these artefacts are found in association with each other in a defined
space or location then this might be an indication that a specific activity
took place in this location, e.g. eating and drinking, lighting and storage.
This applies particularly to liturgical performance and those activities for
which there is some illustrative or textual evidence.23
This interest in activity areas is particularly relevant to Early Byzantine
church sites because even a cursory examination of published peer-reviewed
archaeologist reports of church sites reveals the presence of domestic wares
such as ceramic plates, bowls, jugs, pitchers and amphorae. And as Stephen
Moorhouse notes:

Pottery and the places where it is found can tell us a great deal about how it was used,
and provide information which will help the excavator to understand the function
and chronology of  the site.24

Whole or large fragments of  liturgical furniture might be considered as

a proxy for the degree to which the site has been subjected to looting, or
robbing of walls and architectural elements. This is because valuable marble
liturgical furniture might have been more likely to be carried of f in any
one of  these secondary activities, and so if  these are still on site then this
could indicate that the site has been rapidly abandoned and was relatively
undisturbed prior to excavation.25

23 For example monastic typika in Thomas and Hero (2000).

24 Moorhouse (1993), 128.
25 See Schif fer (1995), 64. For ‘primary refuse’ see the McKellar Hypothesis which
‘states that smaller items are more likely to become primary refuse in […] regularly
maintained activity areas.’ See Schif fer (1995), 175. For ‘de facto refuse’ see Schif fer
(1995), 208. Also Schif fer (1995), 25–34.
Methodology 21

There is a distinct problem with this approach that needs to be high-

lighted. Published archaeological reports rarely provide detailed plans
illustrating the exact find spot for each artefact, and so often it is known
only that artefacts are recovered in sealed deposits within a certain room.26
However the presence, or absence, of specific artefacts at certain locations
can still be very informative.

(ii) Repeated patterns

There are a number of reasons to focus upon repeated patterns of artefactual

deposition across a large number of sites with similar plans. Firstly, analysis
of each individual site has inevitably been conducted by the archaeologists
that excavated the sites and there is little to be gained from duplicating their
analysis of individual sites. This site analysis is increasingly an integral part of
publishing an archaeological report as William Adams so eloquently notes:

There is a school of  thought among field archaeologists, prevalent in earlier times
and still not entirely extinct, which holds that it’s for us to generate the data, and
for our successors of  later generations to interpret it. In theory this represents the
quintessence of  Baconian empiricism and Comtean Positivism; points with which
I’m not wholly unsympathetic (see Adams and Adams 1991; Adams 1998a, 399–424).
But it is a doctrine which, among archaeologists, is far more often honoured in the
breach than in the observance, and for good reason. Most of us are apt to feel that,
after the toils and tribulations of excavation (which, let’s face it, is not much fun a
lot of  the time), we have earned the right to find some meaning in what we have
done and found. Otherwise, what have we been but mere collectors, like the dilet-
tanti of an earlier age?27

There is also the benefit defined by Delougaz and Haines who have grasped
the importance of underlying repeated patterns in data sets:

26 For example at Petra and Nahariya the location of some artefacts is provided within
the text or in photographs. See Fiema (2001), 81–82 and figure 101. Also Dauphin
(1984), 92, figure 24, and plate IIIa.
27 Adams (2003), 1.
22 Chapter 2

Obviously the relative frequency of sherds does not necessarily provide a precise
picture of  the numerical relationships of  the various types of whole vessels. Our
numerical record may give an approximate picture, however, and of course the mere
presence of certain types at certain levels is often significant. We feel that the keeping
and publishing of such numerical records is not superf luous, for, while it may [be]
argued that such a record from one campaign on one site is of  limited value by itself,
the accumulation of records of  this sort from various excavations over a period of 
time is bound to provide significant evidence that could not otherwise be obtained.28

Secondly, the sites being analysed here are Early Byzantine basilical churches
that are by their very nature associated with ritualised activities ref lecting
institutional behaviour, such as performance of  the liturgy. It is at least pos-
sible that repeated ritualised activities might lead to discernible repeated
patterns of artefactual deposition.29
There is some evidence for this from LaMotta and Schif fer who note
that an Anasazi site in the USA appeared to display a correlation between
‘the location, size, and suite of internal features […] and the treatment of 
those rooms at abandonment,’ and they went further:

These and other cross-cultural examples suggest a general principle of abandon-

ment: use of an architectural space for ritual activities predisposes that structure to
be abandoned in a fashion that dif ferentiates it from other types of structures. The
challenge that lies ahead is to explain how linkages and linkage factors established
during use condition abandonment activities.30

The authors go on to refer to ethnoarchaeological and cross-cultural

research that has a direct relevance for research relating to artefacts recov-
ered during excavations at Byzantine Christian sites, in that it:

[…] identified important general patterns in the disposal of portable items that had
been used in ritual activities […] such items, when broken or worn out (‘ceremonial

28 Delougaz and Haines (1960), 56–59.

29 Examples of ritualised behaviour are evident in monastic typika, such as reading,
manual labour, lighting, food preparation and consumption, or care of  the sick and
elderly. For example see Fiaccadori (2000), 62 and 64. Also Miller (2000), 79, and
also 84–119.
30 LaMotta and Schif fer (2002), 45.
Methodology 23

trash’), tended to be disposed of in ways that distinguished them from domestic trash.
Ritually used items were often deposited in areas spatially separate from domestic
trash dumps, and tended to be burned, broken, and/or buried at the point of disposal
[…] the spatial dif ferentiation of ritual disposal facilities can result in the aggregation
of ceremonial trash in concentrated deposits, such as that found in Jewish genizahs.
Thus, aggregates of objects that follow broadly similar life histories prior to discard
(at least in terms of ritual uses) tend to be discarded together physically and/or
through similar discard behaviours.

Thirdly, repeated patterns of deposition help to mitigate the ef fects of

anomalous one-of f  localised environmental or cultural factors upon depos-
ited artefacts that might af fect, or even distort, artefactual deposition at an
individual site.31 In this respect perhaps Schif fer’s most important insight
has been his argument that there is rarely an equivalence between systemic
or behavioural context and archaeological context, other than perhaps
sites such as Pompeii, and that both history and archaeology are subject
to cultural formation processes.32 In archaeology these include cultural
factors, such as when artefacts are transported from their place of use as
refuse. They can also be af fected by non-cultural factors or environmental
factors such as where a river bursts its banks and carries of f  light artefacts
or where metals, such as iron, rust to leave no visible trace.33 Cultural fac-
tors are readily observable in Early Byzantine basilical churches, such as
the removal or looting of chancel posts and screens and portable altars,
which are implicit from the postholes or recesses where they once stood.34

31 In a manner suggested by Schif fer. See Schif fer (1995), 64.

32 Schif fer (1995), 201–218.
33 For a brief explanation of  these terms see Schif fer (1977), 13–40. Also Schif fer (1995),
46–54.
34 And even factors such as non-publication or partial publication of site excavations.
Lavan et al note the problems associated with curate behaviour and post-abandonment
occupation, as does Poulter. See Lavan, Swift and Putzeys (2007), 6. Also Poulter
(2007), 685–705.
24 Chapter 2

(iii) Early Byzantine basilical churches

The definition of a ‘basilica’ is problematical in that it is described by pur-

ists as a ‘building divided into a nave f lanked by two aisles, the former
being wider and taller than the latter, with an apse at the end of  the nave.’35
However, there are archaeologists who include examples of single-aisled or
chambered structures in this classification.36 The reason for limiting sites
to Early Byzantine basilical churches is that like-for-like analysis between
church sites with the same contemporary church plan makes it easier to
detect evidence from repeated depositional patterns that (a) ref lect repeated
institutional activities common to more than one church site, (b) expose
those sites where one-of f individual events such as looting, robbing, f lood-
ing or earthquakes occur, and (c) these are more likely to share the same
plan for the same reasons.
I have opted to include only single-aisled and three-aisled Early
Byzantine basilicas (figure 2.1) in the catalogue because these basic church
plans better facilitate this like-for-like analysis. These churches are often
accessed via a forecourt or atrium, and most of  the sites in the catalogue
have a portico running around the edge of  the atrium, i.e. a narrow roof
supported by the outside wall and an inner row of columns. It is common
for the east portico adjacent to the church entrance to be referred to as
a ‘narthex’ in archaeological reports even though a narthex is generally

35 Curl (2001), 179. Also Cole (2002), 127 and 149.

36 The distinguished Late Roman archaeologist A.G. Poulter entitles the single-aisled
church at Nicopolis ad Istrum the ‘Small Basilica.’ Similarly, in the preface to his
monograph the Byzantine archaeologist Stephen Hill states that in ‘reality this is a
study of  basilicas since the region is remarkable for the fact that its early churches
are all basilicas.’ His catalogue includes illustrations of  the single-aisled basilicas of 
Church K at Corycus, Church 10 C at Gazipaşa, Karlik, the Cuppola Church at
Meryemlik and also Yemişküm, and these single-aisled basilical churches comprise
nearly 10% of  Hill’s illustrated plans. Mango also observes that the basilica of  Trier
is an ‘imposing single-aisled structure terminating in a semicircular apse.’ See Poulter
(1995), (1999), and (2000), 347–358 and also (2007). Also Hill (1996), xxi, and figure
23, 31, 40, 45 and 61. See also Mango (1976), 61.
Methodology 25

described as an enclosed porch at the entrance of a church, and so in the

tables this feature is listed as the ‘east portico/narthex.’
In practical terms the single-aisled basilical church is ef fectively a rec-
tangular hall, which forms the nave, with a semicircular appendage called
the apse forming one of  the shorter sides. The three-aisled basilical church
has an aisle to either side of  the nave. These aisles are separated from the
nave by a row of columns that support the clerestory and roof. Each church
has an altar that is often located midway along the chord of  the apse, i.e.
typically each apse is semicircular in plan and the chord is the straight
line joining the ends of  the arc. There is often a raised bema or platform
extending forward from the apse into the nave that, together with the area
of  the apse, forms the sanctuary, and this sanctified area is cordoned of f  by
a chancel screen, supported by upright chancel posts set into the ground.
This simple ground plan allows for the range of artefacts recovered in
any one of  these areas, such as the north or south aisle or nave, to be com-
pared across all sites with the same ground plan to determine whether there
are repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. These may then be analysed
to determine whether they might ref lect repeated patterns of ritualised
activity or behaviour associated with the Early Byzantine Church. For exam-
ple, given that there is written evidence that the area of  the church sanctu-
ary is a focus of  liturgical activity then this should be ref lected in repeated
patterns of artefactual deposition associated with liturgical performance
in this area, such as fragments of  liturgical furniture. This research method
should also be capable of  highlighting any other foci of  liturgical activity in
the Early Byzantine basilical church or in side chapels. Furthermore, should
domestic pottery exhibit repeated patterns of deposition in these churches
then the type, quantity and location can be analysed to determine whether
this disposition might match activities referred to in historical sources.
However, even this simple basilical church plan exhibits many vari-
ants that encompasses mono-, bi-, triapsidal, triconch and even opposing
apses, and from simple single-aisled churches up to seven-aisled variants.37
There are practical problems involved with including such a diverse array

37 See Balderstone (2007).

26 Chapter 2

of church plans, not least that there needs to be a suf ficient number or

sample of each excavated church plan to allow for comparative analysis
of artefactual deposits, and time and financial constraints prevented this.
Therefore I have chosen to restrict my catalogue of sites (Table 2.1)
to the three most common Early Byzantine basilical church plans in the
Levant (figure 2.2) as identified some seventy years ago by Crowfoot who
notes that there are: ‘three commoner types – (a) the inscribed apse plan,
(b) the external apse plan, (c) the triapsidal plan.’38 These are still the most
common basilical plans in the Levant and, because they of fer the uniform-
ity of ground plan required for comparative analysis of artefactual data, the
catalogue of sites is restricted to these three church plans.39
There are still problems associated with comparative analysis involving
these three simple basilical church plans. For instance the basilical church
plan with an inscribed apse and a room to either side of it (figure 2.2ii)
may have artefactual deposits in each of  these side rooms, but clearly the
basilical church plan with protruding apse (figure 2.2i) and the triapsidal
church plan (2.2iii) will have no corresponding deposits for compara-
tive analysis because these do not have rooms located to either side of  the
apse. For this reason church sites with each of  these three ground plans
were first grouped together, and comparative analysis conducted between
churches that share each of  the common church plans, i.e. like-for-like
analysis between churches that share the same ground plan.

(iv) Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant

Basilical churches are found throughout the territorial range of  the Early
Byzantine Empire, but there are sound reasons for wanting to limit the
geographical scope of  the thesis that extend beyond the normal constraints
acting upon a research student, e.g. such as time, financial and resource
limitations. One of  the problems inherent in abandoned sites is subsequent

38 He also refers to some of  the more exotic forms. See Crowfoot (1941), 58.
39 These three church plans are also referred to in Tsafrir (1993), 1–16.
Methodology 27

(post-abandonment) squatter occupation, wherein the original inhabit-

ants vacate the building and other occupants move onto the site. It can be
dif ficult to dif ferentiate one from the other particularly if  they share the
same, or a similar, material culture.
The question arises as how to best address this problem. One means
of mitigating this problem is to restrict sites to the area of  the Levant, i.e.
an area encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian territories and
Jordan. From A.D. 634–646 there is a permanent switch from a Byzantine
Christian government to that of  the Muslim Umayyad, and this appears
to be accompanied by a concomitant switch in material culture as well.40
There is conf licting evidence, however, as to whether Byzantine
Christians abandoned the Levant en masse as argued by Walter Kaegi, or
whether some church sites continued to function under Muslim Umayyad
rule. Kaegi argues that during the Muslim Umayyad invasion the Byzantines
‘never peaceably evacuated Gaza, in the manner that they evacuated certain
central and northern Syrian cities and Jerusalem itself.’41 He thinks that
many civilians f led from the countryside to the apparent security of walled
towns in Palestine and Syria after the battle of Ajnādayn. He further argues
that with the Ba’labakk and the Chalkis/Qinnasrīn agreements ‘Muslim
strategy allowed those non-Muslims who so wished to evacuate conquered
regions, in some cases with movable property […] The evacuation of Greeks
from newly conquered areas appears to have been handled with great care
by both sides at a number of  locations.’ He states that the truce at Chalkis

40 Some of  the major historical events af fecting the Levant during the Early Byzantine
period relate to three invasions: the A.D. 540 incursion by the Persian king Chosroes
I to seize Antioch and successive incursions over the next four years, the subsequent
Sassanian invasion from A.D. 614–619, and then the Muslim Umayyad occupation
from A.D. 634–646 onwards. Haldon (2000), 176–177. Interestingly Burguière argues
that research methods employed by the Annales School meant that the ‘historian
no longer conceived crisis as an indication of decline or dysfunction but rather as
the privileged moment in a system’s operation when an event reveals the structures.’
Burguière (2009), 108.
41 Kaegi (2000), 97, 101, 165 and 175–176.
28 Chapter 2

allowed the Byzantine occupants of  Syria a period of one year to evacuate
the territory and they left a wasteland in their wake.42
In contrast Dunscombe Colt observes that although small settle-
ments like Nessana that were dependent upon monasteries and farming
were adversely af fected by Umayyad policies towards Christianity and
agriculture, he thinks that they gradually ‘withered away rather than have
to be abandoned.’43 Colt draws upon an archive of  forty papyri from the
post-A.D. 636 conquest Muslim Umayyad period at Nessana to support
his argument. These papyri indicate that the fort and town prospered
until the late seventh or eighth century, and they detail ‘taxation and com-
pulsory services, military af fairs, private business, farming and personal
matters.’44 Of  these, the two earliest papyri attest to the tolerant attitude
towards Christians by the Muslim Umayyad rulers, however of  the rest
Colt observes that in ‘them we sense immediately the change which came
about as a result of  the new [Umayyad] regime instituted by the Moslems
and in particular by Mu’awiyah and his successors.’45
More detailed analysis of individual Christian Byzantine sites in
the Levant could provide more accurate evidence in regard to Christian
Byzantine and Muslim Umayyad relationships during this pivotal period.
However, there is archaeological evidence that Byzantine Christian
and Muslim Umayyad material cultures are distinctive, and can be identi-
fied in excavations. Jodi Magness’ Jerusalem ceramic chronology, which
spans A.D. 200–800, dif ferentiates between ‘late Roman,’ ‘Byzantine,’ and
also ceramic types from the ‘Umayyad’ or ‘early Islamic’ period that began
with the surrender of  Jerusalem in A.D. 638.46 Furthermore, Magness argues
that general observations can be made regarding the nature of  the fabric of
vessels. For example, the earliest vessels are fired orange or light orange at
the surfaces, those of  the fourth to seventh centuries are fired light brown

42 Kaegi (2003), 219 and 244–245.

43 Colt (1962), 23.
44 Colt (1962), 23. See also Kraemer (1958).
45 Colt also observes that a small mosque was installed in the site of  Sbeita in such a
way as not to damage the church. See Colt (1962), 22.
46 Magness (1993), 12.
Methodology 29

or orange-brown, and Umayyad or early Islamic vessels from the eighth and
ninth century tend to be fired either light yellow or buf f at the surfaces, such
as ‘Mefjer’ ware, or are of a coarse dark red or brown ware.47 Sean Kingsley
also observes that there is ‘transformation in production methods (shape,
fabric and vessel size) experienced in Early Islamic Palestinian bag-shaped
LR5 amphorae.’48 This view is shared by Pinhas Delougaz, who argues that
while bag jar amphorae continue in use after the Umayyad invasion there is
‘a change in fabric from hard gray to soft drab or buf f [which] is indicative
of  Islamic date.’49 At Khirbat al-Karak, Florence Day conducted detailed
research into Islamic Glazed Ware that included X-ray dif fraction tests, and
also refers to other sites where petrographic analyses was conducted on these
wares.50 Furthermore there are church sites with clear stratigraphic evidence
for post-abandonment squatter activity during the Umayyad period and
these confirm that Byzantine and Umayyad material culture are distinctive.51

47 Magness (1993), 11 and 185. Also Magness (2003). See also Rast (1992), 191–205.
48 Kingsley argues that ‘Whereas Byzantine merchants had optimised amphorae to suit
sea trade (short rims were less susceptible to breakage and body ribbing was designed
to facilitate rope bindings […]) this trend was reversed in the Umayyad period, indi-
cating a radical shift away from traditional orders of commerce. In particular, rims
double in height and body ribbing disappeared: the sign of  functional change away
from seaborne trade.’ See Kingsley (2004), 99.
49 Delougaz (1960), 34.
50 Day (1960), 40–48, and footnote 20 and 21.
51 The lower part of  the crypt of  the church site of  Horvat Berachot has undisturbed
stratigraphic layers in which the Byzantine mosaic pavement is sealed by red beaten
earth, which is in turn overlain by an Early Arab f loor which has seventh–eighth
century Arabic inscriptions and pottery. See Tsafrir and Hirschfeld (1979), 291–326.
Confirmation of distinctive Umayyad ceramics is found at Khirbat al-Karak where
an Arab building was constructed less than 0.20m over the remains of  the f loor of 
the church at Khirbat al-Karak. See Haines (1960), 4. At Nessana there is evidence
of  Mefjer ware, such as Shape 49, which is described as Byzantine Arab or prob-
ably chief ly Arab. Baly’s chronology refers to the Arab period as post-A.D. 636. See
Baly (1962), 270–303. Piccirillo notes that the ‘churches at Kh. al-Mukhayyat and
in the ‘Uyun Musa Valley were abandoned before the spread of pottery having the
typological characteristics labeled “Umayyad”.’ See Piccirillo (1998), 260–261. The
church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev has Arabic inscriptions dated to the seventh–eighth
30 Chapter 2

It is conceivable that the clergy and congregation of churches that con-

tinued to function under Umayyad rule might begin to use artefacts associ-
ated with Umayyad material culture. However none of  the archaeological
reports for church sites in the catalogue appear to provide any evidence that
might support this conjecture, even though the church at Ostrakine has
numismatic evidence that it continued in use until at least the end of  the
seventh century, and Nessana survives possibly into the eighth century.52 As
noted previously, in the catalogue each archaeological report is examined in
close detail to determine whether there is evidence for post-abandonment
squatter activity or whether the church continued in use into the Muslim
Umayyad period. There is evidence (Table 2.2–2.5) from some other church
sites in the catalogue that they continued in use into the Muslim Umayyad
period, and a few also have evidence for post-abandonment squatter activity.
However this period requires more research, and possibly closer attention
to detail provided by forensic excavation techniques.
Furthermore, data relating to abandonment processes has been collated
(Table 2.2–2.5) in respect to whether the site archaeologist thought there
was evidence for a fire or earthquake that coincides with the abandonment
of  the church.53 Of  the church sites in the catalogue there is evidence that
fourteen churches (29.79%) had sealed destruction layers as a result of a
fire, and a further eleven (23.40%) had sealed destruction layers associated
with an earthquake. Those sites that are sealed by a layer of  fire damage
debris provide most of  the artefacts in the catalogue. A few of  these exhibit
signs of some later disturbance, but the evidence appears to indicate that
they were rapidly abandoned and as a result the artefacts appear in the
archaeological record where they would have been deposited. For example,
at Nahariya there is archaeological evidence that the suspended oil lamps

centuries in the atrium, but no typical Arabic ceramic vessels were found. For the
Arabic inscriptions see Nevo (1988), 187–192.
52 See Appendix I in Mulholland (2011).
53 None of  these archaeological reports refer to a fire investigation to determine either
the cause of  the fire, its intensity or whereabouts it originated. There are reportedly
at least forty dif ferent techniques that can be used to locate the seat of a fire. See for
example Ide (2002), 133–158. Also Lyle (2004), 113–126.
Methodology 31

fell onto the mosaic pavement while they were still lit, and there are scorch
marks that coincide with the location of each of  the recovered oil lamps.54
Because of these significant advantages the catalogue is largely restricted
to the region of  the Levant. However, although some 83% of sites in the
catalogue (Table 2.1) are from the region of  the Levant, four sites (8.5%)
are included from the Roman See, another three from Bulgaria (6.4%)
and one from the Sudan. The reason for the inclusion of  four sites from
the Roman See is due to the unexpected presence of  ‘Roman’ church plans
in the Levant, as identified by Mathews, and the f luctuating inf luences of 
Rome occasionally stretched as far as Croatia and Bulgaria.55 The site of 
Old Dongola is interesting because the emperor Justinian and empress
Theodora sent competing Christianising missions to Nubia.56
The Levant also has a complex relationship between the various patriar-
chates, because it lies between the Alexandrian and Antiochene patriarchs,
and the Jerusalem patriarchate at various times fell under the inf luence of 
the bishops of  both Rome and Constantinople.

Conclusion

This chapter set out to identify a suitable method to address the research
question. This research question was prompted by the observation that
domestic artefacts have been recovered in sealed destruction deposits at
the cave church of  Khirbet ed-Deir and the North Church at Rehovot-in-
the-Negev in Israel. Is the presence of  these domestic artefacts in churches
commonplace, and is their presence indicative of paraliturgical or non-
liturgical activities occurring in churches at this time? The question

54 See Dauphin and Edelstein (1984), figure 24. Also figure I.3.248 in Appendix I.3l in
Mulholland (2011).
55 Mathews (1962), 73–95.
56 Godlewski (1993), 169–176.
32 Chapter 2

was developed further in light of arguments that the congregation were

thought to bring gifts to the diakonikon, and as such a concentration of
domestic artefacts in the church might indicate its location, or if  the
diakonikon was located in a separate side chapel or parekklesia near to
the church building then they might provide evidence for paraliturgical
activity in the vicinity of  the parekklesia. Furthermore, the object of
study is institutional behaviour in the Early Byzantine Church in which
ritualised activities occur with great frequency across more than one
church site.
This chapter began with a review of current prevailing research meth-
ods in Byzantine archaeology. An alternative research method was selected
in light of  this review. It involves comparative analysis of repeated patterns
of artefactual deposition across sites with a common ground plan and
internal layout, which of fers the best prospect of detecting what institu-
tional activities occurred in Early Byzantine basilical churches, where they
occurred, and whether there is more than one activity on site. The three
most common basilical church plans were identified by Crowfoot and these
are used here, i.e. protruding monoapsidal, inscribed apse, and triapsidal.
This method involves identifying artefacts thought to be deposited
when the basilica functioned as a church or as it was abandoned. These
artefacts overwhelmingly come from sealed destruction layers, and from
three other sites (Table 2.2–2.5) where the churches appear to be aban-
doned. Then, where possible, these artefacts were reconstituted into the
stratigraphic layer and location in which they were recovered so that they
appear in the catalogue (Table 5.1–5.3) together with other artefacts from
the same location.57
These church sites were originally limited to those from the Levant,
but during the course of  this research some unexpected discoveries led to
the catalogue (Table 2.1) being extended to include some sites associated
directly and indirectly with the Roman See, and two of  these have docu-
mented links to the Roman patriarchate.
A number of problems were encountered in compiling the catalogue
of church sites. It is incredibly dif ficult to get access to original excavation

57 See also Appendix I in Mulholland (2011).

Methodology 33

material, not least because the site director and the associated experts
would understandably like to publish their own material. Many church
excavations are either not published at all, or are only partially published.
Others fall into the category of  ‘grey literature’ where a brief summary is
published. Even where there are published volumes these can be impossible
to access through interlibrary loans. Furthermore the artefactual material
is often simply ‘cleared’ or thrown out so that a plan of  the church and its
mosaic pavements can be drawn. Also, the means of recording artefacts can
dif fer depending on which method is used, and single context recording
is not commonplace.
Given these dif ficulties it has still been possible to identify enough
excavated church sites with sealed destruction layers (Table 2.2–2.5) from
which artefactual data has been extracted and compiled, and repeated pat-
terns of artefactual deposition have been identified.58
The appendices in the thesis, and upon which this book is based, were
intended to form the basis of a future reference work. As such the catalogue
has been designed to allow it to be further extended to incorporate other
Early Byzantine church sites, and to be extended into the Middle and Late
Byzantine periods as well. Furthermore, artefacts from other stratigraphic
layers can be added. Where church sites are abandoned, this would facilitate
further research questions such as how an abandoned church might be used
after it ceases to function as a church, and whether this dif fers from region
to region, and how? It would also allow the Byzantine-Umayyad interphase
to be interrogated to determine whether the switch in material culture is
as clear cut as suggested, and whether those church sites that continued to
function into the Umayyad period switched to using Umayyad material
culture or chose to retain close links with the Byzantine Empire, or other
similar links. Lastly, placing artefacts back into their original relationship
with each other in the archaeological record can lead to the development
of a behavioural archaeology that incorporates both an archaeology of
religion and a more defined archaeology of  liturgy.
In Chapter 3 the church sites in the catalogue are grouped together
into the three most common basilical church plans.

58 See the database in Mulholland (2011), Appendix II.

34 Chapter 2

Apse Altar table

Sanctuary,
enclosed by the
chancel barrier

Nave, located
between the two
rows of columns

Side aisles

Columns

Entrances

Eastern portico

Atrium

Portico – a roof
supported on
columns that
enclosed the atrium

Figure 2.1. Typical layout of  Early Byzantine monoapsidal basilical church, with
common terms used in the text. The eastern portico is often referred to as the narthex in
archaeological reports, and by the Middle Byzantine period the columns supporting the
eastern portico are replaced by a brick wall to form an enclosed corridor or porch that
more accurately ref lects the term.
Methodology 35

(i) Monoapsidal with (ii) Inscribed apse with (iii) Triapsidal

protruding apse lateral apsidal rooms

Figure 2.2. Apsidal variation: (i) monoapsidal (can be either single-aisled, or three-
aisled as illustrated); (ii) inscribed monoapsidal with lateral side rooms; (iii) triapsidal
(can be protruding apses or, as illustrated, inscribed).*
* For a similar deconstruction of apsidal configurations see Ribak (2007), figure 1, 2 and 3. Also
see Crowfoot (1941), 58.
Table 2.1. List of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites, arranged geographically and
with primary sources

No. Location Site Published excavation reports

Italy

1 Mola di Monte Gelato, South Etruria Potter (1997)

2 Santa Cornelia, Etruria Christie and Daniels (1991),

1–209

3 Santa Liberato, Etruria Christie, Gibson and Ward-Perkins

(1991), 313–352

Croatia

4 Poreč, or Parentium Terry and Eaves (2001)

Bulgaria
5 Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum
6 Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum
Poulter (1995); Strange (1995),
259–267; Butcher (1995), 269–
314; Poulter (1999), 1–53; Falkner
(1999), 55–296; Shepherd (1999),
297–378
As above

7 Philippopolis (Plovdiv) Bospachieva (2002), 55–76

Jordan

8 St. Theodore, Gerasa Kraeling (1938); Welles (1938),

483–484; Bellinger (1938), 497–
503; Baur (1938), 505–546

9 Synagogue Church, Gerasa As above

10 Propylaea Church, Gerasa As above

11 Cathedral at Gerasa As above

12 St. John the Baptist, St. George and SS. As above

Cosmas and Damianus, Gerasa

13 Bishop Genesius’ Church, Gerasa As above

14 Procopius Church, Gerasa As above

15 SS. Peter and Paul, Gerasa As above

16 Petra Church Bikai (2001)

17 Civic Complex Church, Pella of  the Smith and Day (1989)
Decapolis

Israel

18 Shavei Zion Prausnitz (1967); Avi-Yonah

(1967), 47–63.

19 North Church or SS. Sergius & Colt (1962)

Bacchus, Nessana

20 Kursi, Gergesa Tzaferis (1983)

21 Khirbet Ed-Deir Hirschfeld (1999)

22 Central Church, Herodium Netzer (1993), 219–232

23 Eastern Church, Herodium Netzer (1993), 219–232

24 Horvat Berachot Tsafrir (1993), 207–218

25 Horvat Beit Loya (Khirbet Lehi) Patrich (1993), 265–272

26 St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er-shemca Gazit (1993), 273–276

27 Ostrakine Oren (1993), 305–314

28 Central basilica, Ostrakine Oren (1993), 305–314

29 Coastal basilica, Ostrakine Oren (1993), 305–314

30 ‘Evron Tzaferis (1987), 36–53

31 Monastery church of  Martyrius Magen and Talgam (1990),

91–152

32 North Church, Rehovot-in-the-Negev Tsafrir (1988)

33 Haluza (Elusa) cathedral Negev (1993), 286–293

34 Horvat Hesheq Aviam (1990), 351–377, and

(1993), 54–65

35 Khirbat al-Karak Delougaz and Haines (1960)

36 Byzantine Church at Nahariya Dauphin and Edelstein (1984)

37 Khirbet el-Waziah, Western Galilee Aviam (2003), 41–59

38 St. Mary’s or South Church, Nessana Colt (1962)

No. Location Site Published excavation reports

39 Khirbet el-Beiyûdât Hizmi (1990), 245–264, and

(1993), 155–163

40 Beit ‘Einûn Magen and Talgam (1990),

275–286

41 Dor Dauphin (1993), 90–97; Dauphin

and Gibson (1994–1995), 9–38

42 Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, Jericho Netzer (1990), 191–200

43 Maresha (Beit Govrin) Kloner (1988–89), 125

44 Khirbet el-Shubeika Syon (2003), 75–82

45 Kissufim Cohen (1993), 277–282

Egypt

46 South Church, El-Ashmunein Bailey (1991)

Sudan

47 Old Church, Old Dongola Gartkiewicz (1990)

Table 2.2. Abandonment processes: Constantinopolitan church plan

Site Sealed fire Earthquake Continued use into Squatter activity

destruction layer damage Umayyad period or re-use

Shavei Zion, Israel Yes Yes

St. Theodore, Yes Yes, until mid-8th

Gerasa, Jordan century

Synagogue Church,
Yes, post-A.D. 724
Gerasa, Jordan

Propylaea Church, See St. Theodore No

Gerasa, Jordan
 Table 2.3. Abandonment processes: Syrian church plan

Site Sealed fire Earthquake Continued use Squatter

destruction damage into Umayyad activity or
layer period re-use
Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Yes Two phases of
Jordan robbing

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Yes Post-Medieval

Istrum, Bulgaria robbing of walls

North Church or SS. Sergius Yes

& Bacchus, Nessana, Israel

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel Yes Yes

St. John the Baptist, St. Yes Yes Yes

George and SS. Cosmas and
Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan

Khirbet Ed-Deir, Israel Yes Yes

Old Church, Old Dongola, Yes

Sudan

Central Church, Herodium,

Israel

Eastern Church, Herodium,

Israel

Horvat Berachot, Israel Yes

Horvat Beit Loya (Khirbet Yes

Lehi), Israel

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er-

shemca, Israel

Ostrakine, Israel Yes Yes

Central basilica, Ostrakine,

Israel

Coastal basilica, Ostrakine,

Israel

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Yes Yes

Istrum, Bulgaria

Monastery church of  Yes Yes

Martyrius, Israel
 Table 2.4. Abandonment processes: Roman church plan

Sealed fire Earthquake Continued use Squatter

Site destruction damage into Umayyad activity or
layer period re-use

‘Evron, Israel

Mola di Monte Gelato, Yes

South Etruria, Italy

North Church, Rehovot-in- Yes

the-Negev, Israel

Haluza (Elusa) cathedral,

Israel

Horvat Hesheq, Israel

Petra, Jordan Yes Yes

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel Yes Yes Yes

Pella of  the Decapolis, Yes Yes

Jordan

Poreč, or Parentium,
Croatia

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Yes Yes

Jordan

SS. Peter and Paul, Gerasa, Yes Yes

Jordan

Byzantine Church at Yes Yes

Nahariya, Israel

Khirbet el-Waziah, Western Yes Yes

Galilee, Israel

St. Mary’s or South Church, Yes Yes

Nessana, Israel

Santa Cornelia, Etruria, Yes

Italy

Santa Liberato, Etruria, Italy

 Table 2.5. Abandonment processes: indeterminate church plans

Site Sealed fire Earthquake Continued use Squatter

destruction damage into Umayyad activity or
layer period re-use

Khirbet el-Beiyûdât, Israel Yes

Beit ‘Einûn, Israel

Dor, Israel Yes Yes Yes

Philippopolis (Plovdiv), Yes

Bulgaria

Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, Jericho,

Israel

Maresha (Beit Govrin), Yes

Israel

Khirbet el-Shubeika, Israel Yes

South Church,
El-Ashmunein, Egypt

Kissufim, Israel

Bishop Genesius’ Church, Yes

Gerasa, Israel
Chapter 3

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

The previous chapter outlined the method used to approach the research
question. It was argued that it is possible that institutional activities associ-
ated with the Early Byzantine Church could be detected in the archaeologi-
cal record using comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual
deposition across a catalogue of sites with the same basic plan.1 It has been
further argued that the basilical church is the best and most appropriate
focus of research into comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefac-
tual deposition. That is, not all basilical churches, but rather the three most
common church plans in the Levant (figure 2.2) commonly described as (i)
a monoapsidal basilica, (ii) a basilica with an inscribed apse with a room
to either side of it, and (iii) a triapsidal basilica.2 These three church plans
were initially referred to as Type I, Type II and Type III church plans.3

1 Where a site archaeologist describes a church as an episcopal, monastic or a pilgrimage

church this is noted in the Appendix of  Mulholland (2011). However these distinc-
tions are notoriously dif ficult to distinguish in the archaeological record.
2 Crowfoot (1941), 58. I am also very conscious of  Durkheim’s cautionary statement:
‘First, for the sociologist as for the historian, social facts exist in relationship with the
social system to which they belong; hence they cannot be understood apart from it.
This is why two facts belonging to two dif ferent societies cannot be fruitfully com-
pared simply because they resemble one another. Those societies must also resemble
one another – which is to say that the societies themselves must be varieties of  the
same species. The comparative method would be impossible if social types did not
exist, and it cannot be usefully applied except within the same type.’ See Durkheim
(1995), 91–92.
3 This categorisation has similarities to Patrich’s Type I and Type II. See Patrich (2006),
343.
44 Chapter 3

Archaeological evidence for Early Byzantine basilical church

plans

In practical terms there are dif ferences between the three most common
basilical church plans that have an ef fect upon the deposition of artefacts.
For example, only the plan with the inscribed apse (figure 2.2) actually has
a room either side of  the apse in which artefacts can be deposited and so
these need to be placed into a separate category so that they can be directly
compared with other similar sites. Similarly triapsidal churches have side
apses where artefacts might be deposited and so these have their own cat-
egory. Churches with a protruding single apse then constitute a third type
because they have neither side apses nor side rooms where artefacts might
be deposited. However, as the sites were divided into these three groups it
became obvious that there are two further distinct internal liturgical con-
figurations: (i) Π-shaped sanctuary bounded by a chancel barrier, and that
extended slightly into the nave, and (ii) a T-shaped chancel barrier that
extended across both side aisles and into the nave, and that later evolved to
omit the nave extension so as to form a bar-shaped sanctuary that extended
across each side aisle.
Identifying these two internal configurations has been important
because each has implications for the deposition of artefacts within the
church building because the chancel barrier bounding the sanctuary demar-
cates the extent of  the sanctified area within the church. The Π-shaped
sanctuary occupies a far smaller space in a church than does the T-shaped
sanctuary, and conversely the unsanctified area in the latter occupies a
proportionately smaller area than in the former. This af fects those artefacts
commonly associated with liturgical furniture and high status marble bowls
or plates, which are deposited in the region of  the sanctuary. However in
compiling the catalogue it is also apparent that some sites have domestic
wares present and it is important to determine whether these were recovered
within the sanctuary or outside its parameters, and this is why it is impor-
tant to take into consideration the configuration of  the church sanctuary
when placing sites into groups with a similar church plan.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 45

(i) Constantinopolitan (ii) Syrian (iii) Roman

Figure 3.1. Three church plans evident in the catalogue of sites.

1 – Constantinopolitan church plan with Π-shaped sanctuary surrounded by chancel
barrier, and a major entrance either side of  the apse. 2 – Syrian church plan with
Π-shaped sanctuary surrounded by chancel barrier, and a room to either side of  the
apse. 3 – Roman church plan with a T-shaped sanctuary that extends across each of  the
side aisles and into the nave.*
* By the seventh century the nave extension is less common in the Roman church plan, and the
sanctuary can be described as bar-shaped. In Italy the monoapsidal church plan is common (see
Table 3.3. below). The Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman labels are appended to ref lect
observations made by Mathews. See Mathews (1962), 73–95. Also Mathews (1971).

Using these observations the church sites within the catalogue (Table
2.1) can be placed (figure 3.1) within three distinct groups, which are labelled
here as (i) a Constantinopolitan church plan, (ii) a Syrian church plan, and
(iii) a Roman church plan.4

4 When establishing classifications Durkheim advocates identifying a small number

of defining characteristics for each. See Durkheim (1982), 110–111.
46 Chapter 3

1. The first group have Π-shaped sanctuaries and have monoapsidal

church plans with a protruding apse. They are unusual in that they have a
major entrance to either side of  the apse. These characteristics also occur
in a Constantinopolitan church plan identified by Mathews. It is the con-
vention in archaeology to name a new discovery after the location where it
was first discovered or observed, and so this church plan has been labelled
here as a ‘Constantinopolitan church plan.’
Mathews identified some common characteristics, with the notable
exception of St. Polyeuktos at Saraçhane, for church plans in Constantinople
that he associated with the Byzantine rite.5 He observes that the defin-
ing characteristic that set them apart from those of other regions is that
they each have a major entrance to either side of  their apse and he argues
that this ‘feature alone (i.e., entrances f lanking the apse) distinguishes
the Constantinopolitan plan from church planning in many other Early
Christian centres.’6 These sites included imperial domed churches, centrally
planned and basilical churches. They have a Π-shaped chancel barrier that
encloses the sanctuary.7 Mathews notes that almost all the churches had
galleries, and we:

[…] have positive evidence of an atrium of sorts in all twelve of  the churches which
have been considered, with the exception of  Beyazit Basilica A where the area in
front of  the church was not excavated […] In six of  the churches a narthex is securely
known […] In no instance, however, do we find the narthex equipped with auxiliary
rooms […].8

Furthermore, he observes that the Hagia Sophia has an exterior north chapel
or skeuophylakion, also known as a diakonikon, where the clergy vest prior
to transferring the wine and bread for the liturgy to the altar and return to
after the liturgy to devest.9 It is also useful to note that Crowfoot observed

5 Mathews limited his sites only to the city of  Istanbul (Constantinople). Mathews
(1971).
6 Mathews (1971), 105.
7 Mathews (1971), 109.
8 Mathews (1971), 108.
9 Mathews (1971), 178. Also Krautheimer (1986), 520.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 47

similarities between some church sites at Gerasa and Constantinople during

excavations at the former.10
2. The second group also have Π-shaped sanctuaries. This church
plan has an inscribed apse and a room f lanking each side of  the apse. It
is commonly referred to as a ‘Syrian’ church plan.11 As noted above it is
the convention in archaeology to name a new discovery after the location
where it was first discovered or observed, and so this church plan has been
labelled here as a ‘Syrian church plan.’12
This distinctive Syrian church plan has been described and classified
as a separate group from at least the beginning of  the twentieth century.13
It is useful to note that Mathews also refers to a north Syrian church plan
that he associates with the Syrian rite and whose defining characteristic is
‘the triple sanctuary […], whether the side chambers and central apse are
f lush with a f lat terminating east wall or the three chambers are articulated
on the outside of  the church.’14 However he does include the anomalous
triapsidal church of  Qal’at Sim’an in this group.15 The distinctive char-
acteristics of  this group of churches are also noted by Krautheimer who
observes that the:

[…] aversion to Constantinople, shared by the native populations of  the border prov-
inces and their monophysite clergy eventually led to an exchange of architectural
ideas among the border populations. The ‘Syrian’ church plan – an apse, semicircular
or square, f lanked by lateral chambers – was brought into Egypt […].16

10 Crowfoot (1938), 169–262, and (1941), 50–51.

11 Butler’s expedition found this church plan to be common to Syria. See Butler (1903).
12 For clarification we can use a direct comparison with contemporary pottery. African
Red Slip Ware (ARSW) refers only to a specific type of red slip ware. Not all red slip
ware found in Africa is ARSW. Nor is ARSW only found in Africa, but it occurs all
around the Mediterranean basin. Similarly the term ‘Syrian church plan’ refers only
to those churches that share the same characteristics outlined here, and not to those
churches in the modern state of  Syria that have dif ferent church plans and layouts.
13 See Butler (1903), Ramsay and Bell (1909), and also Hill (1996).
14 It is anomalous because it is triapsidal and the chancel barrier extends across both
side aisles. See Mathews (1971), 106, 157 and figure 51.
15 Mathews (1971), 106, and figure 51.
16 Krautheimer (1986), 307.
48 Chapter 3

3. The third group have either a T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary

that extends across both side aisles and these occur primarily in triapsidal
church plans, but also in some monoapsidal church plans.17 It was tempt-
ing to split this group either into two regional groups, i.e. those from the
Levant and those from Italy, or into a group of  triapsidal church plans
and another of monoapsidal church plans. However both T-shaped and
bar-shaped sanctuaries occur in each church plan, and both monoapsidal
and triapsidal church plans occur in each region.18 It was also noted that
the nave extension that forms the upright of  the ‘T’ is absent from some
later sites, from the seventh century onwards, and possibly introduced as
a response to a liturgical innovation.
Mathews has identified a Roman church plan that he analysed in
respect of  the early Roman liturgy Ordo Romanus I, and its defining charac-
teristic is that ‘the eastern ends of  the aisles generally belong to the chancel
area; thus entrances in the eastern end are exceptional,’ i.e. it forms a dis-
tinctive T-shaped sanctuary.19 Again, as noted above, it is the convention
in archaeology to name a new discovery after the location where it was first
discovered or observed, and so this church plan has been labelled here as
a ‘Roman church plan.’
Mathews does identify a secretarium near the church entrance where
of ficiating clergy would prepare for Mass but he appears to stop short of

17 Crowfoot states that the ‘west part of  the chancel is the Syrian catastroma, the Greek
solea, and the choir or schola cantorum of  the West.’ Crowfoot (1941).
18 The church of  St. Clemente in Rome was possibly also a triapsidal church at one
time. Also the triapsidal church at Poreč is in the Roman sphere of inf luence and
there are other triapsidal church plans in the West such at the church of  St. Martin
at Autun, at Geneva, and also at Novae in Bulgaria. For Autun see Knight (2007), 88
and figure 23. For Geneva see Altet (2002), 62. And for Novae see Parnicki-Pudelko
(1983), 241–270.
19 Mathews (1971), 107. See also Mathews (1962), 73–95, and figure 1. In relation to
the nave extension, Crowfoot states that the ‘west part of  the chancel is the Syrian
catastroma, the Greek solea, and the choir or schola cantorum of  the West.’ See
Crowfoot (1941).
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 49

identifying this with the location of  the diakonikon.20 Instead Mathews
thinks that:

The early Roman liturgy was unusual in that a distinct place for the preparation
of  the gifts [rite of prothesis] did not exist, but the congregation themselves at the
beginning of  the Mass of  the Faithful brought of ferings of  bread and wine to the
sanctuary barrier at the eastern end of either aisle and presented these to the clergy.
From these of ferings a portion was simply selected and placed on the altar for the
Eucharistic sacrifice without any accompanying ceremony.21

If  this is the case then there should be archaeological evidence to support
this paraliturgical activity, perhaps in the form of domestic wares deposited
in the vicinity of  the east end of one or both side aisles. This will be exam-
ined in light of evidence from the catalogue (Table 5.1–5.3) in Chapter 5.
Once church sites had been placed together into one of  these three
categories it was apparent that further observations could be made about
each of  these distinctive church plans, and about characteristics that they
appear to share (Table 3.1–3.7) with others of  the same group. A fourth
group consists of church sites that did not match any of  these three cat-
egories and these will be subjected to further research at another time.22
Although perhaps premature, if only because Mathews’ own research
was restricted to church sites within the city boundaries of  Rome and
Constantinople, for greater clarity overall I have appended the labels (figure
3.1) previously applied to these three distinct church plans by Mathews, i.e.
Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman, which identify dif ference based
on rite used rather than geographical location, as such.

(i) Constantinopolitan church plan

There are four church sites that meet the criteria for this category, i.e. each
has a Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier and also a protruding apse

20 Mathews (1962), 76.

21 Mathews (1971), 156.
22 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.4.
50 Chapter 3

with a major entrance to either side of it (Table 3.1).23 Once these sites
were grouped together it became apparent that there were other shared
characteristics (Table 3.2) between some or all of  the sites.
Three of  the four sites have a separate exterior north chapel adjacent
to the church building. The St. Theodore Church in Gerasa is unusual in
having both a separate exterior north and south chapel adjacent to it, but
it also has a baptistery attached to the latter that might explain its pres-
ence. At the fourth site, i.e. the Synagogue Church, the excavation did
not appear to extend beyond the church building and so it is not known
whether it has a separate exterior adjacent side chapel. Further research
into sites with this Constantinopolitan church plan might reveal further
insights into its layout.
At three of  the sites there is an ambo located just south of  the main
nave entrance to the sanctuary, and at the other site at Shavei Zion there had
originally been two lecterns in the sanctuary and only the north lectern was
retained during later phases. Of  the four church sites only the Synagogue
Church in Gerasa (Table 3.2) has evidence for a synthronon or tiered seat
around the apse for the clergy, and none have evidence for a bishop’s seat.
These observations suggest that the list of characteristics common
to Constantinopolitan church sites might usefully be extended. Defining
characteristics of  this church plan can include:

1. Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier.

2. Protruding monoapsidal church plan.
3. Entrances f lanking the apse.
4. Multiple entrances on all sides.
5. Ambo located south or to the ‘epistle side’ of  the nave entrance to
the sanctuary.
6. Separate exterior north chapel adjacent to the church.

23 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 51

Artefactual evidence at these sites (Table 4.2) indicates that there are two
foci of  liturgical activity.24 Firstly, whole and fragmentary artefacts from
liturgical furniture are found primarily in the area of  the sanctuary, and
this provides supporting evidence that postholes for altar table legs and
chancel screen posts demarcate the sanctuary as a focus for liturgical per-
formance in the church.
A second focus for liturgical performance is indicated by the same
evidence of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition, i.e. of whole and
fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture in association with postholes
for altar table legs and chancel screen posts. This secondary focus of  liturgi-
cal activity is located in separate adjacent north chapels or parekklesiai at
three sites, which suggest that liturgical activity took place in parekklesiai,
possibly the rite of prothesis, and therefore the donation of gifts of  bread
and wine by the congregation might have took place outside the church
in these separate side chapels. For example (i) the site of  Shavei Zion has
a chapel just north of  the church and this has postholes for an altar table;
(ii) St. Theodore has a north chapel with postholes for a chancel barrier,
and also a chapel to the south with postholes for a chancel barrier; and (iii)
the Propylaea Church has a circular chapel along the north perimeter of 
the atrium that is almost identical in size and plan to the skeuophylakion or
diakonikon at the Hagia Sophia, and it has an inscription which identifies it
as the diakonia (place or ‘house’ of  the deacons).25 More importantly, there
is no competing archaeological evidence in any of  the sites for a secondary
focus of  liturgical performance inside the church building where the rite
of prothesis might have occurred.
Evidence from these four church sites would appear to support research
conducted by Mathews almost forty years ago into Early Byzantine churches
in Constantinople.26 They have in common a major entrance to either
side of  the apse, which Mathews identifies as the most important defin-
ing characteristic, and three of  the four sites have a separate north chapel.

24 See also Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1.

25 Inscription no. 331.
26 Mathews (1971).
52 Chapter 3

The main dif ferences are that six of  the churches in Constantinople
have a narthex, whereas none of  the basilicas with the Constantinopolitan
church plan in the catalogue have a narthex.27 Three do have porticos, i.e.
a narrow roof running around the internal perimeter of  the atrium with
its outer edge resting on the wall and the inner edge resting on columns,
and the Synagogue Church has a porch. Similarly, although Mathews also
found that almost all the churches he examined had galleries, none of  the
four basilical churches with a Constantinopolitan plan appear to have
these.28 However Mathews includes domed and centrally-planned churches
in his research and this may explain why they have galleries and a narthex.
Crucially, he argues that the ‘triple sanctuary that has traditionally
been associated with the origin of  Byzantine architecture does not occur
in pre-iconoclastic Constantinople.’29 Crowfoot makes a similar argument
in relation to churches with this plan at Gerasa and similar churches in
Constantinople.30 He also notes the similarity between the churches of 
St. Theodore, the Prophets and the Synagogue church in Gerasa to that
of  St. John Stoudios at Constantinople and also the Hagia Sophia and SS.
Sergios and Bacchos where there were entrances f lanking the apse instead
of side chambers.
It is interesting that Mathews has argued that the skeuophylakion or
diakonikon at the Hagia Sophia is located in a circular structure to the
north of  the church.31 Mathews thought this is where the clergy vest prior
to transferring the wine and bread for the liturgy to the altar in the Hagia
Sophia and return to after the liturgy to devest.32 He argues that the:

[…] Early Byzantine church plan […] did not include a diaconicon for vesting and
devesting; once the liturgy was over, the celebrant had nowhere to go except to
retrace his steps back out of  the church.33

27 See Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1.

28 Mathews (1971), 108.
29 Mathews (1971), 156.
30 Crowfoot (1938), 181, and footnote 25.
31 Mathews (1971), 13, 38 and figure 49. See also Migne (1857), 114 and 1188.
32 Mathews (1971), 178 and figure 49.
33 Mathews (1971), 173.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 53

As noted previously, there is a similar circular side chapel located along the
north side of  the atrium at the Propylaea Church in Gerasa with an inscrip-
tion that describes it as a diakonia, and three of  the four Constantinopolitan
churches do have north chapels that might have fulfilled this function. If the
diakonikon is indeed located in a circular side chapel at the Hagia Sophia,
and the clergy process from and to this side chapel during performance of 
the liturgy, then this ritualised activity could be replicated at other Early
Byzantine basilical churches.

(ii) Syrian church plan

There is a remarkable homogeneity between the fifteen church sites with

this plan in the catalogue (Table 3.3–3.5).34 These sites have in common a
Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier, but in these churches there is an
inscribed apse that has a room to either side of it.35 These defining charac-
teristics are commonly referred to as a Syrian church plan, and once sites
from the catalogue were grouped together it was noted that they often
have other characteristics in common.36 The defining characteristics of 
this church plan can include:

1. Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier.

2. Inscribed monoapsidal church plan.
3. A room to either side of  the apse.
4. Entrance usually from the west.
5. Ambo predominantly on the south or the ‘epistle side’ of nave
entrance to sanctuary.
6. Where present the baptistery is located in the room south of  the
apse or in the vicinity of  the south aisle.
7. Separate south chapel parallel with and accessed from the south aisle.

34 See Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.2.

35 It is notable that at the Cathedral Church in Gerasa the Π-shaped chancel barrier
is extended across each of  the side aisles in a later construction phase.
36 See Butler (1903). Also Mathews (1971), 106 and 120.
54 Chapter 3

Most of  these churches have their main entrance from the west, but the
Old Church at Old Dongola, and also Khirbet el-Beiyûdât from the fourth
indeterminate group, have south entrances and these may be indicative of
an Alexandrian or Nubian church plan.37
Six of  the sites have evidence for an ambo (Table 3.4) and three of 
these are located to the south of  the nave entrance into the sanctuary. Two
have the ambo located to the north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary,
but one of  these occurs at Nessana where Colt cautions in his foreword
that where architectural evidence is lacking he has drawn analogies from
Sbeita to compensate.38 The Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum dif fers
in that it has an ambo in the middle of  the nave aligned along the east-west
axis of  the church. Three of  these sites have evidence for a synthronon or
tiered seating for the clergy in the apse, and the North Church at Nessana
has evidence for a bishop’s seat in the apse. Where the walls survive to a
suf ficient height it is apparent that each room to either side of  the apse has
a niche at chest height set into the wall closest to the apse.
Ten Syrian churches (66%) have baptismal fonts. Where baptismal
fonts occur they are located (a) within the extended church building and
(b) are located in the south of  the building. Of  these, five of  the baptismal
fonts are located in the room to the south of  the apse (Kursi, Old Dongola,
Central Church at Herodium, Ostrakine, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus),
two of f  the south aisle (Horvat Beit Loya, St. Stephen’s at Horvat Be’er-
shemca), one in the south chapel (Eastern Church at Herodium) and at the
cave church of  Khirbet ed-Deir the baptistery is located southeast of  the
church. The sole exception is the North Church at Nessana where the font
was built into the east portico/narthex.39 The location of  these baptismal

37 See Adams (1965), 87–139.

38 Colt notes in the foreword that ‘concerning the architectural restorations: while
there is little actual proof at Auja for some of  them, analogies have been drawn from
similar well preserved remains at Sbeita, where definite proof was not lacking.’ See
Colt (1962).
39 The location of  this font is similar to the fountain in Baldachin I at Kalenderhane in
Constantinople. The fountain was thought to be suppressed when the Bema Church
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 55

fonts suggests that the candidate for baptism must enter the church build-
ing before being baptised.
Whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture are found
primarily in the area of  the sanctuary, and this provides useful supporting
evidence that postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts demar-
cate the sanctuary out as a focus for liturgical performance in the church.40
A second focus for liturgical performance is indicated using the same
evidence of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition, i.e. of whole and
fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture in association with postholes
for altar table legs and chancel screen posts. This provides evidence for a
secondary focus of  liturgical activity such as the rite of prothesis in separate
side chapels or parekklesiai parallel with and accessed from the south aisle.
Six of  the fifteen sites have a south chapel, but the North Church at Nessana
goes against the trend again and has a separate north chapel, and so does
Horvat Beit Loya. There is a possible reason for these two churches going
against the trend, i.e. they may be undiagnosed Syrian-to-Roman church
conversions, which are discussed in the next section on Roman church plans.
At Kursi an inscription (Table 4.1) in the room south of  the apse
provides a construction date of  A.D. 585 for the Phase II baptistery here,
and also for the contemporary south chapel, which is parallel with and
accessed from the south aisle.41 This date coincides with the dissolution of 
the Ghassanid phylarchy in A.D. 584 by emperor Maurice shortly after the
death of  Jacob Baradaeus in A.D. 578. Mango credits Baradaeus with con-
ducting many of  the ordinations that helped to establish the Monophysite
or Jacobite Church.42 Because of  the apparent correlation between this
church plan and a south chapel (Table 3.5), both of  the single-aisled mono-
apsidal churches at the monastery of  Martyrius and the Small Basilica at
Nicopolis ad Istrum have been placed in this group as well.

was constructed. See Chapter III.14 in Striker and Kuban (1997), 88–95 and figure
58–59.
40 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.2.
41 For the inscription at Kursi see Tzaferis (1983), and (1993), 77–79.
42 Mango (1980), 96. Also Angold (2002), 40.
56 Chapter 3

The available evidence does indicate that this group of churches dif fers
considerably from the other two groups in both their planning and how
they are used. Of  the three basilical church plans they are the only one to
have a room to either side of  the apse and eight of  these church sites (at six
of  the original church sites and the two single-aisled monoapsidal church
sites just discussed) have a separate south chapel, whereas a separate north
chapel is common to the other two church plans.
On balance this evidence appears to support observations made by
Mathews in respect of a north Syrian church plan and the Syrian rite.
Through grouping these church sites together further observations have
been made that enhance our understanding of  the Syrian church plan,
but there are notable dif ferences to Mathews’ original observations.43
None of  the churches with this plan have a semicircular bema or raised
platform in the nave that Mathews associates with it, and indeed his
own illustrations of  this church plan also omit this architectural fea-
ture.44 Also of note is that Mathews places the triapsidal church of  Qal’at
Sim’an among north Syrian sanctuary plans. In my own catalogue of sites
(Table 3.6) these triapsidal basilical church plans are usually associated
with T-shaped sanctuaries that extend across each of  the side aisles, and
which Mathews links to the Roman church plan that he associates with
Ordo Romanus I.45

(iii) Roman church plan

There are sixteen Early Byzantine churches (Table 3.6–3.7) with this plan.
At these sites the apsidal end of  the church is cordoned of f  by the chancel
barrier, and in three-aisled basilical churches the chancel barrier extends

43 Mathews (1971).
44 Mathews (1971), 120, 106 and figure 51.
45 See Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3. Although note that the Cathedral Church in
Gerasa (Appendix I.2a) does share this feature, and it might reward further research.
See Kraeling (1960), Plan XXXI.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 57

across both side aisles.46 The sanctuary, enclosed by the chancel barrier,
occupies far more space in these churches, particularly at the twelve sites
(75%) where the chancel barrier extends forward into the nave (figure 3.1)
to form a T-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier. Of  the other four sites,
three have bar-shaped sanctuaries bounded by chancel barriers, and at
‘Evron it is dif ficult to determine its configuration.
Of particular note is that thirteen (81%) of  these churches are triapsidal
and all but two (the Procopius Church and Mola di Monte Gelato) have
T-shaped sanctuaries. Three of  the sites are monoapsidal and of  these one
has a T-shaped sanctuary and the others are bar-shaped.
Again these sites exhibit considerable homogeneity (Table 3.6) and
once these sites were assembled together in the catalogue it quickly became
apparent that they often share other common characteristics. Defining
characteristics of  this church plan can include:

1. T-shaped sanctuary extending into the nave, and also across the east
end of each side aisle. At the start of  the seventh century the nave
extension is less common, which results in a bar-shaped sanctuary.
2. Triapsidal church plan, usually inscribed, and the Italian sites are
often monoapsidal.
3. Side altars often present in both monoapsidal and triapsidal
configurations.
4. Evidence for multiple relics or reliquaries in many sites.
5. Ambo is generally the ‘gospel side’ or north of nave entrance to
sanctuary.
6. Baptistery located outside the church and, where it exists, usually
of f  the atrium or in the north chapel.
7. Possible high status imperial association through marble litur-
gical furniture and imported finewares similar to Marzamemi
assemblage.

46 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3.

58 Chapter 3

8. Christian decorative elements on chancel screens can include four-

and six-armed ‘wreathed cross’ f lanked by Latin crosses.47
9. Separate north chapel.

As with the other two church plans the location and extent of  the sanc-
tuary is identified using whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical
furniture.48 These are recovered primarily in the area of  the triple apse and
extend across the ends of  both side aisles, and this provides useful support-
ing evidence that postholes in the sanctuary are for altar table legs and the
chancel screen postholes demarcate the sanctuary as a focus for liturgical
performance in the church.
However, it is also evident that there is a second focus for liturgical
performance demarcated using this same evidence of repeated patterns of
artefactual deposition, i.e. of whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgi-
cal furniture in association with postholes for altar table legs and chancel
screen posts. This secondary focus of  liturgical activity occurs in separate
adjacent north chapels or parekklesiai. Of  those sites where the excavation
extends beyond the walls of  the church there is surprising consistency in
that eight of  the sixteen sites have a north chapel (Table 3.7) and only one,
the South Church at Nessana, has a south chapel. Of particular interest
is that the north chapel at Khirbat al-Karak has a mosaic inscription that
identifies it as the diakonikon.49

47 G.M. Fitzgerald wrote: ‘Between these stones and the apse, we found a broken slab
of marble 1.23 metres wide (and probably at least a metre high when complete) with a
cross surrounded by a wreath carved on one side (Plate III, Figure 5.) This suggested
a clue to the meaning of  the word στεφανοσταυρίον (wreathed cross) which is found
in both the inscriptions in the chapel f loor.’ The wreathed cross is on a marble chancel
screen fragment. See Fitzgerald (1939), 3–4, and 14–16, and also figure 5. For the text
see Ovadiah and Ovadiah (1987), 26–30.
48 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3.
49 Inscription no. 1: ‘+[Christ help] Theodore Magister and Theophilas and Basil.
[Gloriously] was executed the paving of  the communicating hall and of  the diaco-
nicon under [the pious] presbyters Elijah and Basil in Indiction 7, year 591.’ The
year 591 provides a date of  A.D. 528/9 at the start of  Justinian’s reign (A.D. 527–565).
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 59

Where there are baptismal fonts in baptisteries they are located outside
the church building. This might suggest that people are baptised before
entering the church building. In the triapsidal churches at Petra, Pella and
Poreč they are located in or of f  the atrium, and at Khirbat al-Karak and the
monoapsidal churches at Santa Cornelia and Mola di Monte Gelato they
are in a north chapel. Once the candidate had been baptised they could
then process into the church to be welcomed by the congregation, and
this would be a dif ferent experience to that undertaken by a candidate for
baptism in a church with the Syrian church plan where they had to enter
the church complex to reach the baptistery where they were baptised.
There is evidence for an ambo at only four of  these sites (Table 3.7),
but in all four cases it is located north of  the nave entrance to the sanctu-
ary, often referred to as the ‘Gospel side.’ Of interest is that seven of  the
churches provide some evidence for a synthronon in the apse and four have
evidence for a bishop’s seat in the apse, and possibly at a fifth also. The pres-
ence of a synthronon or tiered seating in the main apse would suggest that
it was a regular occurrence for the clergy or choir to sit there. Similarly
the presence of a bishop’s seat in the main apse would also indicate that it
was a regular occurrence for a bishop, or their representative, to be seated
there. These are more common in the Roman church plan than in the other
two church plans discussed, i.e. Constantinopolitan and Syrian, and this
would strongly suggest that there are dif ferences in how churches with
these dif ferent plans are used.
There is evidence that many of  the triapsidal churches have a side altar
located in each of  the side apses that were either located over reliquaries
placed in the mosaic pavement beneath them or which supported reliquar-
ies. Side altars occur in the triapsidal churches at Horvat Hesheq, Haluza,
Nahariya, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, the Petra Church,
and Khirbat al-Karak, and also at the monoapsidal church of  Santa Cornelia
in Italy (A.D. 774–776). There are also instances where small tables are
attached or located immediately to the rear of  the chancel barrier facing

See Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A. Also Haines (1960), 17, and Kraeling
(1960), 53.
60 Chapter 3

the nave, such as at the Petra Church, and because of  this they are referred
to as ‘of fertory tables.’50
It is possible that this activity is driven by the 14th canon of  the Council
of  Carthage (A.D. 401) in which the placing of relics in caskets beneath
altars is made compulsory in the West for churches associated with the
Roman See, which is a practice that is not made compulsory for churches
in the East until the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in A.D. 787.51 This
passion for collecting multiple relics of saints and placing these on or under
side altars in Palestine, Constantinople and France is attested by contem-
porary texts.52 In relation to fifth–sixth century triapsidal churches in the
Negev, Zbigniew Fiema suggests there is:

[…] reemphasis on the cult of Martyrs and Saints, and the associated liturgical changes
which af fected architectural arrangements and the location of  the reliquaries.53

Perhaps the most enlightening reason prof fered for this cultic practice
comes from an eighth-century textual reference in the West that might
better illuminate the rationale behind multiple altars, and because of
its importance I provide the relevant quote in full. Saint Benedict of 
Aniane and Inde is commanded in A.D. 782 by King Charles the Great
(Charlemagne) to construct a monastery at Aniane (near to Arles and the
south coast of  France), and:

50 For Petra see Kanellopoulos and Schick (2001), figure 20.

51 See Tzaferis (1983), 9–10, and footnote 7.
52 In the sixth century Radegund (A.D. 525–587) Queen of  the Franks sent for relics of 
the Blessed Mammas to accompany the many relics of saints from the East that she
already possessed. She also petitioned the Byzantine emperor Justin II in A.D. 568/9
for wood from the True Cross for her monastery. See McNamara, Halborg and
Whatley (1992), 95–97. In a later eighth-century text referring to Constantinople
there is a reference to three saints, i.e. Anthony, Timothy and Luke the Evangelist,
who are buried beneath one altar, and to Saint John Chrysostom who is buried in
front of another altar. See Talbot (1995), 159. Another example of  the cult of saints
is found in Connolly and Picard (1987), 26.
53 Fiema (2001), 53. Also Margalit (1989), 143–164 and (1990), 321–334; Negev (1989),
129–142; Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1988); Schneider (1938), 96–108; and Kraeling
(1960), 22–25.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 61

Because it glistened with outstanding religious observance, we deem it appropriate to

relate for future generations some things about the location of  that place. Venerable
Father Benedict decided upon pious ref lection to consecrate the aforesaid church not
by the title of one of  the saints but in the name of  the Holy Trinity. For it to be more
clearly recognized, he determined that three small altars should be placed near the
main altar so that by them the persons of  the Trinity may be figuratively indicated.
A marvellous arrangement it is: by the three altars the undivided Trinity is shown
forth and by the single altar the true Godhead in essence is shown forth. The great
altar is one solid surface on the front, but inwardly concave […] It has a little door
behind where on ferial days chests containing various relics of  the fathers are enclosed
[…] Lastly three further altars in the basilica were dedicated, one in honor of  Saint
Michael the archangel, another in devotion to the blessed apostles Peter and Paul,
and a third in honor of good Stephen the protomartyr […] In the church of  Blessed
Mary Mother of  God which was first established, there are altars of Saint Martin and
blessed Benedict. But that one that is built in the cemetery is distinguished in honor
of  Saint John the Baptist […] It is appropriate to ponder with what profound humility
and reverence this place was feared by them, this place protected by so many princes.
The Lord Christ is indeed the Prince of all princes, King of  kings, the Lord of  lords.
Blessed Mary Mother of  God is held to be queen of all virgins. Michael is placed over
all angels. Peter and Paul are chiefs of  the apostles. Stephen the protomartyr holds
first place in the choir of witnesses. Martin shines as a gem of prelates. Benedict is
father of all monks. By the seven altars, by the seven candelabra, and by the seven
lamps, the sevenfold grace of  the Holy Spirit is understood.54

From this it is apparent that the main church has seven altars in total, the
church dedicated to Mary has two altars, and the cemetery church only
one.55 However the precise location of  these altars and the church plan
are not provided, although we should note here that there are certainly
contemporary triapsidal churches found in the West at this time. The
presence of multiple altar tables in churches would go some way towards
explaining why the sanctuary in Chalcedonian Roman churches occupied
such a large area in the Early Byzantine basilical church.
On the basis of  the available archaeological evidence the Roman
church plan not only appears to be significantly dif ferent to that of  both

54 See Cabaniss (1995), 217 and footnote 9, and also 228–229.

55 I take there to be a main altar f lanked by one dedicated to Saint Martin (Martin of 
Tours), and the other to Benedict (Benedict of  Nursia).
62 Chapter 3

the Constantinopolitan and Syrian church plans, but also to be used dif fer-
ently. With the notable exception of  the South Church at Nessana, the
presence of a separate north chapel appears to be a common feature and
there does appear to be a clear north bias with the ambo generally located
to the north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary.
Mathews’ contention that the laity brought gifts up to the altar and
some of  these were then transferred straight to the church altar for the
liturgy is challenged by the presence of  these separate north chapels, and
in particular by the mosaic inscription at Khirbat al-Karak which describes
it as the diakonikon. Instead the archaeological evidence for an altar table
and chancel screen in these side chapels appears to favour Crowfoot’s con-
tention that the rite of prothesis took place in a separate side chapel, which
also functioned as a diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period.
Similarly, Mathews depicts the typical Roman church as monoapsidal
with a T-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier.56 However, the church of 
St. Clemente in Rome is possibly triapsidal, i.e. there are two apses present
and with a possible third apse obscured by a later staircase. The church of 
St. Clemente also has a T-shaped sanctuary enclosed by a chancel barrier
that matches the typical T-shaped sanctuary in the Levant such as at SS.
Peter & Paul in Gerasa.57 Shlomo Margalit has observed a connection
between triapsidal church buildings and the Roman Church in Palestine
during the sixth century, noting that the ‘ideology of  the Orthodox (in
the epoch of  Justinian I through to Heraclius) finally overcame the beliefs
of  the Monophysites.’58 The archaeological evidence links these triapsidal
churches with a T-shaped sanctuary that Mathews identifies as common
to Roman churches, which favours Margalit’s analysis.
Of particular interest here is that there is archaeological evidence in
the form of  liturgical furniture that links some of  the triapsidal Roman
church sites from the catalogue to the church of  St. Clemente in Rome.

56 Mathews (1962), figure 1.

57 For St. Clemente see Brandenburg (2005), 295 and plate XIX.5, 293 and plate
XVIII.1, and also 314 and plate XXXVI.1. For SS. Peter & Paul see Crowfoot (1941),
frontispiece.
58 Margalit (1989), 155.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 63

The church of  St. Clemente in Rome was renovated during the early
sixth century by presbyter Mercurius. Mercurius later became pope John II
(A.D. 533–535) and there is a chancel screen in the church that bears his encir-
cled monogram f lanked by two Latin crosses.59 This same decoration, albeit
with the monogram of pope John II replaced by a six-armed wreathed cross,
appears on chancel screens at Poreč in Croatia, the Marzamemi ‘church’
shipwreck, the church of  St. Polyeuktos at Saraçhane in Constantinople,
and also at San Marco in Venice which Harrison thinks has architectural
elements looted from St. Polyeuktos.60 There are also remarkable similari-
ties between an ambo recovered from the Marzamemi ‘church’ shipwreck,
two others from Beyazit Basilica A and St. Polyeuktos in Constantinople,
and another from the triapsidal church at Novae in Bulgaria.61
There is a similar decoration with Latin crosses f lanking a four-armed
wreathed cross also found at the three Roman church sites of  the North
Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Horvat Hesheq and Petra and also at

59 The monoapsidal basilical church of  St. Clemente was renovated during the sixth
century by presbyter Mercurius/pope John II and the chancel screen bears his mono-
gram. The renovated church has evidence for a second apse, and a third is possibly
obscured by a later staircase, i.e. it might have been a triapsidal church. It is interesting
that he began the renovations under pope Hormisdas (A.D. 514–523), who healed the
schism with Constantinople and emperor Justin I (A.D. 518–527). See Brandenburg
(2005), plate 73, and 294–295.
60 For the Marzamemi shipwreck see Kapitän (1969), 123 and 128. For Poreč see Terry
(1988), figure 62, 63 and 64. For Saraçhane see Harrison (1986), figure H, and also
plate 177 and 178. For San Marco see Terry (1988), 41–51, and figure 3, 8, 10, 10 and
19. Harrison argues that St. Polyeuktos was renovated from A.D. 524–527. He also
draws parallels between St. Polyeuktos and Poreč, and with San Marco in Venice
among others. See Harrison (1989), 15–41, 141 and figure 176, and also 103, 104 and
figure 122 and 125.
61 For the church shipwreck at Marzamemi see Kapitän (1980), figure 18 and 26. For
the Beyazit Basilica A ambo see Mathews (1971), figure 37. For St. Polyeuktos see
Harrison (1986), plate 181, and also figure H. And for Novae see Parnicki-Pudelko
(1983), figure 13. For a hypothetical reconstruction of  the Novae ambo see Biernacki
(1995), 315–332, and particularly figure 10.
64 Chapter 3

the North Church in Nessana, but also at the church of  Mount Nebo.62
The church at Petra and the North Church in Nessana also have identical
pierced marble chancel screens, and Mount Nebo and Pella share another
pierced marble chancel screen design that appears on a later solid marble
chancel screen from Santa Cornelia in Italy.63 All of  these sites have Roman
church plans with the exception of  the North Church at Nessana, which
however does have a north chapel and was renovated during the early sixth
century, and also the church at Mount Nebo which was rebuilt during the
sixth century.
It is dif ficult to determine why some sites with a Syrian church plan
have common decorative elements in their liturgical furniture to those
found in the church of  St. Clemente in Rome, or why they share similarities
to those with a Roman church plan. However there is remarkable evidence
that five Roman churches were constructed originally with a Syrian church
plan, but were subsequently converted to a triapsidal Roman church plan
during the sixth century, and the church at Khirbat al-Karak is a simple
monoapsidal-to-triapsidal church conversion. There is also evidence that
the church at Novae in Bulgaria was also converted to a triapsidal Roman
church plan at this time.64

(iv) Syrian-to-Roman church conversion

These sites form a distinctive sub-group and there are distinct character-
istics associated with these sites.

62 For the North Church at Nessana see Colt (1962), plate XIX. For Mount Nebo see
Saller (1941), 124.3 and 125.2. For the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev see
Patrich (1988), plate X. For Horvat Hesheq see Aviam (1990), figure 20. And for
the Petra Church see Kanellopoulos and Schick (2001), figure 5.
63 For the identical pierced chancel screen at the North Church in Nessana see Colt
(1962), plate XVIII2, and at Petra see panels ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘d’ in Kanellopoulos and Schick
(2001), figure 15 and 17. The other related group are found at Mount Nebo in Saller
(1941), plate 124.2; at Pella in Smith and Day (1989), 123, figure 34 and plate 20A;
and at Santa Cornelia in Christie and Daniels (1991), plate 48–50.
64 Parnicki-Pudelko (1983), 241–270.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 65

1. T-shaped or bar-shaped chancel barrier and sanctuary on raised

mosaic pavement, but possibly with evidence for a Π-shaped chan-
cel barrier and sanctuary retained in the suppressed lower mosaic
pavement.
2. The converted church either has side apses inserted into each room
to either side of  the main inscribed apse, as at Horvat Hesheq, or
the east end of  the church demolished and rebuilt in a triapsidal
configuration, as at Pella of  the Decapolis.
3. A separate north chapel or diakonikon associated with the triapsidal
Roman church plan, and possibly a suppressed south chapel attached
to the south aisle associated with the earlier Syrian church plan.
4. These conversions appear to coincide with the switch in religious
favour from the Monophysite Antiochene or Syrian Church to
the Chalcedonian Roman Church during the sixth century that
accompanied the accession of emperor Justin I and his nephew
Justinian I.
5. As noted in the previous section, liturgical furniture from several
churches have decorative motifs that link these sites to the church
of  St. Clemente in Rome. Five of these are known Syrian-to-Roman
church plan conversions, i.e. Poreč in Croatia, the North Church
at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Horvat Hesheq, Petra and Pella.

This is a phenomenon that has already been explored in Palestine by

Margalit who provides evidence that during the early sixth century Syrian
churches with f lanking apsidal rooms are converted into triapsidal churches
at the North Church at Shivta, the cathedral at Haluza, Avdat, Khirbet
Eirav, Horvat Hesheq, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, and
at Pella of  the Decapolis.65 It is also apparent that the Petra Church in
Jordan is converted at this time, and also the church at Khirbat al-Karak.66
As noted above, the timing of  these events is significant. Procopius
of  Caesarea states that Chosroes invaded this region in A.D. 540 and over

65 Margalit (1989), 143–164.

66 For Petra see Bikai (2001). And for Khirbat al-Karak see Delougaz and Haines (1960).
66 Chapter 3

four successive years during which he captured Antioch and resettled the
captives in Persia in the city of  Ctesiphon, referred to as the ‘Antioch of 
Chosroes.’67 It is possible that these successive Persian invasions simply
depleted the indigenous Monophysite Syrian population in this area, and
they were then subsequently replaced by colonists from the West who then
adapted abandoned Syrian churches into triapsidal churches to suit their
own liturgical needs.
However the churches at Poreč in Croatia and Novae in Bulgaria were
also converted during the mid-sixth century and, as mentioned earlier, the
church of  St. Clemente in Rome was similarly renovated with a second
apse (and possibly into a triapsidal church plan, i.e. a third apse may be
obscured by a later staircase) by presbyter Mercurius (later pope John II,
from A.D. 533–535) under pope Hormisdas, with whom emperor Justin I
(A.D. 518–527) healed the schism between Constantinople and Rome.68
The pro-Chalcedonian emperor Justin I succeeded the pro-Monophysite
emperor Anastasius I (A.D. 491–518), and is credited with immediately
seeking reconciliation with the Church of  Rome. Justin I sent a letter
to pope Hormisdas (A.D. 514–523) noting his election at the favour of 
the ‘inseparable Trinity,’ and the army and Senate.69 S. Ashbrook Harvey
notes that when Justin I ascended the throne in A.D. 518 ‘Imperial favor
turned decisively to Rome, and a pro-Chalcedonian stance was a major
part of  that shift.’70 In light of  this historical information it would be fair
to ask whether these Syrian-to-Roman church conversions in the region
of  Syria and Palestine ref lect a more universal discrimination against the
Monophysite Syrian Church.

67 Dewing (1998), 381 and 489.

68 Brandenburg (2005), 146. See also Anastos (1985), 126–139.
69 Anastos (1985), 134.
70 Christian Chalcedonian Catholic Church (or C4), as set out in the imperial enact-
ment of  A.D. 380 that is reproduced in Justinian’s Code. Some commentators also
refer to it as the Melchite Church. See Harvey (1988), 296. Also Mango (1980), 88.
See also Godlewski (1993), 169–176. Harrison notes that full restoration of  links
with Rome were in ef fect by A.D. 523. See Harrison (1986), 420.
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 67

Justin I and his successor Justinian I (A.D. 527–565) are thought to

have persecuted the Monophysite church, and by A.D. 519 their bishops are
‘deposed and banished.’71 Milton V. Anastos cited an edict issued by Justin
I in A.D. 527, possibly in collaboration with Justinian I, ‘which imposed
heavy penalties upon heretics and deprived them of  their property,’ and
this could explain these radical changes at this time.72 Volker L. Menze also
argues that by A.D. 538 the emperor Justinian I allowed Chalcedonians to
take over ‘Arian’ property as well, and this might have led to some Arian
churches being converted to Roman church plans at this time also.73
The degree of antipathy between the Chalcedonian Church and those
whose Monophysite churches it converted might best be seen at Pella of the
Decapolis where a chancel post from the earlier church is re-used as a step
into the renovated T-shaped sanctuary. This meant that the Chalcedonian
clergy stepped on it each time they entered and left the sanctuary, and a
chancel screen panel was re-used as the base for the new altar table.74 It is
also evident from the internal banishment by Justinian I of  the Monophysite
patriarch of  Alexandria and three hundred of  the most eminent bishops
and clergy from the Alexandrian Church in A.D. 536–537 to a fortress
called Dercus in Thrace.75
On the basis of  the available evidence from the catalogue these sites
with a Roman church plan from the Levant dif fer considerably from both
the Constantinopolitan and Syrian church plans, both in plan and internal
configuration. Not only do they share T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary
layouts similar to those of  Roman churches in Italy, but several also share
decorative elements in the liturgical furniture with the early sixth cen-
tury church of  St. Clemente in Rome and the church of  Santa Cornelia.
Furthermore a third are converted Syrian-to-Roman church plans that

71 See for instance Mango (1980), 88–97. Also Angold (2002), 40–41. For a detailed
history of  these events see also Menze (2008), 8–9.
72 Anastos (1985), 138.
73 In this context Menze uses ‘Arian’ to indicate opponents of  the Council of  Nicaea.
Menze (2008), 6 and footnote 20.
74 Smith and Day (1989), figure 33, and plate 35A.
75 Menze (2008), 223.
68 Chapter 3

share decorative elements on their liturgical furniture with the church of 
St. Clemente in Rome.
Lastly, those basilical church sites that could not be assigned to any
of  the three categories outlined above were placed together in a group of
indeterminate sites. Some of  these sites are incomplete, or incompletely
excavated. Others are not a natural fit for any of  the three groups and this
may signal that there are other church plans, and possibly other liturgies,
that remain to be identified. For example it is possible that there might
be a distinctive Alexandrian church plan, perhaps similar to the Nubian
churches excavated by Adams, which might ref lect a unique Alexandrian
liturgy.76 The question for archaeologists is whether it is possible to design
and implement a research strategy that might unveil similar patterns of
activity in the archaeological record.

Conclusion

In this chapter the intention had been to place Early Byzantine basilical
churches from the catalogue into the three most common groups identified
by Crowfoot to allow like-for-like analysis of repeated patterns of artefac-
tual deposition between sites with a common ground plan. A catalogue
of  forty-seven church sites (Table 2.1) was compiled. However a problem
was encountered.
Having compiled the catalogue of sites it became clear that there are
two distinct sanctuary configurations, i.e. the Π-shaped sanctuary and the
T-shaped sanctuary, that could af fect artefactual deposition and which
needed to be considered when placing sites into groups. When these two
factors were taken into consideration the sites could be placed into three
new defined groups (figure 3.1), and also a fourth group of  ‘indeterminate’
sites that did not match any of  these.

76 Adams (1965), 87–139.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 69

The Π-shaped sanctuary is found in association with two distinct

groups of  Early Byzantine basilical churches. In the first group the Π-shaped
sanctuary is found in monoapsidal church sites where the apse protrudes and
there is a major entrance to either side of it.77 This group broadly matches
that which Mathews linked to a distinctive Constantinopolitan church plan
and with the Byzantine rite. In the second group the Π-shaped sanctuary is
found in sites that have an inscribed apse with a room to either side of it.78
These sites correspond to sites that Howard Butler describes as Syrian and
broadly match those which Mathews linked with the Monophysite Syrian
liturgy of northern Syria.79 A third group of churches was suggested by fur-
ther research which indicated that the T-shaped and bar-shaped sanctuary
are associated with triapsidal church plans in the Levant and Croatia, and
commonly with a monoapsidal church plan in Italy.80 This church plan
broadly matches that which Mathews linked with the church plan found
in Rome and to the early Roman liturgy Ordo Romanus I.
Once these sites were placed into these three new groups it readily
became apparent that there is a remarkable homogeneity among churches
in each of  the three groups. Through placing church sites with a common
plan into these groups (figure 3.1) it was possible to observe other features
that many, if not all, had in common with each other. This has practical
applications in that the catalogue of church sites can serve as a reference
work against which other Early Byzantine church sites elsewhere can be
compared for further analysis, and this process can in turn help to validate
these three groupings and confirm their integrity, and also possibly allow
further observations to be made.
Once the four Constantinopolitan churches were placed together in
the catalogue it was noticeable that there are common characteristics such
as an association with separate north chapels, which they share with the
Roman churches, and the ambo is positioned south of  the nave entrance
to the sanctuary, which they share with the Syrian church plan.

77 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1.

78 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.2.
79 Butler (1903).
80 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3.
70 Chapter 3

Having collated the Syrian church plans in the catalogue it has been
possible to make further observations regarding these sites, such as the
repeated association of  these sites with separate south chapels attached
to their south aisle, the positioning of  the baptistery adjacent the south
aisle, and the ambo positioned south of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary.
Once the Roman church plans were brought together further observa-
tions indicated that there is repeated association with north chapels, and
with the ambo positioned north of  the nave entrance into the sanctuary.
They are far more likely than other church plans to exhibit evidence for a
synthronon or tiered seats in the apse, and a bishop’s seat. These churches
repeatedly exhibit evidence for side altars and reliquaries that appear
to coincide with the introduction of  the 14th canon of  the Council of 
Carthage (A.D. 401) in which the placing of relics in caskets beneath altars
is made compulsory for churches associated with the Roman See. Of par-
ticular interest is that some surviving chancel screens share a common
decorative element with a chancel screen with the monograph of pope
John II (A.D. 533–535) in the church of  St. Clemente in Rome, and also
from the Marzamemi ‘church shipwreck.’
There is also the remarkable observation that nearly fifty per cent of 
these Roman churches in the catalogue were converted from their original
‘Syrian’ church plans into triapsidal Roman churches. These conversions
occur not only in the Levant but in Bulgaria, Croatia and possibly at St.
Clemente in Rome also. When the original Syrian church building was
converted to a Roman church plan with its accompanying north chapel
it is entirely possible that the earlier south chapel was suppressed in such
a way that might reward further excavation and facilitate comparative
analysis between the two chapels at each of  these sites.
Furthermore, while conducting comparative analysis of repeated pat-
terns of artefactual deposition for liturgical furniture and high status marble
artefacts, and in conjunction with evidence from postholes for altar table
legs and chancel screen posts, it became apparent that there are often two
foci of liturgical activity – (i) in the sanctuary and, where they are excavated,
(ii) in side chapels. The second focus of  liturgical activity is identified using
the same set of criteria used to identify the sanctuary in the church as a
focus of  liturgical activity, i.e. repeated patterns of artefactual deposition,
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 71

and consists of postholes for altar table legs and for chancel screen posts
supported by evidence from whole or fragmentary evidence for liturgi-
cal furniture. In the following chapter this evidence will be examined in
more detail.

Table 3.1. Constantinopolitan church plan: apsidal plan and configuration of  the
sanctuary

Site Monoapsidal Inscribed Triapsidal Π-shaped T-shaped

apse sanctuary sanctuary
& chancel & chancel
barrier layout barrier layout
Propylaea Church, Yes Yes
Gerasa, Jordan

St. Theodore, Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan

Synagogue Church, Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan

Shavei Zion, Israel Yes Yes

Table 3.2. Constantinopolitan churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat.

Site North South Ambo north Ambo south Synthronon Bishop’s

chapel chapel (gospel (epistle seat
side) of nave side) of nave
entrance entrance
Propylaea Church, Yes Yes
Gerasa, Jordan

St. Theodore, Yes Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan

Synagogue Church, Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan
Shavei Zion, Israel Yes Initially two
lecterns, but
probably, yes
– internal
72 Chapter 3

Table 3.3. Syrian church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary

Site Monoapsidal Inscribed Triapsidal Π-shaped T-shaped

apse sanctuary sanctuary
& chancel & chancel
barrier layout barrier layout
Cathedral Church, Yes Yes
Gerasa, Jordan

Large Basilica, Yes Yes

Nicopolis ad
Istrum, Bulgaria

Eastern Church, Yes Yes

Herodium, Israel

Kursi, Gergesa, Yes Yes

Israel

Old Church, Old Yes Yes

Dongola, Sudan

St. Stephen’s, Yes Yes

Horvat Be’er-
shemca, Israel
St. John the Baptist, Yes Yes
St. George, and
SS. Cosmas &
Damianus, Gerasa,
Jordan
Ostrakine, Israel Yes Yes

Central Basilica, Yes Yes

Ostrakine, Israel

Coastal basilica, Yes Yes

Ostrakine, Israel

Central Church, Yes Yes

Herodium, Israel

Horvat Berachot, Yes Yes

Israel
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 73

Khirbet ed-Deir, Yes Yes

Israel

Horvat Beit Loya, Yes Yes

Israel

North Church, Yes Yes

Nessana, Israel

Table 3.4. Syrian churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

Site North South Ambo north Ambo south Synthronon Bishop’s

chapel chapel (gospel (epistle seat
side) of nave side) of nave
entrance entrance
Cathedral Church, Yes Yes Yes
Gerasa, Jordan

Large Basilica, Yes

Nicopolis ad
Istrum, Bulgariaa

Eastern Church, Yes

Herodium, Israel

Kursi, Gergesa, Yes

Israel

Old Church, Old Yes

Dongola, Sudan

St. Stephen’s, Yes Yes

Horvat Be’er-
shemca, Israel
St. John the Baptist, Yes Yes
St. George, and
SS. Cosmas &
Damianus, Gerasa,
Jordan
Ostrakine, Israel Yes

Central Basilica,
Ostrakine, Israel
74 Chapter 3

Site North South Ambo north Ambo south Synthronon Bishop’s

chapel chapel (gospel (epistle seat
side) of nave side) of nave
entrance entrance
Coastal basilica,
Ostrakine, Israel

Central Church,
Herodium, Israel

Horvat Berachot,
Israel

Khirbet ed-Deir,
Israel

Horvat Beit Loya, Yes Yes

Israel

North Church, Yes Yes Yes

Nessana, Israel

a The ambo here is in the centre of  the nave

Table 3.5. Single-aisled Syrian churches with south chapels associated with Syrian plan:
south chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

Site North South Ambo north Ambo south Synthronon Bishop’s

chapel chapel (gospel (epistle seat
side) of nave side) of nave
entrance entrance
Small Basilica,
Nicopolis ad Yes
Istrum, Bulgaria

Monastery of 
Yes
Martyrius, Israel
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 75

Table 3.6. Roman church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary
(thirteen of  the sixteen sites are triapsidal churches)

Site Monoapsidal Inscribed Triapsidal Π-shaped T-shaped or

apse sanctuary bar-shaped
& chancel sanctuary
barrier layout & chancel
barrier layout
‘Evron, Israel Yes

North Church, Yes Yes

Rehovot-in-the-
Negev, Israela

Khirbat al-Karak, Yes Yes

Israel

Poreč, Croatiaa Yes Yes

Procopius Church, Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan (bar-shaped)

SS. Peter & Paul, Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan

Santa Cornelia, Yes Yes

Italyb

Mola di Monte Yes

Gelato, Italyb

Haluza Cathedral, Yes Yes

Israela

Petra, Jordana Yes Yes

Pella of  the Yes Yes

Decapolis, Jordana

Horvat Hesheq, Yes Yes

Israela

Nahariya, Israel Yes Yes

Khirbet el-Waziah, Yes

Israel
76 Chapter 3

Site Monoapsidal Inscribed Triapsidal Π-shaped T-shaped or

apse sanctuary bar-shaped
& chancel sanctuary
barrier layout & chancel
barrier layout
Santa Liberato, Yes Yes
Italyb

St. Mary’s or South Yes Yes

Church, Nessana,
Israel

a Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is
converted from a protruding monoapsidal church.
b Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Table 3.7. Roman churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

Site North South Ambo north Ambo south Synthronon Bishop’s

chapel chapel (gospel (epistle seat
side) of nave side) of nave
entrance entrance
‘Evron, Israel Yes

North Church, Yes Yes Yes

Rehovot-in-the-
Negev, Israel

Khirbat al-Karak, Yes Yes

Israel

Poreč, Croatia Yes Yes Yes

Procopius Church, Yes Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan

SS. Peter & Paul, Yes Yes

Gerasa, Jordan

Santa Cornelia, Yes

Italy

Mola di Monte Yes

Gelato, Italy
What can church sites reveal about liturgy? 77

Haluza Cathedral, Yes Yes

Israel

Petra, Jordan Yes Yes Possibly

Pella of  the Yes Yes

Decapolis, Jordan

Horvat Hesheq,
Israel

Nahariya, Israel

Khirbet el-Waziah,
Israel

Santa Liberato, Italy Yes

St. Mary’s or South Yes Yes

Church, Israel
Chapter 4

A second focus of  liturgical activity

The chapter begins by considering the definition of a diakonikon, and what

activities are associated with it. Then some current prevailing views as to
the location of  the diakonikon are reviewed. The available archaeological
evidence from the catalogue is then examined to determine whether it is
possible to determine the location of  the diakonikon, and what activities
took place there.
This chapter is prompted, firstly, by Krautheimer’s argument that
the congregation’s of ferings were brought to the diakonikon, and so its
location might coincide with a concentration of domestic artefacts in
its vicinity.1 Detailed analysis of domestic pottery deposited in church
sites is conducted in the next chapter, but determining the location of  the
diakonikon is necessary to allow informed analysis of  their disposition.
Secondly, by the discovery of a second focus of  liturgical activity in side
chapels (figure 4.1) adjacent to church buildings.2 Crowfoot had argued,
based upon his research at Gerasa, that during the Early Byzantine period
the rite of prothesis took place in the side chapel, and he thought it also
functioned as a diakonikon at this time.3 This line of argument gained

1 Krautheimer (1986), 94–95, 518 and 520.

2 A chapel is a subordinate place of worship.
3 I use the transliteration ‘diakonikon’ here in preference to the Latinised ‘diaconicum’ or
the modern usage of  ‘diaconicon.’ In some part this is also out of respect for Crowfoot’s
dif ferentiation between an earlier diakonikon-cum-prothesis chapel located in side
chapels during the Early Byzantine period, and the later practice wherein the rite of
prothesis occurs in a room adjacent to the apse and the other room functions as the
‘diaconicum.’ These side rooms are commonly collectively referred to as pastophoria.
See Crowfoot (1938), 177–179, and footnote 6. Also Krautheimer (1986), 94–95,
and 519.
 (i) Typical
Constantinopolitan
church plan

North side
chapel

(ii) Typical Syrian North

church plan

South side
chapel

North side
chapel

(iii) Typical Roman

church plan

Figure 4.1. Second focus of  liturgical activity located in side chapels.*
* These typical church plans and layouts are based upon St. Theodore in Gerasa (Constantinopolitan),
see Kraeling (1938) plan XXXIII; Kursi (Syrian), see Tzaferis (1983), plan 4; and also Khirbat
al-Karak and SS. Peter & Paul in Gerasa (Roman), see Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A
and Kraeling (1938), plan XXXIX.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 81

some credibility because there is an absence of an alternative secondary

liturgical focus inside the church building that would support arguments
that the rite of prothesis was conducted in a diakonikon or prothesis chapel
located inside the church. The question considered here is whether there
is evidence for liturgical activity in parekklesiai during the Early Byzantine
period, i.e. does liturgical activity extend beyond the church building into
side chapels or parekklesiai.
The nature of  this liturgical activity will be interrogated and the rela-
tionship between these side chapels or parekklesiai and the church will be
considered. There is archaeological evidence from whole or fragmentary
liturgical furniture and from post holes, and there is also important evi-
dence from mosaic inscriptions that can help to answer these questions.
The term ‘diakonikon’ is translated as the ‘house of  the deacons.’4
Crowfoot thinks that during the Early Byzantine period the rite of prothesis
occurs in a side chapel or parekklesia that functions as a diakonikon, and by
the Middle Byzantine period the diakonikon and a prothesis chapel each
separately gravitate to a room to either side of the apse.5 Krautheimer also
thinks the rite of prothesis took place in the diakonikon (also skeuophylakion),
and that only later did ‘the Eastern Churches set aside for that rite a separate
place.’6 They both argue that liturgical performance has two foci of liturgical
activity: (i) the Eucharist is prepared on an altar in either a room adjacent to
the apse or else in a side chapel adjacent to the church, and from where the
clergy depart as they transfer the bread and wine for the service to (ii) the
altar in the church sanctuary where the of ferings or gifts are placed for
the service. At the conclusion of  the service the clergy retrace their steps.
This suggests that the diakonikon should be relatively easy to identify,
because if  the rite of prothesis does indeed take place in the diakonikon, or
in a room adjacent to the apse, during the Early Byzantine period then it
requires the presence of an altar in a sacred or sanctified setting where the

4 Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, and 62–64, and footnote 13.
5 Crowfoot (1938), 177–179, and footnote 6 and 9.
6 Krautheimer (1986), 94–95, 102, 469 and endnote 5, and also 518 and 520. Also
Brightman and Hammond (1896), 309–310 and 586–587.
82 Chapter 4

of fering or gift of  bread and wine from the congregation can be prepared
prior to being transferred to the church sanctuary. There is some supporting
evidence that the rite of prothesis took place in the diakonikon from two
silver altars recovered from Luxor in Egypt, which have inscriptions that
indicate these altar tables were used in a diakonikon at this time.7
Of interest is that Crowfoot cites the example of  the hegumen at the
fifth-century coenobium of  St. Euthymius who took his guests to the inner
chamber of  the diakonikon for breakfast after viewing the treasures stored
there.8 This could suggest that the diakonikon in this coenobium at this time
consists of more than one room, i.e. a suite of rooms, or that the room was
partitioned.
There are, as already noted, a number of conf licting opinions as to the
location of  the diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period.

Where is the diakonikon located?

As previously noted, the term ‘diakonikon’ is translated as the ‘house of 

the deacons.’9 The most complete description of  the disposition of an
Early Byzantine church and the location of activity centres, including the
diakonikon, comes from the ‘Testament of  Our Lord,’ described as the
‘testament, or words which our Lord, when he rose from the dead, spake
to the Holy Apostles, and which were written in eight books by Clement
of  Rome, the disciple of  Peter.’ Chapter 19 states:

7 See Messiha (1992), 129–134. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that seven silver altars
were given as gifts to the Lateran by Constantine, and Lowrie argues that these were
tables of prothesis. See Lowrie (1901), 126.
8 Crowfoot (1938), 178 and footnote 9. It should be noted however that Hirschfeld,
although he refers to Derwas Chitty’s 1920s excavation, makes no mention of a dia-
konikon at this site. See Hirschfeld (1993), 339–371, and also footnote 1 for a list of 
Chitty’s preliminary publications on the excavation.
9 Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, and 62–64, and footnote 13.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 83

I tell you therefore how the sanctuary ought to be; then I will make known the holy
rule of  the priests of  the Church.
Let the church then be thus: let it have three entrances as a type of  the Trinity.
Let the diaconicum [footnote 13: house of  the deacons] be on the right of  the right
hand entrance, that the eucharists, or of ferings which are of fered, may be seen. Let
there be a fore-court, with a portico going round, to the diaconicum.
Then within the fore-court let there be a place [to serve] for a baptistery, its length
twenty-one cubits as a general type of  the prophets, and its width twelve cubits as
a type of  those who have been determined to preach the Gospel, with one entrance
and three exits.
Let the Church have a house of  the catechumens, which shall be also the house of 
the exorcists. Let it not be detached from the Church, but so that those who enter
and are in it may hear the lections and spiritual hymns of praise and psalms.
Let there be a throne by the altar; on the right and on the left [let there be] the
places of  the presbyters, so that on the right may sit those who labour in the word;
but those who are of middle age on the left hand. But that place where the throne
is, let it be raised three steps, for there the altar ought to be.
Let that house have two porches, on the right and on the left, for men and for women.
Let all the places be lighted, both for a type, and also for reading.
Let the altar have a veil of pure linen, for it is without spot.
Also the baptistery likewise, let it be under a veil.
Let a place be built as for commemoration, so that the priest and chief deacon sit-
ting with the readers may write the names of  those who of fer the oblations, or of 
those for whom they have of fered [them], so that when the holy things are of fered
by the bishop, the reader or chief deacon may name them by way of commemora-
tion, which the priests and people of fer for them with supplication. For there is this
type also in heaven.
Let the place of  the presbyters be within the veil, beside the place of commemoration.
Let the house of  the of fering and the treasury be quite beside the diaconicum.
But let the place of  the lection be a little outside the altar.
Let the house of  the bishop be beside that place which is called the fore-court.
Also that of  the widows who are called ‘those that sit in front.’
Also let that of  the presbyters and deacons be behind the baptistery.
Let the deaconesses abide beside the door of  the Lord’s house.
Let the Church have a house for entertaining near by, where the chief deacon shall
entertain strangers.10

10 Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, and 62–64. Dauphin and Gibson attribute the
‘Testament of  Our Lord’ to the second half of  the fifth century. See Dauphin and
Gibson (1994–1995), 9–38.
84 Chapter 4

In this passage Clement of  Rome legislates for a diakonikon located to the
right of  the right hand entrance to the church, and furthermore it appears
to be located in the vicinity of  the atrium. We are also told that the of fer-
ings and ‘eucharists’ can be seen there, which would suggest that the rite of
prothesis is conducted in the diakonikon. This passage distinguishes between
the diakonikon and the treasury.
However, regardless of  this fifth-century text, there are conf licting
opinions as to the location of  the diakonikon during the Early Byzantine
period. These divergent views can be placed into three groups. Those that
locate the diakonikon in a room to either side of  the apse; those that locate
the diakonikon in the body of  the church; and those that locate the dia-
konikon outside the church building.
The first group inevitably separate out the diakonikon and prothesis
chapel from each other and allocate them a separate room to either side of 
the apse. Therefore these can be further subdivided into those who locate
the diakonikon in the room north of  the apse and the rite of prothesis in the
room to the south of  the apse, and those who favour the counter­vailing
view that the diakonikon is located in the room to the south of  the apse
and the rite of prothesis in the north room.11
There are a number of problems with this view. Firstly, there is an obvi-
ous prerequisite that the church building in question must actually have a
room to either side of  the apse in which the diakonikon and prothesis chapel
can be located. Only one of  the three common Early Byzantine basilical

11 Hill states that: ‘The tripartite plan has a strong Syrian f lavour […] It seems likely but
by no means certain that Cilician churches followed Syrian practice in having the
prothesis in the south side-chamber, and the diaconicon in the north side-chamber.’
See Hill (1996), 23. For the countervailing argument see Butler (1903), 88. Also, in
his introduction to the Life of  St. Matrona of  Perge, who lived in the fifth-to-sixth
century, Mango thinks the location of  the diakonikon is normally in the sacristy south
of  the apse. For Mango’s comments see Featherstone (1996), 26, and footnote 45.
Tzaferis intriguingly states that firstly the diakonikon became the south pastophory
when the diakonikon as a separate chapel was no longer needed, and that, when this
happened, the functions of the diakonikon were transferred to the northern pastophory
and the designation or title of diakonikon was transferred to the south pastophory.
See Tzaferis (1983), 11, and footnote 16, 13 and 24.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 85

church plans (figure 3.1) examined in this thesis meets that criteria, and
that is the Syrian church plan. The diakonikon could possibly be located
in a room to either side of  the apse where such rooms do exist, but then
there should be supporting archaeological evidence, such as for an altar
table where the rite of prothesis might be conducted, or a chancel screen to
cordon of f  the sanctified area from the congregation. There is archaeologi-
cal evidence at two sites with a Syrian church plan for an altar table in the
room to the south of  the apse, i.e. Ostrakine and the cathedral church at
Haluza prior to its conversion to a Roman church plan, and Jean Lassus
argues that in Syria the room south of  the apse ‘became a chapel dedicated
to the relics of  the martyrs.’12 However at both of  these sites the excava-
tion did not extend beyond the church building, and because of  this it is
not known whether these two churches have separate side chapels (either
attached to the south aisle or in a separate adjacent building) that might
have functioned as diakonika.
Georges Descoeudres observes that the rooms to either side of the apse
in the Syrian church plan were used in many diverse ways, e.g. baptistery,
burial chamber or memorial chapel, storage rooms for non-consumed gifts,
or transit areas for pilgrims.13 Using this evidence Descoeudres argues that
the rite of prothesis did not exist in Syrian churches prior to the Islamic
invasion, and goes so far as to suggest that referring to the rooms to either
side of  the apse as ‘prothesis’ or vestry (or liturgical pastophories) may there-
fore be misleading.14
Also, Crowfoot argues that locating the diakonikon and prothesis in
pastophoria either side of  the apse is a later innovation, which is intro-
duced in the Middle Byzantine period.15 In those Early Byzantine basili-
cal churches with a Syrian church plan, Crowfoot associates the rooms
to either side of  the apse with pastophoria as described in the Apostolical

12 He observes also that later in the Byzantine liturgy the room to either side of  the
inscribed apse came to be called the prothesis and the diakonikon. See Lassus (1966),
41.
13 Descoeudres (1983), 69–75.
14 Descoeudres (1983), 75.
15 Crowfoot (1938), 178.
86 Chapter 4

Constitutions where the lamps and other paraphernalia are kept, i.e. they
function as storage rooms. He argues that with the development of  the
grand and little entrances during the late sixth century, and also the rite
of prothesis, the room north of  the main apse becomes the prothesis chapel
and the south apsidal room the diakonikon.16 In essence his argument is
that the function and location of  the original diakonikon change at some
point in time after the Early Byzantine period.
Furthermore, Mathews and Robert Taft have both argued that this
‘tripartite’ or triple sanctuary was not evident in Early Byzantine churches
in Constantinople.17 Anne Michel also argues that in ‘most of  the typical
churches in Palestine, the diakonikon cannot be identified as one of  the two
small rectangular service rooms f lanking the apse, which could be entered
from the eastern end of each aisles.’18 Certainly it seems unlikely that the
diakonikon is located in an apsidal room in either the Constantinopolitan
or Roman church plan if only because they do not have one. Nor is there
any pattern of archaeological evidence to support the location of a diakon-
ikon or the rite of prothesis in an apsidal room in the Syrian church plan.
The second group think that the diakonikon is located near to the main
entrance of  the church. They argue that as the congregation entered the
church they would hand their gifts over to the deacons, and the deacons then
selected from these gifts those that would be prepared for liturgical use.19
There are at least three problems with this argument. First, many
churches simply do not have a room at or near to the main eastern entrance
to the church. Secondly, if  this argument holds true, then those churches
with Constantinopolitan church plans that have multiple major entrances
would require multiple rooms located at each of  the major entrances where

16 Crowfoot (1941), 51.

17 Mathews (1971), 105–106. Also Taft (1997), 1–35, and (1998), 53–87 and also (2004),
33.
18 See Michel (2007), 583–584.
19 On liturgical grounds Taft argues that the diakonikon should be located at the entrance
to the church. See Taft (2004), 32. See also Biernacki and Pawlak (1997 [1998]), 38,
and footnote 4. And see also Soteriou (1941), 76–100, and also Stričević (1958–59),
59–66.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 87

the congregation could deposit their gifts, and there is no supporting archae-
ological evidence in this regard. Lastly, and as noted previously, repeated
patterns of artefactual deposition indicate that there is only one focus of 
liturgical activity in the church in the area of  the sanctuary, and another
second focus in adjacent side chapels, where they exist, and so there is no
archaeological evidence that the rite of prothesis took place in a room inside
the church or at the entrance.20
Alternatively, Mathews’ analysis of  Ordo Romanus I argues that there
is no specific location for preparation of  the Eucharist in Roman church
plans. He contends that there are three areas of activity associated with
the Roman liturgy:

1. The secretarium where the pope, and perhaps the clergy, prepare
for the processions.
2. The senatorium and matroneum where the pope and of ficiating
clergy gather for the of fertory and communion ceremonies.
3. The confessio where the pope or of ficiating clergy receive the of fer-
ings of  the parish administrators.

He argues that in Rome the:

[…] early Roman liturgy was unusual in that a distinct place for the preparation of 
the gifts did not exist, but the congregation themselves at the beginning of  the Mass
of  the Faithful brought of ferings of  bread and wine to the sanctuary barrier at the
eastern end of either aisle and presented these to the clergy. From these of ferings
a portion was simply selected and placed on the altar for the Eucharistic sacrifice
without any accompanying ceremony.21

There is archaeological evidence that domestic artefacts such as ampho-

rae, plates and bowls were deposited in sealed destruction layers in some
churches, and these are considered in more detail in Chapter 5. Mathews

20 This would also rule out arguments that the skeuophylakion or diakonikon was a
curtained-of f area of  the church, or made of wood, and which would have left no
trace in the archaeological record. See Taft (1998), 54–55.
21 Mathews (1971), 156.
88 Chapter 4

further argues that the wings of  the sanctuary that extend across the side
aisles were used by the clergy for the of fertory and communion ceremo-
nies, i.e. the matroneum and senatorium.22 However, even this scenario still
requires a room or building – the secretarium – where the clergy could first
prepare and then travel in procession to and from the church.
A third group argue that the diakonikon is located outside the church
building in a side chapel, and the clergy processed to and from the church
as they transferred the Eucharist and liturgical implements from here to
the church sanctuary, and then retraced their steps at the conclusion of  the
service. This argument is based largely upon analysis of the Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople, but also on Crowfoot’s analysis of church sites at Gerasa.23
This view is countered by Gordana Babić who thinks that side chapels
functioned as commemorative chapels, and this argument is based upon
dedicatory inscriptions found in some side chapels.24 However Crowfoot
discounts the use of side chapels as commemorative chapels on the basis that
only one inscription at Gerasa lends any credence to this hypothesis, and
this sole inscription at the Cathedral chapel only notes that it was decorated
by certain benefactors.25 This observation is supported by evidence from
the catalogue that while there are a few dedicatory inscriptions on some
mosaic pavements in side chapels from the catalogue (Table 6.1–6.4) there
are far more dedicatory inscriptions on mosaic pavements in churches. It is
also evident that apart from the burials in the side chapel at Mola di Monte
Gelato in Italy all the other burials are located within the church building.
This observation is supported by Eric Ivison’s analysis of  later mortuary
practices from A.D. 950–1453 which notes that:

22 Mathews states that in an occidented church the location of  these would be reversed.
Mathews (1962), 93, and also footnote 67.
23 See Mathews’ architectural and liturgical analysis in Mathews (1971). But see also
Taft’s defence of  the location of  the skeuophylakion to the north of  the Hagia Sophia
in Taft (1997), and (1998), and also (2004). Also Crowfoot (1938), 171–262. See also
Descoeudres (1983), 160–164.
24 The use of side chapels as mortuary chapels is examined in Babić (1969).
25 Crowfoot (1938), 178.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 89

The Capital model and Database for Constantinople (and elsewhere), show that
individuals of  high status had the privilege of  burial within churches.26

Ivison further observes:

[…] that burial location was a crucial factor connected with hierarchy, for churches
acted as sacred epicentres of cemeteries in which burial iuxta ecclesiam was desirable
and apud ecclesiam the most desired. These locations satisfied the spiritual need to
be as close as possible to relics and the μνημóσυνα regarded as essential for salvation,
but were also a social display to the living which enhanced and af firmed the status of 
those belonging to the same institution or family […] Archaeological and primary
sources agree that the naos, particularly towards the east and on the south sides of
churches, was considered the most prestigious and desired locations.27

If  Ivison’s observations are correct then it is dif ficult to support any argu-
ment that these side chapels functioned solely as commemorative chapels,
unless there is evidence that the side chapel is built over the tomb of a saint
or contains their relics, or even those of  the individual commemorated by
inscriptions.
Furthermore, excavations at Gerasa in Jordan led Crowfoot to think
that side chapels or parekklesiai functioned as diakonika in which the rite of
prothesis was conducted. Here he observed that the Cathedral and Bishop
Genesius churches had south chapels, while the churches of  St. Theodore,
Procopius and St. Peter each had a separate north chapel.28 He observes
that these match instructions in the Testamentum regarding the location of 
the diakonikon, and as each has a nave and a raised chancel they could also
serve as a prothesis chapel. He envisaged gifts being brought to the chancel
rail in these side chapels and the sacrament then being laid out on the altar
table in the chapel, prior to being transferred in procession into the church.
Mathews points out that in Constantinople, Maximus, the protégé
of  Pseudo-Denis, describes the transfer of  the bread and wine into the

26 Ivison (1993), 66.

27 Ivison (1993), 272.
28 Crowfoot (1938), 177–179, and footnote 6.
90 Chapter 4

church from a location that is outside the building.29 It is this transfer of 
bread and wine by the clergy from an external skeuophylakion or diakonikon
which Taft associates with the Byzantine rite.30 Mathews links this liturgi-
cal procession to the multiple entrances associated with the monoapsidal
Constantinopolitan church plan, but specifically with the two entrances
located either side of  the apse.31 It is the presence of  these entrances to either
side of  the apse that prevents the chancel barrier around the Π-shaped
sanctuary from extending across the side aisles for it would otherwise
block the movement in and out of  the church through these entrances.
There is ef fectively a direct relationship between the human activity, i.e.
performance of  the liturgy, and the structure that hosts it.
Mathews argues that there is an exterior north chapel, also called a
skeuophylakion or diakonikon, at the most famous of all Byzantine churches,
the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, where the clergy could vest prior to
transferring the wine and bread for the liturgy to the altar and return to
after the liturgy to devest.32 Taft further argues that there is evidence for
a skeuophylakion or diakonikon at three of  the churches in the vicinity of 
Hagia Sophia, i.e. Hagia Eirēnē, Hagios Theodōros of  Sphōrakios where
it is also located to the north of  the church building, and also at Hagia
Theotokos in Blachernai where it might have been located to the southeast
of  the church in a manner reminiscent of  the south chapel (Table 4.3) in
the Syrian church plan.33
If  the skeuophylakion or diakonikon at the Hagia Sophia, the greatest of
all Byzantine churches, is located to the northeast of  the church during the
Early Byzantine period then would other Early Byzantine church plans not
share this feature? If  this argument is correct then other Early Byzantine
churches should also have a side chapel that function as a skeuophylakion
or diakonikon, i.e. there should almost be a symbiotic relationship between

29 Mathews (1971), 157.

30 For a discussion of  the skeuophylakion in Constantinople see Taft (2004), 179, and
182–191. See also Ovadiah (1970).
31 Mathews (1971), 158–159, and 178–179.
32 Mathews (1971), 178–179, and figure 49.
33 Taft (1997), 12.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 91

the two. Where excavations at church sites extend beyond the walls of 
the church there is often evidence for either a separate north side chapel
(sometimes attached to the north aisle) or a side chapel attached to and
accessed from the south aisle, and the available archaeological evidence
from the catalogue of sites does appear to support this symbiotic relation-
ship between church and side chapel.34
There are clearly some discordant voices in regard to the location of 
the diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period, but does the catalogue
provide any archaeological evidence in relation to the location and func-
tion of  the diakonikon?

Archaeological evidence

As noted in the previous chapter, archaeological evidence indicated that

there are two foci of  liturgical activity (figure 4.1) in the majority of church
sites examined. The first focus is located in the sanctuary of the church. The
archaeological evidence includes post holes for altar table legs and chancel
screen post holes that demarcate the area of  the sanctuary, whole or frag-
mentary liturgical artefacts such as chancel screens and posts, sometimes
postholes for ciboria columns, and perhaps a synthronon or occasionally
also a bishop’s chair.
The second focus of  liturgical activity is indicated by much the same
evidence, i.e. post holes for altar table legs, chancel screen post holes that
demarcate a sanctuary, and whole or fragmentary liturgical artefacts such
as chancel screens. Although not evident in all excavated side chapels,
often due to the condition of  the site, this second focus of  liturgical activ-
ity occurs in side chapels or parekklesiai adjacent to church buildings that
Crowfoot has argued functioned as a diakonikon-cum-prothesis chapel
(figure 4.2) during the Early Byzantine period. Each of  the three church

34 Taft (2004), 178–203, and (1997), 1–35, and also (1998), 53–87.
 (i) Typical
Constantinopolitan
church plan

Diakonikon
(north side
chapel)

(ii) Typical Syrian North

church plan

Diakonikon
(south side
chapel)
Diakonikon
(north side
chapel)

(iii) Typical Roman

church plan

Figure 4.2. Location of diakonikon, and also the second focus of  liturgical activity in
side chapels.*
* These typical church plans and layouts are based upon St. Theodore in Gerasa (Constantinopolitan),
see Kraeling (1938) plan XXXIII; Kursi (Syrian), see Tzaferis (1983), plan 4; and also Khirbat
al-Karak and SS. Peter & Paul in Gerasa (Roman), see Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A
and Kraeling (1938), plan XXXIX.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 93

plans is examined in turn to determine what archaeological evidence exists

in relation to the location of  the diakonikon, and whether there is support-
ing evidence that the rite of prothesis might have taken place there.

(i) Constantinopolitan church plans

This church plan matches Mathews’ architectural analysis of  Constantino­

politan church sites in relation to Constantinopolitan liturgy and just as
Hagia Sophia has a separate north chapel or skeuophylakion (diakonikon)
so too do the church sites with a Constantinopolitan church plan in the
catalogue. There are four churches in the catalogue with a Π-shaped sanc-
tuary and an entrance to either side of  the protruding apse and three of 
these have an adjacent separate north chapel (Table 4.2). The church of 
St. Theodore also has an attached south chapel. It is not known whether
the fourth church has a side chapel, i.e. the Synagogue Church, as the
excavation did not extend much beyond the church walls. The location of 
these north chapels matches the location for a diakonikon as set out in the
‘Testament of  Our Lord’ by St. Clement of  Rome.
Two of  these four church sites have evidence for a second focus of 
liturgical activity in their side chapels. Both of the side chapels at the church
of  St. Theodore have evidence of post holes for a chancel screen, and the
side chapel at Shavei Zion has post holes for altar table legs.
However, one of  the most extraordinary sites in the catalogue is the
Propylaea Church at Gerasa. There is an inscription (Inscription no. 331)
in a circular chamber located along the north edge of  the atrium which
describes it as a diakonia.35 This circular diakonia is identical in size and
plan to the skeuophylakion at Hagia Sophia, and Taft observes that some
Byzantine sources interchange ‘the terms diaconicon, skeuophylakion and

35 Inscription no. 331: ‘[…] by the will of  God the diaconia was built in the month of 
Artemisius in the thirteenth indiction in the year 627.’ See Welles (1938), 485–486
and Kraeling (1938), plan XXXV and plate LXIIb. Also Crowfoot (1938), 228.
94 Chapter 4

prothesis.’36 The only dif ference between the two is that the skeuophylakion
at Hagia Sophia is located to the northeast of  the church and that of  the
Propylaea Church is positioned along the northern portico of  the atrium.
The two sites are contemporary with each other. The circular chamber of 
the Propylaea Church at Gerasa in Jordan is dated to A.D. 565 by Inscription
no. 331, and Taft notes that the church of Hagia Sophia was re-dedicated on
24 December A.D. 537, which indicates that the two churches are contem-
porary with each other. All of  these factors suggest strongly that these north
chapels function as a diakonikon for these Constantinopolitan churches
and that the rite of prothesis also took place there.
Of great importance here is that these sites provide no succour to the
countervailing arguments in respect of  the location of  the diakonikon or rite
of prothesis. None has a room to either side of  the protruding apse where
pastophoria might be located, and only the church of  St. Theodore has a
room adjacent to the western entrance to the church where a diakonikon
might have been located, but it also has two side chapels. Mathews also
notes that in Constantinople none of  the church sites he examined had
auxiliary rooms attached to the narthex.37
These Constantinopolitan church sites dif fer considerably in layout
from both the Roman and Syrian church plans. This might be expected
given that the Byzantine rite that Mathews and Taft associate with these
Constantinopolitan church plans dif fers from both the Syrian liturgy and
the early liturgy of  Ordo Romanus I. However the same investigative meth-
ods used to identify the location of  the diakonikon in Constantinopolitan
church sites can also be used to interrogate the evidence at both of  these
other church plans to determine where the diakonikon is located at these
sites.

36 Taft (2004), 182, 202 and footnote 77.

37 Mathews (1971), 108.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 95

(ii) Roman church plans

Of  the sixteen church sites in this group nine have a separate north chapel
(sometimes attached to the north aisle) and one has a south chapel attached
to the south aisle. Of  these sites the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev
has an almost complete chancel screen, three have evidence for post holes
from a chancel screen, and one has evidence for liturgical artefacts and
also possibly an altar table. The archaeological evidence indicates that it is
entirely possible that the rite of prothesis was conducted in at least some
of  these side chapels. It is also possible that the remaining six sites also
have a detached side chapel but we do not know for certain because the
excavation at each of  these church sites was largely restricted to the area
of  the church building.
Of particular interest, however, are two church sites at ‘Evron and
Khirbat al-Karak. Firstly, the church at ‘Evron has Inscription no. 2 in a
room north of  the church acknowledging the gift of  two diakonika:

Lord, remember your servant Alexon, the deacon, who lay in repose, father Sobbinos
and Alexon, the deacon, and Germanos … the reader, who contributed the two
diaconica.38

The second site at the church of  Khirbat al-Karak is less ambiguous and
it has an inscription located in its north chapel which names it as the
diakonikon:

+ [Christ help] Theodore Magister and Theophilas and Basil. [Gloriously] was
executed the paving of  the communicating hall and of  the diaconicon under [the
pious] presbyters Elijah and Basil in Indiction 7, year 591 (A.D. 528/29).39

The evidence from these two inscriptions augments that of  the inscription
at the Propylaea Church with the Constantinopolitan church plan, and

38 Tzaferis (1987), 39, and figure 1.

39 Kraeling (1960), 53. See also Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A, and Haines
(1960), 17. Sodini and Kolokotsas comment upon this inscription, as well as those
at Mount Nebo and Zahrani. See Sodini and Kolokotsas (1984), 148–149.
96 Chapter 4

taken together these inscriptions provide evidence that these north chapels
or parekklesia functioned as a diakonikon in churches with these two plans,
i.e. Constantinopolitan and Roman. Furthermore these inscriptions com-
plement archaeological evidence from post holes for altar table legs and
chancel screen posts and from whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture
deposited in side chapels. There is compelling archaeological evidence that
the rite of prothesis took place in north side chapels or parekklesia (or in
one case a south chapel attached to the south aisle) that belong to Early
Byzantine basilical churches, i.e. liturgical performance extends beyond
the church into the side chapel.
The available archaeological evidence from the catalogue (Table 4.4)
does appear to contradict Mathews’ argument that in those churches with
a Roman church plan a portion of  the gifts was simply transferred straight
to the altar table in the church for the liturgical performance. However,
given that Mathews argues for the presence of a secretarium where the pope
and the clergy prepare for processions and, given that the liturgical imple-
ments and Eucharist are themselves sacred or sacrosanct, this procession
should proceed from a building with a sanctuary of its own. Is it possible
that this secretarium functions as a diakonikon at this time and the rite of
prothesis took place there?

(iii) Syrian church plans

Of  the seventeen church sites in this group (Table 4.3) there are eight with
a south chapel attached to and accessed from the south aisle and two others
with a separate north chapel. It is entirely possible that the remaining seven
sites also have a side chapel but we do not know because the excavation at
each of  these church sites was restricted to the area of  the church building.
Three of  these side chapels have evidence for chancel screens from post
holes, and one of  these has evidence for an altar table from post holes for
table legs and a ciborium. The archaeological evidence indicates that it is
entirely possible that the rite of prothesis was conducted in at least some of 
these side chapels. If  the north chapel at sites with a Constantinopolitan
and Roman church plans functioned as a diakonikon then is it possible
A second focus of  liturgical activity 97

these south chapels attached to the south aisles of  Syrian church plans
served the same purpose?
The archaeological evidence from inscriptions is not as robust in this
Syrian church plan as for the other two church plans. There is however a
partial inscription in the south chapel at Kursi that appears to confirm
that it functioned as a diakonikon.40 There is also some indirect support
that the south chapel in Syrian church plans functioned as a diakonikon
from the alignment of  the ambo to the south of  the nave entrance into the
sanctuary in many of  these churches (Table 3.4) that provides a liturgical
bias towards the south of  the church building. This is in contrast to the bias
towards the north in the Roman church plans wherein the ambo is usually
located north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary and the predilection
for a separate north chapel at these sites.
Mathews thinks that the Syrian rite indicates that the diakonikon is
located to the right of  the south entrance and the sanctuary and the loca-
tion of a south chapel in this Syrian church plan matches that analysis.
Mathews associates the Monophysite Syrian rite with Pseudo-Denis, who is
described as the mentor to Maximus, and also with the late fourth century
commentary by Theodore of  Mopsuestia.41

Are there two types of diakonika?

There is another curious observation to be made in regard to these side

chapels. Of  the eighteen church sites where the plan of  the side chapel
is evident (Table 4.2 to 4.5) it has been observed that twelve are apsidal

40 See Tzaferis (1983), plan 4, plate XI.5, XII.3 and XII.1.

41 Krautheimer (1986), 93, 135, 141 and 201. Also Angold (2002), 40. However Taft
ascribes Pseudo-Denys to the late fifth century, and the Mystagogia of  Maximus to
A.D. 628–630. See Taft (2004), 39 and 43. For Theodore of  Mopsuestia see McLeod
(2009).
98 Chapter 4

chapels, and the remaining six are rectangular in plan. There appears to be
no obvious structural or architectural reason for this disparity.
There is a further anomalous observation to be made in respect to some
of  the side chapels with a rectangular plan. For example, the side chapel
at the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev has a column base in situ
against its eastern wall, which has two postholes just in front of it.42 This
is situated where the altar table would normally be located, and Tsafrir has
suggested a possible reconstruction in which the column base would sup-
port the rear of an altar table and the two postholes would contain posts
that would support the front of  the altar table.43 However, there are prob-
lems with this reconstruction in that, although these marble altar tables
are relatively thick around the edge, they are extraordinarily thin along
their entire base. They are therefore strongest at each of  the four corners
where two thick edges come together, and this is why they are normally
supported by a leg at each corner. It would be dif ficult to imagine that a
column base would support an altar table in the prescribed manner, and
so an alternate explanation should be sought.
There was also a 0.50m square column base recovered along the eastern
wall of the rectangular side chapel at Horvat Beit Loya in Israel. Intriguingly,
Bishop Genesius church has a column base to the rear of  the chancel in
both the north and south aisles. At Khirbet el-Beiyûdât there is a 0.50m
diameter column drum inserted into the mosaic pavement just to the south
of  the ambo, and Hananya Hizmi thinks that an upturned two-handled
stone bowl recovered beside it rested atop the column.44 There was also a
‘stone roller some 60 cm long and 25 cm in diameter’ discovered here in the
side chapel, which has the remnants of  four legs from an altar table in it.45
Lastly, the Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum also appears to have
a rectangular south chapel and among the finds at this site is a fragment

42 Tsafrir (1993), 299 and figure III.117.

43 Tsafrir (1993), 299.
44 Hizmi (1990), 250.
45 The side chapel is the rectangular room F to the southwest of  the church. Hizmi
suggests this column was used to roll a clay roof. See Hizmi (1990), 245–264, and
(1993), 155–163.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 99

of a limestone pedestal (SF 8092) that again suggests that it supported

something, such as a statue.
If  these column bases were not used to support altar tables in these
side chapels, or to roll clay roofs, then what other function could they have
served? The church of  Khirbet el-Beiyûdât has niches for statues in the west-
ern wall of its forecourt that are a metre wide and a column drum to support
a statue was found in situ within the northern niche. This might suggest an
alternative use for these column bases in side chapels on church sites, i.e.
to support statues. There is an interesting reference by Ernst Kitzinger to
a statue of  Christ at Paneas in a place of public veneration near to a foun-
tain, which was later relocated to the diakonikon of a church. Kitzinger
further states that the ‘critical role of  this period [between Justinian and
Iconoclasm], and particularly of  the sixth century, in the development of
idolatric beliefs and practices among Christians was recognized long ago.’46
The apparent association between some of  these side chapels with a
rectangular plan and a column base would suggest that the ritualised activi-
ties that occur here dif fer to some extent from those that occur in conven-
tional side chapels with an apsidal plan. There is no direct evidence in the

46 Kitzinger (1954), 83–150. Mango also notes that translation of relics occurs as early
as the fourth century, first of  St. Babylas in Antioch and then in A.D. 356/7 mul-
tiple translations of  SS. Timothy, Andrew and Luke to the Church of  the Holy
Apostles in Constantinople as it vied with Rome and its twin protectors of  SS.
Peter and Paul. See Mango (1990), 52–53. McNamara argues that the cult of relics
or martyrs was universal at this time and there is evidence for its practice in Gaul in
the life of  Genovefa (A.D. 423–502) where a triple portico adjoined the church and
was decorated with images of patriarchs, prophets, martyrs and confessors. There
is also a reference in the life of  Queen Radegund of  the Franks (A.D. 525–587) that
in A.D. 568/9 she sought wood from the True Cross from the Byzantine emperor
Justin II, and also asked the patriarch of  Jerusalem for a relic of  ‘Blessed Mammas.’
See McNamara et al (1992), 36–37, and 95–97. Also commented upon by Tzaferis.
See Tzaferis (1987), 51. The triapsidal church at Horvat Hesheq has a miniature ara or
pagan votive altar with a Latin inscription: ‘[So-and-so, priest] of  Juppiter Optimus
Maximus Heliopolitanus, Venus and Mercurius (or preferably: vicimagister, i.e. chief
of a quarter of  the city), decurion of  the colony, for his own salvation and (for the
salvation) of  his wife Julia Curria and of  his sons, fulfilled his vow with a willing
heart.’ Di Segni (1990), 379–390.
100 Chapter 4

catalogue that these column bases or pedestals supported statues, let alone
statues of  Christ or of  the emperors, but their presence does prompt the
question as to what their role or purpose was. This phenomenon of apsidal
and rectangular plan side chapels is also observed in later churches, although
this may not be for the same reason, and further research is required into
the function of each of  these disparate plans.47

Conclusion

In this chapter the intention was to locate the diakonikon, and to assess
whether the second focus of liturgical activity in side chapels might support
Crowfoot’s argument that the rite of prothesis took place in side chapels,
which functioned as diakonika during the Early Byzantine period.
Robert Ousterhout has observed that if:

[…] our analysis of a Byzantine church is restricted to topographical analysis, or to

the liturgical organization, or if it is simply presented as a backdrop for historical
events or in the context of patronage, we have not learned all we can from it. We
should be able to read a building, just as we read a text, as a historical document,
for it can tell us much about the society that produced it. The details preserved in
buildings and their sites can help reconstruct a context for the Byzantine churches
of  Constantinople – whether that context is the surrounding neighbourhood, the
site’s history, or the lives of  the artisans who formed a significant element of  the
urban workforce. All were a part of  the fabric of  the city.48

47 For example, while discussing later Romanesque church plans, O’Keefe notes that
‘Chapels, square-ended or apsidal, also project from the east walls of  the transepts.’
See O’Keefe (2007), 16.
48 Ousterhout (2000), 250. See also Hodder (1991), 4. Burguière makes a similar argu-
ment in respect to historical research: ‘These representations produce the social
world (Foucault’s hypothesis) or are produced by it (the sociological hypothesis).
In both cases, history can be deciphered as a text, or rather, can be read entirely in
the unfolding of discursive thought.’ See Burguière (2009), 197.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 101

Ousterhout’s exhortation for archaeologists to ‘read a building’ is particu-

larly prescient due to the Byzantines’ predilection for setting commemora-
tive inscriptions in mosaic pavements. There have been conf licting opinions
as to the location of  the diakonikon, but there are six known church sites
(Table 4.1) with inscriptions that refer to the location of  the diakonikon,
and five of  these are found in side chapels.49 It has literally been possible to
read the inscription on a mosaic pavement to determine that five of  these
side chapels function as diakonika. There are a further four known inscrip-
tions that are not yet included here in this research. Jean-Pierre Sodini
has previously mentioned the inscriptions at Mount Nebo and Khirbat
al-Karak, and he also refers to another in a side chapel at Zahrani.50 Yet
another is referred to in a side chapel at Ashkelon by Eliya Ribak.51 Joseph
Patrich refers to an inscription in a side chapel at Beth Yareh, and also to
another inscription at the Holy Zion Church.52 Yet another inscription
located in a side chapel at Kourion exhorted the faithful to ‘vow and pay
unto the Lord our God […]’ and as such is identified by the architects to

49 The other two inscriptions are at Mount Nebo and Horvat Hanot. At Mount Nebo,
Inscription 6: ‘By the divine grace, in the days of our wholly God-loving father and
shepherd, Elias the bishop, the sacred diaconicon of  God was reconstructed and
adorned, with the holy pool of rebirth and the beautiful ciborium, through the ef forts
of  Elias, hegumen and priest, during the consulate of  the clarissimi Flavius Lampadius
and Flavius Orestes, in the time of  the 9th indiction, in the month of  August of  the
year 425 of  the province. For the preservation of  Muselius the advocate and of  Sergô
(his) wife, and for the preservation of  Philadelphus the advocate and of  Gothus the
advocate and of all the members of  their households.’ For the inscription see Di
Segni (1998), 429–430. For the mosaic inscription in the diakonikon-baptistery see
Alliata and Bianchi (1998), 168–171, and plate 53. At Horvat Hanot the inscription
states: ‘Under the most pious and God-loving Theodore, priest and hegumen, was
done all the work of  the “addition” (προσθήκη) of  the apse and of  the painting and
facing with marble of  the end-wall of  the presbytery, together with the diaconicon,
from the foundations, in the month of  April of  the 12th indiction.’ Shenhav sug-
gests possible dates matching the 12th indiction are A.D. 563/4, 578/9 and 593/4.
See Shenhav (2003), 269–272. See also Di Segni (2003), 273–276.
50 Sodini and Kolokotsas (1984), 148–149.
51 Ribak (2007), 129.
52 Patrich (2006), 352.
102 Chapter 4

be a diakonikon.53 These eleven inscriptions provide unambiguous evidence

for the location of  the diakonikon during this period.
The archaeological evidence from the Early Byzantine basilical
church sites in the catalogue is compelling, and it indicates that in both
Constantinopolitan and Roman church plans their north chapels function
as diakonika, and in Syrian churches their south chapels appear to fulfil
the same function (see figure 4.2). The case is strengthened by the absence
of any competing evidence from inside these churches that might support
an alternate location.
Furthermore the second focus of  liturgical activity in many of  these
side chapels (figure 4.1) strongly supports Crowfoot’s argument that the
rite of prothesis took place in these parekklesiai, and it is likely that the clergy
processed into the church with the Eucharist to perform the liturgy and then
retraced their steps to the side chapel at the conclusion of  the ceremony.
As previously noted, Crowfoot has argued that the diakonikon and
the rite of prothesis are later relocated into apsidal rooms from the Middle
Byzantine period onward. However this hypothesis needs to be supported
by the same stringent archaeological evidence from inscriptions and
repeated patterns of  liturgical artefactual deposition if it is to be accepted.
As a result of  this research a further important observation has been
made about these side chapels. Of  the nineteen church sites where the
plan of  the side chapel is evident (Table 4.2–4.4) it has been observed
that twelve are apsidal chapels (63%), another six (31%) are rectangular
in plan, and that of  the Propylaea Church is circular. Furthermore, many
of  these side chapels with a rectangular plan had either column bases or
column drums. Kitzinger has observed that a statue of  Christ had been
relocated to a diakonikon, but further research would be required to deter-
mine whether the column drums in side chapels with a rectangular plan
supported similar statues.
Some problems have been encountered. Not all excavations extend
beyond the church building and so it is not known whether these sites

53 Megaw (2007), 142–146, 161, figure 1.Z, and plate 1.19a. Also Inscription no. 39 in
Michaelidou-Nicolau (2007), 385.
A second focus of  liturgical activity 103

have side chapels, and not all side chapels have provided evidence for altar
tables or chancel screens. In some respect this might be a positive factor
in that at least at these sites it could be possible to return and conduct a
more detailed excavation to test the hypothesis that Constantinopolitan
and Roman churches are associated with separate north chapels and Syrian
churches with south chapels attached to and parallel with the south aisle.
Also, where rectangular side chapels occur, then the hypothesis that these
are associated with column drums can be likewise tested.
Despite these problems the archaeological evidence from the six
inscriptions that these side chapels functioned as diakonika is compel-
ling, and evidence from the second focus of  liturgical activity that the rite
of prothesis occurred there is quite remarkable. The homogeneity of each
of  the three church plans, i.e. Constantinopolitan and Roman with sepa-
rate north chapels, and Syrian churches with south chapels attached to the
side aisle reinforces this evidence. The next step is to analyse the repeated
patterns of domestic artefactual deposition in relation to the three church
plans and their associated side chapels, and this follows in the next chapter.

Table 4.1. Diakonikon inscriptions

Church North chapel South chapel Other location Church plan

Propylaea Church, Inscription no. 331: Const.

Gerasa, Jordan ‘the diaconia’

‘Evron, Israel Inscription no. 2: Roman

‘two diaconica’

Khirbat al-Karak, Inscription no. 1: Roman

Israel ‘the diaconicon’

Mount Nebo, Inscription 6: Not known

Jordan ‘the sacred diaconicon’

Kursi, Gergesa, Partial Syrian

Israel inscription

Horvat Hanot, ‘the diaconicon’ Not known

Israel
104 Chapter 4

Table 4.2. Constantinopolitan church plans

Site North chapel South chapel Apsidal plan Rectangular

plan

Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Yes

Jordan

St. Theodore, Gerasa, Yes Yes Yes

Jordan

Synagogue Church,
Gerasa, Jordan

Shavei Zion, Israel Yes

Site Post-holes for Column base Post-holes for Liturgical

altar table chancel screen artefacts

Propylaea Church, Gerasa,

Jordan

St. Theodore, Gerasa, Yes

Jordan

Synagogue Church,
Gerasa, Jordan

Shavei Zion, Israel Yes

Table 4.3. Syrian church plans

Site North chapel South chapel Apsidal plan Rectangular

plan

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Yes Yes

Jordan

Large Basilica, Nicopolis Yes Yes

ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Eastern Church, Yes

Herodium, Israel

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel Yes Yes

A second focus of  liturgical activity 105

Old Church, Old Dongola, Yes Yes

Sudan

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er- Yes

shemca, Israel

St. John the Baptist, St.

George, and SS. Cosmas &
Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan

Ostrakine, Israel

Central Basilica, Ostrakine,

Israel

Coastal basilica, Ostrakine,

Israel

Central Church,
Herodium, Israel

Horvat Berachot, Israel

Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel

Horvat Beit Loya, Israel Yes Yes

North Church, Nessana, Yes Yes

Israel

Small Basilica, Nicopolis Yes Yes

ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Monastery of  Martyrius, Yes Yes

Israel

Site Post-holes for Column base Post-holes for Liturgical

altar table chancel screen artefacts

Cathedral Church, Yes Yes Also post-holes

Gerasa, Jordan for ciborium

Large Basilica,
Nicopolis ad Istrum,
Bulgaria

Eastern Church,
Herodium, Israel
106 Chapter 4

Site Post-holes for Column base Post-holes for Liturgical

altar table chancel screen artefacts

Kursi, Gergesa,
Israel

Old Church, Old Mastaba or Post-hole or

Dongola, Sudan raised platform recess in mastaba

St. Stephen’s, Horvat

Be’er-shemca, Israel
St. John the Baptist,
St. George, and
SS. Cosmas &
Damianus, Gerasa,
Jordan
Ostrakine, Israel

Central Basilica,
Ostrakine, Israel

Coastal basilica,
Ostrakine, Israel

Central Church,
Herodium, Israel

Horvat Berachot,
Israel

Khirbet ed-Deir,
Israel

Horvat Beit Loya, Yes, 0.50m square

Israel column base
along east wall

North Church, Yes

Nessana, Israel

Small Basilica,
Nicopolis ad Istrum,
Bulgaria

Monastery of  Yes

Martyrius, Israel
A second focus of  liturgical activity 107

Table 4.4. Roman church plans

Site North chapel South chapel Apsidal plan Rectangular

plan

‘Evron, Israel Yes Yes

North Church, Rehovot-in- Yes Yes

the-Negev, Israela

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel Yes Yes

Poreč, Croatiaa Yes

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Yes Yes

Jordan

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Yes Yes

Jordanb

Santa Cornelia, Italyc Yes Yes

Mola di Monte Gelato, Italyc Yes Yes

Haluza Cathedral, Israela

Petra, Jordana

Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordana

Horvat Hesheq, Israela

Nahariya, Israel

Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel

Santa Liberato, Italyc Yes Yes

St. Mary’s or South Church, Yes Yes

Nessana, Israel
108 Chapter 4

Site Post-holes for Column base Post-holes for Liturgical

altar table chancel screen artefacts

‘Evron, Israel

North Church, Rehovot-in- ? Yes Yes Yes

the-Negev, Israela

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Poreč, Croatiaa

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Yes

Jordan

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Yes

Jordan

Santa Cornelia, Italyc

Mola di Monte Gelato,

Italyc

Haluza Cathedral, Israela

Petra, Jordana

Pella of  the Decapolis,

Jordana

Horvat Hesheq, Israela

Nahariya, Israel

Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel

Santa Liberato, Italyc

St. Mary’s or South Church,

Nessana, Israel

a Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is
converted from a protruding monoapsidal church.
b There is a niche in the apse of  the north chapel.
c Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.
Chapter 5

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

The catalogue of church sites has been compiled together with those arte-
facts thought to be deposited in sealed layers while these basilicas func-
tioned as churches, or as they were abandoned.1 Domestic artefacts were
deposited at fourteen church sites that are split equally between either a
Syrian or Roman church plan.
The presence of  these domestic artefacts (Table 5.1–5.3) in churches
has received little attention, and yet their presence hints that activities
other than mere performance of  the liturgy occurred, at least at some Early
Byzantine church sites. The nature of  these artefacts suggests that food was
brought into these churches and deposited, stored, distributed and possibly
also consumed on site, i.e. communal meals were eaten in church. The pres-
ence of cooking pots is particularly problematical in that, although plates
and bowls might possibly be used during liturgical performance, there is
no reference to cooked food in this ceremony.
The aim of  this chapter is to analyse these domestic artefacts for
repeated patterns of deposition that might ref lect institutional behaviour.
Also to determine what artefacts are deposited and where, and together
with what other artefacts. Then to consider some textual references to
non-liturgical activities in Early Byzantine churches to determine whether
these might account for the deposition of at least some of  these domestic
artefacts. This chapter will also consider whether the deposition of domes-
tic artefacts coincides with the location of  the diakonikon as determined
in the previous chapter.

1 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.

110 Chapter 5

Archaeological evidence

Before examining the artefactual evidence for repeated patterns of arte-

factual deposition it is important to consider the nature of  that evidence
and how it was collected. The artefacts compiled in the catalogue (Table
5.1–5.3) are those thought to be deposited while each basilica functioned as
a church or as it was being abandoned. Each archaeological report has also
been analysed to determine what abandonment processes were involved
(Table 2.2–2.5).
There are sealed fire destruction layers at fourteen of  the forty-seven
church sites in the catalogue. There is some evidence that many of  these
were functioning as churches when the fire occurred and that they were
rapidly abandoned, e.g. at Nahariya scorch marks were discovered in the
mosaic pavement where hanging oil lamps had fallen, which indicates that
they were still lit when they fell to the f loor. At Nahariya and the Petra
church some of  the liturgical furniture was robbed after the fire, but the
rest of  the church had a relatively undisturbed sealed fire destruction layer.
The church of  Shavei Zion also had a sealed fire destruction layer, as had
Ostrakine, the monastery church of  Martyrius, Khirbat al-Karak, Khirbet
el-Waziah, and both the Large and Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum.
Much of  the artefactual data came from these nine church sites.
A further eleven sites were destroyed by earthquakes and had sealed
destruction layers, with the exception of  Pella of  the Decapolis and some
of  the churches in Gerasa where the church was later cleared of debris and
re-used. At others, such as Kursi and Khirbet ed-Deir the site was aban-
doned and remained undisturbed until they were excavated.
There are three other sites where domestic artefacts were recovered in
the church, i.e. Horvat Berachot, Horvat Hesheq, and the North Church at
Rehovot-in-the-Negev. At Horvat Hesheq the archaeological report does
not indicate how it came to be abandoned, but there is no suggestion of
post-abandonment occupation. Horvat Berachot appears to be abandoned
for a period and then there is evidence for Umayyad period artefacts in the
crypt. The North Church was abandoned and there is limited evidence for
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 111

post-abandonment activity in the area of  the atrium from Kufic inscrip-
tions and some Umayyad pottery fragments.
The analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition is restricted
to Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman church sites. The artefacts (Table
5.1–5.3) recovered in Early Byzantine basilical churches consist in the main
of domestic pottery such as amphorae, f lasks and jugs, plates and bowls.
Although there are cooking wares deposited at some sites, there is no indi-
cation that food is cooked or prepared in the churches, i.e. no evidence for
hearths or ovens, and so cooked foodstuf fs must have been transferred
into the church from elsewhere.2 The repeated presence of amphorae
and cooking wares in some of  these churches suggests that raw and cooked
foodstuf fs were either stored or consumed on site, or both.
The artefactual evidence (Table 5.1–5.2) can be subdivided into two
main categories, i.e. those that are associated with either liquids or solids.
Evidence for the use of  high status imported wares is further examined
(Table 5.3) to determine whether there might be any patterns of distribu-
tion or use that might identify relationships between churches hitherto
unnoticed.

Liquids

There were twenty-one amphorae and two jugs/f lasks, deposited in the

south aisle of  the triapsidal church site in Petra (Table 5.1–5.3), and many of 
them were intact or restorable. Fiema states that wooden decking, benches
and dumps of planks were also recovered in the south aisle and there is

2 During its construction phase the Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum did have an
oven built into the f loor, but this was sealed over when the f loor of  the church was
subsequently laid.
112 Chapter 5

some evidence from bones and pots that food was consumed here.3 At
Petra there is, however, some indication that there are paving slabs stored
in the nave, and it may be that some sort of construction (or dismantling?)
work was being carried out at the site. Fiema also argues that the chancel
screens were destroyed through vandalism prior to the fire that consumed
the church. These artefacts were covered by a sealed fire destruction layer
at Petra, and this makes it unlikely that this dining activity is due to post-
abandonment squatter activity during the Muslim Umayyad period.
There were amphorae, both whole and fragmentary, recovered inside
another six churches in the Levant and from the two churches at Nicopolis
ad Istrum in Bulgaria, and these were often deposited in the south aisle.
Bag jars are a type of amphorae thought to be used to transport
Palestinian wine and their presence in the area of  the chancel-apse, north
and south aisle at the churches of  Kursi, Horvat Berachot, Khirbat al-Karak
and the North Church of  Rehovot-in-the-Negev might be taken as evidence
that wine is possibly collected and stored in this area of  the church.4 These
bag jar amphorae were also found in the east portico/narthex and north
chapel of  the latter two churches, and the east portico at Kursi as well.
Fragments of  Gaza amphorae were also recovered at the North Church
at Rehovot-in-the-Negev in the area of  the chancel-apse and in the north
chapel, and these are also associated with the wine trade. Khirbat al-Karak
had Greyware amphorae throughout the church and north chapel, but
not in the nave. It is interesting that there are amphorae associated with
the storage of wine in two north chapels, given that in the last chapter
these were found to function as diakonika in both Constantinopolitan
and Roman plan churches.
This pattern is repeated in the distribution of amphorae fragments
(Class 47 and Greyware) at the Large Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum in
the south aisle, and in the nave, east portico/narthex and also in the south
chapel (Greyware, Gaza and East Mediterranean Keay IIIb) of  the Small

3 Fiema refers to other church sites that have artefacts stored in the south aisle, such
as the Church of  Bishop Isaiah at Jerash. See Fiema (2001), 80–91.
4 Peacock and Williams (1986), and also referred to as LR 5/6 in Dark (2001), 39.
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 113

Basilica. The church at Petra also had Greyware amphorae in the south
aisle, and at Nahariya there were whole or restorable amphorae in the south
aisle as well, and these were also found in a sealed fire destruction layer.5
While bag jars and Gaza amphorae are thought to be associated with
the wine trade, there is as yet insuf ficient evidence to link the other types
of amphorae specifically with wine. Should the other types of amphorae
recovered on these sites be used to store or transport other liquids such
as olive oil or fish paste, or solids such as edible snails or olives, then this
would add another interesting dimension to this archaeological evidence.6
Although irrespective of  their primary use they could, of course, still be
re-used to store wine on church sites.
Amphorae are far too large to be carelessly lost or mislaid, which sug-
gests that their deposition in these church sites must have been deliberate.
Perhaps the most obvious pattern here is the association between ampho-
rae and the south aisle at many of  these sites and this may be for practical
purposes, i.e. the churches are generally aligned east-west and so amphorae
stored in the south aisle are less likely to receive direct sunlight.7 Their
presence in the area of  the chancel screen barrier demarcating the area of 
the sanctuary could also be construed as supporting Mathews’ analysis of 
Ordo Romanus I in relation to Roman church plans that the congregation
brought gifts up to the chancel barrier. Given that it is more likely that the
laity brought in jugs full of wine rather than full amphorae, then their gifts
of wine might be collected and stored in these amphorae at the chancel
barrier. These amphorae could also function as serving stations from which
to dole out surplus unconsecrated wine for the communal meal or for dis-
tribution to the poorer members of  the congregation, and this hypothesis
gains some support from the presence of jugs or f lasks in the vicinity of
amphorae at many of  these church sites.

5 Possibly two-handled holemouth, or Anatolian stamnia.

6 The contents of an amphora in the atrium at Ostrakine consisted of edible snails.
7 Heated alcohol and oils can give of f a vapour, which can ignite to cause an explosion.
114 Chapter 5

Solids

Domestic artefacts associated with solids include bowls/plates and cook-

ing vessels. Whole or fragmentary bowls/plates have been recovered in the
nave of  the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, and in the south aisle and
south chapel at the Large Basilica also. They were also found in the south
aisle at Nahariya, and the chancel-apse of  Horvat Berachot, and in the east
portico/narthex at Kursi. It is possible that these bowls and plates were
used to distribute the bread and wine during the liturgical performance,
and perhaps gold and silver patens and chalices were only used in wealthier
churches. Furthermore many sites have evidence for glass fragments, many
of which are from glass oil lamps, but some glass fragments may also belong
to glass chalices, bowls and plates.8
What is apparent from the archaeological evidence (Table 5.1–5.3) is
that bowls/plates and cooking pots and lids were often recovered in the
vicinity of amphorae. For example, at Nahariya, where the site had a sealed
fire damage layer, they were neatly stacked adjacent to the amphorae and
this would suggest that they were used together.
Whole or fragmentary cooking pots and lids were recovered in the
north aisle, nave and south aisle at Kursi, the nave at Khirbet ed-Deir, and
in the chancel-apse, nave, south aisle, east portico and north chapel at the
North Church in Rehovot-in-the Negev. There is no evidence for cook-
ing on site, i.e. no hearths or ovens, and these cooking pots might provide
evidence that cooked foods were brought to the church to be consumed
there or in the immediate vicinity.
In this respect there is an interesting feature at Pella where table sup-
ports were built alongside the south wall of  the south aisle.9 There is no
other evidence to provide some clue as to why the table supports were
constructed there, or what purpose the table (2m × 1m approximately)

8 ‘Communion cups’ were recovered at the Large Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum. See
for example GL788/7444 and GL793/7438 in Shepherd (1999), 297–378.
9 Smith and Day (1989), figure 25.
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 115

served, and on its own it is an anomalous feature. It might be indicative of 

food consumption or storage in the church. However, although individual
instances such as this are interesting, the focus here is upon repeated pat-
terns of artefactual deposition that are more likely to ref lect institutional
activity across two or more sites.
The presence of  these cooking vessels might also be taken as evidence
that the congregation consumed a communal meal or agape in these
churches. However it is also possible that the clergy shared some of  the
produce from monastic estates with their congregation, because at least
some of these churches appear to be monastic. The presence of these cooking
vessels does appear to confirm that paraliturgical or non-liturgical activity
took place in at least some churches at this time.

Imported wares

There is another very interesting feature evident in the archaeological

evidence (Table 5.3) which suggests that analysis of imported wares and
finewares could yield some useful results. During the Early Byzantine
period, Greywares appear to be associated with Constantinople.10 They
were found at both the Large and Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum in
Bulgaria. But they also occur at Petra and Khirbat al-Karak in the Levant.
In direct contrast to this, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev
stands out because it has Phocaean Red Slip Ware (PRSW), African Red
Slip Ware (ARSW) and Cypriot Red Slip Ware (CRSW) imported fine
wares and the latter two are imports from the West. There is a third group
of church sites that have neither type of imported wares.
It is possible that these imported wares ref lect trade networks, but they
might also ref lect patriarchal or regional networks of churches, such that
agricultural produce from land or marine resources owned by a group of

10 Dark (2001), 33–34.

116 Chapter 5

churches is transported to other churches in the group. We do have evidence

from typika and other sources that there are identifiable groups of af fili-
ated churches, and that some churches either inherit or are gifted land.11
Should these imported wares ref lect trade or transfer of goods between
networks of af filiated churches then further sophisticated analysis could
yield some interesting results that impact upon other aspects of church
design and decoration.
However, it is also noticeable that where excavations extend beyond
the church building the site’s overall character, insofar as ceramic evidence
is concerned, may change and other imported wares occur that are not
found in the church.

Historical evidence

Many of  the early liturgies refer occasionally to artefacts or materials used
during the liturgy, and a close reading of  these texts enables a list to be com-
piled of  the those artefacts and materials used. From F.E. Brightman a list
of  liturgical, and associated artefacts, used in the Coptic and the Syrian or
Jacobite liturgy includes the cross and gospels, the book of  the dead, chalice,
f lagon, jar, paten, washbasin, sponge, gold censer, veil, altar covering, and
oven. The list of materials includes eulogia, būchri, wine, water, incense,
oils, hyssop, spice and sweet spices such as incense, myrrh and cinnamon.12

11 Thomas and Hero (2000). See for example MacCoull (2000), 55; Miller (2000), 67,
70 and 75; Miller (2000), 101; Karlin-Hayter (2000), 120–124. See also Taft (1998),
66–67.
12 For the chalice, paten and veil: ‘And again removing the veils, that is the covering of 
the mysteries, he places that of the paten on the south, and that of the chalice on the
north […].’ From the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 72–73. For
incense: ‘He burns incense and says.’ See Brightman (1896), 75. For a washbasin: ‘And
he washes the tips of his fingers in water […].’ From the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites
in Brightman (1896), 82. For the sponge: ‘And when he drinks from the deaconess the
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 117

Artefacts associated with the Constantinopolitan liturgy include: paten

(also referred to as a discos), chalice, lance, spoon, thurible, ripidia, f labella

wine that has been mingled […] And when he drinks the deaconess […] And wiping the
chalice with a sponge.’ From the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896),
107. For hyssop: ‘THOU SHALT PURGE ME WITH HYSSOP AND I SHALL
BE CLEAN: […] I WILL WASH MY HANDS IN INNOCENCY […].’ From the
Liturgy of the Coptic Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 145. For the use of gold censer
and spice: ‘This is the censer of pure gold bearing the sweet spice that was in the hands
of Aaron the priest while he of fered a sweet savour upon the altar.’ From the Liturgy
of the Coptic Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 150. For oils, incense and altar coverings:
‘Pray for those who have charge of the sacrifices, the oblations, the first fruits, the oils,
the incense, the coverings of the altar […].’ From the Liturgy of the Coptic Jacobites
in Brightman (1896), 170. For the chalice, paten, f lagon, jar, censer and oven: ‘Then
he takes a little fire from the oven and puts it in the censer and takes a little incense
[…] And then he goes down from the oven with the paten in his right hand and the
censer in his left and takes them in to the altar […] He puts the paten in the recess on
the right of the altar and hangs the censer on its place. Then he goes out of  the altar to
the place of the deacon to mix the chalice. First he brings a f lagon of choice wine […]
and pours the wine into the chalice […] Then he takes a jar of water and pours it into
the chalice […] He takes the f lagon of wine and pours it into the chalice […].’ From
the Liturgy of the Nestorians in Brightman (1896), 251. For the cross and gospels: ‘And
going outside the sanctuary the priest lades the deacons with the cross and the gospels
[…].’ From the Liturgy of the Nestorians in Brightman (1896), 268. The book of the
dead: ‘He proceeds and recites the book of the dead’ and also: ‘(The eulogia) […] The
people kiss the cross in the priest’s hands and the eulogia, which was baked along with
the būchri, is distributed by one of the priests or deacons standing at the nave entrance
of the baptistery. During the distribution is said the prayer of Mary.’ From the Liturgy
of the Nestorians in Brightman (1896), 275 and 304. Brightman states that the whole
loaf was formerly called eulogia. The use of ‘eulogia’ here appears to mean the blessed
bread distributed at the end of the liturgy. See Brightman (1896), 571–572, 577, and
597. Būchri are ‘a round leavened […] cake […] stamped with a cross-crosslet and four
small crosses. Called būchra ‘first-begotten.’ See Brightman (1896), 572. For sweet
spices: ‘(The prothesis) (The curtain is drawn to and so remains during the whole
prothesis) […] In this abode of votive of ferings in the Lord’s temple assembled together
for the mystery of worship and supplication for the holy sacrifice, here round about in
the upper hall of this altar we form a choir, with sweet spices. Favourably receive our
prayers as the savour of sweet-smelling incense, myrrh and cinnamon […].’ From the
Liturgy of the Armenians in Brightman (1986), 418–419.
118 Chapter 5

or fans, lavabo basin, and also veils.13 There are a number of other artefacts
revealed in Romano’s analysis of the Ordo Romanus I, which include chrism,
candelabra, crosses, belts, cruets, prayer mats, straws, and saddle-horse.14
To this list should be added the censer associated with censing the area of 
the chancel-apse, and the Gospels and cross that are associated with the
rite of  the Little Entrance, as well as lighting for the ritual. Taft also relates
that the skeuophylakion at the Hagia Sophia had an oven.15
Of  these items only f lagons and jars (or amphorae) can be said to be
recovered with any frequency at the church sites from the catalogue. Also
one censer was recovered in each of  the side apses at Nahariya, and other
pottery objects at some sites where the site archaeologist speculates that
they might have served as censers. The organic materials referred to have
not been recovered at any of  the church sites investigated.
Interestingly, Michael Solovey has argued that proskomide or prothesis
can be traced to the Apostolic Age prior to Christianity being recognised
by the state as a religion.16 This involved the preparation of  Eucharistic
gifts of  bread and wine by the deacons for liturgical services. The surplus
bread and wine, as well as other gifts, were set aside for the communal meal,
which is also referred to as the agape or ‘love banquet.’ Taft agrees that
surplus gifts were eaten by clergy, and also distributed among the faithful,
but neither one provides any indication as to where this activity occurred
or what artefacts were used.17
Demetrios Constantelos’ analysis of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
makes reference to a panegyric by a mid-fifth century orator who describes
a public assembly honouring St. Thekla.18 In this text the partaking of  the
‘holy mysteries’ is immediately followed by a banquet and the distribution
of gifts, presumably surplus wine and bread donated by the laity for the

13 Derived from the ‘procession of  the gifts.’ See Taft (2004), 30–31, and 206–210.
Brightman equates the discos with a paten. See Brightman (1896), 595.
14 Romano (2007), 202–205 and Table 3.5.
15 Taft (2004), 191.
16 Solovey (1970), 103.
17 Taft (2004), 25.
18 Constantelos (2001), 139–140.
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 119

service, to the pious or needy by the attendants of  the sanctuary. Once
again the specific location for this sequence of events is not provided and
the juxtaposition of  the ‘holy mysteries’ and the banquet could conceivably
suggest that the meal took place either in or near to the church.
In the West, Radegund (A.D. 518–587) established the custom of giving
banquets for Christian travellers.19 Her successor, Abbess Leubevera, con-
tinued this practice and boasted that in her convent the food was plen-
tiful.20 The assumption would be that these banquets took place in a
refectory, but there is no specific location provided in this text. It also
refers to ‘enrolled paupers’ who were fed by Radegund twice weekly, on
Thursday and Saturday. These paupers are referred to as ‘matricula’ which
suggests ‘a regular role of dependent paupers.’21 Again the location of  the
twice-weekly feast is not provided.
There are, however, a number of references to dining on church sites in
Constantinople. In Mathews’ analysis of  the tenth century De Ceremoniis,
he observes that a breakfast table was set in the galleries for the patriarch
and emperor after the liturgy in the fourth century Hagia Mōkios. He also
comments that Justinian’s sixth century Theotokos church in Pēgē had an
attached apartment which included a dining room. Mathews also notes
that the emperor and patriarch breakfasted with personal friends at the
Church of  the Apostles, and the emperor and patriarch dined together
in the Hagia Sophia.22 There are issues about extending the habits of  the
emperor in the capital to all churches in the empire.
Also in this context, while the tenth-century typikon of monasteries
such as the Lavra monastery or the ninth-century typikon of  the monastery
of  St. John Stoudios in Constantinople specifically place the consump-
tion of  food in the refectory, the eighth-century typikon of  John for the
monastery of  St. John the Forerunner on Pantelleria makes no reference

19 Radegund was queen of  the Franks and married to Clothar I, and she later became
an abbess. McNamara et al (1992), 64–65.
20 McNamara et al (1992), 64–65.
21 McNamara et al (1992), 77 and 86, and footnote 62.
22 Mathews (1971), 132–133.
120 Chapter 5

to a refectory.23 Instead the text’s wording could be taken to indicate that

the monastic community dined in the church itself; or it may just relate
to how the monks are to move round the monastery, as there is no refer-
ence to place:

Likewise, let [the monks] approach the communion, the meal, and the salutation
according to the order of  their status […] Again, whenever a superior summons [the
brethren] to meals, let [them] all move as [if  they were going] to church. Should a
few arrive before the others, let them wait a short while for their fellow [monks],
and then start reciting the prayer over the food.24

The meaning of  the text is opaque, as Mango notes of other texts, and the
inclusion of a few extra words might have removed any ambiguity.
Insofar as the Levant is concerned, there is a reference by Crowfoot to
the hegumen at the fifth-century coenobium of  St. Euthymius who took his
guests to the inner chamber of  the diakonikon for breakfast after they had
viewed the treasures kept there.25 While the larger imperial institutions
at Constantinople might have had provision for imperial apartments and
galleries, there might be some suggestion then that, at least in Palestine, the
inner chamber of  the diakonikon, or a room beside it, fulfilled the function
of a communal dining area for clergy and some privileged guests.
These texts indicate that at least one non-liturgical activity took place
in several churches in Constantinople, i.e. a shared communal meal, pos-
sibly a successor to the agape.26 The question then is whether this activity
was universal, regional or local in scope and whether it was replicated in
smaller communal churches, particularly given that some of  the churches
where this activity occurred were not monastic churches where one might
have expected this type of communal activity.
Other artefacts regularly deposited are the occasional coin and some
assorted metal artefacts such as some bronze pendants or rings, although

23 Miller (2000), 109. Also Dennis (2000), 223.

24 My use of italics. See Fiaccadori (2000), 62 and 64.
25 Crowfoot refers to correspondence sent to him by Chitty. Crowfoot (1938), 178 and
footnote 9.
26 Tsafrir (1993), 1. See also Solovey (1970), 103–104.
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 121

there appears to be no discernible pattern to their deposition. Glass frag-

ments from oil lamps cannot strictly be considered as non-liturgical even
though they may not be directly involved in the ceremony, and these will
be considered in future research, e.g. the type of glass lamps and also the
colour or hue of  the glass and its likely ef fect upon the church decoration
and the observers.

Conclusion

This thesis began with the observation that domestic pottery was found
in two very dif ferent churches, i.e. the ‘cave church’ at the monastery com-
plex of  Khirbet ed-Deir and the ‘pilgrim church’ referred to as the North
Church of  Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Both of  these churches appeared to be
rapidly abandoned, the former due to a roof  fall during an earthquake
and the latter due to a fire.27 A series of questions were prompted by these
observations. Were these isolated instances, or could the deposition of
domestic pottery inside churches be a regular occurrence? Is it possible
to identify repeated patterns of artefactual deposition that might ref lect
institutional behaviour such as ritual activity?
Furthermore, some analysts argued that in the Syrian and Byzantine
rites the congregation brought gifts, primarily of  bread of wine, to the dia-
konikon and from which a portion was selected for the rite of prothesis. Or
alternatively, that in Ordo Romanus I the gifts were brought into the church
to the chancel barrier. If  this were the case then would this institutional
behaviour be ref lected in evidence from repeated patterns of artefactual
deposition inside churches, in rooms to either side of  the apse, or in side
chapels adjacent to churches?

27 Khirbet ed-Deir appears to represent a Pompeii scenario in which a site is rapidly

abandoned to leave artefacts deposited in the archaeological record where they would
normally be used. See Schif fer (1995), 201–218.
122 Chapter 5

To facilitate like-for-like analysis between churches with the same plans

the forty-seven church excavations in the catalogue were first placed in three
groups with similar characteristics, and the remaining sites placed in an
‘indeterminate’ group. The three groups were labelled Constantinopolitan,
Syrian and Roman church plans.28
The presence of deposits of domestic wares in Early Byzantine church
sites has largely been ignored, and instead archaeological research has con-
centrated entirely on liturgical activity. However, there are a suf ficient
number of church sites in the catalogue with enough artefactual evidence
to identify some repeated patterns of artefactual deposition.
The artefactual data (Table 5.1–5.2) is presented and analysed from
each type of church plan, and only evidence from within the churches
or the north/south chapel was analysed. However, no domestic pottery
appeared to be deposited in the churches with a Constantinopolitan plan
or their side chapels, and so there is no data to analyse for this group.29
Firstly, Syrian church plans (figure 4.2) are the only one to have a
room to either side of  the apse, and they are also associated with a south
chapel attached to the south aisle. Only two of  these sites (Table 5.1) had

28 These labels are attached because it is evident that there is a church plan common in
Constantinople which shares common characteristics with the Constantinopolitan
church plan found in the Levant, another church plan common in Rome that is also
found in the Levant, and yet another that is common in Syria which is also found in
the Jerusalem patriarchate. The reverse can also be said to be true, i.e. that of  the three
common church plans in the Levant, one is also common in Syria, another in Rome,
and yet another in Constantinople. This observation runs counter to Krautheimer’s
view that there are regional architectural characteristics determined partly by build-
ing materials and techniques. See Krautheimer (1986), 96–97. Michel also argues
that local materials (basalt, limestone and sandstone) and architectural traditions
determined church plan. See Michel (2001), and also Kawe (2001), xii.
29 Kaegi seems to think that treaties between the Muslim Umayyads and the Byzantines
apply to all Byzantines, but is it possible that both the Umayyad and Byzantine nego-
tiators were more discriminating than they are given credit for? Could the treaties
allowing for evacuation of  the Levant apply to only one section of  the Byzantine
community in the Levant, such as those Christians associated with the Byzantine rite
and Constantinopolitan church plans? See Kaegi (2000), 97, 101, 165 and 175–176.
Also Kaegi (2003), 219 and 244–245.
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 123

domestic pottery recovered in the chancel-apse or in a room to either side

of  the apse. At Horvat Berachot the remains of a bag-shaped jar, a jug and
a plate or bowl were recovered in the chancel-apse. Ostrakine is unusual in
that large quantities of intact ceramics such as jugs and f lasks were recov-
ered in the room north of  the apse, and many copper and bronze artefacts
such as incense burners and also suspension chains for glass oil lamps were
recovered in the room south of  the apse. This site appeared to continue in
use into the late seventh or eighth century, and it may be that the rooms
to either side of  the apse were used as storage rooms.
Large numbers of amphorae (storage jars) were also found in the nave
at Ostrakine. The remains of amphorae were recovered in the north aisle and
east portico/narthex at Kursi, and amphorae in the nave and east portico/
narthex as well as the south chapel at the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad
Istrum, and amphorae in the south aisle at the Large Basilica at Nicopolis
ad Istrum. Plates or bowls were also recovered in the nave and south chapel
at the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, the south aisle at the Large
Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, the east portico/narthex at Kursi and the
apse at Horvat Berachot. Finally, cooking vessels were recovered in the
nave and each side aisle at Kursi and there are large numbers of cooking
vessels recovered in the church at Khirbet ed-Deir, although no find spots
are provided.
The evidence from domestic pottery in churches with a Syrian church
plan exhibits repeated patterns for the deposition of plates or bowls in some
churches, but particularly for amphorae in the vicinity of  the nave and
aisles. The only site where domestic pottery is found in the south chapel
is at the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum.
A number of observations can be made in regard to this archaeologi-
cal evidence from churches with a Syrian church plan.

(i) There is no evidence in churches with a Syrian church plan for

domestic pottery in any of  the rooms to either side of  the apse,
with the notable exception of  Ostrakine which appeared to con-
tinue in use until the late seventh century.
(ii) It appears highly unlikely that the congregation brought gifts of 
large amounts of  bread and wine to the side chapels. Domestic
124 Chapter 5

pottery appears in the south chapel at only one site, i.e. the Small
Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum.
(iii) It appears far more likely that these gifts were brought into the
church itself and the wine was collected, stored and distributed
from amphorae located in the nave, south aisle or east portico/
narthex, and the location of plates and bowls mirrors this pattern.
(iv) The deposition of cooking vessels at Khirbet ed-Deir and Kursi
suggests that the gifts donated by the congregation extended
to cooked foods to be consumed later by the clergy or after the
liturgy by those assembled, or perhaps donated to the needy.

Secondly, Roman church plans (figure 4.2) are the only type to have side
apses to either side of  the main apse. Only three of  these sites (Table 5.2)
had domestic pottery recovered in the chancel-apse or side apses, i.e. Khirbat
al-Karak, Nahariya and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. At
Nahariya the remains of a jug or f lask were found in the apse, and at the
other two sites jugs or f lasks, plates/bowls and amphorae were found in
either the main apse or side apses to the rear of  the chancel barrier.
Large numbers of amphorae were recovered in the south aisle at Petra,
Khirbat al-Karak and Nahariya. There was also a fragment recovered here
in the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Whole or fragmentary
amphorae and jugs or f lasks were also recovered at Rehovot in the nave
and east portico/narthex and north chapel, and in the north aisle, east
portico/narthex and north chapel at Khirbat al-Karak. Plates or bowls
were recovered in each area of  the church at Khirbat al-Karak except for
the nave, in the apse, south aisle, east portico/narthex and north chapel
at Rehovot, and the south aisle at Nahariya. Cooking vessels were also
recovered at Khirbat al-Karak in the side apses, side aisles, east portico/
narthex and north chapel, and at Rehovot in the apse, nave, south aisle,
east portico/narthex and north chapel.
A number of observations can be made in regard to this archaeologi-
cal evidence from churches with a Roman church plan.

(i) There is no evidence for the deposition of domestic pottery in

either side apse, i.e. other than at Khirbat al-Karak. Therefore it
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 125

is highly unlikely that the side altar tables behind the T-shaped
chancel barrier in churches with a Roman plan functioned as
altaria, as envisaged by Romano.30 Romano had argued that the
congregation placed gifts on altaria located in the side aisles for
the first part of  the mass before a portion was transferred to the
altar in the main apse.
(ii) It would appear highly unlikely that the congregation brought
gifts of  large amounts of  bread and wine to the side chapels in
churches with a Roman church plan. Domestic pottery was recov-
ered at two sites in the north chapel at both Khirbat al-Karak
and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. However at
both these sites, and also at Petra, Horvat Hesheq and Nahariya,
there is evidence for amphorae and plates or bowls primarily in
the south aisle, nave or east portico/narthex. The evidence at
Khirbat al-Karak and Rehovot might support the transfer of
smaller amounts of gifts to these side chapels.
(iii) It appears far more likely that the congregation brought their
gifts of wine and bread into the church and the wine was col-
lected, stored and distributed from amphorae and jugs or f lasks
located in the south aisle or nave. The archaeological evidence
from Khirbat al-Karak, Petra, Horvat Hesheq and Nahariya and
the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev is that amphorae,
jugs or f lasks, and plates or bowls were deposited primarily in the
south aisle, nave or east portico/narthex. Even though these sites
largely pre-date the Ordo Romanus I by a century or more, this
evidence agrees quite well with the range of vessels described in
Ordo Romanus I such as the amulae used to deliver the wine, i.e.
the capacity of an ama is given as 8.73 litres by Romano, a water
container referred to as a fons, and a scif fus or large vessel used to
deliver wine to the clergy and faithful.31 The deposition of plates
or bowls in the same area would suggest that gifts of  bread are

30 Romano (2007), 286.

31 Romano (2007), 288.
126 Chapter 5

also collected and distributed from the same location together

with the wine.
(iv) The deposition of cooking vessels at Khirbat al-Karak and the
North Church at Rehovot-n-the-Negev suggests that the gifts
donated by the congregation extended to cooked foods to be
consumed later by the clergy or after the liturgy by those assem-
bled, or perhaps donated to the needy.

However, in spite of  their dif ferent internal layouts the archaeological evi-
dence from repeated patterns of artefactual deposition in churches with
both a Syrian and a Roman church plan indicates that amphorae, jugs or
f lasks and plates/bowls were deposited inside these churches primarily in
the south aisle close to the chancel barrier.
These repeated patterns of artefactual deposition provide compelling
evidence that paraliturgical activity occurred in Early Byzantine basilical
churches. The presence of amphorae, particularly from bag jar amphorae
used to transport wine from Gaza, provides compelling evidence that
wine was collected, stored and distributed primarily from the south aisle.
The juxtaposition of jugs or f lasks, and bowls/plates in the same locations
reinforces the perception that the congregation also brought their gifts of 
bread into the church and these were collected and stored beside the wine.
This archaeological evidence can be combined with other evidence
from Chapter 3 and 4 to provide a compelling narrative to describe the
nature of  this paraliturgical activity.
As noted in Chapter 3, the Syrian and Roman church plans are both
very dif ferent from each other. The configuration of  their sanctuary dif fers,
i.e. the Syrian church plan has a Π-shaped sanctuary and the Roman church
plan a T-shaped sanctuary. Furthermore, the former is typically associated
with a south chapel attached to, and accessed from, its south aisle and the
latter with a north chapel either attached to, and accessed from, the north
aisle or adjacent to the north aisle. Evidence from whole or fragmentary
liturgical furniture and from post holes for altar table legs and chancel
posts for chancel screens indicated that there is a second focus of  liturgi-
cal activity located in these side chapels, which strongly suggests that the
rite of prothesis took place there. In Chapter 4 epigraphic evidence from
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 127

inscriptions in five side chapels provides compelling evidence that the

Byzantines referred to these side chapels as diakonika. Crowfoot’s identi-
fication of side chapels as both diakonika and the place where the rite of
prothesis took place appears entirely justified.
From this combination of evidence it can be deduced that at churches
with both a Syrian and Roman church plan the congregation first brought
gifts of wine and bread into church. These were collected and deposited
primarily in the south aisle near to the chancel barrier. The second focus of 
liturgical activity identified in side chapels, which have also been identified
as diakonika, provides compelling evidence that the rite of prothesis took
place there, and so it seems likely that a portion of  the gifts of wine and
bread were transferred by the clergy from the south aisle of  the church to
be prepared for the liturgy in the side chapel or diakonikon. This sequence
of activity so far can be described as paraliturgical activity since it forms a
necessary precursor to liturgical performance.
It would seem likely then that after the rite of prothesis has been per-
formed by the clergy in the side chapel or diakonikon the Eucharist is trans-
ferred to the church sanctuary in procession and placed upon the altar for
the liturgical performance in the church. Upon completion of  the liturgy
it would appear likely that the clergy would process back to the side chapel
or diakonikon to where the liturgical implements are stored.
If analysis by Mathews and Taft into the performance of  the Byzantine
rite at the Hagia Sophia and other related Constantinopolitan church
sites is correct, then it would appear that both paraliturgical and liturgi-
cal activity in churches with a Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman
church plan were very similar at this time despite their very dif ferent
plans and layouts.
Krautheimer’s analysis allowed for the rite of prothesis to take place
in the diakonikon for Byzantine churches, but in churches with a Syrian
plan he thought the diakonikon was located in a room located to one side
of  the apse and the rite of prothesis took place in the room to the other
128 Chapter 5

side of  the apse, but which was possibly a martyr chapel at some sites.32
The archaeological evidence does not appear to support his analysis of
churches with a Syrian church plan. The archaeological evidence would
need to be scrutinised in light of recent discoveries to determine whether
his analysis of eighth century cross-domed churches is correct, i.e. that in
Byzantine usage the diakonikon was located in the south room adjoining
the chancel and the north room serves as the prothesis where the species
of  the Eucharist are kept.
Cooking vessels were recovered inside churches at four sites, two of
which have refectories where one might expect to find these artefacts.33
The presence of cooking vessels at so many church sites suggests either that
cooked food was brought by the congregation to be consumed later by the
clergy or that the liturgical service was followed by a shared community
meal or agape, or perhaps even to be redistributed to those in need as an act
of charity. If  the food were consumed within the religious surroundings of
a church then this would elevate this behaviour into a ritual activity. This
activity might also be considered as paraliturgical if it can be described as
a necessary or commonplace post-liturgical ritual to conclude the intensely
spiritual liturgical performance. If not, then certainly it can be considered
as a non-liturgical activity that appears to have taken place in the church
or in its vicinity.
The appearance of imported pottery (Table 5.3) at six sites is of interest.
Constantinopolitan Grey Ware amphorae were recovered at two church
sites with a Syrian church plan, but these two sites at Nicopolis ad Istrum
are in Bulgaria and so these items have not travelled far from their place of
manufacture. However their presence at three sites with a Roman church
plan at Petra, Khirbat al-Karak and the North Church at Rehovot-in-
the-Negev reveals some interesting trade links between the Levant and
Constantinople at this time, especially at a time when Gaza was thought

32 Krautheimer had thought that if  ‘the species of  the Eucharist chosen from among
these of ferings were prepared in a special ceremony before being brought to the altar
[…] the preparation took place in the diaconicon, which thus would also have served
as a prothesis.’ See Krautheimer (1986), 298.
33 Khirbet ed-Deir and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev.
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 129

to be exporting wine in bag jar amphorae, and so one can only wonder
what were the contents of  the Grey Ware amphorae. Of particular interest
is the presence of  high status imported fine wares such as ARSW, CRSW
and PRSW at the ‘pilgrim church’ of  the North Church in Rehovot-in-
the-Negev, which emphasise its international links, and particularly with
the West. This type of analysis could be used in further research to better
understand familial, social, religious and trade links within the Byzantine
Empire.
This research has established that there is suf ficient evidence for the
deposition of domestic artefacts in Early Byzantine basilical churches
to identify repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. However there
is a strong case to make, firstly, that all artefacts need to be scientifically
recorded and published and, secondly, close scrutiny of  these artefactual
deposits can reveal far more about activities in these church sites than has
previously been considered possible. These Early Byzantine church sites
represent a finite and scarce resource and it is imperative that excavations
at these sites are conducted by specialists who have suf ficient funding to
adequately excavate, record and publish their findings.
While this chapter has examined primarily evidence from ceramic
artefacts, there remain other artefacts that might be used to determine
whether there was segregation of  the sexes in churches, and in the next
chapter these will be examined.
130 Chapter 5

Table 5.1. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Syrian church plans

Site Room to north Chancel-apse Room to south North aisle

of apse of apse
Cathedral
Church,
Gerasa, Jordan
Kursi, Gergesa, Pottery: Amphora:
Israel 7th–8th century 1 bag jar (?)
‘candlestick’ type Cooking vessel:
oil lamp, complete 1 closed ribbed
Metal: brown cooking pot
1 bronze pendant
frag
Ostrakine, Pottery: Metal:
Israel Large assemblage ‘many copper and
of intact ceramics bronze objects
Jug/f lask: including chains
1 jug or f lask for suspending
Metal: candelabra and
1 bronze oil lamp incense burners’
Horvat Amphora:
Berachot, Israel 1 bag jar
Plate/bowl:
1 bowl or plate
Jug/f lask:
1 jug or f lask
Metal:
1 small copper
hook
1 elongated iron
ring
Khirbet
ed-Deir, Israel
Large Basilica, Glass: Glass:
Nicopolis 1 frag. utility glass 1 frag. utility glass
ad Istrum, Metal: 48 frags
Bulgariaa 0.0411m long iron Coin:
fragment 1 coin
Small Basilica,
Nicopolis ad
Istrum, Bulgaria
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 131

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ South chapel

narthex
Cathedral Glass:
Church, 0.13m high
Gerasa, Jordan × 0.08m rim
diameter and
0.086m greatest
diameter (stem
0.066m long) Type
B goblet-shaped
pale blue glass oil
lamp fragment
with a plain stem
< 10 fragments
Type F green and
also bluish wine
glass, 0.042–
0.045m diameter
foot and 0.007–
0.012m diameter
stem – illustration
from no. 28 (31)
Kursi, Gergesa, Cooking vessel: Cooking vessel: Amphora:
Israel 1 closed ribbed 1 lid 1 bag jar (?)
brown-red cooking Plate/bowl:
pot 3 bowl or plate
1 open ribbed Coin:
cooking bowl 2 coins
Ostrakine, Amphora:
Israel Hundreds of
storage jars
Coin:
2 + (2 gold)
many coins
Metal:
1 bronze lamp
stand supporting
oil lamp
1 bronze scales
1 monkey-shaped
weight
1+ bronze weights,
chains and
containers with
remains of ropes
Ivory:
Ivory knife &
objects
132 Chapter 5

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ South chapel

narthex
Horvat
Berachot, Israel
Khirbet Glass: Pottery:
ed-Deir, Israel 1 Type B 0.25m diameter
1 misc. frag. utility × 0.15m base
glass fragment of
pottery jar (see
above)
Large Basilica, Glass: Amphora: Glass:
Nicopolis 3 suspension oil 3 Grey Ware & 23 misc. utility
ad Istrum, lamps 1 Class 47 amphora glass frags.
Bulgariaa 4 Type B 1 East Gaulish cup Coin:
57 misc. 2 cups 2 coins
1 4th–6th century Plate/bowl: Metal:
‘Communion cups’ 3 bowl or plate 5 spiked loops
– rim and lower Glass: 4 iron nails
part of natural 381 misc. utility 6 iron frags
coloured, free- glass frags.
blown stemmed Coin:
goblet with 10 coins
pushed-in base, Metal:
hollow tubular 2 iron frags
base ring, and plain 2 lead frags
stem Bone:
1 4th–6th century 0.062m long ×
‘Communion 0.006m wide bone
cup’ – base of a point fragment
stemmed goblet, 0.01m diameter
with a pushed-in worked bone pin
base, hollow head
tubular base ring
and ball knop.
Natural coloured,
and free-blown
Metal:
6 iron nail frags
1 iron spike
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 133

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ South chapel

narthex
Small Basilica, Amphora: Amphora: Amphora:
Nicopolis ad 1 Grey Ware & 1 Grey Ware & 1 Grey Ware (?)
Istrum, Bulgaria 1 Gaza amphora 1 East Med. Keay amphora
Plate/bowl: LIIIb amphora Plate/bowl:
3 bowl or plate Coin: 1 bowl or plate
Glass: 1 coin 2 fine ware 8 rim
5 frag. utility glass Metal: 1 ware 39 rim
Coin: 4 nail frags 1 coarseware 1 frag
4 coins 2 iron frags Pottery:
Metal: 2 loom weights
4 bronze artefacts 1 ostracon
5 iron tools 3 oil lamp frags
15 iron nail frags Glass:
13 iron frags 3 frag. utility glass
Bone: Coin:
0.039m long × 1 coin
0.006m thick Metal:
episcopal bone pin Bronze wire frags
fragment 5 nail frags
4 bone pin frags 2 iron frags
Bone:
0.033m long ×
0.002m thick
worked bone
needle fragment

a Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Table 5.2. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Roman church plans

Site North apse Chancel-apse South apse North aisle

Khirbat al-Karak, Amphora: Amphora: Amphora: Amphora:
Israel 4 bag jar 5 bag jar 10 bag jar 26 bag jar
2 Grey Ware 1 amphora 10 Grey Ware
Plate/bowl: 3 Grey Ware Plate/bowl:
2 bowl or plate Plate/bowl: 4 bowl or plate
3 bowl/plate 7 bowl or plate 1 bowl/plate
Jug/f lask: 3 bowl/plate Jug/f lask:
1 jug or f lask Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask
Cooking vessel: 1 jug or f lask Cooking vessel:
1 pot Cooking vessel: 4 pot
1 lid 11 pot 1 lid
Glass:
1 utility glass
frag.
134 Chapter 5

Site North apse Chancel-apse South apse North aisle

Petra, Jordan Glass: Glass:
1 Type B & 3 utility glass
1 misc. frag. frags
Coin: Coin:
1 coin 3 coins
Metal:
3 iron frags from
polycandelon
1 iron ring &
attached frags
1 pierced iron bar
1 iron tool
North Church,a Amphora: Jug/f lask:
Rehovot-in-the- 1 bag jar 1A 2 jugs or f lasks
Negev, Israelb 5 Gaza amphorae Coin:
2 ARSW 1 coin
Plate/bowl:
5 bowl or plate
Jug/f lask:
6 jugs or f lasks
Cooking vessel:
1 globular variant
A
1 globular variant
B
3 cooking bowl
Glass:
3 + Type B and
4 misc. utility
frags.
3 concave glass
plates decorated
with human
images
SS. Peter & Paul,
Gerasa, Jordan
Nahariya, Israel Metal: Jug/f lask: Metal: Pottery:
Incense burner 1 jugs or f lask Incense burner 2 oil lamp
Horvat Hesheq,
Israel
Khirbet
el-Waziah, Israel
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 135

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ North chapel

narthex
Khirbat al-Karak, Plate/bowl: Amphora: Amphora: Amphora:
Israel 1 bowl or plate 34 bag jar 33 bag jar 19 bag jar
8 Grey Ware 3 Grey Ware 1 Grey Ware
Plate/bowl: Plate/bowl: Plate/bowl:
17 bowl or plate 11 bowl or plate 4+ bowl or plate
Jug/f lask: 5 bowl/plate 1 bowl/plate
1 jug or f lask Jug/f lask: Cooking vessel:
Cooking vessel: 3 jugs or f lasks 2 pot
12 pots Cooking vessel: Coin:
Glass: 1 pot 1 coin
2 utility glass 2 lid
frag. Metal:
Metal: 1 iron horseshoe
AE cross,
probably part of
oil lamp
1 AE candelabra
frag
Petra, Jordan Glass: Amphora:
1 glass frag 5 Grey Ware
Metal: 7 four-handled
Polycandelon red ware
frags 5 red ware
6 iron frags 1 brown ware
2 lead frags amphorae
Jug/f lask:
2 jugs or f lasks
Glass:
1 Type B;
2 misc. frags.
Coin:
5 coins
Metal:
1 gold foil frag
1 bronze
polycandelon frag
10 assorted iron
frags
136 Chapter 5

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ North chapel

narthex
North Church,c Amphora: Amphora: Amphora: Amphora:
Rehovot-in-the- 1 bag jar 1D 1 amphora 2 bag jar 1A 1 bag jar 1C
Negev, Israeld 1 Class 44 Plate/bowl: 3 bag jar 1C 2 Form 2
amphora 2 ARSW amphora 1 Gaza amphora
Cooking vessel: 3 bowl or plate 1 CRSW Plate/bowl:
1 cooking bowl Jug/f lask: 2 Coptic RSW 1 PRSW
1 lid 2 jugs or f lasks Plate/bowl: 1 bowl or plate
Coin: Cooking vessel: 3 bowl or plate Jug/f lask:
1 coin 1 globular variant Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask
B 5 jugs or f lasks Cooking vessel:
Cooking vessel: 1 globular variant
3 globular variant B
A 1 cooking bowl
1 globular variant Coin:
B 1 coin
1 globular variant
C
Glass:
1 Type B &
1 bottle
SS. Peter & Paul, Glass:
Gerasa, Jordan <10 misc. utility
glass frags.
Nahariya, Israel Pottery: Amphora:
2 Late Roman 6 two-handled
Ware frags storage jars
Glass: – possibly
Many glass oil holemouth jars or
lamp & vessel Anatolian
frags stamnia
Coin: Plate/bowl:
1 coin 4 Late Roman
Metal: Ware (?)
18 suspended 5 bowl or plate
AE candelabra
(whole & frags)
many bar & chain
frags
6 iron nails
Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches 137

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ North chapel

narthex
Horvat Hesheq, Pottery:
Israel Large number of
sherds
Metal:
Bronze crosses
1 bronze
chandelier
support with
glass handles in
situ
Khirbet Metal:
el-Waziah, Israel 2.00m long AE
chain made of 
figure-of-eight
links, 0.20m ×
0.14m cross and
hanging hook for
chandelier
1 AE frag of cross
arm
>1 iron nail

a Room to rear of north apse: 1 Gaza & 1 Class 44 amphora, 1 Class 44, 1 ARSW, 1 bowl or plate, and
2 jugs or f lasks, and 1 utility glass fragment.
Room to the rear of  the south apse 2 bag jar 1A, 2 Gaza, 3 Class 44 & 2 other amphorae, 3 Class 44, 1
PRSW, 2 bowls or plates, and 1 globular variant A; 2 globular variant C, 1 cooking bowl, & 2 lids and
also 2 Type A & 2 glass bottle fragments and one coin.
b Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is converted
from a protruding monoapsidal church.
c Room to rear of north apse: 1 Gaza & 1 Class 44 amphora, 1 Class 44, 1 ARSW, 1 bowl or plate, and
2 jugs or f lasks, and 1 utility glass fragment.
Room to the rear of  the south apse 2 bag jar 1A, 2 Gaza, 3 Class 44 & 2 other amphorae, 3 Class 44, 1
PRSW, 2 bowls or plates, and 1 globular variant A; 2 globular variant C, 1 cooking bowl, & 2 lids and
also 2 Type A & 2 glass bottle fragments and one coin.
138 Chapter 5

Table 5.3. Imported pottery (Grey Ware or Constantinopolitan Ware, PRSW, ARSW,
CRSW & Coptic RSW. Also Gaza & bag jars are included for Nicopolis ad Istrum)a

Loci Rehovot- Large Small Petra Nahariya Kh. al-Karak

in-the- Basilica, Basilica,
Negev Nicopolis Nicopolis
ad Istrum ad Istrum
Rear of north 1 Class 44;
apse 1 ARSW
Rear of south 3 Class 44;
apse 1 PRSW
North apse/ 2 Grey Ware
north apsidal
room
Chancel-apse 2 ARSW
South apse/ 3 Grey Ware
south apsidal
room
North aisle 10 Grey Ware
Nave 1 Class 44 1 Grey ware
amph.;
1 Gaza
amph.
South aisle 2 ARSW 3 Grey Ware 5 Grey 4 Late 8 Grey Ware
amph.; Ware Roman
1 Class 47 amph. Ware (?)
amph.;
1 East
Gaulish cup
Narthex/east 1 CRSW; 1 Grey Ware 3 Grey Ware
portico 2 Coptic amph.;
RSW 1 Eastern
Med. amph.
North 1 Grey Ware
chapel/
diakonikon
North chapel 1 PRSW
narthex
South chapel 1 Grey
Ware amph.

a Dark (2001), 33–34. Also Gaza & bag jars are included for Nicopolis ad Istrum.
Chapter 6

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of 

the sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches?

The purpose of  this chapter is to examine whether there is archaeological

evidence for segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches
in the catalogue of sites. If  this archaeological evidence exists, then this
will be cross-referenced with repeated patterns of deposition for domes-
tic pottery from the previous chapter to determine whether there is any
relationship between the two sets of evidence.
First, some of  the current established views on the segregation of sexes
within the Early Byzantine Church are reviewed. The primary focus is upon
research conducted by Mathews and Taft who have both analysed textual
references to segregation of  the sexes in relation to both architectural and
archaeological evidence. Then some historical references to women in the
Early Byzantine Church are considered to determine whether they might
provide any further evidence for segregation of  the sexes at this time.
Then the archaeological evidence (Table 6.1–6.7) will be scrutinised
for any indication that the sexes were segregated. When designing the data-
base and constructing the Tables of artefacts for this research, allowance
was made for two columns labelled ‘male’ and ‘female’ and those artefacts
that might be assigned to either category marked of f  for analysis.1 These
artefacts were compared against artefacts included in a recent museum
exhibition on women in Byzantium, and also to textual references men-
tioned above.2 However the archaeological evidence also includes grave
goods in biologically sexed graves, burials, inscriptions and images. This
is a complex research area that requires a multi-stranded approach which

1 Mulholland (2011), Appendix II.

2 Pomerantz (2003), and Kalavrezou (2003), 13–32.
140 Chapter 6

meets broad guidelines set by others working on gender in archaeology,

such as Roberta Gilchrist, who has supported a multivariate approach.
Gilchrist argues that:

The most sophisticated readings of gender have been developed from multiple lines of
evidence, combing, for example, the use of spatial, iconographic, and environmental
data, together with analogic sources. This deployment of parallel lines of evidence
allows the discernment of ambiguity and contradiction. Further, the diachronic
study of gender should be emphasised, encouraging readings of gender through
lives and time.3

For example she praises the ‘more discerning use of direct historic analogy,
employing ethnohistorical or historical sources’ by Spector in her work
on the Native American Hidatsa, which inf luenced attempts to assign
artefact correlates for men’s and women’s work. In a similar vein, data on
both males and females was collated for this chapter. It is of equal impor-
tance to identify evidence that men used a church as it is to determine that
women used it, and also to determine whether they shared this space or
were segregated. In essence, the burden of proof must be applied equally
to both sexes, rather than to adopt a default position that all spaces are
occupied by males unless proved otherwise, or to simply consider the role
of women in isolation.

The segregation of  the sexes

Current works of note, at least from the art historical and historical per-
spective, are a recent volume that introduces a historical focus to gender
in Byzantium, an exhibition at Harvard University’s Arthur M. Sackler

3 Gilchrist (1999), 41 and 149. See also Schif fer (1995), 55–66, and LaMotta and Schif fer
(2002).
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 141

Museum and also the accompanying book, on Byzantine women.4 From

an archaeological perspective, the volume on gender in Byzantium is useful
in determining how archaeology might play a role in this evolving area
of research and how it might be usefully integrated within the folds of
gender studies. Similarly the book about the exhibition reveals the cur-
rent consensus on which artefacts may be considered to be female gender
indicators, even though these artefacts are displayed and considered out
of archaeological context.
In an extensive piece of research, Angeliki Laiou, notes that there is
evidence that women in the Byzantine Empire did everything from sell-
ing vegetables and apples, to debt collecting, and working in the fields.5
However Mango thinks that anti-feminism dominated Byzantine thought
until the introduction of  the western concept of  ‘love’ was introduced in
the twelfth century.6 This is a view referred to by Averil Cameron, who
asserts that, embedded within the Byzantine written tradition, there is an
attitude that there is a ‘proper place for women, that is, on the outside, not
intruding into male space.’7
Of particular importance, given the context of  this chapter, is that
Robin Cormack suggested that the ‘perpetual contact of  Byzantines with
the imagery and language of  the cult of  the Mother of  God must have
directed and shaped society’s concept of  the role of women.’ He tempers
this observation by associating women with ‘original sin’ through Eve, and
asserts that in ‘the church, men and women stood segregated in dif ferent
parts of  the building,’ stating assertively that there ‘is nothing […] to connect

4 James (1997). Also Pomerantz (2003), and Kalavrezou (2003), 13–32.

5 Laiou (1981), 233–260, and also (1982), 98–103.
6 Mango states: ‘Anti-feminism was a fundamental tenet of  Byzantine thinking until
the sporadic introduction of western ideas of romantic love in about the twelfth cen-
tury.’ Mango observes that there was ‘separation between clergy and laity, between
the sexes, and between baptized Christians and catchumens.’ Furthermore: ‘To make
matters more complicated, we also have evidence that men stood in the right aisle
and women in the left; and, furthermore, that women were sometimes placed in the
galleries.’ See Mango (1976), 70–71. Also Mango (1980), 225–226.
7 See also Cameron (1997), 2.
142 Chapter 6

art with gender-specific interests.’8 There is some support for Cormack’s

argument that men and women were segregated in church from Clement
of  Rome’s ‘Testament of  Our Lord,’ which states: ‘Let that house have two
porches, on the right and on the left, for men and for women.’9 However
this appears to refer to the house of  the catchumens rather than to the
church itself.
Probably the first person to consider the role of women from an archi-
tectural and liturgical perspective was Mathews under the heading: ‘Places
for women and the imperial court.’ In doing so, he broached a subject that
has taxed scholars during the intervening forty years – how to identify,
define and determine the role and position of women in society.10
In Constantinopolitan churches, Mathews observes that the accepted
opinion is that the faithful had ‘use of  the nave, aisles, and galleries of  the
Early Byzantine church with men on the ground f loor and women above,’
although women could mingle with men on the ground f loor.11 However
as Mathews points out, Evagrius describes men as being in the galleries in
the late sixth century, and Procopius indicates that the women’s place in the
galleries is restricted in area.12 Krautheimer states that galleries similar to
those at the Studios church were ‘apparently standard in Constantinople,’
and Mathews notes that almost all the Constantinopolitan churches that
he considered had galleries.13 Mathews states that there is little textual
evidence to support the universal assumption by archaeologists of  the day
that women were segregated in the galleries and men on the ground f loor,
other than from the references by John Chrysostom in the early fifth cen-
tury, and from comments by Procopius in the sixth century.14

8 Cormack (2000), 215.

9 See Chapter 4 for the extended quote. See also Cooper and MacLean (1902), 64.
10 Mathews (1971).
11 Mathews (1971), 117.
12 Mathews (1971), 130–131.
13 Krautheimer (1986), 105. Also Mathews (1971), 108.
14 For Procopius see Dewing (2002), 25–27. Mathews’ book was published in 1971.
However in 1993 the archaeologist Tsafrir was still writing that ‘in the hall [nave &
aisles] the male and female congregants were separated, the men being placed on
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 143

Where there were no galleries Mathews thinks the women stood on

the left and men on the right. In his analysis of  the early Roman liturgy
set out in Ordo Romanus I, Mathews takes it to indicate that in the early
Roman church plan the sexes were segregated and that it was normal for
women to gather to the left of apse (when facing it) and men to the right
of  the apse. Mathews uses De Ceremoniis to establish that the women’s
place in the Chalkoprateia in Constantinople is to the left:

On the feasts of  the Annunciation and the Birth of  the Virgin the Emperors left
the sanctuary by the door at the left and passed through the women’s place […] to
be received by the senate and proceeded from there to the shrine of  the Virgin’s
cincture, located somewhere south of  the church.15

However this could instead be read to indicate that they exited the sanctu-
ary by the south entrance nearest the shrine of  the Virgin’s cincture. After
all, why would they leave by the north entrance when they wish to get to
the shrine to the south? So the question is: to whose left? Are the direc-
tions given from the perspective of someone standing in the congregation
facing the apse, or alternatively a member of  the clergy standing in the
apse facing the congregation? If  the latter, then this would mean that the
‘women’s place’ was located beside the south entrance.
While delivering a comprehensive historical and liturgical treatment of 
the place of women within the Byzantine Church of the Constantinopolitan
patriarchate, Taft first declares that throughout history ‘religion, sex, and
gender have been intertwined in an unrelenting embrace,’ but then remarks
that this same intertwining resulted in ‘the segregation of women in church
in Byzantium’ and concludes that ‘in so doing, I simply presume what

one of its sides and the women on the other.’ See Tsafrir (1993), 5. Similarly Talbot
writes that ‘Within the church building, women were separated from men, being
relegated either to an upper gallery or to a side aisle, depending on the size and plan
of  the structure.’ See Talbot (1997), 117–143. See also Talbot (1998), 113–127.
15 Mathews (1971), 132.
144 Chapter 6

should require no demonstration: that in Byzantine Christianity as else-

where, women were systematically ranked after men.’16
Taft refers to a sixth-century text by Chorikios which indicates that
the funeral bier of a man was placed to the right of  the sanctuary, that
of a woman to the left, and that of a hegumen placed directly in front
of  the sanctuary.17 But was Chorikios facing towards the east or west
when describing the scene? From this text Taft extrapolates that ‘men and
women stood separately in church, men on the right, women on the left,’
although Chorikios indicates that women also occupied the galleries of 
the church. Taft further suggests that a ‘careful scrutiny of  the hundreds of
extant Byzantine liturgical manuscripts would doubtless turn up numer-
ous instances of  the same or similar practices right up to our own day.’18
In regard to the space occupied in church by the deaconesses, Taft
thinks that the tenth-century De Ceremoniis, and also the twelfth-century
description of  Anthony of  Novgorod, indicate that in the Hagia Sophia
the deaconesses, whom he equates to the singing myrrh-bearing women,
occupied a reserved place in the narthex of  the gynaeceum near the skeuophy-
lakion. Taft expends some ef fort in identifying its location in the eastern
half of  the north aisle of  the church, and the ‘narthex of  the deaconesses’
as a forehall at the entrance to the gynaeceum of  the deaconesses or north
aisle between it and the skeuophylakion.19
Taft asserts that male candidates had primacy in the communion ser-
vice whereas the ‘deaconess, though she receives the chalice in the hand and
drinks from it, puts it back on the altar without distributing it to others.’20
Close reading of  the liturgy of  the Monophysite Syrian Jacobites appears
to contradict this viewpoint: ‘And when he drinks from the deaconess the
wine that has been mingled […] And when he drinks the deaconess […]
And wiping the chalice with a sponge.’21 In this extract a male appears to

16 Taft (1998), 27–87.

17 Taft (1998), 31. See also Foerster and Richsteig (1972), 40.
18 Taft (1998), 57.
19 Taft (1998), 69.
20 Taft (1998), 64.
21 From the Liturgy of  the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 107.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 145

accept the chalice from a deaconess. There is further supporting evidence

from another source for the involvement of deaconesses and also canonical
widows in the liturgical service during the Early Byzantine period:

Because that the ancient people erred, when he of fereth let the veil in front of  the
door be closed, and within it [the sanctuary?] let him of fer with the presbyters and
deacons and the canonical widows, and subdeacons and deaconesses and readers
[and] those who have gifts.22

Because the Monophysite and Orthodox Chalcedonian church were

interrelated to a certain extent prior to their sixth-century schism, this
early text may have applied to either one, or to both. Solovey points out
that the Byzantine rite owes its origins to Antioch, and was then subse-
quently developed in Constantinople, although it is not stated whether
it developed in isolation from or parallel to other liturgies.23 As such
it is likely that Syrian Jacobite or Monophysite liturgies contain some
remnant of  those used by these early fifth-century Antiochene bishops
of  Constantinople and validates their qualified use by Taft, and also in
this book also. Certainly the inf luence of  the Monophysite Church on
the early fifth-century Constantinopolitan church is attested to by the
succession of  Antiochene or Oriental candidates who were appointed as
bishops of  Constantinople, such as John Chrysostom and Nestorius, and
indicates at the very least some dependency upon that patriarchate.24 And
if  Constantinople depended upon the patriarchate of  Antioch at this time
to provide or appoint its bishops, then there must also be a suspicion that
during this early period at least there was a concomitant f low of  liturgical
and other inf luences as well.25
An interesting point raised by Taft is the importance of  the burial site
at the Hagia Sophia of  ‘Anna,’ mentioned by Anthony of  Novgorod in
the twelfth century, who donated her house to the church and on whose

22 Cooper and MacLean (1902), 70.

23 See Solovey (1970), 44–45.
24 Limberis (1995), 321–340. See also Mayer and Allen (2000), 3–16.
25 For a more detailed analysis of  the nuances see Shepherd (1961), 23–44.
146 Chapter 6

site the skeuophylakion was built.26 Outside the door of  the prothesis or
skeuophylakion is a cross and he thinks that Anna is buried behind it. The
actual location of  the grave is unclear, but it is interesting that it was Anna
who was the donor, and not her husband or family, and she who was hon-
oured by being buried within the church complex in a high status loca-
tion north of  the church.27 There is also mention of a child’s tomb, that
of  St. Athinogenos, which is described as the only tomb actually located
in Hagia Sophia.28
It is notable that in his paper dealing with women at church in
Byzantium, Taft overlooks space assigned to the most important woman
in the history of  the church, the Virgin Mary or Theotokos, although both
he and Mathews include references to the Chalkoprateia church where the
Virgin’s cincture was housed.29 Vasiliki Limberis states that the cult of  the
Virgin Mary spread rapidly during the first half of  the fifth century, but
was she allocated a specific space within each church, or were there instead
specific churches dedicated to her?30 There are three churches dedicated to
her in Constantinople which are attributed to the empress Pulcheria, and
these were constructed from the A.D. 430s, namely those at Blachernae that
housed the Virgin’s robe, that of  the Hodegetria that housed an icon of  her
made by St. Luke, and that of  Chalkoprateia which housed her cincture.31
Taft readily admits that a search of canonical sources produced ‘remark-
ably little juridical evidence of spaces in church forbidden to women – and
what they can or cannot do there,’ other than for menstruating women and

26 Taft (1998), 66–67.

27 Indeed Herrin states that some women may have donated their property to churches
to the detriment of  their families. See Herrin (1993), 178.
28 Taft (1998), 67.
29 Mathews (1971), 28–33.
30 Limberis (1995), 321–340.
31 Krautheimer states that Blachernae was built as an apsidal basilica with galleries under
Justin I (A.D. 518–527) and remodelled under emperor Justin II (A.D. 564–576) with a
trefoil transept. See Krautheimer (1986), 105 and 267. Mathews provides three possible
dates for construction of  the Chalkoprateia; under Pulcheria’s period of inf luence,
under Verina the wife of emperor Leo I (A.D. 457–474), or under emperor Justine
II (A.D. 565–578). See Mathews (1971), 28.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 147

vigils, and he urges caution.32 There is therefore a degree of uncertainty

regarding the place of women in the Early Byzantine Church, whether the
sexes are segregated in churches, and even as to what role women played
in society in general. But what evidence is there with regard to the Early
Byzantine Church?

Historical evidence

In the introduction to the life of Saint Leoba, C.H. Talbot notes that a ‘recent
study has shown that of some 2,200 known saints from the early Middle
Ages, only about 300 were women.’33 This research by Jane Schulenburg
into 2,200 male and female saints utilizes not only saints’ Lives but also:

[…] many other contemporary sources that corroborate evidence found in vitae,
including chronicles, cartularies, secular and ecclesiastical legislation, correspond-
ence, penitentials, liturgical collections, handbooks of ecclesiastical of fices, art, and
architectural and archaeological evidence.34

This research also notes that during this period the ratio is seven male saints
to every one female saint, i.e. that females constitute some 15% of all saints
during this period. However the percentage of  female saints varies from
century to century from a low of 7.6% in the late sixth century, up to a high
of 23.5% in the early eighth century.35
Constance Berman states that ‘the number of monastic houses for
women founded in medieval Western Europe is much greater than once
thought,’ and as such this figure may provide a misleading impression of  the

32 Taft (1998), 72.

33 Talbot understates the number, as I make this number approximately 330. Talbot
(1995), 256.
34 Schulenburg (1998), 8.
35 Schulenburg (1998), Table 1.
148 Chapter 6

role played by women in religious life.36 In an important research project

into the diverse activities of religious women from A.D. 500–1500, Mary
McLaughlin notes that women:

[…] associated with religious life were married and widowed as well as celibate; they
entered this life at widely varying ages, from childhood to late maturity. As wives and
widows, mothers and daughters, sisters, cousins, aunts, and nieces, they belonged to
families at nearly every level of medieval society, from royal and aristocratic to those
of decidedly lower status in towns and countryside. By no means all of  them were
professed nuns; many communities also included lay sisters or conversae, as well as
female servants and sometimes lay ‘boarders’ or corrodians. Women founders and
benefactors, who were numerous during this period, often remained closely attached
to the communities they supported. Some of  them became members and heads of 
these communities […] As individuals, nuns and other religious women were saints,
mystics and reformers, writers, scholars and teachers, scribes and illuminators.37

Indeed Snively cautions that ‘no standardized plan for monasteries devel-
oped in any region until well after the end of  the Late Antique period.
Therefore one cannot assume that early monasteries for either sex had all
the features and regularity of  Byzantine or medieval ones.’38 This research
indicates then that religious life encompassed a range of activities and that
women filled many of  these roles.
In the West there is a useful reference in Cogitosus’ seventh century
Vita Brigitae at a time when Ireland has resolved the ‘Paschal question’ and
was under the inf luence of  Rome.39 Although this text is (a) Western, (b)
Irish, (c) monastic, and (d) apparently refers to a double house, it is one
of  the few texts to provide a description of  the internal configuration of a
monastic church and the activities that occur there.

36 Berman (2001), 103.

37 The focus of  McLaughlin’s research is on the ‘Latin West,’ which invites replication
in the (Byzantine?) Christian East by Byzantinists. See McLaughlin (1987), 62–63,
and 64. See also the project’s website: <http://www.matrix.bc.edu>.
38 Snively (2001), 58.
39 Ó Cróinín (1982), 405–430. Also Ó Cróinín (1995), 201–203.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 149

1. Neither should one pass over in silence the miracle wrought in the repairing the
church in which the glorious bodies of  both – namely Archbishop Conleth and our
most f lourishing virgin Brigit – are laid on the right and left of  the ornate altar and
rest in tombs adorned with a refined profusion of gold, silver, gems and precious
stones with gold and silver chandeliers hanging from above and dif ferent images
presenting a variety of carvings and colours.
2. Thus, on account of  the growing number of  the faithful of  both sexes, a new reality
is born in an age-old setting, that is a church with its spacious sitet and its awesome
height towering upwards. It is adorned with painted pictures and inside there are
three chapels which are spacious and divided by board walls under the single roof
of  the cathedral church. The first of  these walls, which is painted with pictures and
covered with wall-hangings, stretches widthwise in the east part of  the church from
one wall to the other. In it there are two doors, one at either end, and through the
door situated on the right, one enters the sanctuary to the altar where the archbishop
of fers the Lord’s sacrifice together with his monastic chapter and those appointed to
the sacred mysteries. Through the other door, situated on the left side of  the aforesaid
cross-wall, only the abbess and her nuns and faithful widows enter to partake of  the
banquet of  the body and blood of  Jesus Christ.
3. The second of  these walls divides the f loor of  the building into two equal parts
and stretches from the west wall to the wall running across the church. This church
contains many windows and one finely wrought portal on the right side through
which the priests and the faithful of  the male sex enter the church, and a second
portal on the left side through which the nuns and congregation of women faithful
are accustomed to enter. And so, in one vast basilica, a large congregation of varying
status, rank, sex and local origin, with partitions placed between them, prays to the
omnipotent Master, dif fering in status, but one in spirit.40

The suggestion here is that the church congregation was indeed segregated
into male and female groups. There is still some doubt here whether the
commentator Cogitosus describes the scene as viewed looking towards the
east or west. This matters because a person looking down the church from
the apse will have the south aisle to their left, and another person look-
ing towards the apse will have the north aisle to their left. This is further

40 Connolly and Picard (1987), 26. The reference to the hanging ‘chandelier’ or crown is
interesting in light of  the suspended crowns and crosses from the Guarrazar Treasure
in Spain and the possible suspended cross at the North Church of  Rehovot-in-the-
Negev. See Harris (2003), plate 6 and 7. Also Tsafrir (1988), 142–149 and figure
III.223, and also Patrich (1988), 107 and plate VII.23.
150 Chapter 6

complicated by the church being located in the Latin West at a time when
churches are often aligned with their apse towards the west, and in which
case the first person will have the north aisle to their left, and the latter
person the south aisle to their left.
There are some tombs that are sexed historically, i.e. from the name
of  the person, such as the tomb of  Rusticula (A.D. 556–632) abbess of 
Arles, which is at the right side of  the altar and there is a reference that
in death she is seated at the ‘right side of  the Lamb,’ or Christ.41 Similarly
Glodesind is also buried on the right side of  the altar, and notably both
are buried in churches dedicated to St. Mary.42 No indication however is
given as to whether this was the laity’s right, when viewing the altar from
the nave, or the clergy’s right, as when standing behind the altar looking
out into the nave.
However, the evidence from the monastery of  Beth-Shan is less ambig-
uous. An inscription in the southeast corner of  the church, adjacent to the
apse, instructs that the body of  the ‘Lady Mary, who founded this church’
should be laid to rest in the tomb that lay beneath it. Furthermore an
inscription in the northeast of  the church, again adjacent to the apse, reveals
that the body of  Georgia lies in the tomb beneath the inscription.43 In this
church, women are not excluded, and women could be buried alongside
both the north and south side of  the apse.
There are also references to women disguising themselves as men so
that they can enter male monasteries.44 One such candidate is even said
to have risen to become abbot of such a monastery, and can be said to be
representative of  ‘a type of saint very popular in eastern hagiography, the
transvestite saint.’45 There are also historical references to women ruling
over male monasteries, albeit in the case of saint Leoba over dual male and
female monasteries at Wimbourne in Britain during the eighth–ninth

41 McNamara et al (1992), 135.

42 McNamara et al (1992), 146.
43 Fitzgerald (1939), 14–16.
44 Constans (1996), 1–12. Also Featherstone (1996), 13–64.
45 McNamara et al (1992), 52.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 151

century.46 Not only that but in the case of saint Leoba her remains were
explicitly to have been interred in the male monastery at Fulda where she
often prayed. This was at the instructions of  the holy martyr saint Boniface
who ordered ‘that after his death her bones should be placed next to his in
the tomb.’47 However these wishes are not obeyed and her remains were
instead placed in a separate tomb north of  the altar, and they were later
moved to the west porch.
Gilchrist suggests segregation of  the sexes, whether using architec-
ture or social rites such as burial, is presented in archaeological literature
as coincident with ‘lower female prestige.’48 In the context of medieval
England, she challenges this perception and questions whether the meaning
of sexual segregation, confirmed by historical and ethnographic evidence,
and resulting spatial pattern may instead ref lect a ‘formal device used to
represent gender dif ference and social order.’ And indeed Gilchrist goes
on to suggest that any sexual segregation might have varied with status and
age. However, what is the archaeological evidence for segregation of  the
sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches?

Archaeological evidence

The evidence from Early Byzantine basilical churches in the catalogue

can be broken down (Table 6.1–6.7) into four main categories: burials,
inscriptions, artefacts, and images. I have treated the category ‘images’ in
a separate set of  tables for reasons outlined in that section.

46 Talbot (1995), 255–277.

47 Talbot (1995), 272 and 274.
48 Gilchrist (1999), 113 and 143.
152 Chapter 6

(i) Burials

There are two methods used for sexing burials. The first method involves
osteological sexing of  human skeletal remains.49 Roberts and Manchester
observe that there are three variables that can be used to osteologically sex
human skeletal remains:

Three areas of  the skeleton may indicate the sex of  the individual: the pelvic girdle,
skull and measurements of certain dimensions of  the skeletal elements, particularly
the femur […] The pelvic girdle is accepted to be the most sexually dimorphic area
of  the body, with the skull and long bones being less reliable. It should be noted that
some skeletons show mixtures of male and female traits, and occasionally it may not
be possible to assign a definite sex to the individual.50

Renfrew and Bahn suggest that where human skeletal remains are osteologi-
cally sexed by suitably qualified practitioners the results can be reasonably
secure insofar as biological (male/female) sexing is concerned.51 Gilchrist
has observed that where osteological sexing of  human sexes is used:

These methods can be used with up to 95 per cent confidence where the pelvis is
present, and 85–95 per cent confidence where the skull is complete.52

The second method used is anthropological sexing of  burials using arte-
factual evidence, i.e. where artefacts of a certain type are thought to be
associated with one or other sex.53 However this method can be unreliable
in some circumstances. For example, Gilchrist has observed that where:

[…] biological sex is separately determined, considerable ambiguity appears [in

Anglo-Saxon burials], such as the occurrence of weapons with female skeletons, or

49 See White and Folkens (2005). Also Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). See also Renfrew
and Bahn (2000), 422–424.
50 Roberts and Manchester (2001), 22–23.
51 See also Renfrew and Bahn (2000), 422–424.
52 Gilchrist (1999), 69. See also Brown (1998), 3–15.
53 For example, Pomerantz (2003).
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 153

jewellery with males […] the lack of reliability of anthropological sexing is sometimes
raised as a defence.54

As a result of  these observations osteologically sexed skeletal remains are

treated separately from anthropologically sexed burials. It should also be
noted that the gender of  human remains, even where they are known, have
not always been provided in published archaeological reports. While it
is perhaps not surprising that many Early Byzantine tombs were robbed,
possibly for the translation of relics to other churches that were less at
risk of  foreign invasion or to promote the cult of saints and martyrs, it is
surprising that where human remains are recovered these remains are not
always scientifically analysed and so often the sex, age, condition or cause
of death are not provided.

(a) Osteologically sexed skeletal remains

There are no burials in any of  the four Constantinopolitan church sites
(Table 6.1). Only one Syrian church site (Table 6.2) has burials, and all
twenty-eight osteologically sexed males at Kursi are in a single tomb located
in the east portico or narthex.55
Of  the Roman church sites (Table 6.3), Phase 5–6 A.D. 800–1100 of 
the Mola di Monte Gelato in Italy has osteologically sexed burials.56 There
is one male and a female buried in the chancel-apse under the location of 
the altar table. These appear to be relics and were discovered together with
fragments of one dark blue glass oil lamp handle, one pale green glass oil
lamp, and a pale blue-green glass oil lamp. There were osteologically sexed
males and females buried in the f loor of  the nave, and some male interrals
in the f loor of  the north chapel.
There are two indeterminate churches with osteologically sexed buri-
als. That of  Khirbet el-Beiyûdât in Israel had a female aged 25–35 buried
in the east portico or narthex together with one iron signet ring, one iron

54 Gilchrist (1999), 69. See also Brown (1998), 3–15.

55 Tzaferis (1983), 13, and footnote 26.
56 Potter and King (1997), 111–180.
154 Chapter 6

fibula, and one burnt cooking pot sherd.57 This association between a
female burial and an iron ring and fibula means that where these artefacts
are discarded in the church they can tentatively be associated with the
presence of women until there is evidence to the contrary. At Kissufim in
Israel there is a tomb for a male and female together with three others in
the north aisle.58
There are no consistent repeated patterns across all of  these churches
with interrals. The church at Kursi might be taken to indicate that males
are interred in the east portico or narthex given the number of interrals,
and yet the sole female buried in the same part of  the church at Khirbet
el-Beiyûdât negates any such argument. The north chapel at Mola di Monte
Gelato might be the sole preserve of male interrals, and yet the church has
both males and females buried together in the nave and chancel-apse and
so, although Taft may be correct in his analysis of  the sixth century texts
by Chorikios in Gaza, the evidence from osteologically sexed burials does
not suggest that there is segregation of  the sexes either in the church or in
the afterlife. The prevailing orthodox view referred to by Mathews that,
where there are no galleries, the women stand on the left and the men to
the right finds no supporting evidence here. The only osteologically sexed
burial in an aisle is that of a tomb for a man and a woman together in the
north aisle at Kissufim.59
Of particular note here is the monastery of  Martyrius where there is
a burial hall (Room 221) adjacent to the church where the tomb of  Paul
contains his remains and those thought to succeed him to the abbacy, and
there are nine male and one female interrals that are anatomically or osteo-
logically sexed.60 Also at this site inscription no. 4: ‘Of fering of  Antonina(?)

57 Hizmi (1990), 248.

58 Cohen (1993), 277–282.
59 Ivison noted that at Antioch the ‘dif fering statures of skeletons and the presence of
children indicate that persons of all ages and probably gender were represented.’ Also
that analysis of  the bones from Hattusas, Sardis, H. Polyeuktos, and Nicaea Theatre
‘cemeteries found both sexes and all ages without dif ferentiation.’ See Ivison (1993),
53.
60 Magen and Talgam (1990), 98. Also Magen (1993), 170–196.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 155

and Auxentius’ on a chancel screen fragment recovered in the vicinity of 

the basilica is unusual in that the woman’s name appears before the man’s,
and the possibility exists that hers are the human remains buried together
with the nine males in L. 221. Alternatively, the female remains in the burial
hall might be taken as tangible evidence behind some legends for a ‘trans-
vestite,’ i.e. a female disguised as a male, who rose to lead a monastery.61

(b) Anthropologically sexed burials (using artefacts)

It is dif ficult to assign specific artefacts to either sex because almost no

archaeological research has been conducted into this area during the Early
Byzantine period. This applies particularly in light of  Laiou’s analysis of 
the roles played by women in Byzantine society.62
However one Syrian church, i.e. the North Church at Nessana, has a
tomb where the size of a leather shoe in a tomb in the south aisle indicates
that it belonged either to a female or juvenile, and there is some supporting
evidence from a tomb inscription (Inscription no. 14) in the south aisle
dedicated to the ‘blessed Maria’ that suggests the shoe belongs to a female.
Another Syrian church at Ostrakine has two bone fragments in a reliquary
together with a bronze needle that could be taken as an artefact used by
a female, but is ambiguous because a needle might be used by either sex.
At the Roman church of  the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev
in Israel, Tomb L538 with two skeletons in the south aisle with a tomb
inscription (inscription no. 6) dedicated to ‘blessed Makedonios’ who is
the father of  Elias and Boethos has two metal earrings and one coin in it.
The question then is do the earrings belong to Makedonios or to his com-
panion – possibly his wife? The same problem arises in considering the
Roman church at Khirbat al-Karak where a silver ring and a juglet were
recovered in a burial in the north aisle. It might tentatively be suggested
that the earrings and ring belong to females, but further research into

61 Constans (1996), 1–12. Also Featherstone (1996), 13–64, and McNamara et al (1992),
52.
62 Laiou (1981), and (1982).
156 Chapter 6

anatomically or osteologically sexed burials and their grave goods would

need to be conducted before any credence could be given this view.
The indeterminate church of  Beit ‘Einûn in Israel has a crypt beneath
the chancel-apse which has two Byzantine trough burials with two neck-
laces, two bronze crosses, and one bell that might again indicate female
burials, but further research is required into these artefacts.
Clearly anthropologically-sexing burials using artefacts is a field of
research that might be developed further.

(ii) Inscriptions

One area of evidence where there is less ambiguity comes from names that
appear in inscriptions on mosaic pavements, or on artefacts such as chancel
screen fragments. Only the names are reproduced in Table 6.1–6.4, and so
they appear out of context from the meaning of  the original inscription.63
These inscriptions fall into three groups: those that refer only to a man,
those that refer only to a woman, and those that contain the name of  both
a male and female.
The Constantinopolitan church at Shavei Zion has an inscription in
the east portico or narthex with a male reference. However on its own this
single inscription hardly constitutes evidence for segregation in this type
of church, and there appears to be no evidence in support of segregation
of  the sexes in these churches.
There are several Syrian churches with inscriptions that refer either to
males, females or to both males and females. Four of  these churches have
inscriptions that refer only to males. At Khirbet ed-Deir there is an inscrip-
tion with a male reference in the chancel-apse. Kursi has a reference to a
male in an inscription in the room south of apse. Horvat Beit Loya has a
reference to a male in an inscription in both the nave and south chapel. The
North Church at Nessana has a reference to a male in an inscription in both
the north and south aisles. This means that overall there are inscriptions

63 The inscriptions are reproduced in full in Mulholland (2011), Table 6.1–6.4.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 157

with male only references in every part of  the church building except for
the room north of  the apse, and the east portico or narthex.
The Cathedral Church in Gerasa has an inscription with a female ref-
erence in the south chapel, the church of  St. John the Baptist, St. George,
and SS. Cosmas & Damianus at Gerasa has a reference to a female, and also
to both a male and female, in an inscription in the nave. The monastery of 
Martyrius has a reference to both a male and female in an inscription in
the chancel-apse. There is also the female inscription in the south aisle of 
the North Church at Nessana.
In Syrian churches there is no evidence to support segregation of  the
sexes in these churches and both male and female inscriptions occur in
most areas of  the church building.
By far the greatest number of inscriptions from mosaic pavements is
found in Roman churches. At four of  these church sites there are inscrip-
tions that include references to both male and females.
At Poreč there are inscriptions referring to both male and females
in the north aisle and nave, and also inscriptions with references only to
males in the chancel-apse, north aisle and nave. Nahariya has an inscrip-
tion containing references to both a male and female in the chancel-apse
and St. Mary’s or the South Church in Nessana has a similar inscription
in the nave. Horvat Hesheq has inscriptions with both male and female
references in the south apse and nave, and there is a male only reference
in the south aisle.
Two sites host inscriptions that refer exclusively to a male or a female.
‘Evron has an inscription with a reference to a female in the narthex/east
portico, and inscriptions with a male reference in the nave, narthex/east
portico and also the north chapel. The North Church at Rehovot-in-the-
Negev has an inscription with a female reference in the north aisle, but also
another there with a reference to a male and others in the nave and south
aisle. The site at Khirbat al-Karak has an inscription with a reference to a
male in its north chapel.
In those Roman church sites there appears to be no evidence in sup-
port of demarcation of single sex zones.
Neither do the remaining ‘indeterminate’ church sites provide any clear
supporting evidence either. Each of  the five sites with inscriptions has one
158 Chapter 6

with a male reference in the nave. At Kissufim there are also inscriptions
with male, female and both male and female references in the north aisle.
Khirbet el-Shubeika also has an inscription with a male reference in the
north aisle and another with a female reference in the chancel-apse. And
at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât there is an inscription with a reference to a male in
the chancel-apse, nave and side chapel.
The evidence from inscriptions in mosaic pavements does not support
the segregation of  the sexes in church buildings, and there appear to be
no clearly defined zones for either of  the sexes. Some of  these inscriptions
with both male and female references are ‘family’ inscriptions and as such
would appear to counter the entire notion of segregation of  the sexes. This
in itself might raise the question as to whether this idea of segregation of 
the sexes might not refer exclusively to young male and females of  ‘mar-
riageable age,’ rather than to married couples and pre-pubescent children.
Further research into inscriptions on mosaic pavements in early church sites
might reveal some evidence of repeated patterns that are not apparent in
the sample examined in this research.

(iii) Artefacts

It seems that Byzantine archaeologists have yet to determine whether

specific artefacts can be identified with one or other sex, or indeed both.
Therefore artefacts from the catalogue (Table 6.1–6.4) are assigned to one
or other sex based on assumptions that may need revising.
Beginning with Syrian churches, the bronze pendant recovered in
the room south of apse at Kursi is taken as belonging to a female on the
basis that these artefacts are elsewhere attributed to women.64 These same
sources attribute bone pins/needles and spindles to women and so loom
weights recovered at some sites, which also accompany weaving activity,
might likewise be attributed by association where they occur together. At
the Large Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum a bone pin head and bone point

64 For example Walker (2003), 204. Also Heintz (2003), 283–284, 286–289 and 300–301.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 159

were recovered in the south aisle area of  the church, and also a fragment
from a terracotta toy.65
In the nearby Small Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum three bone pins
and a bone point were recovered in the nave as well as a glass bead and two
fragments from a terracotta toy and a terracotta toy wheel, which might
suggest the presence of women with their children. However a note of cau-
tion must be sounded in relation to bone pins in particular, for example, as
an episcopal bone pin recovered in the same area would suggest that these
artefacts could also be associated with males.66 This area of  the church also
produced a bronze belt buckle, an iron chisel and a chisel-like object that
may be associated with churchgoers but, together with an iron punch from
the area of  the nave, could also belong to a later period when the church
walls were robbed.
Artefacts recovered from the south chapel of the Small Basilica included
a bone needle, a pottery loom weight and a fired clay loom weight, as well
as a fragment from the head of a toy pottery horse and Molly Fulghum
Heintz argues that there is textual evidence that women were involved in
spinning and weaving.67 The church at Shavei Zion had an axe head in the
east portico that would normally be associated with males.
Of  the Roman churches, Petra also had an iron socketed axe head that
might be associated with a male, but this time recovered in the area of  the
chancel-apse. A thin needle was recovered in the south aisle at this church
and a threaded green opaque glass bead in the north aisle. The appearance
of a threaded bead and needle in a church, and evidence from other sites
for spinning or weaving could conceivably be associated with activities such
as providing wall-hangings, curtains or decorated icons for churches. This
is an area of archaeology that might reward further research.

65 Heintz (2003), 152.

66 See WB109/SF 10158 in Roberts (2007), 69 and 3.52.
67 Heintz (2003), 140–141.
160 Chapter 6

(iv) Images

It is often very easy to determine which sex is portrayed in an image, but

there are problems in determining whether the image is intended for a
male or female audience and what assumptions might be drawn from their
presence in a mosaic pavement.
Images of women in a church (Table 6.5–6.7) might be conceived as
demarcating space assigned for women, and yet as Mary Eaverly notes the
female form is pleasing to men and so these might just as easily be placed
there for a male audience:

[…] important work has also been done to define the role that the ancient viewer
played in decoding gender roles in art that feminist scholars have identified as ‘the
determining male gaze.’ That is, images of women were created for male viewers whose
ideas about femininity, sexuality, and proper roles were the force that shaped and
informed the ways in which women were portrayed, which often led to a definition
of women as ‘other’ and ‘outsiders.’ 68

Similarly, Liz James argues that:

Byzantine images are, overwhelmingly, designed and created by men; they formulate
and ref lect a culture designed by men for women and for men; their images of women
are men’s images of women and a male response to women and a male response to
the relationship between men and women.69

For these reasons the data on images of women and men have been placed
in separate Tables (Table 6.5–6.7) from the other artefactual data. Even so,
close examination of  the data fails to find evidence that the sexes were seg-
regated. There are no repeated patterns in the use of male or female images
to demarcate areas or zones that might be attributed to either.

68 Eaverly (1999), 6. See also Brown (1997), 12–42.

69 James (1997), xviii. For a broader discussion of  the underlying theory as it pertains
to archaeology see also Gilchrist (1999), 72–76.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 161

Conclusion

The purpose of  this chapter was to examine whether there is any archaeo-
logical evidence in the catalogue of church sites that the sexes were seg-
regated. The reason for this was because should there be archaeological
evidence for segregation of  the sexes then this evidence could be cross-
referenced against repeated patterns for artefactual deposition revealed
in the previous chapter.
Current prevailing views on the subject were reviewed and some tex-
tual evidence considered. Whilst compiling the catalogue of church sites
and the artefacts thought to be deposited while these basilicas still func-
tioned as churches a record was kept of which artefacts or finds might be
construed as evidence for either males or females on site. This evidence was
then compiled in a set of more accessible tables (Table 6.1–6.7) and the
tabulated data scrutinised for any repeated patterns that might indicate
that the sexes were routinely segregated in these buildings.
Although much has been written about segregation of  the sexes in
Early Byzantine churches, the available archaeological evidence does not
support the argument that males and females were segregated and occupied
specific assigned zones within the church building.
Inscriptions containing a reference to a female are found in Syrian
churches in the nave, chancel-apse, south aisle and south chapel. In Roman
churches they are found in the east portico or narthex, north aisle, nave,
chancel-apse and south apse. In the ‘indeterminate’ group of church plans
these are found in the north aisle and chancel-apse. The evidence from
inscriptions with references to females, males or to both males and females
indicates that there are no areas in the church building that are restricted
to either sex. Nor do images of  females provide any indication that females
are restricted from any part of  the church building. Instead the evidence
appears to indicate that women were integral to the Early Byzantine Church
and played a full role.
There is also compelling archaeological evidence that females were
buried in the same areas of  the church as males were, and inscriptions with
162 Chapter 6

female names and references occur on mosaic pavements throughout church

buildings. The evidence from anatomically or osteologically sexed burials
is limited, but such evidence as there is suggests that female burials within
the church building can occur in the chancel-apse north aisle, nave and east
portico or narthex. Of  these only that in the east portico or narthex is of a
solitary female and another church has a tomb with multiple males in this
location, which rules it out as the sole preserve of either sex.
Anthropologically sexed burials are more problematical in that, as
Gilchrist has noted, modern preconceptions of what artefacts might be
associated with a male or female could be incorrect. The only such burial
that has supporting evidence from a tomb inscription to ‘Maria’ is located
in the south aisle and this adds to the list of  locations within a church
where female remains are recovered, such that female remains occur in all
locations common to all three groups of churches. It only takes this one
example of a female buried in the south aisle of a church to disprove the
hypothesis that males occupied the south aisle and females the north aisle,
if only because Taft has drawn support for this argument from references
to the location of  funeral biers for males and females in his own thesis.
Artefactual material ascribed to either sex has the same problems.
Such evidence as exists suggests that women were present in the north
and south aisles, the nave and room south of  the apse, as well as the south
chapel where it existed.
There was far more archaeological evidence available than one might
have expected, and there could be far more evidence made available if all
skeletal remains recovered on church sites were routinely biologically or
osteologically sexed. Furthermore, it is quite likely that detailed examina-
tion of  literary and pictorial material could establish links between spe-
cific artefacts and either males or females. This could be greatly enhanced
through assessing which artefacts are found exclusively in either male or
female burials, and evidence for repeated patterns of artefactual deposition
in graves compiled. However, just because an artefact is buried with some-
one does not necessarily indicate that they used the artefact while they were
alive, but if  this data is cross-referenced against data from literary and pic-
torial sources then it would strengthen the nature of  the evidence. Further
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 163

research might consider whether there are some individual churches or

groups of churches where the sexes are segregated, and why this might be?
This chapter has demonstrated that there is some high quality archae-
ological evidence available to address substantive questions relating to
whether the sexes were segregated in Early Byzantine basilical churches. The
archaeological evidence does not support the accepted view that the sexes
are segregated in church. Nor is there any correlation apparent between,
say, cooking pots and either of  the sexes and there is a strong case to be
made for further research into this subject area.

Table 6.1. Constantinopolitan church plans

Site Chancel- North Nave South East portico/ North

apse aisle aisle narthex chapel
Shavei Zion, Male reference
Israel inscription:
Photinus,
Cosmas
Artefact:
(M) iron axe head

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female.

Table 6.2. Syrian church plans

Site Room to north Chancel-apse Room to south North aisle

of apse of apse
Kursi, Gergesa, Male reference
Israel inscription:
Stephanos
Artefact:
(F) bronze
pendant

Ostrakine, Israel Anthropologically

sexed burial:
2 bone fragments
in reliquary
1 bronze needle
(possibly female)
164 Chapter 6

Site Room to north Chancel-apse Room to south North aisle

of apse of apse
Horvat Berachot, Crypt beneath
Israel chancel:
11 disarticulated
remains
Khirbet ed-Deir, Male reference
Israel inscription
no. 2:
Alaphaeos,
Aias (Aianos)
North Church, Male reference
Nessana, Israela inscription
no. 12(a):
Sergius
12(b):
Patricius
Inscription no. 13:
Stephen

Small Basilica, Artefact:

Nicopolis ad (M) iron punch
Istrum, Bulgaria 10091
Monastery of  Male & female
Martyrius, Israelb reference
Inscription no. 4:
Antonina(?),
Auxentius
Male inscription:
Genesius, John

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female.

a Female burial in church, but whereabouts not stated.

b In Room L. 221 north of narthex, nine male and, possibly, one female interral.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 165

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ South chapel

narthex
Cathedral Female reference
Church, Gerasa, inscription:
Jordan inscription no.
294: ‘Mary’
Large Basilica, Artefacts:
Nicopolis ad (F) bone pin head
Istrum, Bulgariaa 8029: (F) bone
point 14047:
(child) mane of 
terracotta toy
14799
Kursi, Gergesa, Sexed burial:
Israel 28 skeletons, all
male.
1 – age 2–5;
2 – age 13–20;
3 – age 21–30;
5 – 31–40;
11 – age 41–50;
2 – 51–60
& 3 – 61+
St. John the Female reference
Baptist, St. inscription:
George, and Georgia
SS. Cosmas Male & female
& Damianus, reference
Gerasa, Jordan Inscription
nos. 315 &
316 Georgia,
Theodore
Horvat Beit Male reference Male reference
Loya, Israel inscription: inscription:
Azizos, Epanagia,
Kyrikos Aethios,
Theclon [Thecla]’
166 Chapter 6

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ South chapel

narthex
North Church, Anthropologically
Nessana, Israelb sexed burial:
size of  leather
shoe, decorated
with gold,
suggests female or
child.
Female reference
inscription:
limestone grave
slab.
Inscription no. 14:
Maria
Small Basilica, Artefact: Artefact:
Nicopolis ad (F) Bone pin (F) bone needle
Istrum, Bulgaria WB96: 10171: (F)
(F) glass bead pottery loom
10061: weight (?) 14559:
(F) bone pin (F) fired clay
10202: loom weight (?)
(F) bone pin 10167: (child)
10185: toy pottery horses
(F) bone point head 14565
10082:
(child) terracotta
toy 14829:
(child) terracotta
toy wheel 14778:
(child) terracotta
toy 14793:
(M) episcopal
bone pin 10158:
(M) bronze belt
buckle 10064:
(M) iron chisel
10196:
(M) chisel-like
iron object 10081
Monastery of 
Martyrius, Israelc

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female.

a Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.
b Female burial in church, but whereabouts not stated.
c In Room L. 221 north of narthex, nine male and, possibly, one female interral.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 167

Table 6.3. Roman church plans

Site North apse Chancel-apse South apse North aisle

‘Evron, Israel
North Church, Female reference
Rehovot-in-the- Inscription no. 3:
Negev, Israela Maria
Male reference
Inscription no. 1:
Jacob
Inscription no.
2: Ierio
Inscription no.
5: Elias
Khirbat al-Karak, Anthropologically
Israel sexed burial:
1 silver ring 1/
BY467
1 juglet 1/BY 502
(Possibly female)
Poreč, Croatiaa Male reference Male & female
Inscription: reference
Maurus Inscription M31:
Lupicinus,
Pascasia,
Reverentia
Inscription M28:
Castus,
Ursa
Inscription M32:
Spectata
Inscription M29:
Ianuarius,
Melania
Male reference
inscription:
John of  Rome
Inscription M19:
Theofrastus,
Januarius
Santa Cornelia, Grave 160
Italyb
168 Chapter 6

Site North apse Chancel-apse South apse North aisle

Mola di Monte Sexed burial:
Gelato, Italyb Grave C57, no. 2.
Phase 5–6 A.D. 1 female aged 24
800–1100 1 male aged 22.
1 dark blue glass
oil lamp handle
145b, pale green
glass oil lamp
148, pale blue-
green glass oil
lamp
Petra, Jordana Artefact: Artefact:
(M) iron (F) threaded
socketed axe head green opaque
148 glass bead 320
Horvat Hesheq, Male & female
Israela reference
Inscription no. 2:
Demetrius,
Georgius,
Somas,
Theodora’
Nahariya, Israel Male & female
inscription:
Léonce,
et de toute sa
famille
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 169

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ North chapel

narthex
‘Evron, Israel Male reference Female reference Male reference
Inscription no. 5: Inscription no. Inscription no. 2:
Paulus, 10: Alexon,
Samacon, Domina Sobbinos,
Marcellos, Male reference Germanos,
Ioulianos, inscription: Inscription no. 3:
Antonios, Inscription no. 4: Paulus,
Einouaris, Silvanos, Marinos,
Silvanos, Alexon, Marcellos,
Domninos, Sao.. Dominos, Antonis,
thyl.s, Barachon, Anto[nios] Diodorus,
Germanos, Inscription no. Marinos,
Arion, Sabinos, 11: Naoumos,
Kyriacos, Abda, Timotheos Bassos, Kyracos,
Herodianos, Inscription no. 8: Domninos,
Alexon, Marinos, Paulus, Diodoros, Petros, Diodoros,
Euthalis, Sallou, Sobbinos, Bassos,
Aion, Bassos Nanos Herodianos,
Inscription no. Alexon, Euthalis,
9: Valentinos Loulianos,
Marcellos,
Germanos,
Euthalis, Salo,
Maximon, Aion
Inscription no. 12:
Aion,
Samacon,
Arion
Inscription no. 13:
Ammanos,
Euthalios
North Church, Female reference Male reference
Rehovot-in-the- Inscription no. 11: Inscription no. 6:
Negev, Israela Maria, Makedonios
Male reference Anthropologically
Inscription no. 9: sexed burial:
Stephanos, Tomb L538: two
Inscription no. metal earrings &
10b: Petros one coin (M)
Inscription no.
26: Stephanos
Inscription no.
28: Boethos
Inscription no.
29: ‘Zonenos
170 Chapter 6

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ North chapel

narthex
Khirbat al-Karak, Male reference
Israel Inscription no. 1:
Theodore
Magister,
Theophilas,
Basil,
Elijah,
Basil
Poreč, Croatiaa Male & female
reference
Inscription M9:
Vulpo,
Maximina,
Rufinianus,
Honesta
Inscription M10:
Mucianus,
Deciana
Clamosus,
Victorina,
Matrona senior
Matrona junior
Male reference
Inscription
M7: Bassinus,
Innocentius
Santa Cornelia, Graves 39 (one
Italyb skull), 40 (two
skeletons), 110,
111 & 150
(possibly two
interrals)
Mola di Monte Sexed burial: Grave no. 26 Sexed burial:
Gelato, Italyb Ossuary, no 24, 1 juvenile Grave no. 43
Phase 5–6 A.D. 3 males 1 infant 1 6–8yo
800–1100 2 females 1 4th century 1 coin (A.D.
1 adult coin & some glass 884–5)
4 juveniles & fragments 1 iron boss. Grave
glass f lask no. 54
fragments. ‘a 2 males No. 38 &
cappuccina tomb’ 47 an infant each
no. 7
1 female
Nos. 10, 11, 15
& 17
infant interrals.
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 171

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ North chapel

narthex
Petra, Jordana Artefact:
(F) thin needle in
sample:
Horvat Hesheq, Male & female
Israela reference
Inscription no. 1:
Georgius,
Demetrius
Inscription no 3:
Demetrius,
Georgius
Inscription no. 4:
Demetrius,
Georgius

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female.

a Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is converted
from a protruding monoapsidal church.
b Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Table 6.4. Indeterminate church plans

Site Room to north Chancel-apse Room to south North aisle

of apse of apse
Khirbet Male reference
el-Beiyûdât, Israel inscription
no. 4:
Abbosoubbos,
Eliseos,
Stephanus,
Georgius
Beit ‘Einûn, Israel Anthropologically
sexed burial:
2 necklaces
2 bronze crosses
1 bell
(Possibly females
in 2 Byzantine
trough graves)
Khirbet Female reference Male reference
el-Shubeika, Inscription no. 1: Inscription no. 2:
Israel Heraklitos Anastasius,
Procopius
172 Chapter 6

Site Room to north Chancel-apse Room to south North aisle

of apse of apse
Kissufim, Israel Sexed burial:
1 Male,
1 Female
3 unknown
Female reference
inscription:
Lady Syltous,
The Lady of  Sylto
Kalliora
Male & Female
reference
inscription:
Zonainos,
Maris
Male reference
inscription:
Theodoros
North aisle
intercolumniation
inscription:
Orbikon,
Alexander

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ Side chapel

narthex
Khirbet Male reference Sexed burial: Male reference
el-Beiyûdât, Israel Inscription no. 3: 1 Female aged Inscription no. 5:
Porphyrius, 25–35 John,
Eglon Tomb artefact: Abbosobos
Inscription no. 1: 1 iron signet ring
Aphleos, 1 iron fibula
Lukas, 1 burnt cooking
Stephanus, pot sherds
Sam(ios?),
Eliseos,
Lypon
Dor, Israel Tomb of  two
saints, no remains
recovered
Philippopolis Male reference
(Plovdiv), inscription:
Bulgaria Tiberius
‘Basilisk
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 173

Site Nave South aisle East portico/ Side chapel

narthex
Male reference
Nuseib
inscription:
‘Uweishîra,
Tobias,
Jericho, Israel
Auxentius
Maresha (Beit Male reference
Govrin), Israel inscription:
Fl(aviu)s
Im(erius)
Khirbet Male reference
el-Shubeika, Inscription no. 3:
Israel Zeirobeos,
Zanneos
Kissufim, Israel Male reference
inscription:
Michael,
Theodoros

Table 6.5. Images: Syrian church plans

Church Male image Female image Both male & female images

Horvat Beit Loya, Narthex/east portico: Narthex/east

Israel mosaic pavement has portico: mosaic
image of a youth within a pavement has
medallion; image of a female
North aisle: a large bearing a basket
medallion has image of  of  fruit within a
two fishermen, one with medallion in the
pointed headgear; narthex
South aisle: a similar
large medallion has two
fishermen also.
St. Stephen’s, Nave: mosaic image of Nave: mosaic
Horvat Be’er- man playing reed f lute image of woman
shemca, Israel in nave medallion, a man breast-feeding
leading a donkey, a man child in medallion
leading a camel, a man in the nave
leaning on a club, a man
leading an elephant with a
rider and a man leading a
giraf fe, and a man named
by inscription as ‘Victor’
174 Chapter 6

Church Male image Female image Both male & female images
Petra Church, South aisle.
Jordan (prior to Females: Winter (B2),
conversion to probably as a woman;
triapsidal church) (B5) Earth, probably a
woman; (B8) Spring, (B11)
Wisdom, a woman; (B14)
Summer, fulsome woman
with exposed right breast;
(B17) Autumn, woman.
Males: (B3–4) fisherman;
(B6–7) Ocean; (B9) fowler;
(B12–13) fisherman
St. John the Nave Inscription nos. 315
Baptist, St. George & 316 in St. Cosmas &
and SS. Cosmas Damianus, in front of  the
and Damianus, chancel, above a full-size
Gerasa, Jordan image of a male & female
respectively indicating that
the female is Georgia, the
wife of  the male, who is
Theodore

Table 6.6. Images: Roman church plans

Church Gender indicator – male Gender indicator – Both male & female genders
female
Nahariya, Israel Nave: male images
in mosaic pavement
surround (× 7)
Petra Church, North aisle: male South aisle:
Jordan figures, one of a Females: Winter (B2), probably
shepherd (A4), a man as a woman; (B5) Earth,
with an amphora (C4), probably a woman; (B8) Spring,
two camel drivers (A14 (B11) Wisdom, a woman;
& C14), an African (B14) Summer, fulsome woman
holding a jug (A26) and with exposed right breast;
a man holding a plate (B17) Autumn, woman.
(C26) Males: (B3–4) fisherman;
(B6–7) Ocean; (B9) fowler;
(B12–13) fisherman
Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes 175

Table 6.7. Images: indeterminate church plans

Church Gender indicator – male
Kissufim, Israel North aisle
intercolumniation
inscription, ‘Orbikon’
above image of man
leading camel. North
aisle mosaic images of a
horseman, a man bearing
a sword and shield and a
man milking an animal.
Above the image of  the
horseman is an inscription,
‘The work of  Alexander’
Gender indicator – Both male & female
female genders
North aisle
intercolumniation,
image of  two ladies
with inscription ‘The
Lady Syltous’ or ‘The
Lady of  Sylto’ above
the woman to the right
scattering coins, and
‘Kalliora’ inscribed
above the woman to
the left holding a bowl
containing fowl.
Chapter 7

Conclusion

Research for this book was prompted by the observation that domestic arte-
facts were recovered from sealed destruction layers at two Early Byzantine
church sites, i.e. the ‘cave church’ of  Khirbet ed-Deir, and the ‘pilgrim
church’ of  the North Church in Rehovot-in-the-Negev. This appeared
unusual because there were dining halls or refectories at each of  the sites
where one would instead expect to find these artefacts. What reason could
there be for cooking pots, amphorae, f lasks and jugs, plates and bowls
to be found in these churches, and is this pattern repeated elsewhere in
other similar churches? Could the presence of  these domestic artefacts
indicate that activities other than mere liturgy took place at these sites, i.e.
that non-liturgical or paraliturgical activity took place in these churches?
Furthermore, do they ref lect institutional behaviour, i.e. are these patterns
of deposition repeated across several church sites?
This research set out to investigate whether the deposition of domestic
artefacts in sealed destruction layers at Early Byzantine basilical church sites
is more commonplace among church sites in the Levant than has previ-
ously been assumed. To address this question the aim was first to compile
a catalogue of church sites, and to limit these to the three most common
basilical church plans, i.e. monoapsidal, inscribed apse, and triapsidal.
Each church site would then be placed into one of  these three groups to
allow comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition
between churches that shared the same ground plan. If repeated patterns
of artefactual deposition occurred among churches with the same ground
plan then this might ref lect institutional behaviour in which the same
ritual activities took place.
The goal was also to locate the diakonikon. Several commentators
have argued that the congregation deposited gifts in the vicinity of  the
178 Chapter 7

diakonikon. This would allow the location of  the diakonikon to be analysed
in respect of any repeated patterns of domestic artefactual deposition to
determine whether they coincide. Lastly, the current prevailing view is that
the sexes were segregated in the Early Byzantine Church. Therefore the
catalogue and database would be examined to determine whether there is
archaeological evidence for segregation of  the sexes in these Early Byzantine
basilical churches, and if so this would be cross-referenced against repeated
patterns of artefactual deposition to determine whether they coincide.
A catalogue of  forty-seven Early Byzantine churches (Table 2.1) with
the three most common basilical church plans has been compiled.1 This
includes artefacts deposited in sealed destruction layers that are thought
to be deposited when the basilica functioned as a church or as it was aban-
doned. A searchable database was also compiled to accompany the cata-
logue.2 The domestic artefacts have been extracted and tabulated (Table
5.1–5.3) for analysis, and these come from sealed destruction layers (Table
2.2–2.5) at fourteen church sites.
Preliminary comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual
deposition revealed some interesting data that led to some changes being
made to the catalogue of church sites. It was observed that there are two
internal layouts or configurations that can af fect the deposition of artefacts
in churches. These two internal configurations are identified from post holes
for altar table legs and for chancel screen posts that provide the location
of  the sanctuary in the church, and from repeated patterns of deposition
of whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture. This archaeological evidence
revealed two distinct sanctuary configurations, i.e. Π-shaped and T-shaped.
The former has a chancel barrier that seals of f  the area of  the apse and also
a portion of  the nave in front of it, and the latter extends across each of  the
side aisles to seal of f  the apsidal end of  the church and usually extends into
the nave to form the T-shaped sanctuary. These are also a crucial factor
when placing Early Byzantine basilical churches into groups because the
T-shaped layout covers a much larger area of  the church.

1 See also Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.

2 Mulholland (2011), Appendix II.
Conclusion 179

This observation allowed church sites to be placed into two separate

groups, each with one or other internal configuration. However those
with the Π-shaped sanctuary could be further subdivided into another
two groups: one group has a protruding apse with a major apsidal entrance
to either side of  the apse, and the other group has an inscribed apse with
a room to either side of  the apse. Each church in the catalogue was then
placed into one of  these three new groups (figure 3.1). There are also a
small number of remaining churches in the catalogue that do not readily
fit into any of  these three new groups, and these have been placed into a
fourth indeterminate group.
Those churches with Π-shaped sanctuary and an inscribed apse with
a room to either side of it are commonly described as ‘Syrian’ churches,
and this label is used for this group. Furthermore Mathews had identified
a Roman church plan with a T-shaped sanctuary and so churches in the
catalogue with this feature have been labelled ‘Roman’ churches, and later
he identified a Constantinopolitan church plan with a Π-shaped sanctuary
and a protruding apse with a major entrance to either side of it, and the
group of churches in the catalogue with these features has been labelled
‘Constantinopolitan’ churches.
However, through placing these churches into these three new groups
further observations (Table 3.1–3.7) have been made about each church
plan due to the remarkable homogeneity of each. Constantinopolitan
churches (Table 3.1–3.2) tend to be associated with a north chapel, and an
ambo located south of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary. Roman churches
(Table 3.6–3.7) are often triapsidal in plan during the sixth century, but
monoapsidal from the seventh century, and they also tend to be associated
with a north chapel. The ambo tends to be located to the north of  the nave
entrance to the sanctuary, and they are more likely to have a synthronon
or tiered seat around the apse, and a bishop’s seat. The T-shaped sanctu-
ary appears to often accommodate side altars located in each side apse,
and these churches are more often associated with relics and reliquaries,
which can be buried in the mosaic pavement beneath the altar tables or
placed on top of  the altar. There is also interesting evidence that some of 
these church sites share a wreathed crosses decoration on chancel screens
(or stephanostaurion) with a chancel screen in St. Clemente in Rome that
180 Chapter 7

has a monogram of pope John II (A.D. 533–535) in place of  the cross, and
that provides useful dating evidence for this design. In contrast, Syrian
churches (Table 3.3–3.5) tend to have a south chapel adjacent to the south
aisle, rarely have a synthronon or bishop’s seat, and the ambo may be located
to either side of  the nave entrance.
There is also remarkable evidence that six of  the Roman churches were
originally constructed with a Syrian church plan, and in one instance with
a monoapsidal church plan, and were subsequently converted during the
sixth century into triapsidal churches with a T-shaped sanctuary. This is
not a localised phenomenon either, and the church at Novae in Bulgaria
and St. Clemente in Rome were also similarly converted at this time. Nor
are these conversions evidence for an evolution in church design, because
some Syrian churches continue in use and the church at Kursi was reno-
vated in the late sixth century to include a baptistery.
Furthermore the preliminary comparative analysis of repeated patterns
of artefactual deposition revealed a second focus of  liturgical activity using
the same archaeological evidence (Table 4.2–4.4) as that used to identify
the location of  the sanctuary in the church. This second focus is located in
the side chapels, where they have been excavated, and in Chapter 4 these
were examined more closely. This evidence appears to support Crowfoot’s
observation that the rite of prothesis took place in side chapels during the
Early Byzantine period, and there is also supporting archaeological evi-
dence for his view that they also functioned as diakonika at this time.
Remarkably, there are six known inscriptions (Table 4.1) that refer to a
diakonikon, diakonika or diaconia. Of  these five are found in side chapels,
four of which are north chapels, i.e. the Constantinopolitan Propylaea
Church and the Roman churches at Khirbat al-Karak and ‘Evron, and also
in the north chapel at Mount Nebo. There is also one partial inscription in
the south chapel at the Syrian church at Kursi. These inscriptions provide
compelling evidence that these side chapels function as diakonika during
the Early Byzantine period. Furthermore there is no competing evidence
for a second focus of  liturgical activity anywhere else in these churches that
would challenge these findings.
Another interesting observation can be made in respect to these
side chapels. Firstly, there are two distinct plans: apsidal and rectangular.
Conclusion 181

Secondly, there is evidence (Table 4.2–4.4) in some side chapels with a

rectangular plan for a column base or column drum placed where one
would expect an altar table to be located, i.e. against the east wall inside
the side chapel’s sanctuary. Column bases or drums are also found in two
churches, at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât to the south of  the ambo and in Bishop
Genesius church in the north and south aisles to the rear of  the chancel
barrier. There is no other archaeological evidence that would indicate what
purpose these column bases might serve. However, Kitzinger notes that a
statue of  Christ was re-located to a church’s diakonikon and it is possible
that these columns supported similar statues. However more conclusive
archaeological evidence would be required to substantiate any argument
that these column bases or drums supported statues.
Comparative analysis of repeated patterns of domestic artefactual
deposition (Table 5.1–5.3) revealed that amphorae, jugs and f lasks, and also
plates and bowls appear regularly together in sealed destruction layers, and
often adjacent to the sanctuary in the south aisle. The amphorae are far too
large and heavy to be lost or carelessly misplaced, and their presence alone
suggests that these artefacts are deliberately placed there.
Mathews has argued that Ordo Romanus I indicates that the congrega-
tion brought gifts to the chancel barrier and the clergy selected a portion
for the liturgy and transferred it directly to the altar table in the church
sanctuary. The last part of  this analysis appears unlikely in that there is com-
pelling evidence that Roman churches are associated with north chapels that
function as diakonika, and there is archaeological evidence that the rite of
prothesis took place in these diakonika. Therefore, while it is possible that
the congregation brought gifts up to the chancel barrier, it would appear
more likely that a portion was transferred to the side chapel or diakonikon
for the rite of prothesis. The clergy would then process from the diakon-
ikon with the Eucharist into the church to perform the liturgy and at the
conclusion of  the ceremony retrace their steps back to the diakonikon.
There is insuf ficient archaeological evidence for domestic pottery in
Constantinopolitan churches to apply the same argument to them, but
they also have north chapels that function as diakonika and there is also
evidence for a secondary focus of  liturgical activity in these where the rite
of prothesis possibly took place.
182 Chapter 7

The Syrian churches often have their south chapel located of f  the
south aisle and here the deposition of domestic artefacts in the vicinity
of  the south aisle could indicate that the laity brought gifts into church
where they were collected, stored and redistributed in the south aisle near
to the south chapel or diakonikon. It is plausible that a portion of  these
gifts was brought into the south chapel for the rite of prothesis and then
transferred in procession to the altar table in the church for the liturgy,
and upon conclusion of  the liturgical performance the clergy retrace their
steps to the south chapel or diakonikon.
Of note is that there are also four sites where cooking pots or vessels
were deposited in the same area in sealed destruction layers. The presence of 
these cooking pots suggests that food is cooked elsewhere and then brought
into the church, possibly as a gift by the congregation. Since no cooked
foods are used in the liturgy the presence of  these cooking vessels suggests
that non-liturgical activity took place in at least these four church sites, i.e.
that gifts other than bread and wine for the liturgy were brought into the
church either by the laity or clergy to be consumed on site or redistributed.
They might even be taken as evidence that a communal meal or agape was
shared in the church after the liturgical performance.
When considered in conjunction with the amphorae, jugs and f lasks,
and plates or bowls recovered at fourteen church sites, then it appears likely
that the congregation brought assorted gifts to the chancel barrier and a
portion is taken by the clergy for the liturgy, but the rest might be redistrib-
uted either to the clergy or congregation, or to both. In this hypothetical
scenario the amphorae at the chancel barrier could serve both as collection
points for wine brought in by the congregation and also as a serving station
to dole out the unconsecrated wine to the needy or for the communal meal.
Comparative analysis of repeated patterns of domestic artefactual
deposition have also determined that there is no archaeological evidence
(Table 6.1–6.7) that the sexes were segregated in church during the Early
Byzantine period. Evidence from anatomically or osteologically sexed buri-
als indicated that both males and females are buried in the same areas of the
church at this time, and inscriptions for both sexes appear in all areas of the
churches as well. The available archaeological evidence does not support
the contention that the sexes are segregated in these churches at this time.
Conclusion 183

This research has extended our knowledge about the Early Byzantine
Church, the activities that occur in some of these churches, and where they
took place. The intention here is that archaeological evidence be used to
complement existing historical and literary sources so as to broaden our
understanding of  the Early Byzantine period. Much archaeological research
has already been conducted in this field of research, and this book has relied
extensively upon data produced by others and subjected this resource to
intense scrutiny to try to understand how these churches were used.
From this archaeological evidence it is possible to reconstruct the most
likely way in which at least some of  these churches were used at this time.
In summary, the occurrence at fourteen church sites of domestic artefacts
such as amphorae, jugs and f lasks, and bowls and plates would appear to
provide evidence that the congregation did bring gifts up to the chancel
barrier in at least some of  these churches. The presence of  these artefacts in
this location might be considered an adjunct to the liturgical performance
wherein wine and bread are brought to the chancel barrier and the clergy
select a portion for the liturgical performance, but the presence of amphorae
would suggest that wine, if indeed they are used for wine, is stored at that
location and possibly also doled out here. This supposition might receive
some support from the presence of cooking pots in at least four church
sites in the same location, and these either indicate that the congregation
brought cooked food for the clergy, or that cooked food is brought into
the church to redistribute to members of  the congregation, possibly as part
of a communal meal or agape. This archaeological evidence indicates that
paraliturgical and/or non-liturgical activity took place in churches at this
time in at least some churches.
The re-discovery of so many mosaic inscriptions in side chapels has
confirmed that they function as diakonika. The indication from archaeo-
logical evidence for a second liturgical focus in these side chapels appears
to confirm that the rite of prothesis took place in these side chapels. These
observations appear to indicate that paraliturgical activity took place in
these parekklesia or side chapels, i.e. preparation of selected bread and wine
in the rite of prothesis prior to performance of  the liturgy in the church
sanctuary.
184 Chapter 7

Based upon the available evidence, it would appear credible then to

suggest that the congregation brought gifts up to the chancel barrier in the
church where they were collected for redistribution. A portion was taken
by the clergy to the diakonikon or side chapel for the rite of prothesis, and
the clergy then processed into the church to the sanctuary to perform the
liturgy, and then at the conclusion of  the ceremony retrace their steps into
the diakonikon again. After the ceremony the surplus food and wine might
be redistributed by the clergy for the communal meal and some given to
the needy.
This research is important in the sense that archaeological evidence
can be used to better understand what activities are likely to have taken
place in churches and where, and possibly even why. I think that Harold
Pinter, the playwright, although writing in a dif ferent context, ef fectively
sums up the archaeologists’ predicament:

Apart from any other consideration, we are faced with the immense dif ficulty, if not
the impossibility, of verifying the past. I don’t mean merely years ago, but yesterday,
this morning. What took place, what was the nature of what took place, what hap-
pened? If one can speak of  the dif ficulty of  knowing what in fact took place yester-
day, one can I think treat the present in the same way. What’s happening now?3

Perhaps more importantly this evidence can be used to refine questions

about the Early Byzantine Church, and to ask new questions that drive
further research.

3 Pinter (1991), ix–x. See also Burguière (2009), 194.

Chapter 8

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

Although ambitious, as indicated in the first chapter, one function of  this
book is to act as a driver for future research. There are a number of ques-
tions that fall beyond the remit of  this book, but which have arisen during
the course of research towards its completion.

Church plans

The catalogue of sites and artefacts compiled for this book is extensive and
the conclusions drawn from examining the evidence therein derive cred-
ibility from this. There is a need to extend this line of enquiry to as many
Early Byzantine churches as possible to determine the range of  the three
church plans identified and how they each evolved through time.
For example, the Constantinopolitan church plan appears to find
a match at the fifth- or sixth-century Lower City Church at Amorium,
which also has a protruding apse with an entrance to either side of it.1
Based upon the evidence from the catalogue of church sites, the Bema
Church at Kalenderhane might also be relabelled as a Constantinopolitan
church plan.2 This view can be based upon two linked observations. Firstly,
although the ‘North Church’ was constructed first it was contemporary
with the Bema Church, and as such would appear to function as the north
chapel or diakonikon to the larger church. Secondly, the juxtaposition of 

1 Ivison (2003), figure VIII/1.

2 Striker and Kuban (1997), 45–58, and figure 23.
186 Chapter 8

the Bema Church and the ‘North Church’ does not allow suf ficient space
between them for either a side apse or apsidal room, but would allow space
for a major apsidal entrance, which would suggest that the Bema Church
has the characteristics of a conventional Constantinopolitan church. Were
the catalogue of church sites extended then more detailed analysis might
be conducted into their evolution. It would be interesting, for example, to
analyse whether there are bursts of church building activity that coincide
with the conclusion of victorious military or diplomatic campaigns which
produce concomitant inf luxes of wealth into the Empire.
There are also other ‘church plans’ in evidence, and these would need
to be added to any catalogue of church sites and submitted to the same
scrutiny used here to determine whether the same artefactual evidence
can provide insights into institutional behaviour and ritualised activi-
ties at church sites sharing these plans. There are also many references to
‘heresies’ in early texts and there must be some optimism that compiling
a comprehensive catalogue of church sites might produce some archaeo-
logical evidence in support of  their existence, perhaps in conjunction with
some input from historians.

Syrian-to-Roman church conversions

There is evidence in the catalogue of church sites that many Syrian churches
were later converted into triapsidal Roman churches with T-shaped sanc-
tuaries and chancel barriers. They comprise nearly fifty per cent of  the
Roman churches plans. This phenomenon needs to be further examined
and the geographic scope extended. These converted churches are found
not only in the Levant, but also at Novae and Poreč, and also possibly in
Rome at the church of  St. Clemente. A re-evaluation of some church sites
might reveal more such conversions, particularly those where screens and
posts were recovered in the nave and interpreted as coming from galler-
ies, when they might instead belong to the nave extension of a T-shaped
chancel barrier.
Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’ 187

For example, there are a number of reasons to suspect that the church
of  St. Polyeuktos excavated by Martin Harrison at Saraçhane is also a Syrian-
to-Roman church conversion.3 Firstly, no trace of an earlier church struc-
ture was found. Therefore it is possible that the foundations belong to
the earlier church built by empress Eudocia (wife of emperor Theodosius
II, A.D. 408–450) at a time when clergy from Antioch, such as St. John
Chrysostom, serviced the Constantinopolitan Church. Of considerable
importance is that pottery from the earliest stratigraphic sequences from the
basement passages at Saraçhane is dated from the fourth and fifth century
by Harrison and his team, and M.F. Hendy also observes the presence of
coins attributable to the fourth and fifth century, although some of  these
might belong to deposits that pre-date the church foundations.4
The church of  St. Polyeuktos cannot be a Constantinopolitan church
plan servicing the Byzantine rite because it does not have a main entrance to

3 See Harrison (1989), 33, 127–136, and ill. 48, 167 and 171. Also Harrison (1986).
4 For example, these stratigraphic layers include 314 QR/12, 285 P/14 with pottery
dated to the 3–4th century, but see also 184–186, 168, 284–285, 312–316, 319–320,
323–326, 334–335, and 454–456. Harrison observes that there were a few fourth to
fifth century artefacts recovered from inside the church along the middle of  the
south passage (QR/13) such as a 0.205 metres long bronze rim (no. 128) from a
metal vessel that dated to the fifth century. Hendy also states that the numismatic
evidence ‘opens with a restrained number of  fourth- and fifth-century coins (nos.
1–35).’ Early coins were recovered inside the church at QR/12 (coin no. 2 and 15 with
provenance 314 and 319), and STU/12–13 (coin no. 37 and 43 with provenance 566
and 573). See Harrison (1986), and also Gill (1986), 226–277. Some sixty-seven coins
were recovered that pre-date the reign of  Justin I (A.D. 518–527). See Hendy (1986),
278–373, but particularly 278. Harrison favours a construction date of  A.D. 524–527
for St. Polyeuktos as proposed by Mango and Ševčenko, which is based on a dedica-
tory epigram, as does Hill. However Bardill observes that there were fragments of 
fifth-century mosaic decorations and possibly marble heads, as well as fifth-century
coins and a few brickstamps, attributable to the fifth century on stylistic grounds.
These he links to the earlier ‘Eudokia’s church of  St. Polyeuktos’ that he dif ferenti-
ates from the sixth-century church of  St. Polyeuktos. However, using evidence from
brickstamps, he argues that bricks used to build the platform date from A.D. 508–512
and the superstructure was constructed from A.D. 517–527. See Harrison (1989), 71
and 111. Also Hill (1986), 223. And also Bardill (2004), 111–117, and 125–126.
188 Chapter 8

either side of a projecting apse. As noted by Mathews, the church is built on

a raised platform and there is only one means of access to the church from
the west via a grand staircase which leads up to the main entrance. If  there
were apsidal entrances then, unless the ground level around the apse was
artificially raised up, each one would also require a staircase leading down
to ground level.5 Instead, the church plan suggests there is a room to either
side of  the inscribed apse, which is diagnostic of  the Syrian church plan.
Harrison thinks that the church was constructed in A.D. 524–527. The
church is dedicated to St. Polyeuktos, an ‘obscure military saint martyred
at Melitene in Cappadocia probably in 251.’6 Coincidentally, when the
emperor Justinian rebuilt the Church of  Eirenê in Constantinople the
remains of  forty martyrs (soldiers) from the city of  Melitenê in Armenia
were discovered.7
It would seem highly unlikely that a Syrian church would be built
in Constantinople at a time during the reign of  the pro-Chalcedonian
emperor Justin I (A.D. 518–527) or his successor Justinian I (A.D. 527–565)
when the Syrian church was being persecuted by them, and when other
Syrian churches were being converted to triapsidal Roman church plans.
Moreover it seems unlikely that a Monophysite Antiochene church with
a Syrian plan, whether domed or not, would be built by Anicia Juliana in
Constantinople, particularly since she had strong ties with Rome through
her father Olybrius, who was emperor of  the Western Roman Empire in
A.D. 472, and grandfather Valentinian III who was similarly emperor from
A.D. 425–455.
Could the church of  St. Polyeuktos at Saraçhane be instead another
Syrian-to-Roman church conversion in which the foundations belong to
an earlier Syrian church built by the empress Eudocia, and which is then
converted into a triapsidal Roman church plan by Anicia Juliana during the
reign of emperors Justin and Justinian? This hypothesis can be tested. If it
is a Syrian-to-Roman church conversion then there might be a suppressed

5 Mathews (1971), 105.

6 Harrison (1989), 33.
7 Dewing (2002), 65–69, and 199–201.
Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’ 189

south chapel belonging to the earlier Syrian church plan that has not yet
been excavated.
Certainly the catalogue of sites is at least useful as a reference work
against which sites such as Saraçhane, for which we have so little structural
evidence, can be compared.

The diakonikon

There are a number of questions that arise from the identification of side
chapels with diakonika during the Early Byzantine period.
1. It is possible to test the hypothesis that Early Byzantine basilical
churches have an accompanying side chapel that functioned as a diakon-
ikon, and where the rite of prothesis took place. As noted elsewhere, nearly
fifty per cent of  the church sites in the catalogue have not been excavated
beyond the perimeter of  the church building. There is clearly scope to
revisit these sites, where they still exist, and to conduct further excavations
to determine whether they have side chapels, and if so, are they located to
the north or south of  the church, or indeed anywhere else. This research
needs to be extended into the Middle Byzantine period and beyond to
determine whether they still have side chapels that fulfil this function, or
whether Crowfoot is correct in his view that during this later period the
rite of prothesis is moved into an apsidal room that serves as a prothesis
chapel, and the diakonikon to another apsidal room.
2. Converted Syrian-to-Roman church plans af ford the strong possibil-
ity that there may be suppressed south chapels. This provides the potential
for (a) excavation to uncover these for the first time, and (b) comparative
analysis between the original suppressed south chapel and extant north
chapel to determine what, if any, dif ferences there are between them.
3. Furthermore, there is a requirement for comparative analysis between
apsidal and rectangular side chapels to determine whether their dif ferences
are limited simply to ground plan, or whether they extend to decorative
190 Chapter 8

elements such as mosaics, inscriptions, and wall painting and also to arte-
factual evidence. Of particular interest is the appearance of column bases
or drums in some side chapels with a rectangular plan, and this requires
more detailed analysis.
4. What is the relationship between church and diakonikon? As noted,
there are three distinct church plans: Constantinopolitan, Syrian and
Roman. There appears to be a relationship between Constantinopolitan
and Roman churches and a north chapel or diakonikon, and then the Syrian
church plan with a south chapel. Once the location and function of  the
diakonikon is established it is then possible to focus archaeological and
historical/liturgical research upon determining the nature of  the relation-
ship between these two centres of  liturgical activity on church sites – the
church and its diakonikon.
This association between these church plans and their diakonika allows
for some interesting questions to be asked. What exactly is the nature of 
this church-diakonika relationship? What does it say about the relationship
between clergy and congregation, and how each perceives the liturgy? It
allows for at least a two-tiered hierarchal structure, but is the relationship
more complex than this? Does this hierarchy also apply to imperial and
monastic churches as well?
If we consider (figure 8.1) the Roman church plan, for example, then
it is apparent that the congregation and clergy will not share the same
experience during the church service.

(i) The congregation are restricted to the nave and aisles in ‘zone 1’
of  the church and they will almost certainly never experience a
liturgical service from the sanctuary. Almost without exception
commentators and researchers describe churches and liturgy from
the perspective of  the congregation.
(ii) The clergy are able to pass through ‘zone 1’ and beyond the chancel
barrier into ‘zone 2’ of  the church and have privileged access to
the sanctuary, and so they experience the liturgical service from
both perspectives in ‘zone 1’ and ‘zone 2.’
(iii) Early liturgies suggest that not all clergy have access to the dia-
konikon and that only a privileged group have access to ‘zone 3.’
Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’ 191

(iv) Of particular interest is that even within the inner sanctum of 
the diakonikon there is also a chancel barrier, which indicates that
there is a further elite who not only have access to the diakonikon,
but who can pass through this barrier into ‘zone 4’ to access the
sanctuary in the diakonikon. We might hypothesise that the lit-
urgy, as performed in the church, is secondary to the ceremony
performed within the inner sanctum – the ‘holy of  holies.’

This particular hypothetical scenario would indicate a four-tier hierarchal

structure within Early Byzantine basilical churches. Certainly the diakon-
ikon might accurately be described as the alpha and omega of  the liturgical
service – the beginning and the end – since both the liturgical artefacts
and the clergy performing the liturgy set out from here, and then return
to the diakonikon at the close of  the performance.
In this respect we are particularly fortunate in that to date many excava-
tions at church sites have focused exclusively upon either the church build-
ing or in many cases the sanctuary, and therefore on many of  the sites the
side chapels remain to be identified and excavated. Similarly where there
are Syrian-to-Roman church conversions then it may be that both the
later Roman north chapels and their earlier Syrian south chapels remain
to be excavated and so the question surrounding the nature of  the church-
diakonikon relationship can be suitably addressed.
The location of  the side chapel as a distinct unit within the basilical
church complex lends itself  to alternate hierarchal reconstructions and,
while it is likely that there exists a ‘step-wise’ ascending hierarchy such as
that illustrated above, there are at least three alternate interpretations of  the
church-diakonikon relationship, some of which allow for cultic practices.

(i) Symbiotic relationships wherein two separate cults co-exist and

are serviced in parallel – one in the church, and the other in the
diakonikon.
(ii) An endosymbiotic relationship in which one cult is absorbed by
the other, but it continues to function as a recognizable integral
component of  the larger cult or religion – a cult within a cult.
(iii) A parasitical relationship.
192 Chapter 8

The potential for complex relationships within the early Christian Church
are suggested, for example, by Philip Amidon when he refers to groups of 
‘apparently polytheistic Christians now usually referred to as “gnostics”;
they were in full vigor throughout the fourth and fifth centuries and, as
we have seen, had often managed to join monotheistic Christian churches
while retaining and promoting their own views.’8
This is a time of considerable religious f lux, and it may be that other
similar groups infiltrated or inveigled their way into the Early Byzantine
Christian Church, and because of  this the church-diakonikon relationship
is critical to understanding the religious nature of  the Early Church.
Also, given that the liturgical performance begins and ends in the
side chapel or diakonikon, it is more likely that liturgical artefacts will be
recovered here than anywhere else on a church site, since these artefacts
are apparently stored here between each liturgical performance.9
5. There is an intriguing area of research in relation to the diakonikon,
which might be described as the ‘God’ phenomenon. Amidon observes that
Philostorgius’ sect ‘taught him, in the strongest contrast to Gnosticism,
that God’s very substance can be known, then all the more can his will be
known, and for Philostorgius the events of  history, or nature, and of  human
endeavor, reveal that will.’10 Should analysis of  this ‘God’ phenomenon be
the sole prerogative of  historians, or could archaeologists complement this
inquiry? If  there is some tangible relationship between either the laity or
clergy and ‘God’ then would it manifest itself in the archaeological record?

8 Amidon (2007), xix.

9 Procopius of Caesarea notes that the treasure looted by Titus from the Second Temple
was brought to Rome and placed in the temple of  Jupiter Capitolinus. When the
city is later sacked by the Vandals they carry of f  the treasure to Carthage. Then when
Belisarius later seizes Carthage it is brought to Constantinople. However Justinian
then sends the ‘treasure of  the Jews, which Titus […] had brought to Rome after the
capture of  Jerusalem’ to the ‘sanctuaries of  the Christian in Jerusalem.’ It is highly
unlikely that this ‘treasure’ still remains to be found in church sanctuaries in the area,
but quite possible that some bric a brac or lesser items from the Second Temple in
Jerusalem might still be recovered in the diakonika of  these churches. Dewing (2000),
281.
10 Amidon (2007), xxi.
Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’ 193

If  the clergy have a more intense relationship with this phenomenon then
would this be ref lected in some discernible way in side chapels or diakon-
ika where the rite of prothesis occurs, and if so how could we measure the
intensity of  that relationship, or whether it even exists?
This line of  thought is prompted by the observation that it is highly
unlikely that archaeologists will ever get to excavate a living fire, and yet
many archaeological sites provide tangible physical evidence that there was
a fire on the site. Forensic investigation of secondary or indirect evidence
such as charred wood, heat damaged stone or brick, and melted glass can
unveil evidence for the location of a fire, its intensity and scale.11 There are
reportedly at least forty dif ferent techniques that can be used to locate the
seat of a fire. Perhaps the most useful for archaeologists are (i) measure-
ment of depth of char, (ii) spalling of plaster, (iii) distortion of glass and
(iv) thermal direction indicators.12
Would it also be possible to use secondary or indirect evidence to
determine the nature of  the physical or spiritual interphase between the
‘God’ phenomenon and those humans (clergy) who experience it, and in
whom the scale and intensity of  this interaction appears to burn fiercest?
There is obviously some debate as to the nature of  this experience, whether
it relates to an external relationship pertaining to a supernatural being, if
it is perhaps an inner psychological experience, or even something much
more basic such as the imperial cult wherein an emperor or empress tem-
porarily fulfils that role. Whatever its nature, if it has an ef fect upon clergy
then where they gather its impact will be magnified, and it might be in
the diakonikon, i.e. the ‘house of  the deacons,’ where the rite of prothesis
occurs that secondary or indirect physical evidence such as mosaics and
wall decorations, literature, artefacts and evidence for ritual could provide
the best evidence for the nature of  this experience.

11 See Ide (2002), 133–158.

12 See for example Ide (2002), 133–158. Also Lyle (2004), 113–126.
194 Chapter 8

4
1

Figure 8.1. Roman church plan and diakonikon, with a ‘step-wise’ hierarchal structure
Bibliography

Adams, William Y., ‘Architectural evolution of  the Nubian Church architecture, 500–
1400 a.d.’, Journal of  the American Research Center in Egypt, IV (1965), 87–139
——, Meinarti IV and V. The church and cemetery. The history of  Meinarti: an interpre-
tive overview (Sudan Archaeological Research Society, Oxford, 2003)
Adams, William Y., and Ernest W. Adams, Archaeological typology and practical real-
ity: a dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting (Cambridge, New
York, Port Chester, Melbourne and Sydney, 1991)
Alliata, Eugenio, and Susanna Bianchi, ‘The architectural phasing of  the Memorial
of  Moses’, in Mount Nebo: new archaeological excavations 1967–1997, ed. Michele
Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior,
27, Jerusalem, 1998), 151–191
Altet, Xavier Barral I., The Early Middle Ages: from Late Antiquity to a.d. 1000 (Köln,
London, Madrid, New York, Paris and Tokyo, 2002)
Amidon, Philip R., Philostorgius: church history (Society of  Biblical Literature, 23,
Atlanta, 2007)
Amr, Khairieth, ‘Storage jars (Phase VII)’, The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai
(American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 367
Anastos, Milton V., ‘The emperor Justin I’s role in the restoration of  Chalcedonian
doctrine, 518–519’, Vyzantina-Thessaloniki, 13.1 (1985), 126–139
Angold, Michael, Byzantium: the bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (London,
2002)
Asano, Kazuo, ‘Church III on Gemiler Ada’, in The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on
Ölündeniz area (Lycia, Turkey): the first preliminary report, ed. Shigebumi Tsuji
(Osaka, 1995), 72–78
—— (ed.), Island of  St. Nicolas. Excavation of  Gemiler Island on Mediterranean Coast
of  Turkey (Research Group for Byzantine Lycia, Hirosawa, 1998)
—— (ed.), The island of  St. Nicholas: excavation and survey of  the Gemiler Island area,
Lycia, Turkey (Osaka, 2010)
Aviam, Mordechai, ‘Horvath Hesheq – a unique church in Upper Galilee: prelimi-
nary report’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: New discoveries. Essays
in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata
(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 351–377
196 Bibliography

——, ‘Horvat Hesheq: A church in Upper Galilee’, Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram
Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 54–65
——, ‘Recent excavations and surveys of churches and monasteries in Western Galilee’,
One land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda
OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 41–59
Avi-Yonah, M., ‘The mosaics’, in Excavations at Shavei Zion: the Early Christian church.
Report of  the excavations carried out by the Israel Department of  Antiquities and
Museums (in cooperation with the Hebrew University of  Jerusalem) (Centro per
le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, Monografie di Archaeologia
e d’Arte, 2, Rome, 1967), 47–63
Babić, Gordana, Les chapelles annexes des églises Byzantines: fonction liturgique et pro-
grammes iconographies (Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques, 3, Paris, 1969)
Bagatti, B., The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. History and archaeology (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Minor, 4, Jerusalem, 1984), 307–308
Bagatti, P. Bellarmino, L’Archeologia Cristiana in Palestina (Le Piccole Storie Illustrate,
97, Firenze, 1962)
Bailey, D.M., Excavations at El-Ashmunein IV. Hermopolis Magna: buildings of  the
Roman period (London, 1991)
Balderstone, Susan, Early Church architectural forms: a theologically contextual typology
for the eastern Churches of  the 4th–6th centuries (Buried History Monograph,
3, Melbourne, 2007)
Baly, T.J. Colin, ‘Pottery’, Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London,
1962), 270–303
Barag, D., ‘Glass vessels’, in The excavations of  Kursi – Gergesa, ed. Vassilios Tzaferis
(‘Atiqot, 16, Jerusalem, 1983), 37–38
Baramki, D., ‘The pottery from Kh. el-Mefjer’, Quarterly of  the Department of 
Antiquities in Palestine, 10 (1940–1942), 65–103
Bardill, Jonathan, Brickstamps of  Constantinople (Oxford Monographs on Classical
Archaeology, Oxford, 2004)
Barker, Philip, Techniques of archaeological excavation (London, 1995)
Barnish, Samuel, ‘Christians and countrymen at San Vincenzo, c. a.d. 400–550’, in
San Vincenzo al Volturno 2: the 1980–86 excavations part II, ed. Richard Hodges
(Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 9, London, 1995),
131–137
Baur, P.V.C., ‘Glassware’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the
record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School
of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American
Bibliography 197

Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New
Haven, 1938), 505–546
Bayliss, Richard, Provincial Cilicia and the archaeology of  temple conversion (BAR Int.
Ser. 1281, Oxford, 2004)
Bellinger, A.R., ‘Coins’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the
record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School
of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American
Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New
Haven, 1938), 497–503
Berman, Constance, ‘How much space did medieval nuns have or need?’, in Shaping
community: the art and archaeology of monasticism. Papers from a symposium held
at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum, University of Minnesota, March 10–12, 2000,
ed. Sheila McNally (BAR, Int. Ser., 941, Oxford, 2001), 101–116
Berman, Elizabeth Kessin, ‘Glazed pottery’, in Excavations at Capernaum, volume 1:
1978–1982, ed. Rafi Grafman (Winona Lake, 1989), 115–130
Betlyon, John Wilson, ‘Coins from the 1992–93 excavations’, The Petra Church, ed.
Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3,
Amman, 2001), 384–390
Biernacki, Andrzej Boleslaw, ‘The pulpit in the episcopal basilica at Novae (Svištov)
(An attempt at a reconstruction)’, Balcanica Posnaniensa, 7 (1995), 315–332
—— (ed.), Novae: Studies and materials I (Poznań, 1995)
Biernacki, Andrzej B., and P. Pawlak, ‘Novae – Western Sector, 1995. Preliminary
report on the excavations of  the archaeological expedition of  Adam Mickiewicz
University in Poznań’, Archeologia, 48 (1997 [1998]), 35–42
Bikai, Patricia M., ‘The Ridge Church at Petra’, Annual of  the Department of  Antiquities
of  Jordan, 40 (1996), 481–486
Bikai, Patricia Maynor (ed.), The Petra Church (American Center of  Oriental Research
Publications, 3, Amman, 2001)
Bospachieva, Mina, ‘A small Early Christian basilica with mosaics at Philippopolis
(Plovdiv)’, Archaeologia Bulgarica, 6/2 (2002), 55–76
Bottini, G.C., L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (ed.), Christian archaeology in the Holy Land:
new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM (Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990)
Bottini, G. Claudio, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (ed.), One land many
cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003)
Brandenburg, Hugo, Ancient churches of  Rome from the fourth to the seventh century:
the dawn of  Christian architecture in the West (Turnhout, 2005)
198 Bibliography

Brightman, F.E. and C.E. Hammond (ed.), Liturgies Eastern and Western, being the
texts original or translated of  the principal liturgies of  the Church (Oxford, 1896)
Brooke, Christopher, ‘Religious sentiment and church design in the later Middle
Ages’, Medieval church and society (New York, 1971), 162–182
Brown, Katherine, The gold breast chain from the early Byzantine period in the Römisch-
Germanisches Zentralmuseum (Mainz, 1984)
Brown, K.A., ‘Gender and sex: what can ancient DNA tell us?’, Ancient Biomolecules,
2 (1998), 3–15
Brown, Shelby, ‘“Ways of seeing” women in Antiquity: an introduction to Feminism
in Classical and Ancient art history’, in Naked truths, ed. Ann Olga Koloski-
Ostrow and Claire Lyons (New York, 1997), 12–42
Bryer, A.A.M., and D. Winfield, The Byzantine monuments and topography of  the
Pontos (Washington, DC, 1985)
Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker, Standards for data collection from
human skeletal remains (Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, 44,
Fayetteville, 1994)
Burguière, André, The Annales School: an intellectual history, trans. Jane Marie Todd
(Ithaca and London, 2009)
Butcher, Kevin, ‘The coins’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early
Byzantine city. Excavations 1985–1992, ed. Andrew Poulter ( Journal of  Roman
Studies Monograph, 8, London, 1995), 269–314
Butler, Alfred J., Ancient Coptic churches of  Egypt, 2 volumes (Oxford, 1884)
Butler, Howard Crosby, Architecture and other arts. Part II of  the publications of an
American archaeological expedition to Syria in 1899–1900 under the patronage
of  V. Everit Macy, Clarence M. Hyde, B. Talbot B. Hyde, and IN. Phelps Stokes
(New York, 1903)
Cabaniss, Allen (trans.), ‘Ardo: The life of saint Benedict, abbot of  Aniane and of 
Inde’, in Soldiers of  Christ: saints and saints’ lives from Late Antiquity and the
Early Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park,
PA, and London, 1995), 213–254
Calderon, Rivka, ‘The pottery’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir
in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem.
Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew
University, 1999), 135–147
Cameron, Averil, ‘Sacred and profane love: thoughts on Byzantine gender’, in Women,
men and eunuchs: gender in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (London and New York,
1997), 1–23
Caraher, William R., Church, society and the sacred in early Christian Greece (unpub-
lished thesis, Ohio State University, 2003)
Bibliography 199

Caseau, Béatrice, ‘Objects in churches: the testimony of inventories’, in Objects in

context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen
Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 551–579
——, ‘Ordinary objects in Christian healing sanctuaries’, in Objects in context, objects in
use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon
Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 625–654
Christie, Neil (ed.), Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and
San Liberato (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4,
London, 1991)
Christie, N., and C.M. Daniels, ‘Santa Cornelia: the excavation of an early medieval
papal estate and a medieval monastery’, in Three South Etrurian churches, ed.
Neil Christie (Archaeological Monograph of  the British School at Rome, 4,
London, 1991), 1–209
——, ‘Introduction’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina
and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British
School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 3–5
——, ‘The excavations’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina
and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British
School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 13–68
——, ‘The burials’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina
and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British
School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 69–77
——, ‘Early medieval and medieval sculptural fragments’, in Three south Etrurian
churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie
(Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991),
109–117
——, ‘Interpretations and conclusions’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia,
Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs
of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 173–202
——, ‘Appendix I. The documents’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia,
Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs
of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 203–207
Christie, N., S. Gibson and J.B. Ward-Perkins, ‘San Liberato: a medieval church near
Bracciano’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and
San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School
at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 313–352
Claridge, Amanda, ‘Elements from a Cosmatesque f loor and other veneer’, in Three
south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed.
200 Bibliography

Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4,

London, 1991), 109–117
Cole, Emily (ed.), The grammar of architecture (Boston, New York and London, 2002)
Cohen, Einat, ‘The glass’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in
the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem.
Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew
University, 1999), 149–150
Cohen, Rudolf, ‘A Byzantine church and its mosaic f loors at Kissufim’, in Ancient
churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 277–282
Colt, H. Dunscombe (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (London, 1962)
——, ‘Introduction’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London,
1962), 1–24
——, ‘Architectural details’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt
(London, 1962), 48–50
Connolly, Sean, ‘Cogitosus’s Life of  St. Brigit’, Journal of  the Royal Society of  Antiquaries
of  Ireland, 117 (1987), 5–10
Connolly, S., and J.-M. Picard (trans.), ‘Cogitosus: Life of  Saint Brigit’, Journal of  the
Royal Society of  Antiquaries of  Ireland, 117 (1987), 11–27
Constans, Nicholas (trans.), ‘Life of  St. Mary/Marinos’, in Holy women of  Byzantium:
the saints’ lives in English translation, ed. Alice-Mary Talbot (Washington, D.C.,
1996), 1–12
Constantelos, Demetrios J., ‘Liturgy and liturgical daily life in the medieval Greek
world – the Byzantine Empire’, in The liturgy of  the Medieval church, ed. Thomas
J. Hef fernan and E. Ann Matter (Kalamazoo, 2001), 109–143
Cooper, James, and Arthur John MacLean (trans.), The Testament of our Lord.
Translated into English from the Syriac with introduction and notes (Edinburgh,
1902)
Cormack, Robin, Byzantine art (Oxford, 2000)
Coulston, Jonathon, and Mary Gough, ‘The coins and small finds at Alahan’, in Alahan:
an early Christian monastery in southern Turkey based on the work of  Michael
Gough, ed. Mary Gough (Pontifical Institute of  Medieval Studies, Studies and
Texts, 73, Ontario, 1985), 62–74
Crow, J., and A. Bryer, ‘Survey in Trabzon and Gümüşhane Vilayet, Turkey, 1992–1994’,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 51 (1997), 283–289
Crowfoot, J.W., ‘The Christian churches’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account
embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the
British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and
the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H.
Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 171–262
Bibliography 201

——, Early churches in Palestine (London, 1941)

Curl, James Stevens, Classical architecture. An introduction to its vocabulary and essen-
tials, with a select glossary of  terms (London, 2001)
Dark, Ken, Byzantine pottery (Stroud, 2001)
Dark, Ken, and Jan Kostenec, ‘The Hagia Sophia project, Istanbul, 2004–8’, Bulletin
of  British Byzantine Studies, 35 (2009), 56–68
Dauphin, C., ‘On the pilgrim’s way to the Holy City’, Bulletin of  the Anglo-Israel
Archaeological Society, 2 (1982–83), 25–31
——, ‘Tempe grec, église byzantine et cimetière musulman: la basilique de Dor en
Israël’, Proche-Orient Chrétien, 36 (1986), 14–22
Dauphin, Claudine, ‘Dora-Dor: A station for pilgrims in the Byzantine period on
their way to Jerusalem’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel
Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 90–97
Dauphin, Claudine, and Gershon Edelstein, L’église Byzantine de Nahariya (Israël)
étude archéologique, ed. Claudine Dauphin (Byzantina, 5, Thessalonica, 1984)
Dauphin, Claudine, and Gershon Edelstein, ‘The Byzantine church at Nahariya’, in
Ancient Churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 49–53
Dauphin, Claude, and Shimon Gibson, ‘Ancient settlements in their landscapes: the
results of  ten years of survey on the Golan Heights (1978–1988)’, Bulletin of  the
Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 12 (1992–93), 7–31
——, ‘The Byzantine city of  Dor/Dora discovered’, Bulletin of  the Anglo-Israel
Archaeological Society, 14 (1994–1995), 9–38
Day, Florence E., ‘Islamic Glazed Wares’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed.
Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications,
85, Chicago, 1960), 40–48
Delougaz, Pinhas, ‘The objects’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed.
Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications,
85, Chicago, 1960), 30–52
Delougaz, Pinhas, and Richard C. Haines, A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed.
Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications,
85, Chicago, 1960)
——, ‘Notes to Tables I and II’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth
B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85,
Chicago, 1960)
——, ‘Concluding remarks’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B.
Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago,
1960), 56–59
Dennis, George (trans.), ‘Ath. Rule: rule of  Athanasios the Athonite for the Lavra
monastery’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and
202 Bibliography

Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C.,

2000), 205–231
Descoeudres, Georges, Die pastophorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten. Eine unter-
suchung zu architektur- und liturgiegeschichtlichen problemen (Schriften zur
Geistesgeschichte des Östlichen Europa, 16, Wiesbaden, 1983)
Dewing, H.B. (trans.), Procopius: the anecdota or secret history (Loeb Classical Library,
Cambridge, Mass., 1998)
——, Procopius: history of  the wars, books III–IV (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge,
Mass., 2000)
——, Procopius: buildings (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass., 2002)
Durkheim, Emile, The rules of sociological method: and selected texts on sociology and its
method, ed. Stephen Lukes, and trans. W.D. Halls (Contemporary Social Theory
series, Macmillan Press Ltd., London and Basingstoke, 1982)
——, The elementary forms of religious life, trans. Karen E. Fields (The Free Press, New
York, 1995)
Duval, Noël, ‘L’architecture chrétienne et les pratiques liturgiques en Jordanie en rap-
port avec la Palestine: Recherches nouvelles’, in ‘Churches built in ancient times’.
Recent studies in Early Christian archaeology, ed. Kenneth Painter (The Society
of  Antiquaries of  London, Occasional Paper, 16, Accordia Research Centre,
Specialist Studies of  the Mediterranean, 1, London, 1994), 149–212
Eaverly, Mary Ann, ‘Color and gender in ancient painting: a pan-Mediterranean
approach’, in From the ground up: beyond gender theory in archaeology. Proceedings
of  the fifth gender and archaeology conference, University of  Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
October 1998, ed. Nancy L. Wicker and Bettina Arnold (BAR, Int. Ser., 812,
1999), 5–10
Edelstein, G., ‘Les trouvailles: Objets de bronze, ceramique, verre et monaies’, in
L’église byzantine de Nahariya (Israel). Etude archéologique, ed. C. Dauphin and
G. Edelstein (Thessalonica, 1984), 97–106
Egger, Rudolf, Frühchristliche Kirchenbauten im südlichen Norikum (Vienna, 1916)
Excavation manual, 11 (School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s
University Belfast, Belfast, June–July 2010)
Excavation standards manual (Environmental and heritage service, Belfast, undated)
Falkner, R.K., ‘The pottery’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early
Byzantine city. The pottery and glass, ed. A.G. Poulter (London, 1999), 55–296
Featherstone, Jef frey (trans., with introduction and notes by Cyril Mango), ‘Life of 
St. Matrona of  Perge’, in Holy women of  Byzantium: the saints’ lives in English
translation, ed. Alice-Mary Talbot (Washington, D.C., 1996), 13–64
Ferguson, Everett, Baptism in the Early Church: history, theology, and liturgy in the
first five centuries (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, 2009)
Bibliography 203

Fiaccadori, Gianfranco (trans.), ‘Pantelleria: typikon of  John for the monastery of  St.
John the Forerunner on Pantelleria’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents,
ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies,
25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 59–66
Fiema, Zbigniew T., ‘Reconstructing the history of  the Petra Church: dating and
phasing’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of 
Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 7–119
Fiema, Zbigniew, ‘Storing in the church: artefacts in Room I of  the Petra Church’, in
Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke
Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 607–623
Fiema, Zbigniew T., and Robert Schick, ‘Excavation methodology’, in The Petra Church,
ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications,
3, Amman, 2001), xiii–xv
Fiema, Zbigniew T., Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, Tomasz Waliszewski and Robert
Schick, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of 
Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001)
Fitzgerald, G.M., Beth-Shan excavations III, 1921–3: the Arab and Byzantine levels
(Philadelphia, 1931)
——, A sixth century monastery at Beth-Shan (Scythopolis) (Publications of the Palestine
section of  the University Museum, University of  Pennsylvania, IV, University
of  Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1939)
Foerster, R., and E. Richsteig (ed.), Choricii Gazaei opera (Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Stuttgart, 1972)
Forsythe, George H., and Kurt Weitzmann, The monastery of  Saint Catherine at Mount
Sinai: the church and fortress of  Justinian, plates (Ann Arbor, 1973)
Foss, Clive, ‘The Lycian coast in the Byzantine age’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 48
(1994), 1–52
Frankel, R., J. Patrich and Y. Tsafrir, ‘The oil press at Horvath Beit Loya’, in Christian
archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C.
Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 287–300
Freshfield, E., ‘On Byzantine churches and the modifications made in their arrange-
ments owing to the necessities of  the Greek ritual’, Archaeologia, 44 (1873),
383–392
Gandolfo, Francesco, Le basiliche armene, IV–VII secolo (Studi di architettura medio-
evale armena, V, Rome, 1982)
Gartkiewicz, Przemysław M., Nubia I. Dongola 2. The cathedral in Old Dongola and
its antecedents (Warsaw, 1990)
204 Bibliography

Gáspár, Dorottya, Christianity in Roman Pannonia: an evaluation of  Early Christian

finds and sites from Hungary (BAR, Int. Ser., 1010, Oxford, 2002)
Gazit, Dan, and Yeshayahu Lender, ‘The Church of  St. Stephen at Horvat Be’er-shemca’,
in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 273–276
Gerber, Yvonne, ‘Selected ceramic deposits’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor
Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001),
359–366
Gerstel, Sharon E.J., Beholding the sacred mysteries: programs of  the Byzantine sanctu-
ary (Seattle, 1999)
Gilchrist, Roberta, Gender and archaeology: contesting the past (London and New
York, 1999)
Gill, M.V., ‘The small finds’, in Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations,
structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs, ed. R.M.
Harrison (Princeton and Washington, 1986), 226–277
Gittos, Helen, Liturgy, architecture and sacred places in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford,
forthcoming)
Godlewski, Wlodzimierz, ‘A new approach to the Christianization of  Makuria: an
archaeological note’, Biblique d’Études, 106.2 (1993), 169–176
Gorodetsky, Sue (ed.), The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean
desert: the excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of 
Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999)
Gould, Richard A. and Michael B. Schif fer (ed.), Modern material culture: the archae-
ology of us (New York, London, Toronto, Sydney and San Francisco, 1981)
Gould, Stephen Jay, The structure of evolutionary theory (Cambridge, Mass., and
London, 2002)
Grace, Virginia, ‘Stamped handles of commercial amphoras’, in Excavations at Nessana,
ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 106–130
Grumel, V., La Chronologie (Traité d’Études Byzantines I), (Paris, 1958)
Habas, Lihi, ‘The marble furniture’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet
ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky
(Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew
University, 1999), 119–132
Haines, Richard C., ‘The excavations’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed.
Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications,
85, Chicago, 1960), 4–22
Haldon, John, Byzantium: a history (Charleston and Stroud, 2000)
Harden, D.B., ‘Glass’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London,
1962), 76–91
Bibliography 205

Harris, Anthea, Byzantium, Britain & the West. The archaeology of cultural identity
a.d. 400–650 (Charleston and Stroud, 2003)
Harris, Edward C., Principles of archaeological stratigraphy (London, New York
Toronto, Sydney and San Francisco, 1979)
Harrison, Martin, ‘The inscriptions and chronology of  Alahan’, in Alahan: an early
Christian monastery in southern Turkey based on the work of  Michael Gough, ed.
Mary Gough (Pontifical Institute of  Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts, 73,
Ontario, 1985), 21–34
——, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations, structures, architectural
decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs (Princeton and Washington,
1986)
——, A temple for Byzantium. The discovery and excavation of  Anicia Juliana’s palace
church in Istanbul (Austin and London, 1989)
Harvey, S. Ashbrook, ‘Remembering pain: Syriac historiography and the separation
of  the churches’, Byzantion, 58 (1988), 295–308
Hayes, Dawn Marie, ‘From boundaries blurred to boundaries defined: clerical empha-
sis on the limits of sacred space in England and France during the Later Middle
Ages’, in Holy ground: theoretical issues relating to the landscape and material
culture of ritual space. Papers from a session held at the Theoretical Archaeology
Group conference, Cardif f 1999, ed. A.T. Smith and A. Brookes (BAR, Int. Ser.,
956, Oxford, 2001), 85–90
Hayes, J.W., Late Roman pottery (London, 1972)
——, A supplement to Late Roman pottery (London, 1980)
——, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, volume 2: the pottery (Princeton and
Washington, 1992)
Heintz, Molly Fulghum, ‘The art and craft of earning a living’, in Byzantine women
and their world, ed. Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, Mass., New Haven and
London, 2003), 139–159
——, Magic, medicine, and prayer’, in Byzantine women and their world, ed. Marsha
Pomerantz (Cambridge, MA, New Haven and London, 2003), 275–305
Hendy, M.F., ‘The coins’, in Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations,
structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs, ed. R.M.
Harrison (Princeton and Washington, 1986), 278–373
Hermann Jnr., John J., ‘Finds’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American
Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 337–339
Herrin, Judith, ‘In search of  Byzantine women: three avenues of approach’, in Images
of women in Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt (London, 1993),
167–189
206 Bibliography

Heyworth, Mike, ‘Archaeology in Britain: it all seemed so good’, British Archaeology

(March/April 2009), 12–19
Hill, James N., ‘Prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest: theory
and method’, in Reconstructing prehistoric Pueblo societies, ed. W.A. Longacre
(Albuquerque, 1970), 11–58
Hill, Stephen, ‘The brickstamps’, in Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The exca-
vations, structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs,
ed. R.M. Harrison (Princeton and Washington, 1986), 207–223
——, The Early Byzantine churches of  Cilicia and Isauria (Birmingham Byzantine and
Ottoman Monographs, 1, Aldershot, 1996)
Hirschfeld, Yizhar, ‘List of  the Byzantine monasteries in the Judean Desert’, in
Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of Virgilio
C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata
(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 1–90
——, ‘Euthymius and his monastery in the Judean desert’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici
Franciscanum, 43 (1993), 339–371
——, ‘Monasteries and churches in the Judean Desert in the Byzantine Period’, in
Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 149–154
——, ‘The cave-church at Khirbet ed-Deir’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram
Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 244–259
——, The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the exca-
vations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute
of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999)
——, ‘Introduction’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean
desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of 
the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 1–8
——, ‘The architectural remains of  the monastery’, in The early Byzantine monastery
at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue
Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem,
The Hebrew University, 1999), 9–95
——, ‘The monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir: General discussion’, in The early Byzantine
monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987,
ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38,
Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 153–176
Hirschfeld, Y., and R. Birger, ‘Khirbet Ed-Deir (Désert de Juda) – 1981–1984’, Revue
Biblique, 93 (1986), 276–284
Hirst, S.M., and S.M. Wright, ‘Bordesley Abbey church: a long term research exca-
vation’, in The archaeology of rural monasteries, ed. R. Gilchrist and H. Mytum
(BAR, 203, Oxford, 1989), 295–312
Bibliography 207

Hirst, S.M., D.A. Walsh and S.M. Wright, Bordesley Abbey II. Second report on excava-
tions at Bordesley Abbey, Redditch, Hereford-Worcestershire (BAR, 111, Oxford,
1983)
Hizmi, Hananya, ‘The Byzantine church at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: Preliminary report’,
in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: New discoveries. Essays in honour of 
Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, Leah Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 245–264
——, ‘Monasteries and churches in the Judean Desert in the Byzantine Period’, in
Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 149–154
——, ‘The Byzantine church at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât in the Lower Jordan Valley’, in
Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem,
1993), 155–163
——, ‘The cave-church at Khirbet ed-Deir’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram
Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 244–259
——, ‘Introduction’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean
desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of 
the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 1–8
——, ‘The architectural remains of  the monastery’, in The early Byzantine monastery
at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue
Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem,
The Hebrew University, 1999), 9–95
——, ‘The monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir: General discussion’, in The early Byzantine
monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987,
ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38,
Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 153–176
Hobbs, Richard, ‘The coins’, in Excavations at the Mola di Monte Gelato: a Roman
and Medieval settlement in South Etruria, ed. T.W. Potter and A.C. King
(Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 11, London, 1997),
236–241
Hodder, Ian, Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies in material culture
(Cambridge, 1982)
——, Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology (Cambridge,
1991)
——, The archaeological process: an introduction (Oxford, 1999)
——, ‘Introduction: A review of contemporary theoretical debates in archaeology’,
in Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder (Oxford and Malden, 2002), 1–13
Hoddinott, R.F., Early Byzantine churches in Macedonia and Southern Serbia. A study
of  the origins and the initial development of  East Christian Art (New York and
London, 1963)
208 Bibliography

Hodges, Richard, ‘The late Roman settlement at San Vincenzo al Volturno’, in San
Vincenzo al Volturno 2: the 1980–86 excavations part II, ed. Richard Hodges
(Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 9, London, 1995),
122–130
Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L., ‘A theoretical approach to the study of  house form’, in
For theory building in archaeology. Essays on faunal remains, aquatic resources, spa-
tial analysis, and systemic modelling, ed. Lewis R. Binford (Studies in Archaeology,
New York, San Francisco and London, 1977), 287–315
Ide, R., ‘Fire investigation’, in Crime scene to court: the essentials of  forensic science, ed.
P. White (Cambridge, 2002), 133–158
Insoll, Timothy. Archaeology, ritual, and religion (London and New York, 2004)
—— (ed.), Case studies in archaeology and World Religion. The proceedings of  the
Cambridge conference (BAR S755, Oxford, 1999)
—— (ed.), Archaeology and World Religion (London, 2001)
—— (ed.), Belief in the past. The proceedings of  the 2002 Manchester conference on
archaeology and religion (BAR, Int. Ser., 1212, Oxford, 2004)
Ivison, Eric Addiss, Mortuary practices in Byzantium (c950–1453): an archaeological
contribution (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Birmingham, 1993)
Ivison, Eric A., ‘Polychromy in the Lower City Church: an overview’, in Amorium
Reports II: research papers and technical reports, ed. C.S. Lightfoot (BAR, Int.
Ser., 1170, Oxford, 2003), 119–128
Jakobs, Peter H.F., Die frühchristlichen ambone Griechenlands (Bonn, 1987)
James, Liz (ed.), Women, men and eunuchs: gender in Byzantium (London and New
York, 1997)
James, Liz, ‘Introduction: women’s studies, gender studies, Byzantine studies’, in
Women, men and eunuchs: gender in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (London and
New York, 1997), xi–xxiv
Jarry, J., ‘L’ambon dans la liturgie primitive de l’église’, Syria, 40 (1963), 147–162
Johnson, Matthew, Archaeological Theory: An introduction (Malden, Oxford and
Carlton, 2004)
Joyner, Louise, ‘Searching for the Holy Grail: Late Roman ceramic analysis in the
Levant’, in LRCW I Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in
the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry, ed. J. Ma. Gurt i Esparraguera,
J. Buxeda i Garrigós and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (BAR International Series, 1340,
Oxford, 2005), 547–562
Jurković, Miljenko, ‘Foreword’, in Retrieving the record: A century of archaeology at Poreč
(1847–1947), Ann Terry and Ffiona Gilmore Eaves (Studies in Early Christian
and Medieval Art History and Archaeology, 1, Zagreb, 2001), 7–8
Kaegi, Walter E., Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests (Cambridge, 2000)
Bibliography 209

——, Heraclius, emperor of  Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003)

Kalantzis, G., A comparison of  the architectural elements of  the fifth and sixth century
Byzantine churches in the Negev and Constantinople (M.T.S. thesis, Garrett-
Evangelical Theological Seminary, 1994)
Kalavrezou, Ioli, ‘Women in the visual record of  Byzantium’, in Byzantine women
and their world, ed. Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, New Haven and London,
2003), 13–32
Kanellopoulos, Chrysanthos, ‘Architecture of  the complex’, in The Petra Church, ed.
Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3,
Amman, 2001), 153–191
Kanellopoulos, Chrysanthos, and Robert Schick, ‘Marble furnishings of  the apses and
the bema, Phase V’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American
Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 193–213
Kapitän, Gerhard, ‘The church wreck of f  Marzamemi’, Archaeology, 22.2 (1969),
122–133
——, ‘Elementi architettonici per una basilica dal relitto navale del VI secolo di
Marzamemi (Siracusa)’, Corso Di Cultura Sull’arte Ravennate E Bizantina.
Ravenna, 9/18 Marzo 1980, 27 (1980), 71–136
Karlin-Hayter, Patricia, ‘Euthymios: Testament of  Euthymios for the monasteries of 
Psamathia and Ta Agathou’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed.
John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25,
Washington, D.C., 2000), 120–124
Kawe, Damian, ‘English summary’, Les églises d’époque Byzantine et Umayyad de
la Jordanie V e–VIII e. Typologie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques
(Bibliothèque De L’Antiquité Tardive, Publiée Par L’Association Pour L’Antiquité
Tardive, 2, Turnhout, 2001), xi–xiv
Kendall, Welbury, ‘Architectural report’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe
Colt (London, 1962), 25–47
Khatchatrian, A., Les baptistères paléochretiens (Paris, 1962)
——, Origine et typlogie des baptistères paléochretiens (Mulhouse, 1982)
Kingsley, Sean A., Shipwreck archaeology of  the Holy Land: processes and parameters
(Duckworth Debates in Archaeology series, London, 2004)
Kirk, George Eden, and C. Bradford Welles, ‘The inscriptions’, in Excavations at
Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 131–197
Kitzinger, Ernst, ‘The cult of images in the age before iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 8 (1954), 83–150
Kloner, A., ‘Maresha – 1987/1988’, Excavations and Surveys of  Israel, 7–8 (1988–89), 125
Kloner, Amos, ‘A Byzantine church at Maresha (Beit Govrin)’, in Ancient churches
revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 260–264
210 Bibliography

Knight, Jeremy K., The end of  Antiquity: archaeology, society and religion a.d. 235–700
(Stroud, 2007)
Kraeling, Carl H. (ed.), Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of
a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology
in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of Oriental
Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934) (New Haven, 1938)
Kraeling, C.H., ‘The history of  Gerasa’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account
embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the
British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and
the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H.
Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 27–69
Kraeling, C.H., ‘The synagogue’, in The excavations at Dura-Europos. Final report,
ed. A.R. Bellinger, F.E. Brown, A. Perkins and C.B. Welles (New Haven and
London, 1956)
Kraeling, Carl H., ‘Inferences from comparisons with other churches’, in A Byzantine
church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago
Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 22–25
Kraeling, Carl H., ‘The mosaic inscriptions’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-
Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute
Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 53–55
Kraemer, C.J., Excavations at Nessana, III (Princeton, 1958)
Krautheimer, Richard, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, revised by Richard
Krautheimer and Slobodan Ćurčić (New Haven and London, 1986)
Laiou, Angeliki E., ‘The role of women in Byzantine society’, Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 31 (1981), 233–260
——, ‘Addendum to the report on the role of women in Byzantine society’, Jahrbuch
der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 32 (1982), 98–103
LaMotta V., and M.B. Schif fer, ‘Behavioral Archaeology: Towards a new synthesis’, in
Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder (Oxford and Malden, 2002)
Lassus, Jean, Inventaire archéologique de la région au nord-est de Hama (Institut fran-
çais de Damas, Damascus, 1935)
——, Sanctuaires chrétiens de Syrie: essai sur le genèse, la forme et l’usage liturgique des
édifices du culte chrétien, en Syrie, di IIIe siècle à la conquête musulmane (Institut
Français D’Archéologie de Beyrouth Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique,
42, Paris, 1947)
——, The early Christian and Byzantine world (Landmarks of  the world’s art, London,
1966)
Bibliography 211

Lavan, Luke, ‘Religious space in Late Antiquity’, in Objects in context, objects in use:
material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon
Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 159–201
Lavan, Luke, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys, ‘Material spatiality in Late Antiquity:
sources, approaches and field methods’, in Objects in context, objects in use: mate-
rial spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys
(Leiden and Boston, 2007), 1–42
Leibovitch, J., ‘Dor’, ‘Alon [Newsletter] of  the Israel Department of  Antiquities, 3 (1951),
38–39
——, ‘The reliquary column of  Dor’, Christian News from Israel, 5 (1953), 22–23
——, ‘Dor’, ‘Alon [Newsletter] of  the Israel Department of  Antiquities, 5–6 (1957), 35
Limberis, Vasiliki, ‘The Council of  Ephesos: the demise of  the See of  Ephesos and the
rise of  the cult of  the Theotokos’, in Ephesos metropolis of  Asia. An interdisciplinary
approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture, ed. Helmut Koester (Harvard
Theological Studies, 41, Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 321–340
Lowrie, Walter, Christian art and archaeology: being a handbook to the monuments of 
the early Church (London, 1901)
Lyle, D.P., Forensics for dummies (Hoboken, 2004)
Lynn, Chris, ‘Some fragments of exotic porphyry found in Ireland’, The Journal of 
Irish Archaeology, 2 (1984), 19–32
MacCoull, Leslie S.B., ‘Apa Abraham: Testament of  Apa Abraham, bishop of 
Hermonthis, for the monastery of  St. Phoibammon near Thebes, Egypt’, in
Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela
Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, 2000), 51–58
MacDonald, William, Early Christian & Byzantine architecture (London, 1968)
McLaughlin, Mary Martin, ‘Looking for Medieval women: an interim report on the
project “Women’s religious life and communities, a.d. 500–1500”’, Medieval
prosopography, 8 (1987), 61–91
McLeod, Frederick G., Theodore of  Mopsuestia (The Early Church Fathers, New York
and London, 2009)
McNamara, Jo Ann, John E. Halborg and E. Gordon Whatley (ed. and trans.), Sainted
women of  the Dark Ages (Durham and London, 1992)
Magen, Yitzhak, ‘The church of  Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim’, in Christian
archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C.
Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 333–341
——, ‘The monastery of  St. Martyrius at Macale Adummim’, in Ancient churches
revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 170–196
212 Bibliography

——, and Rina Talgam, ‘The monastery of  Martyrius at Ma’ale Adummim (Khirbet
el-Murassas) and its mosaics’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new
discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L.
Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36,
Jerusalem, 1990), 91–152
——, ‘A Byzantine church at Beit ‘Einûn (Beth ‘Anoth) in the Hebron hills’, in Christian
archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C.
Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata
(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 275–286
Magness, Jodi, Jerusalem ceramic chronology circa 200–800 c.e. ( JSOT/ASOR
Monograph Series, 9, Shef field, 1993)
——, The archaeology of  the early Islamic settlement in Palestine (Winona Lake, 2003)
Mailis, Athanassios, The annexes at the Early Christian basilicas of  Greece (4th–6th c.):
architecture and function (BAR Int. Series 2312, Oxford, 2011)
Mainstone, Rowland J., Hagia Sophia: architecture, structure and liturgy of  Justinian’s
Great Church, with 305 illustrations, 56 plans and drawings (London, 1988)
Mâle, Emile, The early churches of  Rome, trans. David Buxton (London, 1960)
Malki, Abdo J., A case study in computer applications to archaeology: Byzantine churches
in Syria and Palestine (Ph.D. thesis, Uni. of  California, Los Angeles, 1992)
Mango, Cyril, Byzantine architecture (New York, 1976)
——, Byzantium: the empire of  the New Rome (London, 1980)
——, ‘Constantine’s mausoleum and the translation of relics’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
83 (1990), 51–61
Margalit, Shlomo, ‘The North Church of  Shivta: the discovery of  the first church’,
Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 119 (1987), 106–121
——, ‘On the transformation of  the mono-apsidal churches with two pastophoria
into tri-apsidal churches’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 39 (1989),
143–164
——, ‘The bi-apsidal churches in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus’, Liber
Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 40 (1990), 321–334
Mari, Fatma, ‘Typological and chemical analysis of  the glass’, in The Petra Church, ed.
Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3,
Amman, 2001), 377–383
Mathews, Thomas F., ‘An early Roman chancel arrangement and its liturgical func-
tions’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, 38 (1962), 73–95
——, The early churches of  Constantinople: architecture and liturgy (University Park
and London, 1971)
Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (The Early Church Fathers, New
York and London, 2000)
Bibliography 213

Megaw, A.H., ‘The basilica at Kourion, Cyprus’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 30 (1976),
345–374
——, Kourion: excavations in the episcopal precinct (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 38,
Washington, D.C., 2007)
Menze, Volker L., Justinian and the making of  the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oxford
Early Christian Studies, Oxford, 2008)
Messiha, Hishmat, ‘Portable altars: Luxor treasure (1893)’, Bulletin de la Societe
D’Archéologie Copte, 31 (1992), 129–134
Michaelidou-Nicolau, Ino, ‘The inscriptions’, Kourion: excavations in the episcopal
precinct (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 38, Washington, D.C., 2007), 367–392
Michel, Anne, Les églises d’époque Byzantine et Umayyad de la Jordanie V e–VIII e.
Typologie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (Bibliothèque De L’Antiquité
Tardive, Publiée Par L’Association Pour L’Antiquité Tardive, 2, Turnhout, 2001)
Michel, Vincent, ‘Furniture, fixtures, and fittings in churches: archaeological evidence
from Palestine (4th–8th c.) and the role of  the diakonikon’, in Objects in context,
objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift
and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 581–606
Migne, J.-P. (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus, series Graeca (Paris, 1857)
Miller, Timothy (trans.), ‘Theodore Studites: testament of  Theodore the Studite for
the monastery of  St. John Stoudios in Constantinople’, in Byzantine monas-
tic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero
(Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 67–83
——, ‘Stoudios: rule of  the monastery of  St. John Stoudios in Constantinople’, in
Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela
Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000),
84–119
Milligan, S.F., ‘Ancient ecclesiastical bells in Ulster’, The Journal of  the Royal Society
of  Antiquaries of  Ireland, 33 (1903), 46–57
Moorhouse, Stephen, ‘Pottery and glass in the medieval monastery’, in Advances in
monastic archaeology, ed. Roberta Gilchrist and Harold Mytum (BAR, British
series, 227, Oxford, 1993), 127–148
Mulholland, Bernard J., Paraliturgical activities in the Early Byzantine basilical church
(Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast, 2011)
Müller-Wiener, W., Bildlexikon zur topograhie Istanbuls (Tübingen, 1977)
Nakatani, Koji, ‘Lycia in the Byzantine period (fourth–tenth century): historical
background’, in The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia,
Turkey): the first preliminary report, ed. Shigebumi Tsuji (Osaka, 1995), 42–50
Negev, A., ‘The churches of  the Central Negev – an archaeological survey’, Revue
biblique, 81 (1974), 400–422
214 Bibliography

——, ‘Survey and trial excavations at Haluza (Elusa)’, Israel Exploration Journal, 26
(1976), 89–95
——, ‘Christen und Christentum in der Wüste Negev’, Antike Welt, 13.2 (1982), 2–33
——, ‘The cathedral of  Elusa and the new typology and chronology of  the Byzantine
churches in the Negev’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 39 (1989),
129–142
Negev, Avraham, ‘The cathedral at Haluza (Elusa)’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed.
Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 286–293
Netzer, Ehud, ‘The Byzantine churches of  Herodium’, in Christian archaeology in the
Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C.
Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio
Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 165–176
——, ‘A Byzantine monastery at Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, west of  Jericho’, in Christian
archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C.
Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata
(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 191–200
——, Rivka Birger-Calderon and Ayala Feller, ‘The churches of Herodium’, in Ancient
churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 219–232
Nevo, Yehuda D., ‘The Arabic inscriptions’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev.
Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, 25, Jerusalem,
1988), 187–192
Ó Cróinín, D., ‘A seventh-century Irish computus from the circle of  Cummianus’,
Proceedings of  the Royal Irish Academy, 82C (1982), 405–430
Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí, Early Medieval Ireland 400–1200 (Harlow, 1995)
Odahl, Charles, ‘The Christian basilicas of  Constantinian Rome’, The Ancient World,
26.1 (1995), 3–28
O’Hea, Margaret, ‘Glass from the 1992–93 excavation’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia
Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman,
2001), 370–376
O’Keefe, Tadhg, Archaeology and the pan-European Romanesque (Duckworth Debates
in Archaeology, London, 2007)
Oren, Eliezer D., ‘A Christian settlement at Ostrakine in North Sinai’, in Ancient
churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 305–314
Ousterhout, Robert, ‘The holy space: architecture and the liturgy’, in Heaven on Earth:
art and the Church in Byzantium, ed. Linda Safran (University Park, 1998), 81–120
——, ‘Contextualizing the later churches of  Constantinople: suggested methodologies
and a few examples’, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 54 (2000), 241–250
——, Master builders of  Byzantium (Philadelphia, 2008)
Bibliography 215

Ovadiah, Asher, Corpus of  the Byzantine churches in the Holy Land, trans. Rose Kirson
(Bonn, 1970)
——, ‘Early churches’, in The new encyclopaedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy
Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram ( Jerusalem, 1993), 305–309
Ovadiah, Ruth and Asher Ovadiah, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine mosaic
pavements in Israel (Bibliotheca Archaeologica, 6, ‘L’Erma’ Di Bretschneider,
Rome, 1987), 26–30
Painter, Kenneth, ‘Introduction’, in ‘Churches built in ancient times’. Recent studies in
Early Christian archaeology, ed. Kenneth Painter (Occasional Papers from The
Society of  Antiquaries of  London, 16, Specialist Studies of  the Mediterranean,
1, London, 1994), xvii
Pallas, Del D., Les Monuments Paléochrétiens de Grèce découverts de 1959 à 1973
(Pontificio Istitituto Di Archeologia Cristiana, Roma, 1977)
Parker, Elizabeth C., ‘Architecture as liturgical setting’, in The liturgy of  the Medieval
church, ed. Thomas J. Hef fernan and E. Ann Matter (Kalamazoo, 2001), 273–326
Parnicki-Pudelko, Stefan, ‘The Early Christian episcopal basilica in Novae’, Archaeologia
Polona, 21–22 (1983), 241–270
Patrich, Joseph, ‘Architectural sculpture and stone objects’, in Excavations at Rehovot-
in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM,
Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 97–133
——, ‘The glass vessels’, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern
Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of 
Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 134–141
——, ‘The transfer of gifts in the Early Christian churches of  Palestine: archaeologi-
cal and literary evidence for the evolution of  the “Great Entrance”’, in Melanges
of ferts a Pierre Maraval, ed. B. Caseau, J.-C. Cheynet and V. Deroch (Centre
de recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 23, Paris
2006), 341–393
——, and Yoram Tsafrir, ‘A Byzantine church complex at Horvat Beit Loya’, in Ancient
churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 265–272
Patterson, Helen, ‘The Early Medieval and Medieval pottery from Santa Cornelia’, in
Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato,
ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome,
4, London, 1991), 120–136
Peacock, D.P.S., and D.F. Williams, Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introduc-
tory guide (New York and London, 1986)
Pechat, Malka Ben, L’architecture baptismale de la Terre Sainte du VIIème siècle: étude
historique, archéologique et liturgique (Ph.D. dissertation, Paris, 1985)
216 Bibliography

——, ‘The paleochristian baptismal fonts in the Holy Land: formal and functional
study’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 39 (1989), 165–188
——, ‘Baptism and monasticism in the Holy Land: archaeological and literary evi-
dence (fourth to seventh centuries)’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land:
New discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini,
L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior,
36, Jerusalem, 1990), 501–522
Peleg, Michal, ‘Domestic pottery’, in Excavations at Capernaum: volume 1, 1978–1982,
ed. Rafi Grafman (Winona Lake, 1989), 31–113
Piccirillo, Michele, ‘The churches on Mount Nebo. New discoveries’, in Mount Nebo:
new archaeological excavations 1967–1997, ed. Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio
Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 27, Jerusalem, 1998),
221–263
——, ‘The architecture and liturgy of  the Early Church’, in Cradle of  Christianity, ed.
Yael Israeli and David Mevorah ( Jerusalem, 2000), 51–113
Pinter, Harold, ‘Introduction’, in Harold Pinter plays, 1. The birthday party, The room,
The dumb waiter, A slight ache, The hothouse, A night out, The black and white,
The examination (London, 1991), ix–x
Pitts, Mike, ‘The rustle of  the Guardian at lunchtime’, British Archaeology ( January/
February 2011), 66
Politis, Konstantinos D., ‘Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata’, American Journal of  Archaeology, 97 (1993),
507–508
Pomerantz, Marsha (ed.), Byzantine women and their world (Cambridge, New Haven
and London, 2003)
Potter, T.W., and A.C. King, Excavation at the Mola di Monte Gelato (Archaeological
Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 11, London, 1997)
Poulter, Andrew (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine
city. Excavations 1985–1992 ( Journal of  Roman Studies Monograph, 8, London,
1995)
Poulter, A.G. (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine
city. The pottery and glass (London, 1999)
——, ‘The excavations and the social and economic context’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a
Roman to Early Byzantine city. The pottery and glass, ed. A.G. Poulter (London,
1999), 1–53
——, ‘The Roman to Byzantine transition in the Balkans: preliminary results on
Nicopolis and its hinterland’, Journal of  Roman Archaeology, 13 (2000), 347–358
——, (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Late Roman and Early Byzantine city. The finds and
biological remains (Oakville and London, 2007)
Bibliography 217

——, ‘Interpreting finds in context: Nicopolis and Dichin revisited’, in Objects in con-
text, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen
Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 685–705
Prausnitz, M.W., Excavations at Shavei Zion: the Early Christian church. Report of  the
excavations carried out by the Israel Department of  Antiquities and Museums (in
cooperation with the Hebrew University of  Jerusalem) (Centro per le Antichità
e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, Monografie di Archaeologia e d’Arte,
2, Rome, 1967)
——, ‘The excavations’, in Excavations at Shavei Zion: the Early Christian church.
Report of  the excavations carried out by the Israel Department of  Antiquities and
Museums (in cooperation with the Hebrew University of  Jerusalem) (Centro per
le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, Monografie di Archaeologia
e d’Arte, 2, Rome, 1967), 15–38
Ramsay, William M., and Gertrude L. Bell, The thousand and one churches (London,
1909)
——, The thousand and one churches, ed. Robert G. Ousterhout and Mark P.C. Jackson
(Philadelphia, 2008)
Rast, Walter, Through the ages in Palestinian archaeology: an introductory handbook
(Harrisburg, 1992)
Reece, R., Coinage in Roman Britain (London, 1987)
Renfrew, Colin, ‘The archaeology of religion’, in The ancient mind: elements of cognitive
archaeology, ed. Colin Renfrew and Ezra B.W. Zubrow (Cambridge, 1994), 47–54
——, and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London, 2000)
Reynolds, Joyce, ‘The inscriptions’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia,
Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs
of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 137–152
Ribak, Eliya, Religious communities in Byzantine Palestina. The relationship between
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, a.d. 400–700 (BAR, Int. Ser., 1646, Oxford,
2007)
Roberts, Charlotte, and Keith Manchester, The archaeology of disease (Stroud, 2001)
Roberts, A., ‘Worked bone’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Late Roman and Early Byzantine
city. The finds and biological remains, ed. A.G. Poulter (Oakville and London,
2007)
Romano, John F., Ritual and society in Early Medieval Rome (unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., April 2007)
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate, ‘The pottery’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev.
Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs
of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 78–96
Roskams, Steve, Excavation (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge, 2001)
218 Bibliography

Ruggieri, Vincenzo, Byzantine religious architecture (582–867): its history and structural
elements (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 23, Rome, 1991)
Saller, Sylvester J., The memorial of  Moses on Mount Nebo (Publications of  the Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, 1, Jerusalem, 1941)
Schif fer, Michael Brian, Cultural formation processes of  the archaeological record: appli-
cations at the Joint Site, east-central Arizona (Ph.D. dissertation, University of 
Arizona, Ann Arbor, 1973)
——, ‘Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organisation, and the use of space’, Chapters
in the prehistory of  Eastern Arizona, IV, Fieldiana: Anthropology, 65 (Chicago,
1975), 103–119
——, Behavioral Archeology (Studies in Archeology, New York, San Francisco and
London, 1976)
——, and Michael Brian, ‘Towards a unified science of  the cultural past’, Research
Archaeology, New York, San Francisco and London, 1977), 13–40
——, Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations
of  Archaeological Inquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995)
——, Archaeological context and systemic context’, in Behavioral archaeology: first
principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry,
Salt Lake City, 1995), 25–34
——, ‘Archaeology as behavioral science’, in Behavioral archaeology: first principles,
ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake
City, 1995), 46–54
——, ‘Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organisation, and the use of space’, in
Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations
of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995), 55–66
——, ‘Toward the identification of  formation processes’, in Behavioral archaeology: first
principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry,
Salt Lake City, 1995), 171–195
——, ‘Is there a “Pompeii premise” in archaeology?’, in Behavioral archaeology: first
principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry,
Salt Lake City, 1995), 201–218
——, The material life of  human beings: artifacts, behavior, and communication (London
and New York, 1999)
Schneider, Alfons M., The Church of  the Multiplying of  the Loaves and Fishes at Tabgha
on the lake of  Gennesaret and its mosaics, ed. A.A. Gordon and trans. Ernest Graf
(Paderborn, Zurich and London, 1937)
——, ‘Südjudäische kirchen’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 61 (1938),
96–108
Bibliography 219

School of  Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Excavation

manual, 5 (Belfast, June 2001)
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts, Forgetful of  their sex: female sanctity and society, ca. 500–
1100 (Chicago and London, 1998)
Schulz, Hans-Joachim, The Byzantine liturgy: symbolic structure and faith expression,
trans. Mathew J. O’Connell (New York, 1986)
Di Segni, Leah, ‘The monastery of  Martyrius at Ma’ale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muras-
sas): the inscriptions’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries.
Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah
Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior,
36, Jerusalem, 1990), 153–164
——, ‘The Greek inscriptions in the Northern and Eastern Churches at Herodium’,
in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of 
Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 177–190
——, ‘Nuseib ‘Uweishîra: the inscription’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land:
new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio
Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum,
Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 201–204
——, ‘Horvath Hesheq: The inscriptions’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land:
New discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini,
L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior,
36, Jerusalem, 1990), 379–390
——, ‘The inscriptions at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât’, Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram
Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 164–169
——, ‘The Greek inscriptions at Horvat Hesheq’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed.
Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 66–70
——, ‘The Greek inscriptions’, in Mount Nebo: new archaeological excavations 1967–1997,
ed. Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum,
Collectio Maior, 27, Jerusalem, 1998), 425–467
——, ‘The inscriptions’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean
desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs
of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999),
97–106
——, ‘A Greek inscription in the church at Horvat Hanot’, in One land – many
cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G.
Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 273–276
220 Bibliography

Sharabani, Marcia, ‘Coins’, in The excavations of  Kursi – Gergesa, ed. Vassilios Tzaferis
(‘Atiqot, 16, Jerusalem, 1983), 39–40
Shenhav, Eli, ‘Horvat Hanot. A Byzantine tradition of  Goliath’s burial place’, in One
land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda
OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 269–272
Shepherd, J.D., ‘The glass’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early
Byzantine city. The pottery and glass, ed. A.G. Poulter (London, 1999), 297–378
Shepherd, Massey H., ‘The formation and inf luence of  the Antiochene liturgy’,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15 (1961), 23–44
Simon, M., La civilisation de l’Antiquité et le Christianisme (Paris, 1972)
Smith, Robert Houston and Leslie Preston Day, Pella of  the Decapolis, 2. Final report
on the College of  Wooster excavations in Area IX, the civic complex, 1979–1985 (The
College of  Wooster, 1989)
Snively, Carolyn S., ‘Invisible in the community? The evidence for early women’s
monasticism in the southern Balkan Peninsula’, in Shaping community: the art
and archaeology of monasticism. Papers from a symposium held at the Frederick
R. Weisman Museum, University of  Minnesota, March 10–12, 2000, ed. Sheila
McNally (BAR, Int. Ser., 941, Oxford, 2001), 57–66
Sodini, Jean-Pierre, ‘La contribution de l’archéologie à la connaissance du monde
byzantin (IVe–VIIe siècles)’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 47 (1993), 139–184
——, and K. Kolokotsas, Aliki, II: la basilique double (École Français D’Athènes, Études
Thasiennes, 10, Paris, 1984)
Solovey, Michael, The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History and commentary, trans.
Demetrius Emil Wysochansky (Washington, D.C., 1970)
Soteriou, G., ‘E prothesis kai tò diakonikon en te arhaia ekklesia’, Theologia, Periodon
B, vol. A (1941), 76–100
Stern, Ephraim, Dor: ruler of  the seas. Nineteen years of excavations at the Israelite-
Phoenician harbor town on the Carmel coast ( Jerusalem, 2000), 22–23
Stinespring, W.F., ‘The history of excavation at Jerash’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis.
An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University
and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University
and the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl
H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 1–10
Stričević, D., Bakonikon i protesis u ranohriš’anskim crkvama (Starinar, 1958–59), 59–66
Strange, P., ‘The geophysical programme’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman,
and Early Byzantine city. Excavations 1985–1992, ed. Andrew Poulter ( Journal
of  Roman Studies Monograph, 8, London, 1995), 259–267
Bibliography 221

Striker, Cecil L., and Y. Doğan Kuban (ed.), Kalenderhane in Istanbul. The buildings,
their history, architecture and decoration. Final reports on the archaeological explo-
ration and restoration at Kalenderhane Camii 1966–1978 (Mainz am Rhein, 1997)
Syon, D., ‘A church from the Early Islamic Period’, in One land – many cultures.
Archaeological studies in honour of Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini,
Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum,
Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 75–82
Al Syriany, S., Guide to Ancient Coptic Churches & Monasteries in Upper Egypt (Cairo,
1990)
Taft, Robert, ‘The liturgy of  the Great Church: an initial synthesis of structure and
interpretation on the eve of iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 34 & 35 (1980–
1981), 45–75
——, ‘Quaestiones disputatae: the skeuophylakion of  Hagia Sophia and the entrances
of  the liturgy revisited – part I’, Oriens Christianus, 81 (1997), 1–35
——, ‘Quaestiones disputatae: the skeuophylakion of  Hagia Sophia and the entrances
of  the liturgy revisited – part II’, Oriens Christianus, 82 (1998), 53–87
——, ‘Women at church in Byzantium: where, when – and why?’, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 52 (1998), 27–87
——, The Great Entrance: a history of  the transfer of gifts and other pre-anaphoral
rites of  the liturgy of  St. John Chrysostom (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 200,
Rome, 2004)
Talbot, Alice-Mary, ‘Women’, in The Byzantines, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo (Chicago,
1997), 117–143
——, ‘Women’s space in Byzantine monasteries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 52 (1998),
113–127
Talbot, C.H. (trans.), ‘Huneberc of  Heidenheim: the hodoeporicon of  Saint Willibald’,
in Soldiers of  Christ: saints and saints’ lives from Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park, PA,
and London, 1995), 141–164
—— (trans.), ‘The life of saint Leoba’, in Soldiers of  Christ: saints and saints’ lives from
Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas
Head (University Park, PA, and London, 1995), 255–277
Talgam, Rina, ‘The mosaic pavements’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet
ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky
(QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The
Hebrew University, 1999), 107–118
Tchalenko, Georges, Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord, le massif du Bélus à l’époque
romaine (Paris, 1953–1958)
222 Bibliography

Terry, Ann, ‘The sculpture at the Cathedral of  Eufrasius in Poreč’, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 42 (1988), 13–64
——, ‘The chancel panels in the crypt of  San Marco in Venice’, Römische Historische
Mitteilungen, 30 (1988), 41–51
Terry, Ann, and Ffiona Gilmore Eaves, Retrieving the record: A century of archaeology
at Poreč (1847–1947) (Studies in Early Christian and Medieval Art History and
Archaeology, 1, Zagreb, 2001)
Teteriatnikov, Natalia B., The liturgical planning of  Byzantine churches in Cappadocia
(Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 252, Rome, 1996)
Thomas, John, and Angela Constantinides Hero (ed.), Byzantine monastic foundation
documents. A complete translation of  the surviving founders’ typika and testaments
(Washington, 2000)
Trigger, Bruce G., A History of  Archaeological Thought (Cambridge, New York, Port
Melbourne, Madrid and Cape Town, 2005)
Tsafrir, Yoram, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church,
ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology,
25, Jerusalem, 1988)
——, ‘An introduction to Rehovot-in-the-Negev’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-
the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM,
Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 1–16
——, ‘The Northern Church’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The
Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute
of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 22–77
——, ‘The Greek inscriptions’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The
Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute
of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 154–186
——, ‘The development of ecclesiastical architecture in Palestine’, in Ancient churches
revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 1–16
——, ‘The Early Byzantine town of  Rehovot-in-the-Negev and its churches’, in Ancient
churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993),
294–302
Tsafrir, Yoram, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, ‘The church and mosaics at Horvat Berachot,
Israel; with an Appendix by Rina and Joseph Drory’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
33 (1979), 291–326
——, ‘The Byzantine church at Horvat Berachot’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed.
Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 207–218
Tsuji, Shigebumi (ed.), The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia,
Turkey): the first preliminary report (Osaka, 1995)
Bibliography 223

——, ‘General description of archaeological sites recently surveyed near Ölüdeniz

(Fethiye, Muğla)’, in The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia,
Turkey): the first preliminary report, ed. Shigebumi Tsuji (Osaka, 1995), 1–22
Tzaferis, Vassilios, The excavations of  Kursi – Gergesa (‘Atiqot, 16, Jerusalem, 1983)
——, ‘The Greek inscriptions from the Early Christian church at ‘Evron’, Eretz Israel,
19 (1987), 36–53
——, ‘The Early Christian monastery at Kursi’, Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram
Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 77–79
——, ‘The Greek inscriptions from the church at Khirbet el-Shubeika’, in One land –
many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed.
G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 83–86
Usick, Patricia, Adventures in Egypt and Nubia: the travels of  William John Bankes
(1786–1855) (London, 2002)
Waagé, F.O., Antioch, IV (Princeton, 1948)
Walker, Alicia, ‘A space “rich in blessing”’, in Byzantine women and their world, ed.
Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, MA, New Haven and London, 2003), 161–213
Wallace, Sue-Anne, ‘Liturgical planning in some Cappadocian churches: a re-evaluation
following recent excavations in Central Anatolia’, Mediterranean Archaeology,
3 (1990), 27–38
Walter, Christopher, ‘The origins of  the cult of  Saint George’, Revue des Études
Byzantines, 53 (1995), 295–326
Welles, C.B., ‘The inscriptions’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying
the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School
of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American
Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New
Haven, 1938), 353–495
White, Tim D., and Pieter A. Folkens, The human bone manual (London, 2005)
Xydis, Stephen G., ‘The chancel barrier, solea, and ambo of  Hagia Sophia’, Art Bulletin,
29 (1947), 1–24
Index

Adams, William Y.  21 basin 2

African Red Slip Ware (ARSW)  115, 129
agape  8, 115, 118, 120, 128, 182, 183
Ajnādayn, battle of  27
altar table  2, 25, 62, 81, 85, 95, 96, 98, 99,
144, 151, 181
legs of  51, 54, 58, 70, 71, 91, 96, 126,
178
side  58, 59, 70, 125
silver 82
altaria  4, 125
ambo  50, 53, 54, 58, 59, 62, 63, 69, 70, 97,
98, 179, 180, 181
amphorae  2, 87, 111, 112, 118, 123, 124, 125,
126, 177, 181, 182, 183
bag jar  29, 112, 113, 123, 126, 129
Class 47  112
East Mediterranean Keay IIIb  112
Gaza  112, 113
Greyware  112, 113, 128, 129
amulae (singular ama)  4, 125
Anasazi, Native American  22
Anthony of  Novgorod  144, 145
Apostolical Constitutions 85–86
apse  25, 26
Ashkelon (chapel), Israel  101
atrium 52
Avdat (church), Israel  65
Babić, Gordana  88
Bahn, Paul  152
Ba’labakk, agreement of  27
baptistery  53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 70, 85
baptismal font  54
Beit ‘Einûn, Israel  156
bema 25
Berman, Constance  147
Beth Yareh (church), Israel  101
Beyazit Basilica A, Constantinople  63
Bishop Genesius (church), Gerasa,
Jordan  89, 98, 181
bishop’s seat  50, 59, 70, 91
Boniface, St  151
bowls  87, 111, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177,
181, 182
Brightman, F.E.  116
Butler, Howard Crosby  69
Byzantine rite  6, 46, 69, 90, 94, 121
see also Entrance of  the Mysteries
Cameron, Averil  140
Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan  88,
89, 157
Central Church, Herodium, Israel  54
chalice  6, 116, 144
Chalkis/Qinnasrīn agreement  27
chancel barrier or screen  3, 25, 53, 56, 85,
95, 112, 126, 127, 178, 182
chancel screen posts  25, 51, 54, 58, 70, 71,
91, 95, 96, 126, 178
Chitty, Derwas  8
Chorikios  144, 154
Christ at Paneas, statue of  99, 102, 181
Chrysostom, John  142, 145
church sanctuary  3, 25, 82, 91, 179
Church of  the Apostles,
Constantinople 119
226 Index
ciboria columns  91, 96
Clement of  Rome  82, 93, 142
Cogitosus  148, 149
Colt, H. Dunscombe  28, 54
Confessio 87
Constantelos, Demetrios J.  118
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De
Ceremoniis  8, 143, 144
Constantinopolitan church plan  10, 45,
46, 49–53, 59, 62, 69, 86, 90, 93,
96, 102, 122, 178, 179, 181
cooking pots  2, 109, 114, 123, 124, 126,
128, 177, 182, 183
lids 114
Cormack, Robin  140
Council of  Carthage, 14th canon  60, 70
Council at Nicaea (7th Ecumenical)  60
Crowfoot, J.W.  5, 7, 19, 26, 32, 46, 52, 62,
79, 82, 85, 88, 89, 100, 101, 102,
120, 180
Cypriot Red Slip Ware (CRSW)  115, 129
Day, Florence  29
Delougaz, Pinhas  21
Descoeudres, Georges  85
diaconia  5, 51, 53, 93
see also diakonikon, pastophory,
sacristy and skeuophylakion
diakonikon (plural diakonika)  3, 5, 7, 8,
9, 19, 32, 46, 49, 51, 53, 58, 62, 65,
79, 81, 82, 84, 89, 85, 86, 88, 90,
91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103,
109, 112, 120, 121, 127, 177, 178, 180,
182, 183, 184
see also diaconia, pastophory, sacristy
and skeuophylakion
dining hall see under refectory
Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel  54
Eaverly, Mary Ann  160
Entrance of  the Mysteries  6
see also Byzantine rite
Eucharist  6, 7, 19, 49, 81, 87, 88, 96, 102,
118, 128, 181
Euthymius, St, coenobium of  8, 82, 120
‘Evron (church), Israel  57, 95, 157, 180
Fiema, Zbigniew T.  60, 111
Fine Byzantine Ware bowls  2
f labella  6, 116
f lasks  111, 113, 125, 126, 177, 181, 182, 183
fons  4, 125
Gaza  27, 128
Gerasa, Jordan  5, 47, 52, 79, 88, 89, 110
Gilchrist, Roberta  140, 151, 152
Glodesind 150
Hagia Eirēnē, Constantinople  90
Hagia Sophia, Constantinople  6, 51, 52,
53, 88, 90, 93, 94, 118, 119, 127,
145
Hagia Theotokos in Blachernai,
Constantinople 90
Hagios Theodōros of  Sphōrakios,
Constantinople 90
Haines, Richard C.  21
Haluza cathedral, Israel  59, 65, 85
Hidatsa, Native American  140
Hizmi, Hananya  98
Holy Zion Church, Israel  101
Hormisdas, Pope  66
Horvat Beit Loya, Israel  54, 55, 98, 156
Horvat Berachot, Israel  110, 112, 114, 123
Horvat Hesheq, Israel  59, 63, 65, 110,
125, 157
Insoll, Timothy  15
Islamic Glazed Ware  29
Ivison, Eric A.  88, 89
Index 227
James, Liz  160
John II, Pope (formerly presbyter
Mercurius)  63, 66, 70, 180
jugs  111, 113, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177, 181,
182, 183
Kaegi, Walter  27
Khirbat al-Karak, Israel  29, 58, 59, 62, 64,
95, 101, 110, 112, 115, 124, 125, 128,
155, 157, 180
Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel  2, 31, 54, 110, 114,
121, 123, 124, 156, 177
Khirbet Eirav, Israel  65
Khirbet el-Beiyûdât, Israel  54, 98, 99, 153,
154, 157, 158, 181
Khirbet el-Shubeika, Israel  158
Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel  110
Kingsley, Sean  29
Kissufim (church), Israel  154, 158
Kitzinger, Ernst  99, 102, 181
Kourion (church), Cyprus  101
Krautheimer, Richard  7, 16, 47, 79, 81,
127, 142
Kursi (church), Israel  54, 55, 97, 110, 112,
114, 123, 124, 153, 154, 156, 158, 180
Laiou, Angeliki  140
LaMotta, Vince  22
Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum,
Bulgaria  54, 98, 110, 112, 114, 115,
123, 128, 158
Lassus, Jean  85
Late Roman Red Ware bowls and lids  2
Lavan, Luke  15
Levant  9, 10, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 43, 48, 67,
69, 70, 120, 128, 177
Limberis, Vasiliki  146
Liturgy of  St. John Chrysostom  118
Leubevera, abbess  119
Leoba, St  150, 151
Magness, Jodi  28
Manchester, Keith  152
Mango, Cyril  1, 14, 55, 120, 140
Margalit, Shlomo  62, 65
Marzamemi ‘church’ ship wreck  57, 63,
70
Mathews, Thomas F.  4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 31,
46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 56, 62, 69,
86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 113, 119,
127, 139, 142, 143, 146, 154, 178,
179, 181
matroneum  87, 88
Maximus, protégé of  Pseudo-Denis  89
McLaughlin, Mary Martin  148
‘Mefjer’ ware  29
Mola di Monte Gelato (church), Italy  57,
59, 88, 153, 154
monastery
Beth-Shan, Israel  150
Martyrius, Israel  55, 110, 154, 157
Monophysite  55, 66, 67, 69, 97, 144, 145
Monophysites  62, 65
Moorhouse, Stephen  20
Mount Nebo (church), Jordan  64, 101,
180
Mu’awiyah 28
Nahariya (church), Israel  30, 59, 110, 113,
114, 118, 124, 125, 157
narthex  52, 54, 112, 123, 124, 125, 144, 153,
154, 156, 157, 162
Nessana, Israel  28, 30, 54
Nestorius 145
North Church or SS. Sergius & Bacchus,
Nessana, Israel  55, 64, 155, 156, 157
North Church, Rehovot-in-the-Negev,
Israel  2, 31, 54, 59, 63, 65, 95, 98,
110, 112, 114, 115, 121, 124, 125, 128,
129, 155, 157, 177
Novae (church), Bulgaria  63, 66, 180
228 Index
of fertory tables  60
Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan  31,
54
Ordo Romanus I  4, 7, 48, 56, 69, 87, 94,
113, 118, 121, 125, 143, 181
Ostrakine (church), Israel  30, 54, 85, 110,
123, 155
Ousterhout, Robert  100, 101
Palestinian (Early Islamic) bag-shaped
(LR5) amphorae  29
paraliturgical activity  49
pastophory  7, 85
see also diaconia, diakonikon, sacristy
and skeuophylakion
patens 6
Patrich, Joseph  101
Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordan  59, 64, 65,
67, 110, 114
Petra Church, Jordan  59, 60, 63, 65, 110,
111, 112, 113, 115, 125, 128, 159
Phocaean Red Slip Ware (PRSW)  115,
129
pi (Π)-shaped sanctuary/chancel barrier
44, 46, 47, 49, 53, 65, 68, 69, 90,
93, 126, 178, 179
plates  87, 111, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177,
181, 182, 183
Pompeii 23
Poreč (church), Croatia  59, 63, 65, 66, 157
Procopius of  Caesarea  142
Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan  57,
89
Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan  5, 51,
53, 93, 94, 95, 102, 180
prothesis, chapel  5, 89
rite of  3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 49, 51, 55, 62,
79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 94,
95, 96, 102, 103, 118, 121, 126, 127,
180, 181, 182, 183, 184
Pseudo-Denis 97
Qal’at Sim’an, Syria  47, 56
Radegund, queen  119
refectory  2, 120, 177
relics/reliquaries  58, 59, 60, 70, 146, 150,
151, 153, 154
Renfrew, Colin  15, 152
Ribak, Eliya  101
Roberts, Charlotte  152
Roman church plan  10, 45, 48, 49,
56–64, 85, 86, 94, 95, 96, 102, 109,
122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 178, 180
Romano, John F.  4, 118, 125
Rusticula, abbess of  Arles  150
sacristy  5, 7, 8
see also diaconia, diakonikon, pasto-
phory and skeuophylakion
St. Clemente Church, Rome, Italy  62, 63,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 179, 180
St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS.
Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa,
Jordan 157
St. Polyeuktos Church, Saraçhane,
Constantinople  46, 63
St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er-shemca, Israel
54
St. Theodore Church, Gerasa, Jordan  50,
51, 52, 89, 93, 94
SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa,
Jordan 54
SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan  62, 89
San Marco, Venice, Italy  63
Santa Cornelia, Italy  59, 64, 67
Schif fer, Michael Brian  22
Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts  147
scif fus  4, 125
secretarium  48, 87, 88, 96
senatorium  87, 88
Shavei Zion (church), Israel  50, 51, 93,
110, 156, 159
Index 229
north chapel  50, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62,
65, 69, 70, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96,
97, 102, 103, 112, 124, 126, 162,
179, 181
side chapel (also parekklesia)  25, 32,
51, 53, 55, 79, 81, 85, 88, 89, 91, 95,
99, 101, 103, 125, 127, 158, 180, 183,
184
south chapel  53, 54, 55, 56, 65, 70, 89,
90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 102, 103, 112,
123, 126, 162, 182
skeuophylakion  6, 7, 46, 51, 53, 81, 90, 93,
118, 144, 146
see also diaconia, diakonikon, pasto-
phory and sacristy
Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum,
Bulgaria  55, 110, 112, 114, 115, 123,
124, 128, 159
Snively, Carolyn S.  148
Sodini, Jean-Pierre  101
Solovey, Michael  118, 145
South Church or St. Mary’s, Nessana,
Israel  58, 62, 157
Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan  50,
52, 93
synthronon  50, 54, 59, 70, 91, 179, 180
Syrian church plan  10, 45, 47, 49, 53–56,
59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 70, 85, 90, 94,
96, 97, 102, 109, 122, 126, 127, 128,
179, 180, 182
Syrian rite  47, 56, 69, 97, 116, 121
T-shaped sanctuary/chancel barrier  44,
48, 56, 57, 62, 65, 67, 69, 125, 126,
178, 179
Taft, Robert F.  86, 90, 93, 94, 118, 127,
139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 154, 162
Talbot, C.H.  147
Testament of  Our Lord  5, 82, 89, 93,
142
Theodore of  Mopsuestia  97
Tsafrir, Yoram  16, 98
Umayyad  27, 28, 30, 110, 111, 112
Wimbourne, Britain  150
Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies
Edited by
Andrew Louth, Professor Emeritus of Patristic and Byzantine Studies,
University of Durham.
David Ricks, Professor of Modern Greek and Comparative Literature,
King’s College London.

This series encompasses the religion, culture, history, and literary

production of the Greek-speaking world and its neighbours from the
fourth century AD to the present. It aims to provide a forum for
original scholarly work in any of these fields, covering cultures as
diverse as Late Antiquity, the Byzantine empire, the Venetian empire,
the Christian communities under Ottoman rule, and the modern
nation states of Greece and Cyprus. Submissions in English are
welcomed in the form of monographs, annotated editions, or
collections of papers.

Volume 1 Anthony Hirst, God and the Poetic Ego:

The Appropriation of Biblical and Liturgical Language in the Poetry of
Palamas, Sikelianos and Elytis.
425 pages. 2004. ISBN 3-03910-327-X

Volume 2 Hieromonk Patapios and Archbishop Chrysostomos, Manna from Athos:

The Issue of Frequent Communion on the Holy Mountain in the Late
Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.
187 pages. 2006. ISBN 3-03910-722-4
Volume 3 Liana Giannakopoulou, The Power of Pygmalion:
Ancient Greek Sculpture in Modern Greek Poetry, 1860-1960.
340 pages. 2007. ISBN 978-3-03910-752-0

Volume 4 Irene Loulakaki-Moore, Seferis and Elytis as Translators.

392 pages. 2010. ISBN 978-3-03911-918-9

Volume 5 Maria Mandamadiotou, The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene:

Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876–1912.
270 pages. 2013. ISBN 978-3-0343-0910-3

Volume 6 Eugenia Russell, St Demetrius of Thessalonica:

Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages.
213 pages. 2010. ISBN 978-3-0343-0181-7

Volume 7 Ivan Sokolov, The Church of Constantinople in the Nineteenth Century:

An Essay in Historical Research.
1041 pages. 2013. ISBN 978-3-0343-0202-9

Volume 8 Forthcoming

Volume 9 Bernard Mulholland, The Early Byzantine Christian Church: An

Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early Byzantine Basilical
Church Excavations Primarily in Israel and Jordan, and their Historical
and Liturgical Context.
245 pages. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1709-2

Volume 10 Maximilian Lau, Caterina Franchi and Morgan Di Rodi (eds), Landscapes
of Power: Selected Papers from the XV Oxford University Byzantine Society
International Graduate Conference.
323 pages. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1751-1

Volume 11 Dimitrios Konstadakopulos, From Pax Ottomanica to Pax Europaea: The

growth and decline of a Greek village’s micro-economy.
375 pages. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1749-8
 Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies
The observation that domestic artefacts are often recovered dur-
9
ing church excavations led to an archaeological re-assessment
of forty-seven Early Byzantine basilical church excavations and
their historical, gender and liturgical context. The excavations

Bernard Mulholland
were restricted to the three most common basilical church plans
to allow for like-for-like analysis between sites that share the
same plan: monoapsidal, inscribed and triapsidal. These sites
were later found to have two distinct sanctuary configurations,
namely a Π-shaped sanctuary in front of the apse, or else a sanc-
tuary that extended across both side aisles that often formed a Bernard Mulholland
characteristic T-shaped layout. Further analysis indicated that
Π-shaped sanctuaries are found in two church plans: firstly a

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

protruding monoapsidal plan that characteristically has a major

The Early Byzantine Christian Church

entrance located to either side of the apse, which is also referred
to as a ‘Constantinopolitan’ church plan; and secondly in the The Early Byzantine
inscribed plan, which is also referred to as a ‘Syrian’ church plan.
The T-shaped layout is characteristic of the triapsidal plan, but
Christian Church
can also occur in a monoapsidal plan, and this is referred to as a
‘Roman’ church plan. Detailed analysis of inscriptions and patterns An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven
of artefactual deposition also revealed the probable location of Early Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations
the diakonikon where the rite of prothesis took place. Primarily in Israel and Jordan, and their
Historical and Liturgical Context
Bernard Mulholland graduated with a PhD in History from the
School of History and Anthropology at Queen’s University, Belfast
after having enrolled in its Institute of Byzantine Studies. He 9
has delivered research papers based upon his thesis at the
annual Oxford University Byzantine Society International Graduate
Conference in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. He is a member of
the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, New York
Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement
of Sciences and the Council for British Archaeology.

Peter Lang
www.peterlang.com