The village of Khirbet Wadi Hamam lies on the eastern slope of Wadi Arbel, 2 km west of the Sea of Galilee. The site was excavated from 2007-2009 by Uzi Leibner of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.116 The excavations exposed the several domestic structures and a Galilean type synagogue built of basalt.117 The synagogue has only one entrance on the southern wall (rather than a triple doorway), and is not oriented precisely north-south because of the steep slope.118 Unfortunately, many elements of the synagogue have been lost, either because they were robbed out or washed into the wadi by rain. Rain also washed modern material into the synagogue area, making it difficult to find uncontaminated stratigraphy for dating purposes.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 113 ibid., 267
114 ibid., 268 115 ibid., 272-4
116 Uzi Leibner, “Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): the synagogue and the settlement,” JRA 23 (2010): 220-37.
117 ibid., 228 118 ibid.
Based on pottery from the synagogue’s eastern foundation trench and a coin embedded in the plaster floor of the western aisle, Leibner dates the synagogue’s construction to the late third or early fourth century.119 At some point in the fourth century, the mosaic floor was severely damaged, possibly by the earthquake of 363. At this time, the damaged mosaic was patched with plaster and a bema was built against the south wall. According to Leibner, by the time this destruction occurred, the community had lost the means to repair or replace the mosaic, so it was patched with plaster, leaving the remaining disjointed fragments of mosaic in place.120 Four coins from the fill of the bema indicate that these renovations were completed in the mid to late fourth century.121 Within a few decades the village was abandoned and the synagogue building collapsed, possibly during an earthquake.122 Based on pottery and coins sealed under the collapse, Leibner concluded that the synagogue was destroyed in the late fourth or early fifth century, as part of a general decline in Galilee.123
Magness has challenged Leibner’s dating, proposing instead that the synagogue was built during the fourth century and continued in use through the fifth century.124 She rejects Leibner’s theory that Galilee experienced a decline in the fifth century, arguing that this belief is based on a misinterpretation of the lack of fifth century coins found in excavations in the region.125 Due to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 119 ibid., 230-232.
120 This theory fits well with Leibner’s belief that settlement in Galilee began to decline in the mid fourth century. Uzi Leibner and Shulamit Miller, “A Figural Mosaic in the Synagogue at Khirbet Wadi Hamam,” JRA 23 (2010), 238.
121 Leibner, “Wadi Hamam,” 232. 122 ibid., 230
123 ibid., 320
124 Jodi Magness, “The Pottery from the Village of Capernaum,” 240-2.
125 Magness, “Did Galilee Experience a Settlement Crisis in the Mid-Fourth Century?” in Jewish Identities in Late A ntiquity: Studies in Memory of Menachem Stern (Türbigen: Morh Siebeck, 2009), 296-313.
the decrease in coins minted during the fifth century, older coins from the fourth century remained in circulation.126 This has affected the dating of key pottery types including Kefar Hananya (Galilean bowls) Forms 1C, 1D, and 1E, which Leibner used to date the Wadi Hamam synagogue.127 Magness believes that these pottery types have been dated too early based on their association with third and fourth century coins that circulated long after their minting date.128 Thus, the absence of fifth century coins and the misdating of later pottery have led archaeologists to date many sites, including synagogues, to the third and fourth centuries rather than later.129 According to Magness’ dating, the Wadi Hamam synagogue is roughly contemporary with the Huqoq, Meroth, and Horvat ‘Ammudim synagogues, which also belong to the sub-group of Galilean type synagogues with mosaic floors.
Leibner and Miller reconstructed the general plan of the mosaic using the 30 preserved fragments.130 The mosaic is divided into two parts: a carpet mosaic in the nave and a separate series of scenes in the aisles.131 Very little of the nave mosaic has survived. A cluster of
fragments in the center of the nave contain the remains of two concentric circles which may be
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 126 This phenomenon has been studied by numismatist Gabriella Bijovsky. See Bijovsky, Monetary Circulation in Palestine During the Byzantine Period (Fifth – Seventh centuries CE), (PhD Dissertation, Hebrew
University), Jerusalem, 2011: 60-2.
127 Leibner, following David Adan-Bayewitz, dated the synagogue’s construction to the third century based on sherds of Kefar Hananya Forms 1C and 1D found in the synagogue’s eastern foundation trench. Leibner, “Wadi Hamam,” 234. Adan-Bayewitz dates Kefar Hananya Forms 1C and 1D to the mid third century through late fourth century, and Form 1E to the early fifth century. See Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1993: 98-109.
128 Magness, “The Pottery from the Village of Capernaum,” 241-2. 129 ibid.
130 Leibner and Miller, “A Figural Mosaic,” 238-41. 131 ibid., 239
from a zodiac circle, although the evidence is too limited to be certain.132 More mosaics survive in the aisles, which appear to contain twelve framed panels, four of which are preserved to some extent.133
The northernmost panel in the east aisle is badly damaged, with only a portion of an Aramaic dedicatory inscription in black tesserae on a white background preserved.134 A second panel to the south depicts a group of craftsmen next to a structure of brick or stone.135 A pair of porters scale a scaffold next to the building, carrying a heavy load hung with ropes from a pole that is balanced on their shoulders.136 Leibner offers four possible identifications of the scene: Israelite slaves working in Egypt, the construction of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, workers building fortifications around Jerusalem, or the construction of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 5- 6.137 He favors the fourth option, noting that Temple motifs, such as the menorah, shofar, and incense shovel, as well as scenes that allude to the Temple like the Binding of Isaac, are common in ancient synagogues.138 If so, this is the first known depiction of the Temple itself found in any ancient synagogue.139 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 132 ibid., 240 133 ibid., 239 134 ibid., 241 135 ibid., 241-6 136 ibid., 242 137 ibid., 246-9 138 ibid., 249 139 ibid., 246-9
Two additional panels were discovered in the western aisle. The southern most panel in the aisle depicts the crossing of the Red Sea from Exodus 14-15.140 The next panel to the north depicts a giant figure holding two men by the hair with his left hand.141 Much of the panel is damaged, but from what is preserved it is clear that the men are much smaller than the central figure, indicating that he is a giant.142 Two dead men lie between the giant’s feet, and a third escapes on horseback to his left.143 Leibner originally suggested that this panel depicted Samson or Goliath, but the discovery of the Samson mosaic at Huqoq confirms that it depicts Samson smiting the Philistines as portrayed in Judges15:15-17:144
Then he found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, reached down, and with it he killed a thousand men. And Samson said, ‘With the jawbone of a donkey, heaps upon heaps, with the jawbone of a donkey I have slain a thousand men.’