![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Masons’ marks, though often not fully documented, interpreted and researched, are well-attested at sites from the Classical periods. This article presents a complete study of masons’ marks from Antiochia Hippos of the Decapolis. The survey of the site yielded 374 Roman-period marks: 359 used for accounts and 15 probably used for indication of assembly order. The presence of masons’ marks on some of the structures at Hippos and other Roman-period sites in Syria-Palaestina points to details of the organization of work. The marks show chronological dependency, and consequently can be used to indicate relative and even absolute dating.
Notes
1 Reveyron (Citation2003) lists the same three types based on a study of medieval masons’ marks. It shows that despite coming from a wide range of periods, masons’ marks were always used for similar purposes.
2 Sussita is the Aramaic name for Hippos.
3 For a complete historical geography of Hippos, see Dvorjetski Citation2014.
4 The excavations are carried out by an international team, directed by A. Segal and M. Eisenberg (2000–2011) and M. Eisenberg (2012–present).
5 For the introduction and summary of the first 12 seasons of excavations (2000–2011), see Segal et al. Citation2014; Eisenberg Citation2018.
6 Bardill (Citation2008: 185) states that some marks were clearly visible only in “raking light”.
7 Photography was done by the authors, while photogrammetry was conducted in the Photogrammetry Laboratory at the Zinman Institute of Archaeology by E. Gershtein.
8 Mesistrano Citation2014: 158–159. For details concerning the material from under the pavement, see Segal Citation2003; Młynarczyk Citation2009: 126; Segal Citation2009: 23; and Osband and Eisenberg Citation2018: 213, Pl. 3.1. The pottery from the loci immediately under the pavers (e.g., L1880 and F1881 from under the decumanus) was dated to the Late Hellenistic–Early Roman period, not post-dating 67 CE. In July 2018 a section of the decumanus maximus further to the east was unearthed; the latest material obtained from under the paving dates to the first half of the 1st century CE (L2791).
9 During centuries of use, the paving most probably underwent several repairs and has been temporarily removed to allow maintenance of the water supply system and renovations. These renovations may possibly be the reason for the lack of marks on some of the stretches of the decumanus maximus. Most of the paving was found almost exposed without any significant archaeological accumulation covering it, which indicates that it was used until the Early Islamic period.
10 The other stone of local provenance used in construction was soft limestone. For a detailed description of the geology of Hippos, see Shtober-Zisu Citation2014.
11 The basilica was erected at the end of the 1st century CE and destroyed in the earthquake of 363 CE, never to be rebuilt (Eisenberg Citation2016: 3–8; Rozenberg Citation2018: 344). It stood on the northern side of the forum, between the forum and the northern cliff of Mount Sussita.
12 A similar interpretation was put forward for one of the most thoroughly researched examples of accounting marks, those from the Servian Walls of Rome. They are present on many of the wall’s ashlars, their distribution is random, their shapes are crude but repetitive, and many bring to mind letters. Some of the marks are upside down. It was concluded that they were productivity marks from the quarry, and only one stone was marked per cart load or pile of day’s work (Lugli Citation1957: 199–207).
13 The mausoleum is located in the necropolis on the eastern slope of the saddle. It was constructed in the 2nd century CE (Eisenberg Citation2016: 16).
14 The cathedral was built at the end of the 6th century CE and destroyed in the earthquake of 749 CE (Dvorjetski Citation2014: 61–62). Most of the architectural fragments made of marble and granite found in the cathedral, i.e., the monolithic columns shafts, bases and Corinthian capitals, are in secondary use; they originated from Roman period buildings.
15 The shafts were covered with a thick layer of plaster, and so their diameter did not need to be exact.
16 The marks were documented by the authors during a visit to the site in May 2017.
17 The marks were documented by the authors during a visit to the site in May 2017.
18 The authors would like to thank Dr. Mechael Osband, the archaeologist in charge of the site, for kindly sharing the information regarding the preliminary results of the excavation of the synagogue and allowing us to study the marks. The results of the excavation of the synagogue are soon to be published by M. Osband and B. Arubas.
19 The publication also mentions other marks—two Greek alphas engraved on a Hellenistic threshold. The marks are larger than the gamma-shaped ones (12 cm), and their position on a threshold may indicate apotropaic significance (Di Segni Citation2000: 371–373, –).
20 The drums have additional inscriptions in Greek engraved on them, possibly names of artisans, as known, e.g., from the Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis (Guarducci Citation1987: 419).
21 The excavators discuss Hebrew letters, but they were not specified. Peleg-Barkat (Citation2013: 263) examined the pieces, but was able to confirm only the existence of lines.
22 The Hebrew letters in these masons’ marks have lines engraved to their left. They appear mostly on the perimeters of the flat surface of the drums, but in some instances they appear on the edge of the visible face. The marks were identified on approximately 70 drums and other architectural pieces.
23 Several examples are recalled by Bardill (Citation2008: 182–185).