Abstract: The article discusses motivations for immigration to the Land of Israel from Aleppo in the first half of the 18th century. It examines this broader question in light of two specific instances of immigration: that of the Franco Eliyahu Silvera, who settled in Tiberias, and that of two brothers, R. Shimon and R. Raphael Avraham Deweick HaCohen, the sons of R. Shmuel Deweick HaCohen. These latter initially settled in Safed; R. Shimon then moved to Kfar Yasif, while R. Raphael Avraham moved to Tiberias. In each of these cases, the motives for immigration were personal. Silveira’s immigration was prompted by his bankruptcy in 1746, while the Deweick HaCohen brothers were spurred by a serious conflict with the rabbi of the city, R. Shmuel Laniado, and his son R. Shlomo. This conflict stemmed from differences of opinion with regard to halakhic rulings on various matters, especially a dispute on kiddushin. The article reviews the two cases and their context, and explores reasons for immigration to the Land of Israel at that time – especially to Tiberias, which was the subject of messianic expectations.

Abstract: This article surveys the development of the public artificial wading pools that have been established in Judea and Samaria since 2007 and examines physical, social, and symbolic aspects that this contemplation brings to light. The pools were built through local initiatives in response to the lack of natural springs in the environs of the settlements in which they are located. They also serve to address the complex geopolitical and security reality that excludes Jewish inhabitants from natural water sources located near areas inhabited by the Palestinian population. Since their establishment, the pools have served as a magnet for many local visitors, hikers, and tourists. Observing those visiting the pools reveals a prominent presence of women and children enjoying the sense of security around them; examining their usage is reflective of a creative and practical solution to the issue of the multi-gender bathing of the national-religious population; and contemplating the actions of the local authorities indicates that these pools serve them as a preferred means of disseminating public information and diplomacy. In addition, their symbolic meanings sharpen the insight that their design was meant to imbue them with a “biblical,” pastoral appearance, as part of the spatial conception of second generation Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria. These trends preserve the landscape memory that was ingrained in members of the first generation in a new form and hold explicit and implicit political and ideological meanings.

Abstract: Since the beginning of scholarship on this subject, scholars have cast doubt on the historical credibility of the description of the results of the Bar Kokhba war in the Roman History of Cassius Dio. At the base of the discussion lie the meaning of the term Judea, the scope of the revolt and the area which was destroyed following it, as well as the estimate of the settlement sites and the population of the country in the period under discussion. The examination of the demographic data presented by Cassius has so far been based mainly on the results of archaeological surveys and excavations conducted and published during the previous century. In this article, we would like to summarize the abundant archaeological evidence that has been added over the recent years, and to reevaluate the demographic data presented by Cassius. Due to methodological difficulties in estimating the country’s population in ancient times, the focus will be on the question of the number of settlements destroyed in the war: fifty forts and 985 villages. The findings of the current study illustrate the potential of the archaeological findings and support those scholars who viewed Cassius Dio’s demographic data as are liable report based on contemporary documents.

Abstract: In his Kitāb al-Mawāʿiẓ waʾl-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ waʾl-Āthār, themonumental work on the topography of Egypt, Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad b.ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī (1364–1442) devotes several chapters to Jewish historyand Judaism. After studying these chapters extensively with emphasison the author’s sources of inspiration, I identified several points thatstill need research attention. This article will address these points andilluminate several additional aspects regarding the nature of alMaqrīzī’s writing on the Jewish religion.

Abstract: In July 2011, an excavation was conducted in the southwestern part of the city of Yehud, c. 300 m north of Road 461, in an area known as Ashkenazi Market (Fig. 1). Several archaeological excavations have been undertaken nearby, revealing construction remains, installations and tombs from the Chalcolithic to the Ottoman periods. In the present excavation, 85 squares were opened, and remains from several periods (Plans 1–3) were discovered.The remains from the Chalcolithic period included two wide and deep shafts that contained pottery vessels and flint artifacts chracteristic of the Late Chalcolithic period (see Lupu, this volume; Fig. 2). Such shafts were previously documented in Yehud and Tel Aviv, and they were reused as refuse pits. So far, no settlement remains from the Chalcolithic period have been unearthed at Yehud. Based on the distribution of the pits and shafts at Yehud, it can be concluded that this area was the periphery of a large settlement, where waste dumping and possibly industrial activities were carried out.Finds from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, and from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, are scarce (Fig. 11). No architectural remains survived, and the ceramic assemblage is small. From the Early Roman period, pottery, glass and stone vessels were exposed, indicating activity at the site (Fig. 12; see Gorin-Rosen, this volume). The finds dating from the period between the two Jewish revolts and later in the second century CE reflect continuity, although no architectural remains could be attributed to this phase.In the Middle–Late Roman period (second–third centuries CE), an industrial area operated at the site, mainly for the production of pottery. Five pottery kilns were found in two areas (L633, L635, L725, L761, L771; Plan 3; Figs. 3–6), and another kiln was probably used in the metal industry (L808; Fig. 7). The pottery kilns are of the round type, with a central pillar from which arches emerge (Plan 2). The kilns produced household vessels, such as bowls, cooking pots, jugs and juglets (Figs. 12, 13). The remains of glass industry might point to the existence of a glass workshop at the site (see Gorin-Rosen, this volume). Between the pottery kilns were the remains of a structure that was probably related to the operation of the kilns, or for storage (Fig. 8). The fills in and above the structure included animal bones (see Agha, this volume).In the Byzantine period, the kilns were filled in, sealed and leveled with a plaster floor. Buildings that probably served as dwellings (Fig. 9) were exposed at the site, alongside pottery vessels (Figs. 14–16) and contemporary coins (studied by Donald T. Ariel), and refuse pits. Despite the poor preservation, overall planning is evident in the mostly east–west orientation of the architectural remains. Next to the Byzantine buildings were the scanty remains of an Early Islamic settlement, dated by the pottery finds (Fig. 17).The site was resettled in the Late Ottoman period. The remains included buildings, refuse pits and cesspits (Fig. 10) of the Arab village el-Yehudiya (Abbasia). Pottery (Fig. 18), pipes (studied by Lior Rauchberger; Fig. 19), metal objects and jewelry (Fig. 20), were found from this phase.

Abstract: In 2002–2005, salvage excavations were conducted at the site located in the central and southern parts of Moshav Kerem Maharal, on the southwestern slopes of the Carmel range (Fig. 1). From the Arab village Ijzim on the summit of the northern hill survived the remains of a two-story building (Sheikh’s house), which according to its style was built in the Ottoman period (probably the seventeenth century CE); it still incorporates some ancient architectural elements (Figs. 2–4).On the northern hill, two squares were excavated in each lot designated for construction (Areas A–E, H, I, K, L; Fig. 5; Table 1); in some areas the excavation reached the bedrock at a depth of 3.5 m below surface, cutting eight occupation layers. About 10% of the summit of the northern hill (15–20 dunams) was excavated. The excavations on the southern hill were conducted only in the lots and on the road connecting them (c. 35 dunams; Areas F1–23; Fig. 5), only where archaeological remains were detected in preliminary test trenches dug mechanically. In most of the area of the southern hill, bedrock was reached close to the surface (up to a depth of 0.5 m).The excavations revealed agricultural installations, quarries, rock-cuttings, cisterns, tombs, including a burial cave, and cup marks from 12 occupation layers (ten periods; Figs. 6–21; Plans 1–25; Appendix 1): Stratum XII, the Geometric Kebaran period (fourteenth–thirteenth millennia BP; see Marder, this volume); Strata XI–X, the Persian–early Hellenistic periods (sixth–fourth centuries BCE); Stratum IX, the Roman period (late first–early second century CE); Strata VIII–VII, the Byzantine period (fifth–seventh centuries CE); Stratum VI, the late Byzantine–beginning of the Early Islamic periods (seventh–eighth centuries CE); Stratum V, eleventh century CE; Stratum IV, twelfth–thirteenth centuries CE; Stratum III, the Mamluk period (late thirteenth–fifteenth centuries CE); Stratum II, the Ottoman and British Mandate periodS (until 1948); Stratum I, the modern era (after 1948). The pottery, glass and numismatic finds from these strata are discussed by Gendelman and Sai’d, this volume; Cytryn-Silverman, this volume; Katsnelson, this volume; and Kool, this volume. Additional periods are represented at the site by pottery alone: the Chalcolithic period, Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age II (tenth–seventh centuries BCE), the Hellenistic period (fourth–third centuries BCE; see Gendelman and Sa’id, this volume), and from the Early Islamic period (ninth–tenth centuries CE; see Cytryn-Silverman, this volume).The results of the excavations attest that Moshav Kerem Maharal is a multi-period site, occupied almost continuously from the Byzantine period to the modern era. During periods, there was also some activity to the north, east and west of the excavated areas. The Kerem Maharal site was an important rural site in Lower Carmel, and perhaps in the entire Carmel region during these periods.From the findings it can be deduced that in prehistoric and protohistoric times—the Geometric Kebaran and the Chalcolithic period—the site was located mainly on the southern hill, although similar cup marks were also discovered in the southern part of the northern hill. During the Persian period, and perhaps also at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the settlement extended over most of the eastern slope of the northern hill. The settlement from the Roman period was exposed in the same area, but it seems to have been limited, and it is possible that it was mostly licated in the center of the site (Areas B–H). During these periods, the settlement’s cemetery was located on the southern hill, possibly also on the hill to the east of the site.During the Byzantine period, the settlement reached its peak. The northern hill was densely inhabited and according to the architectural remains, it appears that at the top of the hill (Areas F and F2) stood a large public building. The southern hill served as an industrial area, which included winepresses (one of which was a complex winepress), quarries and other installations whose function was not clear. In the Early Islamic period, the settlement at the site diminished in size and its remains were found only on the eastern slope, north of Area H.During the Mamluk period, the site flourished once again, and it extended over the entire northern hill and in several locations on the southern hill. The construction quality in this period was poorer than that of the Byzantine period, apart from the large structure that stood on the hill summit.In the Late Ottoman period, and possibly even in its earlier stages, the settlement extended over both hills, where dwellings were built. The large extent of this settlement is further attested by the location of the cemetery (Area F23) in the middle of the settlement, indicating its expansion beyond its previous boundaries. The oil press in Area C attests to the cultivation of olives and the production of olive oil during the Ottoman period. The crushing basin was probably reused, perhaps from the Byzantine period; therefore, it is probable that this economic branch had also existed during this period.The settlement at the site was rural in nature. It seems that throughout the periods the residents engaged in agriculture, as can be seen from the vast agricultural installations that were exposed. The large number of winepresses indicates the extensive cultivation of vines and wine production. The agricultural activities continued into the sixteenth century CE and later. Based on the ceramic finds and the petrographic analyses, it seems that the inhabitants of the site maintained close ties mainly with their immediate surroundings.The excavations at Kerem Maharal were the first to reveal a large-scale multi-period site in the Carmel range, as opposed to other nearby sites, such as ‘Usfiyya and Daliyat el-Karmel, where only a few excavations were conducted in limited areas, and the remains were poorly preserved.