Based on our currently available information, it is the century or so prior to the Jewish Rebellion which marks the sanctuary’s initial expansion down the wadi slope to the level of what eventually evolved into the Lower Sanctuary terrace. It is also when the first stone and wood bridge was constructed in order to connect the lower grounds with the walled city and the agora zone north of the wadi bed. While this may have been preceded by some earlier form of spanning arrangement now lost, it provides us with the first recorded effort to unite the intramural urban core with a site whose deliberate isolation from the city had been, in an earlier age, one of its cardinal characteristics.49 Finally, this is also the first time that the Upper Sanctuary grounds take on the appearance of a semi-independent architectural climax through the device of the large colonnaded structure (S17) erected across its western half.
On a more prosaic level, the century and a quarter preceding the Jewish Rebellion saw a significant increase in the amount of space incorporated into the overall sanctuary domain. On the other hand, this should be tempered by the realization that the University of Pennsylvania team was unable to conduct any real excavation of the Lower Sanctuary grounds apart from a surface cleaning of its already visible, above-ground elements. We therefore cannot be sure what preceded these visible remains. Of equal, if not greater significance is that we were unable to explore the terraced grounds that lie immediately to the east and southeast of the Middle Sanctuary.50 This means, inter alia, that the eastern terraces, the monumental stairs, and the hilltop complex first discovered by Applebaum, grouped under the heading of “The Larger Setting” in the introductory volume to this series,51 could provide in the future a quite different developmental history than what is offered here.
In another vein, trends in votive presentation appear to remain fairly static throughout this period. The mass-produced votives of earlier years, whose gradual replacement by individualized and relatively more costly dedications was already a noticeable trend in the Hellenistic period,52 predictably fail to stage a return during the Imperial period. Instead, the tendency seems to have been to lean increasingly toward the dedication of large and expensive marble statues to the exclusion of much else. As was typical for the period, such dedications were more often than not intended to shed as much, if not more, honor on their donors as on the resident deities. The mass of locally produced cooking and eating wares that signaled the practice of ritual dining ceremonies during the 2nd and 1st century B.C. 53 finds no exact equivalent in the site’s relatively few specimens of 1st century A.D. imported plates, bowls, and cups. The locally manufactured coarse ware vessels used for preparing as well as perhaps serving food seem to continue, however, right on down to the end of the sanctuary’s active life. On the other hand, in the opening years of the Imperial phase the construction of a sprawling wall-enclosed dump (S18) to contain large numbers of bones, 2nd and 1st century B.C. dining wares, and pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic lamps should perhaps serve as a warning of how the discovery of a similar dump servicing the later period could alter significantly the currently proposed reconstruction.
Figure 1. Plan of the early Imperial sanctuary. Features in solid black represent post-Hellenistic and early Roman features.
The main alterations to already existing structures notably affected the main north or forward wall of the Middle Sanctuary, which received a new facing (Walls T10, T11, T12), and Sacred House S6, which underwent a major rebuilding across its northeast half.
Bridge foundations (S28) across the wadi and sections of retaining wall (T21, T22, T23) at the level of the wadi drain make up what is known of the new Lower Sanctuary. The Middle Sanctuary received the last in its series of independent sacred houses, here designated S8, as well as a poorly understood rectangular enclosure (S9) set between the two Sacred Houses (S6 and S5). A stepped entrance (G2) was inserted, apparently for the first time, into the western half of the forward wall of the Middle Sanctuary, linking the latter with the Lower Sanctuary grounds.
Additions to the Upper Sanctuary include a colonnaded chamber (S10) floored with a mosaic directly north of the F2 fountain house. Access from the lower level of the Middle Sanctuary to the Upper Sanctuary was provided by a doorway (G6) set directly north of a patch of poorly preserved mosaic that once served as part of the corridor’s pavement. A large colonnaded building of unidentified character known as the Southwest Building (S17) was added to the Upper Sanctuary’s western quarter. An open-air access corridor (S22) was run south of the rear peribolos wall of the Middle Sanctuary to give access to the Southwest Building. An extramural dump (S18) for discarded bones, pottery, and lamps was established west of the F2 fountain house, making use of the earlier S19 structure’s east wall.
Lower Sanctuary Additions
Terrace Walls T21, T22, and T23 (Pls. 2, 3) 54
Lining the south face of the wadi drain55 are sections of what was probably some kind of continuous ashlar masonry retaining wall system that established the forward edge of the Lower Sanctuary. Where possible to observe their outer faces, the sections seem to follow the alignment of the bedrock outcroppings that define the drain; they do not, in other words, collectively form a uniformly straight terrace similar to the massive bulwark that separates the Lower from the Middle Sanctuary. The lack of excavation along their line impedes any detailed understanding of how these sections were engineered to augment the face of the wadi drain. It seems probable that in places the wall was assembled on top of the drain’s lip; in other places, however, it rose as a supplementary barrier where the lip was interrupted by dips or natural crevices.
The most easterly section, T2l, runs for about 10 m. (Fig. 1) where up to seven predominantly low courses of headers and stretchers project from under the earth cover spilling over the forward edge of the Lower Sanctuary.56 These range in height from 0.15 to 0.25 m., with one ca. 0.65 m. high course topping the series. After a gap of ca. 6m., the line of T21 is continued west for another ca. 5.50 m. by Wall T22, which survives as three courses of mixed headers and stretchers averaging ca. 0.50 by 0.50 by 1.00 m.57 The difference in course heights between T21 and T22 may be a result of different building or repair phases. On the other hand, future excavation could indicate that, rather than representing disconnected parts of a single retaining wall system facing the forward edge of the Lower Sanctuary, T21 and T22 may have been part of the forward walls of separate, independent buildings.
Plate 2. The cleared sanctuary from the northeast at the end of 1979 season.
The same may be true of the third segment of wall which emerges from under the cover of earth strewn over the drain lip west of T22 after a gap of ca. 3 m. The least visible of the three, T23 appears to be made up of perhaps two courses of ashlars, supplemented by a single displaced limestone fluted column shaft fragment (Pl. 3). While its line has been merged with T22 for purposes of simplification on Fig. 1, it is drawn as a separate entity on the fold-out evidential reproduced at the back of volume V of this series.58 Bending away to the north from the line of T22 and T21, it is detectable for about 6.50 m. before breaking off at a point where Ghislanzoni’s pre-1915 excavation may have interrupted its line unintentionally.59 The unexpected appearance of a column shaft in its facing is presumably a sign of T23’s relative lateness within the development of the overall sanctuary, but without any corroborative evidence from excavation, both it and Walls T22 and T21 should be regarded as essentially undated.
Plate 3. Column reused in the face of wall T23.
Whether parts of a single retaining wall or simply the forward edges of independent structures, the three sections give a good indication of the overall spatial size