Beth Shemesh - Monastery (?)

Vertical tabs

Monastery name, type, category
Site Name: 
Beth Shemesh
Identification: 
Abel accepted Mackenzi’s identification of this structure as a monastery. He suggested identifying it with the monastery of Sampson mentioned by Moschus: Μοναστήριον εστιν απέχον απο Ίεροσολυμεν…έπιλεγόμενον Σαμψω (Jo. Mosch. Prat. 170) The monastery of Sampson, according to the Latin translation of Pratum (Migne, PG LXXXVII, 3035 D.), is located 20 km from Jerusalem, however, the direction is not given. This led Vailhé to suggest that the monastery of Sampson should be identified with Sapsas (in the Jordan Valley), based on the similarity of the name (Vailhé 1900: 278; 1932: 248).
Monastery name: 
Monastery (?)
Monastery type: 
Cenobium
Monastery category: 
Former fortress
Source of sacredness: 
Old Testament site
Location
Coordinates, ITM system: 
197,752.00
628,672.00
Coordinates, ICS system: 
147,748.00
128,671.00
Geographical region: 
Shephelah
Provincial affiliation: 
Palaestina I
Bishopric: 
Eleutheropolis
Topographical location: 
hill
Distance from nearest bishop-seat: 
18 km (Eleutheropolis)
Distance from Roman roads: 
Adjacent to the road connecting Emmaus/Necopolis with Beth Govrin/Eleutheropolis
Source of knowledge
Hide Archaeological remains
Surveyed site
Surveyors: 
NameDate
Guérin
1868-1869
Abel
1936
Dagan
1991
Excavated site
Excavators: 
NameDate
Mackenzi
1911
Discussion: 
Very little information was provided by Mackenzi who excavated the site. The only finds reported by him are presented here, no finds pointing to the existence of a church, or liturgical furniture etc., were presented as evidence to a monastic function of the structure. The only element identifying this complex as having a Christian context is the cross inscribed lintel, found in secondary use elsewhere. This lack of evidence is not surprising since, as Mackenezi proposed, it had been turned into a khan in the Early Islamic period and would most likely have been cleaned out. However, in the majority of ancient Byzantine sites that had been abandoned and reused for different functions, some evidence of its previous use has been found. This is particularly so at sites which were not settled in the modern age where remains disappeared under modern construction. Mackenzi reported no such finds in the structure itself or its vicinity that would indicate a monastic function. This casts no little doubt on Mackenzi’s identification of the structure as a monastery.
State of certainty: 
Uncertain / Questionable
General description
State of preservation/which parts were uncovered: 

The site was in a good state of preservation at the time of excavation. 

Illustrative material: 
Hide General description
Enclosing walls: 

The rectangular complex is surrounded by a wall. Measurements were not provided.

Courtyards: 

A central courtyard was surrounded by rooms.

Dwellings: 

The quadrangle is flanked on the east, south and west sides by long, spacious galleries which were arched above and are each entered from the courtyard through arched doorways. In places where the building is best preserved, the spring of the arch still shows. These galleries may have served as dormitories. The jambs of the doorways are towards the outside so they could be locked from within.

Water installations: 

A large, plastered reservoir was located on the north side of the courtyard. An inscribed cross was observed on one of the stones in the reservoir.

Hide Small finds
Detailed description
Hide Structure
Materials applied (walls): 
Limestone
Hide Components
Enclosing wall
Courtyard/s
Monastery church: 
Church typeDiakonikonLink to church sectionChurch location
No traces
Dwelling type: 
dormitory
Water installations: 
Cisterns
Inscribed crosses
Architectural evolution
General outline: 
No dating was provided by the excavator beyond a general reference to the Byzantine period. If this was indeed a monastery, it was most probably active in the sixth century, providing services for pilgrims.
Hide Phase date
Century: 
6th c.
Post Arab conquest history: 
Ceased to function
Post conquest history comments: 
Apparently the structure became a khan in the Islamic period, based on the troughs found in the southern gallery.