Ayelet Dayan, in her book, brings together a wide range of archaeological evidence from an often underrepresented region of Byzantine Palaestine. Based on her doctoral research, the study examines 108 sites with Christian remains in the northern Judaean Shephelah and western Samaria Hills, with a particular focus on identifying rural monasteries and distinguishing them from farms, villas, churches, and other settlement types.
The book has a clear methodological focus: the aim is not simply to catalogue sites but to develop criteria for identifying monasteries archaeologically, including churches or chapels, monks’ living quarters, refectories, infrastructure (water supplies and storage facilities), and traces of productive activity such as agriculture or quarrying. The collected evidence is an important starting point for future archaeological investigation, especially when inscriptions are absent.
Chapter 1 provides a short historical background with an architectural and functional discussion of monasticism. The author situates the rise of monasteries in the Byzantine Holy Land within broader phenomena such as pilgrimage, economic growth, and the expansion of rural settlements. She also outlines major forms of monastic life – anchoritic, lauritic, and coenobitic – and explains how these patterns shaped architectural layouts. This gives readers both the religious and material framework needed to follow the later site analyses.
Chapter 2 presents sites geographically – from Naḥal Ẓadera to Emmaus-Nicopolis. Entries blend salvage excavation data (e.g., Horvat Umm et-Tina’s Maltese-cross bowl and mosaic) with survey finds, illustrated by maps and photos (e.g., Baʿa’s monastery plan, Ḥafez Ḥayyim’s floors). This gazetteer-style detail makes it indispensable for fieldwork, although its density demands patience. The sections are rich in archaeological detail, and the author consistently weighs various interpretations rather than forcing every site into a monastic category, since the evidence often allows only tentative conclusions.
Chapters 3 and 4 include the final discussion. Here, Dayan argues that rural monasteries in the region were often integrated into broader settlement networks rather than isolated in the manner of desert monasticism. She also suggests that their distribution may reflect historical developments, road connections, and proximity to Christian communities. This broader frame structure makes this study relevant to wider debates about rural Christianity, settlement history, and the economy of Byzantine Palestine. Dayan classifies sites as central settlements, large/small farms, or probable monasteries, using distribution maps to reveal patterns: clustering near roads like Lydda-Jerusalem, and the integration with villages rather than isolation. She proposes several identification criteria (95–97) – beyond a chapel, needing communal/economic features – and applies them rigorously, e.g., identifying Khirbet es-Suyyagh (possibly Monastery of Samson) via reliquaries and hostels.
The book offers an adequate range of graphic documentation, including two maps and eleven figures, while its extensive bibliography further enhances its value for researchers. The author’s engagement with both earlier survey literature and more recent excavation reports is particularly commendable. For archaeologists, historians of Christianity, and scholars of the Byzantine Near East, the volume serves as a highly useful compendium of evidence. At the same time, the sheer quantity of material can render the argumentation somewhat dense, and readers unfamiliar with the region may find the extended sequence of site descriptions demanding. Non-specialists, in particular, may struggle with the abundance of toponyms; a glossary or an index map would have significantly improved accessibility.
It would also have been beneficial to include in the discussion a systematic comparative perspective, especially regarding the development of rural monasticism in neighboring regions (see, for example, D. J. Hull, The Archaeology of Monasticism: Landscape, Politics and Social Practice in Late Antique Syria, unpublished Ph.D. thesis [University of York 2006]; L. Blanke and J. Cromwell eds., Monastic Economies in Late Antique Egypt and Palestine [Cambridge University Press 2023]). In addition, certain interpretative caveats – such as the repeated emphasis on the scarcity of inscriptions – tend to recur without substantially advancing the analysis. Finally, the relatively limited treatment of the early Islamic period sits somewhat uneasily with the book’s stated chronological scope, leaving an important phase of regional transformation underexplored. Claims of monastery abandonment in the seventh century CE – due to deteriorating conditions for Christians under Muslim rule (104) – lack substantiation from evidence or supporting bibliography. Such assertions require caution, particularly given the contrasting evidence from other sites and adjacent regions (95). Overall, while the empirical richness of the work is undeniable, a tighter analytical framework and comparative integration would have further strengthened its contribution.
Overall, the book is much appreciated, offering a compelling model for how regional archaeological data can be mobilized to address broader historical questions. For scholars of Late Antiquity, it constitutes an essential resource, filling a significant gap in the study of the Shephelah beyond the traditional focus on the Judean Desert. It demonstrates convincingly how salvage excavation data can generate far-reaching insights, particularly with regard to the Byzantine economy, processes of Christianization, settlement patterns, and landscape transformation – arguments that will undoubtedly serve as a foundation for future holistic research on the region. Dayan’s work thus substantially enriches scholarship on the Holy Land, highlighting the decisive role of rural monasticism in the transformation of the region into a distinctly Christian sacred landscape. Moreover, the study encourages a reassessment of peripheral zones as active agents in historical change rather than passive recipients of metropolitan influence. In doing so, it opens new paths for integrating micro-regional evidence into wider interpretative frameworks.
