Monastic Archaeology in Syria (2): the 2004 season at Dayr

Mar Elian esh-Sharqi, Qaryatayn, Syria

Emma Loosley

(Department of Art History, University of Manchester)

Niall Finneran

(Department of Art History and Archaeology, SOAS, London)

David Knight

(Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton)

Introduction

This report presents the results of the 2004 excavation

season at the monastery of Dayr Mar Elian esh-Sharqi (St

Julian of the East), Qaryatayn, Syria (figure 1 ) which

took place from 9th August-3rd September 2004, and it

amplifies the interim findings presented in Loosley and

Finneran (2005). An explanation for the delay in the

appearance of this report is required; we had hoped to be

able to conduct extended excavation seasons in 2005 and

(possibly) 2006 in order to complete the initial brief of

the project as requested by the Syrian Catholic monastic

community of Mar Musa, Nabk, who are the custodians of

the site (figure 2). The community expressed a desire to

convert this monastery into a retreat centre; this

entailed the removal of the 1938 church and the

remodelling of extensive areas of the cloister (see

Loosley and Finneran 2005 for a fuller background). Owing

to the archaeological sensitivity of the site, a rescue

strategy was formulated focusing on the removal of as

much of the existing cloister overburden as possible with

the rapid recording of standing remains beneath.

It had been our plan to continue this work, but in

2005, after the completion of our initial excavations on

the site of the 1938 church in 2004 (which yielded

exceptionally encouraging results), the community

commenced construction of a new church (figures 3 a. and

b.), curtailing opportunities for further investigation

in this crucial area. Another more complex issue

presented itself in the fact that the site was divided

between the UK-Syrian team and a wholly Syrian team which

was sponsored and conducted through the offices of the

Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums in

Damascus. In terms of archaeological practice this was

not ideal; it was hard to standardise recording systems,

and the line of demarcation between the projects

effectively ran through the north-south axis of the

centre of the former church. Detailed planning of the

whole complex was difficult, and as such the findings

that we present here can at most be only piecemeal and

provisional. A full account of the archaeology of the

site will only appear when the current Syrian activities

are completed and integrated with our data. This is an

unsatisfactory state of affairs, but one which many

scholars who have engaged in work in the region will be

aware of. We therefore take this opportunity to present

our final findings of the project in the hope that a

fuller and more detailed account of the Syrian

proceedings will supersede and amplify our observations

presented herein.

In our 2003 season, excavations focused on the east

end of the 1938 church, excavation at the entrance of the

cloister and excavations at the western end of the church

building adjacent to the sarcophagus of Mar Elian esh-

Sharqi, an object which is the object of veneration and

pilgrimage among local Syrian Orthodox and Catholic

communities and also local Muslim peoples. In 2004 the

western portion of the church excavation fell under the

aegis of the Syrian group (unit 1a); in this area our

work in 2003 had uncovered what we believed to be

ancillary and domestic buildings (complete with a water

conduit system) which probably dated to the 19th century

(figure 4). Oral history reports collected by E.L. from

local bedu confirmed the presence of mud-brick buildings

here as late as the 1940s. Actually some residents lived

in the E end of the cloister in the range of mud-brick

chambers attached to the tower until termite damage

destroyed them in the 1980’s The mud-brick footings were

retained for preservation (covered in the interim by

burlap sacking) in the hope that they would add to the

‘biography’ of the site, but they have since been

removed. Initially in 2004 both teams worked in this area

to undertake essential cutting back of the standing

northern cloister wall owing to obvious safety concerns;

in addition we were able to undertake an assessment of

the now exposed sarcophagus which had sunk back under its

own weight into the northern wall of the church (figures

5a and b). Steps were taken, in consultation with the

local community, to brace and jack the tomb back to a

safer and more solid position whilst under the direction

of the archaeological team (figure 6). During this period

an opportunity was taken to examine the sarcophagus in

greater detail than had been hitherto attempted (now in

strong sunlight); many pilgrims’ inscriptions in Syriac,

Arabic and (rarely) Greek came to light. Special

attention attaches to a carved hexagram which was

uncovered on the top of the structure from beneath a

thick layer of modern render. A survey of the tomb and

its contents is currently being undertaken (as I write!)

under the aegis of IFPO, who have received a dispensation

to open the tomb.

The alleged sarcophagus of Mar Elian, the symbolic

and physical centre of the community, may not have always

been in the present position, although it is noteworthy

that it stands in the north-western corner of the church

building (for the relative positions of relics within

churches of the west Syrian and east Syrian traditions

see J-F Fiey 1959, plate II schematic plan of ‘église

Chaldéo-Nestorienne’ cf. pl. III schematic plan of ‘église Syro-

Jacobite’). The sarcophagus is an eminently portable

artefact and it is possible that it could have been

removed from either another locality or even another

ideological context. A similar structure (albeit slightly

larger, of marble rather than calcite, better quality and

with slightly different carved cross decoration) may be

observed in the Melkite church of Mar Elian (not the same

saint) in Homs (figure 7a). Frescoes in the church show

the sealing of the tomb (figure 7b). A small reliquary in

the shape of the sarcophagus was also discovered during

excavations in 2004 near the north wall of the east end

of the church (this artefact is described below) and we

might therefore assume that we are dealing with some form

of structured deposition.

Excavation and stratigraphy

In 2004 the UK team excavated the eastern end of the

church (unit 1b) and also at the entrance where two units

either side of the entrance (extending 2003 test pit unit

7; 2004 units 2 (west) and 3 (east); figure 8). Single

context recording was used, but with discrimination. In a

rapid exercise of overburden removal, the make up of the

cloister floor appeared to be relatively homogenous. This

was borne out by the study of the associated pottery

(overwhelmingly glazed and non-glazed wares of Mamluk

date). It must be assumed that the filling and levelling

of the cloister to its present level occurred during the

medieval period and was linked to a contraction of the

monastic community or to an attempted rebuilding and

remodelling which was never accomplished. Actually have

evidence that this levelling was 20th C – the locals

brought in a tractor in the 1980’s – we haven’t got

anywhere near medieval stuff yet! This contention is

discussed more fully in relation to the material from

unit 1b (below). In the upper levels of these units the

deposits were clearly mixed and represented a number of

episodes of floor-make up and truncation of architectural

features below. This exercise was devoted to the

recognition of the extent of architectural features; no

clear archaeological contexts were recognised or

attained, but the general phasing of the architectural

remains at this end of the church has been elucidated. It

need not be emphasised that in the absence of secure

contexts, and the presence of so much residual pottery,

any chronological statement about these standing remains

may be made, but it is clear that all remains in this

area pre-date the 1938 church construction and a case may

be made for attributing certain structural features to

the previous church which may be of late 18th century or

early 19th century date. It is the wish of the community

of Mar Musa that the basic structural elements of the

church be retained as a basis for construction of a new

building at the western end of the former church around

the tomb of Mar Elian.

In 2004 excavations on unit one were extended to

form an open area (the excavations were not backfilled in

2003, but on the advice of the team covered with a wooden

frame and tarpaulin/burlap). The following sequence may

be defined (see figure 9)

Phase one: construction of east-west running wall (2185)

with north-south return (2187). This structure is

approximately seven degrees off the alignment of other

observed structures. The possible pier projection (2197)

and wall (2198), which may originally have continued

north beyond the present monastic northern cloister wall

(2131) may describe the traces of the continuation of

2187.

Phase two: construction of east-west running wall (2143)

and associated piers (2152; 2199) with an intact eastern

arch feature (2172) and a western, truncated arch feature

(2153; figure 10). To the east two more piers (2200;

2005) were also visible, and another pier (2201) is

probably related to this structure. The alignment of the

south wall of the church (2176) probably preserves the

alignment of 2143.

Phase three: blocking of arches 2172 and 2153 by deposit

2206 containing several sherds of residual unglazed

pottery.

Phase four: rebuilding of east-west running wall 2176 to

present height truncating arch feature 2153 and

substantial western portions of wall 2143.

Phase five: addition of pier 2203 abutting pier 2152 to

the north. This pier does not respect the opening of the

truncated westerly arch in the E/W wall (2143) of Phase

two. Construction of north-south running wall (2144)

immediately abutting east-west wall (2176), creating the

south-eastern corner of what became the modern church

(figure 11). The original width of wall 2144 is 1.65

meters, and is substantially thicker than the walls of

previous phases in this unit. Wall 2130 was observed to

be the northern return of wall 2144, describing a north-

eastern corner that seems to exclude wall 2150. Wall 2144

may well be a rebuild and re-alignment upon phase one

wall 2187 and incorporating the pier projection 2197.

Phase six: widespread raising of floor-level within the

area bounded by the piers-arch features using large mud-

brick slabs (2182). Possible stone footings for this mud-

brick resurfacing phase were visible to a depth 2.20

meters beneath datum immediately west of pier 2200.

Phase seven: extensive mud-brick facing (2145) of wall

2144 to the east (obscuring 2197), returning east-west in

the north between wall 2145, piers (2005 and 2201)

obscuring wall 2198 and returning north-south in the

east. This mud-brick facing strongly suggests that this

area associated with the arch structures has changed

function and enclosed as a discrete space. This mud-brick

facing (2145) rests upon some of the large mud-brick

slabs represented in the raising of the floor level in

phase five.

Phase eight: two niches (2204; 2205) in the mud-brick

either side of pier 2201 cut into the mud-brick of phase

six, both capped by stone slabs.

Phase nine: infill of area levelling to present ground

surface (2051; 2052). This infill contains two phases but

all are assumed to be 16th century at the earliest.

Phase ten: stone niche (context 2207; dimensions 70 x 110

x 80 cms) carved out of wall 2144 on its west face. Wall

2144 also heightened in stone to present level to the

east of stone niche and mud-brick capping added north and

south of the niche. This is presumed to be the east end

of the Christian church, this phase is probably

associated with 16th century developments of “expansion”

at Dayr Mar Elian although is here represented by

structural “contraction” whereby the area bounded by the

arches to the east becomes exterior to the mediaeval

church. It is only 18th-19thC!

Phase eleven: subsequent multiple interior floor levels

(2173-2179-2180) within the church except for a narrow

space (2208) running east-west to the niche 2206.

Phase twelve: deposition in 2207 of liturgical glassware,

sea-sponges, two small reliquaries (see below) both in

the shape of a sarcophagus, and loose earth. Associated

with this Phase is 19th and 20th century occupation as

observed at the western end of unit 1a.

Phase thirteen: 1938 N/S wall (2128) built within the

church. Subsequent floor levels (2129).

Excavation in units 2 (extended 2003 test pit number

7, west of the entrance) and 3 (east of the entrance)

were designed to assess the hypothesis that the present

door to the cloister retains the memory of an earlier

major wall alignment. This has proved to be the case;

again the excavation exercise focused upon the removal of

overburden and floor make up (non-archaeological

contexts) to expose standing remains and architectural

features. In unit two the following archaeological

sequence may be defined (figure 12).

Phase one: construction of a massive extensive wall

(2139) with several extant courses of mud-brick resting

upon stone footings (2105/2189) (figure 13). The

alignment of this wall is true with the inner monastic

portal but misaligned by approximately seven degrees to

the northwest (c.f. unit one walls 2185/ 2187) with the

wider outer monastic portal and its associated presently

standing monastic wall (figure 14).

Phase two: construction of a series of stone walled rooms

(2190; 2191; 2193) and earthen floor (2192) spurring

north and perpendicular to wall (2139), with addition of

arch feature (collapsed) 2171.

Phase three: infilling (deposit 2140) including a horizon

of schist (2158). Subsequent infilling (2141; 2101) to

raise levels of cloister area to present ground surface.

Collapse and displacement of arch 2171.

Unit three was opened up at the eastern side of the

entrance. Excavation here defined the following sequence

(figures 15; 16).

Phase one: stone footings (2166) extension of wall (2139)

east of inner portal.

Phase two: mud-brick superstructure of wall 2139

extracted.

Phase three: construction of stone wall (2160) extending

north from and perpendicular to present monastic wall.

Wall (2160) sits directly on wall (2166).

Phase four: mud-brick facing (2161) to wall (2160) with

associated swept earthen floor (2181).

Phase five: addition of shaped stone step with three

notches presumably to receive door hinge and locking

mechanisms (2167). This step leads from the “porch”

immediately inside the portal down into an enclosure

partly delineated by wall (2160). Swept earthen floor

east of wall (2160) cut by sub-round storage container

pit with swept earthen base (cut 2162; fill 2163),

sharing the south-western corner formed by wall (2160)

and present monastic wall. Possible storage container pit

(cut 2168; fill 2169) with swept earthen base (2170) cut

into floor west of wall (2160) and immediately north of

shaped step.

Phase six: upon the earthen floor (2181) west of wall

(2160) a stack of un-bonded stones (2165) may represent

the foundation base for a freestanding ornamental alcove

as the stones generally describe a short right angle with

the open side facing the shaped step.

Phase seven: subsequent floors (2146) over initial floor

west of wall (2160) and between this wall and the stacked

stones (2165) of phase five.

Phase eight: infill including a horizon of schist (2158).

Subsequent infilling to raise levels of “cloister area”

to present ground surface.

The overall developmental sequence of the site is

assessed below.

Small finds

Within the Syrian section of excavations, all pottery was

washed and bagged using a separate recording system.

Within the UK sections a judgmental quantification was

utilised on the basis of the nature of the deposit

encountered. No archaeological deposit sensu stricto was

reached in the 2004 season. Using data derived from

stratigraphic sampling under the direction of Finneran in

2003, it was decided to bag all plain (coarse) and hence

undiagnostic sherds without further analysis this season;

these sherds are bagged by context and boxed in the

store. A few observations about this material may be made

at this juncture. In many cases the finds were fresh and

unabraded; sizes of vessels varied greatly; decorative

attributes were few and defined to geometric or linear

schemes; where present (rarely) handles rims and bases

exhibited a fair degree of homogeneity; fabric appeared

to be consistent in terms of colouration, inclusions and

general paste although a few elements exhibited cross

sections consistent with poor firing. It must be assumed

that these sherds are of Ottoman or Mamluk provenance

(tentatively some Roman Samian was noted; this again is

undoubtedly residual). The vast majority of the ceramics

were found in unsecure archaeological contexts, and

cannot be used to date with any confidence any

architectural feature. By and large the make up of the

corpus of plain wares are reflected in material found in

field-walking exercises around the monastery; this is

material of tertiary deposition (presumably from the

secondary midden context).

Small finds were catalogued and stored separately;

for the purposes of the 2004 excavations, and again

reflecting the nature of the integrity of deposits

excavated, these were limited to ‘special’ finds for

further cataloguing, description, drawing and photography

(these includes inter alia metalwork, organics and glass) and

a number of distinct glazed wares (hence diagnostic)

which were studied by Dr Rob Mason in August 2004. With

few exceptions these represent fragments of cleanly-

broken, lightly abraded Mamluk pottery. Plaster fragments

were removed from the interior walls of the church; they

were too degraded to indicate whether they had been

decorated and thus formed a portion of fresco, but in

some very rare cases some form of pigment appeared to be

discernable. Special attention attaches to the discovery

of fragments of what appears to be a Mamluk-period

ampoulla (flask) from floor make up (2028) at the western

end of the church building (small find no. 67; see figure

17) which may be evidence for the transportation of holy

oil or water by visiting pilgrims. Excavation in the

floor make up 2179 and the void to the north (2208) yield

a variety of liturgical furniture including fine green

glass from a goblet (SF 80), an incised tablet (SF 81),

the base and lid of a reliquary in the general shape of

the sarcophagus (SF 82-3; see figure 18). Note holes in

the top to allow pouring in of holy oil), bronze bells

(SF 86; 90) and sponge (SF 89). The discovery of what

appears to be an infant or neonatal proximal humerus

fragment from this context represents the only evidence

for human remains from the site (although it is

inconceivable that burials ad sanctos, especially of high-

ranking members of the community did not take place in

the vicinity of the shrine).

Discussion

The table below proposes an outline scheme and

intercomparison for the phasing of the material from

excavations in units 1-3. In the absence of diagnostic

associated chronological material in primary context (the

excavations which would have yielded this information

were planned for 2005 and 2006) dating is difficult, but

a relative chronology can be proposed. The earliest

recognised phase is represented by walls in the south of

the cloister (2139-2105-2189) and in the north (2185-

2187). These walls are aligned along the axis preserved

in the alignment of the portal over the entrance, i.e.

approximately seven degrees more northwards than the

other extant standing and archaeological walls. The

complex was then remodelled and re-oriented with the

addition of internal structures along the southern wall

and the construction of a series of arched walls in the

north-eastern portion of the complex. The next main phase

of construction sees the blocking of these arches and the

infilling of the ancillary room constructed perpendicular

to the southern wall; the blocking material of the arches

is associated (in primary context) with undecorated,

unglazed pottery.

This is followed by the construction of the eastern

wall of the future church (2144) which truncated this

wall, but clearly preserves its alignment, and more

construction of ancillary rooms along the southern wall.

We then recognise another period of wall construction

along the eastern edge of the church building and the

construction of a porch/gatehouse complex at the eastern

edge of the entrance way complete with threshold and

storage pits. The remaining phases see the raising of the

floor level within the cloister, and the reorganisation

of the area outside the east end of the church. This

portion of the site became in later times the main

rubbish dump for the community as evidenced by finds of

disarticulated bones of sheep, chicken and (in one case)

camel. Attention now switches to the interior of the

church, where a stone niche is carved into the eastern

wall. To the north a small, narrow area between the floor

layers yielded finds of liturgical furniture.

Overview of proposed phasing of units 1b, 2, and 3

Unit 1b Unit 2 Unit 31 1 1  2  2   23   34   45   56   67   7

8 3 89 (16thcentury?)    10    11    12    13    

In broad terms it is clear that this site has

physically undergone extensive transformation over a long

period of time. It is possible that the structure was not

initially constructed as a Christian monastery, and may

represent a reused structure which dates from an earlier

period. The antiquity of human settlement in the vicinity

is attested by the presence of Palaeolithic material

along the river margins, a proto-historic tell site at

Qaryatayn, Roman architectural spolia found in the fields

by the monastery and the presence of extensive Roman

irrigation works (qanaat) in the near neighbourhood

(Qaryatayn itself is situated upon a limes). Somehwere

adjacent to the western cloister wall is an historically

attested sweet water spring (the current monastic supply

is provided by a sulphuric artesian source); this would

suggest that the locality of the site had at once a very

strong practical and symbolic meaning in an arid and

unforgiving environment.

We might make a few observations about the

architectural character of the site as a Christian

monastery. The church building uncovered beneath the

foundations of the 1938 church probably retains the

general alignment and dimensions of an earlier

ecclesiastical structure (or structures; figure 19). As

both a monastic church and a pilgrimage shrine it had a

very special ecclesiastical function. A parochial

function is not wholly suggested by the architecture; no

evidence for a baptistery has been uncovered although it

appears in the southern wall of the church (falling into

the Syrian concession) two blocked doorways may be

observed which conform to the general practice of

entrance for males (to the east) and females (to the

south). Small-scale storage facilities may be observed in

the ancillary structures by the cloister entrance,

although evidence of differential usage areas within the

cloister (refectory-kitchens-cells) and evidence for the

relationship of the monastic unit to its agricultural

landscape—the essential cornerstone of the cenobitic

monastic economy in any geographical area—remains

unclear. Likewise there is as yet on evidence for an

associated eremitic monastic landscape in the vicinity

(cf. Mar Musa al Habashi, Nabk).

The place of this monastic site within the wider

canon of the archaeology of monasticism in the Christian

east remains frustratingly vague. The availability of

local building materials and the situation of the

monastery itself in the arid desert suggests that this

complex cannot be compared with the monastic

establishments of the limestone massif northern Syria as

perhaps best represented by the monastic-pilgrimage

complex of Qalat Siman or the vast monastic city of Deir

Tel Ada, or the complexes at Breij and Sergible inter alia.

Actually the best comparison is with Tell Tuneinir,

another mud-brick monastery but in NE Syria. Excavated by

a team from St Louis, Missouri, a lot of their data is

available on a website Likewise the complex has little in

common (both in terms of scale and layout) with the

developed, complex cenobitic establishments of Byzantine

Judaea, or those of the Wadi Natrun in lower Egypt and

the Red Sea monasteries. Perhaps this monastery looks

more towards the east, away from the Syro-Palestinian,

Egyptian, Byzantine monastic worlds towards the

establishments of the east Syrian Church.

At the time of writing a new church has been

constructed on the site and extensive excavations

undertaken by the Syrian team continue within the

cloister. The relationship of the material found in these

units with that described here is beyond the scope of

this paper. We can at least be satisfied, however, that

we have probably identified the earliest phases of the

whole complex. Given the nature of deposition in

desertfied, aeolian environments, it is unlikely that

that there is any further depth of archaeological deposit

beneath the foundation of the present cloister wall which

in its varied incarnations has acted as an aid to the

formation of a tell site which otherwise might not have

survived. This is borne out by observations in the fields

outside the cloister which are now under cultivation and

where deposition is thin. The full biography of this

fascinating site will only be written through the efforts

of our Syrian colleagues, but in the final reckoning,

although as archaeologists we may bemoan the loss of an

opportunity to reveal for the first time using modern

archaeological approaches the evolution of what is

undoubtedly a very significant complex replete with

symbolic meaning, we must be attuned to the needs and

desires of the local community who see the monastery of

Deir Mar Elian esh-Sharqi as a vital part of the fabric

of their daily lives.

Acknowledgements

The general director of the project was Dr Emma Loosley.

Archaeological excavation was directed by Dr Niall

Finneran; David Knight acted as excavation supervisor.

Funding was provided by the Society of Antiquaries of

London and an internal research grant awarded to Dr

Finneran by the School of Humanities, University of

Southampton. We would also like to thank Dr Rob Mason,

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto for his comments on the

pottery and Ms Wouroud Ibrahim (who supervised the

parallel excavations for the Directorate General of

Antiquities and Museums, Damascus), Dr Michel Al-

Maqdissi, Director of Excavations, Toby Elgood and our

large and dedicated team of excavators. We would also

like to acknowledge the support of Abuna Jacques Mourad

of the Syrian Catholic Church, Qaryatayn and Abuna Paolo

Dell’Oglio, of Mar Musa al-Habashi, Nabk.

Bibliography

Fiey, J-F (1959) Mossoul Chrétienne: essai sur l’Histoire, l’Archéologie

et l’étatactuel des monuments Chrétiens de la ville de Mossoul. Beirut:

Imprimerie Catholique.

Loosley, E. and N. Finneran (2005). ‘Monastic archaeology

in Syria: Excavations at the monastery of Mar Elian esh-

Sharqi, Qaryatayn, Syria, 2001-2003: an interim report’.

Levant 37: 48-56.

Captions for Figures

(all drawings and photographs by N. Finneran unless

otherwise stated)

Figure 1: Location of the site in relation to major

Christian centres of the northern Levant.

Figure 2: Members of the Mar Musari visiting excavations

in 2004.

Figures 3 a. and b. Before and after. Figure 3a: looking

eastwards through the axis of the church after excavation

in 2004. The area to the east of the sarcophagus was

filled to form the floor of the 1938 church. The tomb

area itself was this at a lower level than the rest of

the church. Figure 3b: a photograph taken from a lower

level and slightly to the south than 3a shows the new

church structure (E. Loosley).

Figure 4. Plan of the ancillary mud-brick structures

uncovered at the south-west of the 1938 church in 2003.

Figure 5a. View (from the west) of the top of the

sarcophagus. Scale is 2 metres.

Figure 5b. The eastern end of the sarcophagus showing its

depression into the northern wall of the church (scale is

30 centimetres).

Figure 6. Having braced the sarcophagus, we now prepare

to jack it into a safer and more upright position.

Figures 7a; 7b. The tomb of Mar Elian, Homs.

Figure 8. Plan of excavation units 2003-2004.

Figure 9. Unit 1b plan.

Figure 10. Arch feature/wall (2143-2152-2153) from the

north. Note possible alignment with entrance way

(background). Scale is 2 metres.

Figure 11. East wall of church (2144) from the east; note

how the southern wall (2176) butts wall 2144. Scale is 2

metres.

Figure 12. Plan of unit 2.

Figure 13. South facing elevation of mud-brick wall 2139

with footings (2105; 2189). Note quality of construction.

Scale is 2 metres.

Figure 14. Looking east along the top of unit two prior

to excavation. Note how wall 2139 aligns with the pitched

‘porch’ structure over the entrance, which itself is

misaligned with the extant southern cloister wall to the

right of picture.

Figure 15. Plan of unit 3.

Figure 16. Unit 3, looking east showing main features.

Figure 17. Portion of flask dating from the Mamluk

period. Scale in centimetres.

Figure 18. Top of a reliquary showing holes through which

oil could be introduced. Scale in centimetres.

Figure 19. General site view from the top of the south-

eastern tower at the end of excavations in 2004 showing

church site and northern cloister wall.