Excavations in the City of David, Jerusalem (1995-2010) 9781646021765

Citation preview

EXCAVATIONS IN THE CITY OF DAVID, JERUSALEM (1995–2010)

Ancient Jerusalem Publications (AJP) Series I Series Editor: Efrat Bocher Managing Editor: Myrna Pollak Volume Editor: Joe Uziel Associate Editor: Anat Mendel-Geberovich Graphic Design, Cover Design: Alina Yoffe-Pikovsky Color Photographs of the Modern City of David: Shai Halevi Maps: Yoav Tzionit

Academic Committee:

Israel Finkelstein, Tel Aviv University, Chair Andrea Berlin, Boston University Yuval Gadot, Tel Aviv University Joe Uziel, Israel Antiquities Authority Zvi Greenhut, Israel Antiquities Authority

EXCAVATIONS IN THE CITY OF DAVID, JERUSALEM (1995–2010) Areas A, J, F, H, D and L Final Report

RONNY REICH

and

ELI SHUKRON

ANCIENT JERUSALEM PUBLICATIONS I

Contributions by

N. Amitai-Preiss, D.T. Ariel, G. Bar-Oz, E. Bocher, R. Bouchnick, B. Brandl, A. Cohen-Weinberger, B.J. Dolinka, G. Finkielsztejn, S. Levavi-Eilat, T. Lieberman, A. Mendel-Geberovich, H. Roth, Y. Weingarten, T. Winter, B. Yuzefovsky EISENBRAUNS University Park, Pennsylvania ANCIENT JERUSALEM PUBLICATIONS Jerusalem ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY PUBLICATIONS Jerusalem

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Reich, Ronny, editor. | Shukron, Eli, editor. Title: Excavations in the City of David, Jerusalem (1995–2010) : areas A, J, F, H, D and L : final report / [edited by] Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron. Other titles: Ancient Jerusalem publications series ; 1. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns ; Jerusalem : Ancient Jerusalem Publications ; Israel Antiquities Authority Publications, [2021] | Series: Ancient Jerusalem publications (AJP) series ; I | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A report of archaeological excavations at the City of David, the southeastern hill of second- and first-millennium BCE Jerusalem, conducted under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021017170 | ISBN 9781646021642 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Excavations (Archaeology)—Jerusalem. | Pottery, Ancient—Jerusalem. | ʻIr Daṿid (Jerusalem)—Antiquities. | Jerusalem—Antiquities. Classification: LCC DS109.8.C54 E93 2021 | DDC 933/.442—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021017170 Copyright © 2021 Ancient Jerusalem Research Center All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48–1992. ISBN 978-1-64602-164-2 © 2021 Ancient Jerusalem Research Center All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form without permission from the publisher.

This book and the research that it represents could not have been accomplished were it not for the generous support of the Shvidler Family. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Eugene Shvidler and his entire family for their vision, generosity, and partnership in what has become our common effort and our mutual goal.

The Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem was established in coordination with the Jerusalem Region of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Ir David Foundation (El’ad), which is dedicated to the excavation, preservation, examination and scientific publication of the discoveries in the City of David and the landscape of Ancient Jerusalem. The Ancient Jerusalem Publication Series was made possible through the generosity of the Ir David Foundation.

vi

AAAA

CONTENTS PREFACE

THE ANCIENT JERUSALEM PUBLICATIONS SERIES Yuval Baruch

xii

PART I: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN Ronny Reich

3

CHAPTER 2

EXCAVATIONS IN THE CITY OF DAVID Ronny Reich

21

CHAPTER 3

EXCAVATION, ANALYSIS AND PUBLICATION METHODOLOGY Ronny Reich, Efrat Bocher, Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Eli Shukron

65

PART II: AREA A CHAPTER 4

AREA A, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

83

CHAPTER 5

AREA A, POTTERY FROM THE IRON AGE AND PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC PERIODS Efrat Bocher

115

CHAPTER 6

AREA A, THE EARLY ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

135

CHAPTER 7

AREA A, THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

161

AREA A, INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS

165

PART III: AREA J CHAPTER 8

AREA J, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

171

CHAPTER 9

AREA J, THE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Helena Roth

215

CHAPTER 10

AREA J, THE IRON AGE POTTERY Efrat Bocher

224

CHAPTER 11

AREA J, THE EARLY ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

240

CHAPTER 12

AREA J, THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

252

AREA J, INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS

257

PART IV: AREA F CHAPTER 13

AREA F, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

267

CHAPTER 14

AREA F, THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Helena Roth

365

CHAPTER 15

AREA F, THE IRON AGE POTTERY Efrat Bocher

366

CHAPTER 16

AREA F, THE ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

375

AREA F, INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS

380

PART V: AREA H CHAPTER 17

AREA H, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

385

CHAPTER 18

AREA H, THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY 401 Helena Roth

CHAPTER 19

AREA H, THE IRON AGE POTTERY Efrat Bocher

403

CHAPTER 20

AREA H, THE ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

410

CHAPTER 21

AREA H, THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY Benjamin J. Dolinka

424

CHAPTER 22

AREA H, THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

438

AREA H: INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS

440

PART VI: AREA D CHAPTER 23

AREA D, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

445

CHAPTER 24

AREA D, THE LATE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY 453 Tehillah Lieberman

CHAPTER 25

AREA D, THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

457

AREA D: INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS

460

PART VII: AREA L CHAPTER 26

AREA L, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich, Guy Bar-Oz and Eli Shukron

463

CHAPTER 27

AREA L, THE ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

474

CHAPTER 28

AREA L, THE FAUNAL REMAINS Ram Bouchnick, Guy Bar-Oz and Ronny Reich

482

PART VIII: THE FINDS CHAPTER 29

TWO LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SCARAB IMPRESSIONS Baruch Brandl and Anat Cohen-Weinberger

493

CHAPTER 30

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS Sara Levavi-Eilat

500

CHAPTER 31

IRON AGE STAMPED AND INCISED JAR HANDLES Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Efrat Bocher

511

CHAPTER 32

LION STAMP IMPRESSIONS Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Efrat Bocher

519

CHAPTER 33

YEHUD STAMPED IMPRESSIONS Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Efrat Bocher

523

CHAPTER 34

YRŠLM STAMP IMPRESSION Efrat Bocher and Anat Mendel-Geberovich

527

CHAPTER 35

STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLES Donald T. Ariel

529

CHAPTER 36

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS Anat Mendel-Geberovich

563

CHAPTER 37

A STAMPED HANDLE WITH AN ARABIC INSCRIPTION Nitzan Amitai-Preiss

574

CHAPTER 38

ROOF TILES Ronny Reich

576

CHAPTER 39

A GREEK INSCRIPTION Ronny Reich

578

CHAPTER 40

STONE SCALE WEIGHTS Ronny Reich

580

CHAPTER 41

LATE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD STONE VESSELS Ronny Reich

584

CHAPTER 42

THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGE Yoav Weingarten

602

CHAPTER 43

SUNDIAL Ronny Reich

626

CHAPTER 44

METAL SCALE WEIGHTS AND WEIGHT-LIKE OBJECTS Gérald Finkielsztejn

629

CHAPTER 45

METAL FINDS Baruch Yuzefovsky

636

CHAPTER 46

THE GLASS FINDS Tamar Winter

647

CHAPTER 47

VARIA Ronny Reich

656

PART IX: SYNTHESIS AND SUMMARY CHAPTER 48

SYNTHESIS AND SUMMARY Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

663

AAA

xi

xi

PREFACE

THE ANCIENT JERUSALEM PUBLICATIONS SERIES The City of David, the Gihon Spring, the Ophel, Mount Zion, the Valley of Ben Hinnom, the Kidron Valley are all located south and east of the Old City of Jerusalem. They are all cast in the shadows of the Temple Mount, all are engulfed in millennia of history and religion, and all are nestled in the city’s most beautiful, breathtaking and dramatic landscape. It is here in this area that the city of Jerusalem was born. Here, towards the bottom of the Old City and near the Gihon Spring, the city’s only source of water and hence its raison d’être, that the ancient city grew, where a Canaanite culture that worshipped the god Shalem flourished and gave the city its name, Urušalim, which it bears to this day. It is here that David established his capital, and Solomon, his son and successor, built his Temple, in the light of which the Hebrew Bible was composed and the city burgeoned and in the shadow of which it fell into ruins. And it is here too where each successive period etched its own unique character and contribution. New cities grew from the ashes of the old, with each stratum adding its own characteristics. But the urban and architectural connection between the area south of the Temple Mount and the sacred compound on the eastern hill endured. For the past 160 years, archaeological excavations have been carried out all over this city on a massive scale, both in terms of personnel and duration of work. The impressive scale of this research activity has led to numerous discoveries that have enabled archaeologists and historians to take a clear, critical look at the culture of the ancient city, its physical and urban features, and its settlement strata. Most of these excavations were carried out on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA); two were conducted as part of a joint archaeological research project of the IAA and Tel Aviv University, with scholars from leading research institutes and disciplines in Israel and abroad taking part. While articles on these excavations have been published, they have been published in an unsystematic manner. While a few comprehensive reports on IAA excavations have appeared in distinguished academic journals, a large gap has developed: the fieldwork and preliminary academic research are extensive, but the level and quality of the final publications of those excavations are very limited. Until now there has been no organized, peer-reviewed forum for the publication of research on these excavations. The Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem and its publications division, The Ancient Jerusalem Publication Series, were created in order to rectify this situation. The Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem is the IAA’s auxiliary research branch for the advancement of excavations and research currently being conducted in ancient Jerusalem. It was established by the Jerusalem Region of the IAA, in consultation with Amutat EL-AD, which runs the City of David and other ancient Jerusalem sites. The Center was founded in 2018 as a focal point for the study of and in-depth research on the archaeology and history of ancient Jerusalem. Its aim is to create research infrastructure for archaeological excavations, to cultivate knowledge, and to present this knowledge to the academic community and the general public. The Center promotes the academic publication of excavations pertaining to ancient Jerusalem, as well as peer-reviewed publications of other works on various topics and of catalogs; grant stipends and awards to scholars for the purpose of furthering

xiii

archaeological research related to ancient Jerusalem; it also organizes workshops, seminars and local and international conferences. It was only natural for the academic committee of the publication series to choose to begin publication with the results of excavations and research studies conducted by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron at several areas in the City of David. These excavations augured a new era of largescale archaeological research that began in 1995 as a modest tourism development project at archaeological sites in connection with Jerusalem’s 3000th anniversary celebrations the following year. The project is still underway. The publication of this volume by the IAA and the Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem would not have been possible without the dedication and talents of the editorial staff of the series under the leadership of Efrat Bocher, the series editor; Dr. Joe Uziel, editor; and Myrna Pollak, managing editor; as well as Dr. Anat Mendel-Geberovich, associate editor; Alina Yoffe-Pikovsky, graphics editor; Hanania Rothner, proofreader. The manuscript was critically reviewed, beginning to end, by Dr. Yiftah Shalev and Dr. Danny Syon; Debora Sandhaus and Dr. Liora Freud reviewed the chapters on the finds. It is my pleasure and duty to thank all those who helped me to successfully achieve the establishment of the Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem: Michael Baruchi, who took it upon himself to handle the administrative and logistic side of operations; Yoav Tzionit who helped draw up work plans and offered wise advice; Tiffany Touitou, Oshrit Faragi Hazon and Isabel Rosenbaum Bracha, who helped with office management; Osnat Assouline, who managed the Center’s budget; Yehonatan Ben-Kasus, who worked selflessly organizing the excavation finds; Amit Re’em, attorney Aharon Heiman, Oriya Dasberg and Doron Spielman; and above all Amutat El'ad director David Be’eri; and to Israel Hasson, the director of the Israel Antiquities Authority , who recognized the importance of this cultural and intellectual project. All of them put so much of their energies into ensuring the success of this project. I cannot thank them enough. My final gratitude is reserved for a very special person and family. While the archeological research being performed in Jerusalem rests largely on the shoulders of the archeologists and the scientists who work in the field and in the laboratory to bring these findings to life, none of these efforts would be possible if it were not for the generous assistance of a select group of visionaries who have had the wisdom, insight and intellectual curiosity to support this important work. The Shvidler family, and at their head Eugene Shvidler, are not just one of these pioneering families, they are the very symbol of the great level of impact that a single person and a single family can make, by underwriting an archaeological renaissance at one of the world’s most important archaeological sites, the City of David. Yuval Baruch Jerusalem Regional Archaeologist 2020

xiv

xiv

AAAA

CHAPTER 1

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN Ronny Reich

Each phenomenon has a unique moment in its creation, and this takes us, with this report, to the site where Jerusalem “was born.”1 The Land of Israel is strewn with thousands of age-old sites, which make it one of the densest landscapes of the ancient world. This is certainly due to the tiny size of this region, located between the vast territories occupied by neighboring bygone empires, including Egypt in the south, and Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia in the north. A more precise reason, however, is the role which the Land of Israel played, throughout the ages, in the historical events of the region and in the development of the local people. While ancient Judahite or Hebrew culture played a central role in these events, this is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Suffice it to note here that it is immaterial whether the Hebrew Bible, the Magnum Opus created by this culture, is attributed to the first or second part of the first millennium BCE. The text describes, inter alia, the ascent of the Davidic dynasty, and its identification with the God of Israel on the one hand, and the city of Jerusalem on the other. The adoption of this equation between God, city and dynasty almost 3000 years ago had a dramatic impact not only on the land and its people, but eventually on all of Western civilization. There are not many other resolutions adopted three millennia ago that are still relevant today. The setting, the geographic background, for this most magnificent, most intriguing, most dramatic chain of events is the Middle East as a whole, and the Land of Israel in particular, but the lion’s share, without doubt, is taken by Jerusalem. This brings us to our particular subject, namely the small hill, the site upon which, at a certain moment, Jerusalem was “born.” This report describes and discusses some of the antiquities excavated on this hill. They are but a drop in the sea of knowledge pertaining to the site, which has been retrieved by numerous archaeologists; it will certainly be augmented by others in years to come. I hope that the series of reports included here will take an important place in the study of ancient Jerusalem. Not only did the site itself have its moment of birth, but so did study of the site. In October, 1867, out of curiosity, as it was not on his list of duties, Captain Charles Warren crawled into the dark cave in which the spring, known to locals by the name >En Umm ed-Daraj (later to be identified with biblical Gihon), emanates. With this action, the scientific study of the Southeastern Hill of the City of David began. The location of the biblical City of David would only be suggested several decades later. Warren had located the “Upper Gihon” on the western outskirts of Jerusalem; he did not realize that he was the first person to investigate the most ancient part of Jerusalem (Wilson and Warren 1871: 237). In 1880, a group of children discovered an ancient inscription—the famous Siloam Inscription— on the rock wall at the southern outlet of a subterranean tunnel that cut through the hill. Up to then, only a handful of people had dared to cross it. Scholars immediately set to work deciphering the 1    

This is a free translation from the opening line of Moon, a Hebrew poem by Nathan Alterman: “An Ancient site, too, has a moment in which to be born.”

4 RONNY REICH

inscription and identifying the tunnel as it related to the biblical narrative. And yet, identifying this particular hill with the City of David was not yet common knowledge, perhaps because there was no uninterrupted oral tradition that this hill was indeed the location of this important biblical city. It seems that the conclusive evidence for this identification was the discovery, in 1909, by the Parker-Vincent expedition, of tombs dating to the EB I. Supporting evidence for this conclusion is the simple fact that only upon this particular hill have archaeologists revealed a complete chronological sequence of strata and remains covering the entire timespan from the third millennium BCE to modern times—a sequence that is absent on any of the hills in the close vicinity. It is clear that an ancient settlement existed on this particular hill because of the perennial spring that surged at its base. In the ca. 160 years since Warren’s excavations, many others have been drawn to this hill, some out of curiosity, others in order to excavate a biblical mound (the tell of Jerusalem) similar to other tells which were excavated throughout the country. There were the treasure hunters—people who knew what they were looking for before they began digging, and others sent by government authorities to undertake salvage excavations. Religious zeal of the type that drove several excavations to search for the footsteps of an ancient holy place was avoided. While claims of the political agendas driving the excavations of the last generation may have validity, there is no question that they do not influence the scientific conduct and conclusions reached. Our team arrived at the site in the fall of 1995 at the directive of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and its director at the time Amir Drori, to carry out a small salvage excavation in conjunction with the municipal celebrations dubbed “Jerusalem 3000.” I heeded the call reluctantly, thinking that after the work of so many expeditions there was nothing of importance left to find. Today it is clear that such a thought was a welcome mistake. Through the years this small dig developed into an annual project and has now gone on uninterrupted long after our departure. We had the good fortune to be at the right place at the right time so that we could add a few finds, and some novel insights to the archaeology and history of ancient Jerusalem which we publish in the following pages.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND Several studies on the environmental background of ancient Jerusalem have been published (see below), yet as the first report in the Ancient Jerusalem Publications series, and in order to provide the reader with the proper setting for the finds that will be discussed in this volume, we review here some of the geological, topographical and hydrological data for the Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem. In general terms, the boundaries of the site and its close vicinity are as follows (Fig. 1.1): • The arbitrary line of the modern road known as Derech Ha>Ophel serves as the northern boundary. Although this road is a modern feature, it follows the southern line of the Old City’s Ottoman wall and distinguishes between the City of David and the area dubbed the Ophel, which is between the city wall and the southern wall of the Temple Mount. • The course of the Kidron Valley marks the eastern limits. It is important to note however that the ancient cemetery, which is located on the rocky slopes under and within the Palestinian village of Silwan, is in actuality an integral part of the City of David. • The point of convergence of the Kidron and Ben Hinnom Valleys marks the southern tip of the City of David ridge. • The lower portion of the eastern slope of Mount Zion, which are located directly above the Tyropoeon Valley, serve as the western boundary.

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 5

Geology The waterworks of the City of David are large, extensive rock-cut installations. In order to properly study these features, as well as the natural environment of the Southeastern Hill, the site’s geological background is of particular importance. Dan Gill (1996) conducted the most extensive study carried out on the geology of the City of David and the surrounding areas. This study was carried out under the auspices of the expedition headed by Y. Shiloh. Gill mapped the area around the Old City and the City of David, creating a geological map (Gill 1996: Fig. 3), while adding a geological-stratigraphical column (ibid.: Fig. 2) and a geological cross-section (ibid. Fig. 4), which specify the various rock formations into which the various waterworks were cut, and their locations in them. The site of ancient Jerusalem is built on the Bi>na Formation from the Cenomanian-Touronian Age. It is formed of three rock strata of limestone and dolomite rock. Three main affinities of this rock formation had a decisive bearing on human utilization of the rock: its hardness; the inclination of the rock strata; and the various cavities (separations) found in the rock. Warren’s Shaft System, the hewing of which preceded that of the Siloam Tunnel, is cut through two rock formations: the upper part is cut in the upper Meleke limestone, while the lower part is cut in the Mizzi Ahmar dolomitic rock. These rock formations are considerably different from each other. The Mizzi Ahmar is a hard and compact rock, difficult to cut. The Meleke appears here as a brittle, soft rock in which large boulder-like concentrations of more compact semi-hard rock appear, although these are still considerably softer than the lower Mizzi Ahmar. The bedding plane between these two different rock formations, namely between the top of the Mizzi Ahmar and the bottom of the Meleke, played an important role in the cutting of the original phase of Warren’s Shaft System (Reich 2011: 154–158). The location of these two water systems, and particularly the location of Warren’s Shaft System close to the meeting points between the rock formations is notable in the geological section (Gill 1996: Fig. 4). The Siloam Tunnel is cut entirely in the Mizzi Ahmar rock formation, that is in the harder rock. Despite the difficulty in cutting this rock formation, this was an inevitable task since the level of the tunnel was dictated by the level of the point of emanation of the spring. In addition to the Siloam Tunnel, part of Channel II and all of the short tunnels (II–VII) adjacent to the spring are cut in this formation (see Chapter 13). The Cavities in the Bedrock

Three types of rock cavities or separations have been noted in the bedrock of the City of David: bedding planes which are thin separations or planes of discontinuity between two consecutive rock strata of different nature; fractures in the rock, which are the outcome of tectonic activity; and cavities created by rain water which infiltrated into the rock, dissolving the rock over the geological eras, a phenomenon dubbed as karst. These three affinities have a direct bearing on the waterworks. The bedding planes are points of weakness in the rock that were exploited by rock-cutters in ancient times. It is relatively easy to cut or separate the rock along the beddings, with the help of iron rods serving as simple levers. These rock strata, several scores of centimeters in thickness, were then broken into construction stones and were incorporated in the construction of the fortifications around the spring and in its vicinity. This is seen on some of the large boulders that have one flat and quite straight side, as if the stone was chiseled. Fractures formed in the rock through a very short tectonic process, most probably the outcome of earthquakes. The entire hill of the City of David is fractured, mostly running vertically to the rock

6 RONNY REICH

surface (hence dubbed vertical fractures). These fractures gained some importance in relation to the water works as they reach the surface. Before the hill was covered with houses, these fractures could have been guides, in general terms, for the rock cutters, in cutting various parts of the tunnel, as attested by the tunnels or parts of tunnels which are clearly aligned with the fractures exposed in them. Such is the case with Tunnel IV near the spring (see discussion in Chapter 13). The largest separations noted in the rock of the City of David are the karstic dissolution cavities of various shapes and sizes. The natural limestone rock of the hill can dissolve slowly over long periods of time through the seeping of water particularly along—but not limited to—planes of weakness (such as fractures and bedding planes). One type of karstic cavity is the vertical “chimney,” such as the shaft in Warren’s Shaft System, or the shaft above the southern bend of the Siloam Tunnel. Most of the karstic separations are small cavities, generally 1–2 m in diameter. Particularly relevant in this report are small cavities, especially in relation to Channel II. A karstic cavity that developed on a vertical fracture presented a hazard to the channel, which was created to lead water, since water which would have arrived at the fracture or karstic cavity would have disappeared into the bedrock, and this was an undesirable result for the channel planners (see further discussion in Chapter 13). Several explanations to the way in which the Siloam Tunnel was cut were offered based on its relationship with such geological features. Certain scholars suggested that the tunnel was a broadening of an existing continuous horizontal karstic cavity (e.g., Gill 1996), while others reject this idea, describing the tunnel as an outcome of planning according to certain hydrological principles (e.g., Reich 2011).

Topography In the history of every settlement, the site and its vicinity are subject to changes in appearance and structure caused by human activity. The best examples of this are the ancient tells, which grow and alter from stratum to stratum. Ancient Jerusalem was subject to such transformations, some of which were substantial. Therefore, any attempt to define the original surface of a site prior to the arrival of man and his influence on the landscape and topography faces considerable complications. This pertains to the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding areas as well, including the Southeastern Hill. It is possible that through the use of modern technologies, researchers may be able to overcome these impediments, however, currently there is no modern topographical map of the natural bedrock at our disposal. A successful experiment to produce such a map was undertaken by the German August Kümmel in the late 19th century and published in 1906 (Kümmel 1906). Kümmel only had the information revealed by the excavators that worked before him at his disposal—namely the work published in 1884 by Warren and in 1898 by Bliss and Dickie. To these, Kümmel added a hoard of data that he obtained from hundreds of exposed and active water cisterns, which he located in the city and outlying neighborhoods. Kümmel descended into the shafts through which water was drawn from these cisterns and measured the level of the seam between the constructed shaft and the rock-cut shaft beneath it. The cisterns were marked on his map as a small circle accompanied with the letter Z (for Zisterne). This was followed by a process of interpolation to produce the rock contours of the map. This map has been extensively used in the research of Jerusalem (e.g., Shiloh 1984: 38, Fig. 1.2). When Kümmel was active in Jerusalem, only a single house (Beit Meyuhas) was standing on the southeastern edge of the City of David (Fig. 1.1). Kümmel marked the location of some 20 cisterns on the map. To these, data from Warren’s excavations (the so-called Ophel Tower in the northwest and the Spring House) and from Bliss and Dickie’s excavation (on the hill and in the Tyropoeon Valley) were added. All these provided enough data to describe the original topography.

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 7

Figure 1.1: Map appended to Kümmel 1906.

A comparison between Kümmel’s map and the current topography shows two extreme differences, namely the original depth of the Kidron and Tyropoeon Valleys. Kümmel marked the bed of the Kidron near the spring at ca. 630 masl. This level is close to the base of the Spring Tower, which is constructed a few meters west of the Kidron Valley and slightly higher upslope at 634 masl (Reich 2018: Fig. 2). The current level of the flight of steps leading down to the spring, which marks the average level of the current Kidron Valley, is 646 masl. This indicates an accumulation of 16 meters of debris, wash, garbage, etc of the Kidron reverbed at this point. The summit of the hill at this point is ca. 693 masl. The topographical changes that occurred in the Tyropoeon are even more dramatic (Fig. 1.1). The difference is due to the nature of human activity along the slope. Whereas the Kidron only filled throughout the ages with what rolled downslope from the City of David on its west, the Tyropoeon, which is located inside the city, was filled in from both west and east. A comparison to a modern topographical map (e.g., Shiloh 1984: 39, Fig. 2) shows this explicitly. The map also shows that the course of the Tyropoeon does not run southwards towards the Pool of Siloam in a straight line, but rather takes a slightly winding course. The current asphalt road, which is a sort of indicator of the valley, crosses it so that its northern section is located to the east of the valley, whereas its southern end is located to the west of it.2 2 

   The importance of this map was made known to us by Michael Avi-Yonah, who served as director of the scientific archives of the Palestine Department of Antiquities. In 1947, the security situation became unstable for the Jewish workers at the Rockefeller Museum, so each employee was required to take 2–3 books from the library to continue his or her work in a temporary office in the western part of Jerusalem. According to AviYonah, he took Kümmel’s map and the accompanying book.

8 RONNY REICH

Hydrology When the first scholars visited >En Umm ed-Daraj in the 19th century (at a time when it had still not been identified with biblical Gihon), they observed and reported on its nature as a pulsating spring, where at intervals of several hours, its discharge increased considerably. Despite this dangerous phenomenon, Warren’s audacious attempt to reach the inner lower part of the tunnel and to cross the tunnel in the interval between two bursts of water is of enormous value. The stakes were high, as he may have drowned had an unexpected burst of water occurred (see Chapter 2). Vincent tells of the cleaning of the tunnel followed by precise measuring and drawing. During this period, the spring’s waters were diverted directly into the Kidron. At that time, according to Vincent, the spring continued to pulsate (Vincent 1911: 5), but later this detail is not mentioned by any other visitors. It seems that the subterranean system of cavities and fractures that created this siphon effect deteriorated (probably due to some tectonic movements caused by an earthquake). A considerably large number of pottery sherds were examined while excavating close to the spring, leading to the account of the history of the spring (Reich and Shukron 2004; see Chapter 48). However, a first amendment to this can be mentioned here: human activity in the vicinity of the spring began as early as the Epipaleolithic period (Kebaran culture), as demonstrated by Marder and Khalaily (2004: 7–8), according to flint artifacts discovered there. This indicates that the spring has been in use since ca. 18000–14000 years BP. The spot where the spring emanates was described in detail by Vincent (1911: 2–6; Vincent and Steve 1954: 260–264). A detailed hydrological study was carried out as an MA thesis by R. Benami Amiel (2006) of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and later published by Benami Amiel, Grodek and Frumkin (2010). When one stands on the lowest stairs that descend to the spring and looks westwards to the rock scarp towards the spring (Fig. 13.6), one can note a vertical fracture along the rock cliff. The fracture is very clear since it appears as a wide (approximately 10 cm wide) strip of reddish weathered rock that stands out against the hard, dark rock. At the opening of the cave, the fracture aligns with the northern (right hand) side of the opening. The spring emanates from this fracture on the floor of the cave. The same fracture, several meters to the northwest (Fig. 13.2), also developed the vertical karstic chimney of Warren’s Shaft. Today it appears as if the spring emanates from beneath the lowest stair of the tier of stairs that descends in the Spring House. In actuality, the spring emanates at a much lower level, as described by Vincent and Steve (1954: Pl. LXII, section x-x’, at the bottom of segment B). When Benami Amiel extracted the rubble that filled the bottom of the cave for her hydrological study, and exposed the fissure in the rock where the water emanates, it was possible to establish the point of exit of the water, some 2.20 m lower than the lowest step (at a height of 636.30 masl) of the staircase leading down to the spring. The Gihon is a karstic spring, meaning that the rock layer which feeds it with water (aquifer) is not located under the Southeastern Hill, but elsewhere in Jerusalem. From that point, the level of which must be at least several meters higher than the spring, the water is led through a series of subterranean, interconnected fractures and fissures. The deep course of the Kidron Valley exposed one of these fractures, hence the water emanates from the rock at that location. Up until recent times, no knowledge of the precise direction or location of that aquifer and the course of the water-leading fissures had been obtained. Recently, however, some new information

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 9

was obtained (the accidental leakage of sewage to the spring), indicating that the water reaches the spring through bedrock from the north (Chapter 13). Currently, the water emanates from the spring and flows westward into the Siloam Tunnel, and through it to the Pool of Siloam on the southwestern outskirts of the Hill. The waters burst out at a certain pressure, since the aquifer, whose level is unknown, is certainly located a few meters higher than the spring. In the days prior to the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel, due to the hydrological pressure, the water ascended a few meters higher in the fracture and flowed into the Kidron. When Channel II was cut it seems that the level of its floor was established by that early spring level or even slightly lower to enable a steady flow. The Siloam Tunnel was later cut at a level ca. 2.40 m lower than the level of Channel II, thus capturing its waters and allowing Channel II to dry out. The yearly discharge of the spring for 2004/5 according to the measurements and calculations carried out by Benami Amiel (2006: 50) was 1.9 million cu m. This is based on momentary discharges of 25 liters/sec (or 2160 cu m per 24 hours) at the end of the dry summer (November), and 164 liters/sec (or 14170 cu m per 24 hours) at the peak of winter (February).3 The data obtained by the Israel Hydrological Service, cited by Tsuk (2011: 260) are considerably lower (about 60% less!) than those given by Benami Amiel. Tsuk presents an average daily discharge of 1440 cu m and an average yearly discharge of 526000 cu m, with a maximal daily discharge of 4750 cu m (February 1983) and a minimum of 700 cu m (September 1979). Tsuk (2011: 32) has suggested an average daily rate of water consumption of five liters (per person, without livestock) for the Bronze and Iron Ages, and seven liters for the Byzantine period. These amounts seem reasonable and indicate that the discharge of Jerusalem’s spring could easily provide the necessary water for a population of several thousand and their livestock.

THE SPRINGS OF JERUSALEM It appears to me that any study dealing with the most ancient remains of a city must begin with its water sources. Jerusalem has only one perennial spring at its base, although several names are attributed to it. Were it not for this source, the story of the city would not have begun here, and history may have taken a different course. At the very outset, I wish to clarify some of the many geographical and historical perplexities related to the spring—perplexities that have kept generations of scholars and laymen busy tracking down its toponym as well as its source. Three springs are mentioned in the biblical text in relation to the City of David: >En Rogel (Jos 15:7, 18:16; 2 Sam 17:17; 1 Kgs 1:9), >En Shemesh (Jos 18:15–17) and >En Tannin (Neh 2:13). Yet, only a single perennial spring emanates in the Kidron Valley east of the City of David, known in recent times as >En Umm ed-Daraj (“the mother of the stairs” or “the staircase spring”). Strangely, none of the three springs mentioned in the Bible were identified with this one. Rather, the honor was given to biblical Gihon, despite the fact that its name is not preceded with the term >En (spring). In fact, only in a single occurrence (2 Chr 32:30) is it mentioned in conjunction with water.4    These values seem to me somewhat too high, although they are the outcome of measuring. I recommend repeating this procedure. 4     Excluding the Gihon mentioned in Genesis, where it is said to be one of the rivers of the Garden of Eden. For a detailed discussion of the toponyms Gihon and Shiloaḥ, see Reich and Shukron 2009. 3 

10 RONNY REICH

The following passages attempt to clarify the possible identifications of the various biblical toponyms with some of the locations in Jerusalem, beginning with the most commonly used today and continuing with the ones rarely mentioned. It is important to note that this sequence is not necessarily the chronological sequence of these terms as they were used in the past.

Gihon The author is of the opinion that the name of the spring emanating to the east of the City of David was never Gihon. In fact, the early investigators of Jerusalem, such as Charles Warren (see Chapter 2), never identified the biblical City of David on the Southeastern Hill, or the adjacent spring, with biblical Gihon. On the contrary, they pointed to the northern and western outskirts of the Old City of Jerusalem to look for possible candidates (Wilson and Warren 1871: 237). However, today the spring is universally known by this biblical name.5 It appears that both scholarly and public attention was influenced by the biblical story of the anointment of King Solomon (1 Kgs 1). Gihon is indeed mentioned in this account several times (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 45), however there is no reference to water. All that is mentioned is that Gihon is situated in a low topographical location, which required the royal party to descend to it. The absence of water is also notable in the coronation ceremony at nearby >En Rogel (see below), of Adonijah son of Haggith, Solomon’s brother and rival. It may be posited that if Adonijah was crowned at >En Rogel, then Solomon must have been crowned at another spring, the Gihon. That conclusion, of course, is not based on the text. Only a single biblical verse (2 Chr 32:30) notes that Hezekiah “closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon.” This is a much later biblical source than the Book of Kings (Japhet 2011), and here, too, the Hebrew text does not call it a spring, only the English translation does! Wilson and Warren (1871: 237) were intrigued by the term “upper outlet of the waters of Gihon” mentioned in 2 Chronicles, concluding that there was also a “lower spring of the waters of Gihon” and that the two were interconnected. In the 19th century, it was suggested that these should be identified with the Mamillah Pool and Hezekiah’s Pool near Jaffa Gate, since they were interconnected with an aqueduct. Wilson, Schick and Warren suggested that they had located the Gihon in a deep chasm next to Jaffa Road in the northwest (Reich 2019). Despite the difficulties in attributing a specific name to the spring, it is clear that water was present on the eastern outskirts of the City of David in various locations, with numerous manmade features related to the spring and manipulating its waters. These include Channel I, Channel II, the short tunnels near the spring (Tunnels III–VII), Warren’s Shaft System and the Siloam Tunnel. It is suggested here that the name Gihon was the technical term for the Canaanite water system, with an upper part near the spring, including Warren’s Shaft System, and a lower part in the southern area of the city, to which the water was brought through Channel II. A coronation ceremony near the spring proper in the days of Solomon was actually impossible, since the spring would have been tightly and massively encircled by the Spring Tower. A ceremony near a larger body of water—if such was a necessity for this ceremony—could only be celebrated at the southern end of Channel II, ca. 190 m south of the spring, where the channel turned into the Kidron. The Bible provides supporting evidence to the notion that Gihon is a technical term rather than a toponym. A place named Giaḥ, derived from the same root as Gihon, is mentioned in the Bible in a largely ignored reference. The story of the bloody skirmish between David’s men and those of Avner son of Ner, is said to have ended at Gibeon “before Giaḥ” (2 Sam 2:24). At Gibeon (Tell Jib) 5    

Although it is argued here that Gihon was not the name of the spring, we use that name since it is already in common use.

A M O M E N T I N W H I C H T O B E B O R N 11

rock-cut waterworks were also discovered, and Giaḥ might refer to them, or alternatively to their external outlet (cf. Pritchard 1961). In later periods, that is during the Persian period and through the Early Roman period, the name Gihon is not mentioned in association with the spring or any installation connected to it. The name Gihon seems to have been forgotten by Nehemiah’s time. This absence stands out when viewed against the many toponyms mentioned in Nehemiah, and particularly the Water Gate (Neh 3:26; 8:1, 3, 16; 12:37) and the Spring Gate (Neh 2:14; 3:15; 12:37), but the name Gihon is not specified. The only possible mention of Gihon, in the Roman period, appears in the Mishnah (Zabim 1:5), in a corrupted form, so detached from the original that it went unrecognized. Two toponyms are mentioned there: Gad Yawan, and Shiloaḥ. Before the beginning of the present excavations and the discoveries made, one of the authors (Reich 1987) suggested an explanation of the toponym Gad Yawan. Against the common explanation that identifies it as the name of a pagan cultic monument, it was suggested that Gad Yawan was actually a scribal error; originally the name Gihon had been written and the mistake occurred when the letter ḥet was erroneously divided into dalet and yod. Such a corruption of the text could have passed unnoticed because the spring at that time had already been inaccessible for several centuries and people had no doubt forgotten its name. The prevailing theory was that the spring was blocked and inaccessible since the days of Hezekiah, a fact that misled even Flavius Josephus, who located the spring at the southern end of the city (War 5.410), and not in the east, where it actually is. This situation of a blocked spring in the east, and an active pool in the south, continued through the entire Persian and Hellenistic period as can be deduced from the absolute lack of pottery sherds from these periods near the spring (see Chapter 48; Reich and Shukron 2004). However, recent excavations have shown that during the century before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the spring was reopened and made accessible again. A small opening was constructed within the massive Canaanite tower to facilitate access to the spring, and a stone vault was built over it to protect it from the debris and refuse dumped in large quantities over the slope (see Chapters 8, 13 and 26). It may be that the account in the Mishnah (>Arak 2:6) and Josephus (War 5.140) refer to this event. The diminishing discharge of the waters was probably caused by one of the periods of draught, often noted in textual documentation (e.g., Ant. XIV:22–24; Mishnah Ta>an. 3:8; Ant. XV:299–300; Ant. III:320, XX:51, 101; Acts 11:28–30). An attempt to widen the southern outlet of the Siloam Tunnel was certainly pointless, as this is not the proper location of the spring. It seems that the authorities were urged to locate the spring itself. However, as this is a karstic spring (Gill 1996: 17), such actions are futile, as expressed in the Mishnah. The cultic uses of the spring waters, such as the water libation at the feast of Sukkot, or preparation of the water of the red heifer, probably increased the demand for these waters at the point where they gush out from the rock. The public, on the other hand, continued to draw the waters of the spring at the Pool of Siloam. When access to the spring was opened, and the said opening and stone vault were constructed, it seems that the entire ancient system, which included the spring, the tunnel and the pool were called Shiloaḥ. Recently, a considerably large stepped pool southwest of the City of David was exposed (Reich and Shukron 2005; 2019). The archaeological data clearly dates this element to the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE, and it is clear that this is part of the Pool of Siloam mentioned in John 9:7. We

12 RONNY REICH

may conclude that the name Shiloaḥ, prevailing in the Iron Age, was transferred from the spring to the pool in the south and back.

>En Shemesh Prior to the use of the name Shelaḥ/Shiloaḥ, the spring had a different name. Because the name Gihon was (erroneously) attributed to the spring in the Kidron, east of the City of David, the spring’s name was distorted, causing scholars to continuously ignore the spring of >En Shemesh. The name >En Shemesh appears in the detailed biblical description of the border between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Fig. 1.2): … And the southern side begins at the outskirts of Kiriath-Je>arim; and the boundary goes from there to Ephron, to the spring of the Waters of Nephtoah; then the boundary goes down to the border of the mountain that overlooks the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is at the north end of the valley of Reph’aim; and it then goes down the valley of Hinnom, south of the shoulder of the Jebusites, and downward to >En-Rogel; then it bends in a northerly direction going on to >En-Shemesh, and thence goes to Geliloth, which is opposite the ascent of ’Adummim (Jos 18:15–17).

This border is also described for the tribe of Judah, where >En Shemesh is mentioned (Jos 15:7). The descriptions near Jerusalem are given in detail, since the biblical authors sought to show that the city was within the territory of Benjamin. As noted above, >En Rogel was an important landmark on this border. According to the description, the border takes a sharp turn at this point, identifying it with the Bir Ayyub well, which was close to the meeting point of the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys. This created a difficult scientific impediment. Since >En Umm ed-Daraj was identified with biblical Gihon (which as we have seen is not the name of the spring), no one, save for Gustaf Dalman (1918: 49–50), dared to say that >En Shemesh, mentioned

Figure 1.2: Border between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah.

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 13

next to >En Rogel, should be identified with it. In its stead, another spring east of Jerusalem was sought for the identification of >En Shemesh, with only one other possibility––a small, insignificant spring near the village of el-Azariyeh called >En Ḥud (e.g., Mazar 2000: 198, 200). However, the biblical text actually allows for turning the border from >En Rogel northward, following a logical topography along the Kidron Valley: “then it bends in a northerly direction going on to >En Shemesh…” (Jos 18:17). If Gihon was never the name of a spring (as it is not preceded by >En), it seems that >En Shemesh (literally the spring of the sun) was the early name of >En Umm ed-Daraj. Supporting evidence for this identification is the fact that in the morning, for several minutes, the sun illuminates the exact spot where the water emerges (Fig. 1.3). It is feasible that such a phenomenon was not ignored by the ancient inhabitants of the city. Throughout the history of the Kingdom of Judah, sun worship is noted in the biblical text (Jer 8:2), until King Josiah cleansed the city of all foreign rites, including the “horses... of the sun” and the “chariots of the sun” (2 Kgs 23:11). Perhaps at this stage, by virtue of the religious reform, the use of the name >En Shemesh was abolished. It is possible that this is the moment in which the toponym Shelaḥ/Shiloaḥ gained precedence.

ShelaḤ/ShiloaḤ/Siloam/Silwan The prophet Isaiah mentions the “waters of Shiloaḥ that flow gently” (Isa 8:6), and uses it in his metaphor to describe the might of Assyria which will sweep like a mighty river over Judah and its ally Aram. Scholars (e.g., Mazar 2000: 214) have understood this to describe the waters which flow

Figure 1.3: Spot where the water emerges illuminated by the sun. Photo: R. Benami Amiel.

14 RONNY REICH

in Channel II (which antedated the Siloam Tunnel), although this verse may allude to the spring itself. It seems that in the Iron II, Siloam (and not Gihon, which, as discussed above, was not the name of any spring) replaced the name >En Shemesh for the spring. Later, after the hewing of the Siloam Tunnel, which diverted the spring waters to the Shelaḥ Pool (Neh 3:15) on the other side of the hill, the name was applied to the entire system, which included the spring, the tunnel and the pool at its southern end. This toponym—Shiloaḥ—prevailed into the later parts of the Early Roman (Second Temple) period. In Flavius Josephus’ famous description of Jerusalem on the eve of its destruction by the Romans, he emphasizes the location of a powerful spring known by the name Siloam in the southern part of the city (War 5.140). Scholars (e.g., Simons 1952: 48; Avi-Yonah 1956b: 317; Hecker 1956: 198) have suggested that in this period, the existence of the actual spring in the Kidron Valley was blocked and forgotten. The excavations in Area F (see Chapter 13) have shown that >En Umm ed-Daraj, located in the Kidron Valley east of the city, was known, accessible and in use in the 1st century CE. Part of the stone vault above the spring, along with a small opening that led to it, as well as part of a staircase dating to the period, have survived. It seems therefore that Siloam in the Early Roman period continued to be the name of the entire water system, which included the spring, the ancient Siloam Tunnel, and the pool to which the tunnel channeled the water. Only the old Shelaḥ pool, which was located in a topographical depression at the southern tip of the Tyropoeon Valley, was replaced with an elaborately constructed stepped and stonefaced pool (Reich 2011: 225–231). Another important reference to the Pool of Siloam of the Early Roman period is found in the New Testament, where the story of Jesus and the healing of a man born blind mentions the use of these waters (John 9:1–7).

>En Rogel The spring of >En Rogel is mentioned four times in the Bible. From the mentions in Joshua (15:7; 18:16) noted above, the spring was clearly a landmark on the border between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. This geographical setting supports identification with the Bir Ayyub well, located approximately 350 m south of the southern tip of the City of David. Its mention in 2 Sam 17:17, which at face value does not contribute any information, may in fact hold a clue to the spring’s location. The following verse (17:18) tells of two of David’s messengers who hid in a well. This indicates that the biblical narrator differentiated between spring and well. Today Bir Ayyub is a ca. 40 m deep well, not a spring, which indicates that there is a certain contradiction in the identification of this well as >En Rogel. Unfortunately, the site is among the least investigated in Jerusalem. Only a single attempt undertaken by Dalton in 1847 to document its depth has been recorded, published in 1923 (and cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: III, 110–111). It should further be noted that in close vicinity to the well, Warren excavated and discovered small parts of what seems to be an elaborate and large water system (Warren 1884: Pl. 43: left). Present knowledge of the site is lacking. Gibson defined it as a “hybrid water installation, resembling more a well than a spring in its present form, though it may very well have looked like a spring at an earlier stage of its evolution when access to the top surface of the water system was probably at a much lower level or very close to the Kidron Valley bottom” (Gibson 2012: 10*).

>En Tannin In the description of the nocturnal journey that Nehemiah (Neh 2:12–15), the newly appointed governor of Jerusalem, undertook while mounted on his horse, it is noted that he exits from the

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 15

Valley Gate, over >En Tannin, towards the Ashpot (Dung) Gate. He then continues and passes the >Ayin (Spring) Gate and the King’s Pool. Traditionally, >En Tannin was identified with Bir Ayyub, located south of the convergence point of the Kidron and Ben Hinnom Valleys—that is with >En Rogel. The last scholar to devote a detailed study to the etymology and topography of this toponym was Braslavi (1971), who pointed out that another source of water located just at the southern tip of the hill exists, at the southern outlet of the Siloam Tunnel. In ancient times, people did not realize that the waters that emerge from this outlet are in fact the waters that flow into the tunnel from >En Umm ed-Daraj. Even Flavius Josephus was misled and assumed that this outlet was in fact a spring (War 5.140). Some English translations of the biblical text render >En Tannin as the “Dragon’s well.” >En is certainly not a well, but rather a spring. Braslavi (1971) emphasized that the Hebrew Tannin may also be interpreted as a serpent. He suggests that this term refers to the long and winding Siloam Tunnel. These suggestions seem reasonable.

JERUSALEM—AN ARCHAEOLOGICALLY CONTESTED SITE Archaeological excavations are seen by the public eye quite often as a slow and easy, ongoing process of work, making use of small hand picks and dust brushes. Although this may be the case at ancient sites elsewhere, this is not the situation in Jerusalem. The number of times that archeological excavations in Jerusalem, including the City of David, have been brought before Israel’s supreme court is unprecedented worldwide. But the politically driven controversies are not our concern here. It is the scientific ones that we shall discuss below. From 1948 to 1967, Jerusalem was a divided city. The archaeological study of antiquities, in both excavations and subsequent research, were carried out on both sides of the dividing border on a very limited scale. After the unification of the city in 1967, archaeological activity picked up considerably, particularly in the eastern part of the now united city (Reich 2017: 31–44). The work was motivated, first and foremost, by the accelerated rate of urban development of the city. This process created a major hazard to antiquities and required salvage excavations, which are a preliminary process to any development action. There was also the thirst of Israeli archaeologists who had for so long been denied entry to this part of the city. Within the entire corpus of archaeological work carried out in Jerusalem, the Southeastern Hill, identified with the City of David, stands out due to its central role in the history of the Land of Israel. It seems that the precise geographical location of the City of David mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 5:7), on that Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem south of the Temple Mount, is broadly agreed upon.6 The acceptance of this identification in the scientific literature, approximately half a century after the beginning of its study, initiated the controversies.7 The Babylonian Talmud (Soṭah 47b) states: “... [as] the number of supercilious persons increased, so did the factions...” The archaeologists who work/worked in Jerusalem may be under the The recent suggestion by Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits (2011), following Knauf (2000), to locate the ancient settlement of Jerusalem beneath the Herodian Temple Mount compound is, for the time being, not supported by the archaeological evidence at hand. Archaeological excavations, which may provide support or refute the idea, cannot be undertaken beneath the religious compound. As the hill does not have a constant supply of water, this idea is unacceptable. 7     The first controversy over the interpretation of excavated remains carried out in Israel pertained to the Tombs of the Hasmonean dynasty (1 Macc 13:25–30) in Modi’in. V. Guerin excavated the site of Sheikh Gharbawi in 1870 and believed to have found them. In 1871 and 1874 C. Clermont-Ganneau excavated there as well and exposed finds which refuted the former ones. 6    

16 RONNY REICH

impression that they have taken nine out of ten measures of the controversies which were granted to their scientific discipline, not because of the haughtiness of mind mentioned above, but because this is the nature of the discipline, which employs a large amount of interpretative actions. One could elaborate on the passage quoted above and say: “... when the number of excavations in the City of David increased, so did the number of controversies.” As this book is the first volume in a new series of excavation reports and a collection of studies on Ancient Jerusalem, and joining the vast bibliography which already exists,8 I would like to enumerate some of these controversies which relate to the City of David and its close vicinity. As noted above, the interpretative nature of the archaeological discipline is found at the base of these controversies, with two primary causes: • The inherent nature of this scientific discipline is such that the function and manner of any given architectural or material remain was used in antiquity and an interpretation must be provided for it. The dating of these objects and features can also be flexible and debated. A new excavation, and its ensuing report, may provide answers to old questions, and settle old controversies, but at the same time it opens up new questions and ignites new controversies. • Written sources are not always compatible with excavated archaeological remains. For Jerusalem, the main written sources include the Bible, the Book of Maccabees (I and II), the works of Flavius Josephus, the Rabbinic writings (Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud), the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers. But every text, including the holy scriptures, was created by man, and as such is always suspect of subjectivity, with a chance that it is fully or in part inaccurate. Even accurate sources contain erroneous information. On the other hand, the archaeological finds, if properly excavated, speak innocently. From the juxtaposing of both sources, the historical and the archaeological, the main controversies emerge; these are often difficult, or even impossible, to settle. As the number of historical sources on Jerusalem are extensive, considerably larger than for any other ancient site in Israel, the number of controversies is respectively large. In the 1990s, one of the most heated debates in our field began to surface, questioning the historicity of the biblical figure of King David and his monarchy.9 Did the biblical figure King David really exist, or was he and the entire biblical account a literary invention? In a surprising coincidence, soon after the debate arose, the Tel Dan inscription, mentioning “the House of David” was unearthed and gave immediate sound support to the historicity of King David and his dynasty. This caused a shift in the debate, with attention focusing on the connection or lack thereof of this monarch to archaeological remains exposed in Jerusalem. Three different constructional remains, exposed in archaeological excavations, were linked to the founder of the dynasty. The first to be exposed were the so called “Tombs of the Kings of Judah” on the southern slopes in 1913 by R. Weill (1920: 157–173). This suggestion was soon dismissed, as these rock-cut cavities neither resembled upper class tombs, nor did they yield any find that dated them to the Iron Age (Reich 2004). The second feature is the so called “Stepped Stone Structure,” exposed in parts, over a period of some 80 years by Macalister and Duncan, Kenyon, Shiloh and finally E. Mazar. The main questions pertaining to this outstanding and unique construction are its precise date and function (Finkelstein 2011: 1–10). If The bibliography by K. Bieberstein and H. Bloedhorn (1994) was full when published, but today, a quarter of a century later it is no longer up to date. It does not include anything on the work by Reich and Shukron, and all other subsequent excavations. 9     The debate was ignited by an article by Tel Aviv University’s Z. Herzog, published in the Ha’aretz supplement on 29.10.1999, pp. 36–39, under the title: “The Bible: No extant remains” (in Hebrew). 8    

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 17

indeed it dates to the late 11th or early 10th century BCE, it may be a good candidate to attribute it to King David’s building projects. However, it has been dated both earlier and later than this period. The third structure was labeled “King David’s Palace.” It should be emphasized that this title was given before the excavation on the anticipated spot even started (Mazar 1996: 9–20). Such an approach does not follow modern, scientific archaeological method. Naturally, this discovery is contested among archaeologists (Finkelstein, Herzog, Singer-Avitz and Ussishkin 2007: 142–164). However, it also attracted public attention since it was driven by fundamental emotions. In this respect, a priori, any scientific theory suggested may be refuted by other data and theories. This very possibility makes modern archaeology a scientific discipline. On the other hand, the public demands unequivocal answers from scientists, that is certain truths, which should not be exchanged with other truths. An archaeologist following modern scientific guidelines cannot supply such solid truths. One of the first debates on Jerusalem of biblical times (the Iron Age, or First Temple period) concerned the size of the city and the outline of the city walls. Two schools of thought formed: the minimalists (e.g., Galling 1937: 302; Avi-Yonah 1956a: 156–160), who claimed that the Iron Age city was confined to the Southeastern Hill, the place where the Bronze Age city had been established, vs. the maximalists (e.g., Dalman 1930), who thought the city enlarged its perimeter westwards in the late Iron II. The debate was based solely on the interpretation of the biblical text, since archaeological remains were not yet available for the area beyond the City of David. The first to take up the challenge was Kenyon in the 1960s (Kenyon 1962: 84–86; 1974, 146–147), who excavated on the western hill. Due to the lack of relevant remains that she uncovered, she sided with the minimalists. Shortly thereafter, Avigad (1983: 54–60) conducted excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, with Iron II remains exposed throughout his areas of excavation, including a long stretch of a city wall which fortified the new extension of the city. These archaeological remains unequivocally solved this problem, and the maximalists prevailed. The debate also demonstrated that using negative evidence, as Kenyon had, is a problematic approach in archaeological reasoning.10 Further debates developed over time regarding the water carriers surrounding the spring. The Siloam Tunnel, cut in the bowels of the hill, is the focus of some of these debates. It seems that this enigmatic subterranean aqueduct produced the largest number of studies, more than any other subject related to the City of David. The main questions were: how was the tunnel cut, or in other words how did it happen that two groups of stone cutters made a successful encounter deep in the rock? Why was the course of the tunnel a winding path? When exactly was the tunnel cut? Why was it cut when an underground aqueduct (Channel II) already existed and was active? How does the tunnel relate to the biblical account and to the inscription found incised upon its rock wall? Channel II, which is discussed in the present report (see Chapter 13), was also the focus of scholarly differences of opinions. Are the various openings on its side, dubbed “windows,” part of a plan to create outlets for water, in order to irrigate the fields in the Kidron Valley, or are these random geological cavities in the rock which the channel crossed, and are in fact impediments to the aim of its creators to lead the water to a pool at the southern tip of the hill? Sometimes a controversy reaches a dead-end. Decades pass before a new piece of evidence pops up and discussions are renewed. Such is the case of the location of the Seleucid Akra (2nd century BCE) in Jerusalem, as the historical sources indicate it was razed to the ground (1 Macc. 1:33; 9, 52; Ant. 12:252; 13:215). However, in recent excavations on the northwest side of the City of 10    

Recently, Ben-Ami (2014) used a similar approach of negative evidence to argue against the presence of Iron Age fortifications prior to the 8th century BCE.

18 RONNY REICH

David building remains were found which were suggested to be part of this stronghold, piecing together other previously excavated remains in order to reconstruct this feature (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovetz 2015). Importantly, the excavations currently conducted at the site have already expressed their reservations regarding this suggestion. It seems that the Akra will occupy scholars in the near future (Shalev et al. 2019). There are controversies which are solely the result of erroneous assumptions by scholars. Such is the case regarding the dating of City Wall 501, exposed in Area J (see Chapter 8). Despite a preliminary report (Reich and Shukron 2001) attributing the wall to the Iron II (8th century BCE), Mazar (2006: 21–28) argued that the fortification be dated to the MB II (18th century BCE), although there was no data to support such a claim. Mazar’s suggestion was refuted by us, with the publication of the relevant pottery relating to the wall (Reich and Shukron 2007: 27–34). The complete publication of the data in the present volume will hopefully bring an end to this discussion. I will conclude this section with one of the more recent discoveries that has been the subject of debate, albeit this time solely on archaeological grounds. The Reich-Shukron excavations unearthed massive fortifications near and around the spring (Reich 2011: 249–261). The excavators dated them to the MB II (ca. 18th century BCE). A recent study carried out of by Regev et al. (2017: 1171–1193) obtained organic samples for 14C analysis beneath the base of the Spring Tower and found them to date to the 9th century BCE. These dates were countered with the presentation of other pieces of evidence. A main argument is the difference in architectural traditions: while the type of cyclopean masonry which these fortifications are built of is typical of MB II masonry tradition, it is utterly different from the Iron Age masonry tradition which used small and medium-sized stones (Reich 2018: 114–119). With a similar Iron II date offered by Ussishkin (2016: 135–151), where he claims that all of the fortifications in the City of David, found independently by Kenyon, Shiloh, Reich and Shukron, and attributed to the MB II through the Iron II should be placed in the 8th century BCE and later, it appears that a new controversy has been initiated. In reflecting on the discussion of debates above, it should be noted that not every controversy or difference of opinion should be looked upon negatively. In my opinion, suggestions to solve or understand a certain problem should not be denunciated, as they play an important and indispensable role in archaeological study (Greenberg 2012: 16–22; Reich 2013: 88–90). While confronting a problem, both sides sharpen their understanding of it, trying to find different ways to its solution. Against issues which were dormant for years and ages, here new insights, based upon newly discovered data are provided by the contesting sides to the problem. Jerusalem is no longer a divided city, but its early site, the City of David, provides a fair share of differences of opinion, following its archaeological heritage. Let every archaeologist know, when daring to initiate an excavation on this site that his finds and conclusions may be scrutinized by his or her colleagues, and sometimes in the public eye, with any newly discovered find triggering a new controversy. On the other hand, this possibility should not deter anyone from excavating in Jerusalem in general, and in the City of David in particular. It is certainly a privilege.

REFERENCES Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Avi-Yonah, M. 1956a. Topography. In: Avi-Yonah, M., ed. Sepher Yerushalayim (Book of Jerusalem). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: 156–168 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, M. 1956b. Archaeology and Topography. In: Avi-Yonah, M., ed. Sepher Yerushalayim (Book of Jerusalem). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: 305–319 (Hebrew).

A MOMENT IN WHICH TO BE BORN 19

Ben-Ami, D. 2014. Notes on the Iron IIA Settlement in Jerusalem in Light of the Excavations in the Northwest of the City of David. Tel Aviv 41: 3–19. Ben-Ami, D. and Tchekhanovetz, Y. 2015. “... And They Also That Were in the City of David in Jerusalem Who Had Made Themselves a Tower” (1 Macc. 14:36). The Seleucid Fortification System at the Givati Parking Lot, City of David. In: Stiebel, G., Peleg-Barkat, O., Ben-Ami, D. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region IX. Jerusalem: 313–322 (Hebrew). Benami Amiel, R. 2006. Urban Karst Spring Hydrology Gihon Spring, Jerusalem. (MA Thesis, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. Benami Amiel, R., Grodek, T. and Frumkin, A. 2010. Characterization of the Hydrogeology of the Sacred Gihon Spring, Jerusalem: A Deteriorating Urban Karst Spring. Hydrogeology Journal 18: 1465–1479. Bieberstein, K. and Bloedhorn, H. 1994. Jerusalem, Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft (Beiheft zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Atlas, Beiheft 100/3). Wiesbaden. Bliss, F.J. and Dickie, A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Braslavi, J. 1971. ‘En-Tannin (Neh. 2:13). Eretz Israel 10 (Zalman Shazar Vol.): 90–93 (Hebrew, English abstract p. XI). Dalman, G. 1918. Die Wasserversorgung des ältesten Jerusalem. Palästina Jahrbuch 14: 47–72. Dalman, G. 1930. Jerusalem und sein Gelände. Gütersloh. Finkelstein, I. 2011. The “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem, Reality versus Yearning. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 127:1–10. Finkelstein, I., Herzog, Z., Singer-Avitz, L and Ussishkin, D. 2007. Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem been Found? Tel Aviv 34: 142–164. Finkelstein, I., Koch, I., and Lipschits, O. 2011. The Mound on the Mount: A Solution to the “Problem with Jerusalem”. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11: 2–14. Galling, K. 1937. Biblisches Reallexicon. Tübingen. Gibson, S. 2012. The Bir Ayyub Well (En Rogel) at Jerusalem: A New Plan and Discussion Based on Maps and Historic Photographs. In: Baruch, E., Levin, Y. and Levy-Reifer, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 18. Ramat Gan: 7–33 (Hebrew). Gill, D. 1996. The Geology of the City of David and its Ancient Subterranean Waterworks. In: Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 1–28. Greenberg, R. 2012. The Producers of the Past. Oddisea (Odyssey) 17: 16–22 (Hebrew). Hecker, M. 1956. Water Supply of Jerusalem in Ancient Times. In: Avi-Yonah, M., ed. Sepher Yerushalayim (Book of Jerusalem). Jerusalem: 191–218 (Hebrew). Japhet, S. 2011. Late Biblical Historiography—How and Why? In: Talshir, Z., ed. The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Vol. I: Introductions and Studies. Jerusalem: 391–416 (Hebrew). Kenyon, K.M. 1962. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 94: 72–90. Kenyon, K.M. 1974. Digging up Jerusalem. London. Knauf, A.E. 2000. Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal. Tel Aviv 27: 75–90. Kümmel, A. 1906. Materialien zur Topographie des Alten Jerusalem (Begleittext zu der Karte der Materialien zur Topographie des Alten Jerusalem). Halle. Marder, O. and Khalaily, H. 2004. New Epipalaeolithic Remains in Jerusalem and the Judean Mountains. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 10. Ramat Gan: 7–10 (Hebrew). Mazar, A. 2000. Jerusalem’s Water Supply in the First Temple Period. In: Ahituv, S. and Mazar, A., eds. The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 195–232 (Hebrew). Mazar, E. 1996. The Undiscovered Palace of King David in Jerusalem—A Study in Biblical Archaeology. In: Faust, A., ed. New Studies on Jerusalem 2. Ramat Gan: 9–20 (Hebrew). Mazar, E. 2006. The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Second Millennium BCE in Light of the New Excavations in the City of David. In: Baruch, E. and Faust A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 12. Ramat Gan: 21–28 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 8*–9*). Pritchard, J.B. 1961. The Water System of Gibeon. Philadelphia.

20 RONNY REICH

Regev, J., Uziel, J., Szanton, N and Boaretto, E. 2017. Absolute Dating of the Gihon Spring Fortifications, Jerusalem. Radiocarbon 59: 1171–1193. Reich, R. 1987. “... From Gad Yawan to Shiloah”—On the History of the Gihon Spring in the Second Temple Period. Eretz Israel 19 (Michael Avi-Yonah Vol.): 330–333 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 83*). Reich, R. 2004. Raymond Weill’s Excavations in the City of David (1913–1914): A Re-assessment. In: Shanks, H. (ed.), The City of David, Revisiting Early Excavations. Washington, D.C.: 123–152. Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. 2013. Truth I have Excavated. Oddisea 18: 88–90 (Hebrew). Reich, R. 2017. Fifty Years of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1967–2017: An Overview. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y., Cytrin-Silverman, K. and Uziel, J., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region XI. Jerusalem: 31–44 (Hebrew). Reich, R. 2018. The Date of the Gihon Spring Tower in Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 45: 114–119. Reich, R. 2019. The Gihon Spring Northwest of Jerusalem. In: Meiron, E. ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 14: 79–88. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2001. New Excavations on the Eastern Slope of the City of David. Qadmoniyot 122: 78–87 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2004. The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. Levant 36: 211–223. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2005. The Shiloah Pool during the Late Second Temple Period. Qadmoniot 130: 91–96 (Hebrew). Reich, R and Shukron, E. 2007. It is, After All, an Iron Age II City-Wall: A Critique of Eilat Mazar’s Suggestion. In: Baruch, E.A., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 13. Ramat-Gan: 27–34 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 18*) Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2009. The Archaeological Setting for the Toponyms Gihon and Shiloah. In: Di Segni, L., Hirschfeld, Y., Patrich, J. and Talgam, R., eds. Man Near a Roman Arch, Studies Presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir. Jerusalem: 21–24 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2019. The Second Temple Period Siloam Pool. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries 1998–2018. Jerusalem: 73–83. Shalev, Y., Gellman, D., Bocher, E., Porat, N., Freud, L. and Gadot, Y. 2019. The Fortifications along the Western Slope of the City of David: A New Perspective. In: Peleg-Barkat, O., Zelinger, Y., Uziel, J. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region XIII. Jerusalem: 51–70 (Hebrew). Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Simons, J.J. 1952. Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories. Leiden. Tsuk, T. 2011. Water at the End of the Tunnel: Touring Israel’s Ancient Water Systems. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ussishkin, U. 2016. Was Jerusalem a Fortified Stronghold in the Middle Bronze Age? An Alternative View. Levant 48: 135–151. Vincent, L.H. 1911. Underground Jerusalem. London. Vincent, L.H. and Steve, A. 1954. Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament: recherches d’archéologie et d’histoire. Paris. Warren, C. 1884. Plans, Elevations, Sections. Showing the Results of the Excavations at Jerusalem, 1867–1870, Executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. London. Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1913–1914. Paris. Wilson, C. and Warren, C. 1871. The Recovery of Jerusalem. London.

CHAPTER 2

EXCAVATIONS IN THE CITY OF DAVID Ronny Reich

For thousands of years, Jerusalem has played a central role in the annals of both the Western and Eastern worlds (see Chapter 1). Historians, archaeologists and theologians have searched beneath its surface, looking for answers to its past. Scholars have written tomes trying to solve its mysteries. No site in Jerusalem has been more thoroughly excavated than the Southeastern Hill, or what has come to be called “the City of David.” Literally, no stone on this hill has been left unturned. In essence, this chapter is a history not of the site but of the excavations of the site—thrilling, at times breathtaking accounts of 19th, 20th and 21st century archaeological expeditions that under less than ideal physical and geopolitical conditions and religious constraints, unsealed the soil that covered thousands of years of Jewish, Christian and Moslem history. This chapter is a roadmap to the major archaeological excavations that have been conducted at the site (Fig. 2.1) and a list of the maps and articles and other reference works that have been published over the past century summarizing the history of excavations at the site, although in many cases these are only partial.1 The first such map (Fig. 2.2) was published in 1925 by the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF), following the completion of Robert A.S. Macalister and J. Garrow Duncan’s work at the site (Macalister and Duncan 1925). Raymond Weill also published a similar map in the report of his second season in 1947 (Weill 1947: Planche 1). Prior to his excavations at the site, Yigal Shiloh (1968) included a map of the excavations in the City of David in an article that appeared in the first issue of Qadmoniot, which was published following the unification of the city, which he later updated following his work at the site (Shiloh 1984: Fig. 3). An additional map—although also incomplete—was appended to the volume, The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Aḥituv and Mazar 2000). Detailed summary maps were included by Max Küchler (2006: 13–21) in his comprehensive guide to Jerusalem (Fig. 2.3). To these, I have added an article and map summarizing the archaeological work up to 2007 (Reich and Shukron 2008). In addition, a significant portion of the book published on the history of the site (Reich 2011a) was dedicated to the history of excavations in the City of David. As work on the site continues uninterruptedly, the following list presents a summary of the excavations conducted until 2018, augmented by an up-to-date map (Fig. 2.4). The summary includes excavations within the geographic area defined in Chapter 1. Archaeological excavations in the City of David have been carried out under four political entities: The Ottoman Empire (1867–1917); the British Mandate for Palestine (1917–1948); the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967); and the State of Israel (1967–present). Some of the excavations covered large areas, and took place over the course of several seasons or even for consecutive years, while others were small, short term operations. The following presentation is in chronological order of the excavations, regardless of size or importance. All of the excavations are marked on Fig. 2.4. As the bibliography for each excavation is sometimes quite extensive, not every work published prior to 1994 is presented; these can be found in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994. All major references since 1994 are provided here. 1    

For example, K. Kenyon (1974) completely ignored the M. Parker expedition of 1909–1911.

22 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.1: Aerial view of the Old City of Jerusalem and the City of David, looking north (courtesy of the City of David, Tatspit Avir Photograph).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 2 3

Figure 2.2: Macalister and Duncan’s 1925 map of excavations in the City of David.

24 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.3: Max Küchler’s map of excavations in the City of David (Küchler 2006).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 2 5

EXCAVATIONS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE In 1867, Charles Warren (Fig. 2.4; Table 2.1: CW) carried out the first excavation on the Southeastern Hill on behalf of the PEF. At the time, the hill was still not identified with the biblical “City of David.” Warren entered the spring (see Fig. 2.5) on the eastern side of the hill, crawled along the narrow opening at the back end of the cave where the spring emanates and discovered a water system consisting of a tunnel leading down towards a karstic cavity in the rock. Warren published artifacts from the upper tunnel of the system, but it appears that he did not excavate much of the debris that had accumulated in it. Since those days in the mid-19th century, the water system has been known by his name, “Warren’s Shaft System” (see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 179–180, 183–184 for additional details; Fig. 2.6). In addition, Warren dared to cross the long and winding tunnel. Crawling on all fours and even on his belly, with little room for him to keep his head above the flowing water, he was aware that every few hours the stream pulsated and gushed and that his life would be in danger. Even so, adventurer that he was, he managed to traverse, survey and map the tunnel. In 1880, two children noted the existence of an ancient inscription incised on the rock wall of the outer aperture of the water tunnel that crosses beneath the hill (Fig. 2.7), and brought it to the attention of Conrad Schick (Fig. 2.4: CS and Table 2.1; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 187–190). This discovery of the inscription, which came to be called the Siloam Inscription, is one of the major discoveries made at the site, and provided an impetus to continue research there. In 1886 and 1890, Schick (Fig. 2.8) excavated several shafts in the Kidron Valley and discovered Channel II (Fig. 2.9; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 180, 184–185; Reich and Shukron 2002). In 1881, the Deutsche Palästina Verein, the German Society for the Exploration of the Holy Land, sent Hermann Guthe (Fig. 2.4: HG; Fig. 2.10 and Table 2.1) to Jerusalem to investigate the discovery of the Siloam Inscription. They were eager to show their presence but also to keep pace with the activities of the British PEF (Guthe 1882). Guthe continued Schick’s work. He followed the course of water channels and exposed small segments of the Byzantine Siloam Church and the adjacent pool (Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 19–23). In addition, he conducted small excavations and probes in various locations along the crest of the eastern slope of the hill (Fig. 2.11). Discovering various segments of walls, he rather naively summed up that through his work, the greater part of the eastern fortification had been exposed (Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 18–19, 25–27). In 1894–1897, Frederick Jones Bliss (Fig. 2.4: BD; Fig. 2.12 and Table 2.1) and Archibald Dickie (Fig. 2.4: BD; Fig. 2.13 and Table 2.1) excavated in the southern part of the city. They continued Warren’s method of digging shafts and subterranean galleries. Although it was a dangerous method, it was efficient, inexpensive and appropriate vis-à-vis the Ottoman authorities and landowners. Among their main discoveries was the dam wall with buttresses at the outlet of the Tyropoeon Valley (Fig. 2.14), which was part of the city wall of the Early Roman period; the main sewer along the Tyropoeon Valley and a segment of the stepped, stone-paved street above it, as well as the Siloam Church (Fig. 2.15). In addition, they excavated an area along the southeastern slope, this time from the surface, in which they hoped to find the “Tombs of the Davidic Dynasty” (following an idea expressed by Charles Clermont-Ganneau in 1887, who believed that the Siloam Tunnel with its large winding course tried to bypass this area). Several rock-cut rooms and installations were found, as well as a miqweh-like installation dating to the Early Roman period (Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 115). In 1901, Ernest G. Mastermann (Fig. 2.4: MS and Table 2.1) and C.A. Hornstein, followed by Schick, descended beneath the landing between the two flights of steps which led to the spring. This act led to the discovery of Channel I, which was subsequently partially cleared (Mastermann 1901; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 185–186).

26 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.4: Location of the excavation areas on the Southeastern Hill. See appended map.

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 2 7

Table 2.1: Legend to Figure 2.4 Excavation no.

Year

Licence/ permit no.

Area

Excavators

Auspices

References/publications

1

2014

A-7130

Area S2 Byz Street

Moran Hagbi, Joe Uziel

IAA

Hagbi and Uziel 2015, 2017a

1

2015

A-7288

Area S2 Byz Street

Moran Hagbi, Joe Uziel

IAA

Hagbi and Uziel 2015, 2017a

2

2002

A-3788

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Eli Shukron

IAA

2

2003

A-3835

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Eli Shukron

IAA

2

2007

A-5071

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013

2

2008

A-5337

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013

2

2009

A-5569

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013

2

2011

A-6086

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013

2

2012

A-6392

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013

2

2013

A-6691

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013, 2014; Ben-Ami and Misgav 2016; Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016, 2017

2

2014

A-6987

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

Ben-Ami 2013, 2014; Ben-Ami and Misgav 2016; Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016, 2017

2

2015

A-7290

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Salome Dan-Goor, Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

2

2016

A-7721

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Salome Dan-Goor, Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

2

2017

G-71

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Yiftah Shalev, Efrat Bocher, Yuval Gadot

TAU, IAA

2

2017

A-7952

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Salome Dan-Goor, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

2

2018

G-11

Giv>ati Parking Lot

Yiftah Shalev, Efrat Bocher, Nitsan Shalom, Yuval Gadot

TAU, IAA

3

2011

A-6290

“Jeremiah’s Cistern”

Doron Ben-Ami, Joe Uziel

IAA

Uziel 2013a, Dan-Goor 2018

3

2012

A-6426

“Jeremiah’s Cistern”

Joe Uziel

IAA

Uziel 2013a, Dan-Goor 2018

3

2015

A-7447

“Jeremiah’s Cistern”

Joe Uziel

IAA

Uziel 2016

3

2017

7760

“Jeremiah’s Cistern”

Salome Dan-Goor, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

Dan-Goor and Tchekhanovets 2020

3

2018

A-7884

“Jeremiah’s Cistern”

Salome Dan-Goor, Yana Tchekhanovets

IAA

Dan-Goor and Tchekhanovets 2020

4

2010

A-5982

Ma>alot >Ir David Street

Rina Avner

IAA

Avner 2011

4

2010

A-6039

Ma>alot >Ir David Street

Rina Avner

IAA

Avner 2011

4

2010

A-5998

Ma>alot >Ir David Street

Rina Avner

IAA

Avner 2011

4

2011

A-6106

Ma>alot >Ir David street

Irina Zilberbod

IAA

Zilberbod 2011

Shalev et al 2019

28 RONNY REICH Excavation no.

Year

Licence/ permit no.

Area

Excavators

Auspices

References/publications

4

2003

A-3824

Silwan, Wadi el Hilwa street

Zubair >Adawi

IAA

>Adawi 2006

4

2005

A-4336

The Visitors’ Center

Tawfiq De>adle

IAA

Avner 2008, De>adle 2009

5

1998

G-58

The Summit of City of David

Dan Bahat

BIU

Bahat 1998

5

1998

A-8184

The Summit of City of David

Dan Bahat

IAA

Bahat 1998

5

2007

G-78

The Summit of City of David

Eilat Mazar

HU

Mazar 2009, 2015b

6

1978

3105

Area G

Yigal Shiloh

HU

Shiloh 1984

6

1978

G-15

Area G

Yigal Shiloh

HU

Shiloh 1984

6

2012

A-6546

Area G

Joe Uziel

IAA

Uziel 2013b

7

1999

A-2997

The Spring House

Eli Shukron

IAA

7

2010

A-5851

The Spring House

Eli Shukron

IAA

7

2009

A-5571

The Spring House

Eli Shukron

IAA

7

2012

A-6388

The Spring House

Eli Shukron, Joe Uziel

IAA

Uziel and Szanton 2015; Hagbi and Uziel 2017; Dan-Goor 2017; Chalaf and Uziel 2018

7

2013

A-6690

The Spring House

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Uziel and Szanton 2015; Hagbi and Uziel 2017; Dan-Goor 2017; Chalaf and Uziel 2018

8

2005

A-4529

Bet Ha-Tira

Zvi Greenhut

IAA

Greenhut 2008

9

2014

A-7017

Area U

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Hagbi and Uziel 2017

9

2015

A-7477

Area U

Joe Uziel, Moran Hagbi

IAA

Hagbi and Uziel 2017

9

2016

A-7640

Area U

Salome Dan-Goor

IAA

Dan-Goor 2017

9

2017

A-7916

Area U

Ortal Chalaf, Joe Uziel

IAA

Chalaf and Uziel 2018

9

2018

A-8257

Area U

Ortal Chalaf, Joe Uziel

IAA

Chalaf and Uziel 2018

10

2004

A-4224

Karʻin House

Zvi Greenhut

IAA

Greenhut 2005

11

2013

A-6870

The Stepped StreetArea S

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Szanton and Uziel 2015; Szanton et al. 2016, Szanton, Shor and Hagbi 2017

11

2014

A-7018

The Stepped StreetArea S

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Szanton et al. 2019

11

2015

A-7289

The Stepped StreetArea S

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Szanton et al. 2019

11

2015

A-7416

The Stepped StreetArea S

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Szanton et al. 2019

11

2016

A-7634

The Stepped StreetArea S

Nahshon Szanton, Moran Hagbi

IAA

Szanton et al. 2019

11

2017

A-7926

The Stepped StreetArea S

Moran Hagbi

IAA

Szanton et al. 2019

11

2018

A-8259

The Stepped StreetArea S

Ari Levy, Joe Uziel, Moran Hagbi

IAA

Szanton et al. 2019

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 2 9 Excavation no.

Year

Licence/ permit no.

Area

Excavators

Auspices

References/publications

12

2012

A-6502

Area K2

Eli Shukron, Nahshon Szanton

IAA

12

2012

A-6626

Area K2

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Szanton and Uziel forthcoming

12

2013

A-6693

Area K2

Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel

IAA

Szanton and Uziel forthcoming

13

2012

A-6662

Area D3

Yuval Gadot

IAA,TAU

Gadot 2014

13

2013

G-4

Area D3

Yuval Gadot

TAU

Gadot 2014

13

2014

G-19

Area D3

Yuval Gadot

TAU

Gadot 2014

13

2015

G-62

Area D3

Helena Roth, Yuval Gadot

TAU

13

2016

G-24

Area D3

Nitsan Ben-Melech, Helena Roth, Yuval Gadot 

TAU

Gadot 2014

13

2017

G-11

Area D3

Nitsan Ben-Melech, Helena Roth, Yuval Gadot 

TAU

Gadot 2014

14

1992

A-1886

Meyuhas House

Yaakov Billig

IAA

Billig 1999

14

1992

A-5638

Meyuhas House

Yaakov Billig

IAA

Billig 1999

15.1

2009

A-4453

West of Siloam Pool

Zvi Greenhut

IAA

Greenhut 2011

15.1

2008

A-4796

West of Siloam Pool

Zvi Greenhut

IAA

Greenhut 2011

15.1

2010

A-5616

West of Siloam Pool

Zvi Greenhut

IAA

Greenhut 2011

15.2

2012

A-6399

South of Siloam Pool

Shlomit WekslerBdolah, Ron Lavi,

IAA

Weksler-Bdolah and Lavi 2013

15.2

2013

A-6709

South of Siloam Pool

Shlomit WekslerBdolah, Nahshon Szanton

IAA

Weksler-Bdolah and Szanton 2014

15.2

2013

A-6709

South of Siloam Pool

Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah

15.3

1993

A-5771

Tyorpoeon, west of the Siloam Pool

Alon De Groot

IAA

15.4

2008

A-5525

The Siloam Pool, Western Street

Eli Shukron

IAA

15.4

2009

A-5572

Siloam Pool

Eli Shukron

IAA

Weksler-Bdolah 2013 De Groot 1995

From 1909 to 1911, the British adventurer Montague B. Parker (Fig. 2.16) conducted excavations with the aim of discovering the hidden treasures of the Jewish Temple (Fig. 2.17). Père Louis-Hugues Vincent (Fig. 2.18), a Jerusalem scholar of the École biblique et archéologique française, served as his “scientific decoy” (Fig. 2.4: PV and Table 2.1). No treasures were discovered, but Vincent’s documentation is still of utmost importance (Vincent 1911), including the excavation of an Early Bronze Age tomb (Figs. 2.19–2.21). It was this excavation that established the identification of the hill with the biblical City of David. It also provided the opportunity to clear and to measure the Siloam Tunnel and Warren’s Shaft System (Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 128, 136; Shalev-Khalifa 1998; Reich 2011a: 56–69). In 1913–1914, the Frenchman, Raymond Weill (Fig. 2.4: RW; Fig. 2.22 and Table 2.1), sponsored by Edmond de Rothschild, conducted excavations in the southern part of the hill (Fig. 2.23). Weill was the first Jew to excavate in the country. He returned for a second season in 1923–1924. Weill,

30 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.5: Charles Warren (courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund).

Figure 2.6: Cross-section of Warren’s Shaft System as discovered by C. Warren in 1867 (Warren and Conder 1884: 369).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 3 1

Figure 2.7: Original location of the Siloam Inscription. Ronny Reich is at the right (photo by V. Reich).

too, was looking for the tombs of the Davidic Dynasty, to the north of the same winding of the Siloam Tunnel. He claimed that two large horizontal rock-cuttings he discovered were indeed the tombs which he had sought, but they were empty. This claim was largely rejected by later scholars. His most important discoveries are the Theodotos Inscription (Fig. 2.24), which mentions a synagogue on the site, and several large miqwa’ot (Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 112–118), as well as extensive areas of quarried bedrock (Fig. 2.25).

EXCAVATIONS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE Subsequent to their conquest of Palestine, the British established the importance and unique position of Jerusalem, and of the City of David in particular. Out of a deep sense of “scientific responsibility,” they considered the City of David part of global heritage and initiated an international excavation project (Reich 2002; 2011b: 79–88). Robert A.S. Macalister and J. Garrow Duncan excavated on behalf of the PEF (Fig. 2.4: MD and Table 2.1; Macalister and Duncan 1926; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 18– 19), while Weill returned for his second season. The Jewish Exploration Society, which was eager to take part in the project, was seemingly unable to raise the required financing (Reich 2002: 57; 2011b).2 2    

See also Files ATQ/169, ATQ/1789 of the IAA archives. It should be noted that in the statutes of the Archaeological Council (file ATQ/14), it is stated that on November 26th, 1921, a license to excavate was issued to Dr. Nahum Slousz (License No. VIII) in Silwan, on the premises belonging to Daud Suleiman, between the Dung Gate and the Pool of Siloam. There are no further details and it is unknown whether this excavation was ever carried out.

32 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.8: Conrad Schick (courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund).

Figure 2.9: Channel II, plan and section by Conrad Schick (1891: Pl. between pp. 14 and 15).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 3 3

Figure 2.10: Hermann Guthe (Alt 1936: Taf. 6).

Macalister and Duncan’s main discovery was the so-called “Stepped Stone Structure” (Fig. 2.26), as well as an ostracon written in ancient Hebrew (Faigenbaum-Golovin et al. 2015; Fig. 2.27). In 1927 John Winter Crowfoot (Fig. 2.28) and Gerald M. Fitzgerald (Fig. 2.4: CF and Table 2.1; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929) carried on the PEF project. Their most important discoveries were the remains of a massive fortification wall and gateway (Figs. 2.29, 2.30), which they dated to the Iron Age. The recent excavation at the nearby Giv>ati Parking Lot (see below) exposed related elements, which led the excavators to attribute Crowfoot and Fitzgerald’s fortifications as well as their discoveries to the Seleucid Akra (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2015). In 1937, Cedrick Norman Johns carried out a small rescue excavation for a drainage manhole in the Tyropoeon Valley on behalf of the Mandate’s Department of Antiquities. Part of the Herodian stepped street and the subterranean drainage channel (Fig. 2.31) were discovered in this excavation (Reich and Shukron 2009).

EXCAVATIONS UNDER JORDANIAN AUSPICES Only a single excavation was carried out on the Southeastern Hill during Jordanian rule. It was directed by Kathleen M. Kenyon (Fig. 2.32), between 1961 and 1967, on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (Fig. 2.4: KK and Table 2.1; Kenyon 1974; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 11–15, 24, 27, 36–37). These excavations, which included numerous areas, mark the beginning of archaeological research in Jerusalem according to scientific methods that are still valid. In particular, this excavation was based on minute stratigraphic observations and comprehensive retrieval of pottery and other finds. Kenyon’s most important discoveries were segments of what she interpreted as the MB II and Iron II fortifications (Fig. 2.33). Kenyon also

34 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.11: A miqweh excavated by Guthe (Guthe 1882: Taf. VII: T).

Figure 2.12: Frederick Jones Bliss (Hallote 2006, frontispiece).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 3 5

excavated an additional segment of the Stepped Stone Structure (which she termed the Jebusite Ramp), and clearly demonstrated that the “Davidic Tower” dates to the Hellenistic period.

EXCAVATIONS UNDER ISRAELI AUSPICES The first archaeological activity undertaken during Israeli rule in the vicinity of the City of David was the survey carried out in 1968 by David Ussishkin (Fig. 2.4: DU; Fig. 2.34 and Table 2.1) in the rock-cut necropolis of the modern village of Silwan. The area is located outside of and facing the Southeastern Hill from the eastern side of the Kidron Valley. There is no doubt, however that these tombs—some of which are quite elaborate (Fig. 2.35)—are certainly part of the site’s Iron Age cemetery (Ussishkin 1993; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 215–223). In 1977, David Adan-Bayewitz conducted a small excavation on the western bank of the Kidron Valley, abutting the rock scarp that creates the lower, eastern slope of the City of David (AdanBayewitz 1979). A small part of a pool was exposed, dated to the Early Roman period and identified with the “Pool of Solomon” mentioned by Flavius Josephus (War 5.145). Between 1978 and 1985, a multi-seasonal excavation, located in various areas, was conducted by Yigal Shiloh (Fig. 2.36) on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Fig. 2.4: YS, 6 and Table 2.1). The entrance to Warren’s Shaft System was reopened and made accessible to the public (Fig. 2.37). Of the various areas, Area G (including the Stepped Stone Structure and the House of Aḥiel; Fig. 2.38) were subject to conservation and opened to the public, although the numbers of tourists were limited. Shiloh’s team continued to work on the finds, and numerous excavation reports were published (Shiloh 1984; De Groot and Ariel 1992; Ariel 1996, 2000a, 2000b; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a, 2012b). On the other hand, academic interest in the site receded, as

Figure 2.13: Frederick Jones Bliss and Archibald Dickie.

36 RONNY REICH

can be deduced from the limited number of scientific articles published and the lectures given at scientific conferences. In 1993, Alon De Groot conducted a small excavation in the Tyropoeon Valley, west of the Pool of Siloam (Fig. 2.4: 15.3 and Table 2.1). A wall of dressed stones was exposed, as well as artifacts dating to the Early Roman period. In 1994, Yaʿakov Billig conducted a small excavation at the southeastern corner of the Meyuhas House, along the southern part of the eastern slope. Segments of a quarry dated to the Roman period were exposed (Fig. 2.4: 14 and Table 2.1). The interest in the City of David was renewed in 1995, following the announcement that that year would commemorate “3000 years of Jerusalem.” This led to the initiation of a small excavation at the site “where everything began,” conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority, as well as conservation works on the walls exposed for over a decade by the Shiloh expedition. Eli Shukron and I were commissioned in beginning 1995 to carry out the excavation. At that point in time, the El’ad Foundation had begun to operate on site and planned to build a visitors’ center near the spring. This brought the IAA to demand the financing of a salvage excavation in that area. This short-term excavation, which was supposed to last some two to three months, developed into a long, ongoing project that lasted from 1995 to 2013. Between 1995 and 2008, Shukron and I excavated within the confines of the Spring House and other small areas. In the years 2009 and 2010, Shukron continued the excavations at the Spring House. In 2010, I was nominated to the Israel Archaeological

Figure 2.14: Reconstruction of the Early Roman fortification/dam wall with buttresses at the outlet of the Tyropoeon Valley (Bliss and Dickie 1898: frontispiece).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 3 7

Figure 2.15: View of the southern wall of the Siloam Church, behind the standing figure (Vincent 1911: Pl. XVII).

Figure 2.16: Montague B. Parker (Shalev-Khalifa 1998: 127).

38 RONNY REICH

Council and appointed Head of the Excavation Permit Committee, leading to my resignation from the excavation. Shukron continued the excavations at the Spring House, although in 2011, I was added to the permit for a short time. In 2012, the excavation in the Spring House was conducted by Shukron and Joe Uziel (Shukron, Uziel and Szanton 2013). In 2013, Nahshon Szanton joined Uziel in directing the project until its completion. From 2004 to 2007, Shukron and I excavated the Pool of Siloam. In 2008 and 2009, Shukron continued the excavation of the Pool of Siloam and exposed the western side of the Herodian stepped street. The drainage channel and Area K2, located in the Tyropoeon Valley, were excavated from 2007 to 2010 by Shukron and myself, uncovering remains from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Three of the focal areas of the Reich-Shukron expedition, where important discoveries were made, were: the fortified spring and its surroundings; the Pool of Siloam at the southern tip of the site; the Early Roman period drainage channel (cloaca maxima). The current report—the first of this expedition—presents some of these discoveries. In 1998, Dan Bahat conducted an excavation on the summit of the hill (Table 2.1) in order to establish the boundaries of the Stepped Stone Structure and of “Area 5” exposed by Macalister (see above). The final clearing of a water installation that had been uncovered by Macalister and Duncan, and its identification as a miqweh, is the main contribution of this excavation (Bahat 1998). In 2003, Rina Avner conducted a small salvage excavation on behalf of the IAA, within the premises of the visitors’ center, adjacent to Kenyon’s Areas H and P (Avner 2008), where Early Islamic remains were unearthed. In 2004, Tawfiq De>adle (2009) continued the excavation directly to the south; he exposed a rock-hewn cistern, a plastered installation and the corner of a room, which he dated to the Early Islamic period (Fig. 2.4: 4 and Table 2.1). Zvi Greenhut conducted three small salvage excavations on behalf of the IAA. The first was conducted in 2004, on the upper part of the southern side of the hill (the Kar>in Family house),

Figure 2.17: Opening of shaft leading down to Parker’s excavations, looking north (Vincent 1911: Fig. 26).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 3 9

revealing a Late Roman or Byzantine quarry (Greenhut 2005). In 2005, he excavated above Warren’s Shaft System, in the same general area where Parker had excavated several shafts and underground galleries (Fig. 2.4: 10 and Table 2.1); in fact, it appears that Greenhut exposed remains of the earlier excavation (Greenhut 2008a). Of greater significance was Greenhut’s third excavation, on the lower parts of the slope descending from Mount Zion, above the Tyropoeon Valley, west of the Pool of Siloam (Greenhut 2008b). Here, he exposed a series of multi-storied rooms that had belonged to a domestic building of the Early Roman period (1st century BCE–1st century CE; Fig. 2.40), as well as a modern (late 19th or early 20th century) water cistern (Greenhut 2011). In 2005–2008, Eilat Mazar excavated a large area on the summit of the hill (Fig. 2.4: 5 and Table 2.1). She proposed that she had found the remains of King David’s palace (Fig. 2.39). Although the foundation of a massive wall was discovered, it seems that the evidence attributing them to the anticipated building is not yet convincing (Mazar 2006; 2007a: 129–131; 2007b: 52–66; Mazar 2015). For example, based on 2 Sam 5:11, Mazar had expected the architectural features of the building would match Phoenician architectural style; this did not manifest itself as the remains were unveiled. Obviously, these excavations and their conclusions drew the attention of scientific circles as well as of the wider public. Later, Mazar extended the excavation to the east, towards the Stepped Stone Structure and the “First Wall.” Following the suggestion that the debris located along the eastern slope were in fact the city dump of the Early Roman period (Reich and Shukron 2003), Guy Bar-Oz and I conducted a sifting project in 2005 (labeled Area L; see Part VII, this volume; see also Bouchnik, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; Bouchnik et al. 2006; Reich and Bar-Oz 2006; Bar-Oz et al. 2007). David Amit and Yonatan Adler conducted a small excavation in 2006 on the southern side of Weill’s excavation area. Most of the dig focused on sifting Weill’s dumps (Fig. 2.41; Amit and Adler 2007).

Figure 2.18: Père (Albright 1961: 2–4).

Louis-Hugues

Vincent

40 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.19: Plan of Early Bronze Age tomb excavated by Parker (Vincent 1911: Fig. 30).

Figure 2.20: Cross-section of Early Bronze Age tomb (Vincent 1911: Fig. 31).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 4 1

Figure 2.21: EB I pottery found in tomb excavated by Parker, drawn by Vincent (courtesy of the City of David).

42 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.22: Raymond Weill (Vandier 1951).

Figure 2.23: Panoramic view of R. Weill’s excavations (Weill 1920: Pl. XXIV B).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 4 3

In 2002–2003, Shukron began to excavate on the southern side of the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Fig. 2.4: 2 and Table 2.1). Early Islamic and Byzantine remains were uncovered, as well as 1st and 4th century CE destruction layers. In addition, a rich Hellenistic stratum was exposed. Upon the excavation’s renewal in 2007, the area was expanded to cover the entire site (Fig. 2.42), under the direction of Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets (Ben-Ami 2013). Beyond the exposure of a dense stratigraphic sequence spanning Iron II through to the period of the British Mandate, the excavators ventured to identify in the remains two buildings mentioned in the historical sources: the palace or residence of the Adiabene kings (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011) and the Seleucid Akra (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2015). Recently, the project was once again renewed under the direction of Yuval Gadot of Tel Aviv University and Yiftah Shalev of the IAA (see below, Ongoing Excavations). In 2009, at the southern tip of the Birkat al-Ḥamra Garden, Zvi Greenhut and Gabi Mazor excavated a small probe on behalf of the IAA. The southern extramural face of the southern dam wall was exposed (Greenhut and Mazor forthcoming). In 2010–2011, Rina Avner conducted several salvage excavations along Ma>alot Ir David Street, primarily exposing remains of the Early Islamic period (Fig. 2.4: 4; Avner 2011 and Table 2.1). In 2011, at the intersection of the Ma>alot Ir David and Wadi Ḥilwah Streets, ca. 15 m east of Shiloh’s Area H, Irina Zilberbod excavated a very small probe for the construction of a modern drainpipe. A small section of a wall and pavement dated to the Byzantine period were uncovered (Table 2.1, Zilberbod 2011). In 2012–2013, Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Ron Lavi and Nahshon Szanton excavated on behalf of the IAA near the junction of those same streets, just south of Birkat al-Ḥamra (Weksler-Bdolah and Lavi 2013; Weksler-Bdolah and Szanton 2014). Segments of the fortification gate of the Early Roman period were uncovered, most of which had previously been documented by Guthe, Bliss and

Figure 2.24: The Theodothos Inscription (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

44 RONNY REICH

Dickie, and Kenyon (Fig. 2.4: 15.2; Fig. 2.43 and Table 2.1). These finds are connected to remains of the fortifications discovered in various excavations in the southern part of the City of David since the 1970s, such as those carried out by Adan-Bayewitz, Shiloh, De Groot, Greenhut, and Greenhut and Mazor (Weksler-Bdolah 2013). In 2012, Shukron and Szanton cleared a considerable length of a secondary drainage channel, which bifurcates eastwards into the central drainage channel. In 2012, in preparation for the conservation planned for the “Stepped Stone Structure” of Area G, Uziel carried out a limited excavation on behalf of the IAA within the so-called “compartmentlike structure” underneath it; no substantial remains were uncovered (Fig. 2.4: 6; Uziel 2013a and Table 2.1). In 2013, Szanton and Uziel excavated due west of Area K and south of Area K2, on behalf of the IAA (Fig. 2.4: 12 and Table 2.1). The excavations revealed portions of a building that was constructed in the Byzantine period and later reused in the Early Islamic period (Szanton and Uziel forthcoming). In 2013, a multi-season excavation began, directed by Gadot on behalf of Tel Aviv University (Fig. 2.4: 13 and Table 2.1). The excavation, located on the eastern slope of the Southeastern Hill, had two primary goals: the excavation of the Early Roman period garbage dump (Fig. 2.44) and excavating sections left by Shiloh’s team in Area E using micro-archaeological procedures (Gadot 2014). In 2014–2015, Moran Hagbi and Uziel excavated part of the Byzantine street at the northwestern outskirts of the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Fig. 2.4: 1; Fig. 2.45 and Table 2.1). The excavation revealed a

Figure 2.25: Quarries unearthed by Weill, looking southeast, at upper right corner of the Meyuhas House (the first house constructed on the hill, in 1885).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 4 5

Figure 2.26: The Stepped Stone Structure (photo by R. Reich).

Figure 2.27: The “Ophel Ostracon” discovered by Macalister and Duncan (Macalister and Duncan 1926: Fig. 193).

46 RONNY REICH

portion of the stone-paved street that had been exposed in the western edge of the Giv>ati Parking Lot and farther south in the Crowfoot and Fitzgerald excavations (Hagbi and Uziel 2015, 2017a).

ONGOING EXCAVATIONS UNDER ISRAELI AUSPICES In 2011, an excavation was carried out on Ma>alot Ir David Street, west of the so-called “Jeremiah’s Cistern,” on behalf of the IAA (Fig. 2.4: 3 and Table 2.1). In 2011–2012, Uziel excavated east of the modern street (Uziel 2013b). Since 2016, Salome Dan-Goor has continued as well as expanded the excavation, to the west and south. Eight settlement strata were exposed, including remains of a Late Roman villa with mosaic floors and a series of water installations dating to the Early Roman period (Fig. 2.46; Dan-Goor 2018). In 2013, after completing the excavations in the new visitors’ center in the Spring House, Uziel and Szanton began to excavate the area of the eastern slope between the entrance to Warren’s Shaft System and the spring, on behalf of the IAA. This excavation, labeled Area U, currently under the direction of Ortal Chalaf and Uziel, is ongoing (Fig. 2.4: 9, Uziel and Szanton 2015; Hagbi and Uziel 2017b; Dan-Goor 2017; Chalaf and Uziel 2018 and Table 2.1). The most important remains uncovered thus far are structures dating from the 8th century BCE to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE (Figs. 2.47, 2.48).

Figure 2.28: John Winter Crowfoot during his excavations in the City of David (courtesy of N. Franklin).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 4 7

Figure 2.29: Plan and section of Crowfoot and Fitzgerald’s excavations. After Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: Pl. XXII.

48 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.30: The opening unearthed by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald, which they interpreted as a city gate (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: Frontispiece).

Figure 2.31: The Herodian stepped street and subterranean sewer discovered by C.N. Johns (Reich and Shukron 2009: Fig. 7).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 4 9

Figure 2.32: Kathleen M. Kenyon (Kenyon 1974, dust jacket).

Figure 2.33: View of Kenyon’s Wall 3 (NB) (front) and Iron Age II Wall 1 (NA) (back), looking west (photo by V. Reich).

50 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.34: David Ussishkin (courtesy of D. Ussishkin).

Figure 2.35: Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter (arrow at left), looking east (photo by R. Reich).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 5 1

Since 2013, Szanton has headed the excavations (co-directed by Hagbi [2016–2018], Uziel [2013– 2015, 2018, 2019] and Ari Levy [2018 onward]) exposing the paved, stepped street of the Early Roman period (Fig. 2.49), along the Tyropoeon Valley, overlying the drainage channel that had been previously exposed. The excavations have exposed significant portions of the street, covered by the 70 CE destruction layer, and later remains attributed to the Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Szanton and Zilberstein 2016; Szanton et al. 2016; Szanton, Shor and Hagbi 2017; Szanton et al. 2019). Of particular interest is a stepped pyramidal structure (Fig. 2.50), exposed along the eastern side of the street, which seems to have served as a podium along the street (Uziel and Szanton 2015). As of 2017, the excavation of the Giv>ati Parking Lot has been renewed, under the direction of Yuval Gadot of Tel Aviv University and Yiftah Shalev of the IAA (Fig. 2.4: 2; Fig. 2.51 and Table 2.1). The current project has continued the exposure of Hellenistic and Iron Age remains uncovered by the Ben-Ami–Tchekhanovets excavations, reaching new insights on the development of the city subsequent to the 586 BCE destruction (Shalev, Polokoff and Gadot 2018; Mendel-Geberovich et al. 2019; Shalev, Bocher et al. forthcoming; Shalev, Shalom et al. forthcoming).

A NOTE ON THE INTENSITY OF EXCAVATIONS IN THE CITY OF DAVID AND ITS IMMEDIATE VICINITY From the above list of excavations, it is clear that an extremely large number of excavations have been carried out on the Southeastern Hill. The locations of these excavations are marked on the map (in the pocket attached to the back cover of this book) (Fig. 2.4, and see Table 2.4 this chapter). As seen on this map, despite the large number of excavations conducted, there are still considerably large areas available for excavation.

Figure 2.36: Yigal Shiloh (courtesy of Y. Shiloh’s expedition to the City of David).

Figure 2.37: Photo of Yigal Shiloh in Warren’s Shaft (courtesy of Y. Shiloh’s expedition to the City of David).

52 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.38: “House of Aḥiel” discovered in Shiloh’s Area G, looking southwest (photo by Koby Harati).

Figure 2.39: Aerial view of the so-called King David’s Palace, of E. Mazar’s excavations (Mazar 2007b: front cover).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 5 3

Figure 2.40: Aerial view of two stories of rock-cut rooms exposed by Z. Greenhut (courtesy of Z. Greenhut).

The recent spurt of intensive archaeological excavations in the City of David has awakened interest in the site. The attention of scholars can roughly be measured by the number of scientific articles published, as well as professional conferences dedicated to the site and the discoveries made in it.3 Public interest can be measured by the number of visitors to the site including locals and tourists from abroad.4 On the other hand, the abundance of excavations has led to issues under dispute and debate, particularly those of a political nature. Claims of over-excavation of the site and the need to cease archaeological activities have been raised (Kletter and De Groot 2001). This claim was countered with the argument that scientific research cannot be halted, particularly on the basis of claims that are not scientific. This issue merits a profound examination and discussion by the Archaeological Council, the Israel Antiquities Authority, the archaeological departments at the universities in Israel, and in professional conferences. 3    

4    

Since 1995, three conferences on the archaeology of Jerusalem are held annually: Bar Ilan University’s New Studies on Jerusalem is held at Bar Ilan University; the Megalim Institute’s City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem, has been held since 2000 (with published proceedings since 2006); and New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, a collaborative effort of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University, held since 2007. In 2006, the number of ticket-paying visitors to the National Park of the City of David exceeded 300,000. As of 2017, the number rose to close to 500,000.

54 RONNY REICH

The number of excavations presented in the list above is indeed large, but it is necessary to examine its significance. Questions such as the following must be asked: What is the size of the excavated areas? When were each of these areas excavated? What is the scientific value of the finds uncovered in each of the excavated areas? On the issue of the size of the excavated areas, a comprehensive study was published (Reich and Shukron 2008: 33–37), which compared the areas excavated in the City of David with other selected sites, both in Jerusalem and throughout Israel. The study also examined the size of the Southeastern Hill. In the past, scholars (e.g., Avigad 1956: 144, Map 8) referred to a minimal size of the city in the Bronze and Iron Ages, until the extension of the city’s perimeter to the west in the 8th century BCE. This area extended from the spring in the north to the rocky cliff in the south which rises above the Pool of Siloam; and from the spring in the east to the rocky cliff which was documented in the late 19th century

Figure 2.41: Weill’s dumps, later sifted by D. Amit and Y. Adler, looking south. (Photo courtesy of the Matson Collection, Library of Congress).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 5 5

Figure 2.42: The Giv>ati Parking Lot Excavations in 2007 (courtesy of the City of David, photo by Vladimir Naikhin).

Figure 2.43: Schematic reconstruction of the 1st century BCE dam wall and integrated gate south of the Siloam Pool.

56 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.44: Early Roman period garbage dump exposed in Areas D/E, uncovered in Y. Gadot’s excavations.

Figure 2.45: The Byzantine street, view to the north, exposed by Hagbi and Uziel.

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 5 7

along the southwestern edge of the hill. The size of this area measures 41 dunams (4.1 hectare). On the other hand, excavations in recent years have shown that ancient remains and deposits descend on the eastern slope to the base of the Kidron Valley and extend to the western side of the Tyropoeon Valley, meaning these areas should be incorporated as well. The boundaries of the area calculated in this study are: north: the asphalted road which leads from the Dung Gate eastwards and surrounds the Temple Mount from the east; east: the course of the bottom of the Kidron Valley; west: the course of the Herodian stepped street and the main drain underneath it; south: the point where the eastern and western boundary meet, that is south of Birkat al-Ḥamra (Pool of Siloam). An exact measurement according to this study estimates a size of 116 dunams (11.6 hectares). The ratio of the excavated area to the size of the site as presented here indicates that the Southeastern Hill does not stand out when compared to other areas excavated in Jerusalem, or other sites in Israel. It should be noted that there are sites in Israel that have been extensively excavated sometimes close to the point of exhaustion (Masada, Qumran, the civic center of Beth-Shean, synagogues, the larger parts of Caesarea and more), however no one challenged the excavators with the accusation that these sites were over-excavated and that scientific work on them should cease.

Figure 2.46: View of S. Dan-Goor’s excavations, revealing Early Roman water installations.

58 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.47: View to the south of Iron II building on the eastern slope, exposed by Chalaf and Uziel (photo by A. Peretz).

Figure 2.48: View to the west of Iron II building on the eastern slope, exposed by Chalaf and Uziel, with remains of 586 BCE destruction (photo by A. Peretz).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 5 9

Figure 2.49: The paved stepped street of the Early Roman period along the Tyropoeon Valley, exposed by Szanton and Hagbi (photo by A. Peretz).

Figure 2.50: Pyramidal structure along the eastern side of the Herodian stepped street, exposed in Szanton’s excavations (photo by A. Peretz).

60 RONNY REICH

Figure 2.51: The Giv>ati Parking Lot Excavations in 2018 (photo by A. Peretz).

REFERENCES Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1979. The ‘Fountain of Siloam’ and ‘Solomon’s Pool’ in First Century C.E. Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 92–100. Aḥituv, S. and Mazar, A. eds. 2000. The History of Jerusalem, The Biblical Period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Albright, W.F. 1961. In Memory of Louis Hugues Vincent. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 164: 1–4. Alt, A. 1936. Hermann Guthe. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 59: 177–180. Amit, D. and Adler, Y. 2007. Revisiting the 1913–1914 Weill Expedition: Recent Excavation in the City of David. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 2. Jerusalem: 69–81 (Hebrew). Ariel, D.T. 1996. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Ariel, D.T. 2000a. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem. Ariel, D.T. 2000b. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem. Avigad, N. 1956. Archaeology. In: Avi-Yonah, M., ed. Sepher Yerushalayim (The Book of Jerusalem). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: 144–155 (Hebrew). Avner, R. 2008. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=747&mag_id=114 (accessed February 9, 2020). Avner, R. 2011. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 123. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1741&mag_id=118 (accessed February 9, 2020). Bahat, D. 1998. City of David Excavations 1998. In: Baruch, E., ed. New Studies on Jerusalem 4. Ramat Gan: 22–26 (Hebrew).

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 6 1

Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnik, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Ben-Ami, D. 2013. Jerusalem: Excavation in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Ben-Ami, D. and Tchekhanovets, Y. 2011. Has the Adiabene Royal Family “Palace” Been Exposed in the City of David? In: Galor, K. and Avni, G., eds. Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City. Winona Lake: 231–239. Ben-Ami, D. and Tchekhanovetz, Y. 2015. “... And They Also That Were in the City of David in Jerusalem Who Had Made Themselves a Tower” (1 Macc. 14:36). The Seleucid Fortification System at the Givati Parking Lot, City of David. In: Stiebel, G., Peleg-Barkat, O., Ben-Ami, D. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region IX. Jerusalem: 313–322 (Hebrew). Bieberstein, K. and Bloedhorn, H. 1994. Jerusalem, Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft (Beiheft zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Atlas, Beiheft 100/3). Wiesbaden. Billig, Y. 1999. Jerusalem, the City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 110: 62 (Hebrew). Bliss, F.J. and Dickie, A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Bouchnik, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2004. Animal Bone Remains from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 10. Ramat-Gan: 71–80 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 50*). Bouchnik, R., Bar-Oz, G., Shukron, E. and Reich, R. 2006. More Bones from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 11. Ramat-Gan: 175–185 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 40*–41*). Chalaf, O. and Uziel, J. 2018. Beyond the Walls: New Findings on the Eastern Slope of the City of David and their Significance for Understanding the Urban Development of Late Iron Age Jerusalem. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 13. Jerusalem: 17–30 (Hebrew). Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1887. Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature 24: 335–340. Crowfoot, J.W. and Fitzgerald, G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual No. 5). London.. Dan-Goor, S. 2017. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=25162&mag_id=125 (accessed February 9, 2020). Dan-Goor, S. 2018. Water at the Top of the Hill: The Second Temple Period Water Systems at the Top of the City of David Hill. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 13. Jerusalem: 9–20 (Hebrew). De‘adle, T. 2009. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1108&mag_id=115 (accessed February 9, 2020). De Groot, A. 1995. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 103: 66–67 (Hebrew). De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. 1992. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012a. Excavation at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIA: Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012b. Excavation at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem. Faigenbaum-Golovin, S., Rollston, C.A., Piasetzky, E., Sober, B. and Finkelstein, I. 2015. The Ophel (Jerusalem) Ostracon in Light of New Multispectral Images. Semitica 57: 113–137. Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2/3: 279–292. Greenhut, Z. 2005. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 117. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=188&mag_id=110 (accessed February 9, 2020). Greenhut, Z. 2008a. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=716&mag_id=114

62 RONNY REICH

Greenhut, Z. 2008b. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=834&mag_id=114 (accessed February 9, 2020). Greenhut, Z. 2011. A Domestic Quarter from the Second Temple Period on the Lower Slopes of the Central Valley (Tyropoeon). In: Galor, K., and Avni, G., eds. Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City. Winona Lake: 257–293. Greenhut, Z., and Mazor, G. Forthcoming. City of David, Derech Ha-Shiloah Street. >Atiqot. Guthe, H. 1882. Ausgrabungen Bei Jerusalem, III: Die Arbeiten am Aufstieg des Siloahkanal. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 5: 7–204. Hagbi, M. and Uziel, J. 2015. Jerusalem, City of David (B). Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 127. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=23807&mag_id=122 (accessed February 9, 2020). Hagbi, M. and Uziel, J. 2017a. Jerusalem, City of David, the Byzantine Street. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. aspx?id=25185&mag_id=125 (accessed February 26, 2020). Hagbi, M. and Uziel, J. 2017b. Jerusalem, City of David, Shalem Slopes. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=25184&mag_ id=125#bibliography (accessed February 9, 2020). Hallote, R.S. 2006. Bible, Map, and Spade: The American Palestine Exploration Society, Frederick Jones Bliss, and the Forgotten Story of Early American Biblical Archaeology. New Jersey. Kenyon, K.M. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London. Kletter, R. and De Groot, A. 2001. Excavating to Excess? Implications of the Last Decade of Archaeology in Israel. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14/1: 76–85. Küchler, M. 2006. Jerusalem: Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer sur Heiligen Stadt. Göttingen. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1925. Mount Ophel, Jerusalem, A Compilation of the Results of the Excavations Made between 1867 & 1925, Scale 1:1000. London. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925 (Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund 4). London. Mastermann, E.W.G. 1901. Notes and News. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 33: 321. Mazar, E. 2006. “Did We Discover King David’s Palace?”. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 11. Ramat Gan: 7–16 (Hebrew). Mazar, E. 2007a. Jerusalem—4000-Year-Old Capital in the Light of Recent Archaeological Excavations. Eretz Israel 28 (Teddy Kollek Vol.): 125–133 (Hebrew). Mazar, E. 2007b. Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005, at the Visitors Center Area. Jerusalem. Mazar, E. 2015. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008, Final Reports Vol. I. Jerusalem. Mendel-Geberovich, A., Shalev, Y., Bocher, E., Shalom, N., and Gadot, Y. 2019. A Newly Discovered Personal Seal and Bulla from the Excavations of the Giv>ati Parking Lot, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 69: 154–174. Reich, R. 2002. The International Archaeological Excavation Project at the City of David during the British Mandate. Qadmoniyot 123: 53–57 (Hebrew). Reich, R. 2011a. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. 2011b. The Israel Exploration Society (IES). In: Galor, K. and Avni, G., eds. Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City. Winona Lake: 117–124. Reich, R., and Bar-Oz, G. 2006. The Jerusalem City Dump in the Late Second Temple Period: A Quantitative Study. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 12. Ramat-Gan: 83–98 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 14*–15*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2002. Channel II in the City of David, Jerusalem: Some of Its Technical Features and Their Chronology. In: Ohlig, C., Peleg, Y. and Tsuk, T., eds. Cura Aquarum in Israel, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Israel, May 2001. Siegburg: 1–6.

E X C AVA T I O N S I N T H E C I T Y O F D AV I D 6 3

Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 119: 12–18. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2008. The History of Archaeological Excavations in the ‘City of David’ (1867–2007). In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 3. Jerusalem: 13–41 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2009. Johns’ Excavation of the Paved Road up the Tyropoeon Valley. In: Amit, D., Stiebel, G. and Peleg-Barkat, O., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region III. Jerusalem: 37–45 (Hebrew). Schick, C. 1891. The “Second” Siloah Aqueduct. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 24: 13–18, Plan 2. Shalev, Y., Bocher, E., Roth, H., Sandhaus, D., Shalom, N. and Gadot, Y. Forthcoming. New Evidence on the Nature and Location of Jerusalem during the Early Hellenistic Period. In: Berlin, A.M., and Kosmin, P.J., eds. The Middle Maccabees: From the Death of Judas through the Reign of John Hyrcanus (ca. 160–104 BCE). New Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Shalev, Y., Gellman, D., Bocher, E., Freud, L., Porat, N. and Gadot, Y. 2019. The Fortifications along the Western Slope of the City of David: A New Perspective. In: Peleg-Barkat, O., Zelinger, Y., Uziel, J. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region XIII. Jerusalem: 51–70 (Hebrew). Shalev, Y., Polokoff, A. and Gadot, Y. 2018. Gold Jewelry from the Early Hellenistic Period in Jerusalem. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 13. Jerusalem: 41–50 (Hebrew). Shalev, Y., Shalom, N., Bocher, E., and Gadot, Y. Forthcoming. Go West: New Evidence for Iron Age, Persian and Early Hellenistic Jerusalem and the Implications for the Location and Nature of the City. Tel Aviv 47. Shalev-Khalifa, N. 1998. In Search of the Temple Treasures—The Story of the Parker Expedition in the City of David, 1909–1911. Qadmoniot 116: 126–133 (Hebrew). Shiloh, Y. 1968. A Table of the Major Excavations in Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 1: 71–78 (Hebrew). Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations in the City of David I, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Shukron, E., Uziel, J. and Szanton, N. 2013. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=5445&mag_id=120 (accessed February 9, 2020). Szanton, N., Hagbi, M., Haber, M, Uziel, J. and Ariel, D.T. 2016. Monumental Building Projects in Jerusalem in the Days of Pontius Pilate: A Numismatic View from the Stepped Street in the Tyropoeon Valley. In: Stiebel, G.D. Uziel, J., Cytryn-Silverman, K., Re’em, A. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region X. Jerusalem: 99–114 (Hebrew). Szanton, N., Hagbi, M., Uziel, J. and Ariel, D.T. 2019. Pontius Pilate and the Monumental Street from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount. Tel Aviv 46: 147–166. Szanton, N., Shor, M. and Hagbi, M. 2017. “We Have Returned to the Cisterns” – The Lower City of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. In: Meiron, E. ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 12. Jerusalem: 87–103 (Hebrew). Szanton, N. and Uziel, J. 2015. On the Question of the Stepped Stone Monument from the Second Temple Period in the City of David. In: Meiron, E. ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 10. Jerusalem: 19–39 (Hebrew). Szanton, N. and Uziel, J. Forthcoming. A Byzantine and Early Islamic Building along the Southern Tyropoeon Valley. >Atiqot. Szanton, N. and Zilberstein, A. 2016. “The Second Hill, which Bore the Name of Acra, and Supported the Lower City”. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 11. Jerusalem: 31–47 (Hebrew). Ussishkin, D. 1993. The Village of Silwan, The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Jerusalem. Uziel, J. 2013a. Jerusalem, City of David (B). Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=4385&mag_id=120 (accessed February 9, 2020). Uziel, J. 2013b. Jerusalem, City of David (A). Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2306&mag_id=120 (accessed February 9, 2020). Uziel, J. and Szanton, N. 2015. Recent Excavations Near the Gihon Spring and Their Reflection on the Character of Iron II Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 42: 233–250.

64 RONNY REICH

Vandier, J. 1951. Raymond Weill (1874–1950). Revue d’Égyptologie 8: I–VI. Vincent, L.H. 1911. Underground Jerusalem. London. Warren, C. and Conder, C.R. 1884. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London. Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1913–1914. Paris. Weill, R. 1947. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1923–1924. Paris. Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2013. Jerusalem’s City Wall and Gates South of the Siloam Pool: New Discoveries. In: Stiebel, G.D., Peleg-Barkat, O., Ben-Ami, D., Weksler-Bdolah, S. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region VII. Jerusalem: 171–194 (Hebrew). Weksler-Bdolah, S. and Lavi, R. 2013. Jerusalem, Silwan. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=4343&mag_id=120 (accessed February 9, 2020). Weksler-Bdolah, S. and Szanton, N. 2014. Jerusalem, Silwan. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=10572&mag_id=121 (accessed February 9, 2020). Zilberbod, I. 2011. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 123. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1905&mag_id=118 (accessed February 9, 2020).

CHAPTER 3

EXCAVATION, ANALYSIS AND PUBLICATION METHODOLOGY Ronny Reich, Efrat Bocher, Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Eli Shukron

THE EXCAVATIONS The 1995–2011 City of David excavations were carried out under the direction of Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich. The current volume is the first of the final reports of these excavations; it covers Areas A, J, F, H, D, and L. Although the excavations were carried out over a lengthy period of time, they were not an archaeological expedition. They were not pre-planned and were never intended, like the Kenyon-Shiloh expeditions (see Chapter 2), to remain on-going for several years. Our work began as a modest salvage excavation aimed at solving a single issue. As we dug, that issue evolved into another issue that mandated further excavation. And so, excavating continued in this manner for 15 years (see Table 3.1). No specific research questions or particular aims were determined at the outset. Rather, in a somewhat ad hoc manner, specific questions were raised and solutions offered at moments of discovery and in relation to other archaeological elements. Only at later stages were specific activities undertaken in the fieldwork in order to address questions that arose as outcomes of specific findings. In a way, the excavations in many of the areas followed chance detections. Some of the discoveries, such as the Pool of Siloam, were a complete surprise. Methods and solutions were also developed as we continued to dig. For example, following the 2005 excavation in Area C (to be published in a forthcoming volume), wet sifting and handpicking were introduced. The method chosen had already been developed by Gabriel Barkay as part of the Temple Mount Sifting Project. Sediment was taken from the excavation to the Emek Tzurim compound, dry sifted to remove heavy residue (e.g., stones) and then placed on a 5 mm sieve. The sediment was then washed with a hose to flush away soil, leaving only macro- and micro-artifacts to be handpicked, packaged and registered. In this manner, even the most minute artifacts were left for collection. The details of the development of this process will be given in the publication of Area C. Only sediments from secure archaeological contexts were wet-sifted. This method later became common practice at all excavations in the City of David, as well as at other excavations in Jerusalem and in Israel as a whole. At times, excavations were undertaken within existing modern buildings and infrastructures. We were therefore compelled in certain cases to excavate horizontally. Since this method requires the utilization of support structures, concurrent with excavating, workers were required to perform engineering feats as well. As they dug, they had to incorporate wooden and particularly steel struts and roofing into the infrastructure. While the iron pylons and supports caused some damage to the ancient deposits, this was kept to a minimum. Without these support structures, the excavation of several areas could not have been carried out. We faced difficulties of various types (technical, logistic, political, legal, etc.), probably greater in number and more complex than at excavations in other areas in the country. Many times, work was called off and resumed by order of the Israel Antiquities Authority, which required quick

6 6 R O N N Y R E I C H , E F R AT B O C H E R , A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

logistic responses in order to secure the area of excavation from collapse and prevent any damage to surrounding infrastructure. Work was carried out under the pressure of time constraints, thus in some cases we were prevented from reaching bedrock or excavating architectural elements to their complete depth. Some of the areas we began unearthing were backfilled immediately upon completion of the excavation, thus preventing continued study, exposure and clarification of questions that arose in the process of writing this report. Certain areas were quite small, yielding restricted archaeological layers, often confined to a short chronological framework (e.g., Areas D, K1, L). The excavation of other areas required several years, despite their relatively limited range, due to problematic logistic and technical problems (such as Areas C and F, which needed elaborate construction of steel girders). Table 3.1 presents the objectives behind opening each excavation area. In addition, some of the excavated areas developed to an extent unforeseen at the outset (described under “Remarks”). Areas were named randomly at the time they were opened. The letter G was deliberately omitted in the numbering of the excavation areas, as a sign of solidarity with our colleague, the late Yigal Shiloh, as the excavations in his Area G were contested in 1981–1982 by extreme religious circles who claimed that he was excavating burials (which was not the case). Area G became identified with him. The letter I was also omitted (for the location of the excavations presented in Table 3.1, see Fig. 3.1).

Table 3.1: The Shukron and Reich Excavations in the City of David Area

Type

Permit

Objectives

Remarks

Preliminary publications

A

Salvage excavation

2204, 2236

Construction of a sidewalk along the western side of Ha-Shiloah Street

The area initially included eight squares. In Square 5 a breach in Channel II was exposed; Square 6 was cancelled due to security issues. Channel II, due to its nature, could not be excavated in squares

Reich and Shukron 1998, 2000b

B

Preplanned excavation

2236

In conjunction with the “Jerusalem 3000” celebrations

This project included conservation of structures unearthed by Y. Shiloh, dismantling of earth baulks left by Shiloh and a small-scale excavation of Iron Age buildings

Reich and Shukron 1998

C

Salvage excavation which continued as a planned excavation

2236, 2599, 2833, 3423, 3590, 4709, 3230, 3423, 3590, 3834, 4007, 4359, 4709, 5082, 6135, 5339, 5336

Construction of the visitors’ center adjacent to the spring

In light of the importance of the findings and in order to enhance the understanding of the area’s function, excavations continued for several years

Reich and Shukron 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2002a, 2003a

C Rockcut Pool

Preplanned excavation

3230, 3423 3590, 3834 4077, 4359 4079, 5082

Understanding the nature of the Rock-cut “Pool”

The excavation required that the entire area be supported by steel struts

Bouchnick, Bar-Oz, Shukron and Reich 2006; Reich and Shukron 2002c, 2009a, 2010; Reich, Shukron and Lernau 2007

C South

Preplanned excavation

5082

Understanding the nature of the remains south of the Rock-cut “Pool”

Reich and Shukron 2011a

E X C AVA T I O N , A N A L Y S I S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y 6 7 Area

Type

Permit

Objectives

Remarks

Preliminary publications

C West

Preplanned excavation

5399, 5339

Understanding the nature of the fortifications west of the Spring Tower

With the discovery of traces of Galleries XIX and XXII of the Parker expedition, the area was extended to the southwest (Fig.3.2)

Reich and Shukron 2011a

D

Salvage excavation

2236

Construction of a retaining wall of the Meyuhas House

E

Preplanned excavation

2599, 2833

Connecting Warren’s Shaft System with the visitors’ center

Originally, there was a plan to cut an artificial opening in Warren’s Shaft System through the bedrock; this plan was replaced by excavating the narrow connection between Warren’s Shaft System and the visitors’ center

Reich and Shukron 2000a, 2002c, 2003a

F

Salvage excavation

2599, 2833

Creating an alternate, dry, tourist path to the Siloam Tunnel through Channel II

In conjunction with the excavation of Channel II, the area beneath the Spring House was excavated and the adjacent short tunnels were examined

Reich and Shukron 1999a, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2002b, 2003a, 2004a, 2009b

H

Preplanned

2833, 5339, 4709

Locating the Spring Tower’s northeast corner

Initially, two squares were excavated. As the baulks caved in during a snowstorm, the area was enlarged

Reich and Shukron 1999c

J

Salvage excavation

2833, 3230

Creating an artificial outlet from Channel II

Initially, two squares were excavated. Due to the segment of city wall which was encountered, the area was extended

Reich and Shukron 1999c, 2000b, 2000c, 2000e, 2001, 2007c, 2008

K1

Salvage excavation

3376

The expansion of a private house

K2

Preplanned excavation

5029, 5760, 5852, 5300, 4720, 4347, 5029, 5300, 5300

Locating the stone-paved, stepped street in the Tyropoeon Valley, previously known from Bliss and Dickie’s excavation (see Chapter 2)

The rediscovery of the subterranean drainage channel beneath the street shifted the focus of the excavation, concentrating on clearing the entire channel from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount’s southwest corner

Reich and Shukron 2007a, 2009c, 2011b; Shukron and Reich 2008; Sidi, Shukron and Reich 2010

L

Preplanned excavation1

3590, 3834 G-27/2005

Extracting two truckloads of debris from a ravine cut by the winter rains for wet sifting

Carried out by Reich, Shukron and Bar-Oz on behalf of the University of Haifa. Sifting was undertaken according to a strict protocol (Bar-Oz et al. 2007)

Bar-Oz et al. 2007; Bouchnick, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; Reich and BarOz 2006; Reich and Shukron 2002a, 2003b

N

Salvage excavation

4192, 4347, 4720

Damage caused by heavy mechanical equipment and the chance discovery of stone steps

The exposure of a pool, later identified as the Pool of Siloam, led to the extension of the dig to expose a stone paved esplanade and stepped street

Reich and Shukron 2004b, 2006, 2007b; Shukron and Reich 2010

1    

--

Reich and Shukron 2001

The excavation in Area L is outstanding in several ways. The idea was raised following the publication of Jerusalem’s Early Roman period city dump (Reich and Shukron 2003b). One of the authors (RR) suggested collaborating on a sifting project with Zoologist Guy Bar-Oz, to study the faunal remains. For this purpose, Ram Bouchnick joined as a Ph.D. student. The sifting project was supported by the National Geographic Society (Grant 7894–05), for which we are very grateful.

6 8 R O N N Y R E I C H , E F R AT B O C H E R , A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

Old City Walls

Ophel

Area L

Area E

Warren’s shaft System

Fortified Passage

W1 W3

Area H Spring Tower

C West

Area C

C South

Rock-Cut “Pool” Channel I

Area K1 Area J

Area B A

Area K2

Area A

The Meyuhas House Siloam Church, Byzantine Period

Area D A A

Area N Siloam pool Early Roman Period

0

50

100

Meters

Figure 3.1: The Shukron and Reich Excavations in the City of David.

Kidron Valle

Area F

Siloam Tunnel

Area K2

y

Channel II

E X C AVA T I O N , A N A L Y S I S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y 6 9

Since the excavations were not pre-planned as a single project, no general registration protocol was developed. Furthermore, the distinct nature of each area demanded its own unique registration and excavation methodology. These conditions demanded some flexibility in the determination of the size of the area excavated, the use of grid squares, etc. Whereas certain areas were excavated using 5 × 5 m squares, others were confined by existing elements or needed smaller squares to fit the predetermined area of excavation. Furthermore, each area was treated as a separate excavation, with no continuity in the numbering of loci, walls and other elements or in the registration of finds. As a result, the same number may appear for different features or finds in different areas. In addition, numbers that had already been assigned to elements by earlier excavations, such as the system of channels surrounding the spring (e.g., Channels I–VIII) were used by the current project. Even so, certain standards were used throughout the excavations. For example, floors and small installations were assigned the same number as the accumulation above them. Larger features (such as channels) received individual numbers, with the sediment excavated given a different number. Moreover, the collection of finds was uniform for all areas. Pottery was collected and sorted, with indicative sherds kept and body sherds discarded. Other finds, such as glass, metal, coins and fauna were collected, registered and taken for analysis. Choice contexts were sifted or wet-sifted. These contexts yielded many more finds—particularly micro-artifacts—which were sorted and registered as well.

Figure 3.2: Eli Shukron at the point where Parker’s Tunnel XIX cuts Wall 17.

7 0 R O N N Y R E I C H , E F R AT B O C H E R , A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

THE REGISTRATION METHOD As noted above, the excavation of each area was undertaken as an independent excavation, including the registration method. The numbering system in general aimed at distinguishing between wall (three digits) and loci numbers (four digits). For the most part, baskets were given a five- or six-digit number so there would be no overlapping between walls, loci and basket numbers. Loci and basket cards were filled in manually on a daily basis. Stratigraphic elements (walls and loci) were generally numbered in the field during excavation. However, during post-excavation processing of the finds, certain loci were understood to contain separate phases. These were retroactively divided, using an additional letter after the assigned number (e.g., Locus L56a in Area J). Certain features exposed and presented in this report were partially uncovered in past excavations and labeled with terms that are used extensively in publications related to them. For example, Channels I and II, the various tunnels near the spring labeled by Vincent, and Walls I and J beneath the Spring House—names given in earlier excavations—were also used in the excavations presented here. As mentioned above, the fills within these features were given their own locus number.

STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENT VOLUME The volume opens (Part I) with an introductory chapter on the City of David (Chapter 1), followed by the history of excavations in the City of David from 1867 through to 2019 (Chapter 2) and the present chapter, on the excavation, analysis and registration method of the Reich–Shukron excavations. Our project re-introduced archaeological excavations into the City of David, following a decade-long hiatus in which no digging was carried out at the site. The final excavation reports for Areas A (Part II), J (Part III), F (Part IV), H (Part V), D (Part VI), and L (Part VII) were chosen by the excavators subsequent to the excavations, based on the knowledge at the time that the work in these areas had been completed and would not be reopened. For example, Area A was covered with a concrete sidewalk, preventing any future work. In Area F, the clearing of Channel II was completed and the area was incorporated into a tourist venue. In Area J, a concrete building housing a tourist exit from Channel II was constructed, preventing further work.1 The report is organized according to the archaeological relationship between areas and the size of the excavation area. Areas A, J, and F are reported on first, as they share several of the most significant architectural discoveries in common. These features include Wall 10, Wall 501, Channel I and Channel II. Next, Area H is presented as it relates to the Spring House and Area F. Finally, reports of two small areas, Area D and Area L, are given. Table 3.2 presents the stratigraphic sequence implemented in Shiloh’s excavations, with references to the finds from each area pertaining to that stratum. Each section begins with a description of the location, natural surroundings, stratigraphy and architecture of the excavation area. Tables presenting the central elements and loci in chronological order appear at the beginning of the stratigraphic report. The stratigraphic description is followed by reports on the pottery and coins from each area. The pottery reports are divided according to periods (i.e., Iron Age, Early Roman, etc.). In Area L, an additional chapter on the faunal remains is presented (Chapter 28). In order to facilitate the reading and due to several issues that arose during the preparation process of this volume, it was decided to juxtapose the pottery and stratigraphy 1    

The excavation records for Area J were lost in a fire, preventing further study of the stratigraphy during the preparation of this volume.

E X C AVA T I O N , A N A L Y S I S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y 7 1

Table 3.2: Main Architectural Elements, Stratum 3 and Their Chronological Setting Strat. *

Period

Area A

Area J

Area D

Area H

Area F

1

Medieval/ modern

2

Islamic/ Ayyubid

3

Byzantine

Quarry

4

Late Roman

Quarry

5–6

Early Roman

Debris dumped on slope; Abandoned cooking pots

7

Hellenistic/ Hasmonean

Abandoned cooking pots

8

Early Hellenistic

9

Persian

Scattered pottery Wall 15? Channel 36?

10

Iron II (second half of 7th century–586 BCE)

Wall 10; Channel I

Wall 501; Channel I

Channel I

11

Iron II (7th century BCE)

Wall 10; Channel I

Wall 10; Channel I

Channel I

12

Iron II (8th century BCE)

Wall 10; Channel I; later phase of Channel II

Wall 10; Channel I

Channel I, Tunnels IV–VIII

13

Iron II (9th century BCE)

Later phase of Channel II

14

Iron II (10th century BCE)

15

Iron I (12th–11th centuries BCE)

16

Late Bronze Age II (14th–13th centuries BCE)

17–18

Middle Bronze Age IIA–B (18th century BCE)

Area L

Pit with discarded pottery vessels

Horizontal layers of clay Debris dumped on slope (city dump)

Debris dumped on slope; Abandoned cooking pots

Early phase of Channel II; Wall 503, 504 and early phase of Wall 513; remains of domestic architecture

NE corner of Spring Tower

Early phase of Channel II, Tunnel III

* After Shiloh 1984. chapters, instead of offering a cross-typology encompassing all of the excavation areas (see below). On the other hand, the chapters discussing small finds and artifacts are all concentrated in Part VIII. Finally, Part IX includes a summary and discussion of all the areas, presenting a synthesis and general understanding of the findings in the various areas, linking them to the general picture of Jerusalem’s history. In places where there is a difference of opinion between the two excavators, both opinions are given.

7 2 R O N N Y R E I C H , E F R AT B O C H E R , A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

THE ARTIFACTS Pottery The ceramic assemblages of the various areas were selected by the excavators during the excavations. The pottery was drawn shortly thereafter. Due to the time that elapsed between excavation and publication, not all of the ceramic finds could be located. Therefore, the authors of the various pottery chapters worked with the existing drawings and the pottery that could be found. As such, it was felt that statistical analyses would not be reliable. Furthermore, certain finds that had been drawn were not found. In such cases, drawings that did not fit the original descriptions provided by the excavators were omitted. In light of these difficulties, the pottery was primarily used as a chronological tool, and is therefore presented together with the stratigraphic report in order to provide a basis for the dating of the different features.

Coins As coins were also a key to dating the different features, they are presented subsequent to the ceramic finds. All chapters dealing with coins were authored by D.T. Ariel; the only exception are the coins from Area L. This section was written by R. Reich, based on identification by Y. Sfez of the numismatic department of the IAA.

Imported Amphoras Throughout the different excavation areas (including those not presented in this volume), many imported, stamped amphora handles were discovered. Although these are also an excellent tool for dating, it was felt that the large numbers of such finds were of great importance. It was therefore decided by the author of the chapter (Ariel) that these finds would be presented together in a single unit (Chapter 35), covering all of the Reich-Shukron excavations. This is the only chapter in the volume that includes finds from other areas.

Small Finds The small finds from the areas that are published in this report were stored in the Israel Antiquities Authority’s storehouses and chosen by the editors for drawing and photography. There are items that were previously drawn but were not physically located which are nevertheless included in the chapter. After collecting all of the small finds, they were given to specialists for analysis. Other artifacts, such as bone implements and spindle whorls, were not assigned to researchers due to time constraints; they are presented in the form of a catalog in Chapter 47 (Varia).

Other Finds Additional finds from the areas presented here that were not included in the current volume, such as organic finds, fauna (with the exception of Area L) and shells will be published in a forthcoming volume, which will include all such finds from all of the excavation areas.

INDICES Most of the indices were composed by the excavators during the excavation. These indices include the dating of features assigned at the time of excavation. In cases where the dateable finds provided a different dating, the chronology was revised.

E X C AVA T I O N , A N A L Y S I S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y 7 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Innumerable organizations and individuals have had a hand in the complex bureaucratic and archaeological operations that made the decades-long City of David Excavations possible—and ultimately successful. The excavations were carried out under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority. From the very outset we had the magnanimous support of the IAA and its directors, the late A. Drori, followed by the late S. Dorfman—both understood the importance of the site and its discoveries. The first excavations (Areas A and B) were carried out as an integral part of the “King’s Valley” project, related to the Jerusalem 3000 festivities. The dig was financed by the Israel Ministry of Tourism, through the services of the East Jerusalem Development Company and its director Y. Marinov. The rescue excavations in Area C (which turned out to be the most complex of all our undertakings) and Area D were financed by the El’ad Group, as a requirement imposed by the Israel Law of Antiquities. Excavations of Areas E, F and H, which were the direct outcome of the discoveries in Area C, were financed by the IAA within the framework of the “King’s Valley” project. In the early years, direct assistance was given on a daily basis by G. Avni and later by J. Seligman, respectively IAA Jerusalem District archaeologists, and by M. Turner and his staff who were in charge of architectural development of the site. In Area F (Channel II) and Area J, again, the East Jerusalem Development Company provided very welcome support.

Figure 3.3: Working in Area J, at the foot of Wall 501.

7 4 R O N N Y R E I C H , E F R AT B O C H E R , A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

During our years of work the administrative responsibility for the area of the City of David was transferred from the East Jerusalem Development Company to the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, which was also cooperative and helped us in innumerable ways. The discovery of the Pool of Siloam and the desire to expose and preserve parts of it was the source of considerable complications. In this regard, in addition to several of the institutions already mentioned, the Gihon Company (which is the municipal unit that develops and maintains Jerusalem’s sewage system) was extremely helpful. When modern sewage erupted from the Gihon Spring between May and August 2002, many companies and individuals were active in helping to solve the serious problems that occurred. Through the years the following individuals from the IAA, their departments and teams, reached out to provide archaeological assistance and a variety of technical services to our archaeologists in the field: S. Krapiwko, A. Zilberbod , N. Sanduka, A. Hajian, V. Shorr, W. Essman, W. Pirsky, M. Kunin, T. Kornfeld (surveying and field drawing); S. Mendrea, N. Mizrahi, E. Ben Eliyahu, G. Kotovsky, H. Tsarnov, N. Sidi, Z. Sagiv, G. Laron and V. Naikhin (site photography); Z. Sagiv, K. Amit (studio photography); J. Buchenholz (pottery mending); E. Altmark (coins and metal chemistry and cleaning); D.T. Ariel (numismatics); C. Hersch (artifacts drawings); Y. Bukengoltz (pottery restoration); S. Halevi (photography); and S. Hirshberg-Tal (assistance in arranging documentation materials). Conservation work was carried out by the IAA Conservation Department, directed by Y. Shefer, with a team headed by R. Elberger. Special thanks are due to M. Shukron, a master welder and locksmith, for outstanding achievements in creating various supports, especially in the rock-cut pool, which enabled our work in that area. We also owe special thanks to the excavation’s construction engineer, E. Ben Walid and his team, without whom none of our ambitious plans could have been executed. Many thanks go to Z. Greenhut, A. Karasik, S. Zehavit, R. Cohen-Amin, J. Ben Keyuss and the IAA Warehousing Team for their help and support in documenting the small finds from the excavations. Preparation of this report was begun in 2020 at the initiative of Y. Baruch, Jerusalem District Archaeologist, with the support of IAA Director General, I. Hasson, and the financial support of the El’ad Group. M. Baruchi and his team—T. Touitou Cohen and O. Faragi Hazon—provided efficient and expert administrative assistance. We reserve our final thanks for E. Bocher, the series editor of this report, and her team of readers, editors and graphic artists, who were responsible for producing this report—the history, documentation and analysis of our decades of activity in the City of David. So first we would like to thank M. Pollak, who was responsible for managing the development of the project, style editing and seeing the report through to final production. Y. Zionit processed much of the data, and in collaboration with E. Bocher prepared the map of excavations. A. MendelGeberovich oversaw the editing and copyediting of the text. A. Yoffe-Pikovsky designed the book and the cover and did the final layout. We would like to thank the readers of early drafts of this manuscript, Y. Shalev, L. Freud, D. Sandhaus and Y. Gadot for their wise comments and counsel. Next we would like to thank J. Uziel for his careful reading and editing of the text. His knowledge of the archaeology of the City of David was extremely helpful and often shed new light on issues that needed clarification. Our thanks are extended to all of them for a job well done. As for the directors of the dig and the authors of this report, it should be said that Ronny Reich worked part time for the Israel Antiquities Authority and full time as a faculty member at the University of Haifa, and Eli Shukron worked on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

E X C AVA T I O N , A N A L Y S I S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y 7 5

Figure 3.4: A team of workers share breakfast at the dig.

Figure 3.5: A team of excavation workers from the nearby village of Silwan.

7 6 R O N N Y R E I C H , E F R AT B O C H E R , A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

REFERENCES Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weissbrod, L., Mayer, B. and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2004. Animal Bone Remains from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 10. RamatGan: 71–80, (Hebrew, English abstract p. 50*). Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G., Shukron, E. and Reich, R. 2006. More Bones from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A., eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 11. Ramat-Gan: 175–185 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 40*–41*). Reich, R. and Bar-Oz, G. 2006. The Jerusalem City Dump in the Late Second Temple Period: A Quantitative Study. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 12. Ramat-Gan: 83–98 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 14*–15*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1999a. Jerusalem, the Gihon Spring. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19: 60–61 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1999b. Jerusalem, Gihon Spring. Hadashot Arkhaeologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110: 63–64 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1999c. Jerusalem, Gihon Spring. Hadashot Arkhaeologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109: 77–78 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000a. Jerusalem, the Gihon Spring. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 99–100 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000b. Channel 25, Its Date, and Its Relations to Other Waterworks in the City of David. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 6. Ramat-Gan: 9–12 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 5*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000c. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkhaeologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 112: 82–83 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000d. The System of Rock-Cut Tunnels near Gihon in Jerusalem. Revue Biblique 107: 5–17. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000e. City-Walls and Water Channels from the Middle Bronze II and Late Iron Age in the City of David—New Evidence from the 2000 Season. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 6. Ramat Gan: 5–8 (Hebrew, English summary p. 5*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2001. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkhaeologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 113: 81–82 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2002a. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkhaeologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 114: 77–78 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2002b. Channel II in the City of David, Jerusalem: Some of Its Technical Features and Their Chronology. In: Ohlig, C., Peleg, Y. and Tsuk, T., eds. Cura Aquarum in Israel, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Israel, May 2001. Sieburg: 1–6. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2002c. New Discoveries in the City of David Excavations, Jerusalem. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 8. Ramat-Gan: 15-20 (Hebrew, English summary pp. 5*–6*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003a. Jerusalem, City of David. Hadashot Arkhaeologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115: 51–53 (Hebrew). Reich, R., and Shukron, E. 2003b. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 119: 12–18. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2004a. The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. Levant 36: 211–223. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2004b. The Siloam Pool in the wake of Recent Discoveries. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 10. Ramat-Gan: 137–140 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2006. The Discovery of the Second Temple Plaza and Paved Street Adjacent to the Siloam Pool. In: Meiron, E., ed., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 1. Jerusalem: 59–69 (Hebrew).

E X C AVA T I O N , A N A L Y S I S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y 7 7

Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007a. The Rediscovery of the Central Drainage Channel of the Second Temple Period along the Tyropoeon Valley. In: Patrich, J. and Amit, D., eds., New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 1. Jerusalem: 25–32 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007b. Some New Insights and Notes on the Cutting of the Siloam Tunnel. In: Meiron, E., ed., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 2. Jerusalem: 133–161 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007c. It Is, After All, an Iron Age II City Wall: A Critique of Eilat Mazar’s Suggestion. In: Baruch, E.A., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 13. Ramat-Gan: 27–34 (Hebrew with English abstract, p. 18). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2008. The Date of City-Wall 501 in Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 35: 114–122. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2009a. The Recent Discovery of a Middle Bronze II Fortifications in the City of David, Jerusalem. In: Meiron, E., ed., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 4. Jerusalem: 13–32 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2009b. Channel II in the City of David, Jerusalem: Its Technical Details, Date and Function. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 13. Ramat-Gan: 7–28 (English, Hebrew summary p. 7*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2009c. John’s Excavation of the Paved Road up the Tyropoeon Valley. In: Amit, D., Stiebel, G.D. and Peleg-Barkat, O., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region III. Jerusalem: 37–45 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2010. The Large Fortification near the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem, and Its Relationship to Wall NB Discovered by Kathleen Kenyon. In: Meiron, E., ed., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 5. Jerusalem: 13–23 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2011a. An Assemblage of Rooms and Rock-Cut Installations of the Iron Age II Period from the City of David. In: Amit, D., Stiebel, G.D. and Peleg-Barkat, O., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region V. Jerusalem: 78–95 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2011b. The Jerusalem Main Drainage Channel of the Late Second Temple Period – Upon the Completion of the Unearthing of its Southern Part in 2011. In: Meiron, E., ed., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 6. Jerusalem: 68–95 (Hebrew). Reich, R., Shukron, E. and Lernau, O. 2007. Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 57: 153–169. Shukron, E. and Reich, R. 2008. Initial Report on the Excavation of the Second Temple Period Central Drainage Channel in the Tyropoeon Valley in Jerusalem. In: Meiron, E., eds., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 3. Jerusalem: 137–159 (Hebrew). Shukron, E. and Reich, R. 2010. Excavation between the Stepped Shiloah Pool and the Internal Face of the Watergate Wall, at the Southern End of the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem. In: Meiron, E., eds., City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 5. Jerusalem: 27–45. Sidi, N., Shukron, E. and Reich, R. 2010. Late Second Temple Period Pottery from the Stepped Street in the Tyropoeon Valley, and from the Drain under It - A Comparative Study. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 16. Ramat-Gan: 225–230 (Hebrew).

CHAPTER 4

AREA A STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

In 1995, the road along the Kidron Valley in the City of David was widened and repaved and sidewalks were added on either side. To protect against rocks falling from the huge accumulation of debris strewn across the steep eastern slope, a retaining wall was built along the western sidewalk. Prior to these construction activities, the authors carried out a salvage excavation under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Eight excavation squares (Squares 1–8) were opened along the base of the eastern slope (Figs. 4.1, 4.5). Altogether, a ca. 80 m long area was excavated. Seven of the squares (1–4, 6–8) were standard excavation squares; Square 5 denoted a breach in the bedrock along the modern street and made the discovery and exploration of a previously unknown, ca. 34 m long section of Channel II possible. The excavated squares were located just south of Weill’s excavation (Weill 1920: Pl. III), which was partially re-excavated by Shiloh in his Area B (labeled Locus 133, Shiloh 1984: 7, Fig. 8), and reached the edge of the small area excavated by Adan-Bayewitz (1979) in the south. The boundaries of the current excavation were Shiloh’s Areas B and D1 to the northwest; Weill’s excavation area to the west; and Adan-Bayewitz’s excavation to the south (Figs 2.4, 3.1). It seems that Square 7 (Fig. 4.1) was located just north of Schick’s Shaft C (renamed 4), excavated in 1886 (Schick 1890) in the Kidron Valley. Schick excavated the shaft in order to find the southern extension of a channel, which later became known as Channel II (Schick 1886b: plan following p. 198; 1891a: plans and section following p. 14). Square 5 is located just north of Schick’s Shaft B (Schick 1886b; Reich and Shukron 2002).

BEDROCK The salvage excavation reached bedrock in all eight squares. The bedrock, as suggested above, a hard Mizzi Ahmar dolomite, is characteristic of the entire lower part of the eastern slope of the City of David. Occasionally, as in Squares 1–4, small rock scarps can be observed. A rock-cut channel was discovered running north– south (Fig. 4.1) in Squares 1, 4 and 7. In Square 8, only the western side of the channel was exposed, as the narrowness of the space made it impossible to dig the channel itself and its eastern side (Figs. 4.2–4.4). A segment of Channel II, discovered and excavated in Square 5, is carved in the hard Mizzi Ahmar rock. Since several elements are common to Squares 1–4 and 61–8 (e.g., Wall 10, Channel 25 [Channel I] and various fills), architectural and stratigraphic descriptions are not given separately for each square. Features are described without specific references to squares, save for detailed descriptions of a specific element when required. The distribution of the various loci, as well as the walls and channels, is presented in Table 4.1, according to respective dating as established by the pottery and coins. The various architectural elements and associated deposits are presented chronologically, from latest to earliest . 1    

Square 6 was opened a few meters north of Square 1 and abandoned shortly thereafter. No finds were discovered.

84 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON Square 6 (Not excavated)

P276

Square 2

W10

Square 1

Square 3

Channel 25 = C

hannel I

Square 7

W1 0

Cha nn

el I I

W10

Square 8

Square 4

Square 5

0

15 m

Figure 4.1: Plan of Area A, showing the location of excavation squares, with reconstructed lines of Wall 10 and channels.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 8 5

636.28 635.36

Square 8

L56

636.35

L57 L61

635.53

W10

636.13 635.26

L61 L78 L79

P278

634.98

L68

L58 L50 634.28

L70

636.02

635.97

634.08

L25

635.33

an

ne

l2

5=

Ch

an

ne

lI

W10

634.70

Ch

635.25 635.31 634.18

10

L75

636.02

635.25

Channel 36

L32 L76 W14

L29 L30

L28

635.05

Square 4

L31 L41

636.33 636.04

634.31

634.40 625.41 634.77 634.43 633.65 634.30

L40

635.70 635.48 L74 630.00

L64 L66 L67 L69

all

635.10 634.19

W

636.23

Wall 13 635.85

635.97

Ch

an

ne

lI

I

639.09

Figure 4.2: Detailed plan of Squares 4 and 8.

0

5 m

86 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

L56 Square 8

W10

L57 L61

L68

L58 L50

L70

P278_sections

L25

Ch

an

ne

l2

5=

Ch

an

ne

lI

W10

L61 L78 L79

6

W

all

10

L64 L66 L67 L69

L75 L30 Channel 36

L40 L74

7

L32 L76 W14

Square 4 L28 L31

L41

7

Wall 13

Ch

an

ne

lI

I

6

0

Figure 4.3: Detailed plan of Squares 4 and 8, marking the location of Sections 6–6 and 7–7.

5 m

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 8 7 Fracture

.

P279_a

A

.0

m

A-A

L59

.

.

A

.5 . . . .

L53 L54

Square 4

.

Chamnne l I= Ch ann el 2 5

A

B-B

Fracture

10

L52

B

C

.

Fracture

C

.20 .

.

.

Fracture

. L38

C-C

Fracture

DD

D Fracture

. .

Edge of ceiling

Opening to shaft in ceiling

B

“Steps” on rock ceiling

.

D

.

.

.

.15

.

L34

.

25

Ch an

ne

l II

Fracture

Edge of ceiling

.

.

.

.

.

.

D-D Square 5

L37

Fracture

Fracture

30

L44

34

m

0

5 m

Figure 4.4: Newly-discovered segment of Channel II, entered from Square 5, with sections of different segments.

88 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

WALLS Wall 10 The most prominent architectural feature in Area A is Wall 10, found in all of the excavated squares save for Square 5. It runs along the Kidron Valley on a general north–south axis (Figs. 4.2, 4.6, 4.7). The wall follows the winding path of Channel I, indicating that both architectural features—Wall 10 and Channel I—are interrelated (Figs. 4.5, 4.8, 4.11). The wall was founded on a small rock scarp (or steps) of the bedrock; no traces of cuttings for foundations were found. The wall was built in a winding manner, abutting yet following the path of the rock scarps. The wall is built of various-sized stones (Figs. 4.12, 4.13). Its lower courses include large boulders that directly overlie the bedrock. Some of these boulders are roughly cut while others have a coarse square shape. However, for the most part, the wall was constructed of small stones. The hard Mizzi Ahmar noted above is the formation of exposed bedrock in this area. Hence, it seems that the stones used for constructing the wall were collected in the area. In most parts of the wall, it appears that the courses were not built as horizontal layers (Fig. 4.14). Moreover, the eastern face of the wall is neither straight nor upright and vertical, but rather slanting, somewhat like a terrace wall. Therefore, on Fig. 4.1, the eastern face of the wall is represented by two parallel lines, constituting the upper and lower edges of the wall. The width of the wall varies. Two clear faces were only defined in Square 7 (Fig. 4.15), where its width reaches 1 m at its upper level (its lower level is unknown here but is assumed to be wider, ca. 1.5–2 m). In Square 3, the stones which compose the core of the wall were almost 3 m thick; its inner face was not reached. However, it is possible that the stones represent two features—the wall itself and a fill of stones thrown into the crevice between its western face and a rock scarp to its west. Without dismantling the upper course of stones, it was not possible to determine the western face of Wall 10 and the nature of the stones. The maximum preserved height of Wall 10, ca. 3.40 m, was documented in Square 1 (Figs. 4.5, 4.16).

Table 4.1: Area A, Chronological Attribution of Walls and Loci* Period

Square 1

Square 2

Square 3

Square 4

Square 5

Square 6

Square 7

Square 8

Upper layer 1st cent. CE

1, 5, 13

14

–

12, 28, 31 41, 83, W13

34, 37 38, 44 53

–

–

--

Middle layer 1st cent. CE

2, W10

16, 21 27, W10

6, 7, 8, W10

–

–

77

43, 45, 48 51, 60 W10, CI (=25)

–

Lower layer late 2nd –1st cents. BCE

9, 11, 17, 18, 24, 25,W10

27

–

31,

CI (=25)

–

62

–

Persian (late 6th–late 4th cents. BCE)

W10, W11, W12, W15, CI (=25)

–

–

26, 29, 30, 32, 35 40, 64 66, 67, 69, W10

52, 53, 54 59, CI (=25)

–

–

55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 68, 70, 78, W10, CI (=25)

Iron IIB-C (late 8th– early 6th cents. BCE)

W10, W11, W12, W15, CI (=25)

–

36, 74, 75, 76, 82, W10, W14, CI (=25), CII (=75)

–

80, 81, 82 W10?

46, 47, 49, 50, 63, 65, W10, CI (=25)

79, W10, CI (=25)

*(C=channel; W= wall)

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 8 9

Unfortunately, the information concerning Wall 10 is somewhat partial. This is due to the fact that it was difficult to excavate its western face, where more reliable material for dating could be retrieved. This was a result of an insecure steep slope of debris and rubble that hung from above. Only in one limited spot (Fig. 4.15) were pottery sherds collected to the west of the wall. During the excavation, Wall 10 was functionally defined as a terrace wall, due to its physical attributes and the difficulties in dating the feature. This shortcoming of reliable dating was solved several years later when a considerably long segment of this wall was excavated in Area J (Wall 501), north of Area A. There, it was unequivocally determined to be part of a city wall (see further discussion in Chapter 8, where the significance of the fortification is discussed).

Sq. 7 Sq. 3 Sq. 2

W 11

W10

Square 1 W

Channel 25= Channel I

12

W

Figure 4.5: General view of Wall 10, looking south.

15

90 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON Area A

P277

637.92

635.15 634.11

635.65 634.70 634.60 634.20

W15 637.79

635.09 634.22 633.41

634.20

L11

634.85 634.64

637.55

634.54 634.31

L5

W12

634.48 634.09 633.35 635.22

L17

W10

L15

637.51

Square 1 634.73 635.30 634.70

635.09

635.32

Cooking pots

W11

L9

635.26

L18

635.81 634.86

637.34

634.93

W10

637.19

Channel 25 = Channel I

637.13

L16 L21 L27

637.08

636.99

637.06

635.59 635.78 635.15

Square 2

635.42 634.91

634.86

635.49 637.01

635.27 636.92

L6 L7

Square 3 635.70 634.76 63540 634.87

W10

636.65

635.04

L46 L50

636.33

L63 L65

636.01

634.38

635.04

L60

Square 7

Channel 25 633.60

L49 634.71

634.38

0

Figure 4.6: Detailed plan of Squares 1–3, 7.

5 m

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 9 1 Area A

P277

3 W15

1

1 L11

L5 W12

2

2

W10

L17 L15

L18 3

Square 1

L9

W10

L16 L21 L27

Channel 25 = Channel I

W11

Cooking pots

Square 2

Square 3

4

W10

4

Square 7 Channel 25

5 0

5

5 m

Figure 4.7: Detailed plan of Squares 1–3, 7, marking the location of Sections 1–1 through 5–5.

W10

92 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Channel 25= Channel I

Figure 4.8: Square 7, with Wall 10 (left) and one side of Channel 25 (right), looking north.

W10

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 9 3

Channel 25=Channel I

W

14

W

13

Figure 4.9: Square 4, showing Wall 10, Wall 13 and Channel 25, looking north.

94 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W15

W1

2

Channel 25=Channel I

W1 0

W 11 Figure 4.10: Square 1, with Wall 10, Channel 25, Wall 11 and Wall 12 overlying it, looking north.

Channel

36

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 9 5

W1

3

W10 Channel 25=Channel I

Figure 4.11: Square 4, showing Wall 10, Wall 13, Channel 25, Channel 36, looking west.

Figure 4.12: Square 1, Wall 10, looking southwest.

96 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W10

P285 Figure 4.13: Square 2, with Wall 10 built directly on the bedrock, looking west. 638

00

6- 6

L12 L26

637

00

L35 L40 L38

636

L28

00

W13

635

00

L76

L36

L74

L28 W10 L31

634

00

633

00

Figure 4.14: Square 4; Section 6–6, looking west.

Channel 25

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 9 7

637

5-5

00

L47 L45 L48

636

00

635

00

634

00

L49

W10 L51

L65

L62

Channel 25

633

00

Figure 4.15: Square 7; Section 5–5, looking south.

Deposits and Fills Adjacent to Wall 10

Various earth fills and dumped deposits were excavated adjacent to Wall 10. Several of these were located to the west of the wall, while others were located to its east, abutting it and sealing Channel I. The loci are discussed below, according to their date and their relationship to Wall 10. 1. Iron II layers west of Wall 10 (Loci 40, 46, 47, 49, 50, 65, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82; Figs. 4.2, 4.6, 4.15): These loci are located to the west of Wall 10, with the latest pottery dating to the Iron II (see Chapter 5). As these loci abut Wall 10 and seal Channel I, while following its curvature for a length of ca. 70 m, both these features should be dated to the Iron II. This conclusion is important, as the pottery found within the channel cannot be relied upon for dating. These loci seem to represent layers of refuse, discarded downslope from Iron II houses built further up the hill (the houses, excavated in our Area B, will be discussed in a forthcoming report). As mentioned above, Wall 10 was constructed directly on bedrock with no foundation trench on its eastern side. As its western face could not be traced, let alone excavated at its base, its foundation trench was not defined (although see Wall 501 in Area J, where the western foundation trench of the wall was excavated). It appears, however, that the refuse layers were

98 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

used to fill the area west of Wall 10, compensating for its uneven width. In this manner, when the construction of the wall was completed, debris containing pottery was scraped off the slope to fill in the gap to the west of the wall (Figs. 4.4., 4.14–4.17, 4.19–4.21). To the west of the wall (i.e., behind it), a packed fill of debris crammed the space between the western (inner) side of the wall and the face of the rock scarps (Loci 49, 65). This construction created a flat, narrow terrace, up to ca. 3 m wide, which could have supported a structure above it. It seems that the fills, which contained Iron II pottery, are located to the west of Wall 10, as well as overlying it. This was also the case pertaining to Wall 501 in Area J. This may indicate that the wall was constructed in the Iron II and abandoned some time later in the same period. Excavation of another segment of the wall may clarify this. 2. Earth fills containing Persian period pottery (Loci 26, 32, 35, 40, 78 west of Wall 10; 57 and 61 west of Wall 15; Loci 29, 30, 66, 67, 68, 70 east of Wall 10; Locus 58 to the east of Wall 15; Loci

P280

638

1-1

00

L5

637

00

L13 L11

636

00 W10

L17

W15

635

00 L23

634

00 Channel L25

633

00

Figure 4.16: Square 1; Section 1–1, looking north.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 9 9

Square 4

Chan ne

l 25

. . .

P279_b .

.

L52

B

.

.

.

.

B

.

C

Fracture

.

D

A

Fracture

L38

.

.

.

.

20

.

.5 . . . .

Edge of ceiling

L53 L54

D D

Ch

Edge of ceiling

an

ne

l II

Fracture

34

.

.

.

. 30

.

.

L52

B

.

L34

.

.15

25

.

Square 4

10

Fracture

. .

.

A

“Steps” on rock ceiling

.

.

Opening to shaft in seiling

15

C

.

C

Fracture

L37

Fracture

L38

.

L44

.20

.

.

l II

Fracture

. 30

.

.

B

Fracture

. D

L34

.

25

Figure 4.17: Detailed plan of the newly found segment of Channel II.

.

.

Opening to shaft in ceiling

Fracture

. .

Edge of seiling

.

“Steps” on rock ceiling

. C D

ne

L59

nel 25

.

10

.0

Chan

L53 L54

L37

Fracture

0

5 m

P_289 2-2

100 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 641

00 2-2

640

00

W10

639

00

638

00 W12

637

00 L25 Channel 25

636

00

Figure 4.18: Square 1; Section 2–2, looking south.

55, 56 above Wall 10). On the southern side of the dig (Squares 4 and 8; Figs. 4.2, 4.14), several loci yielded primarily Persian period pottery, with only several residual sherds of an earlier date. These loci were located to the west and east of Wall 10. It appears that these fills originated from an occupational layer uphill, to the west of Shiloh’s Areas B and D1. The occupation of that area in the Persian period can be deduced by the pottery found in Area A, scattered on the slope adjacent to Wall 10. 3. Earth debris dumped over and abutting the eastern face of Wall 10 with Early Roman pottery. As these are considerably later in date, with pottery from the 1st century BCE, they are discussed below.

Additional Wall Segments In various locations, small segments of walls were exposed, abutting Wall 10 (Wall 15), located above the capstones of Channel 25 (Wall 12 and Wall 13) or adjacent to it (Wall 11): 4. Wall 11 is built into Locus 15 (Figs. 4.5, 4.6). Locus 15 is a fill of brown debris, which packs a cavity in the rock. Very few indicative pottery sherds were discovered in the fill. One Iron Age bowl with a simple rim and interior and exterior burnishing was found. As a single sherd is not

P282 A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 0 1 638

00 3-3

637

00

636

00

W10

W15

635

00 W12

634

00 Channel 25

633

00

Figure 4.19: Square 1; Section 3–3, looking west.

sufficient for dating the fill—and in turn the wall—a secure date cannot be provided for these features. As the area excavated was very limited, it is difficult to determine the architectural nature and function of the wall. It may have been part of the eastern edge of domestic houses constructed in the Kidron Valley, in an extramural neighborhood. Although Iron II pottery sherds were found associated with it, they provide only a terminus post quem for its construction. 5. Wall 12 is a short segment of a wall, one stone thick, built of fieldstones. It seems that the wall extends eastwards beyond the bounds of the excavation, probably as part of a private dwelling that existed here in the past. Adjoining loci (Locus 18 to the south and Locus 20 to the north) are fills dated to the late-2nd and 1st centuries BCE. 6. Wall 13 is related to deposits of the Early Roman period and is described below. 7. Wall 15 is a one stone-thick wall, made of fieldstones. It abuts Wall 10 on the west. A fill containing Persian pottery abutted its western face. Loci 57 and 61 abut this wall from the west, and Locus 58 abuts it from the east. All three loci contain Persian period pottery. As no floor is related to Wall 15 with relevant pottery on it, all that can be said is that the construction of Wall 15 can date either to the late Iron Age or to the Persian period.

P283 102 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 4-4 637

00

L6 W10

636

00

P286 635

L7

00

638 00 634 00

Figure 4.20: Square 1; Section 4–4, looking south. 7-7 637

00

636

00

W13

Channel L36

635

00

634

00

L25

Channel 25

633

00

Figure 4.21: Square 4; Section 7–7, looking south.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 0 3

CHANNELS Channel I (Locus 25)

W13

Cha

nne

l 36

W14

Altogether, ca. 20 m of Channel I were excavated over an area of ca. 70 m. Although only small sections of the channel were exposed, it seems that the channel takes a generally winding path (Figs. 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, 4.8 4.14–4.16, 4.22–4.25). It seems that the slight winding is caused by the fact that the workers hewing the channel followed a low rock scarp (Figs. 4.11, 4.21, 4.24). The channel’s floor, walls and upper edges are covered with a yellowish mud plaster. In several places, patches of coating for mending fissures were noted. The lower part of the channel is cut into the bedrock. When the bedrock was not high enough its upper walls were built of roughly cut stones. The channel has a trapezoid cross-section, 40–45 cm wide at its base and ca. 70 cm at the top. The channel was covered with flagstones, several of which were found in situ. The depth of the channel in Squares 1 and 4 is ca. 60–70 cm. On the south side of Square 4, several capstones were placed ca. 1.30 m above the channel’s base, as the workers

Channel 25=Channel I

Figure 4.22: Square 4, with Wall 13 crossing over Channel 25 and a small channel (L75) on the right, looking west.

W13

Ch

an

ne

l3

6

104 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Channel 25=Channel I

Channel 25= Channel I

W10 Figure 4.24: Square 1, Channel 25, looking east.

W1 2

Figure 4.23: View of Square 4, with Wall 13 built over Channel 25, looking west.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 0 5

took advantage of a rock step to support the capstones (see left side of Figs. 4.11, 4.18, 4.21). The capstones are of different sizes. In Square 4, they consist of small slabs, approximately 10–20 cm thick. In Square 1, thicker stones (35–40 cm) were used, probably in order to enable the capstones to protect the channel, as well as support walls that crossed over the channel (such as Walls 12 and 13; Figs. 4.6, 4.18). The height of the channel’s base is 633.41 masl in Square 1, 633.60 masl in Square 7 and 633.65 masl in Square 4. A small section of this channel was exposed by Shiloh (1984: Fig. 8) in his Area B (labeled Locus 133), some 15 m north of Square 1. Interestingly, the height of the channel’s floor in Shiloh’s

W13

Figure 4.25: Square 4, with Wall 13 built into Channel 25, looking south.

106 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

excavation is 633.11 masl. The height of the channel’s floor in both excavations clearly indicates that the channel’s gradient and the flow of the water in it was from south northwards (see Chapter 13). This direction seems rather odd, since the obvious source of water is the spring to the north. In several spots, segments of walls built over the channel were found, notable by the capstones used. In Square 1, these include Wall 12 (Figs. 4.16, 4.19). In Square 4, Wall 13 is partially built over the capstones and partially into the channel (Figs. 4.14, 4.21, 4.23–4.25). The debris from within the channel (Locus 25) was excavated in several locations. This sediment seems to have filled the channel after it went out of use. It should be noted that no deposits of silt, typical of water installations, were found in the channel. The location of Channel I along this particular line at the bottom of the steep slope was determined by its level. As it was a small channel, only 70 cm deep on average, it had to be maintained from the outside, which involved occasional lifting of the capstones and clearing of the debris and silt that had accumulated in the channel. The direct access to the capstones was protected by Wall 10 (see below), which prevented the debris from covering the channel (Figs. 4.1, 4.4, 4.6–4.9, 4.15). At the time of the excavations in Area A, the nature and date of Channel I (labeled Channel 25 in Area A) and Wall 10 were unknown. These elements were later exposed in Area J (see Chapter 8) and beneath the Spring House in Area F (see Chapter 13), where their nature and dating were established. The function and general significance of this segment of the channel are further discussed and summarized in Chapter 48.

Channel II Square 5 was located where a small rock scarp was exposed, beneath one of the modern houses built on the lower eastern slope of the City of David (Figs. 4.1, 4.4, 4.17). At an unknown date, the bedrock was damaged and a rock-cut tunnel (Channel II) was exposed (Figs. 4.26, 4.27). Here, the asphalt road touches the edge of the breached tunnel. Excavation began from the breach in both directions, i.e., a 9 m section southward and a 25 m section northward, exposing a total length of 34 m of the channel. The tunnel was filled up to the ceiling with a loose brown/gray debris, containing some small stones. The fill within the channel was divided into several loci (34, 37, 38, 44, 52, 53, 54 and 59), in order to distinguish between layers of earthen fills which washed down the slope and penetrated the channel through various breaches, settling on its floor after the channel had gone out of use.2 The debris in the channel contained pottery from the late Iron II, the Persian period and the 1st century CE (Loci 38, 52, 53, and 59; see Chapter 5). The main breach into the channel, through which it was discovered (Figs. 4.4, 4.17; 22 m–26 m; see below) contained only 1st century BCE pottery (Loci 34, 37, 38; see Chapter 6). Close to the other breaches, the pottery was earlier. Through the northernmost breach, the fills contained mainly Persian pottery (mortaria bowls, holemouth jars with impressions, perforated vessels). Channel II, like any other water installation, cannot be reliably dated by the artifacts found in it, unless unique stratigraphic and architectural conditions are noted. The northern extension of the channel was later exposed in Area F, from the spring southward (for further discussion on Channel II, its nature and dating, see Chapter 13). Below, the exposed section of Channel II is described, from north to south. The segments are labeled according to the meters exposed along the tunnel (see Fig. 4.17). 2    

The assumption here is that the sediment which accumulated on the channel floor must postdate its use, as it would have certainly been kept clean when it was functioning.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 0 7

L37

L34

Figure 4.26: Square 5, with closeup of the breached bedrock, with a view into Channel II, looking north.

L37 L34

Figure 4.27: Square 5, with a view of the breached bedrock into Channel II, looking southwest.

108 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

The Tunnel, Meter by Meter •

•

• •

0–8 m: Between 0 and 5 m, the tunnel crosses a large and irregular natural cavity, hence its eastern wall is missing. In the center of this stretch, only the lower 0.3 m of the tunnel survived (Fig. 4.4, Section A-A). Large amounts of debris were excavated here (Locus 59). Between 3 and 5 m, the wall of the natural cavity extends to the west of the tunnel, indicating that the natural cavity predates the tunnel. Between 2 and 8 m, the tunnel follows a fissure in the bedrock, which aligns with its western side (Locus 54, lower 0.2–0.3 m, on the floor of the rock-cut tunnel; Locus 53 above it). 8 m: A blind segment of the tunnel was carved on its western side. A similar blind segment is located close to the 25 m point (see below). These blind segments resemble similar blind segments which occur in the Siloam Tunnel, close to the point where the rock-cutters met (Vincent 1912: Pl. LXV: 2; Lancaster and Long 1999). This blind segment clearly indicates that the tunnel, in this specific location, was cut from south to north. This is also notable on the quarry markings, evident on the tunnel’s wall near the 9 m point. 9–11 m: Here, an additional natural cavity, which opens on the eastern side of the tunnel, was exposed (Fig. 4.28). This opening is similar to the previous cavity from which the excavation began. 11 m: Here, the tunnel has the typical cross-section in which the upper part is wider (ca. 75–80 cm) than the lower part (ca. 30 cm), and its height is ca. 1.75 m (Fig. 4.29). This

Figure 4.28: Interior of Channel II, looking south. Note shaft to surface at the 10/11 m point.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 0 9

• • • •

shape of the tunnel’s cross-section eased the work of the rock-cutters, as the upper part gave more space for the worker’s hands to manipulate their picks in the narrow tunnel (Fig. 4.17, Section B-B). At the tunnel’s ceiling and the upper eastern wall, a shaft ascends, ca. 2 m from the ceiling upwards (Fig. 4.4, Section B-B, Fig. 4.17 and Fig. 4.28). Although it has an irregular shape, it is more regular in shape than the two cavities described above. Since various signs north of it show that the hewing of the tunnel occurred from the south northwards (see above), while to the south of this shaft there are indications that it was cut southwards, it seems that at this particular location, the rock-cutters entered the rock from above to cut the tunnel. Similar occurrences have been noted elsewhere along the tunnel’s length (Ariel and Lender 2000; Grossberg 2014). 14 m: A fissure crosses the tunnel. It seems that this fissure had no bearing on the tunnel’s course. 15 m: Cutmarks on the western wall of the tunnel indicate that the tunnel was cut from north to south in this segment. 16 m: At this point, the tunnel turns sharply to the east, following a turn in the direction of a fissure (see Fig. 4.4, Section C-C). 18 m: Here, the tunnel turns sharply again. When walking southwards, the ceiling here descends by ca. 0.20 m (Fig. 4.4, Section D-D). The fill excavated at this point (Locus 52) extends from 8 to 18 m.

Figure 4.29: Interior of Channel II, looking north.

110 R O N N Y R E I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

•

•

•

18–21 m: The tunnel follows a main fissure, which aligns with its eastern wall. It may be the northern continuation of a fissure that was used by the cutters further to the south (see below). In the 18–20 m segment, there is a breach on the eastern side of the tunnel and only the lower part of the tunnel survived (Fig. 4.4, Sections C-C, D-D, Locus 38; Fig. 4.30). 22–26 m: In this segment, the tunnel’s ceiling is missing. Due to the missing ceiling, the feature was discovered here, entered and excavated to the north and south (Fig. 4.26, II.27). It appears that the damage caused to the tunnel’s ceiling was due to a main vertical fissure that crosses the feature from north to south (Fig. 4.4). This fissure was not used by the workers carving the tunnel. One of its exposed sides (Locus 34) can be observed from the outside, above the entrance to the tunnel. 25 m: Another blind segment of the tunnel, like the one in the north (see above, at the 8 m point), was found here. Its direction and quarry marks on the rock wall indicate that the tunnel was cut here from the north southwards. It seems that when the rock-cutters moved southward beyond the 21 m point, they turned sharply to the east, abandoning the fissure along which they were cutting and crossed the line of the main fissure. After cutting three more meters to the south (which is a deviation of a little more than one meter eastward beyond the second fissure), they became aware of the undesired deviation. They abandoned the cutting, retreated (thus creating the blind segment), and changed direction towards the southern part of the main fissure, where

fissure

Figure 4.30: Interior of Channel II, looking south (seen from the 18 m point southward). Note the fissure in the bedrock on the upper left side, along which the channel is cut.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 1 1

they met at around the 28 m point (crossing the other fissure once again, without making any use of it). The fact that the workers totally ignored the main fissure may perhaps indicate that this fissure was created in the limestone after the tunnel was cut. • 28–34 m: In this stretch (Locus 37), the tunnel is cut southwards and its eastern wall aligns with the fissure and takes advantage of it. • 30–31 m: A natural cavity (Locus 44) breaching the eastern side of the tunnel was noted here. In it, modern concrete casting was encountered, which penetrated from the foundations of the modern house built on the rock above it. • 34 m: At this point, the rock ceiling of the tunnel ends, preventing further excavation southward. The southern portion of Channel II that was excavated here was in fact a rock-cut tunnel, with a winding path. The section of the channel to the north, which was originally discovered by Schick (1886a, 1886b, 1891a, 1891b) and cleared by Weill (1947: 60–73), and cleaned again and reexamined by Shiloh (his Area B; see Ariel and Lender 2000; Grossberg 2014), has a similar winding nature. However, neither Shiloh nor his predecessors tried to explain this. It should be stressed that the winding nature was also observed in Area F, the channel’s northernmost portion (see Chapter 13) and in the south near the southern tip of the City of David. It is suggested here that this winding path is the result of the rock-cutters’ intention to adhere to fissures in the rock, which could also be seen on the surface. The detailed survey of the rock and the tunnel presented above clearly demonstrates that the workers followed the fissures and actually widened them to create the tunnel. They assumed that the fissures, which were seen on the surface (which at that time had been totally exposed), descended vertically. The survey of the tunnel and its walls, undertaken in order to discover and document those fissures, occurred in the second week of November, 1995—a week after the first rains of that year in Jerusalem. The bedrock had already dried, but most of the fissures in the tunnel were wet, making it easy to observe them as they were dark, narrow (3–5 mm) lines, distinct on the light background of the dry rock. In the southernmost fissure, water seeped through and dripped in. Due to the directions of the fissures, and the fact that the rock-cutters decided to cross from fissure to fissure while carving the rock (and at the same time observing the rock surface), the winding path of the tunnel was created (for a summary of Channel II, and a description of its main part exposed in Area F, see Chapter 13).

Channel 36 An additional channel was exposed in Area A (Channel 36). The channel runs from west to east upon the rock scarp in Square 4 (Figs. 4.2, 4.11, 4.14, 4.21, 4.23). It is not related to Channel 25 or Channel II, but rather seems to be the eastern end of a small channel which drained a house on the slope above.

REMAINS FROM THE LATE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD Wall 13 (Figs. 4.22, 4.23) Wall 13 was exposed in Square 4 (Fig. 4.2, 4.14, 4.21), close to the northwestern corner of a modern house. Wall 13 crosses the square in an east–west direction in the upper part of the square. This wall is built of uncut fieldstones, above which some finely cut ashlars were placed. They belonged to the superstructure of the wall that survived in the corner of the square. This wall is most probably the western extension of the northern wall exposed by Adan-Bayewitz (1979).

112 R O N N Y R E I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

W10

Figure 4.31: An assemblage of cooking pots in situ, next to Wall 10, looking west.

cm

Figure 4.32: Closeup of cooking pot in situ found in Square 1, looking west.

A R E A A , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 1 3

As noted above, considerable loose debris seems to have rolled down the steep slope of the eastern side of the hill, abutted the eastern face of Wall 10 and sealed it from above. The debris can clearly be divided into two categories: Loci that relate to Wall 13 (Square 4) and support its dating to this period and loci representing earth fills dumped to the east of Wall 10. These include: Locus 28, which is the foundation trench of Wall 13; Locus 31, which is the fill inside Channel I, dumped into the channel in order to create a firm foundation for Wall 13, where it crosses the channel; and Locus 83, which is the dismantling of the northern face of Wall 13 (Fig. 4.14; Chapter 6). The repertoire of pottery types found in these loci can be dated quite securely to the 1st century CE. This pottery rolled down from the upper city wall (the segment excavated by Weill, which was part of the “First Wall”) as part of the city dump (see discussion in Chapter 26 and Reich and Shukron 2003) and was then redeposited when Wall 13 was built. The pottery is mixed, including 1st century BCE and 1st century CE types. The presence of “Herodian” lamps clearly indicates activity in the later part of the Early Roman period, thus also dating Wall 13. Apart from the usual pottery sherds, the second category—the earth fills—consisted of a considerable number of intact (!) cooking pots were found in these fills (Figs. 4.31, 4.32). These pottery vessels were excavated in three layers, one on top of the other. The loci listed below relate to these layers of cooking pots (Fig. 4.6, see Chapter 6): Upper layer of cooking pots: Loci 1, 5, 13, 14. Middle layer of cooking pots: Loci 2, 6, 7, 16, 21, 43, 45, 51, 60, 77. Lower layer of cooking pots: Loci 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 48, 62. Wall 10 and Channel I cross the square in a north–south direction. The intact cooking pots were found in the debris which covered Channel I, and abutted the eastern face of Wall 10. The three layers of pots were found grouped in two layers of debris. The lower group was found in a layer of gray/brown earth, and the upper two groups were found within a layer of rubble. It should be noted that when the upper layer of pots was exposed, we had no idea that another group would be unearthed at a lower level. As we worked in a location that had some security issues, it was imperative to remove the exposed pots as soon as they were uncovered, a situation which continued with the exposure of each vessel.

SUMMARY The main contributions of Area A include five archaeological discoveries: 1. The discovery of a ca. 34 m segment of Channel II. This segment is the southern extension of the same channel excavated and presented in Area F (see Chapter 13). This discovery led to the rekindling of interest in Jerusalem’s ancient water systems, which resulted in the discovery of elements which were previously unknown and the presentation of several new insights on this matter. 2. The discovery of Wall 10. As mentioned above, the significance of this wall became understood only much later, in light of the excavations in Area J, when the true nature of Wall 10 was established (see discussion in Chapter 8). 3. The discovery of Channel I (Channel 25). As was the case with Wall 10, the significance of this discovery was established only after the excavations in Area J and in the Spring House, when the channel was fully understood (see Chapter 8). 4. The presence of earthen fills which contain pottery sherds dating to the Persian period. While this pottery is totally missing near the spring; its presence here is yet another indication of

114 R O N N Y R E I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O N

Persian occupation in a nearby spot on the hill. This sheds additional light on the settlement of Jerusalem and its position in this period. 5. The discovery of a large concentration of intact cooking pots dated to the Early Roman period (1st century BCE–1st century CE; see Chapter 48).

REFERENCES Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1979. The ‘Fountain of Siloam’ and ‘Solomon’s Pool’ in First Century C.E. Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 92–100. Ariel, D.T. and Lender, Y. 2000. Area B: Stratigraphic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 1–32. Grossberg, A. 2014. ‘The Brook Which Flows within the Ground’ (2 Chron. 32:4). Megadim 55: 121– 124 (Hebrew). Lancaster, S.P. and Long, G.A. 1999. Where They Met: Separations in the Rock Mass Near the Siloam Tunnel’s Meeting Point. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 315: 15–26. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2002. Channel II in the City of David, Jerusalem: Some of Its Technical Features and Their Chronology. In: Ohlig, C., Peleg, Y. and Tsuk, T., eds. Cura Aquarum in Israel, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Israel, May 2001. Sieburg: 1–6. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 119: 12–18. Schick, C. 1886a. The Aqueducts at Siloam. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1886: 88–91. Schick, C. 1886b. Second Aqueduct to the Pool of Siloam. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1886: 197–200. Schick, C. 1890. Recent Excavations at Shiloah. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 23: 257–258. Schick, C. 1891a. The “Second” Siloah Aqueduct. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 24: 13–18, Plan II. Schick, C. 1891b. Reports from Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 24: 198–204. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Vincent, L.H. 1912. Jérusalem Antique. Paris. Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1913–1914. Paris. Weill, R. 1947. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1923–1924. Paris.

CHAPTER 5

AREA A POTTERY FROM THE IRON AGE AND PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC PERIODS Efrat Bocher

Pottery dating to the Iron IIB–C, Persian and early Hellenistic periods was found in various contexts in Area A. The pottery presented here originated in fills associated with Wall 10 and Channel II. These contexts were chosen as they were determined to be crucial to dating these two primary features in Area A. Since numerous assemblages from these periods have been previously published in City of David excavation reports (i.e., Area E—De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012; the Summit of the City of David—Yezerski and Mazar 2015) and the Jewish Quarter (e.g., Yezerski 2014), references to parallels were primarily brought from them. In cases where parallels were not found, references are drawn from the broader Jerusalem region, such as Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016), as well as more distant sites. The current study does not represent a complete typological analysis of the material, but rather a selection of well-dated forms that contribute to the dating of the contexts discussed in Chapter 4.1

IRON AGE LOCI WEST OF WALL 10 (FIG. 5.1) Wall 10 was built along the course of Channel 25 (Figs. 4.2, 4.6, 4.14 and 4.15) with no related floors found. According to the excavators, the lowest fill abutting the wall is the fill that dates the wall. According to the pottery found in them, numerous loci (46, 47, 49, 50, 65, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82) located to the west of Wall 10 can be dated to the Iron II. The pottery from several of these loci (36, 47, 49, 65, 81, 82) were chosen by the excavators as a representative sample of the fills that abut Wall 10. Most of the sherds are from bowls and jars. A few jugs, juglets, lamps, holemouth jars and kraters were also found. There were no high-footed lamps, decanters or cooking pots. The missing forms hamper dating the assemblage more precisely, as these forms—particularly the cooking pots—are keys for fine-tuned dating of late Iron Age assemblages. That said, it appears that most of the assemblage dates to the 8th century BCE. This is indicated by the type of bowls found, which are distinct for this period, whereas the holemouth jars and the storage jars may continue to appear at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 7th centuries BCE. Bowls (Fig. 5.1: 1–6)

Three common types of bowls and a less-known form were found in this fill. The most common are platter bowls with a simple rim and wheel-burnishing on the interior and rim. Platter bowls/plates with a simple rounded rim (Fig. 5.1: 1–2): This subtype first appears in Shiloh’s Stratum 13 and continues into Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60). Parallels are known from Stratum 12 in Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60, Fig. 4.1: 13, Type B6a) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 95, Figs. 17: 1, 19: 20, 21: 9). 1    

For further discussion on the methodology of the project and the pottery analysis, see Chapter 3.

1 1 6 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

10

14

15

13 0

Figure 5.1: Iron II pottery from loci west of Wall 10.

5

12

10

A R E A A , P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 117

16

17

18

20

19

21

23 22 0

5

10

Figure 5.1 (cont.): Iron II pottery from loci west of Wall 10.

Platter bowl with down-turned rim (Fig. 5.1: 3): Parallels for this type were found in Strata 11–10 in Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 61, Figs. 4: 17, 4.39: 3, Type B6c), and the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 245, Fig. 5.1: 8–18, Type B1). Thin bowl (Fig. 5.1: 4): This type of bowl has a thin wall and sharp rim. It is red-slipped and burnished. This type first appears in Stratum 12 in Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 65). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (Type 10, De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 65, Fig. 4.2: 11), and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig 23: 15).

1 1 8 E F R AT B O C H E R

Figure 5.1: Iron II Pottery from Loci West of Wall 10 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

49

607

Orange ware, white grits, crushed pottery

2

Bowl

36

426/1

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, spaced wheel burnish on interior and rim exterior

3

Bowl

65

862/1

Brown ware, white grits, red-brown slip on interior, dense wheel burnish on interior and upper half of rim exterior

4

Bowl

49

633/1

Brown ware with crushed pottery, red-brown slip, dense wheel burnishing on interior and exterior

5

Bowl

82

1077

Brown ware, gray core, wheel burnishing on interior and exterior. Handle extending from rim

6

Bowl

49

559/1

Brown ware, many white grits, wheel burnishing on interior and exterior

7

Krater

49

576/2

Light gray-yellowish ware, brown core, white grits, spaced wheel burnishing on interior and upper exterior of rim, thickened rim

8

Krater

65

862/2

Red-brown ware, gray core, white grits, spaced wheel burnishing on interior and upper exterior of rim

9

Krater

49

633/2

Brown ware, dark brown core, white grits, yellowish slip, thickened rim, vertical handle from rim to carination

10

Krater

49

576/1

Orange-brown ware, brown core, white grits and crushed pottery, wheel burnishing on interior and upper exterior of rim

11

Black juglet

49

559/2

Gray ware, light gray core, hand burnishing on exterior

12

Juglet

47

511/1

Light brown ware, white grits, simple rim

13

Holemouth jar

47

515/1

Brown ware, light brown and gray core, white grits and crushed pottery, horizontal rim, cylindrical body

14

Holemouth jar

49

576/3

Brown ware, gray core, horizontal rim, cylindrical body

15

Holemouth pithos

82

1076/1

Light brown ware, gray core, white grits

16

Storage jar

49

607

Brown ware, white grits

17

Storage jar

47

515/2

Red-brown ware, brown core with crushed pottery, thickened rim

18

Storage jar

47

515/3

Brown-orange ware, gray core, white grits, slightly thickened rim.

19

Stand

65

953/1

Brown ware, gray core, external red slip, triangular perforated windows cut with a knife before firing, shallow horizontal pair of grooves as part of decoration

20

Stand

65

953/2

Brown ware, red slip outside and upper inside

21

Figurine

81

1076/2

Leg of zoomorphic figurine. Orange ware, gray core, traces of white slip

22

Oil lamp

49

576/4

Brown ware, crushed pottery and white grits, short thick base

23

Bowl

47

511/2

Orange-brown ware, crushed pottery, red slip with decoration in brown on exterior, flat rim

A R E A A , P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 119

Flat rim bowl (Fig. 5.1: 5): This is a round bowl with a ridge on the wall below the rim of the bowl. No parallels for this type were found, although the surface treatment indicates that it should be dated to the Iron II. Folded-rim bowl with loop handles (Fig. 5.1: 6): Folded-rim bowls are quite common in the second half of the Iron Age. They often appear with loop handles extending from the rim to the body. Parallels from the City of David can be found, e.g., in Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 95, Fig. 16: 17). Kraters (Fig. 5.1: 7–10)

Two types of kraters were found in this assemblage. It is important to note that the differentiation between bowls and kraters was based on the size and depth of the vessels. In certain reports, the types defined here as kraters may appear as bowls. Holemouth kraters (Fig. 5.1: 7–8, 10): This is a less common type, although examples have been found in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, Areas J and N (Yezerski 2014: 124, Pl. 2.1: 25). Folded-rim kraters (Fig. 5.1: 9): This krater is similar to the folded-rim bowls, only larger. The kraters usually appear with four handles. Parallels from the City of David are known in Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 95, Fig. 8: 11) as well as in the Jewish Quarter, Areas J and N (Yezerski 2014: 123, Pl. 2.2: 11). Juglets (Fig. 5.1: 11–12)

Black juglet (Fig. 5.1: 11): Small, black, hand-burnished juglet. No parallels were found in the excavations of the City of David or in Jerusalem in general. Parallels from sites in the south of Israel date to the end of the 8th and beginning of the 7th centuries BCE (e.g., Tel >Ira, Tomb 14, Freud 1999: 150, Fig. 4.27; Tel Malḥata, Type JT7, Strata IV–IVB, Freud 2015: 213, Fig. 4.94: 4). High, straight-necked juglet (Fig. 5.1: 12): Dipper juglet with cylindrical body. Parallels from the City of David can be found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 71–72, Photo 4.35, Fig. 4.35: 23, Type Jt1a). Holemouths (Fig. 5.1: 13–14)

Smooth, peg-shaped holemouth jars (Fig. 5.1: 13): This type occurs mainly in Strata 12B–A (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 82). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12B–A (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 82, Fig. 4.6: 1, Type Hm2a), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 26: 1–2, 6). Holemouth with a smooth, folded rim (Fig. 5.1: 14): The rim is thickened and inverted. This type is common in Judah during the end of the 8th–7th centuries BCE (Freud 2016: 262, Table 16.1, Type HMJ 1.2; Freud 2017: 97, Type HMJ4). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 82, Fig. 4.6: 2, Type Hm2b) and Area D, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 26: 4–5). Pithos (Fig. 5.1: 15)

Holemouth pithos with rounded shoulders and folded inverted rim (Fig. 5.1: 15): Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 90, Fig. 4.8: 5, Type SJ8), Kenyon’s excavations in Cave I (Eshel 1995: Fig. 30: 11) and E. Mazar’s excavations in the Ophel (Mazar, Ben-Shlomo and Aḥituv 2013: 43–40: Fig. 4.3-4, Type B).

1 2 0 E F R AT B O C H E R

Storage Jars (Fig. 5.1: 16–18)

Storage jar with a thickened, inverted rim (Fig. 5.1: 16–17): This type has a long period of use throughout the Iron Age (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 85). Parallels were found in Area E of the City of David, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 85, Fig. 4.6: 7–8, Type SJ2b). Storage jar with a straight, simple rim (Fig. 5.1: 18): As the type above, this appears throughout the Iron Age. Parallels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012: 85, Fig. 4.6: 6, Type SJ2a). Stands (Fig. 5.1: 19–20)

Cultic stand (Fig. 5.1: 19): A cultic stand with triangular-shaped windows arranged in three horizontal lines was found. A Similar stand was found in Kenyon’s excavations in Cave I (Eshel 1995: 54, Fig. 31: 12, Pl. 17: 19). Hourglass stands (Fig. 5.1: 20): These stands are quite common in the Iron Age. They are characterized by a rim with a triangular cross-section and a thick red slip on its outer walls. Parallels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12B (Type St3), although with evidence for windows (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 95–96, Fig. 4.10: 5), as well as on the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 256, Fig. 5.14: 208). Figurine (Fig. 5.1: 21).

See Chapter 30. Oil Lamp (Fig. 5.1: 22)

A shallow lamp with a rounded base was found in this context. These lamps are dated to the 8th century BCE. Parallels are known from the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12B (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 90–92, Fig. 4.9: 1, Type L1), and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 19: 18).

FILLS EAST (FIG. 5.2) AND WEST (FIG. 5.3) OF WALL 10 YIELDING IRON AGE AND PERSIAN PERIOD POTTERY Earth fills yielding primarily late Iron Age and Persian period pottery (with some earlier sherds), were excavated on the south side of the dig, in Squares 4 and 8 (Figs. 4.2, 4.14), on either side of Walls 10 and 15. The excavators assumed that these fills originated from collapsed occupation layers uphill, west of Shiloh’s Wall 219 (see above). The loci in question include: Loci 29, 30, 58, 66, 67, 68 and 69 east of Wall 10 and Wall 15; and Loci 26, 35, 40, 57, 61, 78 and 84 west of Wall 10 and Wall 15. Of these, Loci 26, 61, 78 and 84 were chosen by the excavators as a representative sample. The fills on either side of Walls 10 and 15 were similar in nature and seem to have been dumped or eroded together. Most of the fills can be dated to the 5th–4th centuries BCE. The assemblage contains mostly domestic and local ceramics, typical of Persian period Judah, with very little imported material (Figs. 5.2: 23; 5.3: 4). One bowl (Fig. 5.3: 4) is unique, with no evidence thus far of its appearance in Judah during the Persian period. This type of bowl is known from excavations in the coastal region of Israel, dating to the beginning of the Persian period (see below). Two lion impressions (Locus 66) and six yhd impressions (Loci 26, 29, 71 and 78) were also found in the assemblage (see Chapters 32 and 33).

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 121

Bowls (Figs. 5.2: 1–3; 5.3: 1–4)

Bowls with a folded rim (Fig. 5.2: 1–3): These are similar only in that their rim is outfolded, continuing the tradition of the Iron Age into the Persian period (Aharoni and Aharoni 1976: 86, No. 1). The forms are quite different from one another: the bowl shown in Fig. 5.2: 1 has a straight wall, while the bowl illustrated in Fig. 5.2: 2 is carinated and the bowl shown in Fig. 5.2: 3 is rounded. The latter type first appeared at the end of the Iron Age, for example in Area E, Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 64–65, Fig. 4.2: 7–8, Type B8c). Later examples also appear, for example, in Area E, Stratum 9 (Type III, Zuckerman 2012: 32, Fig. 3.1: 16–22) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (BL-3, Shalev 2015: 204, Fig. 4.1: 10). Bowls with an everted ledge rim (Fig. 5.3: 1–3): These bowls are rounded and have horizontal ledge rims, belonging to Stern’s Type A3 (Stern 1982: 94). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 32–34, Fig. 3.2: 1–12, Type IVA), in Area D1, Stratum 9 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 98, Fig. 28: 1–4) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 205, Fig. 4.1: 20–21, BL-5). Banded bowls (Fig. 5.3: 4): These are small rounded bowls, at times with horizontal handles and decorated on the interior and exterior. The material is well-levigated with a few white grits and high-grade briquettes. These bowls are imported from the west, considered a development of east Greek vessels from the 7th century BCE. The largest assemblage of these vessels in Israel was found at Tel Dor. These vessels are most often found in assemblages together with Attic imported pottery. This group is often thought of as a secondary group, accompanying the appearance of Attic pottery. The origin of the production of these vessels is unclear. Many scholars have suggested that they originated in the islands of eastern Greece. Lehmann (2000: 87) was the first to suggest that these were not oriental Greek vessels and should be attributed to the Syrian coast based on their extensive distribution there and in Cilicia, and in view of their total absence from sites in eastern Greece. Shalev (2014: 24–26) suggested that they originated in Cilicia. Kraters (Figs. 5.2: 4–5, 19; 5.3: 5–8)

A large assemblage of kraters of various types was found in the fills discussed here. Neckless kraters (Figs. 5.2: 4–5; 5.3: 5): These kraters have a wide globular body. Their rims are simple, thickened or sharp. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 38, Fig. 3.3: 13–18, Type I), in Area D1, Stratum 9 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 28: 9) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 207, Fig. 4.2: 5–6, KR-2). Necked kraters (Fig. 5.3: 7): These kraters have a short neck and an everted, flattened rim. They usually have handles extending from the sloping shoulder and the body. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 38, Fig. 3.3: 19–20, Type II) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 207, Fig. 4.2: 7, KR-2). Kraters with a wide shoulder (Figs. 5.2: 19; 5.3: 8): Kraters with a wide shoulder and a pair of vertical handles extending from the rim to the shoulder were found in the assemblage. They belong to Stern’s Type 2a (Stern 1982: 99, 2015a: 568–569, Pl. 5.1.4: 4–5). Similar vessels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 206-207, Fig. 4.2: 1–4, KR-1). Decorated kraters (Figs. 5.2: 4; 5.3: 13): Two kraters belonging to this assemblage were decorated. The decoration consists of two rows of wedge impressions. Stern dates all of the decorated vessels to the late 6th–late 4th centuries BCE (Stern 1982: 133, 2015a: 570, 578–579). This

1 2 2 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

15

12

13

16

17

14

18

19

23 20

21

0

5

Figure. 5.2: Persian period pottery from loci east of Wall 10.

10

22

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 123

Figure 5.2: Persian Period Pottery from Loci East of Wall 10 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

29

385/1

Brown ware, gray core

2

Bowl

29

385/2

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, thickened rim, slightly carinated

3

Bowl

29

368/1

Brown ware, white grits, crushed pottery, spaced wheel burnishing on interior and upper exterior of rim, outward thickened rim

4

Krater

29

371/1

Light brown ware, white grits, thickened rim, continuous wheel burnish on flat side of rim’s exterior, decoration of horizontal line of impressed triangles

5

Krater

30

383

Brown ware, thick gray core, many white grits, thick wall, thickened and flattened rim

6

Krater

29

385/3

Brown-orange ware, gray core, crushed pottery, thickened simple rim, slight ridge around rim, rounded body

7

Cooking pot

67

927/1

Dark brown ware, gray core, many white grits, creating brittle ware

8

Cooking pot

68

909

Brown ware, grits and crushed pottery

9

Cooking pot

68

910/1

Brown ware

10

Cooking pot

58

898

Brown ware

11

Stand

67

894

Brown ware, gray core, white grits

12

Stand

29

385/4

Light brown ware, gray core, white grits, very thick wall

13

Juglet

58

837

Yellowish ware, brown core, white grits

14

Juglet

29

371/2

Orange-brown ware, white grits, body fragment with slight carination between neck and body

15

Flask

58

892

Orange-brown ware, yellowish slip, white grits

16

Flask

67

893/1

Light-brown-yellowish ware, white grits

17

Jar

68

922

Brown-gray ware, white grits, globular body

18

Jar

58

890

Light brown-yellowish ware, white grits

19

Krater

67

927/2

Light brown ware, gray core, white grits, thickened rim flaring outwards, large vessel.

20

Oil lamp

68

910/2

Light brown ware, white grits

21

Oil lamp

58

899

Gray ware, red-brown core, white grits

22

Oil lamp

68

989

Yellowish-brown ware, white grits

23

Body fragment

29

371/3

Attic black glazed ware, light brown fine ware with highly glossy black attic burnish on both sides

decoration is quite common in the City of David, for example in Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 38, Fig. 3.3: 21–23, Type III) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 212, Fig.4.4: 11–16). Cooking Pots (Fig. 5.2: 7–10)

Two types of cooking pots were found in these fills. The first type is typical of the Persian period. The second is a type that begins to appear at the end of the Iron Age, although the form continues into the beginning of the Persian period.

1 2 4 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0

5

Figure 5.3: Persian period pottery from loci west of Wall 10.

13

10

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 125

Figure 5.3: Persian Period Pottery from Loci West of Wall 10 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

61

824/1

Brown-gray ware, gray core, white grits, flat rim.

2

Bowl

61

824/2

Light brown ware, white grits, crushed pottery, short neck with flat rim, rounded body.

3

Bowl

40

1079/1

Light brown ware, white grits, flat rim, spaced wheel burnishing on interior and upper exterior of rim.

4

Bowl

40

1079/2

Light-brown yellowish fine ware, well-fired, red paint on interior and brown paint on rim, knife-scraped exterior.

5

Krater

40

1079/3

Light brown ware, gray core, white grits, prominent ridge around rim.

6

Krater

61

937

Light brown-beige ware, white grits and crushed pottery, outward thickened rim, short neck.

7

Krater

61

824/3

Brown ware, white grits, short neck, everted flattened rim.

8

Krater

40

1079/4

Gray ware, many white grits, externally thickened, flattened rim, handle from rim to shoulder.

9

Holemouth jar

61

981

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, horizontal rim, cylindrical body.

10

Jar

26

365

Brown-gray ware, white grits, thick wall, rounded, externally thickened rim.

11

Baking tray

40

1079/5

Brown ware, outer face covered with dense field of un-perforated holes, some filled with a white (lime?) substance. Holes have no outer protruding edges.

12

Oil lamp

40

1079/6

Brown ware, black grits, flat base.

13

Krater

78

998

Body fragment, brown ware, white grits, row of triangular impressions on shoulder.

Everted, grooved-rim cooking pot (Fig. 5.2: 7): Large cooking pot with an everted grooved rim, often termed the “En-Gedi” type, are characteristic of the end of the Iron Age (Gitin 1990: 219–221). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 68, Fig. 4.3: 9, Type CP8), on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 208, Fig. 4.2: 13, Type CP-2) and at Ramat Raḥel, Phase III (Freud 2016: Fig. 16.2, Table 16.1, Type CP1). Ledge-rim cooking pots (Fig. 5.2: 8–10): Cooking pots with a wide, short neck and a ledge rim are common in the 5th–4th centuries BCE in both the north and south of Israel, categorized as Stern’s Type B (Stern 1982: 100–101). These cooking pots are also attested to in Phoenicia (Stern 2015a: 569, Fig. 5.1.6: 3–4). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 39, Fig. 3.4: 10–13, Type III) and the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 207, Fig. 4.2: 10–11, CP-1). Holemouth Jars (Fig. 5.3: 9)

The holemouth jar has thin walls and an inverted rim. This is the most common type found at Ramat Raḥel, dating to the end of the Iron Age and continuing into the beginning of the Persian period (Freud 2017: 95, Type HMI; Freud 2016: Table 16.1, Type HMJ 1.1). Similar vessels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 209, Fig. 4.3: 17, JR-6), as well as at Khirbet Er-Ras (Edelstein 2000: 47, Fig. 13: 5).

1 2 6 E F R AT B O C H E R

Pithos (Fig. 5.2: 10)

A holemouth pithos with rounded shoulders is illustrated in Fig. 5.2: 10. This type appears in Area E of the City of David, from Stratum 12 onward (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 90, Fig. 4.8: 5). Stand (Fig. 5.2: 11–12)

Wide cylindrical stand (Fig. 5.2: 11–12): These stands have a thick wall and are common in the 8th–7th centuries BCE, although they are also found in Persian assemblages. Parallels were found at Ramat Raḥel III (Freud 2016: 261, Table 16.1, Type ST1). Similar vessels are also know from the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 94–95, Fig. 4.10: 1, Type ST1), the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: Fig. 4.4: 6), and Ramat Raúel (Freud 2016: 261, Table 16.1, Type ST1). Juglets

“Perfume” juglet (Fig. 5.2: 13): This type is represented by the ring rims typical of such vessels. This juglet belongs to Stern’s Type C3–5, common in 5th–4th century BCE contexts (Stern 2007: 206). Parallels are known from Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984: Fig. 7: 5) and from En-Gedi, Stratum IV (Stern 2007: Fig. 5.2.7: 7). Similar vessels were also found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 40, Fig. 3.5: 5–8) and the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 210, Fig. 4.4: 2, JL-2). Dipper Juglet (Fig. 5.2: 14): Dipper juglets with a cylindrical body, flat base, short neck and simple out-turned rim were found in the assemblage. These vessels are usually found in assemblages dating to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE (Stern 2015a: 573–574). Parallels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 210, Fig. 4.4: 1, JL-1) and the Holyland Hotel (BenArieh 2000: 10, Fig. 11.3). Flasks (Fig. 5.2: 15–16)

The flasks found in this assemblage have a narrow, splayed neck, an everted rim and small handles extending from the middle of the neck to the shoulder. These flasks have been found mainly in the south, and date to mid-6th–beginning of 4th centuries BCE (Stern 2015a: 575, Pl. 5.1.20.6). Parallels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 211, Fig. 4.4: 4–5). Jars (Figs. 5.2: 17–18; 5.3: 10)

Many fragments of jar rims typical of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods were found in the assemblage. The jars are datable both according to form and ware. Jar with everted thickened rim (Fig. 5.2: 17): Short cylindrical neck. Parallels dating to the Persian period are known from the City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 42–46, Type I) and Area D1, Stratum 9 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 147, Fig. 28: 18). As mentioned above, the form continues to appear in the early Hellenistic period, for example in Area E, Stratum 8 (Berlin 2012: 12–13, Fig. 2.2: 3). Jar with high neck (Figs. 5.2: 18; 5.3: 10): This jar is characterized by a high neck and thin everted rim. Baking Tray? (Fig. 5.3: 11)

A fragment of what may be a baking tray was uncovered in the assemblage. The exterior is covered with fine, shallow, unperforated holes. The holes are relatively delicate compared to other baking trays. The ware is similar to Iron Age baking trays (e.g., Arad, Stratum X, SingerAvitz 2002: 135, Fig. 11: b32).

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 127

Lamps (Figs. 5.2: 20–22; 5.3: 12)

All of the lamps from this assemblage are typical of the Persian period, continuing the tradition of Iron Age forms. They have a shallow bowl with a wide rim. These lamps first appear in the 6th century BCE and continue throughout the entire period (Stern 2007: 209). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 46, Fig. 3.7: 1–4) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 212, Fig. 4.4: 10).

POTTERY FROM INSIDE CHANNEL II Channel II was filled with large amounts of debris that was divided among numerous loci. In order to examine the dating of the debris, a representative sample of pottery from the various periods represented was illustrated from the following loci: 38, 52, 53 and 59 (Fig. 4.17). These are earthen fills that washed down the slope and penetrated the channel through its various breaches and settled on its floor subsequent to the channel’s last use (before which it was certainly kept clean). The debris in the channel contains pottery from the late Iron II, the Persian period and the 1st century CE. The main breach into the channel, through which it was discovered (22m–26m, see Chapter 4) contained only 1st century CE pottery. Close to the other breaches, the pottery is of an earlier date. Through the northernmost breach, the fills contained mainly Persian pottery.

Iron Age Pottery from within Channel II (Fig. 5.4) A relatively small assemblage of pottery dating to the Iron Age—or more precisely the 8th and 7th centuries BCE—was found in Channel II. Most of the finds consisted of wheel-burnished bowls. One krater (Fig. 5.4: 4) is of an earlier date, belonging to the 9th or even possibly to the 10th century BCE. Bowls (Fig. 5.4: 1–3)

Thin bowl (Fig. 5.4: 1): This bowl has a sharp, low carination, a long splayed upper wall and a simple rim. The bowls are the most common local imitations of both Assyrian Palace Ware and their production continued through the Persian period (Stern 2015b: 534, Fig. 4.4.1: 1–6). This type was discovered in the City of David in strata dating to the Iron Age and Persian period, such as Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 32, Type II) and Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 10: 7–8). Folded-rim bowl (Fig. 5.4: 2): See above, Fig. 5.2: 3. Krater (Fig. 5.4: 4)

The krater has a slightly inverted upper wall. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 15–13 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 202–204, Fig. 5.2: 10, Type K2,), in Area D1, Stratum 14 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 15: 12) and in the excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Stratum XII (Ben-Ami 2013: 67, Fig. 3.3: 5). Flask (Fig. 5.4: 5)

The flask illustrated has a short neck with a rounded rim turned outward. Plain loop handles extend from the middle of the neck to the shoulder. This is a relatively small flask with red slip, suggesting it should be dated to the Iron Age, also indicated by the vessel’s ware. Flasks are very rare in Jerusalem and its surroundings. Although a few flasks were found in Area E in the City of David,

1 2 8 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

5

10

2

4

8

7

9

0

Figure 5.4: Iron II pottery found in fills inside Channel II.

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 129

Figure 5.4: Iron II Pottery found in Fills Inside Channel II No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

59

825

Light brown ware, continuous wheel burnishing on exterior, simple rim.

2

Bowl

38

426

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, externally thickened rim, wheel burnishing on interior and upper exterior of rim.

3

Bowl

52

678

Light brown ware, continuous wheel burnishing on interior, outer lug (part of degenerated bar handle).

4

Krater

52

675/1

Light brown ware, black grits, brown slip on interior and exterior, rim flattened outwards, thick wall.

5

Flask

59

808

Brown ware, brown core, many white grits, red slip, conical neck, body cut where neck is attached, attachment smoothed on exterior and left unsmoothed on inside, thick handles from neck to shoulders.

6

Stand

52

714/1

Brown ware, many white grits, very thick side of vessel, externally thickened rim.

7

Oil lamp

52

715

Brown ware, many white grits, rounded base, rim missing.

8

Zoomorphic vessel

52

738

Light brown ware, white grits, wheel-turned cylindrical body, perforated neck of animal attached, with pinched ears and eyes made of small round applications.

9

Rattle

52

714/2

Light brown ware, red-brown slip outside.

Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.9: 5–7), they are very different from the flask in this assemblage. Stand (Fig. 5.4: 6)

See above, Fig. 5.2: 11–12. Oil Lamp (Fig. 5.4: 7)

See above, Fig. 5.1: 22. Rattle (Fig. 5.4: 9)

Rattles are small vessels, closed on either side, which could have made noise through the insertion of a small stone (De Groot, Geva and Yezerski 2003: 15). Similar vessels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 256–257, Fig. 5.15: 213–218, Type R). Zoomorphic Vessel (Fig. 5.4: 8)

See Chapter 30.

Persian and Hellenistic Pottery from within Channel II (Fig. 5.5) A relatively large quantity of Persian pottery (6th–4th centuries BCE) was found in Channel II, along with very few early Hellenistic sherds (3rd–2nd centuries BCE). The assemblage is varied with many distinct local types of the period and a few imports. Bowls (Fig. 5.5: 1–4)

Four types of large bowls were discovered in the assemblage. Bowl with everted ledge rim (Fig. 5.5: 1): See above, Fig. 5.3: 1–2.

1 3 0 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

9

8

10 0

5

10

11

12 0

2

4

Figure 5.5: Persian and Early Hellenistic pottery found in fills inside Channel II.

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 131

Figure 5.5: Persian and Early Hellenistic Pottery Found in Fills Inside Channel II No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

53

732

Brown ware, white grits, flat base, rim flattened outward, thick wall.

2

Mortarium bowl

53

735

Light brown ware, white grits. Very thick wall, out-flaring ring base.

3

Carinated bowl

52

697

Light brown ware, white grits, spaced wheel burnish outside, high neck, simple rim, horizontal handles.

4

Bowl

52

676

Reddish-brown clay with shiny grits and a dull black glaze.

5

Krater

52

698

Orange-brown ware, white grits, rim flattened outward.

6

Cooking pot

52

715

Dark brown ware, white grits, simple rim slightly thickened, short neck flaring outward, handle from rim to shoulder.

7

Flask

52

727

Brown ware, black grits, yellowish slip, short and conical neck, connection to body smoothed perfectly on interior and exterior, rounded rim thickened outward, handles from neck to shoulders.

8

Juglet

52

700

Brown ware, white grits, thick side.

9

Pithos

59

866

Light brown ware, many white grits, thickened rim, wheel burnishing only on outer thickened part of rim, small ridge below rim, three horizontal rows of triangular impressions.

10

Body fragment

52

690

Body fragment with a line of 6 perforations (ca. 2 mm in diameter), at a distance of ca. 1 cm from edge.

11

Oil lamp

59

825

Light brown ware, black and white grits, Lamp made as a pinched bowl, rounded to flat base.

12

Oil lamp

52

678

Light brown ware, thick wall, handmade pointed nozzle attached to wheelturned body, traces of soot.

Mortarium (Fig. 5.5: 2): High ring base of a mortarium. The ware is whitish-brown/pink and contains large gray grits. The high base is a common feature on mortaria throughout the Persian period. The bowls first appeared in the 8th century BCE, and by the 5th and 4th centuries BCE became the most well-known type of open vessel in the Persian period (Zuckerman and Ben-Shlomo 2011: 88–91). Very few sherds belonging to mortaria were found in Jerusalem, indicating that the penetration of imports was minimal in comparison with other areas in Israel. Petrographic analysis of Persian period vessels from the City of David shows that mortaria were produced and imported from western Cyprus or the Aegean (Gorzalczany 2012: 53). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 38, Fig. 3.4: 3). Thin bowl (Fig. 5.5: 3): This is a deep bowl with carinated walls and horizontal handles. A clear wheel burnishing coats the exterior of the vessel. This type dates from the late 6th to the late 4th centuries BCE (Stern 2007: 199). Parallels have been found at En-Gedi, Stratum IV (Stern 2007: 199, Fig. 5.2.1: 21–23), and at the City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 32, Fig. 3.4: 12–13, Type II). Bowl with incurved rim (Fig. 5.5: 4): This imported bowl is made of very well levigated, reddish brown clay with shiny grits and bearing a dull black glaze. This type of Black Attic pottery was common in the second half of the 4th century BCE (Sparkes and Talcott 1970: 295–296, Fig. 8, Pl. 33). Parallels from the City of David were found in the excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Stratum VIII (Sandhaus 2013: 94, Fig. 4.3: 1, Type BA1).

1 3 2 E F R AT B O C H E R

Krater (Fig. 5.5: 5)

Only one krater is illustrated. This is a deep, round krater with a short vertical neck and an everted rim flattened at the top. Stern classified this as his Type D3, common in the Persian period (Stern 1982: Fig. 125). Cooking Pot (Fig. 5.5: 6)

Only one type of cooking pot was found in this assemblage, a globular cooking pot (Fig. 5.5: 6). See above, Fig. 5.2: 4. Flask (Fig. 5.5: 7)

Flasks with a narrow splayed neck, everted rim and small handles extending from the middle of the neck to the shoulder have been found mainly in the south, and date from the mid-6th to the beginning of the 4th century BCE (Stern 2015a: 575, Pl. 5.1.20.6). Similar vessels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 211, Fig. 4.4: 4–5). Juglet (Fig. 5.5: 8)

“Perfume Juglets” (Fig. 5.5: 8): This is a small juglet with a round, squat, faintly ribbed body and round base, dating to the second half of the Persian period. It is primarily found in the Judean Hill Country (Stern 2015a: 575, Pl. 5.1.18: 13). Parallels have been found at En-Gedi, Stratum IV (Stern 2007: 206, Fig. 5.2.7: 4), as well on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 210–211, Fig. 4.4: 3, Type JL3). Pithos (Fig. 5.5: 9-10)

This large, oval holemouth pithos has a folded rim and three horizontal rows of wedge impressions. This pithos is often found with wedge-shaped impressions, a decoration characteristic of the late 6th and 5th centuries BCE (Stern 1982: 133; 2015a: 570). Another sherd bearing wedge impressions (Fig. 5.5: 10) is also illustrated, with two rows of triangular wedges, with a row of circles between them. Parallels were found on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 207, Fig. 4.2: 7, Type KR-2). Oil Lamps (Fig. 5.5: 11–12)

Two types of lamps, typical of the Persian period, were found in the assemblage. Open lamp (Fig. 5.5: 11): Open, shallow lamps with a wide rim first appear in the 6th century BCE and continue throughout the entire period (Stern 2007: 209). Similar vessels are known from the City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 46, Fig. 3.7: 1–4), as well as from the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 212, Fig. 4.4: 10). Closed lamp (Fig. 5.5: 12): The example shown here is a local imitation of imported Greek closed lamps. They have a small round body, a low disc base and a narrow nozzle with a small wick-hole. These lamps begin to appear in the latter part of the Persian period, first in the coastal plain and then spreading across the country, eventually becoming more common than the open lamp (Stern 2015a: 577–578, Pl. 5.1.23: 8–10).

REFERENCES Aharoni, M. and Aharoni, Y. 1976. The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th and 7th Centuries BCE. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224: 73–90. Ben-Arieh, S. 2000. Salvage Excavations near the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem. >Atiqot 50: 1–24.

A R E A A, P O T T E RY F R O M T H E I R O N A G E A N D P E R S I A N A N D H E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D S 133

De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. 2000. Ceramic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 91–154. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 57–198. De Groot, A., Geva, H. and Yezerski, I. 2003. Iron Age II Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2: Final Report. Jerusalem: 1–49. Edelstein, G. 2000. A Terraced Farm at Er-Ras.>Atiqot 50: 39–63. Eshel, I. 1995. The Morphological Classification of the Pottery Groups in Caves I and II. In: Eshel, I. and Prag, K., eds. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. IV: The Iron Age Deposits on the Southeast Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere (BAMA 6). Oxford: 27–157. Freud, L. 1999. Pottery: The Iron Age. In: Beit-Arieh, I. ed. Tel >Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 189 –289. Freud, L. 2011. The Longue Durée of the 7th Century BCE. A Study of the Iron Age Pottery Vessels from Ramat Raḥel (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Freud, L. 2016. Pottery of the Iron Age: Typology and Summary. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. I (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake: 254–265. Freud, L. 2017. Production and Widespread Use of Holemouth Vessels in Jerusalem and Its Environs in the Iron Age II: Typology, Chronology and Distribution. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y., Cytryn-Silverman, K. and Uziel, J., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region 11. Jerusalem: 93–110. Gitin, S. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology; v. 003. Jerusalem. Gorzalczany, A. 2012. Appendix: Petrographic Analysis of Persian-Period Vessels. In: De Groot, A., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 51–56. Lehmann, G. 2000. East Greek or Levantine? Band-Decorated Pottery in the Levant during the Achaemenid Period. Transeuphratène 19: 83–112. Mazar, E., Ben-Shlomo, D. and Aḥituv, S. 2013. An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 63: 39–49. Sandhaus, D. 2013. The Hellenistic Pottery. In: Ben-Ami., D. ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gi>vati Parking Lot) Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 83–108. Shalev, Y. 2014. “The Mighty Grain-Lands: Demographic and Commercial Aspects of “Southern Phoenicia” under the Achaemenid Regime” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Haifa). Haifa. Shalev, Y. 2015. The Early Persian Period Pottery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports I. Area G. Jerusalem: 203–241. Singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29: 110–215. Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L. 1970. The Athenian Agora. XII: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th and 4th Centuries B.C. Princeton. Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C. Warminster. Stern, E. 2007. En-Gedi Excavations I. Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem. Stern, E. 2015a. Persian Period. In: Gitin, S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period Vol. II. Jerusalem: 565–617. Stern, E. 2015b. Iron Age IIC Assyrian-Type Pottery. In: Gitin, S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period Vol. II. Jerusalem: 533–553. Stern, E. and Magen, Y. 1984. A Pottery Group of the Persian Period from Qadum in Samaria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 9–27. Yezerski, I. 2014. Iron Age IIB Pottery from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Final Report. Jerusalem: 120–133.

1 3 4 E F R AT B O C H E R

Yezerski, I. and Mazar, E. 2015. Iron Age III Pottery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports I, Area G. Jerusalem: 243–298. Zuckerman, S. 2012. The Pottery of Stratum 9 (the Persian Period). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 31–50. Zuckerman, S. and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2011. Mortaria as a Foreign Element in the Material Culture of the Southern Levant during the 8th–7th centuries BCE. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143: 85–105.

CHAPTER 6

AREA A THE EARLY ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

This chapter discusses the pottery assemblage retrieved from deposits relating to architectural elements uncovered in Area A. The origin of these assemblages cannot imply a precise date for any of the items but rather suggest a terminus ante quem before which these elements were constructed. Pottery from the Early Roman period in Jerusalem and Judea is well known, with many parallels from well-stratified and securely dated contexts in the region. Parallels for the assemblage from Area A were chosen from Judean sites, primarily from Jerusalem itself. The ceramic assemblages from Jerusalem include the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2003; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006, 2014), the Qishle excavations (Rapuano 2018) and excavations in the City of David, including the Giva>ti Parking Lot Excavations (Sandhaus 2013; Tchekhanovets 2013) and the fills excavated in Area D3 (Machline and Gadot 2017). The pottery from other sites in the immediate vicinity, as well as from further afield in the region of Judea, such as the Jerusalem International Convention Center (JICC herein; Berlin 2005), Masada (Bar-Nathan 2006) and Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002) were also used, due to their rich repertoire and well-stratified, welldated contexts.

THE POTTERY ASSOCIATED WITH WALL 10 Wall 10, which was identified by the excavators as part of a significant Iron II fortification (see Chapter 4), is the most dominant architectural feature uncovered in Area A. It traversed the area from north to south, all along the natural route of the Kidron Valley. The wall was founded on bedrock, near a small but steep slope. The eastern face of the wall, built in a sloping manner, similar to a terrace wall, is where the deposits containing the pottery discussed below were laid. As the earthen fills lining the eastern face of the wall were exposed, large numbers of intact cooking pots and large sherds of in situ pots were unearthed. The intact pots, as well as the large fragments of the broken vessels, indicate that they were intentionally placed or abandoned intact, with the breakage occurring as a result of postdepositional processes. Three stratified layers of stacked cooking pots were found. The two lower fill layers contained remarkable concentrations of intact vessels, while the uppermost layer contained one intact pot and sherds of others (see Table 6.1). A significant number of cooking pot sherds should be considered as further evidence of the same phenomenon.1 Alongside the cooking pots, other forms of vessels were found in each deposited layer. Several small saucers (e.g., Fig. 6.1: 13–16) were found in direct relation to the cooking pots, either inside them or placed above them, likely indicating their use as lids. Inside one of the cooking pots, a lamp (Fig. 6.1: 33) was found. 1 

   In Area J, a few pots were discovered situated in a like manner, on Walls 501 and 502.

136 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Table 6.1: Area A, Number of Early Roman Period Cooking Pots Found per Locus Locus

Number complete cooking pots

Layer

2

1

Middle deposit

5

2

Upper deposit

6

1

Middle deposit

9

9

Lower deposit

10

1

Lower deposit

11

2

Lower deposit

12

1

Upper deposit

16

6

Middle deposit

17

2

Lower deposit

18

2

Lower deposit

31

1

Lower deposit

Total

28

The pottery finds from each stratified layer are presented separately, including the cooking pots, the vessels directly related to them and the additional forms comprising the assemblage from each layer. Due to their unusual concentration, the cooking pots from the Wall 10 assemblages are presented before the other vessels from each layer.

Pottery from the Lower Deposit Layer (Fig. 6.1) As noted above, the assemblage from the lowest deposit abutting Wall 10 from the east was comprised of many intact cooking pots (Fig. 6.1: 1–12), with a few bowls and an oil lamp found in direct relation to the cooking pots—either directly above them, used as lids, or inside them (Fig. 6.1: 13–16, 19, 33). Other pottery sherds were found in the deposit, not in direct relation to the cooking pots (Fig. 6.1: 17–18, 20–32, 34–35). Based on parallels, all the vessel types date to the late 2nd –1st centuries BCE. Cooking Pots

The exclusive form of closed cooking pots found in the lowest layer are those depicting high necks (Fig. 6.1: 1–12). Many of the complete examples were found with traces of soot on their base, indicating that they had been deposited near Wall 10 after use. High neck cooking pots (Fig. 6.1: 1–12): These have a spherical body, an everted, relatively high neck and a simple rim. Some have inner thickened rims, forming a slight gutter in the neck, possibly for placing the lid (Fig. 6.1: 6–9). This type of closed cooking pot was common during the first half of the 1st century BCE in Jerusalem (Berlin 2015: 636). In the Jewish Quarter assemblages, they were defined as the typical cooking pot of the late Hasmonean period (Geva 2003: 134; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 180; Pl. 6.1: 11, 6.2: 20–23; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 111, Pl. 4.5: 17; Tchekhanovets 2013: 113; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 136). This type is also typical of early 1st century BCE Jericho, where it was labeled “the Hasmonean cooking pot” (Bar-Nathan 2002: 69, Pl. 11: 131–134).

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 3 7

All of the pots were well-fired and made of the typical slightly reddish-brown ware, forming the relatively thin walls of the vessel. Only a few have a darker outer hue of dark brown to gray color (see LCP: JICC).2 Saucers (Fig. 6.1: 13–20)

Two forms of saucers were found in the lower deposit layer alongside the cooking pots—those with an infolded rim and those with an in-curving rim. Both types were found in large quantities and are typical of the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. Several hundred of both subtypes of saucers were found in the bottom of a stepped ritual bath uncovered in Area A in the Jewish Quarter excavations. Stratigraphic and numismatic evidence suggest that the accumulation there date to no later than the late 1st century BCE (Avigad 1983: 74–75; Reich 2000: 106). In Jericho, too, hundreds of saucers of these types were found on the floors of pools and ritual baths dating to the 1st century BCE or earlier (Netzer 1985). As noted above, numerous saucers (Fig. 6.1: 13–16, 19) were used as lids. The vessels shown in Fig. 6.1: 17, 18 and 20 are similar in form, although they were not directly related to the pots. Saucer with an infolded rim (Fig. 6.1: 13–15): The first type is a small, shallow saucer, sometimes referred to as a small bowl or plate. This vessel has straight to convex walls, a short, infolded rim and a flat base (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 4–6; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.1: 4; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.4: 14–15; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 10: 2). In the Jewish Quarter, this type first appeared during the late 2nd century BCE, becoming very common during the 1st century BCE. Saucer with an incurved rim: The second is a small, deep dish with an incurved rim. One subtype of this bowl has a sharply incurved rim (Fig. 6.1: 16–18), while another has a gently incurved rim (Fig. 6.1: 19–20). One example of this bowl has red slip on the interior and exterior of the vessel (Fig. 6.1: 20). Like the former type, this saucer is found in large quantities in 2nd and 1st century BCE contexts in Jerusalem and Judea (Bar-Nathan 2002: 80, 85–86; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 5–9; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.1: 1–3; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.3; Rapuano 2018: Fig. 10: 1). Storage Jars (Fig. 6.1: 21–24)

Three types of storage jars were uncovered in the lowest layer: Storage jar with a square-profiled rim (Fig. 6.1: 21): These storage jars have a thickened, slightly everted rim with a square profile. This was the most dominant type of storage jar in the late 2nd century BCE (Geva 2003: 123, Pl. 5.1: 11, Pl. 5.2: 11, 20–23; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 3; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.5: 1; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 4: 17). Storage jar with everted rim (Fig. 6.1: 22): These storage jars have a simple, sharply everted or slightly thickened rim, and a tall upright or everted neck. These types were common during the late 2nd–1st centuries BCE (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 6, 32; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 5; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 3: 2–3). Storage jar with a collared rim: Two subtypes of this storage jar were defined. The first is a short, collared rim jar. This type has an outfolded rim forming a square, flanged profile, and a tall, upright or slightly everted neck (Fig. 6.1: 23). This storage jar is typical of the late 2nd–early 1st centuries BCE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.3: 7–8; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 2 

   Berlin, Andrea M.; Jerusalem International Convention Center (JICC), The Levantine Ceramics Project, accessed on 25 October 2018, https: //www.levantineceramics.org/kilns/jerusalem–international–convention–center–jicc

138 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0

5

Figure 6.1: Pottery from the lower layer east of Wall 10.

10

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 3 9

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

26

29

27

30 0

31 5

10

34

33 0

2

Figure 6.1 (cont.): Pottery from the lower layer east of Wall 10.

32

35 4

140 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Figure 6.1: Lower Layer East of Wall 10 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Cooking pot

9

188

Saucers basket Nos. 654, 657 and Oil Lamp basket No. 655 found inside. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

2

Cooking pot

9

190

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

3

Cooking pot

9

202/1

Saucers basket Nos. 202/2, 653 found inside pot. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

4

Cooking pot

11

270/1

Saucer basket No. 270/2 found inside pot. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

5

Cooking pot

9

189

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. No soot marks noted on pot’s exterior

6

Cooking pot

9

203

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

7

Cooking pot

9

191

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

8

Cooking pot

11

226

Saucer basket No. 225 found inside pot. Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

9

Cooking pot

17

288

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

10

Cooking pot

17

289

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. No soot marks noted on pot’s exterior

11

Cooking pot

18

316

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

12

Cooking pot

9

192

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. No soot marks noted on pot’s exterior

13

Saucer

9

654

Light greenish ware, crumbling ware due to poor firing, flat type, folded rim, flat base, slightly deformed shape, found inside Cooking Pot basket No. 188

14

Saucer

11

270/2

Orange ware, well-fired, flat type, folded rim, flat base, slightly deformed, found inside Cooking Pot basket No. 270

15

Saucer

18

318

Light greenish ware, deeper type, rim rounded inward, slightly deformed, found inside Cooking Pot basket No. 319

16

Saucer

9

202/2

Orange ware, well-fired, deeper type, rim rounded inward, slightly deformed, found inside Cooking Pot basket No. 202/1

17

Saucer

17

297

Light brown ware, gray core, white grits, simple rim curving inward

18

Saucer

18

328

Orange ware, simple rim slightly curving inward

19

Saucer

11

225

Found inside Cooking Pot basket No. 226. Light ware, slightly deformed shape

20

Saucer

11

225

Orange ware, red-brown slip on interior and exterior, simple rim slightly curving inward

21

Storage jar

17

296

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, thickened rim, flaring slightly outward

22

Storage jar

18

317

Gray ware, short, thickened, outflaring rim

23

Storage jar

18

304

Gray ware, faded slip, red-brown core, white grits, rim thickened outward with ridge on mid-height of neck

24

Storage jar

27

479/2

Orange ware, gray core, long thickened rim

25

Jug

18

303

Orange ware, brown core, thickened, outflaring rim

26

Jug

27

479/1

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, rim folded outward

27

Juglet

9

207

Orange ware, simple rim creating a small cup

28

Juglet

9

200/1

Gray ware, short foot, flat base

29

Juglet

9

200/2

Orange ware, yellowish slip, white grits, body fragment

30

Juglet

24

347

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, flat base

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 4 1 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

31

Juglet lid

17

278

Orange ware, white grits, red-brown and gray paint on rim and on neck on interior and exterior

32

Flask

11

239

Orange-brown ware, yellowish slip, cylindrical neck with thickened rim, knife-cut body where neck is attached, two twisted handles

33

Miniature oillamp

9

655

Yellowish ware, crumbling, mold-made, traces of red slip, simple decoration of radiating incisions around filling hole and along nozzle, traces of soot, found inside Cooking Pot basket No. 188

34

Oil lamp

11

262

Orange-brown ware, long nozzle of mold-made lamp, traces of dark-red slip and soot

35

Oil lamp

9

194

Orange ware, red-brown slip, mold-made, traces of soot

4.2: 3; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.2: 3, 16; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 4: 20). The other subtype is a longer, collared-rim jar (Fig. 6.1: 24). This type is similar to the previous, however its rim is outfolded and extends further down the neck, forming a longer, squared profile. This type of jar was common during the early–mid 1st century BCE, in the late Hasmonean period (Bar-Nathan 2002: 30–31; Geva 2003: 124; Berlin 2005: Fig. 1: 8–9; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.12: 4–8; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 140–141; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.15; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 4: 19–24). Jugs (Fig. 6.1: 25–26)

Two types of jugs were found in the lower deposit. The example illustrated in Fig. 6.1: 25 has a pyriform body, a wide everted neck, a vertical rim and an oval-section handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. This jug was common during the late 2nd and 1st centuries BCE (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2: 36; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.4: 6; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 8; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.5: 13). The other type (Fig. 6.1: 26) has a spherical, slightly elongated body, a wide, everted neck, a slightly thickened rim and a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. This form is typical of the 2nd century BCE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 103, Pl. 4.3: 4–6; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 7; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 141, Pl. 3.5: 12). Juglets (Fig. 6.1: 27–31)

Two juglet types were found in this deposit: Juglet with a cup-shaped rim (Fig. 6.1: 27): This juglet has a rim that resembles a cup, and— based on parallels—a squat or globular body, a rounded base and a strap handle from the rim to the shoulder. According to finds from the Jewish Quarter, Geva suggested that these juglets first appeared at the end of the 2nd century BCE. They were most commonly found during the 1st century BCE, although they continued to be in use into the 1st century CE (Geva 2003: 129; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 11; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.2: 6, 23; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.18: 8–9). Fusiform juglet (Fig. 6.1: 28–31): This type is often referred to as an unguentarium. These juglets were very popular during the Hellenistic period, and continued to be in use during the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. They are characterized by a down turned, sharpened rim, a long neck and a high foot with a flat button base. Several fusiform juglet bases and body fragments were found (Fig. 6.1: 28–30), as well as one lid (Fig. 6.1: 31) with red-brown slip on both the interior and exterior (Berlin 2012: Fig. 2.4: 2–3; Sandhaus 2013: 92–93, Fig. 4.2: 12; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.3: 3; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.20; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 5: 17–20).

142 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Flask (Fig. 6.1: 32)

The flask found in the lower deposit is characterized by a thickened, everted rim, with a tall, upright neck and two twisted handles that extend from the upper part of the neck to the shoulder. Flasks, with minor variations, were used from the late 2nd century BCE, until the 70 CE destruction (Geva 2003: 128; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.4: 15; Sandhaus 2013: 93, Fig. 4.2: 14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 138, Pl. 3.3: 1–2; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.19: 5; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 5: 15–16). Oil Lamps (Fig. 6.1: 33–35)

Judean Radial Lamp: One oil lamp was found inside a cooking pot (Fig. 6.1: 33). This lamp is of the Judean Radial lamp type, defined by a rounded, slightly convex body. This thick-walled, moldmade lamp has ridges around the rim and is decorated with incised radial lines on the shoulder. Two concave lines were incised between the body and the nozzle. The example found inside the cooking pot is relatively small, having a total length of approximately 6 cm. The lamp has been dated to the late 2nd–early 1st centuries BCE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 11–16). More examples of this type have been uncovered in the deposits of this layer, not in direct relation to the cooking pots. These examples are red-brown slipped (Fig. 6.1: 34–35).

Pottery from the Middle Layer (Fig. 6.2) The assemblage from the middle layer was comprised of intact cooking pots and sherds. It contained pottery forms that correspond to chronological horizons characteristic of both the lower deposit (1st century BCE) and the upper one (1st century CE). Hence, the layer could not have been deposited before the 1st century CE. Cooking Vessels (Fig. 6.2: 1–7)

In the middle layer of cooking pots, one intact cooking pot had a tall neck and plain rim (Fig. 6.2: 1), similar to those found in the lower layer. The other intact cooking pots found in this deposit (Fig. 6.2: 2–5) were of the type distinguished by a triangular rim. Cooking pots with a triangular rim: The majority of the cooking pots uncovered in the middle deposit were closed cooking pots with a short neck and triangular rim. The examples display slightly squat bodies and everted necks, and a rim with a triangular section (Fig. 6.2: 2–5). This is the most popular type of cooking pot found in late 1st century BCE and 1st century CE contexts in Jerusalem (Geva 2003: 135; Berlin 2005: Fig. 4; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 111, Pl. 4.5: 19– 20, 4.8: 9; Tchekhanovets 2013: 113–114, Fig. 5.15.12; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 140; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 2–4), as well as at other Judean sites, such as Jericho and Masada (Bar-Nathan 2002: 70–72, Pl. 12: 149–150; 2006: 155, Pl. 28: 26–29). It probably made its appearance during the second half of the 1st century BCE and continued to be produced until the beginning of the 2nd century CE. Carinated casserole (Fig. 6.2: 6): This cooking vessel is characterized by a sharply carinated body, a wide mouth, an upright triangular rim and two strap handles. It first appeared towards the end of the 1st century BCE, and became very popular during the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: Fig. 7; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 30: 51–55; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 13; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 8–9). Cooking jug (Fig. 6.2: 7): A jug used for cooking was uncovered in the middle layer. It has the typical features of this form—a short, outturned neck, a triangular profiled rim and a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. Cooking jugs appeared in the late 1st century BCE and became popular during the 1st century CE. The cooking jug presented here has a short, flaring neck and is of the earlier type, dated to the 1st century BCE (Berlin 2005: Fig. 6; Bar-Nathan 2006: 31: 85; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 15; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 18; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 11).

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 4 3

Saucers, Bowls and Plates

In addition to the bowls and saucers typical of the 1st century BCE–1st century CE retrieved from this layer, several imported bowls of an earlier date were also found. These early forms are probably residual. Their fragmentary state suggests they were probably not deliberately deposited in this specific place. The early, primarily Hellenistic date serves as evidence of earlier activity that took place in this area. Plain Bowls and Saucers (Fig. 6.2: 8–10)

Three types of bowls were uncovered in this layer. All types are small, fragile and thin-walled. The first two are common during the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, while the third type is common in the 1st century CE as well. Saucer with an in-turned rim (Fig. 6.2: 8): See description and parallels above. Hemispherical bowl (Fig. 6.2: 9): This bowl has a small hemispherical body with a slightly thickened, inverted rim (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 2; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 1). These bowls appear as early as the 3rd century BCE and continue to be produced and commonly used during the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE (Berlin 2015: 634). Bowl with an everted, outfolded rim: The third type found was a small bowl, carinated under the everted, outfolded rim (Fig. 6.2: 10). This type was discovered in late 1st century BCE–1st century CE contexts (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.8: 5; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 8). Fish Plate (Fig. 6.2: 11)

This bowl has straight walls and a rim that drops down sharply. The plate is made of gray ware and is poorly covered with black slip. This type, referred to as a “fish plate,” is very well-known in Hellenistic contexts. The example presented here is probably locally made, while many imported examples are known from similar contexts in Jerusalem. These bowls are usually dated to the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE, while their appearance in later contexts is attributed to secondary deposition of residual material (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.1: 34; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.1: 7; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2015: 680). ESA Plate (Fig. 6.2: 12)

The ring base of a plate classified as Eastern Terra Sigillata Ware A was found in this layer. The plate was made of well-levigated clay with a thick red slip on the interior and exterior. These plates were produced of the northern coast (LCP ware: ESA).3 The slip around the base is uneven. Based on the fragment, it is hard to determine the specific form of the plate. Plates with similar bases were common during the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2006: 151, Pl. 5.3: 1–9). Mold-Made Bowl (Fig. 6.2: 13)

This is a deep bowl with an outturned rim. The bowl was mold-made, with the rim added afterward on a wheel. Bowls of this form are typically defined as Megarian bowls. These bowls were first manufactured in Athens during the second half of the 3rd century BCE and imitated by eastern workshops during the 2nd–1st centuries BCE. The wide distribution of these bowls suggests a 3 

   Bes, Philip; Braekmans, Dennis; Degryse, Patrick; Neyt, Bert; Poblome, Jeroen; Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), The Levantine Ceramics Project, accessed on 25 October 2018, https://www.levantineceramics.org/ wares/eastern-sigillata-a-esa

144 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

6

7

10

8

11

14

18

5

12

15

19

9

13

16

20

21 0

5

Figure 6.2: Pottery from the middle layer east of Wall 10.

10

17

22

23

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 4 5

0

5

10

24

25

28

27

29 0

32

33

37

26

30

5

10

34

35

38

39 0

31

2

36

40 4

Figure 6.2 (cont.): Pottery from the middle layer east of Wall 10.

41

146 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Figure 6.2: Middle Layer East of Wall 10 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Cooking pot

16

276

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

2

Cooking pot

16

276

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

3

Cooking pot

16

286

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

4

Cooking pot

16

282

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot. Rim slightly deformed

5

Cooking pot

16

314

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

6

Casserole

77

1009

Brick-red ware, rim slightly thickened, handle from rim to shoulder

7

Cooking jug

51

772

Brick-red ware, gray core, white grits, short upright neck with simple rim

8

Saucer

16

292/2

Light brown ware, gray core, rim folded inward

9

Bowl

51

601

Orange ware, simple rim, turning slightly inward

10

Bowl

51

628

Orange-brown ware, slight carination, rim turning outward and folded inward

11

Fish plate

2

128/35

Gray ware, dark gray glossy slip on interior and exterior, simple rim, flattened and bent outwards

12

Plate

2

115/1

Yellowish fine ware, brown-red slip, Terra Sigillata ware, ring base

13

Bowl

77

1065

Mold made bowl, light, well levigated ware, similar to Eastern Terra Sigillata ware. Red slipped interior, turning brown on exterior, bands of impressed decoration on exterior

14

Krater

7

526/ 1

Light brown-yellowish ware, out-flaring rim with finger indentations on rim, red painted bands on interior rim and external body

15

Krater

45

545

Light brown ware, gray core, out-flaring neck, rim protruding outwards with finger indentations

16

Krater

60

976

Brown ware, gray core, very thin body, neck with inner groove, simple rim, black paint on inner part of rim, on neck exterior, and blots of paint on body, pseudo-Nabatean ware

17

Krater

16

280/1

Gray ware, brown core with yellowish slip, black paint smeared on rim and body, neck tapering outward with thickened, profiled rim

18

Jar

2

109

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, externally thickened rim

19

Jar

2

110/2

Brown ware, gray core, faded slip, simple rim, ridge on base of neck

20

Jar

77

1002

Brown ware, red-brown core, faded slip, neck thickened at mid-height with ridge at base of neck

21

Jar

77

1013/1

Orange ware, brown core, faded slip, externally flattened rim, ridge at base of neck

22

Jar

2

110/1

Light ware, no core. Thin walls with small grits in section. Simple rim, ridge at base of neck.

23

Jar

77

1013/2

Brown ware, gray core, thick walls, externally flattened rim, ridge at base of neck

24

Amphora

60

835

Brown ware, crushed pottery inclusions, simple rim, handle deformed at point of attachment to neck

25

Jug

2

132

Light brown ware, white grits, rim folded outward with inner groove

26

Jug

21

344

Brown ware, gray core, conical neck, handle extending from rim

27

Juglet

51

763

Light-brown ware, narrow neck and cup-shaped rim, twisted handle

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 4 7 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

28

Juglet

2

143

Orange ware, light brown slip, white grits, fragment of thick wall, broad stripes of dark brown paint on body

29

Juglet

16

281

Orange ware, gray core, yellowish slip, neck and rim with red-brown and gray blots of paint, rim with inner gutter

30

Juglet

2

115/2

Light brown ware, gray core, solid base and leg of juglet. Brown-red slip on exterior

31

Flask

45

510

Orange ware, brown core, cylindrical neck with thickened rim, twisted handles attached to body where opening was cut

32

Ladle

77

1000

Light brown ware, short handle of a ladle, bent on end for suspension

33

Inkwell

77

1008

Orange ware, flat base of cylindrical vessel

34

Oil lamp

16

292

Light brown-yellowish ware, made by pinching a miniature dish, flat base

35

Oil lamp

60

932/1

Orange ware, gray core, mold-made, radial incisions around filling hole

36

Oil lamp

60

932/2

Dark-brown gray ware, mold-made, simple pattern of short lines around filling hole, traces of soot

37

Oil lamp

51

803

Orange-brown ware, traces of red slip, mold-made, nozzle with simple incised lines (schematic vegetal pattern?), traces of soot

38

Oil lamp

60

932/3

Red-brown ware, red slip, mold-made, no traces of soot on nozzle

39

Oil lamp

60

977

Brown ware, reddish core, white grits, gray slip on interior and exterior, mold-made, traces of soot

40

Oil lamp

16

294

Dark gray ware, wheel-thrown, flat base, traces of handle made of two parts

41

Oil lamp?

16

280/2

Light brown ware, traces of red slip, deformed ring serves as handle

local workshop manufactured an imitation, although no evidence of this has been found. The bowl usually has bands of relief decoration separated by ridges or horizontal lines. The example here has one band of decoration on the rim and upper wall that was preserved. The upper band of decoration demonstrates ovolos and beading. The calyx of the bowl was not preserved. Only one published example of a Megarian bowl is known from Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: 184), although others have been found at various sites throughout Israel. Despite their distribution, none have been found at Hasmonean sites (Levine 2003: 80, Pl. 6: 20–26; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2015: 678–679, and further parallels therein). The discovery of a second Megarian bowl from a clearly stratified context contributes considerably to the distribution map of these vessels. Kraters (Figs. 6.2: 14–17)

Open (Fig. 6.2: 14) and closed (Fig. 6.2: 15) kraters were found in the assemblage. The open krater has an everted, thumb pressed rim and no neck. The closed krater is a globular vessel with a triangular profiled, thumb-pressed rim. Inside the neck is a groove to support a lid. Similar complete examples found elsewhere indicate that the vessel had two handles that extended from the rim to the shoulder. These kraters date to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 23: 3, Pl. 24: 14–16; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.9: 3). An additional type of krater has a painted decoration (Fig. 6.2: 16–17). The first example (Fig. 6.2: 16) has a globular body and a concave neck forming a groove to support a lid. Fig. 6.2: 17 is similarly designed with a gutter rim, but has an everted, hanging rim. These kraters date to the 1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.8: 5; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.9: 1; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 19–20, 24).

148 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Storage Jars (Fig. 6.2: 18–23)

Six types of storage jars were found in this deposit: Jar with a thickened, square-sectioned rim (Fig. 6.2: 18): This storage jar typically has an everted neck with a thickened rim, which is square in profile. It is most common in the 2nd century BCE, although it still appears in small numbers in 1st century CE assemblages, but these may be residual (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.1: 7; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 9: 49; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.2: 2, 5.16: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 4–5; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 11: 4). Short collar rim storage jar (Fig. 6.2: 19): This storage jar has an upright or slightly everted neck. The rim was outfolded, forming a flanging square profile on the upper outer neck. This type is usually found in 2nd century BCE Hasmonean contexts, although they appear in small numbers in Herodian contexts of the 1st century BCE (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2: 3, 12; Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 3: 20). Storage jars with a ridge at base of neck (Fig. 6.2: 20–23): The three storage jars included in this category share the characteristic of a ridge at the base of the neck, though they differ in the shape of the neck and rim. Fig. 6.2: 20 has a slightly everted rim and a flaring neck, forming a shallow groove on the interior (Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.16: 21; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 10: 12). Fig. 6.2: 21 has a triangular rim and tall neck (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 8: 41–42; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 5–6). Fig. 6.2: 22 has a plain rim and a straight neck (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 8: 37; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 10). Fig. 6.2: 23 has a short, thick straight neck and a triangular profiled ledge rim (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 12: 65; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.12: 16; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 21). All of the storage jars in question are typical of the 1st century CE. Amphora (Fig. 6.2: 24)

The amphora presented here has a straight upright neck with an infolded rim. One handle has been preserved, extending sharply down from the top of the neck towards the body. This amphora cannot be attributed to a specific type, though its fabric resembles Egyptian manufactured amphoras. No identical parallels from sites in the region were found. Jugs (Fig. 6.2: 25–26)

The jugs uncovered in this layer have an everted rim forming an inner concavity. The edge of the rim overhangs, creating a triangular profile, while the straight neck widens towards the shoulder. Numerous parallels dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE were found in Jerusalem and its environs (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.6: 18; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 18: 15; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.3: 3; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.3: 8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 2–3; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 7: 12). Juglets (Fig. 6.2: 27–30)

Two types of juglets were uncovered in the middle layer: Juglet with a cup-shaped rim (Fig. 6.2: 27): For description and parallels, see above. Fusiform juglets (Fig. 6.2: 28–30): These juglets are often referred to as unguentaria. This is a thick-walled, spindle shaped vessel, with a flaring outpointed rim, a long narrow neck and a solid leg with a large button base. The fragments presented carry traces of red–brown slip on various parts of the exterior of the vessel. This juglet was very common during the Hellenistic period and continued to be in use during the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. In this assemblage, fragments of the body, rim and base were discovered (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 10: 93–102; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2:

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 4 9

48–49; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 34: 1; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.4: 6–10; Berlin 2015: 639; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 10; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 8: 11–12). Flask (Fig. 6.2: 31)

This flask is similar to the one described above. It has a long, straight neck and two twisted strap handles extending from the middle of the neck to the shoulder. Flasks of this form were common during the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.4: 15; Pl. 4.7: 20–21; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 22: 70–73; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.3: 5; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 12–13). Ladle (Fig. 6.2: 32)

A cup-shaped ladle was found with a simple rim and a long handle folded outward on the top to form a hook. Ladles similar to this one have been found in contexts dated to the 1st century CE (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 10–11; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 16). Inkwell (Fig. 6.2: 33)

The flat base presented in Fig. 6.2: 33 may represent the base of an inkwell, although this identification is not certain. Compared to similar vessels, inkwells of this type had a cylindrical body, narrow mouth and high down-turned rim. Inkwells have been found in 1st–2nd centuries CE contexts (Geva 2010: 8–9). Oil Lamps (Fig. 6.2: 34– 41)

Pinched lamp (Fig. 6.2: 34): This is a small wheel-thrown bowl, with a pinched rim that joined in the middle, forming a large filling hole and a smaller wick hole. This type of lamp was fairly common during the mid-2nd–early 1st century BCE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 11–12; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.4: 9, 6.12: 5; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.7: 10; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.22: 1–5). Judean radial lamps (Fig. 6.2: 35–38): These are dated to the end of the 2nd century–1st century CE, as described above. Two of the examples are red slipped. Triangular lamp nozzle (Fig. 6.2: 39): The splayed, almost triangular nozzle of a lamp presented is a typical example of this type, which were produced at Ephesus. Since the majority of the lamp is missing, it can be classified as an “Ephesus Type Lamp,” dating mainly to the 1st century BCE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014: 177, Pl. 4.1: 1–5). Gray-ware, wheel made lamp (Fig. 6.2: 40): The example presented here is the body sherd of a gray-ware, wheel made lamp. It is of superior quality and for that reason, it may have been rare and therefore only found in small numbers. The example presented here has a two-strand handle. Based on parallels, the nozzle was splayed, similar to the “Herodian,” knife-pared lamp, dating to the 1st century CE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 53–54, Fig. 13: 83–86; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2015: 686; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 10–11). Lamp handle (Fig. 6.2: 41): This object, an oval sectioned handle with traces of slip, probably originated from an oil lamp.

Pottery from the Upper Layer (Fig. 6.3) One intact cooking pot was uncovered in the upper layer. Fragments of additional cooking pots, together with fragments of other vessel forms were found in this fill. Most of the vessel types uncovered in this deposit date to the 1st century CE, though few earlier types do appear. These sherds are probably residual, and do not reflect the dating of the stratum.

150 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Cooking Pots (Fig. 6.3: 1–2)

One intact cooking pot was found in this layer (Fig. 6.3: 1), alongside fragments of additional cooking pots (Fig. 6.3: 2). The two examples illustrated are of the same type: a closed cooking pot with a triangular rim. These pots are characterized by a slightly squat body, a short flaring neck and a triangular rim. This is the most popular cooking vessel in the late 1st century BCE and 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: 36–38, Fig. 4; Geva and Hershkovitz 2003: Pl. 6.2: 25; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 12; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 11; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 2–4). Bowl (Fig. 6.3: 3)

One type of bowl was found within the upper concentration of cooking pots. Similar to those uncovered in the lower deposits, this bowl has an incurved rim. The example from this layer has a sharply incurved rim, common during the 2nd–1st centuries BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 14: 194– 219; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.5: 4). Its appearance here seems to be residual. Storage Jars (Fig. 6.3: 4–5)

Two types of storage jars were found in the upper deposit. Both have a tall neck with a ridge encircling its base. One of the storage jars has a flaring neck and outturned rim (Fig. 6.3: 4; for parallels, see Geva 2010: Pl. 4.2: 9; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 14; Geva 2017: Pl. 6.2: 3), while the other has a vertical neck and a simple everted rim (Fig. 6.3: 5). Both types of jars were very common during the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: 52–57; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 114; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 177–178; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 1; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig 10: 12–13; Geva 2017: Pl. 6.2: 2). Pyriform Bottle (Fig. 6.3: 6)

This juglet, often referred to as a “bottle,” is defined by a thin wall, a cylindrical, upright neck, a flaring rim and a pyriform body. These juglets were found in large quantities in contexts dating to the late 1st century BCE–1st century CE and was commonly found in 1st century CE contexts in the Jewish Quarter (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 25, 33, 35; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.10: 10; Geva 2010: 124, Pl. 4.4: 2–3; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 147, Pl. 3.13: 17–18; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 13). Oil Lamp (Fig. 6.3: 7)

One oil lamp type was found in relation to the upper concentration of cooking pots. This lamp is a “Herodian” wheel-made, knife-pared lamp. Typically, Herodian lamps have a round body, a ridge surrounding the filling hole and a splaying nozzle. This type of lamp first appeared at the end of the 1st century BCE and became the most popular lamp in Jerusalem during the 1st century CE (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.7.3; Tchekhanovets 2013: 124, Fig. 5.14: 8–10; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 148, Pl. 4.7.3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 1).

POTTERY FROM LOCI RELATING TO WALL 13 (FIG. 6.4) The pottery presented in Fig. 6.4 originates from loci relating to Wall 13. The assemblage was comprised of pottery from three loci which all related to the construction of the wall: Locus 28, representing the wall’s foundation trench; Locus 31, constituting the fill inside Channel 25 set directly beneath Wall 13 in order to stabilize and support it with a reinforced foundation at the point where it crosses the channel; and Locus 83, which is the pottery obtained from dismantling the northern face of Wall 13.

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 5 1

3

2

1

4

0

5

5

6

10

7 0

2

4

Figure 6.3: Pottery from the Upper Layer East of Wall 10 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Cooking pot

12

345

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions. Traces of soot visible on lower exterior of pot

2

Cooking pot

5

214/14

Brick-red ware, thin wall and small grit inclusions

3

Saucer

5

232/4

Gray-beige ware, simple, inverted rim

4

Storage jar

13

240

Brown-gray ware, yellowish slip, simple rim slightly out-flaring, ridge on lower part of neck

5

Storage jar

5

212

Orange-brown ware, yellowish slip, rim slightly thickened and slightly out-flaring, degenerated ridge on bottom of neck

6

Bottle

13

255

Orange ware, yellowish slip on interior and exterior of neck, pyriform body

7

Oil lamp

5

164/12

Yellowish ware, gray core, nozzle of “Herodian” lamp, knife-carved nozzle attached to wheel-thrown body, traces of soot

152 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 0

5

10

17

18 0

Figure 6.4: Pottery associated with Wall 13.

2

4

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 5 3

The repertoire of pottery types found in these loci represents the 1st century CE fairly well. Although the pottery assemblage includes forms dating to the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, the later types, which first appear in the 1st century CE, clearly point to a later date within the Early Roman period for the assemblage, dating construction of Wall 13 no earlier than this period. Bowls (Fig. 6.4: 1–7)

Four types of bowls were uncovered in this context. Carinated bowl (Fig. 6.4: 1): This type is small and thin-walled, with a gentle carination beneath the simple flaring rim (Geva 2010: 4.6: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 2–3). This bowl has been uncovered in contexts dating from the late 2nd century BCE–1st century BCE. Bowl with an incurved, outfolded rim (Fig. 6.4: 2): This type of bowl is small and thin walled and has an incurved, outfolded rim (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.8: 5; Geva 2010 Pl. 4.6: 4; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 8). This bowl type first appeared during the 1st century BCE and continued to be widely used during the 1st century CE. Figure 6.4: Pottery Associated with Wall 13 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

31

948/1

Orange ware, gray core, white grits, simple rim, flat base

2

Bowl

83

1078/1

Brown ware, white grits, folded rim with inner groove

3

Bowl

31

980/2

Orange-brown ware, simple rim inclining inward, red-brown paint on rim interior and exterior

4

Bowl

31

946

Gray ware, brown core, black paint on rim interior and exterior, simple rim inclined inward

5

Bowl

31

1066/1

Gray ware, yellowish slip, traces of brown paint on rim interior and exterior, thin wall, simple, slightly outflaring rim

6

Bowl

31

1067/2

Brown ware, yellowish slip, red-brown paint applied irregularly

7

Bowl

31

980/1

Light brown ware, simple rim, red-brown paint on rim, deep vessel

8

Krater

31

945/1

Light gray ware, thin body, black paint on rim interior and exterior, folded rim with groove inside

9

Casserole

31

943/1

Brick-red ware, wide mouth and sharply carinated body, handle from rim to shoulder

10

Cooking jug

31

940/2

Brick-red ware, very narrow neck which flares out and ends with simple rim with straight edges

11

Storage jar

31

944

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, simple rim, slightly out-flaring, ridge at bottom of neck

12

Jug

31

943/2

Pale ware, folded rim with inner groove, slightly twisted handle from rim to shoulder

13

Juglet

31

980/3

Orange-brown ware, white grits, faded slip on exterior, cup-shaped rim, twisted handle

14

Juglet

31

948/2

Orange ware, faded slip, black paint on rim interior and on neck and rim exterior, simple out-flaring rim, large piriform type

15

Juglet

31

945/2

Brown ware, pyriform type with simple, slightly out-flaring rim

16

Juglet

31

961/1

Orange ware, yellowish slip, brown core, flat base, pyriform

17

Oil lamp

28

447

Orange ware, red slip on upper part, mold-made, decoration around filling hole

18

Oil lamp

83

1078/2

Light brown ware, nozzle of “Herodian” lamp

154 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Bowls with an incurved rim (Fig. 6.4: 3–4): These are small bowls with thin walls and incurved rims. The first example bears a carinated body while the second has rounded walls and slip dripping down from the rim on its interior and exterior (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 7–9; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 1–2; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 4). The carinated body is known from assemblages dated to the late 2nd century BCE–1st Century BCE, while the rounded type first appeared later, during the 1st century BCE and continued to be popular during the 1st century CE. Cups (Fig. 6.4: 5–7): These are deep bowls with everted rims, often referred to as cups. The examples presented here bear red-brown painting on the rim (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2006: Pl. 4.8: 6–7, Pl. 4.9: 12; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.5: 11–15; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 16). This vessel type has been uncovered in contexts dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. Krater (Fig. 6.4: 8)

The krater found is an open form with a wide aperture, outcurved neck and triangular rim. A groove was formed inside the rim to support a lid. The inner rim and outer body were decorated with black paint. This vessel is dated to the 1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.9: 2; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 24). Cooking Vessels (Fig. 6.4: 9–10)

Carinated casserole (Fig. 6.4: 9): The carinated casserole is characterized by a wide opening, upright triangular rim, a sharply carinated body and two handles extending from the rim to the shoulder. This casserole first appeared at the end of the 1st century BCE, and became very popular during the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: 39–42, Fig. 7; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 6.2: 30; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 13; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 16; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 9). Cooking jug (Fig. 6.4: 10): This vessel is typified by a short out-turned neck, a triangular profiled rim and a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. Cooking jugs appeared during the late 1st century BCE and became popular during the 1st century CE. The type presented here, with a short, wide neck is of the earlier examples (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 31: 86–88; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 15; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 18; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 12). Storage Jar (Fig. 6.4: 11)

One storage jar type is represented in this assemblage. It has a long, slightly flaring neck, a simple rim that is slightly thickened internally and a ridge around the base of the neck. This storage jar first appeared at the end of the 1st century BCE and continued in use during the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 5: 21; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.2: 1; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.16: 21; Geva 2017: Pl. 6.2: 2). Jug (Fig. 6.4: 12)

The jug type found here has a thickened, funnel-shaped rim which is everted and hangs outward, creating a triangular profile. Numerous parallels dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE were found (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.6: 18; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 18: 15; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.3: 3; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.3: 8; Geva 2017: Pl. 6.2: 12; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 2). Juglets (Fig. 6.4: 13–16)

Juglets with cup shaped rims (Fig. 6.4: 13): Juglets of this type were very popular at Judean sites dating to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE; they remained common during the 2nd century CE

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 5 5

as well. The juglet has a cup-shaped rim with either a square or profiled rim, a narrow neck and a twisted strap handle extending from the rim to a globular body (Geva 2003: Pl. 4.3: 7–10; BarNathan 2006: Pl. 33: 1–14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.4: 12–14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.4: 1; Geva 2017: Pl. 6.2: 14; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 2–3). Fusiform juglets (Fig. 6.4: 14): These vessels date to the 2nd–1st century BCE. For a description and parallels, see above. Pyriform bottles (Fig. 6.4: 15–16): These vessels date to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. For a description and parallels, see above. Lamps (Fig. 6.4: 17–18)

Judean Radial lamp (Fig. 6.4: 17): These vessels date to the 1st century BCE. For a description and parallels, see above. Knife-pared lamp (Fig. 6.4: 18): These vessels date to the 1st century CE. For a description and parallels, see above.

POTTERY FROM CHANNEL II (FIG. 6.5) The pottery assemblage presented below was in debris found in Channel II. These were earthen fills that washed down the slope and penetrated the channel through its various breaches. These earthen fills accumulated within the channel and settled on its floor after the last time the channel was in use. The debris in the channel contained pottery from the late Iron II, the Persian period (see Chapter 5) and the Early Roman period. Channel II cannot be dated reliably based on the artifacts found in it. Being that the latest pottery remains found inside the channel dates to the Early Roman period, and specifically to the 1st century BCE—the reign of Herod—the only chronological conclusion that could be reached is that Channel II was both hewn and went out of use before this period. Bowl (Fig. 6.5: 1)

The bowl type found in the channel has a slightly incurved rim. Parallels date to the late 2nd century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 14: 216; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.5: 1). Cups (Fig. 6.5: 2–3)

Two examples of cups of the same type are presented here. This type features delicate, wellfired ware. The walls are rounded and the rims sharply everted. One example has drippy, uneven red-brown paint on the inner and outer walls. Parallels are dated to the time of King Herod and continue into the 1st century (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 16: 283, Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 4.12: 12). Cooking Vessels (Fig. 6.5: 4–7)

Cooking pots (Fig. 6.5: 4–5): The type represented in Fig. 6.5: 4 is a closed cooking pot with a simple rim and an upright neck. The rim is slightly thickened and inclines inwards. Two ovalsectioned handles extend from the rim to the shoulder. The cooking pot in Fig. 6.5: 5 is a closed pot with a simple rim and a high, everted neck. A slight inner groove is located at the bottom of the neck. Both cooking pot types date to the Hasmonean period (Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.3: 6, 3.6: 1–6; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.8: 8–11; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 7: 6, 11: 1). Casserole (Fig. 6.5: 6): This type of cooking vessel is a deep, semicircular casserole with a ledge rim with slight concavity to support a lid. This casserole is neckless with a rounded body,

156 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

5

10

Figure 6.5: Channel II, Loci with Early Roman Period Debris No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

34

415

Orange ware, external yellowish slip, simple, slightly inward rounded rim

2

Cup

37

462/1

Orange ware, blotches of brown paint on interior and exterior, simple, slightly outflaring rim

3

Cup

37

462/2

Orange ware, simple, slightly outflaring rim, brown color applied non-continuously on interior and exterior

4

Cooking pot

34

425/1

Brick-red ware, slightly high neck, outflaring, handle from rim to shoulder

5

Cooking pot

38

458

Brick-red ware, short neck, narrow mouth, slightly thickened rim

6

Casserole

38

428/1

Brick-red ware, gray core, very wide mouth

7

Cooking jug

34

425/2

Brick-red ware, gray core, short narrow neck, triangular rim, one handle from rim to shoulder

8

Storage jar

34

425/3

Orange ware, yellowish slip, white grits, rim folded and slightly flaring outward

9

Jug

37

453

Light brown ware, gray core, black grits, thin wall, simple outflaring rim, slight ridge on neck below rim

10

Juglet

38

428/2

Brown ware, yellowish slip, conical neck, simple outflaring rim, twisted handle

11

Flask

34

948

Orange ware, faded slip, cylindrical neck with thickened rim, two twisted handles, neck attached to body where hole is cut by knife

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 5 7

dating to the end of the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 12: 156; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.10: 23; 2014: Pl. 3.10: 8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 9) Cooking jug (Fig. 6.5: 7): The cooking jug found in Channel II has a triangular-sectioned rim and a short flaring neck. An oval handle extends from the rim to the transition from the neck to the body. It is dated to the reign of Herod (Bar-Nathan 2006: 174, Pl. 31: 85; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 24, 4.10: 23; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 12). Storage Jar/Jug (Fig. 6.5: 8)

This jar has a thickened, everted rim and is a common type found in assemblages dated to the 2nd century BCE. This type became even more popular during the 1st century BCE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.3: 3; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 1; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 5). This storage jar form has a very similar rim and neck to the jug type presented below (Fig. 6.5: 9). Due to the lack of evidence of a handle, it is not always possible to precisely define whether a specific sherd is a fragment of a storage jar or jug. The similarity of these two types has previously been noted (see further discussion in Geva 2003: 124, type SJ4). Jug (Fig. 6.5: 9)

The type of jug uncovered in this fill has a tall, everted rim and a blunt ridge on the upper neck. From its inner side, the top of the neck has shallow grooving, opposite the ridge. It is dated to the end of the 2nd century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 18: 5; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.4: 6). Juglet (Fig. 6.5: 10)

The juglet type found in this assemblage is relatively uncommon. It has an inclined neck and a flaring rim. The only parallel noted is from the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, where it was found in a layer dated to the 1st century BCE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.2: 22). Flask (Fig. 6.5: 11)

The flask has a tall upright neck with an everted, thickened rim. Two twisted handles extend from the middle of the neck to the body. This type of flask is common during the 1st century BCE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2003: Pl. 4.4: 15; 2014: Pl. 3.3: 2; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 22: 71; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 5: 15).

DISCUSSION The Chronological Horizon of the Lower Deposit Associated with Wall 10 The vessels derived from the lowest fill layer associated with Wall 10 can be dated to the late 2nd–1st centuries BCE. Beside the common pottery forms, stamped amphora handles dating to the 2nd century BCE (Chapter 35, Amphora Nos. 11, 17 and 33) and coins of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus were found (Chapter 7). Based on the data provided by both the pottery and the numismatic evidence, it seems that the lower deposit should be dated to the early 1st century BCE, during the reign of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus.

The Chronological Horizon of the Middle Deposit Associated with Wall 10 The earthen fill constituting the middle layer to the east of Wall 10 included pottery forms dating from the 3rd/2nd centuries BCE until the 1st century CE, with forms similar both to the layer beneath

158 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

it and the layer above it. The latest material in this layer is from the 1st century CE, consequently indicating the layer cannot predate that time. Many intact cooking pots were found in this layer. Numerous other vessels were also exposed, forming a mixed chronological and typological context. Although the cooking pots were intact and almost completely uniform, the rest of the assemblage was fragmentary and represented a very wide chronological range. Therefore, it cannot be clearly determined whether this layer was an unintentional, accumulated landfill or a deliberately deposited fill. The mixed content along with the complete cooking pots indicate that this was likely a combination of the two.

The Chronological Horizon of the Upper Deposit Associated with Wall W10 This relatively small assemblage uncovered in the upper layer east of Wall 10 is comprised of one intact cooking pot and other vessel forms, all typical of the 1st century CE. The dating of this layer is similar to the layer beneath it, dated to the 1st century CE as well. As opposed to the previous fill, however, this layer contained much less early residual material. The different nature of the fills may indicate that the upper, homogeneous layer was deposited later in the 1st century while the lower, variable fill was deposited substantially earlier. The distinct finds within the fills may also point to a different origin of the fills prior to their deposition along Wall 10.

SUMMARY The pottery from the deposits abutting the eastern face of Wall 10 presents three stratigraphic phases, which can be differentiated based on the chronology of the different vessel types constituting the pottery assemblage of each stratum. The lower deposit abutting the eastern face of Wall 10 is comprised of cooking pots, bowls and a lamp dated to a range of time between the late 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. This date coincides well with the date obtained from coins associated with this concentration of vessels, all dated to the Hasmonean period, and specifically to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Comprehensive analysis of the various finds suggest that this deposit had been set during the 1st century BCE: either during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE), or soon thereafter. In the middle layer abutting the eastern face of Wall 10, the cooking pot concentration was comprised of two types of pots: one cooking pot similar to those found in the lower stratum, and the rest of the pots similar to those found in the upper stratum. Although both types of cooking pots appear in this stratum, most of the pots date to the 1st century CE and only one of the pots is of an earlier type and dates to the 1st century BCE. The additional forms of vessels comprising the pottery assemblage from the middle stratum present a similar diversity. The assemblage includes vessel types from the Iron Age, Hellenistic period and Early Roman period (i.e., 1st century CE). This suggests a mixed nature of the deposit. However, given that the last datable material is dated to the 1st century CE, this would have been the earliest possible time the vessels could have been deposited. The pottery assemblage originating from the upper deposit layer contained one intact cooking pot, fragments of additional cooking pots and fragments of other vessels. Most vessels in the assemblage date to the 1st century CE. A few residual fragments found in this stratum are typical of earlier periods, though these do not determine the date of the deposit. Thus, the upper deposit was placed in the 1st century CE. The pottery and coins uncovered in the three layers of deposits abutting Wall 10 display a chronological sequence beginning in the Hasmonean period—the 2nd century BCE—and continuing into the 1st century CE. It seems that the intact cooking pots had been abandoned or

A R E A A , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 1 5 9

deposited over a wide time span, between the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. Since all three layers of deposits abut Wall 10, the wall must predate the earliest of the fills dated to the 1st century BCE. The numismatic and ceramic evidence retrieved from the three concentrations of cooking pot depositions suggest that the material was stratified and that each deposit represents a different chronological horizon, all typical of the Early Roman period in Jerusalem. The pottery from loci related to the construction of Wall 13 date its construction to the 1st century CE and include a wide array of vessels, including table, cooking, utility, storage and personal wares. The pottery retrieved from the debris inside Channel II indicates that the channel had been both hewn and put out of use before the reign of Herod, in the late 1st century BCE. This assemblage included table, cooking, utility and storage wares.

REFERENCES Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Barag, D. and Hershkovitz, M. 1994. Lamps. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G., and Netzer, E., eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 7–78. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Berlin, A.M. 2005. Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Series 60). Portsmouth: 29–60. Berlin, A.M. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 8–7 (the Hellenistic Period). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick–Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 5–30. Berlin, A.M. 2015. The Hellenistic Period. In: Gitin. S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: 629–672. Geva, H. 2003. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 113–154. Geva, H. 2010. Early Roman Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 118–153. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2014. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 134–175. Geva, H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Local Pottery from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 176–191. Hayes, J. 1985. Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus. In: Tushingham, A.D., ed. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. I. Toronto: 181–196. Levine, T. 2003. Pottery and Small Finds from Subterranean Complexes 21 and 70. In: Kloner, A., ed. Maresha Excavations Final Report. Vol. I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70. Jerusalem: 73–130.

160 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2017. Wading through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblages of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery and Material Culture 2: 102–139. Netzer, E. 1985. The Swimming Pools of the Hasmonean Period at Jericho. Eretz Israel 18, Nahman Avigad Vol.: 344–352 (Hebrew). Rapuano, Y. 2018. The Pottery from Strata V, VI and VII. In: Re’em, A., ed. The Qishle Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 114–159. Reich, R. 2000. Hellenistic to Medieval Strata 6–1. In: Geva, H. ed., Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X–2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 83–110. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2006. Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Lamps and Fine Ware. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 144–167. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2015. Hellenistic Period Imported Pottery. In: Gitin. S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: 673–708. Sandhaus, D. 2013. The Hellenistic Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gi>vati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 83–108. Tchekhanovets, Y. 2013. The Early Roman Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gi>vati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 109–150.

CHAPTER 7

AREA A THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

Excavation of Area A yielded 17 copper-alloy coins, two of which could not be identified. Twelve of the 15 identified coins derive from the three superimposed layers of earthen deposits east of Wall 10 that yielded numerous intact cooking pots. The ceramic analysis of the assemblages of the different layers indicate that the earliest layer dates to the 1st century BCE, while the two uppermost layers date to the 1st century CE. The coins originated from all three layers: one (No. 6) from the upper layer, six (Nos. 2, 7–10 and 13) from the middle layer and five (Nos. 3–5, 11–12) from the lowest layer. The chronological range of the coins extends from the earliest Jerusalem-minted coins of John Hyrcanus I (Nos. 2–3) to the sole coin of Herod found in the area (No. 13). The excavators (see Chapter 4) identified a phenomenon of complete cooking pots along the eastern face of Wall 10, located outside the Hellenistic-Early Roman fortifications of the City of David. The ceramic analysis showing that there is a clear morphological distinction between the pots of three superimposed groups, indicating that some time elapsed between the placing of the pots of the lower and upper groups (see Chapter 6). The pots of the lower group date to the late 2nd–early 1st centuries BCE, while the pots of the upper group date to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. The coin finds of the superimposed layers in Area A accord with the ceramic dating of the pots of those layers. The appearance of large numbers of cooking pots together with a quantity of coins sizable enough to examine its chronological range—both in proximity to Channel II—is reminiscent of Area A1 in Shiloh’s excavations (De Groot, Cohen and Caspi 1992). Area A was excavated along the course of Channel II, while Shiloh’s Area A1 is located at almost the southernmost point of the same channel (Weill’s “point sud”) (Fig. 2.4). In Locus 1 Shiloh’s team revealed an enormous quantity of locally-made 1st century BCE–1st century CE pottery, which they calculated to have been roughly 3,817 vessels. Locus 1 also yielded 56 coins; 34 of these were identified. The 34 coins span the period from Herod to the First Jewish Revolt (De Groot, Cohen and Caspi 1992: 17). In Area A, the 12 coins found in the layers with the deposited cooking pots have a very different profile, all likely to have been circulating in the 1st century BCE. The coins support a date of much of the ceramics found there to that century, despite the appearance of 1st century CE “Herodian” lamps, which indicate that the area continued to be in use at that time (see Chapter 6). The two Area A coins (Nos. 14–15) that postdate the above-mentioned Herod coin do not come from sealed contexts. Number 14 was found while cleaning the top of Wall 12 and No. 15 was found on the surface of Square 4.

1 6 2 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

CATALOG 1. Area A, Reg. No. 264, L11. IAA 81320 Ptolemaic, Series I–II (ca. 290–265 BCE) Obv. Head of Herakles r., adorned with elephant headdress? Rev. Illegible Æ obol, 7.37 g, 23 mm 2. Area A, Reg. No. 500, L7. IAA 81309 John (Yehoḥanan) Hyrcanus I (129–105 BCE), Jerusalem Obv. Double cornucopias with pomegranate between horns Rev. a/[- - -]/[- - -]/ [- - -]/[- - -] within wreath Æ, 0, 1.45 g, 14 mm TJC: 201, Group A 3. Area A, Reg. No. 236, L11. IAA 81312 John (Yehoḥanan) Hyrcanus I (129–105 BCE), Jerusalem Obv. Illegible Rev. a/[- - -]/[- - -]/ [- - -]/[- - -]‫[ח‬- - -] within wreath Æ, 0, 1.45 g, 14 mm TJC:201, Group A 4. Area A, Reg. No. 264, L11. IAA 81306 John (Yehoḥanan) Hyrcanus I? (129–105 BCE), Jerusalem Obv. Double cornucopias with pomegranate between horns Rev. [- - -]/‫]הכ‬- - -[/? ‫חנן‬/[- - -] within wreath Æ, 0, 1.42 g, 14 mm TJC:203–204, Group D 5. Area A, Reg. No. 287, L17. IAA 81315. Fig. 7.1 Alexander Jannaeus (104–76 BCE), Jerusalem Obv. Double cornucopias with pomegranate between horns Rev. ‫הי‬/‫חבר‬/]- - -[/‫הכהן‬/‫ יהונתן‬within wreath Æ, 2.00 g, 14 mm TJC: 211–215, Groups P–R 6. Area A, Reg. No. 105, L1. IAA 81307 Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, mid- to late 80s BCE Obv. [ΒΑΣΙΛE]ΩΣ ΑΛ[ΕΞ]ΑNΔP(ΟΥ) Anchor Rev. Star within diadem; between rays: [- - -] Æ, 1.78 g, 13 mm TJC: 209, Group K

AREA A, THE COINS 163

7. Area A, Reg. No. 813, L51. IAA 81319 Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80/79 BCE Obv. [ΒΑΣ]ΙΛE[ΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑNΔPΟΥ] Anchor Rev. ‫ ]מל[כא אלכסנדרוס שנת כה‬Star in border of dots Æ, 1.01 g, 13 mm TJC: 210, subgroups L1–6 8. Area A, Reg. No. 500, L7. IAA 81310 Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80/79 BCE and later Obv. Anchor in circle Rev. Eight-pointed star Æ, 0.45 g, 11 mm Cf. TJC: 210, subgroup L7 9. Area A, Reg. No. 277, L16. IAA 81314 Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80/79 BCE and later Obv. [circle] Rev. Eight-pointed star Æ, 0.49 g, 12 mm Cf. TJC: 210, subgroup L7 10. Area A, Reg. No. 500, L7. IAA 81311 Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80/79 BCE and later Obv. Anchor in circle Rev. Eight-pointed star Æ, 0.21 g, 7 × 11 mm TJC: 210, subgroup L14 11. Area A, Reg. No. 368, L18. IAA 81316. Fig. 7.2 Unclear Hasmonean ruler, Jerusalem Obv. Double cornucopias with pomegranate between horns Rev. Blundered Paleo-Hebrew inscription in four lines within wreath Æ, 0, 1.95 g, 14 mm

0

1

2

Figure. 7.1: Coin No. 5.

0

1

2

Figure 7.2: Coin No. 11.

1 6 4 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

12. Area A, Reg. No. 310, L18. IAA 81317 Unclear Hasmonean ruler, Jerusalem Obv. Double cornucopias with pomegranate between horns Rev. [- - -]/[- - -]/[- - -]/[- - -] within wreath Æ, 0, 1.48 g, 13 mm 13. Area A, Reg. No. 153, L6. IAA 81308 Herod, Jerusalem, 37–4 BCE Obv. BAIΛ–HPΩ Anchor Rev. Double cornucopia; between horns, caduceus Æ, 5, 1.52 g, 15 mm TJC: 222–223, No. 59; Ariel and Fontanille 2012:63, Type 15 14. Area A, Reg. No. 961, L41. IAA 81318 Roman Procurators in Judea under Augustus, Jerusalem, 5/6–10/11 CE Obv. [K]AICA–POC Ear of corn Rev. Palm-tree; in fields: L–[·] Æ, 0, 1.12 g, 16 mm Cf. TJC: 256, No. 311 15. Area A, Reg. No. 277, L12. IAA 81313 Roman Procurators in Judea under Nero, Jerusalem, 58/59 CE Obv. In wreath: NE[P]/WN[O]/∩ Rev. [L]E KAIC–A[POC] Palm branch Æ, 4, 1.44 g, 15 mm TJC: 260, No. 345a

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The coins were cleaned in the laboratories of the IAA, by Hila Rosenstein, Ludmila Strokanov and Raisa Vinitzky, and were photographed by Clara Amit of the IAA photography studio. Nos. 1–15 are noted in the online database cited in Ariel and Fontanille 2012: 139, n. 1.

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. and Fontanille, J.-P. 2012. The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 79). Leiden and Boston. De Groot A., Cohen D. and Caspi A. 1992. Area A1. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T., eds. Excavations in the City of David Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 1–29. TJC = Meshorer, Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Trans. R. Amoils. Jerusalem and New York.

AREA A

INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS Index of Loci Locus

Square

Description

1

1

Surface of square, brown debris dumped over W10 in southern part of square

2

1

Fill of debris, stone chips and rubble dumped onto W10, including intact cooking pots

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

3

Shiloh Area B

Cleaning of section

--

4

Shiloh Area B

Cleaning of section near segment of floor

--

5

1

Surface in northern part of the square, including intact cooking pots

1st century CE. Upper layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7, 4.16

6

3

Dark brown fill with intact cooking pots

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7, 4.20

7

3

Dark brown fill on bedrock

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7, 4.20

8

3

Cleaning top of W10

1st century CE

9

1

Brown fill with no stones in it on bedrock and face of W11. Intact cooking pots were found in the fill

Late 2nd– 1st century BCE. Lower layer of cooking pots

10

1

Brown fill east of W11

Late 2nd–1st century BCE

11

1

Fill with stone chips in the southern part of square, below L5. Yielded intact cooking pots

Late 2nd– 1st century BCE. Lower layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7, 4.16

12

4

Surface of square

1st century CE. Upper layer of cooking pots

4.14

13

1

Fill (probably extension of L5 but without stone chips) dumped on slope

1st century CE

4.16

14

2

Brown debris dumped from top of W10 to the east

1st century CE

15

1

Brown debris filling a cavity in the bedrock into which W11 is built. Sealed by L9

Iron II

4.6, 4.7

16

2

Debris and rubble dumped from top of W10 to the east, as L2. Intact cooking pots found in the debris

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7

17

1

Fill above collapsed stones which covered Channel I. Intact cooking pots found in the fill

Late 2nd– 1st century BCE. Lower layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7, 4.16

18

1

Fill at corner of W11, W12 continuing L10. Intact cooking pots found in the fill

Late 2nd– 1st century BCE. Lower layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7

19

1

Fill in corner between W10 and W11, on bedrock.

Late 2nd–1st century BCE

20

1

Fill abutting L17 and Wall 12 from the north and sealing it

Late 2nd–1st century BCE

1    

Period1

Figure

4.6, 4.7

The pottery dating is according to the analysis presented in Chapters 5 and 6. In cases where the pottery was not obtainable, the original date given during pottery reading is provided.

1 6 6 A R E A A , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S Locus

Square

Description

Period1

Figure

21

2

Brown earth upon bedrock, below L16

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7

22

1

Stone collapse below L17, covering the capstones of Channel 25

Late 2nd–1st century BCE

23

1

Thin fill above capstones of Channel 25

Late 2nd–1st century BCE

24

1

Fill which spilled into the Channel where the capstones are missing

Late 2nd– 1st century BCE. Lower layer of cooking pots

25

1

Fill inside Channel I

Late 2nd–1st century BCE

4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.14–4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 4.21

26

4

Light brown fill overlying stone collapse, see also L35

Persian

4.14

27

2

Fill (devoid of stones, unlike L16), above western side of C25

Late 2nd– 1st century BCE. Lower layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7

28

4

A strip of dark earth abutting W13 (foundation trench)

1st century BCE

4.2, 4.3, 4.14

29

4

Fill of earth without stones in eastern part of square

Persian

4.2, 4.3

30

4

Fill of earth and stone collapse above capstone of Channel I, below L29.

Persian

4.2, 4.3

31

4

Dark gray debris in Channel I, which served as constructional fill for W13 above it

1st century CE

4.2, 4.3, 4.14

32

4

Fill and stone collapse which descends to the sides of Channel I

Persian

4.2, 4.3

33

4

Scraping eastern section and cleaning

--

34

5

Excavation at the breach into the tunnel (Channel II). Much stone and rubble

1st century BCE

4.4, 4.17

35

4

Cleaning of the stone collapse at the bottom of L26

Persian

4.14

36

4

Debris and stones that filled Channel 36

Iron II

4.2, 4.3, 4.14

37

5

Brown debris in the tunnel (Channel II), in the section south of the breach (south of L34)

1st century CE

4.4, 4.17

38

5

Brown debris in the tunnel (Channel II) north of breach (north of L34)

1st century BCE– 1st century CE

F4.4, 4.17

39

--

Cancelled

40

4

Dismantling heap of stones west of W10

Persian

4.2, 4.3, 4.14

41

4

Cleaning the top of W13

1st century CE

42

2

Cleaning, straightening sections

Iron II, 1st century CE

43

7

Fill east of W10

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

44

5

Brown debris in tunnel (Channel II), south of L37

--

4.4, 4.17

45

7

Fill east of W10

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.15

46

7

Fill behind (west) of W10 at level of wall’s uppermost course

Iron II

4.6, 4.7

47

7

Fill abutting W10 from west (below L46 and L48)

Iron II

4.15

48

7

Fill along western face of top of W10

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.15

4.16

A R E A A , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S 1 6 7 Locus

Square

Description

Period1

Figure

49

7

Fill along western face of W10, down to bedrock

Iron II

4.6, 4.7, 4.15

50

7

Northern part of the square, below L46 (excavation of this locus was interrupted and not completed)

Iron II

4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7

51

7

Continuation of L45

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.15

52

5

Brown debris in tunnel (Channel II) north of L38

Persian

4.4, 4.17

53

5

Brown debris in tunnel (Channel II), in the section of the breach (north of L52)

1st century CE

4.4, 4.17

54

5

Brown debris at base of tunnel (Channel II), below L53

Iron II, Persian

4.4, 4.17

55

8

Topsoil

Iron II, Persian

56

8

Debris overlying W10

Iron II, Persian

4.2, 4.3

57

8

Debris behind and west of W10

Persian

4.2, 4.3

58

8

Debris east of W10

Persian

4.2, 4.3

59

5

Brown debris in tunnel (Channel II) in cave area at northernmost edge of tunnel

Persian

4.4, 4.17

60

7

Fill above eastern side of Channel I

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.6, 4.7

61

8

Fill of brown earth and stones below L57

Persian

4.2, 4.3

62

7

Debris filling Channel I, from upper wall to its base

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

4.15

63

7

Fill abutting W10 from the west

Iron II

4.6, 4.7

64

4

Surface debris at part of square which was enlarged to the north

Persian

4.2, , 4.3

65

7

Fill below L49 down to bedrock, to the west of W10

Iron II

4.6, 4.7, 4.15

66

4

Light brown fill below L64, east of W10

Persian

4.2, 4.3

67

4

Stone collapse below L66

Persian

4.2, 4.3

68

8

Brown earth fill below stone collapse, east of W10

Persian

4.2, 4.3

69

4

Stone collapse, continuation of L67 overlying capstones of Channel I

Persian

4.2, 4.3

70

8

Earth fill above western side of channel

Persian

71

4

Scraping sections on western and southern sides of square

----

72

8

Cleaning the western side of W10 near modern sewage pipe

----

73

4

Cleaning above W10 at square's northern extension

----

74

4

Fill north of channel (L36), below L40, down to bedrock

Iron II, some earlier sherds (MB? LB?)

4.14

75

4

Fill in Channel I. Western extension of L36, to square's edge

Iron II

4.2, 4.3

76

4

Section south of channel (L36), below L40, overlying bedrock

Iron II

4.2, 4.3, 4.14

77

6

Dump of debris and pottery sherds which covers the square

1st century CE. Middle layer of cooking pots

1 6 8 A R E A A , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S Locus

Square

Description

Period1

Figure

78

8

Section on western side of square, below L61, overlying stone collapse

Persian

4.2, 4.3

79

8

Earth fill below L78, overlying bedrock

Iron II

4.2, 4.3

80

6*

Below L77, sealing W10

Iron II

81

6*

West of W10, below L80

Iron II

82

6*

East of W10, below L80

Iron II

83

4

Dismantling of northern face of W13

1st century CE

84

4

Extracting pottery sherds from the gravel layer in the western section, above the stone collapse of L40

Iron II, Persian

* Square 6 was abandoned shortly after the excavation began.

Index of Walls Wall

Square

Figure

10

2, 3, 4, 7, 8

4.1–4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.14–4.16, 4.18–4.20

11

1

4.6, 4.7

12

1

s 4.6, 4.7, 4.18, 4.19

13

4

4.2, 4.3, 4.14, 4.21

14

8

4.2, 4.3

15

1

4.6, 4.7, 4.16, 4.19

CHAPTER 8

AREA J STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

Area J is located just north of Shiloh’s Area E and some 120 m south of the spring (see Figs. 2.4, 3.1). Excavations commenced in July 1998 when ca. 110–120 m of Channel II had been cleared in Area F (see Chapter 13), and it was decided to create an artificial passage that could serve as a tourist exit. This was particularly necessary since the southern extension of the channel is narrow and short (Reich 2011: 177–184). The location of this exit (Figs. 8.1, 8.2) was chosen in an undeveloped area near the path ascending from the Kidron Valley to Shiloh’s Area E, where the accumulations of sediment were minimal (ca. 8–9 m). The surface level at the commencement of excavations was ca. 646.50 masl. The area, which measured ca. 24 × 30 m, was not divided into squares, but rather excavated as a single unit, with sections documented along the borders of the excavation area.

BEDROCK Bedrock was reached in various locations throughout the area. It slopes slightly from north to south—caused by the general dip in the layers of rock formations—although it appears that this did not affect construction in the area. The cross-sections and levels on the plan (Figs. 8.1–Fig. 8.11) indicate the more distinct sloping of the bedrock from west to east, with a descent of ca. 11 m along an area of ca. 18 m, towards the Kidron. However, the sloping is irregular and there are several rock steps or scarps that were exploited by the ancient inhabitants. Close examination of the bedrock shows that in certain places along these steps, chunks of rock were removed, and in other places small stones were used to fill in gaps along the scarps in order to create relatively uniform faces and surfaces as bases for walls. The main architectural feature exposed in this area, Wall 501 (Figs. 8.8, 8.9, 8.12, 8.13), is built on one of these rock steps, with its base at ca. 636.00 masl, against a low rock scarp, ca. 1.50 m high. The upper part of the wall is distanced some 3 m east of an additional rock scarp, approximately 2.4 m high. It is against this latter scarp that Channel II is hewn. A rock protrusion was used by the builders to place an offset of the wall. Channel I (denoted Locus 77, henceforth Channel I) is constructed to the east of a low rock scarp (0.70 m high on average), east of Wall 501. As this rock scarp has a slightly winding course, it affected the path of Channel I accordingly. Wall 502 is also constructed on a rock scarp (average height 1 m), with its base at ca. 631.00 masl.

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE The excavations in Area J revealed architectural elements and deposits from three distinct periods, separated by chronological gaps: MB II, Iron II, and the Herodian period. The chronological attribution of the various loci, as well as the walls and channels, is presented in Table 8.1. The elements were dated according to the associated pottery and coins.

P_385

P_385

172 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

64

640.00

L56a

W506

L174

L59

Channel II

639.8

W50

Channel II

4

640.53

637.82 639.68

639.60

637.85

W508

W503

639.68

639.43 638.26

638.52

6

640.51

L22

640.67

639.72 637.80 639.67

W501 638.60 637.59 640.18

639.67

W501

CP1

638.60 637.59

L87

640.18

639.45 639.14 637.51

L33

L33

L32

639.38 637.68

639.70 639.14 637.57 637.51 L31

L32

639.70 637.57

639.38 637.68

09

W5 634.53 634.04

0

Figure 8.1: General plan of Area J.

L29

0

L26

L91

15

m

L31

635.42 638.66 635.79

634.69 634.00

L85 634.19 634.53 633.59

633

631.90 6

W

1

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 7 3

645.46

L175 645.21 645.39

644.80

644.70 641.47

L174 L56a

L171 L172 641.70

642.31

L101

W506

640.00

641.99

L177

5

W50

L59

639.85

640.71

640.40

507

W

W50

4

Cupmark

640.53 640.40

640.39

637.82 639.68

W513

644.50 641.52

639.60

637.90 639.65

638.42

638.31

637.97

W503

637.85

W508

W503 639.43 638.26

640.51

L22

640.74

637.98

640.59

638.52

W501

L27

640.67

639.72 637.80

CP1

L29

L26

L91 L87 639.45

635.81

09

638.66 635.79

634.10

L86

L85 634.19 633.15

634.53 634.04

L78

636.28

CP3 640.85 B481

636.00

635.42

633.59

631.90

W512

W509 635.26

633.55 638.17 634.49

l anne L77 =Ch

631.91

633.97 633.75

633.15

I

631.82

633.17

L90

632.92

W510

W511

632.59

m

L79

633.43 632.20

632.00

632.60 631.63 630.33

L97 15

640.80

634.85

635.42

634.69 634.00

W5

CP2 B444

631.60 631.08

W502

L94

CP4

174 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Table 8.1: Area J, Chronological Attribution of Walls and Loci Period

Walls

Loci

Channels

MB II

503, 504, 505, 506, 507?

59, 101, 56a, 172, 177

II

Iron II B–C

501, 502, 508?, 509, 511, 512, 513?

11, 12, 16–18, 22, 28, 45, 46, 52, 82, 86, 88, 90, 91, 97, 105, 112-118, 135–137, 139–143, 146, 147, 151, 175

I (L77), II

Early Roman

10, 20, 21, 25–27, 29, 31–34, 77, 78, 88, 94, 167

The Middle Bronze Age Remains Channel II

Channel II is cut along the upper rock terrace west of Wall 501 (Figs. 8.1, 8.2). As opposed to the section of the channel exposed in Area A (Chapter 4), the section of the channel exposed in Area J was only partially carved into the bedrock, with significant portions of the upper walls and roofing constructed of stone. The exposure of the northern portions of Channel II in Area F (Chapter 13) were also primarily carved into the bedrock, with only its roofing built using capstones. Although Channel II was built on a natural rock step, the bedrock was not level, having a certain P_385__HATAHIM decline to the east (Figs. 8.4, 8.5). Therefore, the carved portion of the channel’s western wall is somewhat higher (ca. 1.50–1.80 m; see also Chapter 13) than the eastern wall (ca. 0.70 m). The

4

L101

9

4

5

10

W513

7

W506

11

5

W50

Channel

14

II

07

W5

W50

4

6

13 10

3

3

7

W508

W503

6

W501

8

12 W501

15

15 12

L33

L32

L29 L91 L87

13 14

L31

11

W509

L85

W509 W512

12

2

L78

L86

I nel ha n L7 7=C L90

L79

W511

W510

L97

9 1 0

Figure 8.2: Section index of Area J.

15 m

8

W502

L94

1 5

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 7 5 643

00

642

00

641

00

P386

9-9

L47

L45

W501

L53 L54

L46

640

00

639

00

638

00

637

00

636

00

635

00

L48

W504

L59

L49 L56a W505

W503

Channel II

L65 L66 L29

L87 L86

634

00

633

00

W509 L77=Channel I

L90

632

00

W510

W502

631

00

Figure 8.3: Section 9–9, looking south. 645

P387

00

644

00 W513

643

00

642

00

641

00

640

00

639

00

638

00

637

00

636

00

635

00

5-5

L167

L169 L171 L170 L176 L50 L51 L67

L138

L55 L56 L144 L62 L61 L146 L63 L64 L148 L68

W501

Channel II L69

W503

L29

L78 L82

L30

L86 L34

634

00

633

00

632

00

631

00

630

00

L26 L79

W509 L97 L77=Channel I

W510 L94

Figure 8.4: Section 5–5, looking north.

W502

P_A__10_10

176 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 10 - 10 643 00

642 00

641 00

L93

L52

W505 640 00

W504

Channel II

W503

639 00

638 00

L65

L66

637 00

P_321

Figure. 8.5: Section 10–10, looking north.

14 - 14 641 00 L135

W504

L136

640 00

L111 L88

L151

639 00

L137 W503 L114

L112 L113

638 00 Channel II

637 00

Figure 8.6: Section 14–14, looking north.

L116

L117

W501

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 7 7

P_329 641 00

8-8

W501

640 00

639 00

638 00

637 00 L78

636 00 W509

635 00 Channel I

634 00 W510 L77

633 00 W502 L90

632 00

631 00

630 00

Figure 8.7: Section 8–8, looking north.

L94

178 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Channel II

Figure 8.8: General view of Area J, looking south, with Channel II on the right.

W 50 1

Channel 25= Channel I

Figure 8.9: General view of Area J, looking south.

W503

W501

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 7 9

W5

01

Figure 8.10: Inner part of offset in Wall 501, looking north. Note the “fragile” state of the construction of the western (intramural) face.

Channel II

Figure 8.11: Rock-cut segment of Channel II, looking south.

180 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W50 1 Figure 8.12: General view of Area J, looking north.

W503

W501 Seam

Figure 8.13: View of Wall 501, looking west. Note the seam in the stone structure.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 8 1

upper parts of the channel walls are constructed of stone (Wall 503 on the east and Wall 504 on the west). The rock faces on the upper parts of the exposed rock are very rough. Spots where large chunks were dislodged rather than chiseled away are noticeable. These chunks or boulders were probably used to cover the channel in the same fashion that was discovered in Area F to the north (see Chapter 13), near the spring. The lower part of the channel was chiseled out with small tools. As noted above, stone courses were added to the rock walls to supplement their height. A portion of western Wall 504 was exposed; it curves slightly with the winding course of the channel (Figs. 8.14, 8.15). It is built of stones of varying sizes including large boulders. Only 1–2 courses of the wall were preserved in the southern sector, while in the northern part, the stones were completely missing (Fig. 8.8). Understanding eastern Wall 503 is more difficult. This is due to the fact that a large portion of the area between Channel II and Wall 501 (see below) was left unexcavated. Like Wall 504, the southern sector of Wall 503 was well-preserved but the northern sector was almost completely missing. The northern portion of Channel II exposed in this area consists of a rock-cut western wall, with a stone-built eastern face, a few stones high (Figs. 8.17, 8.18), sealed by debris containing Iron II pottery (Loci 64, 130, 133, 138, 144 and 146–148; Fig. 8.16). It should be noted that this constructed supplement is not precisely aligned with Wall 503 to the south, as it likely also follows the moderate winding of the rock-cut channel. The southern part of the wall, ca. 1.40–1.45 m thick, is a well-constructed, straight wall, preserved to a maximum height of ca. 1.45 m. As this wall is straight and the channel winds slightly here, the small space between the wall and the rock-cut channel was filled with two large boulders (1.40 × 0.90 × 0.55 m and 1.15 × 0.80 × 0.60 m in size; Figs. 8.3, 8.12, 8.14, 8.15, 8.18). As the channel is cut here at a place where the height of the rock is quite low, its protection with thick Wall 503 was required. It should be noted that the western face of Wall 504 is abutted by a floor and other scant remains dating to the MB II (see below). Altogether, ca. 13 m of Channel II were exposed in Area J in addition to the long stretch of the channel in Area F (see Chapter 13; Figs. 13.73, 13.75: points 98–102), with additional 9 m exposed to the south of Area J. Throughout this section, no openings or water outlets related to the channel were found, indicating that the openings further to the south in the rock-cut portion of the channel should not be defined as “windows” that served as outlets for water (see further discussion in Chapter 48). Building 56a

In the southwest corner of the area, west of Channel II, some scant remains of walls and patches of floors, which yielded a small amount of MB II pottery (see Chapter 9, Fig. 9.1), were exposed (Loci 56a, 59, 101; Figs. 8.3, 8.21– 8.25). It appears that these are part of a private MB II dwelling, located along the eastern city limits. Indeed, these remains are poor compared to the significant Iron II domestic architecture found in adjacent Area B of Shiloh’s excavations (Ariel and Lender 2000) as well as in our Area B located a short distance upslope (to be published in a future volume). Walls 505 and 506 are built of small fieldstones. Locus 59 rests on a floor made of flagstones.1 The flagstone pavement abuts Wall 504—the western wall of Channel II—on the east, and Wall 505 on the west. Floor 56a is a flattened rock surface with a patch of clayish floor on the north, near Wall 506. Floor 101 is also a clayish floor overlying the flattened rock. To the west of Channel II and northeast of the remains of Building 56a, a circular cupmark was found. The cupmark is very smooth, possibly a result of its use (Figs. 8.24, 8.26). This type of 1    

The fill’s locus number is the same as the floor number. See Chapter 3.

182 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W503

Figure 8.14: Channel II with constructed walls (W503, W504) on either side, looking west.

W504

W503

Channel II

Figure 8.15: Channel II, with closeup of Wall 503, its eastern constructed wall, looking south.

P_B__6_6 641

00

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 8 3

W501

L130

640

L133

00

L138

639

L144

00

Channel II L146 L147

638

00

L148

L64

W503

Figure. 8.16: Section 6–6, looking south.

cupmark is frequently found (for example in our Areas B and C) on the hard Mizzi Ahmar rock of the City of David hill. Its date could not be established here. Interestingly, remains of the MB II were not uncovered in the area to the north. This is likely due to rise in the level of the bedrock.2 Wall 513, dated to the Iron II, is constructed above fills which contain mixed pottery from the MB II through the Iron II (Loci 170–174, 177), as well as a series of boulders that may have belonged to an adjacent MB II wall (Figs. 8.19, 8.20). The use of boulders is characteristic of the MB construction methods, as can be seen in other areas, such as Area F beneath the Spring House (see Chapter 13). For a detailed discussion of this wall, see below. 2 

   The second author (Shukron) is of the opinion that the channel was integrated into a fortification, which was composed of Walls 503 and 504, which together protected the channel that was located at the base of the core of this fortification. The width of the two walls together, including the channel below, is approximately 4.5–5 m. In addition, Shukron believes that the Iron Age construction (e.g., Walls 501 and 513) made use of the stones from Middle Bronze structures, and this was the reason for the poor preservation of the MB remains.

1 8 4 RP_390 ONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 642

00

641

00

640

00

639

00

3-3

Not Excavated

Bottom level of Channel II W503

638

W508

00

Channel II

Channel II W503

637

00

Figure 8.17: Section 3–3, looking west.

P_390_detail 641

3 - 3 (detail) L139

00

L140 L141 L142

640

00 L143

W503

639

00

638

00

L117

Figure 8.18: Detail of southern part of Section 3–3.

W508

P_339_340 646

00

645

00

644

00

643

00

642

00

641

00

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 8 5 4-4

W513 L175

L172 L176

Figure 8.19: Section 4–4, looking west.

offset

Figure 8.20: Wall 513, with detail of southern seam (offset).

L177

P_385_A_ZOOM

186 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

05 W5

6 640.76

640.23

640.45

638.21

6 639.65

640.00

L101

Channel II

640.49

7

50

W

640.57

639.86 640.64 639.00

640.42

641.16

W503

639.83

L59

W 6 50

L56a

640.19

640.00

W504

637.74

639.95

657.74 639.55

639.62

639.73

641.40

640.95

0

5 m

Figure 8.21: Plan of MB II remains.

W

50

4

W 50 5

W

Figure 8.22: View of scant remains of Building 56a, looking south.

50

6

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 8 7

W5 05

W5 04

Figure 8.23: View of scant remains of Building 56a, looking west.

W5

W506 W5 05

04 Figure 8.24: View of scant remains of Building 56a, looking north. Note cupmark on upper right.

188 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W50 4

W503

P_A__7_7

Figure 8.25: Southern portion of Channel II exposed in Area J, looking south.

7-7

643 00

642 00

641 00

L93

W505

640 00 L100

639 00

Channel II

638 00

637 00

Figure 8.26: Section 7–7, looking south.

Cupmark

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 8 9

The Iron II Remains Wall 501

The main architectural feature exposed in this area is a long segment (ca. 35.5 m) of Wall 501. When the first 7 m segment of the wall was exposed, the nature of the wall was unclear. However, once the full length of the wall was exposed, it became clear that Wall 501—1.75–2.05 m thick at its upper course—was in fact part of the eastern fortifications of the city. Wall 501 runs north–south, with a significant offset to the east of ca. 2 m, approximately at the center of the excavation area. The debris on the bedrock near the outer (northeastern) corner of the offset yielded Iron II pottery (Locus 91; Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.27, 8.28). This offset is constructed of large rectangular stones. Some of these stones still bear marks of the flat chisel used to carve them, with the overall square shape of the stones formed using a sledgehammer. The stones were stabilized with the help of small stones and light brown earth. The lowest layer contains stones of various sizes, which were fit to the face of the bedrock in order to create a level surface upon which the corner of the offset was constructed. In this location, Wall 501 has a slight inclination at the corner. The elongated rectangular stones of the offset’s corner are set with their long side in alternating courses, to the south and west, to create a firm construction. Seven courses of large stones were preserved at the corner of the offset, in addition to the lowest levelling course. The average size of the stones is 1.10 × 0.55 × 0.45 m. The wall was preserved to an average height of 5 m. A vertical seam was noted on the eastern face of Wall 501 (Figs. 8.27, 8.29), ca. 0.70 m north of the offset. This seam clearly indicates that Wall 501 had several distinct constructional phases: Phase 1: A lower portion, with its southern end or corner located at the seam. The stones north of the seam are somewhat larger, as is common with the construction of corners. At this corner, the lower part of the wall turns to the west (Fig. 8.29). Remains of a small wall (508), located to the west of Wall 501 and perpendicular to it, aligned with the above-mentioned seam. This may hint that at its earliest phase, Wall 501 was part of a freestanding building and was only later incorporated into the fortification. Alternatively, since Wall 508 does not abut Wall 501, it may have been part of a separate construction. The possibility that a western offset was originally intended to be constructed in Wall 501, which was later abandoned in favor of the eastern offset, should not be ruled out. When examining the lower part from bottom to top, the lower ca. 2.50–3.20 m of this section of the wall is built of medium-sized boulders several courses high, founded directly upon bedrock. This part was not a subterranean foundation but was exposed, seen by whomever approached the city from the east. The eastern face of the wall has a slight inclination, sloping slightly westward. Phase 2: A short extension of the first segment was found to its south. This extension abuts the seam from the south and continues southwards for a short distance of. ca. 2.25 m. The southern and southwestern parts of this extension do not have a clear face (Figs. 8.1, 8.10, 8.30, 8.31). It seems as if a narrow, deep foundation trench was dug to the south of the first segment of the wall, later filled in by stones and debris that constitute this segment. Phase 3: An overall extension, overlying both of the segments described above, was constructed above them. This can clearly be seen just above the seam, which does not continue to the upper part of the wall. This addition seems to have been built using courses composed of smaller stones. The upper part of the wall is built of small and medium-sized fieldstone. In this respect, the masonry is similar to that of Wall 10, exposed in Area A (see Chapter 4). Most of the stones are hard Mizzi Ahmar fieldstone, likely collected directly in the area (as the Mizzi layers are exposed here), with only a few of the softer Meleke stones used. As noted in other portions of the wall, the eastern face of this segment has a slight inclination to the west.

190 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Phase 4: Approximately 0.70 m to the south of the seam, the offset was constructed as well as the entire wall to its south. Examination of Wall 501 (Figs. 8.1, 8.27, 8.32, 8.33) revealed that Wall 501 was not constructed as a continuous wall which takes two turns, but as two separate segments. One segment (Phase 3) is built over an earlier segment (Phase 1) and its continuation (Phase 2), while the southern segment (Phase 4), built 2 m further east, is not bonded properly with the western and northern segments. In the space created behind the offset and to the west of it—that is at the meeting point of these segments (and above Phase 3)—earthen fills were excavated. It appears that Wall 501 served as the retaining wall for these fills. They were likely dumped as the wall was constructed, explaining its unclear western faces (Figs. 8.6, 8.10, 8.30, 8.31). These earthen fills extend to the west, sealing Channel II, including both of its constructed walls beneath them (Loci 135–137, 139–143, 151). Wall 501 (particularly its northern segment) was sealed by a layer of light brown-yellowish debris (Loci 22, 88; Fig. 8.34), with very few stones and gravel. Although this layer yielded only a small amount of pottery, its matrix was quite similar to that of Loci 10, 21 and 25, dating to the Herodian period, and likely constituting refuse layers typical of the eastern slope in this period (see further discussion below). To the west of Wall 501, a 5 × 4 m square was excavated, adjacent to the western face of Wall 501. The upper fills, which were dumped onto the western face of the wall (Loci 111–117; Figs. 8.6, 8.35, 8.36) are of importance for dating the wall. In the western part of the square, beneath Iron II fills (Loci 135–137), a segment of Wall 503 was exposed, built directly on the bedrock (Fig. 8.6). Only several stones of the eastern face of the northern extension of Wall 503 were preserved in situ. The gap between Walls 503 and 501 was filled with debris containing Iron II pottery (Fig. 10.6).

P324-325-327

2-2 Offset

641 00

Seam

W501

640 00 639 00 638 00 637 00 636 00 635 00 L91

Offset

641 00

Seam

L87

L78

W501

640 00 639 00 638 00 637 00

3 4 2

1

636 00 635 00

Figure 8.27: Section 2–2, looking west (top), with segments marked (bottom).

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 9 1

W

W5

50

1

09 W5 10

Figure 8.28: View of Wall 501, with plastered wall of Channel I (bottom), looking southwest.

W501

Seam

Figure 8.29: Closeup of eastern face of Wall 501, with seam near offset, looking west.

W5 01

W5 01

192 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W5 02 W5 02 Figure 8.30: Top of Wall 501, with offset, looking north.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 9 3

W501

W503 Figure 8.31: Western (intramural) face of Wall 501 at its offset, looking east. Note the unclear face of northern portion of the wall, as opposed to the well-constructed face to the south.

Channel II

W50 1

W 50 2 Figure 8.32: General view of Area J, looking north. Note the construction of Wall 501 using small fieldstones.

194 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Seam

W501

Offset

Figure 8.33: Closeup of offset and seam in Wall 501, looking west.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 9 5 11 - 11

P_289 11-11 645

00

644

00

643

00

642

00

641

00

640

00

639

00

638

00

637

00

636

00

635

00

634

00

L25

L10 L16 L20

L88

L18

L22 L21

L26

L17 W504

W501

L27 L91 L28

Figure 8.34: Section 11–11, looking south. Note that the section was documented prior to the expansion of the area to the west (see Figure 8.3).

P_B__13_13

641

00

13 - 13 W501

L103

L103 640

00

L105

L104

L105 L109

L106

639

00

L107

W503

L110

L113 L116

L118 638

00

Channel II

Figure 8.35: Section 13–13, looking north.

W508

640 196 RONN Y R E00I C H A N D E L I S H U K R O15N - 15 L112

W501

639

00

638

00 L149 L150 L155

637

00 Figure 8.36: Section 15–15, looking east.

Wall 502

At a distance of 5.0–6.5 m east of Wall 501, on the eastern border of the excavation (one of the two easternmost excavated areas in the City of David, along with the eastern extension of Area H east of the spring, see Chapter 17), Wall 502, built directly on the bedrock, was exposed (Figs. 8.37–8.40). This wall, too, abuts a small rock scarp on its western side. The wall has an offset, separating two distinct segments, with the northern segment protruding 0.70 m to the east (Figs. 8.1, 8.41). The wall’s southern segment is built of medium-sized, slightly hewn stones. Due to safety considerations, only 1.80 m of the wall’s eastern face was exposed. The width of this segment of Wall 502 is ca. 1.25 m in the south, widening after a small offset to approximately 1.65 m. The wall’s northern segment is seemingly built in an area where the bedrock is much deeper; 1.25 m of its upper eastern face was exposed. The nature of construction of this segment is similar to that of the southern segment, that is, with slightly larger stones on the outer faces, and smaller stones and rubble forming the core. It appears that the wall is in actuality two separate elements that abut one another. In its first stage, the wall was thinner, and later thickened, although it is not clear which is the original phase. The width of this segment is ca. 2.5 m, with quite vertical faces. Pottery sherds dating to the Iron II were retrieved from the debris sealing Wall 502 (Locus 97). The earthen fills (Locus 90) abutting Wall 502 and Channel I (Locus 77) also contained Iron II pottery.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 9 7

Wall 513

Wall 513 runs north–south, parallel to Wall 501, uphill 11 m to the west. Channel II is located between them (Figs. 8.1, 8.42–8.45). The eastern face of Wall 513 is preserved to a height of 3.7 m. The wall is therefore at least 4.20 m thick (Figs. 8.1, 8.19), as ascertained in excavations to the west, which did not reach the wall’s eastern face and must be situated beyond the excavation area. The wall was built of small fieldstones, arranged in horizontal layers, similar to the construction of Walls 501 and 502 (Fig. 8.41). Three small offsets were exposed along the eastern face of the wall, distanced 3.20 m and 3.60 m apart (Fig. 8.19). The corners of these offsets were well built of slightly dressed, elongated stones, alternately placed on their longitudinal and latitudinal axes, similar to the construction of the offset in Wall 501, only on a more modest scale. It seems that this method of construction is a version of the “saw-tooth” method, characteristic of Iron II defensive walls (e.g., Borowski 2003: 46; see Chapter 48). As seen in Fig. 8.19, Wall 513 was not founded on bedrock, but is built on top of layers of debris (Loci 172 and 177), which contained pottery from the MB II and LB (Chapter 9, Fig. 9.2) as well as seal impressions from the MB IIC (Chapter 29). On top of Wall 513, a layer of light brown debris (Locus 175) was excavated, which contained pottery sherds from the Iron II and Persian period. As no floor relating to Wall 513 was found, the dating of the layers sealing and overlying the wall provide the chronological framework for dating this wall. Abutting the eastern face of Wall 513, fills containing Iron II pottery were found (Loci 70, 71 and 73; Fig. 8.4).

Channel 25=Channel I

W5

W5

01

02 Figure 8.37: View of Wall 501 (left), Channel I (L77, center) and Wall 502 (far right), looking north.

W

50

2

198 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 8.38: Eastern face of Wall 502 with offset, looking north.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 9 9

W

50

2

Figure 8.39: Eastern face of Wall 502, looking south. Note that bedrock was not reached in this part of the excavation.

200 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Channel 25= Channel I

W51 0 1 W51

W50 2 Figure 8.40: View of Wall 502, looking south. Note the distinct segments visible on the top of the wall.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 0 1

P388 640

1-1

00 W509

639

00

638

00

Bottom of Channel I

Channel I = L77

W510

W511

637

00

636

00

635

00

W502

Figure 8.41: Section 1–1, looking west.

Channel I (Locus 77)

Channel I crosses the area along a general north–south course (Fig. 8.1). It abuts a low rock scarp on its west, which served as the lower part of western Wall 509, with its upper part constructed of small stones (Figs. 8.28, 8.46). Eastern Wall 510 is constructed entirely of small stones. The channel’s interior is plastered with a clayish pink layer on both the rock and stone wall (Figs. 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.29, 8.46– 8.50). Wall 509 was preserved to a total height of 2.10 m. The lower part (ca. 0.45 m) was plastered rock, supplemented with seven courses of stones. The channel was 0.40 m wide (Fig. 8.3, 8.4, 8.7). The eastern wall was preserved to an internal height of ca. 0.40 m and 1.05 m on the exterior of the channel. Its outer (eastern) face was also plastered, primarily using clay between the stones, perhaps in order to make it watertight. In some spots, plaster patches were found on top of the eastern wall, indicating that it was preserved to its maximal height. However, only the lower 0.40 m of the channel’s interior was plastered. In Area J, approximately 13 m of Channel I’s length was exposed. The height of the channel’s base ranges from 633.15 to 633.17 masl. The comparative levels of the segments discovered in Areas A, F and J indicate conclusively that all these are parts of the same conduit, which can be identified with Channel I (see Chapters 4 and 13). The nature and function of this water conduit will be discussed below. It is clear that the debris and finds discovered in Channel I have no bearing on the date of its construction, as the debris could have infiltrated the channel at any later time. The only means to date this channel is from the pottery sherds retrieved from the fill dumped in the space between western Wall 509 and the rock surface to the west of it (Locus 86, Figs. 8.1, 8.3), which must have been laid at the time that the channel wall was constructed.

202 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W513

Figure 8.42: Central portion of Wall 513, looking west.

W51

3

Figure 8.43: General view of Wall 503, from above, looking southwest.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 0 3

W513

Figure 8.44: Northern part of Wall 513, with offset, looking west.

Figure 8.45: Southern part of Wall 513, including southern and central offsets, looking west.

P_387 (detail) 204 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

5 - 5 (detail)

641 00 640 00 639 00 W501

638 00 637 00 636 00 635 00

L29 L78 L82 L86

L30 W509

634 00

L77

633 00

L34

L26

L79 L90 L97

632 00

L77=Channel I

631 00

W502

L94

Figure 8.46: Section 5–5, detail, looking north.

The Early Roman Period Remains Assemblage of Abandoned Cooking Pots

In various locations east of Walls 501 and 502, intact cooking pots of the Early Roman period were discovered (marked CP1 [Locus 29, see Fig. 8.51], CP2-CP3 [Locus 78, Fig. 8.53] and CP4 [Locus 94] on Fig. 8.1; see also Figs. 8.7, 8.27, 8.28, 8.46, 8.51–8.53). The pots were placed on the bedrock or on a thin layer of debris which accumulated on the bedrock (Locus 29). It seems that these were intentionally placed here, in a similar manner noted in other areas along the Kidron Valley, such as in Area A (see Chapter 4) and Shiloh’s Area A1 (Shiloh 1984: 4–5; Pl. 6.1). Furthermore, the abandoned pots were not scattered in open spaces, but were purposely leaning against the said walls, or the rock scarps which created the base of these walls. It should be noted that these vessels were sealed beneath a thick mantle of debris (see below). This has bearing on the dating of both the cooking pots and the debris that sealed them (Chapters 11 and 48).

W5 10

el 25=C ha Chann

W502

nnel I

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 0 5

Figure 8.47: View of interior of Channel I (L77), looking north. Note the clayish plaster coating bottom of channel. W501

Channel I

Figure 8.48: General view of Wall 501, with Channel I to its east, looking west.

206 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W501

W5

W5

09

10

Figure 8.49: General view of offset of Wall 501 and Channel I, looking southwest.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 0 7

1

0 W51

W 50 9

W5

10

W

50

Channel I

Figure 8.50: View of segment of Channel I exposed in Area J, looking north.

208 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W501

Cooking pot

Figure 8.51: Cooking pot (CP1) deposited on the corner of offset of Wall 501, looking west.

Figure 8.52: Closeup of cooking pot (CP1) deposited on the corner of offset of Wall 501, looking west.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 0 9

W501

Figure 8.53: Cooking pot (CP2), in situ on bedrock, next to foundation of Wall 501, looking northwest.

Layers of Dumped Debris

The uppermost archaeological deposit exposed, covering the entire excavation area, was a thick layer of debris (Loci 10, 20, 21, 25–27, 29–34, 78, 167). It was composed of gravel and pottery sherds that were strewn across the slopes down to the Kidron Valley (Figs. 8.3, 8.4, 8.46, 8.50, 8.54–8.56). This layer of debris covered a yellowish-brown fill, likely dating to the Iron Age (see above, Loci 22 and 88), as well as the eastern face of Wall 501, that covered earlier fills that contained Iron Age pottery (Loci 82 and 87), the bedrock (on the upper rock terrace, Locus 27) and that abutted the entire eastern face of the wall (mainly Locus 26). These sloping layers of refuse were more than 8 m thick. As the various loci that constitute the dumped debris—including Locus 27 that covered the bedrock, Locus 26 that abutted the face of Wall 501 and Loci 20 and 25 that covered the wall—are relatively uniform in terms of dating (see Chapter 13), some interesting conclusions concerning the Early Roman period can be reached: Although constructed in the Iron II, in the early 1st century CE the eastern faces of Walls 501 and 502 were still visible (Fig. 8.4). At this point in time, the abandoned cooking pots mentioned above were placed next to the foundation of the wall. The eastern face of Wall 513 (Fig. 8.4) was probably also still visible, though later it would be partly covered by the dumped debris (Locus 167). In a relatively short period of time, large amounts of garbage accumulated along the wall, eventually concealing its face entirely. As this garbage accumulated only after the deposition of the cooking pots, this had to have occurred in the 1st century CE.

210 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

These thick, sloping layers were also encountered in other areas of our excavation (Areas A, B, C and L), as well as in earlier excavations by Schick, Parker, Weill, Kenyon and Shiloh (see Reich and Shukron 2003). In 2013, Gadot (2014) conducted further excavations and investigations of these layers. The nature and significance of this thick mantle of debris is discussed below.

P_322 12 - 12 W501

640 00 W501

639 00

638 00

637 00 L29

636 00

L91 L87

635 00

L83 W509

L84 L85

634 00

Figure 8.54: Section 12–12, looking south.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 1 1

W5 01

Figure 8.55: Northern face of offset in Wall 501, looking south. Note dumped deposits in section.

W

50

2

W501

Figure 8.56: General view of Area J, looking north.

212 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

DISCUSSION The remains discussed above are evidence of the human activity on the lower eastern slope of the City of David. The various elements described are of importance for understanding the nature of the settlement in the MB II, Iron II and Early Roman periods. One of the most significant elements uncovered in Area J was a portion of Channel II. Channel II was hewn on a rock step, close to the eastern vertical scarp. As the bedrock in this area is quite low (in respect to the level of the channel’s base, which was determined by the level of the spring, ca. 110 m to the north), the channel’s walls had to be constructed using stone. The portion of Wall 503 which had been preserved, constructed to the east of Channel II, seems quite thick. Had Wall 503 served a protective function? This does not seem likely, particularly when compared to the vast size of MB fortifications, and the size of the boulders incorporated in them at the spring. On the other hand, the wall is relatively thick (ca. 1.30 m thick), which is difficult to explain (although see below for a possible suggestion). In one location in this area, we found evidence for the dating of Channel II to the MB II. This is Building 56a that abuts Wall 504, the Channel’s western wall. In Area C, the northern part of the channel was cut from the bedrock down to the desired level and covered with large boulders. The dating to the MB II is based mainly on the fact that the channel runs beneath the southern wall of the Spring Tower (Wall 106). As the Spring Tower is dated to the MB II, it provides a terminus ante quem for the dating of Channel II (see Chapter 48). The Spring Tower and other remains in Area C will be discussed in a future report. The second author (Shukron) is of the opinion that Walls 503 to the east of Channel II and Wall 504 to its west are two components of the same element, which was intended to cover and protect the water conduit (Fig. 8.25). This would, in essence, be a continuation of the situation in the Spring House (Wall 106 in Area C), where the channel was covered and protected by the southern wall of the Spring Tower.3 Scant building remains (Walls 504, 505 and 506) found west of Channel II are well dated to the MB II by the pottery sherds found on floors Loci 56a, 59 and 101. As these remains—which belong to a small, private dwelling—abut Wall 504, it appears that they are contemporary or slightly postdate Wall 504 and Channel II on a whole. From the MB II until the late Iron II, no occupational remains of any kind, nor any artifacts, were documented. For almost a millennium, this particular area was unoccupied, outside and even distant from any inhabited area. While this does not have any bearing on the occupational history of the upper parts of the City of David, it attests to the fact that at this particular spot, near the bottom of the Kidron Valley, the area was uninhabited during this long time span. A series of several parallel walls (Walls 501, 502 and 513) and a water channel (Channel I, Locus 77) were constructed on the lower slope descending from the Southeastern Hill to 3    

According to Shukron, Walls 503 and 504 together created a wider wall which protected the city and Channel II on the east, a continuation of the fortification surrounding the spring (Area C).This was quite massive although only scant remains of it were preserved. It is also possible that it runs from the spring, spanning a length of 120 m. Shukron maintains that Shiloh’s Wall 285, as well as Kenyon’s Wall 3 were not the city’s fortification wall during the MB II. The city’s fortification during the MB II must lie east of Channel II in order to protect the water system as well as the city from the direction of the Kidron Valley. In this case, the scant and fragmentary remains of small walls and a patch of floor (Loci 56a, 59, 101, which were revealed in the western part of the area) are part of a contemporary dwelling located in the fortified area of the city.

A R E A J , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 1 3

the Kidron Valley. These walls and channel can be securely dated to the 8th century BCE, as seen for example by large amounts of pottery from this period covering Wall 501 (Loci 22 and 88), or abutting its intramural (western) face (Loci 112, 113, 116, 117; see Figs. 8.6, 8.35; see also Reich and Shukron 2007). This is also the case for other features, which yielded Iron II pottery in the fills abutting them: the fill in the narrow space between the western face of Wall 502 and the bedrock exposed to its west; and the space between the western wall of Channel I (Wall 509) and the bedrock exposed to its west. The western, intramural face of Wall 513 was never reached and exposed, although the loci sealed beneath it yielded MB II and LB (Loci 172 and 177; see Chapter 9), providing a terminus post quem for its construction. Furthermore, the nature of its construction (the so-called “saw-tooth” typical of the Iron II, see Avigad and Geva 2000: Plan 2.1, offsets/insets in Squares G13, H13, E10, D11; Photos 2.11, 2.12, 2.17, 2.24) indicates that it should also be attributed to the Iron II. As the foundations of these walls are built directly on bedrock (save for Wall 513), and not embedded into cut trenches, their dating cannot be secured through finds typically found in foundation trenches. Therefore, the pottery found within the debris along the western faces of these walls serve as datable material, as these accumulations were part of their construction process. That said, the stratigraphic relationship between these elements and the relative dating between them is not possible, as they are constructed in parallel lines. Did one predate the others? Were all constructed concurrently? How did the channel relate to the walls? Although these questions cannot be answered with any degree of confidence, it is important to note that no remains of other walls, such as private houses, were found in the spaces between these architectural features. This fact may have a bearing on the discussion of the nature of these elements (city walls, house walls, terraces, etc.). Another factor in the question of the relative dating of these architectural features is the fact that Walls 501 and 502 are not uniformly constructed. Wall 501 exhibits at least four components that clearly point to two constructional phases (Phase 1, and Phases 2, 3 and 4 above). In addition, Wall 502 presents two, or even three, constructional phases. These may be interpreted as reinforcements made to these walls over time, although other explanations should also be considered. Additional excavated data may help clarify these questions (for further discussions of the importance of the Iron II fortifications, as well as the function of Channel I, see Chapter 47). An additional occupational gap in this area occurred between the Iron II (8th century BCE, Chapter 10) and the 1st century BCE (Chapter 11). This occupational gap, several centuries long, is reminiscent of the former occupational gap identified in Area J, between the MB II and the Iron II. This gap comes to an end when human activity is again noted in this area with the deposition of abandoned intact cooking pots which were found east of Walls 501 and 502 (for a discussion of the possible significance of this phenomenon, see Chapter 48). The final phase of human activity in Area J is represented by the thick mantel of debris that sealed all of the architectural and occupational elements described above. These layers of debris were clearly dumped along the eastern slope of the City of David, hence their steep gradient. They date to the late 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. Noteworthy is the fact that the complex of Iron II walls mentioned above stood abandoned and exposed on the eastern outskirts of the city, free to their full height for over 700 years, up to the moment when they were covered by these refuse layers.

214 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. and Lender, Y. 2000. Area B: Stratigraphic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 1–32. Avigad, N. and Geva, H. 2000. Iron Age II Strata 9–7. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W andX-2, Final Report, Vol. I .Jerusalem: 44–82. Borowski, O. 2003. Daily Life in Biblical Times (SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies 5). Atlanta. Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2/3: 279–292. Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 119: 12–18. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007. It is, After All, an Iron Age II City-Wall: A Critique of Eilat Mazar’s Suggestion. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 13. Ramat-Gan: 27–34 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 18*). Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 9

AREA J THE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Helena Roth

This chapter presents selected pottery from the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages found in Area J. The pottery originated from two contexts: Floor 56a, which yielded MB II1 pottery (Fig. 9.1), and fills that accumulated on the bedrock, which included Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery (Loci 172, 177; Figs. 8.19, 9.2), sealed by a fill with mixed pottery dating to the MB II and Iron II, directly beneath Wall 513 and to its east (Locus 176; Figs. 8.4, 8.19; 9.2: 24, 47).2 The MB II pottery from Locus 56a originates from a layer of earth, ca. 25 cm thick (640.20– 639.95 masl), overlying a plaster floor, southwest of the corner of Walls 505 and 506. Floor 56a is the only context in the Reich and Shukron excavations presented in the current report that yielded an assemblage of MB II pottery on a floor. The assemblage included small sherds, 11 of which are presented in Fig. 9.1. The assemblage is comprised of storage jar and pithoi fragments, as well as a jug and three bases, which may have been part of open vessels, most likely bowls and a juglet. The pottery from Loci 172 and 177 includes Early Bronze and MB II pottery, as well as pottery that is characteristic of both the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages.

TYPOLOGY Open Bowls Open bowls characterized by a lack of surface treatment are the most common open vessel type in the assemblage. Two main forms of open bowls were found: hemispheric bowls with simple rims (Fig. 9.2: 1–2), and shallow bowls, ranging in size and rim shape (Fig. 9.2: 3–12). The hemispheric bowl with a simple rim occurs throughout the Bronze Age (e.g., Greenberg 2012: Fig. 8.8: 2; Bunimowitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.5: 6; Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.17: 4). Most of the shallow bowls attributed to the MB II have an inverted rim (Figs. 9.1: 1–3; 9.2: 3–5). Both rim types of the hemispheric bowls were found in Shiloh’s Area E (Eisenberg 2012: Pl. 7.1: 1–3 [simple rim], 7–16 [inverted rim]). Sherds of everted and slightly thickened rims are also common in the assemblage (Fig. 9.2: 6–12). These sherds may be assigned to either the MB II (e.g., Yadin 2009: Figs. 7.14: 12, 15; 7.22: 2), or the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.41: 5–6). The lack of complete profiles makes it difficult to distinguish between the MB II and LB I variations of this type. Two flat bases of open vessels, probably of bowls (Fig. 9.1: 5–6), were also found. 1    

2    

The terminology for the Middle Bronze Age used in this pottery report follows Eisenberg (2012: 251), and is based on Kenyon (e.g., 1965: 167), denoting the second part of the Middle Bronze Age (Albright’s MB IIB–C) as MB II. Although Locus 176 contained both Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery, representative examples of the former period alone are presented in this chapter. This is mainly due to the detailed ceramic documentation of the area in light of the abundance of Iron Age pottery from various other loci. This fill should be associated with the construction of Iron Age Wall 513, founded above the surface of the MB II. Therefore, the presence of Iron Age pottery within this context is not surprising.

216 HELENA ROTH

1 2

3

6

4

5

7

8 0

5

9 10

Figure 9.1: MB II Pottery Associated with Floors of Building 56a No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

56a

339/46

Inverted, thickened rim of a large, shallow platter-bowl, ca. 30 cm in diameter. Brown ware, gray core, white grits

2

Bowl

56a

339/69

Inverted, thickened rim of a large, shallow platter-bowl, ca. 26 cm in diameter. Wheel finishing marks on the interior. Brown-orange ware, white grits

3

Bowl

56a

339/66

Inverted, thickened rim of a large, shallow platter-bowl, ca. 28 cm in diameter. Light brown ware

4

Bowl?

56a

339/8

Fragment of a flat base, ca. 10 cm in diameter. Wheel marks on the base. Brown ware, gray core

5

Bowl?

56a

339/5

Fragment of a disc base, 11.5 cm in diameter. Wheel marks on base. Brown to pinkish ware, gray core, small to large white, gray and brown grits

6

Juglet

56a

339/15

Fragment of a disc base, ca. 6 cm in diameter. Wheel finishing marks on the interior. Grayish brown ware, gray core, small and medium white and gray grits (quartz, limestone and other inclusions)

7

Jug

56a

339/28

Everted rim of a jug, ca. 12 cm in diameter, with a small ridge near the inner-upper part, possibly made with a sharp object. 1.4 cm thick rim, 0.5 cm thick wall below rim. Light brown to pinkish ware, white and gray grits of fine and medium size

8

Jar

56a

339/115

Double ledged profile rim of a storage jar, ca. 16 cm in diameter. Brown-gray ware, grits

9

Jar

56a

339/50

Flaring, thickened rim of a storage jar, ca. 18 cm in diameter. Light-brown ware

A R E A J, T H E B R O N Z E A G E P O T T E RY 217

Carinated Bowls Carinated bowls are relatively rare in the assemblage, and in the absence of complete profiles their identification is difficult. Similar to the open bowls, the carinated bowls lack surface treatment. Two types of carinated bowls were found: open (e.g., Fig. 9.2: 13–17) and closed (e.g., Fig. 9.2: 18). The open carinated bowls have everted (Fig. 9.2: 15) or flaring rims (Fig. 9.2: 13, 16–17).3 Another subtype of the open carinated bowls is the S-shaped bowl, with a slight carination and a simple, slightly everted rim (Fig. 9.2: 14). Open carinated bowls of these types are common in MB II contexts (e.g., Bunimowitz and Finkelstein 1993: Figs. 6.5: 10; 6.8: 7; 6.12: 13). The closed carinated bowl has a sharp, angular carination and an everted rim (Fig. 9.2: 18). Open and closed carinated bowl types are common in the MB II assemblages in Area E, yet lacking in the LB II assemblage (e.g., De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 249; Eisenberg 2012: Pl. 7.2: 2, 15).

Kraters Kraters are rare in the assemblage. Two types were identified, represented by two sherds: the rim of a carinated krater (Fig. 9.2: 19) and the rim of a krater with a thickened, everted rim and loop handles (Fig. 9.2: 20).4 Both kraters lack surface treatment. The carinated type, though slightly larger, is also found in Shiloh’s Area E and can be dated to the MB II (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 7.12: 16). Kraters with loop handles appear in the MB II (Bunimowitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.5: 18) and LB I–II (e.g., Bunimowitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.34: 6–9; Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.31: 10). A body sherd, with a band of an incised decoration of oblique dashes, and light brown slip and burnish on its exterior, is possibly a globular footed krater (Fig. 9.2: 43), similar to one discovered in a burial in Dominus Flevit (Saller 1964: 138–139, Fig. 52).5

Cooking Vessels MB II cooking pots are absent from the assemblage. The only cooking ware found was the rim of a MB II baking tray (Fig. 9.2: 21), identified based on its shape and fabric description. Three rims of Late Bronze Age II, wheel made, globular cooking pots, two with triangular profiles (Fig. 9.2: 22–23), and one with a ridged profile (Fig. 9.2: 24), were found in the fill of Locus 177. Parallels to these types can be found at Aphek (e.g., Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.41: 15, 18, 19).

Storage Jars As the storage jars found in Area J are primarily represented by rims, the distinction between pithoi and storage jars is difficult. Therefore, in the current report, the large containers are not distinguished, and appear together under this category. A MB II storage jar with a thickened, everted, double ledged rim is represented by two sherds (Figs. 9.1: 8; 9.2: 25). Another type attributed to the MB II is a jar with a thickened, steeply everted, outfolded rim (Figs. 9.1: 9, 9.2: 26). One additional type assigned to the MB II is represented by a thickened, steeply everted rim, with a small ridge at the bottom of the rim (Fig. 9.2: 27). Two thickened, everted, and outfolded rims of storage jars have a small ridge at the top of the rim (Fig. 9.2: 28–30). Such jars are common in the MB II (e.g., Singer-Avitz 2004a: Fig. 16.14: 6; Eisenberg 2012: Figs. 7.5: 14; 7.12: 18; 7.20: 9), although they continue 3    

4     5    

In the case of the bowl in Fig. 9.2: 17, the carination was not preserved, and the type was reconstructed based on the shape, thickness and diameter of the rim, similar to the carinated bowl in Fig. 9.2: 16. Only one handle was preserved. This type is known to have two or four handles. For an alternative identification as a jug, see further below.

218 HELENA ROTH

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

7

9

10

11

13

12

14

15

17

18

16

19

20

21

22

23 0

5

Figure 9.2: Pottery on bedrock east of western Wall 513.

24 10

A R E A J, T H E B R O N Z E A G E P O T T E RY 219

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

38

39

37 0

2

1

40

41

42

43

44

45

0

5

10

Figure 9.2 (cont.): Pottery on bedrock east of western Wall 513.

220 HELENA ROTH

Figure 9.2: Pottery on Bedrock East of Western Wall 513 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Bowl

172

907/33

Simple rim of hemispheric bowl. Light brown ware

2

Bowl

177

930/18

Simple rim of deep bowl. Orange-brown ware

3

Bowl

172

907/35

Inverted molded rim of shallow bowl. Light brown ware

4

Bowl

172

907/38

Inverted triangle ledge rim of large bowl. Light brown ware, gray core, grits

5

Bowl

172

907/33

Inverted and folded rim profile of shallow bowl. Light brown ware

6

Bowl

172

907/32

Everted and thickened rim of shallow bowl. Light brown ware

7

Bowl

172

907/27

Everted and thickened rim of shallow S-shaped bowl. Gray ware

8

Bowl

172

907/30

Everted rim of shallow carinated S-shaped bowl. Light brown ware

9

Bowl

172

907/31

Everted and folded rim of shallow carinated S-shaped bowl. Light brown ware

10

Bowl

172

907/27

Everted rim of shallow carinated S-shaped bowl. Brown ware, gray core

16

Carinated bowl

177

930/13

Flaring, simple rim and partial carination of open carinated bowl. Light, brown ware

17

Carinated bowl

177

930/15

Flaring, simple rim possibly of an open carinated bowl (though the carination itself was not preserved). Gray ware

18

Carinated bowl

177

930/14

Flaring, simple rim and partial carination of a closed carinated bowl. Gray ware

19

Krater

177

930/12

Rim of a carinated krater, with an everted, thickened and somewhat squared rim. Orange-brown ware

20

Krater/bowl with handles

177

930/6

Everted, thickened rim, with a vertical loop handle attached to it. Light brown ware

21

Baking tray

172

907/25

Simple rim of a large bowl, made of cooking pot ware. Brown ware, black grits, coarse texture

22

Cooking pot

177

930/7

Everted, thickened and triangular rim of a wheel-made cooking pot, with a globular and carinated or S-shaped body and a rounded base. Dark brown ware

23

Cooking pot

177

930/8

Slightly everted, thickened and triangular rim of wheel-made cooking pot, with a globular and carinated or S-shaped body with a rounded base. Dark brown ware

24

Cooking pot

176

929/1

Slightly everted, thickened and ridged triangular rim of wheel-made type cooking pot, with a globular and carinated or S-shaped body with a rounded base. Dark brown ware, grits, traces of soot

25

Storage jar

177

930/2

Double ledged profile rim, slightly rounded. Light brown-gray ware, grits

26

Storage jar

177

907/15

Everted folded rim of a storage jar, shaped at its bottom seam to the neck with a sharp tool. Light brown ware

27

Storage jar

172

907/18

Steeply everted rim of a storage jar or pithos, with a lower ridge ca. 17 cm in diameter. Brown ware

28

Storage jar

172

907/13

Everted, thickened, and outfolded rim of a storage jar, with a narrow ridge on top. The rim and neck create a relatively straight profile. Light brown ware

29

Storage jar

172

907/13

Everted, thickened, and outfolded rim of a storage jar, with a narrow ridge on top. The rim and neck create a relatively straight profile. Light brown ware

30

Storage jar

172

907/16

Everted, thickened, and outfolded rim of a storage jar, with a narrow ridge on top. The rim and neck create a relatively straight profile. Light brown ware

31

Storage jar

172

907/17

Inverted, thickened and outfolded rim of a storage jar. The rim and neck create a relatively straight profile. Light brown ware

32

Storage jar

177

930/4

Inverted, thickened and outfolded rim of a storage jar. The rim and neck create a relatively straight profile. Light brown ware

A R E A J, T H E B R O N Z E A G E P O T T E RY 221 No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

33

Storage jar

172

907/14

Straight, thickened and outfolded rim of a storage jar with a triangular profile. The rim and neck create a relatively straight profile. Light brown ware

34

Storage jar

172

907/10

Fragment of a rounded base of a storage jar. Light brown ware, gray core, grits

35

Storage jar

172

907/8

Base of a storage jar. Light brown ware, gray core

36

Storage jar

172

907/9

Base of a storage jar. Light brown ware, gray core

37

Storage jar

177

930/10

Body sherd of a jar with an engraved vertical dash decoration. Brown-gray ware

38

Holemouth

172

907/24

Simple rim of a holemouth jar or cooking pot. Brown-gray ware

39

Holemouth

176

929/2

Inverted, ledged rim of a holemouth jar. Light brown ware, grits

40

Jug

172

907/22

Flaring rim of a jug, with two internal ridges, close to the rim. Gray ware

41

Jug

177

930/5

Everted rim of a jug, folded outwards and fashioned with a sharp tool on the top and bottom ends. Light brown ware

42

Jug

177

930/11

Rim of a trefoil-mouth jug, approximately 8 cm in diameter. Light brown ware

43

Body sherd

172

907/45

Body sherd, possibly of a footed vase, or a jug, with a band of incised decoration of oblique dashes. Brown-gray ware, light brown slip with burnish outside, band of impressed decoration

44

Juglet

172

907/43

Double handle, possibly of a cylindrical juglet, made of two flattened coils joined together. The handle was attached to the body at the angled shoulder. Light brown ware

45

Juglet

172

907/44

Flaring, thickened rim, long narrow neck and a loop handle attached to the neck at a steep angle below the rim. Brown ware, dark brown slip

6

to appear during the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.42: 1). Two other vessels (Fig. 9.2: 31–32) are characterized by an inverted, thickened, and outfolded rim, which along with the neck creates a relatively straight profile. This type is common during both the MB II (e.g., Cole 1984: Pl. 42: JJ.5.l) and LB (e.g., Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.65: 5). A sixth type of storage jar identified has a straight, thickened and outfolded rim, with a triangular profile, which along with the neck creates a relatively straight profile (Fig. 9.2: 33). This type occurs during the MB II (e.g., Dever et al. 1974: Pl.13.3), although it is more common during the LB (e.g., Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.42: 1). In addition to the storage jar rims discussed above, three jar bases were retrieved (Fig. 9.2: 34– 36). These storage jar bases are narrow and rounded, and reflect Middle Bronze ceramic traditions, which continue into the Late Bronze Age, during which the bases become narrower and more rounded (e.g., Singer-Avitz 2004a: Fig. 16.32: 4; Gadot 2009: Fig. 8.52: 1). A thick sherd with incised decoration (Fig. 9.2: 37) may also belong to a storage jar, parallels to which were found in MB II Jerusalem (Area E, Eisenberg 2012: Fig., 7.22: 14; Cave IV, Steiner 2001: Fig. 3.13: 69).

Holemouth Jars Two sherds of holemouth jars were discovered in Area J. A thickened, simple rim of a holemouth jar (Fig. 9.2: 38) is dated to the Early Bronze Age (e.g., Greenberg 2012: Fig. 8.8: 17). An inverted, ledged rim of a holemouth jar (Fig. 9.2: 39) is dated to the Middle Bronze Age (e.g., Wall 3, Steiner 2012: Fig. 3.7: 112). 6    

The identification of the vessel as a jug is uncertain due to the absence of scale. The morphology of the rim is similar to that of a pithoi.

222 HELENA ROTH

Jugs Three types of jugs, represented by three sherds, all without surface treatment, are present in the assemblage. One jug has a narrow neck and a flaring rim (Fig. 9.2: 40). Another jug has a relatively wide neck and an everted rim (Figs. 9.1: 7, 9.2: 41). The third jug has a trefoil rim (Fig. 9.2: 42). Parallels for the two latter types are present in Area E (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 7.4: 12, 15). A body sherd with a band of an incised decoration of oblique dashes, and light brown slip and burnish on its exterior (Fig. 9.2: 43), may also represent a fourth type of jug, such as a similar jug found at Dominus Flevit (Saller 1964: 74, Fig. 23).7

Juglets Juglets are rare in the assemblage, and are represented by two sherds: the fragment of a double handle of a cylindrical juglet (Fig. 9.2: 44), and a flaring rim with a loop handle and dark brown slip which may belong to either a pyriform or a cylindrical juglet (Fig. 9.2: 45). The base of a cylindrical juglet was also found (Fig. 9.1: 6). Middle Bronze cylindrical juglets, as well as juglets with flaring rims, were found in small numbers in Area E in Jerusalem (Eisenberg 2012: Pl. 2.4: 2, 4). The relative rarity of juglets is not surprising as these vessels are often found in burials and are less common in settlement contexts.

DISCUSSION The Bronze Age pottery found in Area J for the most part originated in fills (Loci 172, 176 and 177), with only MB II ceramic material originating on floors (e.g., Locus 56a; Fig. 9.1; see further discussion below). The pottery from Locus 172 is primarily dated to the Middle Bronze Age, with a limited occurrence of Early Bronze Age types, as well as types that continue to appear also during the Late Bronze Age. However, no types exclusively dating to the Late Bronze Age were identified. Therefore, it appears that Locus 172 should be attributed to the MB II, despite the presence of certain types that continue to appear in the LB II. In contrast, Locus 177 yielded pottery from the MB II, with a number of types that continue to appear during the Late Bronze, as well as two distinct Late Bronze vessels (Fig. 9.2: 22, 23). Therefore, Locus 177 may date to the Late Bronze, or possibly later. In addition, Middle Bronze pottery mixed with Iron II material, was discovered in a fill (Locus 176; Fig. 9.2) overlying the previously mentioned fills (Loci 172 and 177), as well as below and east of Wall 513, dated to the Iron II. Eleven vessel fragments, found on Floor 56a, were kept and drawn, and found to be characteristic of MB II Jerusalem. Included were three shallow bowls with inverted rims (Fig. 9.1: 1–3), two open vessels, identified by their bases as bowls or other open vessels (Fig. 9.1: 4–5), four storage jars, one with a double molded rim and one with a flaring and thickened rim (Fig. 9.1: 8–11), one jug with an inverted rim (Fig. 9.1: 7) and the base of a cylindrical juglet (Fig. 9.1: 6). Parallels to all of the indicative sherds from Locus 56a were found in nearby MB II assemblages, particularly Shiloh’s Area E. Most of the forms have parallels in Stratum 17B (Fig. 9.1: 1–4), with only the jug depicted in Fig. 9.1: 7 having parallels in Stratum 18, and the storage jar in Fig. 9.1: 9 found in all subphases of Stratum 17. Therefore, it appears that the dating of Building 56a is contemporary with Shiloh’s Stratum 17B, which dates to the middle phase of the MB II (Eisenberg 2012: 272–273). It is important to note that although chronologically contemporary, there are differences between the assemblage found in Locus 56a and Area E: in the former, none of the vessels show signs of surface treatment and cooking pots are completely absent whereas in Area E they were quite common (Eisenberg 2012: 257, Fig. 7.3: 6–15). 7    

For an alternative identification as a globular, footed krater, see above.

A R E A J, T H E B R O N Z E A G E P O T T E RY 223

REFERENCES Bunimowitz, S. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Pottery. In: Finkelstein, I. ed. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 81–196. Cole, D. P. 1984. Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Winona Lake. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Stratigraphy. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IIA: Area E, Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem: 9–140. Dever, W.G., Lance, H.D., Bullard, R.G., Cole, D.P., and Seger, J.D. 1974. Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem. Eisenberg, E. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 18–17 (Middle Bronze Age). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IIB: Area E, the Finds (Qedem 54) Jerusalem: 251–302. Gadot, Y. 2009. Late Bronze and Iron Age Pottery. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. eds. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis, The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 182–341. Greenberg, R. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 20–19 (the Earliest Periods and Early Bronze Age). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IIB: Area E, the Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 303–330. Kenyon, K. M. 1965. Excavations at Jericho: Volume Two: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London. Saller, S.J. 1964. The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem), Part II: The Jebusite Burial Place. Jerusalem. Singer-Avitz, L. 2004a. The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas D and P. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 966–970. Steiner, M. L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. London. Yadin, E. 2009. Middle Bronze Age Pottery. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E., eds. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis, The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 111–181. Yannai, E. 2004. The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1032–1146.

CHAPTER 10

AREA J THE IRON AGE POTTERY Efrat Bocher

The Iron Age pottery from Area J was for the most part brought from fills that stratigraphically relate to the architectural features uncovered in the area in order to provide a secure chronological framework for their construction and use. These fills include 1) the fill between Wall 509 (Channel I) and the bedrock to its west; 2) pottery that abutted the lower eastern face of Wall 501; 3) pottery that sealed Walls 501, 513, 502 and 503; and tt that abutted Wall 501’s western face. Parallels for the current assemblage were brought primarily from other excavation areas of the site itself—Shiloh’s areas, the Giv>ati Parking Lot, the Summit of the City of David and the Jewish Quarter. Certain parallels were drawn from other sites, such as Ramat Raḥel, particularly in cases where no parallels could be drawn from Jerusalem itself.

TYPOLOGY Pottery from Locus 86 (Fig. 10.1) Channel I (Locus 77) crosses Area J along a general northern axis, abutting a low rock scarp on the west. The sloping bedrock made it necessary to construct the channel with stone-built walls. Thus, the western wall is partially cut into the bedrock, with its upper portion constructed of stone (Wall 509), while its eastern wall is entirely constructed of small stones (Wall 510). Whereas the debris and finds discovered within Channel I have no bearing on the dating of its construction, the fill abutting the channel’s wall (Locus 86, see Fig. 8.3) can provide a terminus post quem for the channel’s construction. This pottery dates primarily to the 8th century BCE (see below). Bowls (Fig. 10.1: 1–6)

Bowl with outward-folded rim (Fig. 10.1: 1): This bowl has an outward-folded rim with a triangular section and is commonly found throughout the City of David: Area E, Strata 12–11 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 63–64, Fig. 4.2: 3–4, Type B8b1); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 17, 18: 29, 19: 15, 21: 10, 22: 13) and the Giv>ati Parking Lot, Phase XIA (BenAmi 2013: Fig. 3.6: 13). Bowl with everted rim (Fig. 10.1: 2–4): The everted rim on this type of bowl forms a shelf. This type of bowl is common in every stage of Strata 12–10 in the City of David (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 60), for example in Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 60, Fig. 4.1: 7–9, Type B4b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 18: 28, 19: 5, 20: 4, 22: 1, 7–8, 23: 10). Large bowl with folded rim (Fig. 10.1: 5–6): These rounded bowls are characterized by their size and rim form, which is folded outward. This type is common in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE in Judah. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 225

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

5

10

Figure 10.1: Pottery from Foundation Trench of Channel I No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

457/13

86

Brown wware, burnished interior and external rim

2

Bowl

457/9

86

Brown ware, white grits

3

Bowl

456/2

86

Gray-black ware, burnished interior and external rim

4

Bowl

457/16

86

Brown ware

5

Bowl

457/12

86

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

6

Bowl

457/8

86

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

7

Holemouth jar

457/21

86

Brown ware, white grits

2 2 6 E F R AT B O C H E R

Greenberg 2012a: 62–64, Figs. 4.2: 1–2, 4.19: 7, 4.20: 11, 4.25: 19, Type B8a); Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 8.8–11, 9: 7–9); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 8–9, 18: 7, 20: 28) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 247, Fig. 5.4.52–56, Type B9: I). Holemouth Jar (Fig. 10.1: 7)

Only one type of holemouth jar was found in the assemblage. It has a smooth, peg-shaped rim (Fig. 10.1: 7). This type occurs mainly in Strata 12B–12A (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 82). Freud (2016: 262, Type HMJ4) showed that this type was common in Judah during the end of 8th and the beginning of the 7th centuries BCE. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12B–12A (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 82, Fig. 4.6: 1, Type Hm2a); and in Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 26: 1–2, 6). This type was also common in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (De Groot, Geva and Yezerski 2003: Pl. 1.1: 9–10, 28, Type B).

Pottery Abutting the Lower Eastern Face of Wall 501 (Fig. 10.2) Locus 91 abuts the outer corner of the offset of Wall 501, on the lowest courses of the wall (Figs. 8.1, 8.27, 8.54). The ceramic assemblage found primarily dates to the 8th century BCE, with the exception of one jar fragment (Fig. 10.2: 6) that is dated to the 10th–9th centuries BCE. Bowls (Fig. 10.2: 1–3)

Carinated bowl (Fig. 10.2: 1): Carinated bowls with sharpened, slightly everted rim, appear in the 8th century BCE (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 65). Bowls similar to the one from Area J were found in the City of David: Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 65, Fig. 4.2: 9–10, Type B9); Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 8: 1, 3); and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 23: 7). Bowl with everted rim (Fig. 10.2: 2): See above, Fig. 10.1: 2. Large bowl with folded rim (Fig. 10.2: 3): See above, Fig. 10.1: 6. Cooking Pot (Fig. 10.2: 4)

One cooking pot was found in the assemblage (Fig. 10.2: 4). The rim of the vessel has an outer-thickened, grooved rim, which thins out along the wall. Parallels were found in the City of David in Area E, Strata 12A–11 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 68, Fig. 4.3: 8, Type CP7). Pithos (Fig. 10.2: 5)

The pithos shown in Fig. 10.2: 5 has rounded shoulders and a folded, inverted rim. The vessel’s shoulder is very wide, typical for such vessels. Parallels are known from the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 90, Fig. 4.8.5, Type SJ8) and Cave I (Eshel 1995: Fig. 30: 11). Storage Jars (Fig. 10.2: 6)

The storage jar fragment found in the assemblage has a straight neck with an outer thickened rim with a ridge (Fig. 10.2: 6). This type, found in Strata 15–14 in the City of David, is earlier than the rest of the assemblage (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 208 Fig. 5.4: 7–8). These vessels are characteristic of northern Israel, where they appear over a long period of time.

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 227

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

0

5

10

Figure 10.2: Pottery Abutting Lower Part of Eastern Face of Wall 501 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

468/36

91

Brown ware

2

Bowl

468/6

91

Brown ware, dark red slip and burnish on interior and top of rim

3

Bowl

468/40

91

Brown ware, gray core, burnished interior and top of rim

4

Cooking pot

468/30

91

Brown ware, dark brown core, white grits

5

Pithos

468/43

91

Light brown ware, gray core

6

Jar

468/25

91

Brown ware, gray core

7

Oil lamp

468/27

91

Light brown ware, very low base

2 2 8 E F R AT B O C H E R

Lamp (Fig. 10.2: 7)

The lamps found in the assemblage have a thickened base (Fig. 10.2: 7), very common in late Iron Judah. They first appear in Stratum 12 in the City of David, for example in Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 92, Fig. 4.9: 2, Type L2) and Cave I (Eshel 1995: Fig. 8: 13–16, 32: 4–12).

Pottery Sealing Wall 501 (Fig. 10.3) Wall 501 (particularly its northern segment) was sealed beneath a layer of light yellowish–brown debris (Loci 22, 88), relatively free of stones and gravel, and containing only a small amount of pottery (Figs. 8.6, 8.34). This 1st century CE fill’s matrix was very distinct from the loose fills of earth, gravel and large amounts of pottery that sealed it (Loci 10, 21, 25). The ceramic assemblage found in the fills can be dated to the 8th century BCE, although most of the types continued to appear in the 7th century BCE.1 Two of the cooking pots (Fig. 10.3: 6–7) are earlier than the rest of the assemblage, more common in Strata 15–14 of the City of David, and are likely residual (see further discussion below). Bowls (Fig. 10.3: 1–3)

Bowls with a slightly carinated wall (Fig. 10.3: 1): The carinated bowls in this assemblage are characterized by an inner-cut rim. This type begins to appear in Stratum 14 in the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 58), although it can also be found in later assemblages, such as Area E, Strata 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 58, Fig. 4.1: 3–4, Type B3) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 20: 6). Bowl with external groove on wall (Fig. 10.3: 2): This bowl has a slightly thickened rim and incised groove on the upper, outer wall. This type usually occurs with a number of grooves below the rim and a carination on the lower wall. Parallels from the City of David are known from Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 60, Fig. 4.1: 11–12, Type B5); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 24: 2, 3) and Cave I (Eshel 1995: Fig. 12: 1–3). Large, open bowl (Fig. 10.3: 3): This bowl has a hammerhead rim with a triangular cross-section. Parallels from the City of David are known from Area E, Stratum 12–10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 66, Figs. 4.2.15, 4.24.1, Type B13); Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 9: 14); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 7, 21: 13) and Cave I (Eshel 1995: Fig. 13: 13). Kraters (Fig. 10.3: 4–5)

The kraters found in this assemblage have a folded rim, similar to those described above, found in the fill to the east of Wall 501 (see Fig. 10.2: 3). Cooking Pots (Fig. 10.3: 6–8)

Cooking pot with a straight, upright rim (Fig. 10.3: 6): This pot, with a straight upright rim, has a number of ridges on the outer rim. This type appears in Strata 15–14 of the City of David, for example in Area E, Strata 15–14 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 206, Fig. 5.3: 7–8, Type CP4). Open, carinated cooking pot (Fig. 10.3: 7): This type, which continues Late Bronze cooking pot traditions, has a wide opening and everted rim, triangular in section. It appears to be an earlier, 1    

Additional vessels from Locus 88 were drawn subsequent to the excavation, however, the sherds and drawings could not be found during the preparation of this publication. Interestingly, these vessels included types which were more typical of the 7th century BCE, such as two lamps with a thick disc base.

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 229

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 0

5

10

Figure 10.3: Pottery Sealing Wall 501 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

127/8

22

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

2

Bowl

127/11

22

Light brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

3

Bowl

127/10

22

Brown ware, gray core, burnished interior and external rim

4

Krater

127/7

22

Brown ware, gray core, burnished interior and external rim

5

Krater

127/6

22

Reddish-brown ware, brown core, grits, burnished interior and external rim

6

Cooking pot

127/3

22

Brown ware, grits

7

Cooking pot

127/2

22

Dark brown ware, grits

8

Cooking pot

123/4

22

Brown ware

9

Jar

127/1

22

Reddish-brown ware, white grits

2 3 0 E F R AT B O C H E R

residual sherd, like the previous cooking pot. Iron Age parallels were found in Stratum 15 of the City of David, but not in Stratum 14 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 204, Fig. 5.3.1, CP1). Globular cooking pot with an upright neck (Fig. 10.3: 8): The closed cooking pot is a very common type found in late Iron Judah. The example here has several ridges on the neck. Similar vessels were found in the City of David in Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 68–70, Fig. 4.3: 11–12, Photo 4.28, Type CCP2) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 249, Fig. 5.6.88, Type CP2). Storage Jar (Fig. 10.3: 9)

The storage jar found in the assemblage is characterized by a short neck and a thickened, inverted rim (Fig. 10.3: 9). Such storage jars occur throughout the Iron II, also known as lmlk type jars (e.g., Freud 2016: 262, Fig. 16.3:1, Type JR1). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 85, Fig. 4.6: 5–6, Type SJ2b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 20.31).

Pottery Sealing Wall 513 (Fig. 10.4) Overlying Wall 513 on the western side of the excavation, a layer of light brown debris (Locus 175) was excavated. It contained pottery that primarily dated to the end of the Iron Age, i.e., the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. A single sherd with a wedge-shape impression (Fig. 10.4: 7) was discovered in this assemblage. This type of decoration is common in the Persian period, particularly in late 6th century BCE and the beginning of the 5th century BCE. It is possible that this single fragment was erroneously included in this locus and should be attributed to the locus above it, or that it provides the terminus ante quem of Wall 513, which may have been in use in the early Persian period. Bowls (Fig. 10.4: 1–4)

The bowls found in this assemblage have an outward-folded rim, similar to those described above, found in Locus 86 (see above, Fig. 10.1: 1). Krater (Fig. 10.4: 5)

The kraters found in this assemblage have a folded rim, similar to those described above, found in the fill to the east of Wall 501 (see above, Fig. 10.2: 3). Holemouth Jars (Fig. 10.4: 6, 7)

Peg-shaped holemouth jar (Fig. 10.4: 6): The smooth, peg-shaped holemouth jar found here is slightly different from the one found in Shiloh’s Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 82, Type Hm2). This type is small to medium sized, with a cylindrical body and a slightly carinated shoulder. This is probably a late type of holemouth jar, dating to the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, similar to those found on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 254, Fig. 5.11: 164–166, Type HJ). Holemouth jar with wedge-shaped impressions (Fig. 10.4: 7): As noted above, a single sherd of a storage jar bearing a horizontal row of wedge-shaped impressions was found in the assemblage. This type of decoration is characteristic of the late 6th and 5th centuries BCE (Stern 1982: 133; 2015a: 570: Freud 2018: 186). Lamp (Fig. 10.4: 8)

Lamps with a high, very thick disc base are characteristic of the late Iron Age in the City of David, appearing from Stratum 12A to Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 92–94). Such

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 231

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 0

5

10

Figure 10.4: Pottery Sealing Wall 513 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

912/2

175

Reddish brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

2

Bowl

912/3

175

Brown ware, gray core, burnished interior and external rim

3

Bowl

912/4

175

Brown ware, gray core, burnished interior and external rim

4

Bowl

912/5

175

Brown ware, gray core, grits

5

Krater

912/1

175

Brown ware, gray core, grits, burnished interior

6

Holemouth

912/6

175

Light brown ware

7

Jar

916/7

175

Body fragment, brown ware, impressions of triangles

8

Oil lamp

916/8

175

Base of vessel trimmed to be reused as a stopper, brown ware, medium-height base

2 3 2 E F R AT B O C H E R

lamps were found, for example, in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 92–94, Fig. 4.9: 4, Type L3); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 18.31) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 257, Fig. 5.15: 225–227, Type L3). They were also found at nearby Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016: Fig. 16.2, Type L1).

Pottery Sealing Wall 502 (Fig. 10.5) Wall 502 was built directly on bedrock, with at least two distinct constructional phases. The fill sealing the wall (Locus 97) yielded pottery primarily dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. Bowls (Fig. 10.5: 1–3)

Thin, deep bowl (Fig. 10.5: 1): Thin deep bowls with a thin wall and sharp rim are also known as rice bowls. This type first appears in Stratum 12B and continues into Stratum 11 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 61). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 61, Fig. 4.1: 19–20, Type B7a); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 9, 17: 4, 19: 9, 20: 2, 12); and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 246, Fig. 5.2: 22–23, Type B3). Bowls with an everted rim (Fig. 10.5: 2): See above, Fig. 10.1: 2–4. Flat bowl with down-turned rim (Fig. 10.5: 3): This type occurs in the latest phases of the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 61). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 11–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 61, Figs. 4.1: 17, 4.39: 3, Type B6c) and on the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 245, Fig. 5.1: 8–18, Type B1). Krater (Fig. 10.5: 4)

One example of a krater was found in the assemblage, with a folded rim, similar to that found in Locus 91 (see above, Fig. 10.2: 3). Cooking Pot (Fig. 10.5: 5)

A closed cooking pot with a globular body and upright neck was found in the assemblage, similar to that found in Locus 22 (see above, Fig. 10.3: 8). Holemouth Jar (Fig. 10.5: 6)

One holemouth jar was found in the assemblage. It had a thickened rim and a ridge on the shoulder. Similar vessels were found on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 254, Fig. 5.11: 161, Type HJ1). Lamp (Fig. 10.5: 7)

An additional lamp with a high ring base, similar to the example found in Locus 175 (see above, Fig. 10.4: 8).

Pottery Abutting the Western Face of Wall 501 (Fig.10.6)2 Represents pottery from fills that were dumped against the western face of Wall 501 (Loci 112–117). Most of the material dates to the 8th century BCE, with a small number of vessels that continue 2    

The pottery from Figure 10.6: Pottery abutting western face of Wall 501 was first published in Reich and Shukron 2007.

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 233

1

2

3 4

5

6 0

5

7 10

Figure 10.5: Pottery Sealing Wall 502 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

601/2

97

Thin wall, orange ware near rim, gray near base

2

Bowl

594/7

97

Brown ware, gray core, grits, burnished interior

3

Bowl

601/1

97

Reddish-brown ware, burnished interior and exterior

4

Krater

602/2

97

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, burnished interior

5

Cooking pot

601/20

97

Brown ware

6

Holemouth jar

601/6

97

Light brown ware, grits

7

Oil lamp

594/1

97

Base of lamp trimmed to become a stopper, brown ware, gray core, low base

to appear in the 7th century BCE. Earlier residual pottery, similar to pottery from Shiloh’s Strata 15–14, dating to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE was also present in small amounts. Bowls (Fig. 10.6: 1–7)

Bowls with everted rim (Fig 10.6: 1-2): See above, Fig. 10.1: 2–4. Large open bowl (Fig. 10.6: 3): See above, Fig. 10.3: 3. Bowl with outward-folded rim (Fig 10.6: 4): See above, Fig. 10.1: 1. Bowl with pinched handle (Fig 10.6: 5): This medium-sized, slightly carinated bowl has a small knob handle attached to the rim. This feature is not common in Strata 12–10 of the City of David, although it appears in Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 66, Fig. 4.2: 16, Type B14) and Area D1 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 17: 22), although the bowls are of a different shape. The bowl found here is similar in shape to bowls from Strata 15–14 of the City of David, Area E (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 200, Type B2b, Fig. 5.1: 11). Thin, deep bowl (Fig. 10.6: 6): See above, Fig. 10.5: 1. Folded rim bowl (Fig. 10.6: 7): This bowl has a slightly rounded wall and is typical of the end of the Iron Age (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 64). Parallels from the City of David were

2 3 4 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

17

19 20

21

22

0

Figure 10.6: Pottery abutting western face of Wall 501.

5

10

23

24

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 235

found in Area E, Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 64, Fig. 4.2: 6, Type B8b2) and Area B, Stratum 10 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 10: 1). Kraters (Fig. 10.6.)

The kraters in this assemblage display a folded rim similar to those found in Locus 91, east of Wall 501 (see above, Fig. 10.2: 3). Holemouth Jars (Fig. 10.6: 15–17)

Plain rim holemouth jar (Fig. 10.6: 15–17): These vessels are typified by a flat rim that is perpendicular to the wall. This type is common in Judah during the end of 7th–6th centuries BCE (Freud 2016: 262, Type HMJ 1.1). Parallels from the City of David are known from Stratum 10 (Shiloh 1984: Pl. 24: 1).

Figure 10.6: Pottery Abutting Western Face of Wall 501 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

613/23

112

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

2

Bowl

613/6

112

Brown ware, white grits, burnished interior and external rim

3

Bowl

618/24

113

Light brown ware, red slip, burnished interior and external rim

4

Bowl

617/37

113

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

5

Bowl

620/5

116

Brown ware, pinched handle, burnished interior and external rim

6

Bowl

626/10

117

Brown ware, grits, burnished interior and external rim

7

Bowl

626/6

117

Brown ware, grits, burnished interior and external rim

8

Krater

613/5

112

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

9

Krater

613/13

112

Brown ware, gray core, grits

10

Krater

617/17

113

Light brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

11

Krater

617/3

113

Brown ware, burnished interior and external rim

12

Krater

618/11

113

Brown ware, gray core, grits, burnished interior and external rim

13

Krater

619/20

115

Brown ware, grits, burnished interior and external rim

14

Krater?

617/28

113

Brown ware, white grits, burnished interior and external rim

15

Holemouth jar

619/4

115

Light brown ware

16

Holemouth jar

617/10

113

Light brown ware

17

Holemouth jar

672/16

113

Brown ware, white grits

18

Cooking pot

615/21

113

Brown ware, gray core

19

Jar

615/4

113

Light brown ware

20

Jar

620/13

116

Brown ware, grits, spout with funnel

21

Jar

613/10

112

Light brown ware, grits

22

Jug

617/6

113

Light brown ware

23

Juglet

620/21

116

Light brown ware

24

Oil lamp

618/1

113

Brown ware, object made into a stopper, medium-height base

2 3 6 E F R AT B O C H E R

Cooking Pot (Fig. 10.6: 18)

The only cooking pot found in the assemblage is a closed, globular cooking pot with a grooved rim (see above, Fig. 10.2: 4). Storage Jars (Fig. 10.6: 19–21)

Bag-shaped jar (Fig. 10.6: 19): Medium size storage jar with folded rim and wide neck. Spouted jar (Fig. 10.6: 20): External cup of funnel spout, attached to the shoulder of the vessel. Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12–10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 86, Fig. 4.7: 4, Type SJ4) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 25, 27: 12). Storage jar with a straight, simple rim (Fig. 10.6: 21): This type of jar is common throughout the Iron Age. Parallels from the City of David are known from Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 85, Fig. 4.6: 5–6, Type SJ2a); Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 8.21); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 26: 13) and Cave I (Eshel 1995: Fig. 27: 4). Jug (Fig. 10.6: 22)

Rounded rim jug (Fig. 10.6: 22): This type is similar in form to the decanter, but its neck is shorter and lacks the ridge. Similar jugs were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 71, Fig. 4.4: 10, Photos 4.48, Type J1). Juglet (Fig. 10.6: 23)

One fragment of a juglet was found in the assemblage. It belongs to a cylindrical dipper juglet with a high, straight neck and pinched rim. Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 71, Fig. 4.4: 1, Photos 4.34–4.37, Type Jt1b) and Area D1, Strata 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 17: 11). Lamp (Fig. 10.6: 24)

One lamp with a high base was found in the assemblage, similar to those found elsewhere in Area J (see above, Fig. 10.4: 8).

Pottery Sealing Wall 503 (Fig. 10.7) Wall 503 was sealed beneath Iron II fills (Loci 135–137, 143, 151), yielding a ceramic assemblage similar in nature to that found in the fills abutting the wall’s western face. Most of the material dates to the 8th century BCE, with a small number of vessels that continue to appear in the 7th century BCE (Fig. 10.7: 7). Earlier pottery, similar to that found in Shiloh’s Strata 15–14 (Fig. 10.7: 6) seems to be residual. Bowls (Figs. 10.7: 1–2)

Rounded bowl (Fig. 10.7: 1): This type begins to appear in Strata 15–14, and continues to be found in small numbers in Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 57–58). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 57–58, Fig. 4.1: 2, Type B1c) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 20: 19). Bowl with diagonally everted rim (Fig. 10.7: 2): This bowl has a rim with a triangular section. Only a few examples were found in Strata 12–11 of the City of David, such as in Area E, Strata 12–

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 237

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

5

10

7

8 0

2

4

Figure 10.7: Pottery Sealing Wall 503 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

660/1

137

Light brown ware, yellowish-white slip, burnished interior and exterior

2

Bowl

653/11

143

Brown ware, gray core, grits, burnished interior and external rim

3

Krater

660/4

137

Greenish-gray ware, grits, burnished interior

4

Krater

673/5

151

Brown ware, gray core, burnished interior and external rim

5

Cooking pot

653/7

143

Brown ware, gray core, grits, burnished interior and external rim

6

Cooking pot

653/5

143

Brown ware, white grits

7

Jar

647/38

137

Light brown ware

8

Oil lamp

647/24

137

Brown ware, gray core, object trimmed as a stopper, low base

9

Figurine

653/1

143

Brown ware, black core, pillar figurine with hands supporting breasts, head and base missing

2 3 8 E F R AT B O C H E R

11 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 66, Fig. 4.2: 17–18, Type B15) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 18: 8). Krater (Fig. 10.7: 3–4)

Krater with folded rim (Fig. 10.7: 3): See above, Fig. 10.2: 3. Krater with thickened rim (Fig. 10.7: 4): This krater is characterized by a rim projecting inside and outside and a carinated body. Similar vessels were found on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: Fig. 5.3: 49). Cooking Pot (Fig. 10.7: 5)

One cooking pot with a straight neck and ridges on the rim was found in the assemblage. This vessel is similar to the cooking pot found in Locus 22 (see Fig. 10.3: 6). Storage Jar (Fig. 10.7: 6)

One storage jar with a high, wide neck was found in the assemblage. The rim is thickened and slightly everted. This type begins to appear in the City of David in Stratum 12A and is widespread until the end of the Iron Age (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 85). Parallels from the City of David are known from Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 85–86, Fig. 4.7: 2, Type SJ3b). Lamp (Fig. 10.7: 7)

Lamp with thickened base (Fig. 10.7: 7): This type, which is very common in Iron Age Judah, first appears in Shiloh’s Stratum 12B. Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 92, Fig. 4.9: 3, Type L2/3) and Cave I (Eshel 1995: Figs. 8: 13–16, 32: 4–12). Figurine (Fig. 10.7: 8)

One fragment of a Judean Pillar Figurine, common in late Iron Age Judah, was found in the assemblage (see Chapter 30).

CONCLUSIONS Several ceramic assemblages from Area J dating to the Iron II were analyzed, all of which are chronologically homogeneous. Loci 86 and 91, which provide a chronological framework for the construction and use of Channel I and Wall 501, can be dated to the 8th century BCE, i.e., the Iron IIB. The other contexts, most of which seal various walls discovered in Area J, primarily date to the 8th century BCE, with certain types that continue to appear in the 7th century BCE. It appears that these contexts indicate that the settlement in Area J was abandoned at the end of the 8th or beginning of the 7th century BCE.

REFERENCES Ben-Ami, D. 2013. The Iron Age Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 63–82. De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. 2000. Ceramic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 91–154. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012a.The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. VIIB: Area E, The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 57–198.

A R E A J, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 239

De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012b.The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIA). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. VIIB: Area E, The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 199–247. De Groot, A., Geva, H. and Yezerski, I. 2003. Iron Age II Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 1–49. Eshel, I. 1995. The Pottery Groups from Kenyon’s Excavations on the Eastern Slope of Ancient Jerusalem. In: Eshel, I., and Prag, K., eds. Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Oxford: 1–157. Freud, L. 2016. Pottery of the Iron Age: Typology and Summary. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. I (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake: 254–265. Freud, L. 2018. Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and the Persian Period: Jerusalem and Its Environs (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Reich, R., and Shukron, E. 2007. It Is, After All, an Iron Age II City-Wall: A Critique of Eilat Mazar’s Suggestion. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A., and Faust, A., eds, New Studies on Jerusalem, Vol. 13. Ramat-Gan: 27–34. Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C. Warminster. Yezerski, I. and Mazar, E. 2015. Iron Age III Pottery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports I. Area G. Jerusalem: 243–298.

CHAPTER 11

AREA J THE EARLY ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

Two contexts in Area J yielded pottery dating to the Early Roman period. The first was within the silted fill in Channel I (Locus 77). This channel was cut into the rock crossing the area in a general north–south direction. Its walls were preserved to a maximum height of 2.1 m. Thirteen m of the fill were excavated on the channel’s floor. The latest material found in the fill dates to the 1st century CE, providing a terminus ante quem for the channel’s use. The second context was an 8 m thick layer of debris east of Wall 501. This debris constituted a sequence of thin stratified layers that sloped diagonally eastward towards the Kidron Valley. These layers seal the bedrock and covered the entire eastern face of Wall 501. The character of this thick deposit layer is very similar to other fills excavated throughout the City of David, usually identified as garbage dumps.

TYPOLOGY Pottery from Channel I (Fig. 11.1) The excavations in Channel I yielded a limited repertoire of pottery types dated to the 1st century CE. The bowls found are characterized by thin, rounded walls and a slight carination under an incurved rim (Fig. 11.1: 1). This bowl form appears in many assemblages dated to the 1st century BCE, as well as those dated to the 1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 10; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.5: 1; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 4). The cooking pots uncovered in this assemblage (Fig. 11.1: 2) are the most common cooking vessel found in Jerusalem during the late Second Temple period. This type has a short neck with a triangular rim and two strap handles extending from the rim to the shoulder. Numerous parallels from 1st century BCE to 1st century CE Jerusalem and Judea have been uncovered (Bar-Nathan 2002: 70–72, Pl. 12: 149–150; Geva 2003: 135; Berlin 2005: Fig. 4; Bar-Nathan 2006: 155, Pl. 28: 26–29; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 111, Pl. 4.5: 19–20, 4.8: 9; Tchekhanovets 2013: 113–114, Fig. 5.15: 12; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 140; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 2–4). The storage jars found are typical of the late 1st century BCE in Jerusalem, specifically dating to Herod’s reign. These jars, sometimes referred to as long collar rim jars, have a tall, upright neck and outfolded rim which covers almost the entire outer neck (Fig. 11.1: 3). Jars of this form are commonly found in Herodian assemblages from Jerusalem and Judea (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 4.24; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 2; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.3: 13; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 1: 6). A second storage jar type found (Fig. 11.1: 4) has a short neck, wide mouth and rim with a triangular section. The stump of a handle is notable on the rim. Whole, wide-necked jars, with four flattened handles extending from the rim to the shoulder (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 2: 7) are similar to the one found at Masada, where it was dated to the 1st century BCE.

A R E A J , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 2 4 1

1

2

3

4 0

5

10

5 0

2

4

Figure 11.1: Pottery from Interior of Channel I (L77) No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

871/7

77

Yellowish ware

2

Cooking pot

371/8

77

Brown ware

3

Storage jar

437/10

77

Yellowish ware

4

Storage jar

371/19

77

Brown ware

5

Oil lamp

437/1

77

Traces of soot on nozzle

The only Early Roman lamp type retrieved from Channel I was a knife pared lamp (Fig. 11.1: 5), often referred to as a “Herodian Lamp,” which first appeared during the very end of the 1st century BCE, becoming the most common oil lamp in the 1st century CE. The round body of the lamp was wheel made, and its splaying nozzle was connected to the body by knife pairing, notable on the bottom of the lamp (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 24–58; Tchekhanovets 2013: 124, Fig. 5.14: 8–10; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 26; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 2).

242 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Pottery from the Fills Abutting the Eastern Face of Wall 501 (Fig. 11.2) This assemblage was uncovered within the thick fills sloping downhill towards the Kidron Valley. Ceramic forms comprising this assemblage are primarily typical of the 1st century CE, though several 1st century BCE types are also present. Such refuse fills have been extensively excavated throughout the City of David, where it was found that they accumulated during the 1st century CE, before the 70 CE destruction. This would suggest that the earlier forms retrieved are either residual or had a long span of use. Similar deposits excavated in Area B2 seemed to have a chronological development between the lower and upper stratified layers (Machline and Gadot 2017). In these fills, the stratigraphic sequence did not correspond to a clear chronological sequence. All deposited layers contained pottery dating to the 1st century CE and included a few 1st century BCE fragments as well. Therefore, it seems that the intensive dumping in this area occurred over a relatively short period of time, during the 1st century CE. Tableware (Fig. 11.2: 1–5)

Saucers (Fig. 11.2: 1–2): Two types of saucers, sometimes referred to as plates or bowls, were found. These types typically had thin, flaring walls. Some of the vessels have a slightly incurved, outfolded rim (Fig. 11.2: 1), while others have an infolded rim (Fig. 11.2: 2). The first type is known, but not common in 1st century BCE–1st century CE contexts in Jerusalem (Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.15: 5; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.8: 5; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 7). The type with the infolded rim was widespread and is found in large quantities in late 2nd–1st century BCE contexts (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 16: 252–263; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.3: 23–26; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 2–6; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.1: 4; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.4: 14–15, Rapuano 2018: Pl. 10: 2). Incurved rim bowls (Fig. 11.2: 3–4): This type of small bowl has thin, rounded or straight walls and an incurved rim. Some of the bowls have a sharply incurved rim (Fig. 11.2: 4), while others have a mild curvature (Fig. 11.2 :3). At times, the bowls are painted on the interior or exterior, ranging in shades from red to black. Both bowl types were common during the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 25: 6, 38–40; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.12: 5; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.10: 2; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 4; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 10: 1). Cup (Fig. 11.2: 5): This type has thin, flaring walls and an outcurved rim. The upper part was dipped in dark paint. Cups of this form are known from 1st century BCE to 1st century CE assemblages (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 26: 66; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.9: 9). Kraters (Fig. 11.2: 6–10): Several types of kraters were found in the assemblage. The kraters have an out-turned neck and a grooved rim (Fig. 11.2: 6, 8) or a wide mouth and cup-shaped rim (Fig. 11.2: 7). Many of the examples were decorated with reddish-brown paint on their exterior. Based on the fragment and according to known parallels, the body of the vessels presented in Fig. 11.2: 6–7 seems to be pyriform, while the vessel shown in Fig. 11.2: 8 has rounded walls. Two ring feet of kraters (Fig. 11.2: 9–10) were also found. Three such rings would have been attached to the rounded base of a krater, supporting the vessel. Such kraters were found in 1st century CE contexts. The other kraters presented may have had ring feet or alternatively had a ring or flattened base (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 14; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 23: 1–2; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 15; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 24). Cooking Ware (Fig. 11.2: 11–15)

Closed cooking pots (Fig. 11.2: 11–12): The closed cooking pot type was probably the most widespread cooking vessel in Jerusalem and Judea during the late 1st century BCE and 1st century

A R E A J , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 2 4 3

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

35

26

31

36

27

32

37

33

38 0

5

28

10

Figure 11.2: Pottery from debris abutting eastern face of Wall 501.

29

34

39

40

244 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

0

2

4

48

49 0

5

10

Figure 11.2 (cont.): Pottery from debris abutting eastern face of Wall 501.

A R E A J , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 2 4 5

Figure 11.2: Pottery from Debris Abutting Eastern Face of Wall 501 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Saucer

134/5

26

Light brown ware

2

Saucer

440/4

29

Light brown ware

3

Bowl

149/57

29

Brown ware, traces of reddish-brown paint on rim

4

Bowl

357/31

29

Gray ware, lustrous black burnished slip on the exterior

5

Cup

134/7

26

Orange ware, traces of red and gray slip on rim

6

Krater

134/6

26

Light brown–orange ware, red paint on rim

7

Krater

207/25

29

Yellowish ware, slightly sandy, brown paint on rim

8

Krater

134/8

26

Orange-brown ware, brown paint on rim

9

Krater

134/2

26

Pottery ring (one of three which serve as a foot to the vessel), light brown ware

10

Krater

368/4

29

Dark brown ware

11

Cooking pot

202/2

29

Brick-red ware

12

Cooking pot

202/21

29

Brick-red ware

13

Carinated casserole

357/25

41

Brick-red ware, gray core

14

Cooking jug

768/8

15

Lid

149/30

29

Brick-red ware, gray core

16

Jar

134/28

26

Gray ware

17

Jar

134/27

26

Brown ware, gray core

18

Jar

134/26

26

Yellowish ware

19

Jar

150/4

29

Yellowish–orange ware

20

Jar

134/25

26

Yellowish ware

21

Jar

134/24

26

Yellowish ware

22

Jar

134/23

26

Yellowish ware

23

Amphora

151/2

29

Yellowish–light brown ware

24

Amphora

150/11

29

Yellowish ware, thin wall

25

Jug

134/9

26

Yellowish ware, gray core, thin wall

26

Jug

134/8

26

Yellowish ware, thin wall

27

Jug

200/6

29

Brown ware, large white grits

28

Jug

134/20

26

Terra sigillata type, rosy, well levigated ware, lustrous red slip, two external horizontal grooves, flat handle

29

Juglet

159/15

29

Orange ware, dark red slip on rim and upper part of neck, inside and outside,

30

Juglet

201/13

29

Brown exterior, gray interior, white grits, thick wall

31

Juglet

216/30

30

Light brown ware, dark gray slip

32

Juglet

134/19

26

Light brown ware

33

Juglet

134/17

26

Orange ware

Brick-red ware, small inclusions

246 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

34

Juglet

357/21

29

Orange ware

35

Juglet

216/22

30

Brown-gray ware, thin wall

36

Juglet

368/6

29

Dark brown ware

37

Juglet

134/16

26

Light-brown-orange ware, thick wall

38

Juglet

158/33

29

Light brown ware, thin wall

39

Juglet

134/18

26

Light brown ware

40

Flask

134/3

26

Yellowish-orange ware

41

Oil lamp

207/9

29

Light brown ware

42

Oil lamp

134/14

26

Light brown ware, traces of soot

43

Oil lamp

134/11

26

Yellowish ware, traces of brown slip, incised decoration

44

Oil lamp

134/10

26

Orange ware, traces of soot on nozzle.

45

Oil lamp

134/12

26

Orange ware, traces of soot on nozzle

46

Oil lamp

134/15

26

Light gray ware, small example.

47

Oil lamp

134/13

26

Light gray ware.

48

Fragment of tannur

159/9

29

Dark brown clay, poorly fired, very brittle, circular finger indent

49

Fragment of tannur

200/9

29

Dark brown clay, small stones, gray core, poorly fired, very brittle, traces of soot on exterior

CE. It was characterized by a straight or flaring neck and a rim with a triangular section. It has a globular body and two strap handles extend from the rim to the shoulder (Berlin 2005: 36–38; BarNathan 2006: Pl. 28: 6–25; Geva 2006: 14-16; Tchekhanovets 2013: 113–114, Fig. 5.15: 12; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 140; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 2–4). Carinated casserole (Fig. 11.2: 13): This cooking vessel type first appeared at the end of the 1st century BCE and became common in the 1st century CE. It has a wide mouth with an upright rim with a triangular section and a sharply carinated body. Two strap handles extend from the rim to the shoulder (Berlin 2005: 39–42; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 30: 51–55; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 13; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 16; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 9). Cooking jug (Fig. 11.2: 14): This cooking jug type has a flaring neck, a grooved, triangular rim and a globular body. One oval sectioned handle extended from the rim to the shoulder. Cooking jugs of this type date from the last third of the 1st century BCE, and continue to appear through the 1st century CE (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.9: 19; Berlin 2005: 39; Bar-Nathan 2006: 85–89; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.6: 9–10; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 12). Lid (Fig. 11.2: 15): One lid produced of cooking ware was found. The lid is of a less-common type, characterized by a concave knob handle. Interestingly, lids are usually found in much smaller quantities than respective cooking vessels and were probably not as widespread as the corresponding pots (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 181). Storage Jars (Fig. 11.2: 16–22)

Several types of storage jars were uncovered in the fills, presenting a range of types distinctive of the 2nd century BCE through the 1st century CE.

A R E A J , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 2 4 7

Collared rim jar (Fig. 11.2: 16–17): Jars of this type bear a collared rim, though changes in form of the rim signify chronological differences. They are generally dated to the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, The earlier types have a short, thick outfolded collar. Over time, the collar became longer and thinner. Two types were found. The first (Fig. 11.2: 16) is a short-collared jar, characterized by a flaring neck and a thick, short, square-sectioned collared rim. This type has been dated to the 2nd century BCE (Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2: 25–26; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 4: 17; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 3; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 4: 20). A later jar with a longer collar was also found (Fig. 11.2: 16). This subtype has an outfolded rim that covers most of the outer neck, commonly found in 1st century CE contexts in Jerusalem (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 5.27; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.4: 18; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 5; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 4: 21–22). A variation of the collared rim jars was also found (Fig. 11.2: 18). This subtype has a swollen, upright neck, an everted rim, and an inner indention at the bottom of the neck (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 30; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 7; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 3: 4). Storage jars with a ridge at the base of the neck (Fig. 11.2: 19–22): Several variations of this type of storage jar were found in the assemblage. All of the jars have a bag-shaped body and a rounded base, with handles attached to the shoulder of the vessel. The storage jars have tall rims and a ridge encircling the base of the neck. The storage jars differ according to neck and rim form. All the variants of this type are dated to the 1st century CE, although some continued to be in use during the 2nd century CE. The vessel shown in Fig. 11.2: 19 has a short, inward thickened rim (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.9: 3; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 3: 8–12; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 8). The jars presented in Fig. 11.2: 20, 21 have a tall, flaring neck. The jar shown in Fig. 11.2: 20 has a thick wall with a thickened, out-turned rim forming a small ledge (Geva 2012: Pl. 8.1: 3; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.17: 4; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 18). In Fig. 11.2: 21, the jar has thinner walls and a simple rim (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 5; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 2). The jar in Fig. 11.2: 22 has a flaring neck and an outfolded rim, forming a small triangular section (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 7, 9; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 6; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 20). Amphoras (Fig. 11.2: 23–24)

Two amphoras were found in the assemblage. The first (Fig. 11.2: 23) is an imported amphora from Italy, characterized by a cylindrical neck and a high, solid thick band rim. Based on parallels, the body was carinated and two thick, elliptical or round handles were attached below the rim, extending to the shoulder of the vessel. The foot was an elongated cone or peg. Such amphoras were previously found in Jerusalem and dated to the 1st century BCE (Ariel 2003: 226–228, Types A4–A14; Finkielsztejn 2006: Pl. 6.1, Type A18). The second (Fig. 11.2: 24) is a table amphora, probably a local imitation of imported Hellenistic table amphoras. Such amphoras are characterized by an exceptionally high, swollen neck and a simple everted rim. Two oval handles were attached below the rim, extending to the shoulder of the vessel. Amphoras of this type were found in Jerusalem in small quantities, with the few known parallels originating from late Hellenistic/Hasmonean contexts (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 21: 1–8; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.7: 17; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.10: 23). Jugs (Fig. 11.2: 25–28)

Wide-necked jug (Fig. 11.2: 25): This type of jug has a wide, tall neck, a simple everted rim and a handle extending from the rim. Jugs of this form have been found in assemblages dated to the late 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: 105).

248 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Jug with a funnel-shaped rim (Fig. 11.2: 26): This type of jug has a funnel-shaped rim, triangular in profile and a tall, cylindrical neck. Such jugs have been dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 18: 15; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.3: 3–4; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.18: 9; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 2). Jug with a thickened rim (Fig. 11.2: 27): This jug is defined by a cylindrical neck and an outfolded rim with a triangular section. A thick handle extends from below the rim to the shoulder of the jug. Similar jugs were found in 1st century CE contexts, though no identical parallel was found (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 9; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 18: 12) Red-slipped jug (Fig. 11.2: 28): A jug with a tall neck, widening towards the top was found in the assemblage. The rim is thickened, forming a triangular profile. A handle extends from beneath the rim towards the body. It appears that this jug should be defined as ESA ware,1 although the specific form does not correspond directly to any known ESA forms. This may indicate that this was a local imitation, similar to the ESA jugs of Form 36 found at Tel Anafa (Slane 1997: 329). Juglets (Fig. 11.2: 29–39)

Fusiform juglets (Fig. 11.2: 29–32): Base, body and rim fragments of fusiform juglets from the assemblage belong to the same type. These vessels have a thick wall and spindle-shaped body with a long, solid leg. The necks are tall and narrow with a pointed or flaring rim. These juglet types, often referred to as unguentaria, were common in Jerusalem and its environs during the 2nd century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 10: 93-102; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2: 48–49; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 34: 1; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.4: 6–10; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.20). Pyriform juglets (Fig. 11.2: 33–34): These juglet types are characterized by a pyriform body, a narrow, tall neck and a simple, flaring rim. They date to the 1st century CE (BarNathan 2006: 34: Pl. 2–7; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 7–8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 14–15). Juglets with a ridged neck (Fig. 11.2: 31–32): This juglet type has a globular body, a narrow, ridged neck, a thickened, flaring rim and a single handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. It dates to the late 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 33: 21; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.10: 7). The subtype illustrated in Fig. 11.2: 36 differs in rim shape, with an outturned rim, triangular in section. This subtype first appeared somewhat later, towards the middle of the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 33: 21–22). Juglet with a cup-shaped rim (Fig. 11.2: 37–38): This type of juglet is commonly found in assemblages dating to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. It has a cup-shaped rim, a short narrow neck and one twisted strap handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. Two variations of this juglet were found in the fills. One has a large cup-shaped rim (Fig. 11.2: 37) and the other (Fig. 11.2: 38), more common type, has a small cup shaped rim (Bar-Nathan 2002: 25: 444, 446–447; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.4: 12–14, 4.11: 1–5; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.13: 9–12; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 2–3, 5). Juglet with inclining neck (Fig. 11.2: 39): This juglet was not as common as the other types. It has an inclining, ribbed neck, a flaring rim and a handle that extends from the rim to the shoulder. Juglets of this form have been exposed in 1st century CE contexts in Judea and 1    

Bes, Philip; Braekmans, Dennis; Degryse, Patrick; Neyt, Bert; Poblome, Jeroen; Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), The Levantine Ceramics Project, accessed on 08 November 2018, https://www.levantineceramics.org/wares/ eastern-sigillata-a-esa

A R E A J , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 2 4 9

Jerusalem (Bar-Nathan 2006: 33: 16–19; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.13: 14; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 4). Flask (Fig. 11.2: 40)

The flask type uncovered was characterized by a tall, narrow neck, an outfolded rim and two twisted handles extending from the middle of the neck to the shoulder. The example presented here has a deformed rim. This form of vessel was very popular throughout Jerusalem and Judea during the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 22: 70–73; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.7: 20–21; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.13: 3–6; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 12–13). Lamps (Fig. 11.2: 41–47)

Four types of lamps were uncovered in the assemblage. The four types represent common lamp forms abundant in Jerusalem during the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. Pinched lamp (Fig. 11.2: 41): This type is a small wheel-turned bowl with a pinched rim joined in the middle, forming a large filling hole, and a smaller wick hole. This type of lamp was fairly common in Jerusalem during the 2nd–1st centuries BCE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 11–12; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.4: 9, 6.12: 5; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.7: 10). Late Hellenistic wheel-made lamp (Fig. 11.2: 42): This type has a round, wheel-made body, a low disc base and a short nozzle. Similar lamps have been exposed in 2nd–1st centuries BCE contexts in Jerusalem (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.12: 1; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.11: 3). Judean radial lamp: This type (Fig. 11.2: 43) is mold-made with thick walls, and is often covered with red slip. These lamps were often decorated with radial ridges or concentric circles surrounding the filling hole. The nozzle presented here carries a typical incised line decoration. These lamps were very common in Judean sites during the 1st century BCE. The relatively short nozzle probably represents a slightly later form within that time frame (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 11–19; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.6: 6). Knife pared lamps (Fig. 11.2: 44–47): Often referred to as “Herodian lamps”, this type first appeared at the end of the 1st century BCE, becoming the most common lamp in 1st century CE contexts in Jerusalem and Judea. The lamp was wheel-made with a splaying nozzle added on by knife paring. One of the examples illustrated is exceptionally small (Fig. 11.2: 46). Most of the lamps were made of orange ware, though a few of the lamps were made of gray ware (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 24–78; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.4: 14–15, 5.9: 4–9; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 26; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 2). Cooking Installations (Fig. 11.2: 48–49)

Only two cooking installation fragments are presented here, though fragments of these installations are frequently uncovered in 1st century CE contexts. The two common cooking installations used during the Second Temple period were the stove (kira) and oven (tannur/tabun). They were typically made of clay or mud containing many grits of limestone and numerous traces of straw. The fabric was not kiln-fired, but only partially fired, being repeatedly exposed to an open fire at low temperatures. Due to the poor quality of the clay, cooking installations are often not well preserved, with only their lower part surviving as a ring of clay in the floor or ground in Second Temple period houses. One fragment (Fig. 11.2: 48) has a round, shallow finger indention, as do many fragments of these installations. The purpose of the finger-depression is unknown (Netzer 1991: 356–357; Reich

250 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

2003: 292, Pl. 9.1). The second fragment (Fig. 11.2: 49) appears to have a rounded contour, possibly the fragment of a rounded tannur.

DISCUSSION Two ceramic assemblages from Area J can be dated to the Early Roman period. Channel I contained many vessel forms representing a very wide chronological range. The latest vessels from the fill that accumulated in the channel are typical of the 1st century CE, thus dating this fill of the channel to that period. All of the earlier material in the fill is residual, reflecting other periods of activity on the hill of the City of David. A second assemblage dated to the Early Roman period derived from a thick fill, similar in character to fills excavated elsewhere in the City of David. As discussed in Area L (see Chapter 26), a fill of a similar nature was excavated, and contained an analogous pottery assemblage to the one presented here (see Chapter 27). The chronological span of the assemblage is attributed to the late 1st century BCE–1st century CE, though the majority of the vessels were of later forms typical of the 1st century CE. From a typological perspective, this deposit contained the most common vessel types of 1st century CE Jerusalem, similar to Area L. The ceramic assemblage from the stratified deposits in Area J contained many vessel forms and types, representing the majority of functional vessels of the Late Second Temple repertoire. The location of the dumping along with the typological representation and the fragmentary state of discovery suggest this area functioned as a dumping area, most likely of the residential area of the lower city of Jerusalem. This assemblage therefore reflects the ceramic repertoire of the residential population of the lower city, and perhaps the upper city as well, of Jerusalem shortly before the 70 CE destruction.

REFERENCES Barag, D., and Hershkovitz, M. 1994. Lamps. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G., and Netzer, E., eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 7–78. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Berlin, A.M. 2005. Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H. eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Studies. 60). Portsmouth: 29–60. Berlin, A.M. 2015. The Hellenistic Period. In: Gitin. S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: 629–672. Finkielsztejn, G. 2006. Imported Amphoras. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 168–183. Geva, H. 2003. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 113–154. Geva, H. 2010. Early Roman Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 118–153. Geva, H. 2012. Early Roman Pottery from Area T (Nea Church). In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nachman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. V. Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D&T): Final Report. Jerusalem: 118–153.

A R E A J , T H E E A R LY R O M A N P O T T E R Y 2 5 1

Geva, H., and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Geva, H., and Hershkovitz, M. 2014. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI. Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies: Final Report. Jerusalem: 134–175. Geva, H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Local Pottery from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 176–191. Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2017. Wading Through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblages of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery and Material Culture 2: 102–139. Netzer, E. 1991. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports: The Buildings— Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Rapuano, Y. 2018. The Pottery from Strata V, VI and VII. In: A. Re’em (ed.) The Qishle Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 114–159 Reich, R. 2003. Fragments of Clay Stoves. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 292–296. Sandhaus, D. 2013. The Hellenistic Pottery. In: Ben-Ami., D. ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gi>vati Parking Lot) Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 83–108. Slane, K.W. 1997. The Fine Wares. In: Herbert, S.C. (ed.), Tel Anafa, II, 1: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Ann Arbor: 255–393. Tchekhanovets, Y. 2013. The Early Roman Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem- Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot): Vol. I. (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 109–150. Tushingham, A.D. 1985. Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill. In: Tushingham, A.D., ed. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. I. Toronto: 1–177.

CHAPTER 12

AREA J THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

Forty-nine copper-alloy coins were uncovered in Area J, ten of which are unidentifiable. The excavators describe a long occupational gap between the 8th and 1st centuries BCE (see Chapter 8). The gap ends in Area J with the unusual appearance of abandoned intact cooking pots. This phenomenon finds parallels in Area A (see Chapter 4) and in Shiloh’s Area A1 (De Groot, Cohen and Caspi 1992: 17). In both areas, the quantity of coins allowed us to reach chronological conclusions that enabled us to date some of the pottery. The numismatic profile of the Area A coins from the relevant contexts date to the 1st century BCE (see Chapter 7), while the profile of Shiloh’s Area A1 coins was clearly later, from the 1st century CE. As the coins cataloged here do not originate from well-defined contexts related to the cooking pot depositions, they cannot contribute to the dating of this phenomenon in Area J. Eighteen of the cataloged coins (Nos. 1–3, 5–7, 9–10, 12, 14–18, 27–29, 32) derive from three loci (L29–30, 167), which are part of the large element in which many of the coins from the eastern slope of the City of David were excavated, the so-called dumps, an approximately 6–8 m thick layer of debris that covered many parts of the hill like a mantle. Reich and Shukron (2003: 12) identified this feature as Jerusalem’s city-dump. Based on the near absence of coins of the first Jewish Revolt, they argued that the garbage discarded was deposited during the last century (or more) before the city’s destruction, but not during the First Revolt itself (Reich and Shukron 2003: 17), and not after the revolt, as Shiloh (1990: 6–7) had maintained. Three coins of the First Jewish Revolt were found in Area J. Reich and Shukron stated (2003: 16) that none was found there—or in Areas A and C. Two of the coins (Nos. 33–34) were found out of context, on the surface of the excavation area. The third (No. 32) actually derives from the supposed refuse layers (Locus 167). That said, Reich and Shukron’s contention that the city-dump functioned prior to the outbreak of the revolt may still be valid. With numerous excavations exposing extensive portions of the estimated 200,000 cubic meters of the “dumps,” the finding of one First Revolt coin is negligible. It is important to note the frequency of such coins in excavations in ancient Jerusalem. The Israel national collection holds 2,743 coins identified as belonging to the First Jewish Revolt series found throughout ancient Jerusalem. Therefore, under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to discount one coin in the city-dump. The remainder of the coins found in Area J are contemporary with those found in the garbage dump. The five outliers (Nos. 35–39) are all surface finds. As single finds of the 4th, 6th, 7th and 14th centuries CE, they reflect human activity in other periods in Jerusalem’s history, represented by numerous coin finds in general, and at the City of David in particular.

AREA J, THE COINS 253

1

2

3

4 0

1

2

Figure 12.1: Coins from Area J.

CATALOG All coins are bronze. They are arranged chronologically, according to types. Coins with an asterisk are represented in Fig. 12.1. Cat. no.

Locus (basket) (weight [g], diam. [mm], axis)

Obverse

Reverse

Date (BCE)

Mint

Reference

173/2– 168

>AkkoPtolemais

SC II: 92, No. 1497

95534

Notes

IAA no.

Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) 1*

29 (203) (1.88, 12, 0)

Diademed, radiate head r.

[- - -]/[- - -] Veiled and draped female figure, stg. facing, holding long scepter or torch

Hasmoneans, Alexander Jannaeus (104–76 BCE) 2*– 3*

29 (153); 167 (898)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑNΔΡΟΥ Inverted anchor

Star within diadem; between rays: ‫ך‬/‫ל‬/‫מ‬/‫ןה‬/‫ת‬/‫נ‬/‫הו‬/‫י‬

80s

Jerusalem

TJC: 209, Group K

95531, 121653

4*

166 (291b) (0.85, 13)

Illegible

Same; between rays: [- - -]

80s

Same

Same

152670

5

29 (209) (0.41, 11×14)

Anchor

Illegible

80/79 and later

Same

TJC: 210, Subgroups L7–14

95537

6

29 (213) (0.37, 10)

Anchor?

Star

Same

Same

Same

95538

7

167 (896) (0.69, 13)

Anchor in circle

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

97833

8

166 (291b) (0.47, 9×12)

[circle]

Signs of star

Same

Same

Same

152674

2 5 4 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Cat. no.

Locus (basket) (weight [g], diam. [mm], axis)

Obverse

Reverse

Date (BCE)

Mint

Reference

Notes

IAA no.

Same

Identification uncertain

95539

Misstrike; identification uncertain

97837

Probably for a coin of Jannaeus

152673

9

29 (235) (0.41, 11×14)

Anchor?

Illegible

Same

Same

10

166 (897) (0.77, 12)

Anchor

Anchor?

Same

Same

11*

166 (291b) (0.89, 11×20)

Unstruck flan (with part of casting channel)

-

Same

-

Herod (37–4 BCE) 12*

167 (897) (1.26, 15, 6)

B[A][I]Λ–HPω Anchor

[- - -] Double cornucopias; between horns, caduceus

ca. 24–12

Same

TJC: 222–223, No. 59; Ariel and Fontanille 2012: 63, Type 15

13

166 (291b) (1.11, 13×16)

[- - -] Anchor

Illegible

ca. 24–12?

Same

Cf. TJC: 222–223, No. 59

14

167 (896) (0.98, 14×16, 6)

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Double cornucopias; between horns, caduceus

ca. 24 BCE–6 CE

15

29 (155) (0.45, 17)

Illegible

[- - -] Double cornucopias; between horns, caduceus?

16– 17

29 (204, 205)

Same

[- - -] Double cornucopias

97838

Probably Herod

152669

Same

Identification uncertain

97835

ca. 80s BCE–6 CE

Same

Same

95533

Same

Same

Same

95535– 95536

Herod Archelaus (4 BCE–6 CE) 18

29 (152) (1.09, 16, 6)

[- - -] Grape cluster

[- - -] Crested helmet with two cheek pieces; to bottom l, caduceus

Same

TJC: 226, No. 73

95530

19– 20

166 (8915); Surf. (871a)

[- - -] Same

Illegible

Same

Same

152683, 152680

Roman Procurators in Judea under Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) 21

166 (291b) (2.02, 17, 0)

[KAIC]A–POC Ear of corn

Palm tree; in fields: L–[·]

5/6– 10/11 CE

Same

Cf. TJC: 256, No. 311

152678

22– 23

Surf. (871a); 166 (8915)

[- - -] Same

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

152679, 152684

AREA J, THE COINS 255

Cat. no.

Locus (basket) (weight [g], diam. [mm], axis)

Obverse

Reverse

Date (BCE)

Mint

Reference

Notes

IAA no.

Roman Procurators in Judea under Tiberius (14–37 CE) 24– 25

166 (291b ×2)

TIB/KAI/CAP within wreath

Palm branch; in fields: IOY– ΛIA/L–[·]

17/8– 24/5 CE

Same

Cf. TJC: 257, No. 327

152672, 152675

26*

166 (291b) (1.55, 15, 0)

[- - -]

LI

30/1 CE

Same

TJC: 258, No. 333b

152676

Lituus 27

29 (154) (1.31, 16)

Illegible

[- - -] Same

1st c. BCE– 1st c. CE

Same

Uncertain ruler

95532

28

167 (897) (1.70, 14)

[- - -] within wreath

Illegible

1st c. CE

Same

Possibly TJC: 260, No. 345

97836

Three ears of grain; in fields: L–ς

Year 6=41/2 CE

Same

TJC: 231, No. 120

97834, 152671, 152682

Herod Agrippa I (37–44 CE) 29*– 31

167 (896); 166 (291b); 166 (8915)

BACIΛΕΩC– AΓΡΙΠΑ Canopy

First Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE) 32

167 (898) (2.37, 17, 6)

‫שנ[ת–שתי]ם‬ Amphora

‫]חרת צי[ון‬ Vine leaf

Year 2= 67/8 CE

Jerusalem

TJC: 241, No. 196

121652

33

166 (291b) (2.97, 18, -)

[‫שנת–של]וש‬ Amphora

[‫חרות צי]ון‬ Vine leaf

Year 3= 68/9 CE

Same

TJC: 242, No. 204

152677

34

166 (291b) (1.23, 16)

[- - -] Same

Illegible

67/8– 68/9 CE

Same

Cf. TJC: 241, No. 196

154999

[- - -] Female(?) bust l.(?)

[- - -] Figure stg.(?)

Roman Provincial 35

Surf. (871a) (4.27, 13×25, 3)

154996

Constantine I (307–337 CE) 36

Surf. (891a) (1.97, 19, .)

CONSTANTI– Ṇ[VS] MAX A[V]G Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust r.

GLOR–IA EXERC–ITVS Two soldiers stg. facing, with spears and shields; between them, two standards; in ex.: SMANA

330– 335 CE

Alexandria

LRBC I: 30, No. 1356

154997

2 5 6 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Cat. no.

Locus (basket) (weight [g], diam. [mm], axis)

Obverse

Reverse

Date (BCE)

Mint

Reference

Notes

IAA no.

Carthage

BMCV: 26, No. 68; Bijovsky 2011: 171

152681

SICA 1: PseudoByzantine Coinage, Type E

154955

Justinian I (527–565), nummus 37

Surf. (871a) (0.65, 9)

534– 565 CE

Illegible

Arab-Byzantine 1 Anonymous, follis 38

Surf. (891a) (3.76, 20×24, 6)

Illegible

m Above, cross?; in ex.: CO

647– 670 CE

Mamlūks Al-Naṣir Muḥammad Naṣir al-Din, third reign (AH 709–741 / 1310–1341 CE), fals 39

Surf. (891a) (2.03, 18)

Within a circle: ‫محمد‬

Illegible

Cf. Balog 1964: 152, No. 230

154998

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The coins were cleaned in the laboratories of the IAA by Raisa Vinitzky and Oded Reviv. I am grateful to Robert Kool who identified No. 39.

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. and Fontanille, J.-P. 2012. The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity79). Leiden. Balog, P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamlūk Sultans of Egypt and Syria (Numismatic Studies 12). New York. Bijovsky, G. 2011. From Carthage to the Holy Land: The “Palm Tree” Nummus. Israel Numismatic Research 6: 163–173. BMCV: Wroth, W. 1911. Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards and the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum. London. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. 2008. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. New York. LRBC I: Hill, P.V., and Kent, J.P.C. 1965. Part I: The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine, A.D. 324– 346. In: Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498. London: 4–40. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18. Shiloh, Y. 1990. Stratigraphical Introduction to Parts I and II. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations in the City of David Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II. Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. SICA 1: Album, S., and Goodwin, T. 2002. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean 1: The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period. Oxford. TJC: Meshorer, Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Trans. R. Amoils. Jerusalem –Nyack, N.Y.

AREA J

INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS Index of Loci Locus

Levels

Description

Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

1–9

--

Topsoil, removed with mechanical equipment

-

10

645.00 641.00

Thick accumulation of debris, pottery sherds and gravel descending in a steep slope towards the Kidron. Covered by modern waste

Fragments of pottery and stone vessels mostly 1st century CE

11

641.25 640.55

Fill of light brown earth covering upper face of upper bedrock terrace (NW part of square)

Primarily Iron IIB with a few earlier, residual sherds

12

641.15 640.55

Fill of light brown earth covering upper face of upper rock terrace (middle part of square)

Primarily Iron IIB with a few earlier, residual sherds

13

641.90 640.00

Fill of light brown earth covering upper face of northeast part of upper rock terrace, close to western edge of Channel II

Primarily Iron IIB with a few earlier, residual sherds

14

641.25 640.10

Dismantling stone fill inside Channel II and behind (i.e. west of) Wall 503

Iron IIB

15

640.10

Thin layer of debris between stone fill (L14) and rock scarp to its west

Iron IIB

16

641.95 641.05

Fill of light brown earth right below sloping dump

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.34

17

641.05 640.45

Fill below L16, light brown earth, some stones protruding belonging to late Iron II walls

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.34

18

641.25 640.70

Fill of light brown earth

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.34

19

640.67

Northern continuation of L17, until discovery of stones which may be part of a building

Iron IIB

20

641.50 638.50640.55

Upper part of sloping dump, along upper edge of wall 501; equivalent to L26

Mostly 1st century CE

Fig. 8.34

21

641.05 640.90

Thin layer of dark brown debris at bottom of sloping dump and above light brown fill L21

1st century CE

Fig. 8.34

22

640.90 640.45

Fill of light brown earth sealing Wall 501

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.34

23

--

Fill of light brown earth above fill of stones which seals Channel II

Primarily Iron IIB with a few earlier, residual sherds

24

640.67 640.00

Light brown earth exposed in probe below L19, down to bedrock

Iron IIB

25

641.50638.50

Thick accumulation of debris, descending in a steep slope towards Kidron Valley. Completely seals L21. Equivalent to L10

Large amounts of 1st century CE pottery and fragments of stone vessels

26

638.50636.20

Thick accumulation of debris, descending in a steep slope towards Kidron Valley. The eastern side of locus abuts Wall 501. Equivalent to L10

Large amounts of 1st century CE pottery and fragments of stone vessels

Fig. 8.34

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.34, 8.46

2 5 8 A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

Fill of brown earth below sloping dump and above upper rock terrace, containing a small amount of stones

Small amount of 1st century CE pottery

Fig. 8.34

634.90 633.80

Fill of brown earth below L27 and down to bedrock

Iron II

Fig. 8.34

29

639.85 635.50

Thin layer of debris along slope, including in situ cooking pot (Basket No. 221)

1st century CE

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.54

30

638.60 633.50

Debris dumped along slope

1st century CE

Figs. 8.4, 8.46

31

639.52 637.40

Small probe excavated along eastern face of W501, south of offset. Dumped fill containing gravel and pottery sherds

1st century CE

Fig. 8.1

32

639.50 639.10

Small probe excavated along eastern face of W501, south of L31. Sediment, gravel and pottery sherds dumped along slope

1st century CE

Fig. 8.1

33

640.00 636.90

Small probe excavated along eastern face of W501, south of L32. Sediment, gravel and pottery sherds dumped along slope

1st century CE

Fig. 8.1

34

634.50 633.80

Below L30. Earth abutting W509 from east, overlying Channel I

1st century CE

Figs. 8.4, 8.6

35

--

Equivalent to L21

Mostly 1st century CE

Fig. 8.34

36

639.55 639.50

Cleaning top of southern segment of W501

37

639.50 639.30

Short excavation of sediment along western face of W501’s southern segment

Iron IIB

38

640.97 640.67

Brown earth overlying W501, close to offset

Iron IIB

39

641.60 641.10

Straightening section on west

Iron IIB

40

641.50 640.60

Same as L39, at southwest corner of dig

Iron IIB

41

645.00 642.00

Equivalent to L21

1st century CE, Iron II, EB fragments

42

645.00 642.00

Extending square to north, equivalent to L22, below L41

Iron IIB

43

640.60 640.30

Below L40

Iron IIB pottery, a few MB II sherds

44

640.30 639.95

Below L43 down to bedrock, equivalent to L99

Iron IIB pottery, some MB II sherds

45

641.50 640.70

Earth above Channel II, on Southern edge of Area

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.3

46

640.70 640.30

Below L. 45 down to top of Channel

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.3

47

642.21 640.50

Brown earth and small stones W of Channel II

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.3

48

640.30 639.55

Below L46, E of Channel II

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.3

Locus

Levels

Description

27

636.20634.90

28

A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S 2 5 9 Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

Below L47

Iron IIB pottery, with few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.3

642.00 641.05

Brown earth, below L41, L42, equivalent to L22

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.4

51

641.05 640.20

Earth and small stones below L50, adjacent to Channel II

Iron IIB pottery

Fig. 8.4

52

-----

Cleaning top of northern part of W504

Iron IIB pottery

Fig. 8.5

53

640.20 640.10

Earth accumulation between Walls 504 and 505, below L49

Mixture of MB II and Iron II pottery

Fig. 8.3

54

640.10 639.95

Below L53

Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.3

55

640.20 639.50

Below L51

Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.4

56

639.50 639.10

Below L55, brown earth

Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.4

56a

640.2640.00

Earth upon plaster floor that abuts corner of W505 and W506

MB II

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.21

57

-----

Earth fill sealing W509, W504, W505, equivalent to L49

Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

58

-----

Same as L. 53

59

639.95 639.86

Earth on stone slab floor, below L54

Iron II pottery, single EB I sherd

60

640.60 640.30

Below L57, on southern side of excavation, where stone slabs are missing, equivalent to L43

Iron II

61

639.10 639.00

Below L56

Iron II pottery, few MB II Sherds

Fig. 8.4

62

639.00 638.85

Below L61

No indicative pottery

Fig. 8.4

63

638.85 638.60

Layer of stones below L62

Iron II

Fig. 8.4

64

638.60 638.20

Below L63, layer of earth overlying bedrock, on east side of W503 (Channel II)

Iron II pottery, few MB II Sherds

Figs. 8.4, 8.16

65

-638.25

Upper fill sealing Channel II, layer of debris above L66

Iron II

Fig. 8.3

66

638.25 637. 75

Lower fill sealing Channel II, layer of sandy debris on bedrock floor of channel, including stones and pottery sherds weathered by water

Iron II

Fig. 8.3

67

----

Cleaning west rock wall of Channel II

Iron II pottery, single EB and single LB II sherds

Fig. 8.4

68

-638.25

Fill sealing Channel II, equivalent to L65 on north side of area

Iron II

Fig. 8.4

69

638.25 637.75

Inside Channel II, equivalent to L66, on N side of area

Iron II (see Area F)

Fig. 8.4

70

----

Removing part of balk along west side of W501, brown earth fill

Iron II

Locus

Levels

Description

49

640.50 640.20

50

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.21

2 6 0 A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

Locus

Levels

Description

71

----

Below L70, layer of small stones

Iron II pottery, few MB II Sherds, EB I ledge handle

72

----

Small pit dug in order to enable workers to enter Channel II, upper layer of fill in channel

Mostly 1st century CE, some late Iron II sherds, one EB

73

----

Below L72

Iron II pottery (oil lamp with low base)

74

----

Below L73

Iron II pottery, some MB sherds

75

----

Below L74

Iron II pottery, some MB sherds

76

636.30 636.00

Under L29, north of offset in Wall 501, equivalent to L26, L27

Mostly 1st century CE, with a few Iron II sherds

77

633.80 633.15

Constructed channel (+Channel I); fill in Channel

Mostly 1st century CE, a few Iron II

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.34, 8.46

78

636.30 636.00

Relatively horizontal layer of earth east of lower part of W501, sealed by L30, including in situ complete cooking pots (Basket Nos. 444/2, 481)

1st century CE

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.27, 8.46

79

633.40 632.90

Small amount of earth between W501 and W502

No indicative pottery

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.46

Equivalent to L21, L35

Mostly 1st century CE, with a few Iron II sherds

80 81

640.10 639.70

Below L80, light brown earth

Iron IIB pottery, a few MB II sherds

82

636.00 634.90

Earth abutting lower eastern side of W501, below L78

Iron IIB

Figs. 8.4, 8.46

83

635.20 634.08

Continuation of L29, equivalent to L34, east of W509 (Channel I).

1st century CE

Fig. 8.54

84

635.50 634.76

Below L29, fill composed of earth and stones, overlying bedrock and W509

Mostly 1st century CE

Fig. 8.54

85

634.76 634.10

Fill between W509 (Channel I) and rock scarp west of it

No indicative pottery

Figs. 8.1, 8.54

86

634.58 634.00

Fill between W509 (Channel I) and rock scarp of W501

Iron IIB

Figs. 8.1, 8.4

87

635.80 635.35

Earth from inside depression in bedrock, close to offset in Wall 501

Iron II

Fig. 8.1, Fig. 8.4, Fig. 8.27, Fig. 8.54

88

639.75 639.70

Cleaning top of southern portion of W501 and near its offset

Iron II

Fig. 8.6

89

639.70 639.14

Layer of stone and gravel below L81

Iron II pottery, with a few MB sherds

90

632.74 631.54

Fill from space between W502 and rock scarp to west of it, into which W510 (Channel I) is built

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.1, Fig. 8.3

91

635.86 635.02

Below L76, above bedrock, abutting corner of offset in Wall 501

Iron IIB

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.27, 8.54

92

639.14 638.80

Brown earth below L89

Iron II pottery, with a few MB sherds

A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S 2 6 1 Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

Dismantling of balk west of W501. Grey earth, equivalent to L11–13, 15–18

Iron IIB

Fig. 8.5, 8.26

631.65 630.36

Earth east of and abutting face of W502

1st century CE pottery, slightly weathered

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.27, 8.46

95

638.80 638.50

Layer of loose stones, below L92

Mostly Iron II, with few MB sherds

96

639.70 638.95

Earth abutting face of offset of W501, below L81

Iron II

97

631.80 631.63

Cleaning top of W502

Iron II

98

638.75 638.40

Below L89 and L96, abutting face of offset Of Wall 501

Iron II

99

639.95 639.90

Earth west of W504, and south of Floor L59

Mostly MB II pottery with few Iron II sherds

100

640.10 639.28

Between west side of Channel II and W504

Mixture of MB II and Iron II pottery

Fig. 8.26

101

640.60 640.40

Accumulation on floor

A few unidentifiable sherds

Figs. 8.1, 8.2

102

632.70 631.50

Equivalent to L90, further north

MB II sherds, as well as Iron II pottery, including some predating 8th century BCE

103

640.55 640.10

Earth near W508

Iron II

Fig. 8.35

104

640.55 640.06

Earth near W508

Iron II

Fig. 8.35

105

640.10 639.85

Earth below L103, L104

Iron II

Fig. 8.35

106

639.85 639.16

Below L105

Iron II

Fig. 8.35

107

639.15 638.90

Layer of stones below L106

Late Iron II, with one possible LB sherd

Fig. 8.35

108

--

Dismantling layer of stones of L107

Late Iron II, with one possible LB sherd

Fig. 8.35

109

--

Strip of earth abutting inner face of W501

Late Iron II, with one possible LB sherd

Fig. 8.35

110

638.90 638.76

Earth layer below L107/8

Iron II pottery, with a few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.35

111

640.18 639.60

Dismantling layer of stones

Iron II

Fig. 8.6

112

639.60 638.76

Fill of light brown earth. equivalent to L96

Iron II pottery, one EB sherd

Fig. 8.6

113

638.76 638.55

Layer of loose rubble below L110, equivalent to L98

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Figs. 8.6, 8.35

114

639.00 638.60

Layer of loose rubble, equivalent to L113

Iron II

Fig. 8.6

Locus

Levels

Description

93

641.15 640.30

94

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.27, 8.46

2 6 2 A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S

Locus

Levels

Description

Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

115

638.60 638.28

Earth and stones below L114, overlying bedrock

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

116

638.55 638.45

Earth layer below L113

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Figs. 8.6, 8.35

117

638.45 638.40

Earth layer equivalent to L115, bet further to south, overlying bedrock

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Figs. 8.6, 8.18

118

638.15 638.10

Cleaning top of W508 and down to bedrock

Iron II

Fig. 8.35

119

640.18 639.60

Dismantling of balk, stone layer, equivalent to L111

Iron II

120

639.60 638.76

Brown earth, equivalent to L112

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds, and a single EB sherd

121

638.76 638.55

Loose rubble, equivalent to L113, L114

Iron II

122

638.40 637.70

Dismantling layer of stones below L98, equivalent to L113, L114

Iron II

123

--

General cleaning of balk

124

--

Equivalent to L65, 68

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

125

--

Equivalent to L66, L69, from central part of excavation where central balk was removed, from inside Channel II

Iron II pottery dealt with in Area F (Channel II)

126

640.10 639.70

Dismantling balk, equivalent to L81

Iron II

127

640.18 639.60

Excavation of central balk, equivalent to L111

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

128

639.60 638.76

Excavation of central balk, equivalent to L112

Iron II

129

640.18 639.60

Equivalent to L111

Iron II

130

------

Equivalent to L71, from dismantling baulk west and along W501

Iron II

131

------

Brown earth, equivalent to L112, below L129

Iron II pottery, single EB sherd

132

------

Loose rubble, equivalent to L 113 and L114, below L131

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

133

------

Dismantling balk parallel to W501, below L130

Iron II pottery, with few EB I sherds

134

638.60 638.28

Earth below rubble overlying bedrock, equivalent to L115, below L 132

Iron II

135

641.16

Layer of loose rubble

Iron II

Fig. 8.3

Fig. 8.16

Fig. 8.16

Fig. 8.6

640.85 136

640.85 640.00

Brown earth below L135

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

137

640.00 639.50

Cleaning top of W503, below L136

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.6

A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S 2 6 3

Locus

Levels

Description

Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

138

640.10 639.22

Layer of stones between W501 and Channel II, equivalent to L51

Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Figs. 8.4, 8.16

139

641.18 640.85

Light brown earth, equivalent to L81

Iron II

Fig. 8.18

140

640.85 640.60

Layer of loose rubble, equivalent to L89, below L139

Iron II

Fig. 8.18

141

640.60 640.10

Brown earth below L140, equivalent to L92 and L136

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.18

142

640.10 639.85

Layer of loose rubble, equivalent to L95, below L141

Iron II

Fig. 8.18

143

639.85 639.50

Brown earth overlying W503, equivalent to L137, below L142

Iron II

Fig. 8.18

144

639.22 638.26

Dismantling layer of stones below L138, abutting W501 from west

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Figs. 8.4, 8.16

145

639.75 639.40

Earth west of W503, up to Channel II, below L143

Iron II

146

638.70 638.26

Light brown earth below L144, abutting W501 from west

Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Figs. 8.4, 8.16

147

638.70 638.46

Cleaning top of W503, equivalent to L64

Iron II

Fig. 8.16

148

638.46 638.17

Earth near eastern face of W503, below L147 down to bedrock

Iron II

Figs. 8.4, 8.16

149

637.70 637.40

Brown earth below L122

Iron II

Fig. 8.36

150

637.40 637.20

Stones below L149

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.36

151

639.40 638.98

Sediment below L145, overlying bedrock and crevices in Channel II

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.6

152

General cleaning of western section

153

637.40 637.18

Earth on rock step, below L150

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

154

640.60 640.40

Earth on bedrock floor, equivalent to L101

A few MB II body fragments

155

637.20 636.90

Sediment overlying rock step, below L150

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

156

637.10 636.60

Sediment overlying rock step, below L150

Mostly Iron II pottery, with few MB II sherds

157

-----

Small extension of area northward, equivalent to L22

Iron II

158

------

Stones and earth overlying W501, below L157

Iron II

159- 166

------

Samples of clayish plaster from Channel I

167

644.58 643.02

Debris dumped on eastern face of W513

1st century CE

168

-----

Equivalent to L144, L146–148

Iron II

169

643.02 642.44

Fill abutting W513, below L167

Iron II

Fig. 8.36

Fig. 8.4

Fig. 8.4

2 6 4 A R E A J , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S

Locus

Levels

Description

Period (according to pottery reading and coins)

Appears in

170

642.42 641.85

Fill east of W513

Iron II

Fig. 8.4

171

----

Equivalent to L172

Iron II pottery, including early Iron Age sherds, as well as few MB II sherds

Fig. 8.4

172

641.85 641.36

Fill beneath W513, overlying bedrock

MB II and LB pottery

Figs. 8.1, 8.19

173

642.50 642.25

Equivalent to L172

Iron II

174

642.25 641.98

Equivalent to L172

Iron II

Fig. 8.1,

175

646.03 645.10

Fill overlying W513

Iron II and Persian pottery

Figs. 8.1, 8.19

176

642.44 641.85

Below L172

MB II and LB pottery

Figs. 8.4, 8.19

177

641.85 641.36

Fill beneath W513, overlying bedrock

MB II and LB pottery

Figs. 8.1, 8.19

Index of Walls Wall

Description

Plan

501

Fortification wall east of Channel II, with offset

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.16, 8.26, 8.27, 8.34–8.36, 8.46, 8.54

502

Wall at eastern boundary of excavation, to east of Channel I

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.41, 8.46

503

Wall that is partly rock cut, partly built, serving as eastern wall of Channel II

Figs. 8.1, 8.3–8.6, 8.16–8.18, 8.21, 8.35

504

Wall that is partly rock cut, partly built, serving as western wall of Channel II

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.21, 8.34

505

Small segment of wall, ca. 0.40 m thick, built on bedrock, constructed of small fieldstones, with Floors L59 (flagstone pavement) and 56a abutting it

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.5, 8.21, 8.26

506

Small segment of wall, built on bedrock, constructed of small fieldstones, with Floors 56a and 101 abutting it

Figs. 8.1, 8.21

507

Small segment of wall, built on bedrock, constructed of small fieldstones

Figs. 8.1, 8.21

508

Small wall, ca. 0.35–0.45 m thick, constructed of small fieldstones

Figs. 8.1, 8.17, 8.18, 8.35

509

Western wall of Channel I (L77), built of small fieldstones, plastered with clay plaster on its inner (eastern) face

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.41, 8.46, 8.54

510

Eastern wall of Channel I (L77), built of small fieldstones and plastered on interior and exterior

Figs. 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.41

511

Small wall (north) next to W510

Figs. 8.1, 8.41

512

Small wall (south) next to W510

Fig. 8.1

513

Thick wall along western boundary of excavation area, constructed with small stones. Three seams and “saw-teeth” are noted on eastern face. wall’s western face was not exposed

Figs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.19

CHAPTER 13

AREA F STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

Area F is located at the base of the Southeastern Hill, in the vicinity of the spring (Figs. 2.4 and 3.1). Excavations in the area focused on the spring and the Spring House erected above it; Channel I, which extends to the southeast and then turns southward; Channel II, which extends due south from the Spring House along the Kidron Valley; and a maze of short tunnels (labeled III–VII) southwest of the spring (Figs. 13.1–13.5). As the work in Area F revolved around the study of many features that had been previously exposed fully or in part by Parker and Vincent (Vincent 1911), the following chapter concentrates on a detailed description of observations made not only through the exposure of new portions of these features during our excavations, but on the reexamination of the entirety of these elements. In this manner, this chapter differs from standard stratigraphic reports, yet provides a more comprehensive understanding of the elements exposed around the spring.

BEDROCK All the channels and tunnels in Area F were cut into the rock layer of the Mizzi Ahmar (Gill 1996). From the vantage point of the lower tier of steps that descend to the spring, looking west towards the rock, one can see a continuous vertical fracture (Fig. 13.6). The fracture is distinct in the rock above the opening of the cave where the water emanates. It appears as a vertical line of weathered rock with a reddish hue crossing the deeper brown rock. At the mouth of the cave, the fracture coincides with the right (northern) side of the opening. The spring emanates from the rock at the bottom of the same fracture. It also seems that “Warren’s Shaft,” which is a vertical karstic cavity (chimney) in the rock, some 16 m to the northwest of the spring, developed along a western extension of the same fracture (Figs. 13.2, 13.6, 13.7; Reich and Shukron 2000a: Fig. 11:2, the fracture on the right hand side). This vertical fracture and another vertical fracture have a bearing on the cutting of the maze of underground tunnels cut in the rock. One meter west of the entrance into the spring’s cave, an almost vertical rock cavity is noticeable (Figs. 13.8, 13.9). Originally, it was a natural feature, which may have been slightly widened by dislodging small rock chunks, and possibly used as an ancient well (Figs. 13.10, 13.11). In his detailed geological analysis, Gill (1996: 18) noted that this feature was neither mentioned nor recorded by Vincent (1911: Pl. I; Vincent and Steve 1954: Pl. LXII, main cross-section). However, Gill further notes that “It does not rise far, and its upper end is lost in the much-disturbed slope above the entrance to the stairway.” The shaft was exposed in the excavations of the northeast corner of Area C (Figs. 13.2, 13.3). The shaft was found blocked with a large boulder stuck firmly in it and covered with debris containing pottery from the 1st century BCE (Locus 806 in Area C). When the boulder was removed, the shaft was revealed in its entirety. It is 3.25 m deep (from the rock surface of the ceiling of the spring’s cave, at a level of ca. 643.95 masl, to the cave’s roof at ca. 640.70 masl). The depth of the well from the rock surface to the water table is ca. 8 m. The average width or diameter of the shaft is ca. 60–70

P_Atiq_Map_MaDR 268 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Kenyon’s Wall NA Warren’s Shaft System

Kenyon’s Wall NB Warren’s Shaft Tunnel VI Pool Tower

Area H Square11 Square22

Gihon Spring

W108

Siloam Tunnel W109

Tunnel III

Rock-cut Pool

W10

6

Spring Tower Tunnel IV

Round Chamber

Channel II

Channel I

MB II Warren’s Shaft System Water System Fortifications

Iron Age II

0

Water System Fortifications

Second Temple period (1st ( 1st c. CE) Stone Vaults

Figure 13.1: General plan (including Area H).of the Spring House, Channel I and Channel II.

15 m

P_204_B Rock-cut “Pool”

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 6 9

Tunnel V

Siloam Tunnel (Tunnel VIII)

Tunnel VI

Area C

Round Chamber

Tunnel VII Modern Wall

Cutting l

Bottom of Warren’s Shaft Area E

Tunnel IV Cutting F Fractures

To Sprin g

Tunnel III

Cutting G

Spring Channel II

I

Channel I

J Modern Spring House Crevice L

0

Figure 13.2: Plan of tunnels near the spring.

5 m

P204_a_Pictures

270 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Rock-cut “Pool”

Tunnel V

Siloam Tunnel (Tunnel VIII)

Tunnel VI

Area C

147 146

139

149 150

127

140

Round Chamber

Tunnel VII 141 133

136

137

130

135

131

145

Cutting l

132

Bottom of Warren’s Shaft Area E

148

144

Tunnel IV Cutting F

143 151

Cutting G 84

142

Tunnel III

16

85

19 12 11

63 69

78 89 90

79

62 66

17 10

83 88 87 67

86 68 77

70

Channel II

61 26 13 23 6

I

Channel I

J Modern Spring House Crevice L

22 5

21

0

5 m

Figure 13.3: System of short tunnels near the spring. Note that circled numbers denote figures in Chapter 13.

P_204_a__PICTURES__HATAHIM A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 7 1

129 B-B 1-1

129A-A

Round Chamber

Siloam Tunnel (Tunnel VIII)

129 B-B 2-2

Tunnel VI

Tunnel V Area C

Rock-cut “Pool”

129 B-B 2-2

129 B-B

129 B-B 1-1

130 Cutting l

130

Bottom of Warren’s Shaft Area E

Tunnel IV

129A-A

Cutting G

Cutting F

129 B-B 25 Tunnel III

Channel II

31 8

7

25

32 9

24

7

24

31 32 Spring Tower

8 9 0

Figure 13.4: The Spring House and short tunnels: cross-sections.

5 m

272 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

cm (cf. cistern mouths of the Early Roman period, which are similar in diameter; see Avigad 1983, ill. 82, 84, in Courtyards 1, 10 and 97 in the foreground). This indicates that the shaft was suitable for drawing water on a small scale (for a family or small settlement). The blocking of the shaft in the Early Roman period only provides a terminus ante quem for the use of this feature as a well from which to draw water. It is logical to assume that the well would have been the earliest “water system,” prior to any other water system created next to the spring. The vault above the spring is supported on the northern side by the vertical rock face. A close examination shows that the northern rock face of the niche at the bottom of the staircase to the spring continues below the staircase (Figs. 13.7–13.14). This vertical rock face is ca. 8.75 m high (633.25–642.00 masl). Within the interior of the Spring House, no rock face can be seen to the south, to support, in a similar way, the other side of the vault, which is supported upon a wall constructed of large boulders (Fig. 13.8).

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE In Chapter 2, we provided readers with a short history of excavations in the City of David. Twentieth century excavations in Area F were briefly recorded as part of the chronology of explorations. A

Fracture

Figure 13.5: Medieval pointed arch over entrance to the Spring House, looking west.

Figure 13.6: Descent of lower tier of steps, looking west. Note the main vertical fracture in the rock, the opening of the cave of the spring and Wall 149 supporting the “balcony.”

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 7 3

study of Area F, however, would be profoundly limited without first delving more deeply into those early excavations. As noted above, the primary features excavated in Area F were located in the vicinity of the spring. However, the Parker-Vincent expedition, which excavated in this area in 1909, removed many archaeological deposits within these features. Channel I and Tunnels III–VII were completely cleared; hence no original deposits were left to excavate, and no loci numbers were attributed to the fills removed from these features. The loci excavated in Channel II were labeled 220–245, while those excavated in the Spring House were labeled 1501–1511. The stratigraphic and chronological attribution of various walls, loci and architectural elements is summarized in Table 13.1.

Figure 13.7: Cross-section of Spring House, looking west.

P196

274 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 38 - 38 W127

646 00

miḥrab

W124

Spring House

“Seam”

645 00

W104

Shaft

W104

644 00 643 00

W125

642 00 641 00

Channel II

640 00

W120 Threshold

639 00

W103

W149

638 00 637 00

W146

W145 (=Wall J)

636 00 635 00

W144 (Wall I)

Channel I

634 00 633 00

P197

Figure 13.8: Cross-section of Spring House, looking south. 647 00 646 00

644 00

W127

Spring House

645 00

W104

W104

643 00 642 00 641 00 640 00 L1505

639 00 638 00

636 00 635 00

W120

W145 (Wall J)

W144 Wall I Water Lewel

Crevice L L1511

634 00 633 00

L1506

L1508

637 00

W126

L1510

632 00

Figure 13.9: Cross-section of Spring House, looking north.

Water Level

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 7 5

Table 13.1: Area F, Chronological Attribution of Walls and Loci Period

Walls

Loci

Channels/tunnels

Middle Bronze

106, 120, 150(?)

1503

Channel II (northern part), Tunnel III

Iron II

120

221, 223, 226, 228, 229, 233, 234, 243

Channel I, Channel II (southern part added), Tunnel IV–VII, Siloam Tunnel (Vincent’s Tunnel VIII)

Early Roman

125, 126, 104, 127, 103(?), 151–155(?)

1501, 1504, 1506 222, 224, 230, 232 1501, 1502, 1506

-

Late Roman Medieval Ages

1504 149(?), 124, 125, 127

220

The Spring and the Spring House A considerable amount of archaeological data regarding this spring1 has been obtained in recent years, with its history of use summarized, based on the results of the expedition’s excavations (Reich and Shukron 2004; Reich 2011: 301–306). It appears that people were already drawing water from the spring in the Epipaleolithic (Kebaran) period, as noted by Marder and Khalaily (2004), based on flints recovered in Area C (not presented in this volume). We know, therefore, that the spring has been in constant human use for the past 14,000–18,000 years. Vincent (Vincent and Steve 1954: 260–264) described the cave from which the spring emerges. In the summer of 2005, as part of a quantitative study of the spring’s hydrology, Benami Amiel, Grodek and Frumkin (2010) cleared away the rubble that filled the bottom of the cave, down to the point where the water emanates from the rock (Figure 13.20: Longitudinal cross-section of northern part of Channel II.s. 13.16, 13.17). Chapters 13–16 present archaeological data unearthed by us near the spring, as well as new interpretations of older studies. Part of these data are presented in this volume, while other material, particularly related to the MB II water system (Warren’s Shaft System), will be presented in a forthcoming volume. The spring emanates ca. 2.20 m below the top of the lowest step at the absolute level of 636.30 masl (Vincent and Steve 1954: Pl. LXII, section x-x’ at the bottom of B; see also Figure 13.20: Longitudinal cross-section of northern part of Channel II.gs. 13.18–13.20). The spring is karstic, which means that its aquifer (the water-saturated rock formation that feeds it throughout the year) is not exposed in the Kidron Valley, but is located at some distance, and the waters are led by a series of fractures that emanate at the point where the ravine of the Kidron cuts through one of these fractures to enable the waters to emerge. Until recently there was no indication of the precise direction of the aquifer, or the course of the underground feeding fractures. Some knowledge was obtained through the following incident, which has an important bearing on the understanding of the natural system of underground conduits of the water that emerge at the spring. On May 29, 2002, modern household sewage suddenly emerged in the spring water in large quantities and high concentrations. It became impossible to traverse the Siloam Tunnel, and even descent to the spring was unbearable because of the stench. A thorough examination of the adjacent sewage pipeline, which runs along the Kidron Valley bed, did not show any leakage. At this time, major construction was taking place along the northern Old City 1    

Today the accepted view is to call the spring on the eastern side of the Southeastern Hill, Gihon. For Reich’s opinion on the original name of the spring, >En Shemesh, see Chapter 1.

276 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.10: Shaft in the rock above the spring. Note fracture which crosses it. Photo taken from the spring, looking upward.

Figure 13.11: View from above the shaft and tilted ashlars which closed the side opening between the stone vault of the Spring House and the rock, looking north.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 7 7

Figure 13.12: Extrados of vault over the Spring House (after extracting blockage from the shaft), looking north.

Figure 13.13: Stone vault and shaft with small stones covering the boulder which blocked it, looking west.

278 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Channel I

Figure 13.14: Western side and bottom of space beneath the Spring House, looking west. Note the beginning of Channel I as indicated by the arrow.

Wall 145 (Wall J)

Figure 13.15: Northern wall of space beneath western side of the Spring House, looking west. Note Wall “J” and iron trusses leaning on Wall I on the left-hand side.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 7 9

wall, which involved handling the local main sewer. Mending the line there on August 13, 2002, had an almost immediate bearing on the problem at the spring, and a few hours later the water started to clear. In the following weeks the spring and the Siloam Tunnel were washed clean and the site once again became accessible to the public. One important conclusion from the incident is that we now have a clue to the last part of the underground course of the water before it emerges at the spring. As the repair was done at the street junction close to the Rockefeller Museum, which is located ca. 1150 m due north of the spring, this seems to be the course of the rock separation, most probably along a geological fracture or series of fractures. This puts the said aquifer in a northern direction. Today, the waters emanating from the rock run westwards into the Siloam Tunnel. As the water emerges from the fracture with some pressure (as the level of the aquifer must lie several meters, or even dozens of meters above the spring’s level), in the days preceding the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel, the water must have risen in the said fracture several meters before gushing out, as a spring, into the Kidron Valley. When Channel II was cut, it was certainly made in respect to the ancient level of the spring. It must have been cut at a somewhat lower level than that in which the spring gushed out to the valley, ensuring a full capture of the waters into Channel II. Likewise, the Siloam Tunnel captures the full discharge of the waters, since its base is cut ca. 2.40 m lower than Channel II (Fig. 13.20).

Figure 13.16: Opening from Spring Cave into Tunnel VI, looking west.

Figure 13.17: Spring Cave (with old iron bridge), with opening to Tunnel VI, looking west.

280 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.18: Reproduction of east–west cross-section through the Spring House and adjacent architectural and rock-cut components, prepared by Vincent and Steve (1954: Plate LXII). Tunnel VIII in the upper right corner is the Siloam Tunnel. Cavity N is the “Round Chamber.”

The Spring House

The house built over the descent and entrance to the spring is a well-known feature in Jerusalem (Figs. 13.2, 13.5). The upper part, comprising a single room, was built in the early part of the 20th century, as it is clearly absent on Schick’s section (1902: 32) and Vincent’s photos (1911: Figs. 6–7). The modern house rests directly on the vault which is built over a staircase—the lower of the two descending tiers to the spring. This architectural element has been mentioned several times in the past (Schick 1902; Vincent 1911: Pls. I, II; Vincent and Steve 1954: 260 ff.), although only Schick devoted a more detailed description to it (see below). Our excavations reached the outer face of this building and the extrados (outer side) of the vault, from the west and from the south (Area C), as well as the entire space under the said staircase. This has resulted in obtaining new archaeological data, some of which are quite surprising in nature. Bedrock and the Ancient Well

Two tiers of stairs lead down from the paved piazza in the valley to the spring (Figs. 13.5, 13.9). The upper tier of stairs is external to the building (Figs. 13.21–13.23). The lower tier of stairs (Figs. 13.6–13.19), which reaches the water, is set in a niche in the rock, exposed in the western and northern sides of the Spring House.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 8 1

Figure 13.19: Spring Cave; view of lower tier of steps descending to the bottom of the Spring House, looking east. Today water emanates from under the lowest step.

P_AREA_F_Chann P_AREA_F_Chan 282 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

640 00

640 00

639 00

639 00

638 00

638 00

637 00

637 00

636 00

636 00

635 00

635 00

634 00

634 00

633 00

633 00

Figure 13.20: Longitudinal cross-section of northern part of Channel II.

1 -11- 1

2 -22- 2

Tunnel Tunnel IIIIII 4 -44- 4

Figure 13.21: Medieval entrance to Spring House (northern door jamb), looking northwest.

Figure 13.22: Medieval entrance to Spring House (southern door jamb), looking southwest.

5 -55- 5

annel_II__1 nnel_II__1

22- 2

55- 5

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 8 3 Spring Spring TowerTower

Spring Spring HouseHouse

W150W150

Tunnel Tunnel III III

Channel boulders Channel II IIboulders Staircase Staircase to Spring to Spring

3 -33- 3

Tunnel Tunnel IIIIII Figure 13.23: Inner 6part -66of- the 6 Spring House, looking east towards upper staircase. The seam between the two distinct parts of the vault can be seen in Fig. 13.29.

P201 284 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 644 00

Spring House

35 - 35

W104

643 00

642 00 W125 641 00

W126 W106

640 00

X L1506

W103

W120 L1504

639 00

L1501

Spring Tower

L1502 L1503

638 00 L1509

W146

637 00

636 00 Crevice L 635 00

634 00 L1511 633 00

Figure 13.24: Cross-section of Spring House, looking east. Note X marked on large stone.

The Vault

The vault (Wall 104), which forms the main part of the ancient Spring House, is not of uniform construction. This was already noted by Schick (1902: 33), who concluded that the eastern part of the vault was later than the western part. Schick, however, did not try to provide a date for each of these parts (Figs. 13.5, 13.7, 13.10, 13.13, 13.21, 13.29). It appears that the inner, or westernmost, part is the earlier portion of the vault. It is a semicircular, barrel-shaped vault, which spans 3 m and has an overall length of ca. 7.30 m. It is constructed of uniform and finely cut nari ashlars, constructed in a manner typical of the Early Roman (Late Second Temple) period (Fig. 13.26). The vault constructed over the upper entrance to Warren’s Shaft is of a similar nature. Numerous similar intact vaults were found in the Upper City of Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: Figs. 93, 98, 100, 147, 160; Broshi 1976: 59) and elsewhere. The attribution of the western part of the vault to the Early Roman period is firmly corroborated by the fact that the extrados of this part, which was excavated in Area C (Loci

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 8 5

Figure 13.25: Cross-section of Spring House and Channel II, looking west.

793, 801), was covered with debris containing pottery exclusively from the Early Roman period (Figs. 13.11–13.13).2 The northern side of the vault is founded directly on the rock (Fig. 13.23). On the south, it is based on an earlier, Middle Bronze Age wall (Wall 106, see below), or at least on large boulders which were dragged for a short distance from the monumental, southern wall of the Spring Tower located just south of the Spring House. When the vault was built, these boulders were used to support the vault on this side, after being chiseled to create a straight line towards the inner space under the vault. However, on the upper course of boulders, one boulder was missing, so prior to the erection of the vault, this gap was closed by inserting two layers of small stones made of nari (Wall 125), similar to those used to construct the vault (and different from the Mizzi stone of the boulders). Only by creating a level abutment on the south could the vault be constructed (Fig. 13.8). On the west, the vault was not constructed to the point of abutting the sloping bedrock. Here, nari ashlars, probably left over from construction of the vault, were placed to close the small gap left between the bedrock and the vault (Wall 104; Figs. 13.8–13.12, 13.27). These stones were always visible from inside the Spring House. Our excavation reached these stones from the outside, as well as the extrados of the vault. 2    

The nature of our excavation was such that occasionally, a single architectural component was encountered from two different areas. This is the case with this vault, in which the inner part belongs to Area F and the water systems of the spring, while the outer part belongs in Area C. For this reason, the dating material found on the vault will be published in a separate report.

286 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.26: Inner part of vault above spring, looking west. Note tilted stones which close the gap between the rock wall and edge of the vault.

Figure 13.27: Spring House, inner, western part of barrel-shaped vault, looking west.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 8 7

Figure 13.28: Spring House, eastern part of vault with pointed arch, looking northeast.

Figure 13.29: Spring House, seam between two types of masonry of vault above spring, looking north.

There is no way to determine the eastern extent of the earlier phase of the barrel vault. The original limit of the vault was probably determined by the level of the Kidron and the original shape of the rock niche which served as the approach to the spring, although these elements are not known, having undergone so many changes over the years. When clearing the space below the staircase, two additional architectural elements related to the vault were discovered. These are an ashlar-constructed opening and the remains of an ancient staircase (see below). This implies that the original vault reached eastwards at least to a point where these elements were located under it, meaning that some 4 m from its eastern side are missing. The eastern part of the vault is comprised of two later components. Although they are made of similar nari ashlars, the discontinuity between them is clear. The earlier component was built as a continuation of the barrel vault. The later part is a slightly pointed vault, with two narrow, symmetrically placed key stones (Figs. 13.5, 13.23). The differences between the two elements is distinct and includes different cross-sections of the vaults—a western, semicircular barrel-shaped vault, and an eastern pointed vault— differences in the thickness of the stone courses and the seam between the vaults (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, 13.29). This pointed vault is founded on both of its sides on walls made of stones of different sizes and workmanship (Walls 125 and 126; Fig. 13.7), giving the impression that the stones were randomly collected on site (Figs. 13.21–13.22). Despite the gray cement used, there are large gaps between them, some filled with small stones. The outer, eastern, margins of the vaulted Spring House, which also create its façade (Wall 127), form a nicely cut pointed arch that flares outwards. This profile was necessary in order to create an easy

288 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.30: Vaulted Spring House, looking southwest. Descent to the spring is on the right, Miḥrab in the center and modern opening on the left. The figure on the right is an enlargement of one of the inscriptions mentioning Allah.

P_193

W103

640 00 L1501 Threshold

W106

L1504

639 00 W120

L1505 638 00

637 00

L1506

W146

W144 (=Wall I)

L1509

W145 (Wall J)

636 00

L1508

635 00

634 00

L1510 Channel I

Figure 13.31: Cross-section of Spring House, looking south.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 8 9

and undisturbed descent to the water that provided sufficient head space. This profile let additional light into the inner part of the cave. In order to build this arch, ashlars with intricate shapes had to be cut and dressed (for the dating of the eastern part of the vault to Medieval times, see Chapter 17). The Southern Wall and the Miḥrab

On the southern side, the vault is founded on Wall 103, and stretches along its entire length. The construction of the wall is not uniform. On the western side, there are large blocks of stone. These boulders abut the rock that creates the western side of the cave and support the barrel shaped vault (Wall 125) on the south (Figs. 13.8, 13.25). In the center of the southern foundation wall of the vault, a small curved recess, facing south, is partly built and partly cut into the large boulders of the earlier monumental construction. This recess served as a miḥrab in the Islamic period (Fig. 13.30).

P_194

640 00 L1505 W126

L1506

639 00

L1506

638 00

L1508 637 00

W145 (Wall J)

L1509

636 00

635 00 W144 (=Wall I) L1511 634 00

L1510

Channel I

Figure 13.32: Cross-section of Spring House, looking north.

W120

290 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

There are no finds that date to the Byzantine period (such as pottery sherds, fragments of glass, tesserae, coins and marble fragments in the proximity of the Spring House (as in Areas C and H), which one normally finds scattered in areas occupied during the Byzantine period. On the meaning of this absence, see Chapter 48. The Space beneath the Lower Staircase of the Spring House

The space beneath the lower staircase of the Spring House was excavated in the spring and summer of 2002. It is clear that the area, which had been excavated twice before (first by Schick and Mastermann in 1900, then by Parker-Vincent in 1909–1911), was largely disturbed by the earlier excavations. The current excavations entered the space from the south side. The main element uncovered was Wall 145. This wall seems to be the replacement of Vincent’s Wall J (Vincent 1911: Pl. II; Vincent and Steve 1954, Pl. LXII; see also Figure 13.42: Ashlar opening of late Second Temple period, looking north. Note door socket.. 13.40). Likewise, Wall 144 is the replacement of Vincent’s Wall I (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, 13.31, 13.32, 13.41). These are modern elements built by the Parker expedition. A comparison with Vincent’s plan (Vincent 1911: Pl. I) shows that the course of Wall I differs slightly from that of the current wall. In addition, modern materials notable in Walls 144 and 145 are another attestation of this intervention. Most of the debris encountered between these walls was backfill that was redeposited by the Parker expedition, which included modern finds, such as cast iron pipes (Figs. 13.33–13.39). The findings in this area of the Parker expedition are described in detail by Vincent: …[T]he various layers exposed show no regularity of date (or succession of dates) what ever. The thick, heavy, badly baked handles of Israelite pottery were sometimes found above the far more elegant fragments of Judæo-Helleneic [sic] work. …The problem was rather darkened than otherwise by the discovery (about 1 meter above bedrock) of an Israelite lamp in almost perfect condition, and certainly as old as the eleventh century before Christ. Quite close to it, beneath the wall (I) at the point where the canal of masonry (K) had been stopped up, we found some fragments of Jewish pottery that was certainly three or four centuries less ancient than the lamp… it was fairly carefully built of squared blocks set in oily mortar of rather thin layers, and mixed with the same reddish powder observable in the pounded brick used for the coating of the cistern… it also revealed on analysis some traces of wood ashes (Vincent 1911: 4–6).

From Vincent’s description, it is clear that the original fill that they had excavated contained no clear sequence and likely represented a mixed fill. And yet, a narrow accumulation of original and

0

1

2

Figure 13.33: Wooden smoking pipe left by the Parker expedition.

0

4

8

Figure 13.34: Wooden planks, Parker expedition.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 9 1

0

2

4

0

2

4

Figure 13.37: Modern glass fragment, discarded by the Parker expedition.

0

2

4

Figure 13.36: Modern glass fragment, dis-carded by the Parker expedition

Figure 13.35: Modern glass fragment, discarded by the Parker expedition.

0

2

4

Figure 13.38: Modern glass fragment, discarded by the Parker expedition.

0

2

4

Figure 13.39: Corroded battery, discarded by the Parker expedition.

undisturbed debris was encountered in the current excavations, in the easternmost part of the space, abutting the eastern wall (Wall 120) of the space. This debris (Locus 1506 abutting the western face of Wall 120; Figs. 13.31–13.32, and Locus 1504 resting upon the threshold of the opening in Wall 103). The clay layers in both contexts are attributed to the Late Roman period according to ceramic analysis. It should be noted that Loci 1504 and 1506 do not overlie but are rather next to each other, with Locus 1504 to the south of Locus 1506. Walls J and I were originally constructed as damming walls, although their dating remains enigmatic, as Vincent provided neither evidence nor a suggestion for their chronological attribution prior to their dismantling and rebuilding. That said, limited evidence provided by Vincent does seem to create a broad chronological framework for their construction. The above-cited passage

292 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

from Vincent’s report mentions that the mortar used in the construction contained crushed pottery and ashes. These materials, which are easily observed, unequivocally, point to a post-70 CE date. The introduction of crushed pottery into bonding materials (opus signinum), known in the Roman world (Vitruvius, de Architectura II 4: 3; V 11: 4; VIII 6: 14), was only introduced to the region in the Late Roman period. As this method continued into modern times, it is not possible to narrow the dating further, although it seems likely that these walls belong to the Medieval period, when the spring was re-opened and the staircases approaching the spring were constructed (see Chapter 17). Description of the Space

W (W all 1 all 45 J)

With only a small amount of undisturbed archaeological layers discovered, the chronological attribution of numerous architectural elements could only be inferred. Therefore, the description of the remains below follows a geographical rather than a chronological order. The southern side (Figs. 13.7, 13.8, 13.24, 13.31): On the southern side of the area, a narrow space (ca. 0.80 m wide) was left between the southern wall of the Spring Tower (Wall 106) and the southern wall (Wall 103; Figs. 13.8, 13.42–13.47) of the late Spring House. The fill in this space was excavated (Loci 1501, 1502, 1503; see below and Fig. 13.37) until large boulders which filled the entire narrow space were exposed at 638.00 masl (the top of the widened part of Wall 106). In retrospect, it turned out that the lowest parts of Wall 106 were constructed as an extremely thick wall, ca. 6.75 m thick, almost as thick as the eastern wall of the tower, Wall 120, which is ca. 7.0 m thick! The upper part of Wall 106, beginning at 638.00 masl, was narrower, measuring ca. 4.75 m, leaving a straight and vertical external southern face, and creating a 2.00 m wide ledge on the north. Some of the lowest stones of the southern wall (Wall 103) of the Spring House were dismantled by us in order to create a breach ca. 1.50 × 1.30 m wide, through which access was gained to the space under the staircase. It should be noted that Loci 1501 and 1502 contained Late Roman pottery, while Locus 1503, which was found covering the ledge created by narrowing the southern wall of the Spring Tower, contained Middle Bronze Age pottery (see Chapter 14), providing evidence for the date of construction of the Spring Tower. At a level of 638.92 masl, the threshold of a built entrance was exposed (Locus 1504; Figs. 13.7, 13.24). In contrast to the rough stones which were dislodged, this feature was constructed of extremely fine ashlars, which created a threshold and the lower part of two doorjambs, creating an 0.80 m wide

Figure 13.40: Space beneath the Spring House, looking north. In the center is Wall J, at the bottom of Vincent’s Channel L, looking north.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 9 3

45 l l 1l J ) a W al (W Figure 13.41: Iron trusses supporting landing of staircases, with Wall J at bottom and eastern face of Wall I in background, looking northwest.

L1504

Figure 13.42: Ashlar opening of late Second Temple period, looking north. Note door socket.

294 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.43: Threshold and door jambs of opening of the Early Roman period, looking south.

Figure 13.44: Ashlar opening of Early Roman period, looking north.

Figure 13.45: Ashlar opening, looking northeast. Note socket for door pivot.

Figure 13.46: Ashlar opening seen from above. Note socket for door pivot.

0

Figure 13.47: Ashlar opening, looking east. Note socket for door pivot.

4

8

Figure 13.48: Iron “shoe” for pivot of door. Found in situ in Opening Locus 1504.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 9 5

0

5

10

Figure 13.49: Iron “shoe” on door pivot. Found in door socket (103).

W146

Figure 13.50: Remains of staircase leading down from opening, looking east. Opening can be seen on upper right side.

296 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

opening. The threshold had a door socket and low step (door stopper) which indicates that the door opened inwards (i.e., northwards), into the cell of an earlier Spring House. Although the original door, most probably made of wood, did not survive, the iron “shoe” of the door’s pivot was quite surprisingly preserved in situ (Fig. 13.48–13.49). The ashlar-constructed opening was not encountered by the previous excavators because they had entered from different directions. Schick descended from above, through a breach in the paving of the Spring House on the landing between the two tiers of stairs. Parker and Vincent gained access from the spring by dismantling Wall I, entering from the east. Immediately beyond the opening, the upper remains of a stone constructed staircase descending to the west (Wall 146; Figs. 13.12, 13.24, 13.31), towards the spring, were discovered (Figs. 13.50– 13.51). Only the southern edges of several steps survived, abutting the inner face of the southern wall of the earlier Spring House (the lower part of Wall 125; Figs. 13.7, 13.24). Although no original stratified deposits survived, which may have supplied some data on the stratigraphic relationship between the opening and the staircase, it seems that these architectural elements (the opening and staircase) are contemporaneous. Indeed, one may point to the awkward position of the opening and staircase, the axes of which are set at a right angle to each other (the opening is entered on a southto-north axis, while the staircase descends on an east-to-west axis), but in light of the architectural setting which was present when these were constructed, this positioning seems to be the only possibility. It is therefore clear that the stone staircase descended to the spring which is located west of the opening, and that the ashlar-constructed opening was located at the only place on the perimeter of the ancient Spring Tower where it could have been placed at such a low level. To these two architectural elements, one should append the western, or inner part, of the stone-constructed vault described above. This barrel-shaped vault (Wall 125) originally extended at least an additional 4 m to the east, to cover the space above the opening and threshold and upper edge of the staircase leading to the spring. These elements—threshold, staircase remnants and partial vault—are the extant remains of the early Spring House, dated to the Early Roman period. At the lowest point of the south side, at 633.15 masl, Channel I (labeled here Locus 1510) forms a 2.20 m high opening in the southern rock face and continues southeast (see below, Channel I; Figs. 13.20–13.21). At a much higher level (637.30 m), the opening of Channel II is located to the west of Wall I (Figs. 13.8, 13.20, 13.31, 13.52, 13.53). The western side: The narrow space under the staircase is bounded on the west by a wall only the eastern face of which is visible. This wall (Wall 144 was replaced by Vincent’s Wall I; Figs. 13.14–13.15) dams the waters of the spring that flow westward. Channel II is located slightly west of Wall I (Figs. 13.8, 13.20). The northern side (Figs. 13.9, 13.32; Vincent and Steve 1954: PL. LXII): The majority of this side— particularly on the west—is occupied by the almost vertical rock scarp, which continues to rise above the lower tier of stairs which descend to the spring. Directly beneath the staircase landing, two courses of masonry (Wall 126; Figs. 13.7, 13.9, 13.24, 13.32) were discovered. They show traces of medieval comb chiseling (Fig.Figure 13.54: Detail of Wall 126 beneath Spring House, looking north..). Below these courses, are an additional five courses of masonry which may belong to the earlier Spring House of the Early Roman period. The small constructed patch of masonry west of it (beneath the rock scarp and above Wall 145/Wall J), seems to be a repair constructed by the Parker-Vincent expedition. The eastern side: The excavation beneath the lower staircase exposed the western face of Wall 120 (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, 13.24), which is the eastern wall of the Spring Tower (Figs. 13.55–13.57). This is the thickest (7 m) and most massive wall encountered in the excavations, and one of the most massive walls ever constructed in ancient Jerusalem. Its strength is also manifested in the large size

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 9 7

W1506

Wall 145 (Wall J) Figure 13.51: Opening and remains of staircase leading from it, looking southeast.

Figure 13.52: Southern wall of space under Spring House, with Wall “J” in the center, looking south.

Figure 13.53: Southern wall under Spring House, looking north.

Figure 13.54: Detail of Wall 126 beneath Spring House, looking north.

298 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

X

Figure 13.55: Eastern side of space beneath the Spring House, at its full height, looking east. X marks largest stone exposed in the inner cell of the tower.

of its stones. Here we revealed the outer face of a stone ca. 3.25 m long and at least 2.25 m high (Figs. 13.24, with a mark of the largest stone). An undisturbed layer of earth and clay containing Late Roman pottery sherds (Locus 1506) abutted the face of this stone and the ones next to it to the north. The stones of Wall 120 rest directly on bedrock, which on the eastern side narrow to a ca. 1.40 m wide space (Locus 1509), below which a narrow crevice (Locus 1511, equivalent to Vincent’s element “L”; Fig. 13.7) was discovered. This seems to be a short, karstic crevice in the rock. At its eastern edge, it does not open into the Kidron’s rocky slope, which must be a few meters farther east. Since Vincent cleared it, no original deposits were found in it. Originally, Wall J was built over it and blocked it. When rebuilding it, Vincent left a passage in it from west to east. The space under the lower staircase of the Spring House is in fact the cell within the Spring Tower. Its maximal width, between Walls 106 and Wall 554 (Area H, see Chapter 17) was ca. 3 m, and its length, between Wall 120 and the rock scarp on the west, onto which the Spring Tower was built, ca. 11 m long. On the western side of this cell, where the Spring Tower abuts the bedrock, a cave is located, from which the spring emanates (Fig. 13.2). It appears that throughout its history, the cell was repeatedly clogged as a result of the Spring Tower and was unblocked on a number of occasions to create access to the spring. It was opened in the Early Roman period (1st century BCE) and a small opening and staircase (Figs. 13.8–13.9) were inserted to ease access to the spring itself, with a barrel-shaped vault constructed above the cell. In the Late Roman period, the open space and access to the spring was silted up (see Chapter 17). The next reopening of the space in the Spring Tower occurred in the Middle Ages (mid-13th through

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 9 9

Figure 13.56: Eastern side of space under the Spring House, at its full height, looking east.

Wall 145 (Wall J) Figure 13.57: General view of space beneath the Spring House, with Wall J in the foreground and inner face of Spring Tower in background, looking east.

300 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

the end of the 14th century CE). As for the Spring Tower, it completely disappeared under the thick layers of debris which were dumped down the eastern slope of the City of David into the Kidron Valley. In the Early Roman period, a vaulted Spring House was built over the small cell inside the tower. In the Medieval period, when the surroundings were considerably higher, the vault was repaired and extended eastwards with a pointed vault and the two tiers of staircases were added. From this time onward, the spring became accessible from these stairs (see Chapter 48).

Channel II Survey of Previous Research

Channel II is a water conduit, or aqueduct, which led water from the spring to the area southeast and south of the City of David, whether to directly water the gardens there, fill a pool or both (Figs. 2.4, 13.20, 13.58). A small segment of this feature was exposed in Area A (Chapter 4) on the southern side of the City of David. Later, the re-opening and clearing of the northern parts of this conduit (Part 1a, see below), from the spring and southwards, excavated in the past by various expeditions, was initiated. In addition, several unknown portions of the channel were excavated (Part 1b and Part 2a). Today, the greater part of Channel II’s line is known, and most of it is exposed and accessible. The following parts are known (from north to south): Part 1a: This segment of the channel, extending from the spring southward, was first discovered by Schick (1886a, 1886b) and termed the “Second Aqueduct,” in relation to the Siloam Tunnel, which was considered the “First Aqueduct.” This terminology, by chance, coincides with the numbers given by Vincent to the different rock-cut galleries near the spring (Vincent 1911: 6–8) in which this channel was named “II,” while the Siloam Tunnel was numbered “VIII” (Vincent 1911: 11). The Parker expedition cleared part of this segment, from the spring southward for a distance of ca. 62 m, where it bifurcates. The Parker expedition blocked the entrance into Channel II at the spring, which was subsequently cleaned again during the excavations in Area F. Part 1b: Having cleaned Part 1a again, our excavation of Channel II was undertaken for an additional 65 m to the south (see further discussion below), reaching Area J (see Chapter 8). It is important to note that this segment had not yet been excavated by previous expeditions. Part 2a: This is the southernmost part of Channel II, which is cut as a channel from rock surface downward (Fig. 13.59). The meeting point between this part and its continuation to the south as a tunnel is very clear, at the point where Schick identified the fracture (see below). It is also marked as a dotted line on Shiloh’s plan without any explanation (Ariel and Lender 2000: Pl. 5). This meeting point was further investigated in the current excavations (see discussion below), where an additional ca. 13 m of the channel were cleared to the north, using wooden struts to support the excavation where the channel’s capstones were missing. Approximately 0.5 m north of the transition between channel and tunnel, a huge stone slab (3.5 m long, 0.6–0.7 m thick) served as a cover for the channel at a point where the channel is quite low, with walls ca. 1.20 m on the west and 0.95 m high on the east. North of the transition line, 2.5 m of the eastern wall of the channel is not rock-cut, but rather constructed of stones from the base of the channel to the capstone described above. This is a crucial point in the course of Channel II and will be discussed below. In the northern part of the channel, the rock walls have a much rougher surface than that of the tunnel (Part 2b). This rough workmanship resembles that of the rock walls of the northern parts of the channel (Parts 1a, 1b). At the meeting point of the channel and the tunnel, these differences can be clearly evaluated, with the obvious conclusion being that these parts represent two different cutting traditions, originating from two distinct periods. Unfortunately, it was not possible to conduct an excavation that

P_from_PPT

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 0 1

Rock-cut Pool Spring

Area C

1a Siloam Tunnel

Open Channel

1b

Channel II Area J

2a

Not Excavated

Fracture

2b

Tunnel

Pool of Siloam

Area A

4

0

100 m

3

1a

Parker and Vincent 1909

1b

Reich and Shukron 1997-1998

2a

Reich and Shukron 1997-1998

2b

Schick 1886, 1890 Weill 1913-1914 Shiloh 1978-1985

3

Reich and Shukron 1995, Area A

4

Weill 1913-1914 Open Channel Tunnel

Figure 13.58: City of David, Channel II, schematic plan of segments according to excavators.

302 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

C

Boulder

A A-A

A

B

B-B

B

C

C-C

0

Figure 13.59: Channel II, Segment 2b, plan and cross-sections.

5 m

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 0 3

would reach this spot from surface level. In recent years, such an excavation was initiated at this location (Gadot 2016), but at the time of writing (March 2018) the dig had not yet reached the depth of Channel II. Part 2b: Subsequent to the discovery of Channel II near the spring, short notes were published in the Quarterly Statement of the PEF (Schick 1886a, 1886b) relating to the channel’s function. The outcome of these discussions was that Schick, who was carrying out the fieldwork for the PEF in Jerusalem, was commissioned to look for a southern extension of the channel (Reich 2011: 39–42). In order to trace the course of the channel, Schick excavated shafts in the riverbed. The first three shafts were dug in 1886 (Schick 1886a; Fig. 13.59). Two were unsuccessful, but in the third shaft (Shaft C, later renamed Shaft 4 by Schick), a rock-cut channel was discovered at the location and level where Channel II was thought to be. In order to strengthen the conclusion, another excavation season was carried out in 1890 (Schick 1891b). From Shaft C, Schick cleaned and followed the channel northwards, cutting five more shafts along this path (Schick’s Nos. 5–9) to reach the channel from above. Altogether, a stretch of ca. 80 m of the channel was exposed.. Several architectural features of the channel in this section are significant to the understanding of the channel, its phases and function: • In the northern end of this segment, a fracture (cleft) was observed crossing the channel (Schick 1891b; Figs. 13.58, 13.60) between Shafts 9 and 10. Schick reported that the nature of the rock changes on both sides: the rock to the south of this cleft was hard, with soft nari stone to the north of it, meaning that the entire section of the channel that he exposed was cut in the hard rock.

Figure 13.60: Plan and longitudinal cross-section of Channel II excavated by Schick (Schick 1891a: Plans I and II).

304 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

•

This fracture also distinguishes between two different elements of the channel. To the north of it, Channel II was an open channel (see above, Part 2a), cut in antiquity from the surface into the bedrock and covered with boulders. To the south of the cleft, the conduit was a tunnel cut entirely in the bedrock. • Channel II is a winding conduit. • Shaft 10 did not reach Channel II; however it provided an estimate of the amount of debris covering Channel II at this location, reaching ca. 13 m. This explains why Schick stopped digging the channel; he had no solid protection from the debris above. In 1913, Weill (1920: 139–157, Planche III) re-exposed the segment recorded by Schick, and added the discovery of a new segment, farther to the south (see below, Part 4). In 1978, Shiloh cleared this segment once again in his Area B (Shiloh 1984: 6–7, Fig. 8, Pl. 40; Ariel and Lender 2000: 13–18). Channel II crosses Shiloh’s Area B along its winding path, where 80 m of the channel were cleared. In this segment, the channel crosses three karstic cavities, which Shiloh interpreted as side openings (“windows”). However, no external side channels to distribute the water from these openings were reported in this area. On the contrary, the area just to the east and below the “windows” was built up, in which buildings of Shiloh’s Strata 12–10, 7–6 are reported (Shiloh 1984: Fig. 8), raising difficulties in Shiloh’s explanations (for further discussion of this theory, see Chapter 48). Recently, Grossberg (2014) recleaned Part 2b. Part 3: This represents the small stretch (ca. 34 m) of tunnel-like water conduit discovered and excavated in 1995 in Area A of the current excavations (see Chapter 4; Reich and Shukron 1998: 92). The entrance into this segment was possible through a breach in the rock, 310 m south of the Gihon Spring. Subsequent to the excavations, the breach was inaccessible, since modern sewage seeped in from the houses built on the rock scarp above. Part 4: This segment was discovered by Weill (1947: 60–96). Its southernmost part, where it flows into the depression known as Birkat al-Ḥamra, was later studied again by Shiloh (Area A1; De Groot, Cohen and Caspi 1992). This southern end was examined by the authors in 2005, in conjunction with the work in the area in which the Siloam Pool was discovered (Area N, which will appear in a forthcoming publication). Three short segments of Channel II remain unexcavated (marked “not excavated” in the plan): • Between Part 1b and Part 2a; • Between Part 2b and Part 3; • Between Part 3 and Part 4. The overall length of the unexcavated segments is roughly 70–80 m in total, which comprise ca. 15–20 % of the entire length of 400–420 m of Channel II. The results of the excavations in Channel II, along with their importance for understanding the various features and segments of the channel, is discussed below. The Excavation (1997–1998)

When the excavations in Area C raised the possibility that the Round Chamber3 was in fact the focus of the fortified water system, we decided to reopen it and enter the Round Chamber through Channel II and Tunnel III (Figs. 13.8, 13.20, 13.25, 13.61). In order to enable access to these points, Wall 149, a late Ottoman wall that supported a small balcony above the spring and to its south, was 3    

The Round Chamber is a rock-cut entity, discovered by the Parker-Vincent expedition. It is neither round nor does it have a rock-cut ceiling, hence the term “round chamber” is inadequate; nevertheless, we continue using this term for the sake of convenience and clarity.

P_General_Tunnel_2_Sections A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 0 5

1 2

Tunnel III

.0 . . . . .5 . . 1

3

5

6

7 8

.

.

.

W150

2

0

4-4

Tunnel III 3-3

3 W150

.

W150

.

. . . . .15 .

4 L220

L221

5 L222

Tunnel III

L223

5-5

6-6

4

6

7

L221

L222

L245 L223 7-7

8

. 20

. .

2-2

1-1

5 m

Figure 13.61: Northern part of Channel II, marking location of cross-sections.

8-8

306 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.62: View from the entrance into Channel II, looking south.

Figure 13.63: The northernmost segment of Channel II, prior to clearing, photographed from a higher level while standing behind “Vincent’s Wall” (Wall 150), looking north. Note the large boulders (later removed) at a low level which block passage.

breached and access to Channel II was facilitated (Figs. 13.6, 13.8, 13.25, 13.30, 13.62). The wall was built of one row of stones, with gray earth behind it. Only an opening in the wall was breached, the size of Channel II’s cross-section, with an iron gate mounted in its place. Work of cleaning Channel II was carried out in two stages: 1. In 1997, we cleared the first ca. 38.5 m from the spring to the south. The first 20 m of the channel were only partially filled with debris, probably because the upper part was to a degree cleared by Parker (1909–1911) and subsequently by Shiloh (1978–1982). From the 20th m onward, the channel was almost full to its entire height. However, at a distance of 4 m south of the entrance, prior to reaching the opening to Tunnel III on the west, two large boulders blocked the channel at mid-height (Fig. 13.62–13.66). This was also reported by Vincent (1911: 7). A wall (Wall 150) constructed of small stones was discovered at a distance of ca. 7 m from the entrance of Channel II, just after the opening into Tunnel III (Figs. 13.67–13.70). Both the boulders and wall were dismantled in the current excavations. 2. When the potential of tourism for Channel II was realized, and based on the fact that two parts of the channel (the one near the spring, and the one in Shiloh’s Area B) were known and accessible, the East Jerusalem Development Company expressed the desire to finance the clearance of the

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 0 7

Tunnel III

Figure 13.64: Northern segment of channel after clearing to bedrock and before removing the boulder that blocks the passage (upon which the board is resting). Entrance on the left to Tunnel III is just in front of the scale, looking north.

Figure 13.65: Channel covered by the large boulder (on the upper left side), looking south.

entire channel between these two points, a ca. 200 m long section. The work was carried out in the summer of 1998. From the spring southwards to the bifurcation (a distance of 62 m), where the entire course of the channel was covered with heavy boulders, work commenced rather easily and quickly, as the boulders supported the thick layer of debris that rested upon them. However, from the bifurcation point onward, the channel’s capstones had collapsed, filling the channel with debris which rolled down off the slope. Because the tunnel through which the debris had to be hauled kept growing longer and longer and because the path had to be constantly supported with wooden struts, work slowed considerably, From the bifurcation southward, a separate locus number was arbitrarily issued every 10 m for the debris filling the upper part of the channel. A short segment of the channel from the southern opening, originally cleared by Schick and later re-cleared by Weill and Shiloh (above, Part 2b), was also cleared in the current project. The clearance commenced northwards up to the fracture that crosses the tunnel. Schick (as well as Weill and Shiloh) had not excavated the channel beyond this point, as it turns into an open channel without any capstones. The current project proceeded excavating to the north in the same manner as it had in the part of the channel described above, continuously supporting it with wooden planks (Locus 242, Fig. 13.59).

308 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Tunnel III

Figure 13.66: Channel covered by the large boulder, which had sagged, after clearing the debris in the channel, looking south.

Figure 13.67: Wall 150 built across Channel II, with opening into Tunnel III on the right, looking south.

Originally, the plan was to create a continuous path for tourists through the entire length of the channel. However, prior to the completion of the project, it was decided to create an artificial exit from Channel II. The point chosen was located ca. 110–120 m south of the spring, where a small excavation area (J) that was later expanded was opened (see Chapter 8). Description of Channel II: Parts 1a–1b, 2a and 3

Below is a detailed description of the portions of the channel that were exposed in the current excavations, from the spring southwards (Figs. 13.20, 13.58). Each part is described according to segments. The plans of the various segments (Figs. 13.74–13.75) include dots, marking every meter along the floor of the channel, from north to south, with every fifth dot numbered by the distance from the entrance to the channel. The description below refers to these distances. It is important to note that the channel’s walls are not vertical or perfectly smooth. The workmanship can be divided into two categories: • The lower part, ca. 1.20 m on average, was cut using a suitable tool (likely an axe), with diagonal cutmarks clearly visible on either side. The use of tools to cut the lower part of the channel resulted in a relatively regular, smooth face. Interestingly, the western face of the rock displays cutmarks in two different directions. • The upper part of the channel, rising up to the height of the channel’s capstones, is very rough, probably the outcome of cutting the rock by dislodging chunks of rock with a pick or lever.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 0 9

Figure 13.68: Wall 150 built across Channel II, with opening into Tunnel III on the right, looking south.

Figure 13.69: Segment of Channel II between the blocking boulders and Wall 150, looking south.

Part 1a

As noted above, the excavation of Channel II began after dismantling part of Wall 149, south of the spring (Figs. 13.62, 13.71, 13.72). Wall 149 abuts the southern rock-face of the Spring Cave, which, along the seventh step leading to the spring, is ca. 2.80 m wide (Figs. 13.8, 13.25). The rock-carved floor of Channel II only starts ca. 70 cm from the wall’s face, as a short rock ledge is located here. The exploration of the channel began here (Point 0), with measurements along the channel referring to this point (Figs. 13.73–13.75), with different segments and features of the channel described. Segment 1 (Distance from entrance 0–6.10 m): The first section extends from the Spring Cave to the diversion westwards into Tunnel III (Figs. 13.20, 13.25). At its onset, the channel is covered by large, rough blocks of stone (Figs. 13.76–13.83), unlike typical capstones that are usually flat. A grayish earth adheres between the cover blocks and the rock face of the channel. Grayish earth containing small bits of pottery was found between the boulders and the channel walls, although this does not appear to have been mortar, but earth which washed in and filled the channel to the ceiling. Unfortunately, the original level of the debris in the channel, which the Parker-Vincent expedition had cleared, had not been documented. Two large boulders were found collapsed and jammed in the lower, slightly narrower part of the channel, ca. 60 cm above the floor. Vincent (1911: 6–8) had noted these stones. These were likely capstones collapsed from an earthquake.

310 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.70: Northern segment of channel after clearing to bedrock and before removing boulder that blocked passage (upon which the scale is resting), looking north. Entrance to Tunnel III is on the left in front of the scale.

Figure 13.71: View of Channel II from entrance, looking south. Note the boulder stuck at mid-height.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 1 1

Figure 13.72: Channel II, beneath the large boulder, where it was found covered with debris, looking south.

The first segment of the channel is the shortest, with a height of 2 m from the rock surface to the ceiling. Farther south, it reaches considerable heights, surpassing 4 m. This segment is relatively straight, with a rectangular cross-section at its base, ca. 0.5 m wide. In places where the face of the rock protrudes inwards, the rock is weathered and polished, as pointed out by Vincent (1911). Junction with Tunnel III: At a distance of 6 m from the entrance to Channel II, on the western wall, is the entrance to Tunnel III. Looking into Tunnel III from inside Channel II, the tunnel narrows considerably, creating a bottleneck (Figs. 13.84–13.88). The diversion from Channel II into Tunnel III is at an oblique angle. A step (65 cm wide, 25 cm high) is located on the rock floor between the diversion and Channel II’s continuation to the south. It should be noted that at this particular point, there is a slight bend in the eastern face of Channel II. The diversion coincides with a thick vertical fissure or crevice, which most probably was visible from the surface and guided the rock-cutters in positioning the diversion from Channel II into Tunnel III (Figs. 13.87, 13.89). Channel II was cut in a single operation, from the spring in the north to a distance of ca. 190 m to the south. At a later stage, in accordance with the fissure in the western face of the channel, Tunnel III and the other rock-cut components (the Round Chamber, etc.) were cut. The rock step at the deviation from Channel II into Tunnel III may indicate that a low flowrate of up to 25 cm high (similar to the depth of the water in the Siloam Tunnel today) flowed into the Round Chamber, and only the surplus (and larger amounts of water that gushed out of the intermittent spring) continued into the southern part of Channel II.

P_General_Tunnel P_General_Tunnel

312 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Gihon Spring Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Tunnel III

I

Seg 4 Seg 5

Seg 6

1a Seg 7 Seg 9 Seg 10

Seg 8

II Seg 11

Columbarium

Seg 12

Seg 13-14 Seg 15 Seg 16

Channel II

III

Seg 17 Seg 18 Seg 19

1b

Seg 20

IV Area 15J

0

0

m

15 m

Figure 13.73: Channel II, key plan of the part excavated by Reich and Shukron.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 1 3

The narrow passage between Tunnel III and the Round Chamber was found filled with debris (Fig. 13.88). As Parker had already explored Tunnel III (Vincent 1911: Photo 16), and it was still clear in 1970,4 it seems that it filled with debris that collapsed from above into the Round Chamber subsequent to 1970. Segment 2 (6.10–9.40 m): The floor of Channel II following the junction with Tunnel III has a raised rock step, ca. 15 cm higher than the floor of the previous segment, for a distance of 80 cm. This step seems to have been intentional, controlling the flow of water in the manner described above in Segment 1. The channel is very high in this segment, with the boulders used as capstones located ca. 5–6 m above the floor. Grayish silt with broken pottery that may have seeped in at any time after the channel was cut can be seen between the boulders. About 1 m south of the opening leading to Tunnel III, Wall 150, built of small fieldstones, was found across and blocking the channel (Figs. 13.20, 13.25, 13.61: Section 1; Figs. 13.74, 13.75). Based on the differences between this wall and others built and dismantled by Parker and Vincent, Shukron believes that Wall 150 was not dismantled or rebuilt by them. The layer of sherds found in relation to the wall date to the end of the 8th century BCE,5 when Channel II had already gone out of use. In addition, it is possible that this wall was built as early as the Middle Bronze Age. For a full explanation of Shukron’s opinion, see below. Segment 3—Karstic Pit (9.40 m–11.00 m): An irregularly-shaped karstic pit opens in the channel’s floor, ca. 1.10 m deep, slightly widening to the east and west (Fig. 13.80Figure 13.80: The channel after it was cleared to rock floor, looking south. Note karstic cavity at far end of Channel II (with meter resting on it). This cavity is clearly the product of water infiltrating and weathering the rock along the vertical fracture that can be seen on the western side of the channel. Along the rim of the pit, traces of plaster were found, indicating that the pit was originally filled with debris and stones and plastered over, similar to the plastered sections found further to the south, in Segment 4 (see below). The eastern rock-cut wall of the channel above the pit rises only to about 1 m, with a cavity opening towards the east above it. The cavity is sealed by stones, which complete the wall of the channel here (Figs. 13.79, 13.90, 13.91). Three courses of rough, slightly hewn stones, 1.50 m high and ca. 1.50 m long were constructed, set in clay as bonding material. In addition, the lower part of the masonry is plastered; this clearly points to the fact that the cutting of Channel II and blocking of this opening were undertaken together. Directly above the pit, the boulders covering the channel descend to a very low height. They are actually wedged into the rock, possibly indicating that an earthquake caused this particular spot to widen slightly more than the other parts of Channel II, due to the local weaknesses of the rock, including fractures and the karstic cavity. Segment 4 (11.00 m–16.00 m): To the south of the fracture, a triangular niche was created by dislodging a block of rock on the western wall of the channel (ca. 0.90 × 0.70 × 0.50 m). South of the fracture is a short (1.0 m long) segment that is quite narrow (ca. 0.50–0.70 m), after which the channel widens considerably into a 1.0–1.20 m wide space (as opposed to the average width of 0.30– 0.50 m in the lower part of the channel). This section is characterized by a flat floor with rounded edges, plastered with a clay plaster up to the height of ca. 1.0 m above the floor. The plaster is ca. 2 cm thick (Figs. 13.92–13.93). Shallow and rounded finger indentations, created when applying the plaster, are notable. The plaster thins out (0.5 cm) at the edges. 4     5    

In 1970, A. Mazar and Reich entered this space and crossed Tunnel III freely. Pottery from this location was not kept. The dating presented here is based on Shukron’s on site viewing of the pottery.

P_General_Tunnel_1

314 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

.

W149

0

.

. . . . .5 . .

L232 Tunnel III

L220

.

L227

L221

.

L231

10

I

L229

.

.

.

. . . . 15 . .

L222 L223

L221

II

. .

. 20

. . .

L224 55

.

. . . .

.

25

L225 L226

. . 0

Figure 13.74: Channel II, Parts I and II.

5 m

W154

. .

. . . 60

.

. . . . .

.

.

. 50

W152

W153

.

.

.

.

.

45

W151

.

. 30 . . . . . 35 . . . . . 40

L230 L233

P_General_Tunnel_2

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 1 5

.

W154

. 63 .

L234 L243

.

65

III

P_General_Tunnel Gihon Spring I

.

. . . . . 100

W153

. . . . 70 .

.

. . . 75 . . . . . 80 . . . .

II

III

IV 0

.

IV

. 85 . . . . . . . .

90

. .

15 m

0

Figure 13.75: Channel II, Parts III and IV.

5 m

95

. . . . . 105 . . . . . 110 . . . . . 115 . . . . . 120 . . . . . 125

AreaJ

P_General_Tunnel_ZOOM

316 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

.0 . . . . .5 . . Tunnel III

.

.

.

Stair to Spring

W149

W150

.

.

. . . . .15 .

Boulders

Tunnel III

W150

. 20

0

. .

5 m

0

3

m

Figure 13.76: Boulder that covered Channel II. Right: boulders covering the channel; left: detail of the area after the removal of boulders.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 1 7

Figure 13.77: General view of boulders on the ceiling of Channel II.

Figure 13.78: A view upwards towards the boulders which close Channel II from above. Upper edge of Wall 150 as seen, looking south.

Figure 13.79: A view upwards towards the boulders that close Channel II from above, photographed from up close, looking southeast.

Figure 13.80: The channel after it was cleared to rock floor, looking south. Note karstic cavity at far end of Channel II (with meter resting on it).

318 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.81: Channel II after clearing, looking south.

Figure 13.82: Channel II after clearing, looking south.

Figure 13.83: General view of a segment of Channel II with slight turns.

Figure 13.84: View of “bottle neck” of Tunnel III, looking west.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 1 9

Figure 13.85: Tunnel III from the “Round Chamber,” looking east.

Figure 13.86: Tunnel III, the “bottle neck,” looking east.

320 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.87: Upper part of entrance from Channel II to Tunnel III. Note the fracture along the tunnel’s west side.

Figure 13.88: Tunnel III, looking west, with the narrow opening as found, partially blocked with debris.

Figure 13.89: Lower part of Channel II, with turn into Tunnel III, looking south.

Figure 13.90: Channel II. Opening blocked with masonry, looking northeast.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 2 1

The rock of the lower part of the channel was rounded, smoothed and plastered, while on the upper walls, the channel’s sides are irregular and the plaster is applied into the depressions of the rock. On September 28, 1997, a day after the first rain, this section was filled with ca. 10 cm of water. These waters did not seep into the ground, indicating that the plaster is watertight, and had not been damaged (fractured) since antiquity. The existence of a short segment of the channel that is thoroughly plastered, without any continuation of this phenomenon further to the south, is unusual. It is possible that at this location, a fracture or karstic cavity of considerable width and depth was present, which prevented the water from continuing to flow south in Channel II, diverting it to an underground water course. Such a fracture may have left the continuation of the channel dry. The plaster was therefore applied to fill up the crevice, preventing the water from disappearing. At a distance between 16 and 17 m from the entrance, the channel narrows once again for 1 m and turns slightly. Segment 5 (17.00–19.50 m): This segment is constructed of stone, with only the base of the channel formed by the bedrock (Figs. 13.94–13.96). The construction forms a bridge of sorts, made of two U-shaped elements, 1.80 m long, and an additional patch of plaster 0.45 m long. These elements measure as follows: 1. Southern element: length: 1.15 m; depth: 0.25 m; width: 0.22–0.25 m. 2. Northern element: length: 0.65 m; depth: 0.27 m; width: 0.22–0.25 m. The elements are tightly connected with the rock-cut channel into which they were inserted using clay plaster. An additional short patch of plaster was added at the bottom of the southern edge, probably

Figure 13.91: Channel II. Opening blocked with masonry at points 10 m, 11 m, looking southeast.

Figure 13.92: Segment 4: Channel II’s plastered floor, looking south.

322 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.93: Segment of Channel II plastered with clay between points 12 m and 16 m, looking north.

Figure 13.94: The constructed “bridge” on the bottom of the rock-cut channel, looking south.

Figure 13.95: The constructed “bridge” on the bottom of the rock-cut channel, looking south.

Figure 13.96: Northern edge of the constructed “bridge,” looking north.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 2 3

Figure 13.97: General view of a relatively straight and high segment of Channel II, looking south. Note rough workmanship of the rock walls.

Figure 13.98: General view of a relatively straight and high segment of the Channel II, looking south. Note rough workmanship of the rock walls.

to prevent water from seeping into the fissures and damaging the bridge. It seems that this element was constructed overlying a karstic cavity, the edges of which are seen on both sides of the built element. In addition, vertical fractures are visible on both sides of the channel. The base of the built segment is ca. 0.45 m higher than the floor of the rock-cut channel. The difference of levels seems strange, as it obviously created a small dam inside the channel, where only the overflow continued its flow southwards. Segment 6 (19.50–35.50 m): A long and uniform section of the channel with a slightly winding course was exposed here. The channel is very narrow at its base (ca. 0.10 m). The entire section is covered over with very large boulders at different heights (Figs. 13.97–13.100). Segment 7 (35.50–38.50 m): A karstic cavity and wide vertical fractures yhat cross the channel caused the widening of its base to ca. 0.60 m, and its plastering with clay plaster, similar in nature to Segment 4. The direction of the channel changes twice here over a very short distance. The channel is covered with an extremely large boulder (at least 2 × 1.5 m). It seems that this boulder was specifically chosen for this point, as the channel is wider here and has two bends in its course. At 38 m, another large boulder covers the channel, this time at a very low height, covered by another, much larger boulder. Both boulders could not be measured as only their outer faces are visible. It seems that the workmen missed their target, originally throwing in a relatively narrow stone which accidentally fell in on its narrow side. The workmen did not take the trouble to extract or to dismantle it as it certainly did not block the flow of the water.

324 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.99: General view of a relatively straight and high segment of Channel II, looking south. Note rough workmanship of the rock walls.

Figure 13.100: Channel II after it was cleared, looking south.

Segment 8 (38.5–40.70 m): This segment, covered with large boulders and with no particularly unique features is a continuation of the channel. Segment 9 (40.70–42.10 m): At this point, the foundation of Wall 155 crosses above the channel (Figs. 13.74, 13.101). The wall is made of small stones, some of which are rectangular in shape, all set in gray mortar which contains pottery fragments. Some thin, dark brown body fragments of cooking pots dating to the Early Roman period can be discerned. It seems that the wall was constructed above the channel when it was already filled with debris and therefore had no architectural relation to the channel. For a possible explanation of the function of this wall, see below, Segment 14 (columbarium). Segment 10 (42.10–46.60 m): In this section of 4.5 m, the capstones of the channel are missing. Segment 11 (46.60–47.40 m): The opening of a cavity, extending downslope to the east, was noted here. The cavity has a rock-cut side on the south and what seems to be a built wall (Wall 151) on the north, as well as a built lintel above the entrance into the cavity. The constructed elements were preserved to a height above Channel II (Figs. 13.102, 13.103). Segment 12 (47.40–60.40 m): This segment, too, is covered with stone boulders. On the eastern side, at 53.70–56.00 m, is a recess which does not seem to be of karstic origin, but may signify excessive rock-cutting through the dislodging of rock blocks.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 2 5

Figure 13.101: Channel II, looking north. Note the lower part of Wall 152, the foundation of which is floating above the upper part of the channel and supported with modern cement.

Figure 13.102: View of opening into karstic cavity that was blocked with masonry (Wall 151), looking east.

Segment 13 (60.40–64.00 m): Another wall (Wall 152) seems to cross over the channel in this location (from 60.40 to 61.50 m). The wall is built of slightly trimmed fieldstones and is visible from within the channel, built over the upper part. Segment 14, columbarium (64.00 m and southwards). At 63.00 m the channel bifurcates (Figs. 13.104, 13.107, 13.108). The western extension continues directly to the south. This, however, is not the continuation of the channel (see below, Segment 15 and beyond), as its base slopes steeply upwards. The outline of its base is rounded, which also differs from the outline of the channel itself, which has a pointed V-shaped outline (as in Segment 15 and beyond, see Figure 13.115: Area J, eastern wall of Channel II, a combination of rock-cut wall with additions constructed in stone. On the west is the high rock wall, looking northwest.). This western feature was excavated for a short distance, yet the excavation ceased due to the hazard of collapse from above. The eastern extension turns to the southeast, forming the continuation of Channel II (see below). Another wall (Wall 153) is built over both features, some 3.20 m to the south of Wall 152 (see above, Segment 13). The two walls are parallel and similar in nature. A few stones of a western wall (Wall 154) survived on the upper edge of the channel’s rock wall, forming a right angle with Wall 153 (Fig. 13.105). While Wall 152 in Segment 13 can be seen only from below, the northern face

326 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.103: View from inside the karstic cavity towards Channel II, looking west.

Figure 13.104: Photo taken from the upper level of the ascending rock pass. Note the foundation of wall (Wall 152) crossing the channel at Segment 13, with modern cement reinforcements.

of Wall 153 is discernable. It is built of relatively square blocks of stone with alternating stones left out in order to create a series of small rectangular niches within the wall. This wall and its northern counterpart are parts of a small, square columbarium. The area between the walls was not covered with boulders so that the space available for the pigeons was not only that which was between the built walls, but also the basement-like space below, provided that Channel II was void of debris. In the light of these remains, it is clear that the space between Segments 9–11, which included two parallel walls crossing the channel, an unroofed space in between and a side entrance, should also be identified as an additional columbarium. The side entrance to this basement from the east supports the explanation of the western extension of the bifurcation at Segment 14 as an approach created for the columbarium, rather than the remnants of an unfinished channel due to the change in direction of its course. At a later time (likely during the Hellenistic or Early Roman periods), a columbarium structure was constructed above the sloping western extension of the bifurcation. Through this sloping part of the channel, the pigeons as well as the people maintaining it, could gain access to the columbarium. It should be noted that several columbaria, both circular and square, dating to the Hellenistic period, were excavated in the City of David (Kloner 2000). Like many columbaria of the Shephelah, the

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 2 7

Figure 13.105: View of the ascending rock path at the so-called bifurcation, looking south. Note the remains of the columbarium wall (Wall 153), with the small square niches on the upper left side and Wall 154 on the channel’s rock wall at upper right side.

Figure 13.106: Part of a columbarium at point 63 m (the channel’s bifurcation), looking south.

Figure 13.107: Channel II at bifurcation. The photo shows mainly the right side of the western ascending path, looking south.

Figure 13.108: View of bifurcation, looking south. The main part of Channel II opens and continues on the left; the ascent is on the right. Above: modern concrete.

328 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.109: General view of Channel II, looking south. Note the high rock wall on the right (west) and the low rock wall on the left (east). Note the stones on the left side which were part of the channel.

Figure 13.110: Channel II cleared to rock floor, looking north. Note the different height of the rock walls (high on the left; low on the right), and modern concrete ceiling.

present installation was built directly above a subterranean cavity (i.e., Channel II), although the columbaria excavated by Weill and Shiloh are not of this kind (ibid.). At 63.50 m, a vertical fracture crosses both the channel and the western arm of the bifurcation (see above, Segment 14). This fracture was found filled with clay and stones. Part 1b

Segment 15 (64.00–72.00 m): As noted above, the southern continuation of Channel II is located along the eastern extension of the bifurcation (Figs. 13.109–13.113). At the beginning of this extension, at 64.00 m, a stone slab was stuck in the upper part of the channel, although it appears that it was unrelated to the channel, as the capstones of the channel were not found further to the south. At 66.00 m both rock walls of the channel are preserved at the same height of 2.5 m. Between 62.50 m and 67.00 m, the western side of the channel is inclined, while the eastern side is vertical, which makes passing through this portion a bit difficult. At 66.50–67.00 m, the negatives of the chunks that were dislodged from the rock can be discerned, although not all the way down to base. At 68.5 m, the channel crosses a vertical fracture in an oblique line. The fracture is plastered, as is the bottom of the channel at this point. From 68.00 to 69.50 m, where the fracture is seen on

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 2 9

Figure 13.111: Channel II cleared to rock floor, looking south.

Figure 13.112: Channel II cleared to rock floor, looking north.

the western side, and from 70.50 to 72.00 m on the eastern side, there are recesses which are also the outcome of dislodging rock chunks. This entire segment marks the diversion of the channel to a more easterly path, leading to these irregular cuttings. Segment 16 (72.00–84.20 m): The southern part of the channel was for the most part cut in a straight line. However, both rock walls are preserved to varying heights. On the western side, the rock wall is relatively high (2.5 m on average), while the eastern wall is low (1.30 m on average) (Fig. 13.109). While these heights vary slightly from this segment onward, the eastern rock-cut wall is always lower than the western rock-cut wall. This implies that Channel II was cut along and at the bottom of a rock terrace or scarp, and that the upper part of the eastern wall had been previously built of stone. The stones of the constructed part were mostly robbed after the channel went out of use. Stone robbing may have occurred in the late Iron II. The few stones described below are the remnants of this construction. The upper and lower sections of the western rock wall are clearly cut in a different manner the entire distance to the south. The upper part is very rough and seems to have been cut by dislodging rock chunks with a pointed iron pick, while the lower part (ca. 0.50–0.70 m) has a smoother face, indicating it was carved by chiseling. It is quite possible that this difference marks the transition between two distinct geological formations, namely the softer upper Meleke, which could have been rapidly and easily removed by using a pick, and the lower, much harder Mizzi, which had to be chiseled. As the rock layers dip to the southeast, it seems that the hewers of the channel tried to cut it as far east as possible, thus taking as much

330 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.113: Channel II cleared to rock floor, looking south.

Figure 13.114: Channel II in Area J, looking east.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 3 1

Figure 13.115: Area J, eastern wall of Channel II, a combination of rock-cut wall with additions constructed in stone. On the west is the high rock wall, looking northwest.

Figure 13.116: Area J, high rock-wall of Channel II on the right, with the bottom of Channel II, and Wall 501 on the left (Area J), looking south.

332 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.117: Channel II, Area J, looking south. In the foreground is part of the channel not yet excavated to the floor. The low rock wall is on the left with constructed part above it, and the high rock wall is on the right.

Figure 13.118: Channel II, Area J, looking north. High rock-wall on the left and low rock-wall on the right with constructed additions.

advantage as possible of the softer rock formation and avoiding most of the hard formation. Between 71.0 m and 74.8 m, several patches of a clayish plaster (producing a dull sound when hit) survived. Segment 17 (84.20–87.70 m): From 82.00 to 84.20, the channel turns slightly to the east once again. Between 84.60 and 86.25 m, two large stones were used to fill a gap along the eastern rock wall. These stones, at heights of 0.80–1.30 m above the base of the channel, were placed on a level surface, formed by the natural rock and small stones. The inner face of these stones and the rock wall beneath the stones are plastered with a clayish plaster. Segment 18 (87.70–91.30 m): Along this segment, the eastern wall forms a rock bench upon which two stones were placed, at a height of 0.95–1.55 m above the channel’s base. As in Segment 17, the rock wall is plastered with clayish plaster.6 The upper part of the eastern rock wall is weathered and smooth. Segment 19 (91.30–97.00 m): At 92.50 m the channel crosses a vertical fracture in an oblique line. The fracture is seen only on the western rock wall. Since the entire eastern rock wall is plastered here, it is not possible to see the fracture on the eastern side. 6    

Today, this part is covered with concrete and is no longer discernable.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 3 3

Figure 13.119: Channel II, segment cleared by Shiloh (Ariel and Lender 2000: Plan 5, Area B).

Segment 20 (97.00–106.00 m): This is a long, straight stretch of the channel, which has more of a southeastern course than the portions to the north. The eastern rock wall is relatively low (ca. 0.70 m), while the western rock wall varies between 1.50 and 1.80 m in height. At about 106.00 m, the channel reaches the northern limit of Area J, where the channel continues from 106.00 to 127.00 (Figs. 13.114–13.118, and further discussion in Chapter 8) Part 2a

Part 2a is the southernmost section of Channel II in which it is cut as a channel (Figs.13.20, 13.73). The meeting point between Parts 2b—where Channel II is cut as a tunnel (see above)—and 2a is very distinct. Shiloh marked this point on his plan using a dotted line (Ariel and Lender 2000: Pl. 5), although no explanation was given. In order to examine this meeting point, ca. 13 m of the channel were excavated to the north (Locus 242).7 The excavation was conducted with the support of wooden struts to prevent collapse. From about 0.5 m away from the transition line between channel and tunnel, a large flat boulder (3.5 m long and ca. 0.6–0.7 m thick) was used as a cover over the channel. Here the channel is quite low, reaching a height of only ca. 1.20 m on the west and 0.95 m on the east. North of the transition line, for a distance of ca. 2.5 m, the eastern wall of the channel is completely constructed of stones, above which the said boulder rests. In this part, the rock walls have a much rougher surface than the tunnel to its south (Part 2b). At the meeting point of the channel and tunnel, these differences can be clearly evaluated, with these parts representing two different cutting traditions from two distinct periods of time. For the importance of this segment in understanding Channel II, see discussion below. Part 2b

The northern portion of Channel II that had already been cleared by Schick (1886a; 1886b; 1890; 1891a; 1891b: 197–200), and later by Weill (1920: 142–157, Planche III; 1947: 60–96) and Shiloh (1984: 6–7; Ariel and Lender 2000: 13–18; Grossberg 2014; Fig. 13.20) was once again cleared and examined as part of our project. This was undertaken from the breach located on the eastern rock wall, which Shiloh labeled Loci 105–106 (Ariel and Lender 2000: Plans 4, 5; Photos 12, 29). The description is presented from north to south. As opposed to Parts 1a, 1b, and 2a, Part 2b is a tunnel, extending from starting point 0 to a distance of 29.50 m inwards. It is important to note that along 7    

Several loci were excavated here that were subsequently unified to Locus 242.

334 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

the tunnel’s course there are several openings, some of which are natural karstic cavities, while others are man-made, rock-cut shafts. By following the direction of the cutmarks on the rock walls, it was possible to determine that the tunnel was cut in portions by workers who entered through these openings and worked towards each other (see detailed description below). At 1.00 m, the tunnel’s ceiling rises in height by ca. 35 cm in a step-like fashion. The cutmarks indicate that the direction of cutting here was from north to south. At 3.60 m, the channel crosses a vertical fracture which can clearly be seen on the ceiling. At this point, there are an additional two small rock steps on the ceiling, with the southern part of the channel ca. 15 cm lower than the northern. Since the course of the channel makes a sharp turn at this point, it is likely that the encounter with this fracture during the carving of the tunnel, which most probably surfaced, directed the cutters to change direction and to lower the ceiling. Changes in carving direction can be seen here and at 4.30 m on the western rock wall. As the cutting here goes from north to south, it is clear that this change of direction caused the cutters to breach out of the rock slope at a distance of ca. 8.20 m south of the beginning of the tunnel. Although it has been suggested that these breaches were created intentionally (Shiloh 1984: 22–23), it appears that these breaches in the hill’s eastern slope were accidental, as the rock surface was very close to the line of cutting (see discussion below). At 5.00 m, a fracture is located on the ceiling. Between 7.75 m and 8.75 m the channel crosses a karstic cavity, labeled Locus 106-6 in Shiloh’s excavation (Ariel and Lender 2000: Plans 4, 5; Photo 28). The rock ceiling is missing here due to this cavity. On the eastern side, a vertical fracture is visible. This fracture was the geological weak point that triggered the creation of this karstic cavity. It is important to note that the rock surfaces in this area are very weathered. Between 8.75 m and 18.00 m, a horizontal fissure is seen on the vertical rock walls, sloping from north to south. This fissure indicates the separation between two rock formations, the upper Meleke, and the lower Mizzi Ahmar rock. In the separation itself small niches are notable, although it is not clear whether these are natural or man-made. If they are man-made, it is not clear who created them. At 13.50 m and 13.95 m two rock steps are located on the ceiling, rising from north to south. That the channel was cut here from south to north is indicated by the arching cutmarks left on the rock walls. This means that the karstic cavity described above was used as a starting point for the cutting of this part of the channel, to both the north and south. At 14.75 m, the tunnel is only 1.60 m high, which is its shortest height. It also appears to be a meeting point where the cutters working from the karstic cavity and those working from the north in the channel (Part 1b) would have met. Between 20.30 m and 22.55 m, the rock ceiling is missing due to a shaft which is covered by flat stone slabs (Schick 1891a: Plan I, “Door” and corresponding section; Shiloh’s L. 106-7; Ariel and Lender 2000, Plan 5; Photo 22). At 19.15 m and at 22.40 m two rock corners are evident. It is possible that the workers began by cutting a much narrower shaft, then widened it to the north and south, but did complete the task at the base of the channel. At 23.20 m, there is a clear change in cutting direction. At 23.35 m, the ceiling is at its lowest, indicating a meeting point of the cutters, with those working from the south cutting a mere 95 cm from the shaft, while those from the north needing to carve only ca. 80 cm. Between 24.10 m and 25.80 m, the rock ceiling is once again missing, due to a shaft that descends from the surface (Shiloh’s Locus 106-8; Ariel and Lender 2000: 14; Fig. 12.119). The upper edges of the rock are weathered, indicating karstic activity. On the eastern side, the rock wall is ca. 1 m high, with the upper part complete using masonry (contra Ariel and Lender 2000: 14, who indicated the presence of an intentional opening). On the western rock wall, at 24.70 m, a vertical protuberance of the rock (in the plan it creates an obtuse angle) points to the place where the cutters started carving

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 3 5

to the south and north. However, the carving at this point was quite minimal, as noted above, with only ca. 80 cm carved towards the south, and even less to the north. It seems that most of the cutting from the north (approximately 3 m) was executed from the northern limit of the tunnel. At 27.20 m, a rock step in the ceiling was noted, with a drop of ca. 30 cm to the south. An additional, similar step, 20 cm in height, was noted at 28.70 m. These steps clearly indicate that the cutting here occurred from north to south. At 29.55 m, the section of the tunnel of Channel II begins and the open part of Channel II, which began at the spring, ends. Dating Channel II

Channel II is one of the two main water carriers cut in the City of David (the other being the Siloam Tunnel). Dating the construction of Channel II is dependent on the stratigraphic relationship to other walls and installations (Fig. 13.20). For example, the Siloam Tunnel is cut at a level ca. 2.5 m lower than that of Channel II. Therefore, when the Siloam Tunnel was cut, the spring water ceased to flow in Channel II, which at that moment went dry (see below). Therefore, Channel II must predate the Siloam Tunnel. Its relationship to other elements which can help date the channel are discussed below. It is important to note that certain difficulties arise in dating water installations (cisterns, channels, pools, etc.) due to their reuse over long periods of time. The reuse of water installations required the total clearing of refuse, debris, etc., that had accumulated in the feature. Any earlier finds related to their initial construction would have been removed. Therefore, the dating of construction can only be inferred through the feature’s relationship with other elements, whereas the pottery or other datable finds found within the installation may signify the element’s final use. That said, earlier artifacts could have reached the installation from settlement layers above. Therefore, only the latest pottery from the feature’s lowest levels should be considered (see discussion below). The Relationship of Channel II to the Spring Tower

The most important factor in dating Channel II is its position in relation to the Spring Tower. Wall 106, the southern wall of the Spring Tower, overlies Channel II (Fig. 13.25). As Channel II was cut from the rock surface, the order of operations was as follows: 1. The channel was cut from the surface to the desired level. 2. The channel’s capstones—in the form of large boulders—were positioned above the rock-cut walls. 3. The Spring Tower was constructed, with its southern wall (Wall 106) crossing and built over the northernmost part of Channel II. The date of Wall 106 provides a terminus ante quem for the cutting of Channel II. Indeed, as the date mentioned above is only a terminus ante quem for the channel, it may be earlier than the Spring Tower. However it is clear that the tower and Channel II are components of a complex system of constructed fortifications and a rock-cut water conduit that belongs to a single complex constructed in the MB II. Tunnel III, which is a tributary of Channel II, is connected to this complex as well. One can get the impression that there was a need for some damming wall, in order to raise the spring water from the point where it emanates from the rock to slightly above the bottom of Channel II. Today, the spring waters flow directly into the Siloam Tunnel. Originally, before the Siloam Tunnel had been hewn, the waters of the spring rose a few meters from the point of emanation due to hydrostatic pressure. The aquifer that feeds the spring located at the northern boundary of ancient Jerusalem is several meters higher than the point of emanation. Hence Channel II was cut at a level compatible with that to which the water rose. A different view (Gill 2012: 41) suggests that the eastern wall of the Spring Tower served as a damming wall for raising water to the desired level.

336 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Such a situation, of course, strengthens the interconnection between the Spring Tower and Channel II and emphasizes their contemporaneity. As this system, which includes the Spring Tower, is dated to the MB II (Reich 2011: 258, Fig. 172), this is also the date for the hewing of the northern portion of Channel II. Additional information for the dating of Channel II is given in Chapter 8. Pottery from Channel II

The debris excavated inside Channel II was roughly divided into three layers which could be chronologically distinguished according to the pottery within them (see Chapter 15): a. Debris that accumulated along the channel’s floor. This includes Loci 228 and 233 in the northern part of the channel, and Loci 242 and 243 in the southern part. All of the indicative sherds were kept, and date to the Iron IIB–C. b. Pottery fragments from a second layer of light brown debris (Loci 226, 236, 237, 238, 241), sealing the above-mentioned loci, also contain mostly Iron IIB–C pottery. c. The uppermost layer of gray debris excavated in the channel seems to have infiltrated Channel II subsequent to the Parker-Vincent excavations, since this layer also filled the parts of the channel that they cleared. This layer (Loci 224, 225, 230) yielded some early sherds, although the majority of the pottery dates to the Early Roman period. As these finds have no bearing on the channel’s dating, they are not presented here. In addition to this layer of debris, two locations from which pottery was obtained from within the channel also yielded pottery from the Early Roman period, likely indicating this material also infiltrated the channel subsequent to the Parker-Vincent expedition: • The karstic cavity at its northern end (Loci 222, 223). • The narrow space excavated on the western side of the short “bridge” (Locus 229) and beneath it (Locus 245). It is important to note that, despite the excavation of Channel II by several expeditions, this is the first time that pottery retrieved from the channel is presented.8 It appears that the two lower layers of debris (a and b) are of significance. As the pottery from within these layers is attributed to the 8th–7th centuries BCE, it appears that this is the moment when the channel went out of use and the Siloam Tunnel began to function.9

Channel I The discovery of another Channel in 1901 was reported almost simultaneously by Mastermann (1901) and by Schick (1902).10 A shaft dug by Schick from the landing between the two tiers of steps leading down to the spring struck a rock-cut channel, ca. 2m deep, with a floor level somewhat lower than that of the Siloam Tunnel. Originally, its existence was suspected by Schick based on two facts: first, that he found a section of a channel along the bed of the Kidron Valley ca. 200 m to the south; and second, because It should be noted that the Shiloh expedition only re-cleared parts of the channel that had already been exposed by Schiwck, Weill and Parker, so they had no chance of finding any pottery deposited in the channel in antiquity. 9     The reader should be aware that the authors have maintained a slightly earlier date for the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel (Reich and Shukron 2011). We hope to discuss this discrepancy in dating elsewhere. 10     The channel gained the name Channel I although it was discovered after Channel II. This happened simply because Channel II was named as second to the Siloam Tunnel, which was considered the first water conduit. As scholars preferred the historical name “Hezekiah’s Tunnel” or “The Siloam Tunnel,” the term “Channel I” was available, and it was given to the last discovered water conduit. 8    

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 3 7

Figure 13.120: Channel I on the right and the beginning of Vincent’s Rock Crevice l, looking southeast.

Channel I

Figure 13.121: Channel I, looking south.

Figure 13.122: Channel I, crossing a karstic cave, looking south.

338 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.123: Channel I, looking south.

Figure 13.124: Channel I, looking south.

of the meager discharge of the water of the spring which occurred in 1901, disappearing below the lower tier of steps. Schick was not the first person to descend the excavated shaft (probably because of his old age at the time), hence the discovery was attributed to E.W.G. Mastermann and C.H. Hornstein (Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, III: 185–186; Reich 2011: 42–44). Mastermann, then Schick, and later Parker and Vincent, followed it to a maximum length of ca. 54 m from the spring, but mapped and published only the first 12 m of it (Vincent 1911: Pls. I, II; Vincent and Steve 1954: Pl. LXII). Channel I was re-exposed in the current excavations, when the clearance of the space under the staircase of the Spring House reached its lowest level (Figs. 13.14, 13.120–13.125). The initial intention was to clear the segment of the channel extending from Area F to Area J, some 100 m to the south, where part of the same channel was exposed (see Chapter 8). While the northern portion of the channel was complete, the capstones of the southern portion were missing. This required the work to simultaneously be conducted with an iron welder who prepared the required steel supports as we excavated. In the winter of 2002, heavy snows caused the eastern edge of Area J to collapse and cover the entrance to Channel I. Work was halted and never resumed by our expedition, and surveying of this part, from Area J northwards, proved impossible. Furthermore, the excavation and surveying of the channel from the north also became very difficult, due to its narrow dimensions. Therefore, the plan of the first 61.0 m (out of ca. 80.0 m which were cleared) of the channel (measuring from Wall I southwards) is presented here with minimal descriptions of its different components (Figs. 13.31–13.32, 13.126).

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 3 9

Figure 13.125: Channel I at its northern edge, looking south. Note modern plaster.

It should be noted that the entire exposed segment of Channel I is filled with debris that yielded finds dating to the Early Roman period (see Chapters 4, 8 and 26) or later. That said, this material was likely washed into the channel and does not have a bearing on its date. Foundations or material abutting the channel from the outside were not reached in this part of the excavation, although such material was found in Areas A and J (see Chapters 4 and 8). In addition, the lowest layer of debris, approximately 20–30 cm above the floor of the channel, were left unexcavated. This may be carried out in the future. The floor level of Channel I at the Spring House was ca. 633.00 m. The first 4.2 m of the channel run within the MB II Spring Tower. The following 12 m of the channel are completely cut in the rock, forming a tunnel. This was done in order to tunnel beneath the southern wall of the Spring Tower (Wall 106), making it impossible to cut the conduit from the surface. Along this stretch of tunnel, two quite spacious karstic cavities (the northern one of which was already recorded by Vincent) were encountered (Fig. 13.126, Sections B and C), facilitating the carving of the tunnel, which only needed to be carved for ca. 2.5 m between these cavities, or for almost 2.0 m between 14.5 and 16.5 m. Beyond this point, the channel is built as a narrow channel (0.50 m wide on average) upon the rock surface, with flat capstones, which survived sporadically. As the channel is constructed of stones, its winding course is outstanding. We can only surmise that it is due to the local topography. It appears that it was built up against a vertical rock scarp or the foundations of a large building which determined the course of the channel. Particularly interesting is the double winding between ca. 42.0 m and 53.0 m. Even if some rock protrusion would have existed there, with a constructed tower on top of it, one could easily cut directly between 46.0 m and 53.0 m. The reason for this

P_289A

340 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Wal

lI

A-A

. 0m .

.

A

B

. . .

.

.

.

. . 5m .

. . . . 10m

B-B

C

.C .

B

A

15m

D

.

.

C-C

. . . 20m

D

.

.

.

25m

.

.

E

50m

F

. . . 30m . . . .

. .

D-D E

.

. . .

.

35m

. . . .

.

. .

40m

.

.

. .

.

45m

F

.

F-F

.

55m

.

60m

.

0

E-E

5 m

Figure 13.126: Channel I: Plan and cross-sections.

. .

. . 0

5 m

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 4 1

winding remains unclear, although some rock or constructed element may exist here through or around which Channel I runs. Only excavations above the channel will solve this issue. As noted above, Channel I cannot be dated according to the data collected in Area F (although see Chapters 4 and 8). However, it is clear that the channel was reused in post-Byzantine times, as it is covered with stone slabs which reused stones inscribed in Greek (see Chapter 39), and a typical stone which was used as a support for a chancel screen in the Byzantine period. The final use of Channel I occurred in the 20th century, when the Parker expedition dismantled Walls I and J in the Spring House and diverted the spring waters to Channel I. This enabled the expedition to clear the Siloam Tunnel and to survey and record it while it remained dry. It seems that at this time, Channel I was cleaned and plastered using modern plaster.

The Complex of Rock-Cut Tunnels near the Spring Apart from the above-mentioned components of the MB II water system (Channel II, Tunnel III, the rock-cut pool and the Round Chamber in Area C), and Channel I dated to the Iron Age, several other rock-cut tunnels have been discovered in the vicinity of the spring (Fig. 13.127). Save for Tunnel VI, which has remained exposed since antiquity, the Parker expedition discovered all of these tunnels, and Vincent described them in detail while suggesting some explanations regarding their function and date (Vincent 1911: 6–11). Some of the tunnels take a course which seems logical to most scholars, other tunnels take a course which seems rather strange. Scholars rarely related to these tunnels, including those who have devoted special studies to the ancient waterworks of the city, including Hecker (1956), Ussishkin (1976), Shiloh (1987), Gill (1996), Mazar (2000) and others. Tunnel IV

This tunnel is ca. 8.90 m long, cut more or less along a straight course, connecting the Round Chamber on the southeast with Tunnel VI to the northwest (Figs. 13.127–13.131). A fracture is visible along the entire length of the western side of its flat ceiling (Figs. 13.132–13.135); this can also be seen in Tunnel VII (see below). Two rock-cut niches, cut to the full height of the tunnel, are present on its northeast side (Fig. 13.136). This may indicate an attempt to cut a tunnel from Tunnel IV towards the spring (see below). Examining the longitudinal section along Tunnel IV reveals a drop in level of almost 2 m along its base, from southeast to northwest (Figs. 13.136–13.137). Just north of the northern niche is another vertical fracture which the tunnel crosses in an oblique course, with a karstic cavity directly below it on the floor of the tunnel. Another, small cavity in the tunnel’s ceiling is notable between the two niches. On the western rock wall, the entrance to Tunnel V opens (see below). Along the southwest wall of Tunnel IV, approximately halfway between the rock-cut pool and the opening of Tunnel V, one can observe rock-cut markings which indicate an encounter between two cutters working towards one another. One technical feature noted in Tunnel IV is of particular importance. Along the northeast wall of the tunnel, a long, straight, level line is incised (Figs. 13.137–13.138), which continues into the rock-cut pool, at which point it turns at a right angle and continues upwards to the door-jamb of the entrance to Tunnel IV. At the upper edge of this vertical line a rectangular plaque is chiseled out from the rock (Fig. 13.139). The line and plaque were already noted by Vincent (1911: 9), who hoped to find an incised inscription. His disappointment in this matter was well expressed. The level of the horizontal part of the incised line is 636.98 masl. It appears that this line served as an ancient datum line, bench mark or some auxiliary line which served the stone cutters of the tunnel, and was used to set correct levels in this complex of tunnels, as well as in the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel.

342 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Tunnel V

This tunnel, which opens from Tunnel IV (Figs. 13.129–13.130), is 9.1 m long, slightly shorter than what appears on Vincent’s plan. The more distinct difference in the plan is that the tunnel appears on Vincent’s plan as roughly straight, yet it has a more rounded contour (Fig. 13.140). Another difference is the location of its opening in Tunnel IV. While Vincent located it vis-à-vis one of the two niches (Niche K, Fig. 13.18), and aligned in the same line with it, as if these features have any relation, this is definitely not the case. Perhaps the most surprising element encountered in this maze of tunnels is the fact that Tunnel V has a considerable ascent, with its floor rising from 635.20 masl at the eastern end in Tunnel IV, to 637.0 masl at its innermost part (Figs. 13.141, 13.142). This was already observed by Vincent (1911: 9), who described it as accidental, and as something that would have been leveled had the work been finished. Although a cross-section through this tunnel is indicated in Vincent’s plan (Vincent and Steve 1954: Planche LXII: a–b), such a section was not published. The ascent of almost 2 m along this tunnel was documented in the current project, as opposed to Vincent’s 2.50 m. Vincent was only aware of the deep part of the rock-cut pool (dubbed by him the Round Chamber)—the part the tunnel seems to be cut around. With the clearing of the entire rock-cut pool in Area C (Reich 2011: 206–213), the relationship between these two rock-cut features (the rockcut pool and the tunnel) must be considered. Tunnel V seems, indeed, to be an unfinished feature, simply from the fact that it leads nowhere, but its ascending course is definitely planned, and not a mere mistake. This tunnel was briefly discussed by A. Mazar (2000), who suggested seeing it as a futile start to the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel. Had Mazar noticed the steep ascent of this tunnel, he might have rethought this suggestion. Regardless, the level of the ceiling in the innermost part of the tunnel is 638.35 masl. It should be stressed that had the cutters of this tunnel continued their work in the same gradient southwards, they would soon have surfaced at the bottom of the rock-cut pool, as its average lower level is around 640.00 masl. Tunnel V is cut from Tunnel IV, along the portion which was cut from north to south. It seems that it was cut from Tunnel IV after the cutting of the latter was completed, connecting the rock-cut pool with the lower part of Warren’s Shaft. Tunnel VI

This tunnel, which connects the spring in the east (Figs. 13.129, 13.130, 13.143, 13.144) with the entrance to the Siloam Tunnel (Vincent’s Tunnel VIII) and with the base of Warren’s Shaft in the west (Fig. 13.128), was often considered the tunnel created to feed Warren’s Shaft with the waters from the spring (e.g., Shiloh 1987). However, an alternative explanation seems more reasonable in light of the data presented below. The inner, western part of the tunnel has a curving course (Figs. 13.145, 13.146). Examining the flat rock ceiling and rock walls indicates that the tunnel crossed about 10 vertical fractures along its course (some of which are marked on Figs. 13.2, 13.129: Section B-B). Additionally, rock-cut insets and offsets are notable, which clearly indicate changes made in the course while cutting the tunnel (Figs. 13.147, 13.148). These offsets/insets and the directions of the chisel marks on its walls, clearly show that Tunnel VI was cut from west to east, towards the spring, as Vincent (1911: 10) had already noted. When carving the tunnel, the rock-cutters left a few false or dead-end cuttings while changing directions, one marked l (lowercase L) on Vincent’s plan (Figs. 13.18, 13.149), and two additional ones at its easternmost edge, close to where it reaches the cave where the spring emanates (Fig. 13.144). The low rock ceilings of these dead-ends were already observed by Vincent (1911: 10; see further discussion below). Along the entire course of Tunnel VI one can observe an unusual cross-

P_204_a__Shlavim

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 4 3

Rock-cut “Pool”

Tunnel V

Area C

Siloam Tunnel (Tunnel VIII)

Tunnel VI

Round Chamber

Tunnel VII Modern Wall

Cutting l

Bottom of Warren’s Shaft Area E

Tunnel IV Cutting F

To Sprin g

Cutting G

Tunnel III

Channel II

Middle Bronze Age II Phase 1.1 Phase 1.2 Phase 1.3 Phase 1.4 Phase 1.5 Phase 2 Phase 3.1 Fracture

0

5 m

Figure 13.127: Short tunnels near the spring: suggested sequence of rock-cutting phases.

Iron Age II

344 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.128: Tunnel VI with view to the dammed opening leading into the bottom part of Warren’s Shaft (illuminated), looking west.

section which shows that the upper part of the tunnel (ca. 40–50 cm) is distinctly narrower than its lower part. It appears that the tunnel was cut in two phases: in the initial phase it was wide with a flat ceiling, and later its ceiling was raised but was narrower (see further discussion below). Generally speaking, Tunnel VI connects the spring with the lower part of Warren’s Shaft (Fig. 13.128) and the starting point of the Siloam Tunnel. This segment of tunnel was considered to be the feeding tunnel of Warren’s Shaft, although a different, more complex solution has been suggested (Reich and Shukron 1999, 2000a, 2000b; Reich 2011: 154–158), and accepted by scholars (e.g., Mazar 2000). Tunnel VI is an important subterranean water passage in the system near the spring, because it connects most of the rock-cut elements: Tunnels IV, VII, the lower part of Warren’s Shaft and the opening into the Siloam Tunnel (Vincent’s Tunnel VIII). It also enables the reconstruction of the different phases of cutting and use of the water systems. Vincent (1911: 10–11) devoted a detailed description to Tunnel VI, to which we add a few new observations and remarks. Some of Vincent’s reflections and descriptions of locations are not entirely clear. It should be noted that certain explanations for the function of these tunnels provided in the past11 are no longer valid in light of the new discoveries and the ideas presented below. Subsequent to our excavations near the spring and in Warren’s Shaft System, we studied the details of these tunnels in order to enhance our understanding of their function and date. This was 11    

Such as suggesting it was a failed experiment, during a period of draught in the Early Roman (Second Temple) period, to enlarge the discharge of the spring at the location where it emerges from the bedrock (see Reich 1987: 331).

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 4 5

Figure 13.129: Tunnel V, cross-section (A–A), looking north; Tunnel VI, cross-section (B–B), looking west and south.

P203 ( C-C, D-D )

346 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 639

00

638

00

C-C

Tunnel IV

Tunnel VI 637

00

636

00

635

00

Round Chamber

Niche

Incised Line

Niche 634

00

Modern Wall

Not Excavated

Water Level

639

D-D

00 Round Chamber

638

00

Tunnel V

Tunnel VI Tunnel IV

637

00

636

00

635

00 Not Excavated

Modern Wall

Water Level

Figure 13.130: Tunnel IV, cross-section (C–C), looking east; Tunnel IV, cross-section (D–D), looking west.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 4 7

undertaken by clearing the tunnels and closely examining the following details: the course of the tunnels, the different levels of their ceilings and floors, the outline of their cross-section, the type and direction of the cut-marks, the occurrence of dead-end cuttings, the location of natural fractures and cavities in the rock, etc. This led to the suggestion for the order of cutting the tunnels described below. The following observations and ideas were originally presented (Reich and Shukron 2000b) using Vincent and Steve’s plan (1954: 62; Fig. 13.18), with certain modifications. New plans and sections of this maze of tunnels were prepared for the purpose of the current report. A comparison between the plans presented here and those produced by Vincent shows that Vincent had somewhat stylized his plan. Tunnel VII

This short tunnel, leading to a dead-end (Fig. 13.129, Section B-B) was found full of debris, most probably dumped there by the Parker expedition or the Shiloh expedition, when clearing the base of Warren’s Shaft, which was in close proximity. Unfortunately, only a small portion was cleared in the current project, and it was not properly surveyed. From Vincent’s plan, it is possible to infer that Tunnel VII is ca. 3.20 m long (despite Vincent’s description of only 2.80 m), and has a curious “bulge” on the north. This may be a karstic cavity (similar to those described in Channel II), although only further investigation might reveal its true nature.

Tunnel IV

Damming Wall Tunnel VI

Figure 13.131: The point where Tunnel VI connects with Tunnel IV (the upper part is behind Parker's Damming Wall).

348 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.132: Tunnel IV, from rock-cut pool, looking north.

Figure 13.133: Tunnel IV. One step on the base and on the ceiling, and fracture on the ceiling.

Figure 13.134: Tunnel IV. On rock wall on the righthand side. Note incised horizontal line.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 4 9

Figure 13.135: The Round Chamber, looking northeast. Opening into Tunnel IV is on the left, with chiseled plaque to the right of it. Entrance into Tunnel III is on the right.

Figure 13.136: Tunnel IV. Northern niche is on the right side, marked by shadows to its right.

Figure 13.137: Entrance to Tunnel IV in the Round Chamber. Note incised vertical and horizontal lines in the innermost part of the tunnel, with floor descending (marked by dark color). Note incised plaque.

350 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.138: Close-up of incised lines on rock wall of Tunnel IV.

Figure 13.139: Flattened panel on rock wall next to entrance from the Round Chamber into Tunnel IV.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 5 1

An important feature related to this tunnel is several vertical fractures which are very clear on the tunnel’s ceiling. One of these extends north to Warren’s Shaft (Figs. 13.150, 13.151). Another fracture crosses over to the entrance of Siloam Tunnel. This is the “main fracture” described above in Tunnel IV. It continues to the southeast and Tunnel VII was clearly cut in relation to it (see below). The Chronological Sequence of the Cutting of Tunnels IV–VII

The following discussion regarding the function and chronology of these elements is presented on the basis of the description of the tunnels provided above. However, certain details must be made clear at the outset. First, not all of the tunnels’ ceilings are at the same level. The ceilings of Tunnel IV, VII and the earlier part of VI (see below) are ca. 40–50 cm lower than the level of the later phase of Tunnel VI. This indicates that at the initial phase of cutting, all the tunnels had a uniform ceiling level. At a later phase, only Tunnel VI remained active, and its ceiling was elevated by further cutting. This was done since it was the only tunnel in continuous use during that phase, while the ceilings of the tunnels which were not in use at that time were left unchanged. Moreover, Vincent (1911: 10–11) observed that the passages from Tunnel VI to Tunnels IV, VII and the northern part of Tunnel VI leading to the base of Warren’s Shaft were dammed by masonry. This observation supports our understanding that Tunnels IV and VII are only secondary, or as we define them below, parts of preparatory work. When they were no longer needed, they were dammed, while Tunnel VI, which is the main part of this maze, was enlarged by elevating its ceiling. Also important are the two phases of Warren’s Shaft System (Reich and Shukron 1999, 2000a; Reich 2011: 153–158). The initial phase of Warren’s Shaft System can be divided into two main subphases, with the latter related and slightly predating the cutting of Tunnels IV–VII. Warren’s Shaft, Phase A

The early phase of the water system consisted of Channel II, Tunnel III and the Round Chamber, i.e., the deep part of the rock-cut pool (Fig. 13.127, the phase related to the MB II period). According to the latest findings and interpretation (Reich 2011: 154–158), the entire system is dated by us to the MB II. At that time, the shaft of Warren’s Shaft System—the vertical natural dissolution chimney, of karstic nature—existed within the rock, but unseen and unknown. When Warren’s Shaft System was cut in the MB II (Reich and Shukron 1999, 2000a), there was neither access to the shaft from above, from the subterranean horizontal tunnel of the system, nor from below, from the spring. Warren’s Shaft, Phase B

For some unknown reason, it was decided to lower the floor of the horizontal tunnel of Warren’s Shaft System by cutting gradually into the hard rock. At that moment, the upper edge of Warren’s Shaft was encountered and exposed. Elsewhere we have shown that this action occurred during the 8th century BCE, a date based on pottery found embedded in the waste created when this phase was cut (Area E; Reich 2011: 157, Fig. 109). Shiloh (1987) argued that Warren’s Shaft System was cut in a single operation, from within the city walls toward the shaft, while an additional short tunnel (Tunnel VI) was cut connecting the spring with the bottom of Warren’s Shaft. Tunnel VI, according to that theory, served to feed the bottom of the shaft with water. However, this situation, where Tunnel VI fed the base of Warren’s Shaft with water, only occurred, in our opinion, in Phase 3.1 (Fig. 13.127). According to our theory, when the upper edge of Warren’s Shaft was encountered during the 8th century BCE, the first action was indeed to connect it with the water. This could have been accomplished either by connecting it directly, in a straight line, with the spring, or alternatively with the water system which was active

352 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.140: Tunnel V, looking southwest, close to the inner, western edge.

Figure 13.141: Tunnel V, looking east. View towards Tunnel IV, where the tunnel descends.

Figure 13.142: Tunnel V, eastern section, looking west, where tunnel ascends.

at that time—that is, with the bottom of the Round Chamber. The initial aim was probably to cut a tunnel from the bottom of the shaft towards the spring. While doing that, the plan changed; the new goal was to connect the bottom of the shaft with the deep end of the rock-cut pool (the Round Chamber) and not directly with the spring. A direct connection with the spring was achieved by cutting Tunnel VI. This is seen through the numerous phases and sub-phases in the order of cutting described below. Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 1.1

The cutting of Tunnels IV–VII began at the base of Warren’s Shaft, working to the south (the northwestern part of Tunnel VI). Here, two primary vertical fractures are visible in the rock: the larger fracture, which crosses the rock in a general east–west direction, which is also the vertical fracture upon which Warren’s Shaft developed into a dissolution chimney. It seems that the spring emanates from this fracture (Figs. 13.2, 13.127, 13.129, Section B-B). A second vertical fracture, in a general north-south direction guided the cutting of Tunnel VI. The rock-cutters made an effort to have the western side of the tunnel coincide with this fracture. Approximately 4 m south of Warren’s Shaft, the fracture turns to the southeast (Fig. 13.151). The cutters followed it for another 3.2 m (Tunnel VII), until making an abrupt halt. As noted above, the level of Tunnel VII’s ceiling is lower than that of Tunnel VI from which it is cut. The level of Tunnel VII’s ceiling corresponds with that of Tunnel VI in its earlier phase before it was raised (Fig. 13.129, Section 2-2).12 12    

In his description of Tunnel VI, Vincent speculated that the original aim of Tunnel VII was to connect to Cutting l (Fig. 13.149), which cuts the northern wall of Tunnel VI. This, however, cannot be the case as the front face (or cutting edge) of Cutting l is not on the northwestern side but rather on the northeastern side.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 5 3

Figure 13.143: View from Spring Cave to the end of Tunnel VI, looking west. Note widening of Tunnel VI where it breached into the cave.

Figure 13.144: Cutting G in Tunnel VI, close to the Spring Cave.

Figure 13.145: Tunnel VI, looking northwest. Note how the ceiling was raised by cutting an additional, narrower part.

Figure 13.146: Tunnel VI, looking southeast. Note how the

Figure 13.147: Tunnel VI. Changes in cutting directions seen on lower part of tunnel, looking northwest (cut towards the camera). Note raised ceiling by cutting an extra, narrower part.

Figure 13.148: Tunnel VI. Changes in cutting directions seen on lower part of tunnel, looking southeast (cut towards the camera). Note raised ceiling by cutting an extra, narrower part.

ceiling was raised by cutting an additional, narrower part.

354 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

The reason the cutting of Tunnel VII was halted is unknown. As this short tunnel is currently filled with debris that could not have been removed, it cannot be examined closely. It is possible that the rockcutters encountered a karstic cavity identical to the niche indicated by Vincent on the northern side of the tunnel, which would have led the waters in an undesirable direction. The workers may have assumed that they would not be able to successfully seal off the cavity with plaster and decided to bypass it. Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 1.2

Subsequent to the halting of work on Tunnel VII and the abandonment of the leading fracture, the northern (or inner) part of Tunnel VI was cut to the south. At a distance of 2.5 m, the cutters made a sharp turn to the east, bypassing the abandoned Tunnel VII from the south. After an additional 4 m of cutting, the cutters reencountered the fracture. Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 1.3

The rock-cutters returned to the line of the tunnel originally planned by turning sharply to the south, carving Tunnel IV, and continued southwards, with the fracture coinciding once again with the right-hand (western) wall of the tunnel. Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 1.4

The final portion of Tunnel IV was carved in order to lead the water to the new tunnel through the deep end of the rock-cut pool/Round Chamber, in order to supply the base of Warren’s Shaft with water. The remaining distance was not too long and the cutting of Tunnel IV was resumed from both directions, with one cutter proceeding from the north by cutting one additional meter to the south, following the fracture, while another cutter began working from the Round Chamber to the north, following the same fracture. Approximately 3 m north of the Round Chamber, the cutters met and Tunnel IV was completed. The meeting point is visible in the tunnel, where cut marks on the rock walls change direction. When this operation was finished, the spring waters flowed from the spring, through Channel II, Tunnel III, the Round Chamber, Tunnel IV, and the inner part of Tunnel VI to the base of Warren’s Shaft. Tunnels IV-VIII, Phase 1.5

Along the walls of Tunnel IV, three rock-cut elements are present between 3.5 and 6 m south of the above-mentioned turn. On its western wall, Tunnel V emanates. At its connection with Tunnel IV, both their floor and ceiling levels are the same. As noted above, Tunnel V’s course slopes up considerably. The exact function or aim of this tunnel is currently unknown. It may have been added to the operation described here at a later stage, as an entry for persons into the subterranean tunnel system. On the eastern wall of Tunnel IV, opposite Tunnel V, are two shallow rock-cut niches (Fig. 13.130). These seem to represent the beginning of two attempts to cut a tunnel aimed precisely eastward at the spring. Cutting the tunnel further at each one of these niches (to a distance of 7.5 m at the northern niche, or 10 m in the southern niche) would have ended in the cave where the spring emerges. We believe that the northern niche was cut first, prior to the carving of Tunnel V. It is possible that at this point the cutters realized that a direct connection of their tunnel with the spring would cause the earlier system (Channel II and the Round Chamber) to run dry. It is difficult to explain the existence of the southern niche since if the cutters had realized, at that particular point in time, the disadvantage of the direct connection with the spring, it is not clear why they would undertake an additional attempt to directly connect to the spring.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 5 5

Figure 13.149: Cutting l in Tunnel IV, looking east.

Figure 13.150: Damming wall built by the ParkerVincent expedition.

Figure 13.151: View into Tunnel VII. Note vertical fracture on upper right-hand side, along which Tunnel VII is cut.

356 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 13.152: Easternmost edge of Tunnel VI. Note end of cutting to the southeast.

Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 2

The next phase of tunnels began with the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel (Vincent’s Tunnel VIII), at the northern end of Tunnel VI, close to the base of Warren’s Shaft. The waste produced during the carving of the northern part of the Siloam Tunnel could have been cleared through Warren’s Shaft as well as through Tunnel IV and the deep part of the rock-cut pool (the Round Chamber). Originally, we expressed an opinion that the Round Chamber and the rock-cut pool were one and the same architectural element. We thought that the stone cutters started with a large-scale project, to cut a large rectangular pool, but later reduced their effort at its northeast corner and reached down to water level only at that point (the Round Chamber). Recently one of the authors (RR) suggested a new interpretation in which two cuttings of the two architectural entities, “pool” and “chamber,” happened in two different periods (Reich 2019: Note A). First, a narrow shaft was cut from surface down to water level. This was part of the MB II water system, and served as the location where water was drawn. Later, sometime in the late Iron II period, the “pool” was hewn for some unknown purpose. It incorporated the old MB II shaft. Since the cutting of this rectangular cavity did not reach down to water level, the lower part of the shaft remained at its northeastern corner. As the pace of the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel was slow (cf. Frumkin and Shimron 2006; Sneh, Weinberger and Shalev 2010), due to the hard Mizzi Ahmar dolomite in which it is cut, the amount of stone chips produced daily as quarrying waste was modest. Therefore, the removal of this waste could have been carried out by a single worker on each side,

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 5 7

moving back and forth in the ever-growing tunnel. This phase terminated in a successful encounter of the two groups of rock-cutters in the bowels of the hill, as demonstrated by the complete tunnel and corroborated by the Siloam Inscription. Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 3

Once the entire length of the Siloam Tunnel was quarried, it was necessary to connect it directly with the spring by cutting a tunnel which connected the middle of Tunnel VI to the spring. From that point on, the spring waters were running safely and entirely through a concealed tunnel—the Siloam Tunnel. Two phases of cutting can be distinguished: Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 3.1

Initially, the connection was created by cutting a tunnel, from Tunnel VI to the east, i.e., towards the cave of the spring. This is discernable through the following evidence: • When examining the cross-section of Tunnel VI, it is discernible that its main, lower part is somewhat wider than its upper part. • Differences in the quality of cutting can be observed on the various parts of the tunnel’s walls, with the lower part showing cruder workmanship than the upper part. • The cutmarks on the lower part are in a different direction than the upper parts of the tunnel. The lower part clearly shows that it was cut from west to east (towards the spring), while the upper part was cut in the opposite direction (see Phase 3.2 below). • Several niches, reaching dead ends, are notable in the lower part of Tunnel VI, which support the cutting direction from west to east of this part of the channel: • Vincent’s Cutting l is located in the middle of Tunnel VI. The ceiling of this cutting does not reach the level of the tunnel at its present height, created in Phase 3.2, as this lower level was the ceiling of the original tunnel. • Two additional dead-end niches are located very close to the cave of the spring in the northern side of the tunnel (marked G by Vincent, Fig. 13.144) and to the south of it (not labeled, Fig. 13.152). It appears that these two dead ends, which are clearly made by cutting eastwards towards the cave of the spring, are attempts to bypass the cave by cutting around it or for some other unknown reason. However, the workers finally continued straight forward towards the cave (Fig. 13.152). Once Tunnel VI was completed, the spring waters started flowing directly from the spring along Tunnel VI and reached the entrance to the Siloam Tunnel (Vincent’s Tunnel VIII) and the base of Warren’s Shaft. The Siloam Tunnel and the preparatory maze of tunnels leading to it are cut at a considerably lower level (ca. 2.5 m) than Channel II, causing the water to flow from the spring to the west, while water ceased to flow through Channel II, Tunnel III and the deep end of the rock-cut pool/Round Chamber and Tunnel IV. It is possible that the damming walls discovered, dismantled and rebuilt by Vincent at the entrance to the base of Warren’s Shaft, Tunnel VII and the northern edge of Tunnel IV were also built at this time. These walls are not required for the regular flow of water, and may have been used to conceal and prevent the undesired entrance of people into the Siloam Tunnel (Tunnel VIII) from Warren’s Shaft System as well as from the Round Chamber. The damming of Tunnel VII, however, was required to prevent the possible loss of water. Tunnels IV–VIII, Phase 3.2

At a later stage, the height of Tunnel VI was raised, perhaps due to difficulties in allowing for its proper maintenance. An additional height of ca. 40–50 cm was added to the tunnel by raising its ceiling.

358 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

With the connection between the spring and the Siloam Tunnel already established in the former phase (3.1), raising the ceiling of Tunnel VI could have been done from either end, although the cutmarks indicate that it was carved from east to west, i.e., in the opposite direction than that of Phase 3.1. Raising the ceiling was only necessary in Tunnel VI, as it was the only part of the tunnel system which was in use at that particular time. Therefore, the other parts, which were no longer used (Tunnels IV, V) retained their original ceiling height, as did most of dead-end cuttings (Tunnel VII, Cutting l, Cutting G) and the entrance to the base of Warren’s Shaft. The maze of tunnels and rock-cuttings between the spring, the MB II water system (Channel II and the Round Chamber) and the base of Warren’s Shaft seems to have been created as preparatory operations to the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel in the 8th century BCE. Parts of the system (Phases 1, 2, 3.1) were preparatory to the cutting of Tunnel VIII, while the later phase (3.2) was undertaken in order to improve access to the water system after its completion, probably to facilitate its maintenance. Critical Notes on the Channel II “Windows Theory”

As noted above, Shiloh had exposed a portion of Channel II (Shiloh 1984: 22–23), later published by Ariel and Lender (2000: 13–18, Plan 5), east of their Area B (Fig. 13.119). This segment, ca. 68m long, had been cleared by Schick in 1886, 1890, and again by Weill in 1913. The current project cleared this segment as well, labeled here Segment 2b (Fig. 13.58). One of the focal points of the description and understanding of Channel II by the Shiloh expedition is the phenomenon of seven openings along the eastern wall of the channel (Shiloh’s Loci 106-2–106-8). Shiloh and his team adopted the “windows theory” suggested by Weill (1920: 142–147) and Vincent (1911: 8), suggesting that these openings were an integral part of Channel II, cut intentionally in order to divert the waters in the channel towards the adjacent fields and orchards in the Kidron Valley. Schick had already maintained that “water always stood there [in the channel] so that people might fetch it; or poured over eastwards to the gardens below” (Schick 1886b: 198). These openings, however, differ considerably from one another, indicating they are not the product of a single action which was intended to produce uniform outlets. These openings are briefly described here (from north to south, Fig. 13.119): L. 106-8: Ariel and Lender did not describe this feature. L. 106-6: The plan and photos published clearly show that this is a karstic cavity that the channel crossed. Such a cavity presented a problem to the cutters as the waters of the channel could easily find a way out or down to an unknown subterranean cavity. In both cases, the waters which were needed elsewhere may have been lost. Shiloh found that the cavity was plastered and blocked with a wall to the east (Wall 61). Assuming that the waters were indeed let out from this opening, their destination would be to the east of Channel II and would need to be determined, as is the case for L. 106-5 (see below). L. 106-5: This opening appears on a photograph (Ariel and Lender 2000: Photo 29) and section (ibid., Plan 8, Section a–a). The eastern outlet (which in our opinion is an accidental breach) opens above a wide crevice in the rock (L. 104 on Plan 8; continuing to L. 129 on Plan 6). If indeed there was a planned outlet for water here, how did these waters continue to flow after leaving the “window”? No evidence for a channel leading these waters farther afield was found. Was it just overflow from Channel II, through the outlet, into the rock crevice and further on into the valley? If so, how did the waters overcome Walls 58, 63 of Building 130 (Ariel and Lender 2000: Plans 4,

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 5 9

6) and 74, which survived here without any constructed passage for them? It seems that Ariel and Lender considered this difficulty as well, stating that: ... [T]he location of Building 130 in Area B (Stratum 12) relative to “windows” L. 106-5 and L. 106-6 of the Siloam Channel is somewhat ambiguous (italics RR, ES). One might argue that the construction of the Iron Age Building in Area B took into consideration the existence of water channels carrying irrigation water out of the “windows.” While this is not a very strong argument, it supports the general date before 701 BCE for the Siloam Channel’s use (Ariel and Lender 2000: 18).13

It should be stressed that not a single stone of such a distributing channel was revealed. In case the flow of water filled the entire crevice (about 1 m wide at its narrowest point), this would have left typical traces of weathering (concentrations of clay, of weathered or rounded stones and pottery sherds, etc.). Needless to say, the Shiloh expedition did not report any such traces, nor can they be seen on site. It seems more likely that the inhabitants of the Iron Age house (Shiloh’s Stratum 12) used its proximity to the channel as an advantage, breaching into it from the side and securing limitless and easy access to water. L. 106-4: Here the channel runs through a cavity that opens above it. Seemingly, the cutters of the channel were not satisfied with this disturbance and replaced the missing rock walls with two short constructed walls (Ariel and Lender 2000: Plan 5: 56, 57; Photo 25). If they really were seeking a water outlet to the east, they would not have built Wall 57. L. 106-3 and L. 106-2: These are known only from the inside of Channel II. It seems that both outlets lead to the same place, probably a local pool. They might be “windows.” Shiloh noted additional rock-cut openings and natural cavities that were used as openings. It seems that the natural cavities were more of a hindrance than a benefit, and some were blocked by masonry. Moreover, the discovery of Wall 501 in Area J and Wall 10 in Area A of our excavations (see above, Area A and Area J) clearly points to the fact that from the 8th century BCE onwards, any distribution of waters from Channel II would have been impossible as these walls would have blocked it. It is difficult to believe that had there been a functioning watering system, the construction of the wall would not have integrated the continued use of this system. It is important to note that Channel II occasionally cut through karstic cavities. These are relatively small, but would be fatal for a conduit, as the water might flow into such cavities in an undesired manner. Hence, efforts were made to plaster the active tunnels, or at least the problematic places in them. The Siloam Tunnel’s floor was plastered throughout, while Channel II was only plastered at select, problematic locations, as described above. The use of plaster and masonry to block these cavities has been noted in several instances, indicating that there was no intention to use them, but rather to block them off in order to prevent water from flowing in them. Furthermore, as noted above, none of the expeditions that worked in or around Channel II have noted the presence of a network of secondary channels to distribute waters flowing in Channel II to the east. Therefore, this “window” theory, as picturesque as it seems, should be abandoned. Channel II in its original stage in the MB II seems to have led waters to a pool alluded to by the turn of the channel eastwards at the transition point between Segments 2a and 2b of its course, ca. 190 m south of the spring. As excavations in the Kidron Valley are yet to be carried out, no such pool has been discovered. 13    

The Siloam Channel is Ariel and Lender’s term for Channel II.

360 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

The later stage of Channel II (from the point located at 190 m and southward toward the Pool of Siloam), in the form of a tunnel, was cut in the Iron Age II. We believe that this operation is an early attempt to bring the waters to the southwestern part of the City of David, although soon after, it was replaced with the Siloam Tunnel. Some novel ideas on these attempts, which are not related to the present excavation, were published elsewhere (Reich and Shukron 2007; 2011; Reich 2011: 184–205).

DISCUSSION When people first arrived at the Kidron Valley, they saw a vertical rock scarp of a rock terrace with a shallow niche that had water emanating from it and flowing into the valley. This niche had a straight, vertical rock wall on the north side and a southern rock wall which turned to the southeast. The water emanated here due to an exposed vertical fracture. It could be seen on the bare rocksurface to be directed from southeast to northwest. Through it and by it the water arrived from an aquifer that is located several kilometers to the north of the hill. Above the rock scarp, and within the fracture, a short vertical karstic cavity was formed, which resembles a short shaft located just above the spring. Was this shaft ever used to draw water from the spring? Possibly, since it saves some effort, eliminating the need to descend to the bottom of the riverbed and back again with a full bucket. On the other hand, on the upper edges of the shaft there are no traces of weathering by rope friction which may have attested to such a continuous action.14 In the MB II, a massive tower was constructed around the spring, termed “the Spring Tower.” It is a Π-shaped building which was attached to the vertical rock scarp from which the spring emanates. Parallel to this action and as part of the same fortified water system, Channel II was cut in the rock, from the spring directly to the south. This led the spring waters to a point some 190 m south of the spring, where it turned eastwards to a currently unknown place in the Kidron where a pool may be located. The water which emanated at the spring flowed southwards and did not accumulate in the spring. As part of the same water system, Tunnel III and the Round Chamber were cut a short distance from the spring, and there, after descending to a spot high above the chamber, through a rock-cut tunnel (Warren’s Shaft System, Area E) or a fortified corridor (Area C), people could draw water. We are of the opinion that these parts of the water system were created for times of distress (sieges). As the descent for a large urban population was a tiring ordeal, the possibility of drawing water at an open, accessible pool in the south would be invaluable. One could approach with a donkey or mule and hoist several jars of water. We assume that this was the case from the MB II through the 8th century BCE, when Channel II was replaced by the Siloam Tunnel. In the Iron II, Channel II was carved farther to the south, in the form of a tunnel concealed in the rock. It appears that this part of Channel II was probably the first attempt to bring the spring waters there, although it was soon replaced by the cutting of the Siloam Tunnel (Reich 2011: 193–205). It should be noted that the spring water has flowed through the Siloam Tunnel into the Siloam Pool uninterruptedly from the Iron IIB–C onward. Even though water could easily be drawn from there, in the Early Roman period, an easy approach to the spring itself was created. This is noted by the construction of a small opening and a staircase. It is obvious from the modest measurements of the opening, that only a small number of people (2–3 at a time) could approach the water. It seems that 14    

The short, natural shaft was deliberately blocked in the Early Roman period, as attested by the pottery sherds found associated with the blocking stones.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 6 1

this approach was created not as an additional place for drawing water, which was unnecessary, since at the Siloam Pool several scores of persons could do it simultaneously. It appears that the special effort invested in creating this approach was carried out for religious reasons, due to the special characteristics attributed to the waters. Slightly later, in the Early Roman period (1st century BCE), when the eastern slope of the Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem became the main city dump, the fortified spring faced a different type of hazard, namely the threat of being covered and buried under large mounds of urban garbage that were dumped down the slope. As a constructional precaution, a stone barrel-shaped vault was constructed within the inner space of the Spring Tower that was aimed at preventing the blocking of the spring. At a certain, unknown point in time, the eastern part of this vault collapsed, and was later extended to the east in the Mamluk period. It is possible that the collapse had already occurred in the Early Roman period, beneath the burden of the dumped garbage (which in Area L reaches a height of ca. 10 m). In the Late Roman period, the Kidron Valley, at a point slightly south of the spring, was dammed with a simple dam made of some of the boulders dragged from the MB II fortification and additional stones and rubble. This was done with the aim of collecting layers of clay (which were discovered in Area H), transported here by the winter rains and runoff. This clay was most probably used in a nearby pottery workshop (not discovered), as alluded to by the Late Roman pottery of a limited repertoire of types retrieved between the clay layers. This clay continued to pile up, flowing beneath the barrel vault of the spring, and subsequently blocking the approach to the spring (although the spring waters continued to flow through the Siloam Tunnel to the south, towards the Siloam Pool). The spring remained blocked until the Mamluk period (13th –14th centuries CE). When the spring was exposed, the vault was repaired and extended to the east, as it stands today. Two tiers of steps and a landing between them were added from the Kidron Valley down to the spring, as the level of the valley had been raised at a considerable rate due to the debris and refuse that eroded down the slope, and which flowed and settled in the riverbed itself. On the southern wall of the Spring House, a semicircular niche was cut and turned into a Muslim miḥrab (praying niche). It appears that during the period of the British Mandate, an iron grate was added, and in the 1990s, an opening was cut in the southern wall for the public to pass from the archaeological visitor’s center towards the spring and the Siloam Tunnel.

The Cutting of Channel II The greater part of Channel II was cut as an open channel, from rock surface downwards. Such an operation has both advantages and disadvantages in comparison to a rock-cut tunnel (such as the Siloam Tunnel). One of the main advantages is the fact that after the route of the channel has been determined, and perhaps marked with pegs upon the rock surface, work could be carried out simultaneously by a large group of rock-cutters. Each worker could then carve the few meters-long segment allotted to him. This may have resulted in completing the entire project in a very short time, even if the cutting of the channel to the desired depth required the cutting of several hundreds of meters. In the case of this water conduit, which runs approximately 190 m from the spring to the south, before turning into a tunnel, the allotting of 4 m of the channel’s length per worker would require some 50 workers to carve it. Other advantages include the removal of waste, which could simply be thrown over the edge downslope, and the redundancy of ventilation, necessary in cutting tunnels. Even considering the depth of the channel as 4–5 meters, and partially quarrying the hard Mizzi rock, the project could still be completed by such a task force to the desired depth and length within a few weeks at most.

362 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

The cutting of a tunnel, even of minimal height (ca. 1.5 m on the average) and width (50–60 cm), such as the Siloam Tunnel, inevitably could be performed by only two stone cutters, working simultaneously, towards one another. Although this method divides the amount of rock to be cut and removed in half, the operation is considerably more complicated, requiring at least one order of magnitude more time (several years instead of several weeks) in order to create a water conduit of the same length.

The Capstones The main drawback of a rock-cut channel is its vulnerability to external intervention and capture during a siege. Assuming that both its ends are well fortified and protected, a tunnel that is intact along its entire course provides extensive security from such fear. The question concerning the defensibility of Channel II is of concern. That said, the channel was not covered with flat stone slabs which were placed upon the channel’s upper edges, as is often the case with Roman aqueducts, such as the aqueducts of the Early Roman period (Amit, Hirschfeld and Patrich 2002: passim). Channel II was covered by large, shapeless boulders which were pushed down the rocky, sloping surface into the channel. As the rock-cut channel has a cross-section which narrows with depth (ca. 1.0 m average width at upper edge; 0.70 m at ca. 1.5 m above the floor; 0.25 m at its base), no boulders fell to the bottom, but were jammed along its upper edge. Indeed, when observing the boulders from within, one cannot discern a uniform continuous cover, but stones at different levels (Figs. 13.20, 13.25). It seems that stones which fell to a lower level were covered with additional boulders from above. In addition to the boulders, smaller, shapeless stones were thrown in to close the gaps between adjacent boulders. In spite of these actions, small gaps remained, resulting in the infiltration of debris into the channel, some of which can still be seen stuck in the gaps between the boulders. This type of roofing created a water conduit that, despite being cut from the surface, would not have been vulnerable, as extracting and pulling out a boulder at any point would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. The force required to extract one boulder stuck between the rock-cut walls of the channel would require lifting it with the help of a lever and pulley using ropes tied around the stone. This could not be done unless someone stood inside the channel and assisted in wrapping the rope around the stones. At best, an intruder could have broken one of the boulders into small pieces. This would certainly have taken a considerably long time (several weeks) and the defenders would have intervened on the spot. After cutting the channel and pushing boulders to cover it, the entire course could have been covered with earth and vegetation, and completely concealed from prying eyes. These considerations indicate that although the channel was cut from the surface, probably taking advantage of a major fissure in the rock, its inside and the flow of water were inaccessible from the outside, although the channel was located outside of town. Another task that the stone cutters of the channel were faced with was choosing an optimal course. As the channel was cut on the steep rocky eastern slope of the hill, from rock surface to the desired level, any deviation from the course would have had severe consequences. Moving the course slightly to the west (uphill) would have resulted in unnecessary cutting as the channel would become too deep. Any slight movement of the course to the east and downhill could have resulted in the breaching of the channel out of the bedrock. After the channel was completed and water was running through it, Tunnel III was cut and fed the bottom of the Round Chamber with water that could have been safely drawn at that point within the city.

A R E A F, S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 6 3

ADDENDUM: A NOTE BY ELI SHUKRON ON THE INTERPRETATION AND USE OF THE ROUND CHAMBER The boulders at the entrance to Channel II serve two main functions. First, these boulders blocked the passage a couple of meters after the entrance to the spring (as there is not enough space between the bottom of the boulders and the base of the channel—Fig. 13.61: Section 2–2). Second, they prevented the water that filled the Round Chamber from flowing back to the spring. Wall 150 is adjacent to the entrance to Tunnel III from the south. This wall was built in order to elevate the water level in the Round Chamber to facilitate the drawing of water from that chamber. Wall 150 is slightly higher than the opening of Tunnel III, however it does not block the water from flowing in Channel II. It is noteworthy that raising the water level created a situation where the access from Tunnel III to the Round Chamber is under water; in this way the opening is hidden from view and the entrance to the city is invisible.

REFERENCES Amit, D., Hirschfeld, Y.,and Patrich, J., eds. 2002. The Aqueducts of Israel. Ann Arbor. Ariel, D.T. and Lender, Y. 2000. Area B: Stratigraphic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 1–32. Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Benami Amiel, R., Grodek, T., and Frumkin, A. 2010. Characterization of the Hydrology of the Sacred Gihon Spring, Jerusalem: A Deteriorating Urban Karst Spring. Hydrogeology Journal 18: 1465–1479. Bieberstein, K., and Bloedhorn, H. 1994. Jerusalem, Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, (Beiheft zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Atlas, Beiheft 100/3). Wiesbaden. Broshi, M. 1976. Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion. In: Yadin, Y., ed. Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974. Jerusalem: 57–60. De Groot, A., Cohen, D., and Caspi, A. 1992. Area A1. In: De Groot, A., and Ariel, D.T., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 1–29. Frumkin, A., and Shimron, A. 2006. Tunnel Engineering in the Iron Age: Geoarchaeology of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 227–237. Gadot, Y. 2016. Urban Judaism under Roman Rule: The Dedicating of the Kidron for Garbage Disposal in the 1st Century CE. In: Stiebel, G.D., Uziel, J., Cytryn-Silverman, K., Re’em, A. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 10: 149–165 (Hebrew). Gill, D. 1996. The Geology of the City of David and its Ancient Subterranean Waterworks. In: Ariel, D.T., and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 1–28. Gill, D. 2012. Controversial Issues in Understanding the Water Supply Systems in the City of David: The “Rock-Cut ‘Pool’”, “Round Chamber”, Channels III, IV, V and VI and the Feeding of the Siloam Channel. In: Baruch, E., Levin, Y. and Levy-Reifer, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Vol. 18. Ramat Gan: 31–74 (Hebrew, English summary on pp. 37*–44*). Grossberg, A. 2014. “The Brook Which Flows within the Ground” (2 Chron. 32:4). Megadim 55: 121–124 (Hebrew). Hasson, Y. 1987. Jerusalem in the Muslim Perspective: The Qur’an and Tradition Literature. In: Prawer, J., ed. The History of Jerusalem, The Early Islamic Period (638–1099). Jerusalem: 283–313 (Hebrew). Hecker, M. 1956. Water Supply of Jerusalem in Ancient Times. In: Avi-Yonah, M., ed. Sepher Yerushalayim (Book of Jerusalem). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: 191–218 (Hebrew). Kloner, A. 2000. Columbaria in Jerusalem. In: Schwartz, J., Amar, Z. and Ziffer, I., eds. Jerusalem and EretzIsrael. Tel Aviv: 61–66 (Hebrew). Marder, O., and Khalaily, H. 2004. New Epipaleolithic Remains in Jerusalem and the Judean Mountains. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference. Ramat Gan: 7–10 (Hebrew).

364 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Mastermann, E.W.G. 1901. Notes and News. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly 33: 321. Mazar, A. 2000. Jerusalem’s Water Supply in the First Temple Period. In: Aḥituv, S. and Mazar, A., eds. The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Periods. Jerusalem: 195–232. Reich, R. 1987. “... From Gad Yawan to Shiloah”: On the History of the Gihon Spring in the Second Temple Period. Eretz Israel 19: 330–333 (Hebrew, with English summary on p. 83). Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. 2019. Three Notes Pertaining to the Fortifications and Rock-Cuttings at the Gihon Spring in the City of David, Jerusalem. In: Lau, M., Schmidt, K.M. and Schumacher, T. (Hrsg.), Sprachbilder und Bildsprache. Studien zur Kontextualisierung biblischer Texte. Festschrift für Max Küchler, (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 121). Göttingen: 505–515. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1998. Jerusalem, the City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18: 91–92. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1999. Light at the End of the Tunnel. Biblical Archaeology Review 25/1: 22–33, 72. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000a. The Excavations at the Gihon Spring and Warren’s Shaft System in the City of David. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Reprinted and Expanded Edition. Jerusalem: 327–339. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000b. The System of Rock-Cut Tunnels Near Gihon in Jerusalem, Reconsidered. Revue biblique 107/1: 5–17. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2004. The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. Levant 36: 211–223. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007. Some New Insights and Notes on the Cutting of the Siloam Tunnel. City of David, Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 2: 133–161 (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2011. The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered. Tel Aviv 38: 147–157. Schick, C. 1886a. The Aqueducts at Siloam. Palestine Exploration Fund QuarterlyStatement 18.2: 88–92. Schick, C. 1886b. Second Aqueduct to the Pool of Siloam. Palestine Exploration Fund QuarterlyStatement 18.4: 197–200. Schick, C. 1890. Recent Excavations at Shiloah. Palestine Exploration Fund QuarterlyStatement 23: 257–258 Schick, C. 1891a. The “Second” Siloah Aqueduct. Palestine Exploration Fund QuarterlyStatement 24: 13–18, Plan 2. Schick, C. 1891b. Reports from Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Fund QuarterlyStatement 24: 198–204. Schick, C. 1902. The Virgin’s Fount. Palestine Exploration Fund QuarterlyStatement 34.1: 29–35. Shiloh Y. 1984. Excavations in the City of David I, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Shiloh, Y. 1987. Underground Water Systems in Eretz-Israel in the Iron Age. In: Perdue, L.G., Toombs, L.E. and Johnson, G.L., eds. Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, Essays in Memory of D. Glenn Rose. Atlanta: 203–244. Sivan, E. 1991. The Sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam during the Crusader Period. In: Prawer, J. and Ben-Shammai, H., eds. The History of Jerusalem, Crusaders and Ayyubids (1099–1250). Jerusalem: 287–303 (Hebrew). Sneh, A., Weinberger, R. and Shalev, E. 2010. The Why, How, and When of the Siloam Tunnel Reevaluated. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: 369: 57–65. Ussishkin, D. 1976. The Original Length of the Siloam Tunnel in Jerusalem. Levant 8: 82–95. Vincent, L.H. 1911. Underground Jerusalem. London. Vincent, L.H. and Steve, A.M. 1954. Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. Paris. Reproduced in part in Reich R. 2004: 193–262. Weill R. 1920. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1913–1914. Paris. Weill R. 1947. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1923–1924. Paris.

CHAPTER 14

AREA F THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Helena Roth

The MB II pottery from Area F was uncovered in Locus 1502 (638.94–638.25 masl) and Locus 1503 (638.25–637.90 masl), in an earthen layer between Wall 106 of the Spring Tower and Wall 103 of the Mamluk Spring House. While Locus 1502 yielded a mixed assemblage, spanning from MB II to the Early Roman period, Locus 1503, located directly below Locus 1502, contained only MB II sherds. Locus 1503 was located directly above the boulders of a wider phase of the Spring Tower’s Wall 106, which abutted the wall’s narrower upper stage construction in its second phase. This may indicate that the MB II is the terminus ante quem of both phases of Wall 106. Three storage jar sherds were found in Locus 1503, two of which were drawn (Fig. 14.1: 1, 2). Parallels to the storage jar rims from Area F were found in Shiloh’s Area E (Eisenberg 2012), as well as Area H (see Chapter 18).

1

2

0

5

3

10

Figure 14.1: Middle Bronze Age Pottery No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Description

Fabric

Selected parallels

1

10884/7

1503

Storage jar

Everted, outfolded rim, ca. 11 cm in diameter

Brown ware

Jerusalem, Area E: Eisenberg 2013: Fig. 7.5: 4

2

10884/18

1503

Storage jar

Flaring, outfolded rim, ca. 13 cm in diameter, with a narrow neck, ca. 7 cm at its narrowest point

Reddish-brown ware, white grits

Jerusalem, Area E: Eisenberg 2013: Fig. 7.20: 10

3

10882/2

1502

Storage jar

Slightly everted and thickened rim, ca. 14 cm in diameter

Brown ware, small white grits

Jerusalem, Area E: Eisenberg 2013: Fig. 7.13: 7

REFERENCES Eisenberg, E. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 18–17 (Middle Bronze Age). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume IIB, Area E, the Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 251–302.

CHAPTER 15

AREA F THE IRON AGE POTTERY Efrat Bocher

The Iron Age pottery discussed here was unearthed from the fills in Channel II. The excavators divided them into three layers: • This fill directly overlies the floor of the channel. It includes Loci 228 and 233 in the northern part of the channel, and the southern part of Locus 243 (Fig. 15.1). All of this pottery can be securely dated to the Iron IIB–C, save for one jar (Fig. 15.1: 17), which is earlier and first appeared in the Iron I. Traces of a thick incrustation were found on many of the jar fragments from the northern loci, likely a result of their having been in the water for a long time. • The second layer is light brown fill (Loci 226, 236, 237, 238 and 241) and overlies the abovementioned loci. The pottery here (Fig. 15.2) is similar in date to the previous fill, and with the exception of one bowl (Fig. 15.2: 7), which dates to the Persian period (see below), also dates to the Iron IIB–C. • The fill of the upper layer (Loci 224, 225 and 230) yielded Iron Age pottery, although the latest pottery in the fill dates to the Early Roman period.

TYPOLOGY Pottery from the Fill Overlying the Floor (Fig. 15.1) Bowls (Fig. 15.1: 1–4)

Carinated bowl (Fig. 15.1: 1): This bowl has a carination in the middle of the wall and an outfolded rim with a triangular section. The type is characteristic of the 8th century BCE, although it does appear in earlier assemblages (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 14.4). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 64, Figs. 4.2: 4, 4.20: 15, 4.24: 9, Type B8b1), Area D1, Stratum 14 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 14: 4) and Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 17: 16–17), as well as the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Ben-Ami 2013: Fig. 3.6: 13). Slightly carinated bowl (Fig. 15.1: 2): This bowl, with a sharpened, slightly everted rim, is common in assemblages from the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 65, Fig. 4.2: 9–10, Type B9), as well as Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 8: 1, 3) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 23: 7). Bowl with an outfolded rim (Fig. 15.1: 3): This bowl has an inverted rim and round wall. It is somewhat different in shape from Type B8b2 in Area E of the City of David (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 62–64), although there is some similarity between the two. Thin, deep bowl (Fig. 15.1: 4): This type of bowl, with a thin wall and sharp rim, occurs in Stratum 12B and continues into Stratum 11 of the City of David. Only a few of these bowls found in Jerusalem are slipped and burnished; they are more common in the Shephelah (De Groot and

A R E A F, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E R Y 3 6 7

Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 61–62). Parallels are found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 62, Fig. 4.1: 23–24, Type B7c). Kraters (Fig. 15.1: 5–7)

Deep kraters (Fig. 15.1: 5–6): These vessels are characterized by an upright neck, simple rim and rounded body with a slightly accentuated shoulder. This type appears both with and without slip and burnish. Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 66–67, Fig. 4.3: 1–3, Type K4) and Area D1, (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 25: 1–3). Krater with a folded rim (Fig. 15.1: 7): Kraters of this type have a slightly rounded wall and are common in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE throughout Judah. Parallels are found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 62–64, Fig. 4.2: 1–2, Type B8a), Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 8: 8–11, 9: 7–9), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 8–9; 18: 7; 20: 28), and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 247, Fig. 5.4: 52–56, Type B9: I). Stand (Fig. 15.1: 8)

The fragment of what appears to be a wide stand was found in the excavations (Fig. 15.1: 8). This type, with a folded rim, is larger than most stands. Stands of various sizes are characteristic of the 8th–7th centuries BCE (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 94–95). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 11 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: Fig. 4.36: 7). Cooking Pot (Fig. 15.1: 9)

The single cooking pot displayed here (Fig. 15.1: 9) has a straight, upright rim and two ridges on the neck. Yezerski and Mazar (2015: 250) claimed that this type appeared from the 8th century BCE until the early 6th century BCE. However, this type appears in Strata 15–14 of the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 206, Type CP5), although it is most common in Area E in Stratum 12B (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 67). Parallels from the City of David appear in Area E, Type CP6, Stratum 12B (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 67, Fig. 4.3: 5), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 19–20, 19: 27, 25: 15–16) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 250, Figs. 5.7: 97–98, 5.8: 99–102, Type CP4). Juglets (Fig. 15.1: 10–11)

Small, globular perfume juglet (Fig. 15.1: 10): The example found in Area F has a very narrow neck. This type is not particularly common, with most vessels displaying a higher neck. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 74, Fig. 4.20: 19, Type Jt4). Dipper juglet (Fig. 15.1: 11): One example of an elongated, cylindrical dipper juglet with a high, straight neck and pinched rim was found. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 71, Fig. 4.4: 1, Photos 4.34–4.37, Type Jt1b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 17: 11). Jugs (Fig. 15.1: 12–13)

Both jugs found in the assemblage are large jugs with a high, wide neck and thickened everted rims (Fig. 15.1: 12–13). These vessels typically have a very narrow, carinated shoulder. Although

3 6 8 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

0

5

10

Figure 15.1: Area F, pottery from the fill overlying the floor of Channel II.

A R E A F, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E R Y 3 6 9

Figure 15.1: Area F, Pottery from the Fill Overlying the Floor of Channel II No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

2272

228

Reddish-brown ware, gray core, white grits, red slip and wheel burnish on the interior, weathered

2

Bowl

2345/5

243

Brown ware, burnish on the interior and exterior

3

Bowl

2347/53

243

Brown ware, traces of wheel burnish on the interior, weathered

4

Bowl

2341/27

243

Brown ware, wheel burnish on the interior and exterior, weathered

5

Bowl

2343/20

243

Brown ware, dark gray core, white grits, traces of burnish on the interior, weathered

6

Krater

2284/1

228

Brown ware, white grits, weathered

7

Krater

2303/6

233

Reddish brown ware, traces of burnish on the interior and exterior rim

8

Stand

2344/4

243

Brown ware, dark gray core, thick wall

9

Cooking pot

2289

228

Reddish/brown ware, gray core, white grits, slightly weathered

11

Juglet

2344/21

243

Reddish brown ware, white grits

12

Jug

2283

228

Brown ware, gray core, weathered

13

Jug

2288

228

Brown ware, weathered

14

Storage jar

2304/1

233

Gray ware, white grits

15

Storage jar

2694

228

Reddish-brown ware, gray core, many white grits. Weathered, with a thick incrustation on the exterior

16

Storage jar

2345/4

243

Brown ware, white gits

17

Pithos

2271

228

Brown orange ware, white grits

18

Lamp

2339/37

243

Brown ware, high base

the fragmentary nature of the examples found here limits the ability to identify the exact forms, similar vessels were found in the City of David, in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 76, Fig. 4.4: 11, Type J2) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 27: 4–8). Storage Jars (Fig. 15.1: 14–16)

Storage jar with a short neck (Fig. 15.1: 14–15): This jar, with a thickened, inverted rim occurs throughout the Iron Age. Its earliest appearance thus far in the City of David is in Stratum 14 in Areas B and D1 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 7: 17, 15: 28). Later examples were found in Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 20: 31). Storage jars with a ridged rim (Fig. 15.1: 16): This type is the earliest form found in the ceramic assemblage, found in the City of David in Strata 15–13 and dating to the 12th–9th centuries BCE (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 208). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 15–13 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012b: 208, Fig. 5.4: 8, 5.21: 26, Type SJ2) and Area D1, Stratum 14 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 15 :27).

3 7 0 E F R AT B O C H E R

Pithos (Fig. 15.1: 17)

Such containers were found in the City of David, Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 26: 14). Lamp (Fig. 15.1: 18)

One lamp with a high, very thick base was found in the assemblage (Fig. 15.1: 18). Such lamps appear in Area E from Stratum 12A to 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 92–94). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: Fig. 4.9: 4, Type L3), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 18: 31), and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 257, Fig. 5.15: 225–227, Type L3).

Pottery from the Second Layer of Sediment in Channel II (Fig. 15.2) Bowls (Fig. 15.2: 1–8)

Small flat bowl (Fig. 15.2: 1): These bowls have a cut rim and slightly ribbed wall. This type is common in Judah in the 8th–7th centuries BCE (Freud 2016: 258, Type B2.1–2.2), with parallels from the City of David in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 60–61, Fig 4.1.14, Type B6b). Rounded bowl (Fig. 15.2: 2): This type appears in Strata 15–14 in the City of David, occurring in small quantities in Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 57–58). Parallels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 57–58, Fig. 4.1:2, Type B1c) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 20: 19). Flat bowl with a rounded rim (Fig. 15.2: 3): This type first appears in Stratum 13 and continues into Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 60, Fig. 4.1: 13, Type B6a). Thin, deep bowl (Fig. 15.2: 4): See Above, Fig. 15.1: 4. Slightly carinated bowl (Fig. 15.2: 5): See above, Fig. 15.1: 2. Bowl with an everted ledge rim (Fig. 15.2: 6): These rounded bowls, defined as Stern’s Type A3 (Stern 1982: 94), began to appear at the end of the Iron Age, continuing into the Persian period. Similar vessels were found in the City of David in Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 32–34, Fig. 3.2: 1–12, Type IVA), Area D1, Stratum 9 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 98, Fig. 28: 1–4) and on the Summit of the City of David, Strata 9A–B (Shalev 2015: 205, Fig. 4.1: 20–21, Type BL-5). Carinated bowl (Fig. 15.2: 7): See above, Fig. 15.1: 1. Bowl with everted rim (Fig. 15.2: 8): The rim of these bowls forms a shelf of sorts. This type is common throughout Strata 12–10 in the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 60). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012a: 60, Fig. 4.1.7–9, Type B4b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 18: 28, 19: 5, 20: 4, 22: 1, 7–8, 23: 10). Kraters (Fig. 15.2: 9–10)

One type of krater was found in this assemblage (Fig. 15.2: 9–10). It is characterized by a folded rim. This type also appears in the assemblage presented above (see Fig. 15.1: 7). Basin (Fig. 15.2: 11)

One fragment of a handmade basin was found, with a thick wall and thickened rim folded out. Parallels are known from Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016: Table 16.1: K5).

A R E A F, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E R Y 3 7 1

Cooking Pots (Fig. 15.2: 12–14)

Cooking pot with a molded, ridged rim (Fig. 15.2: 12): Cooking pots of this type have a pronounced, upright neck and a thin wall. They appear in a variety of sizes. Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12B–12A (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 67, Fig. 4.3: 7, Type CP7), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 25: 6–7) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 250, Figs. 5.7: 97–98, 5.8: 99–102, Type CP-4). Cooking pot with a single ridge on neck (Fig. 15.2: 13): This type of closed cooking pot, with a globular body, ribbon handles, and a single ridge on its neck, dates to the end of the Iron Age, as seen in Stratum 10 of the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 71). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 71, Fig. 4.3: 14, Type CCP3b) and on the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 249, Fig. 5.6: 79–83, Type CP1). Cooking pot with a globular body and an upright neck (Fig. 15.2: 14): As opposed to the type presented above, with only a single ridge on the neck, this type has a number of ridges and grooves on the neck, and appears earlier in the Iron Age, for example, in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 68–70, Fig. 4.3: 11–12, Photo 4.28, Type CCP2) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 249, Fig. 5.6: 88, Type CP2). Juglet (Fig. 15.2: 15)

This small globular juglet, with a narrow neck (Fig. 15.2: 15), is not very common in the City of David. Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 74, Fig. 4.4: 5, Photo 4.43–45, Type Jt4) and on the Summit of the City of David (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 251, Fig. 5.8: 106, Type Jt-1). Holemouth Jar (Fig. 15.2: 16)

One holemouth jar with a smooth, folded rim (Fig. 15.2: 16) was found in the assemblage. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 82, Fig. 4.6: 2, Photo 4.63, Type Hm2b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 26: 4). Storage Jars (Fig. 15.2: 17–19)

Storage jar with a short neck (Fig. 15.2: 17): This jar has a thickened rim and is found in the City of David in Area E, Strata 12A–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 85, Fig. 4.7: 1, Photo 4.67, Type SJ3a). Spouted storage jar (Fig. 15.2: 18): This jar, found in the Iron Age II, exhibits the funnel of an external cup attached to the shoulder. Parallels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 86, Fig. 4.7: 4, Type SJ4) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17:25, 27: 12). Storage jar with thickened, inverted rim (Fig. 15.2: 19): This type appears throughout the Iron Age, for example in the City of David: Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 85, Fig. 4.6: 7–8, Type SJ2b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 22, 19: 17). Lamp (Fig. 15.2: 20)

The lamp in this assemblage has a low disc base (Fig. 15.2: 20). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 86, Fig. 4.9: 3, Type L2) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 18: 31).

3 7 2 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 0

5

15 10

A R E A F, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E R Y 3 7 3

16

17

18

19

20 0

5

10

Figure 15.2: Area F, Pottery from the Second Layer of Sediment in Channel II. No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

2318/5

236

Brown ware, dark red slip and wheel burnish on interior

2

Bowl

2318/26

236

Brown ware, dark red slip and wheel burnish on interior and exterior rim

3

Bowl

2326/30

238

Reddish-brown ware

4

Bowl

2332/6

241

Light brown-orange ware, gray core

5

Bowl

2323/9

238

Gray ware, wheel burnish on interior

6

Bowl

2321/20

237

Brown ware, white grits, light brown slip and wheel burnish on interior

7

Bowl

2324/1

238

Reddish-brown ware, white grits, wheel burnish on interior and exterior rim

8

Bowl

2324/25

238

Brown ware, white grits, burnished on interior and exterior rim

9

Krater

2327/39

238

Reddish-brown ware, dark brown core, wheel burnish on interior and exterior rim

10

Krater

2320/11

237

Reddish-brown ware, gray core, white grits, wheel burnish on interior

11

Basin

2332/10

241

Light brown ware, white grits, light brown slip and wheel burnished on interior and exterior rim, very thick (20 mm) and large diameter

12

Cooking pot

2313/10

236

Brown-gray ware

13

Cooking pot

2320/4

237

Brown ware, white grits, ridge on neck, flat handle with ridge

14

Cooking pot

2326/22

238

Brown gray ware, white grits

15

Juglet

2328/34

238

Orange ware

16

Holemouth jar

2321/6

237

Reddish ware

17

Storage jar

2320/5

237

Light brown ware, gray core, many white grits

18

Storage jar

2325/16

238

Funnel of external cup attached to shoulder. Brown ware, dark gray core, white grits, perforation 5 mm in diameter

19

Storage jar

2323/2

238

Light brown-rosy ware, many white grits

20

Lamp

2327/17

238

Brown ware, low disc base

3 7 4 E F R AT B O C H E R

CONCLUSIONS Despite the difficulty in dating water installations according to the fills that accumulate within them, it seems that the pottery in the two lower layers of the channel is homogeneous and not disturbed. Therefore, it is likely that this pottery dates the final use of the channel to the late Iron Age. While one sherd found in the fill of the middle layer may date to the Persian period, the type's first appearance is attributed to the late Iron Age. Furthermore, as this is only a single sherd, its importance in terms of dating the entire layer should be taken with caution. Even so, it is possible that the presence of this sherd may indicate some minimal use of Channel II in the late Iron Age.

REFERENCES Ben-Ami, D. 2013. The Iron Age Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 63–82. De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. 2000. Ceramic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 91–154. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012a. The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978-1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. VIIB: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 57–198. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012b. The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIB). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978-1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 7B: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 199–247. Freud, L. 2016. Pottery of the Iron Age: Typology and Summary. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. I (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake: 254–265. Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C. Warminster. Shalev, Y. 2015. The Early Persian Period Pottery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports I. Area G. Jerusalem: 203–241. Yezerski, I. and Mazar, E. 2015. Iron Age III Pottery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports I. Area G. Jerusalem: 243–298. Zuckerman, S. 2012. The Pottery of Stratum 9 (the Persian Period). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 7B: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 31–50.

CHAPTER 16

AREA F THE ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

The Roman period pottery assemblage from Area F was found in two main contexts, both located beneath the lower staircase of the Spring House. Most of the fills excavated in this area consisted primarily of modern debris, as attested by the many contemporary artifacts uncovered there. According to the excavators, this backfill was a result of the Parker expedition of 1909– 1911 (see Chapter 13). Despite the modern intrusions, a narrow deposit of original, undisturbed debris was encountered abutting the eastern wall of this area (Wall 125). In the easternmost space below the staircase, the threshold of a constructed opening was incorporated into the Spring House. The fill excavated above this threshold yielded pottery dating to the Late Roman period (Locus 1504). As described in detail below, the various vessel types comprising the assemblage overlying the threshold can be dated to between the 2nd and 4th centuries CE. This period, however, can only suggest a terminus ante quem, attesting that the threshold was likely part of an aperture that led into a cell in an earlier stage of the Spring House, perhaps during the Early Roman period. By the end of the Roman period, no earlier than the 3rd–4th centuries CE, the cell in the Spring House had become inaccessible, as indicated by the accumulated fills blocking the opening. The second area in which a Roman period assemblage was exposed is a narrow gap left between the southern wall of the Spring Tower (Wall 106) and the southern wall of the Spring House (Wall 103). A narrow space was formed between the two walls, which was excavated until the entire gap was filled by large boulders. The pottery assemblage uncovered in this area was comprised of a broad chronological span of vessels that dated from the MB II (Locus 1503, see Chapter 14) until the 1st century CE (Loci 1501–1502). The latest datable material from this fill suggests a 1st century CE date of accumulation. As in other areas in the City of David, here, too, the earlier structures and accumulations dated to the Bronze and Iron Ages and remained exposed for many years—until the Early Roman period. The filling activity of the gap between the tower and Spring House during this period may point to a date for the construction of the Spring House in the Early Roman period or slightly later.

TYPOLOGY Pottery from Locus 1502 (Fig. 16.1) The first pottery assemblage derived from the fill deposited into the gap between the Spring Tower and the Spring House. This assemblage consisted mostly of storage jars typical of the Early Roman period (Fig. 16.1: 1–17). Casserole (Fig. 16.1: 1)

The single type of cooking vessel derived from the assemblage is a wide-mouthed casserole. These casseroles typically have a short neck, forming a wide opening and a simple rim with a triangular section. The shoulder of the casserole is sharply carinated. This vessel is very common in 1st century

376 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

9 0

5

10

Figure 16.1: Pottery Abutting the Spring House No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Casserole

1079/9

1502

Slightly thickened plain rim, short neck, brown ware

2

Storage jar

10880/6

1502

Plain rim, slightly outflaring, ridge at bottom, fine light brown ware

3

Storage jar

10881/12

1502

Slightly outflaring plain rim, ridge on bottom of neck, light brown ware, dark brown core

4

Storage jar

10883/7

1502

Slightly outflaring plain rim, light brown ware

5

Storage jar

10881/2

1502

Plain rim, light brown ware

6

Storage jar

10883/3

1502

Outflaring rim, ridge on bottom of neck, light brown ware, incrustations on exterior

7

Storage jar

10881/11

1502

Plain rim, ridge at bottom, fine light brown ware

8

Storage jar

10881/3

1502

Plain rim, light brown and slightly greenish ware, extra clay smeared on neck

9

Storage jar

10881

1502

Body fragment, orange ware, brown stripe painted on exterior

10

Storage jar

10883/5

1502

Outflaring rim, ridge on bottom of neck, orange ware, dark gray core

11

Storage jar

1081/4

1502

Externally thickened rim, light brown/orange ware

12

Storage jar

10880/8

1502

Plain rim, fine ridge on bottom of neck

A R E A F, T H E R O M A N P O T T E R Y 3 7 7

CE contexts (Berlin 2005: Fig. 7; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 30: 51–55; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 13; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 8–9). Storage Jars (Fig. 16.1: 2–12)

The storage jars in this assemblage (Fig. 16.1: 2–12), are typical of the Early Roman period. Since the assemblage was found in the fill accumulated between the Spring Tower and the Spring House, these vessels consequently date the fill to the 1st century CE, indicating that both structures were built before or during that period. The storage jars dating to the Early Roman period, mainly to the 1st century CE, are defined by a ridge surrounding the base of the neck. The various storage jar types differ slightly, primarily by the form of the neck and rim. Certain storage jars (Fig. 16.1: 2–6) have a tall, flaring neck and a simple, slightly thickened rim (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 6: 30, Pl. 8: 36–38; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.8: 2; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 13, 18). Other jars have an upright, concave neck and a simple, everted rim (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 8: 39; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 12; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 14). Other storage jars (Fig. 16.1: 9–10) have necks with inner concavity, resulting in outer swelling above the shoulder. Two subtypes differ in neck size, some having a thick neck (Fig. 16.1: 9), while others (Fig. 16.1: 10) have a thinner one (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 2; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 7, 11, 14). Another storage jar type (Fig. 16.1: 11) that frequently appears in 1st century CE contexts has a flaring neck and a thickened rim, triangular in section. Often, a groove was incised into the rim (Fig. 16.1: 12; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 7, 9; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 9. 14; Machline and Gadot: 2017: Fig. 10: 20). Summary

The ceramic assemblage discovered in the deposit abutting the wall of the construction of the Spring House is comprised of vessels typically representing the Early Roman period and specifically the 1st century CE. Stratigraphically, the deposition of this fill succeeded the construction of the wall, thus suggesting that the Spring Tower was replaced by the Spring House during the 1st century CE or later.

Pottery from Locus 1504 (Fig. 16.2) The second assemblage derived from the debris overlying the threshold in the southern wall of the Spring House (Fig. 16.2: 1–5). This assemblage consisted exclusively of storage jars that are dated to the 2nd– 4th centuries CE. Storage Jars (Fig. 16.2: 1–5)

The storage jars discovered in this assemblage represent the development of the common, bagshaped storage jar during the Late Roman period. One storage jar is typified by a tall neck and an outturned, outfolded rim (Fig. 16.2: 1). The rim was thickly folded onto the upper, outer neck. A similar type (Fig. 16.2: 2) has a tall, upright neck and a plain, outfolded rim. The rim was folded onto the upper neck, forming a slight thickening of the neck’s section. These jar types were common during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (Magness 2014: Pl. 6.2: 19–21; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 45). Later in the Roman period, the rims of the storage jars developed and the outfolded rim was drawn downward, towards the middle of the neck. The fold was flattened into the neck, creating a thinner section. This development occurred during the late 2nd or 3rd centuries CE (Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 41; Uziel, Lieberman and Solomon 2017: Fig. 9: 19).

378 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5 0

5

10

Figure 16.2: Pottery from the Spring House No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Storage jar

10913/7

1504

Rim, flat thickening externally, light brown/orange ware

2

Storage jar

10913/3

1504

Rim, flat thickening externally, light brown ware

3

Storage jar

10886/12

1504

Rim, flat thickened externally, orange ware

4

Storage jar

10913/1

1504

Rim, simple rim thickened slightly inwards, brown ware

5

Storage jar

10914/7

1504

Lower part of neck with ridge, ribbed body, orange ware

During the late 3rd century, a protruding pinch on the inner rim appeared on the outfolded rim storage jar, forming a sharp inner thickening encircling the top of the vessel, becoming a common feature of storage jars in the early 4th century CE (Fig. 16.2: 3; see Magness 2014: Pl. 6.2: 22; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 49; Uziel, Lieberman and Solomon 2017: Fig. 11:15). Eventually, probably during the early 4th century, the outer folding was no longer continued, and the inner thickening of the neck extended downwards along the inner neck (Fig. 16. 2: 4; Uziel, Lieberman and Solomon 2017: Fig. 11: 13–14). The storage jar fragment shown in Fig. 16.2: 5 displays the common form of the neck and shoulder of a storage jar during the Late Roman period, with an upright or slightly flaring neck and a sharp, prominent ridge encircling the base of the neck. Distinct ribbing appears on the shoulder of the jar, sometimes extending down and covering the rest of the body. Summary

This assemblage is derived from an accumulation discovered above a threshold and against an opening in the Spring House, sealing it. According to the chronological horizon of the vessels, it seems that this fill was deposited during the Late Roman period, specifically during the late 3rd– early 4th centuries CE. Consequently, the threshold and opening were both built and put out of use no later than this time.

A R E A F, T H E R O M A N P O T T E R Y 3 7 9

DISCUSSION Two ceramic assemblages dating to the Roman period were uncovered in Area F. Both assemblages suggest a terminus ante quem for specific elements: one for the construction of the Spring House, suggesting its construction during the 1st century CE or slightly later. The second discovered above and against a threshold incorporated in the Spring House indicates it was both built and blocked before the late 3rd–early 4th centuries. Interestingly, other than one fragment, all the vessels from the Roman period uncovered in this area were storage jars. The assemblage of storage jars represents the most common forms in Jerusalem; they are dated in their entirety to the Roman period, from the 1st through the 4th centuries CE. Although both fills are in secondary deposition, they probably originated in a nearby context. Therefore, the absence of other vessel types and the abundance of storage jars may reflect the sort of activity taking place in this area during the Roman period. The location of the assemblage near the spring and the homogenous typological composition imply that perhaps the storage jars concentrated in close proximity to the spring were intended to be used for collecting water. Some of the jars may originally have been used for transporting other commodities such as wine or oil. Once the commodities were consumed, the jars may have been reused for collecting and storing water, carted by people or animals to nearby houses or industries.

REFERENCES Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Berlin, A.M. 2005. Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Studies 60). Portsmouth: 29–60. Fleitman, Y. and Mazar, E. 2015. The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the 2012–2013 Excavation Seasons: Areas Upper A, B and C. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013, Final Reports: Vol. I. Jerusalem. 211–292. Geva, H. 2010. Early Roman Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 118–153. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Geva, H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Local Pottery from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 176–191. Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2017. Wading through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblages of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery and Material Culture 2: 102–139. Magness, J. 2014. Late Roman Pottery from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 229–238. Tchekhanovets, Y. 2013. The Early Roman Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 109–150. Uziel, J., Lieberman, T. and Solomon, A. 2017. Two Years of Excavation beneath Wilson’s Arch: New Discoveries and Ponderings. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y., Cytryn-Silberman, K. and Uziel, J., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Vol. XI. Jerusalem: 239–261 (Hebrew).

AREA F

INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS Index of Loci, Spring House Period according to pottery

Locus no.

Levels

Description

1501

640.40 638.94

Silty fill between Wall 106 and southern Wall 125 of Spring House.

Early Roman period

13.7, 13.24, 13.31

1502

638.94 638.25

Equivalent to Locus 1501

Early Roman period

13.7, 13.24

1503

638.25 637.90

Earth sealed beneath Locus 1502

MB II

13.7, 13.24

1504

639.40 638.93

Clay sediment overlying threshold in Wall 103

Late Roman

13.7, 13.24, 13.31

1505

640.30 637.70

Earth fill in upper part of space beneath the Spring House

Modern

13.9, 13.31, 13.32

1506

640.15 638.90

Clay abutting Wall 120 beneath Spring House

Early Roman

13.9, 13.24, 13.32

1508

637.55 634.10

Earth sealed beneath Locus 1505

Modern

13.9, 13.31, 13.32

1509

637.70 635.90

Earth sealed beneath Locus1505

Modern

13.7, 13.24, 13.31

1510

634.10 633.20

Fill in Channel I

Modern

13.9, 13.31, 13.32

1511

635.90 633.20

Fill in Crevice L

Modern

13.7, 13.9, 13.24, 13.32

Figure

Index of Loci, Channel II Locus no.

Location in Channel (m. along channel from entrance southwards)

220

Description

Period according to pottery

Figure

0–10.0 m

From the northern entrance to the karstic pit. Includes Channel II up to its narrow passage. Gray debris which infiltrated after Parker’s excavations

Late (including Medieval)

13.61 13.74

221

11.5–20.0 m

Gray/brown debris filling the channel’s entire depth

Iron II, with some EB sherds

13.61 13.74

222

10.0–11.5 m

Karstic cavity at the base of channel. Upper (ca. 0.50 m) layer of dark brown earth in cavity

1st century CE

13.61 13.74

223

10.0–11.5 m

Inside Karstic cavity, below Locus 222. lower 0.60 m of light brown-reddish earth

Iron II pottery with incrustation

13.61 13.74

224

20.0–37.0 m

Upper layer of debris, ca. 0.25–0.50 m thick

1st century CE

13.74

225

––

Combined with Locus 224

226

20.0–37.0 m

Below Locus 224, clayish earth ca. 20 cm thick, seems undisturbed

13.74 Late Iron IIB–C

13.74

A R E A F, I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S 3 8 1 227

--

Combined with Locus 224, Soft gray debris which infiltrated through uncovered part of Channel (northern columbarium)

1st century CE

228

20.0–37.0 m

Layer of earth ca. 0.50 m thick resting on floor of Channel II, below Locus 226

Iron IIB–C pottery with incrustation

229

18.8–20.0

Cleaning the western wall of the channel, between the stone-constructed wall and the rock wall of the channel

Iron II

13.74

230

37.0–63.0 m

Soft gray debris which infiltrated from above

mostly 1st century CE, some late Iron II

13.74

231

10.0–11.5 m

Cleaning lower part of karstic cavity, same as Locus 223

Iron II

13.74

232

––

Soft gray debris in Tunnel III, between narrow passage and rock–cut pool. This debris infiltrated from the “round chamber” on the west after Parker’s excavations

1st century CE, some late Iron II pottery

13.74

233

37.0–63.0 m

Light brown clayish earth on bottom of channel, sealed by Locus 230

Iron Age IIB–C

13.74

234

63.0–127 m

Second layer of debris inside Channel II

Iron Age IIB–C

13.75

235

63.0–73.0 m

Combined with Locus 234

Iron Age IIB–C

236

73.0 – 83.0 m

Combined with Locus 234

Iron Age IIB–C

237

83.0–93.0 m

Combined with Locus 234

Iron Age IIB–C

238

93.0–103.0 m

Combined with Locus 234

Iron Age IIB–C

239

103.0–113.0 m

Combined with Locus 234

Iron Age IIB–C

240

113.0–123.0 m

Combined with Locus L234

Iron Age IIB–C

241

123.0–127.0 m

Combined with Locus 234

Iron Age IIB–C

242

Part 2b (north of Y. Shiloh’s excavations)

Grey/brown debris in open channel

243

63.0–127.0 m

Clayish light brown debris beneath Locus 234 along the entire southern excavated part. A layer of ca. 0.50–1.00 m resting on the floor of the channel

Iron Age IIB–C

244

0–0.70 m

Debris excavated when enlarging the northern entrance into Channel II

Iron Age IIB-C

245

17.5–20.0 m

Debris excavated and extracted from under the square segmented channel, in order to insert a modern electric cable

13.74

13.75

13.61

3 8 2 A R E A F, I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S

Index of Walls Wall no.

Description

Fig.

103

Small opening constructed of fine ashlars under Wall 125

13.7, 13.8, 13.24, 13.31, 13.32

104

Stone vault above spring. Eastern side is semicircular (Barrel vault); western side is pointed

13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.24, 13.25

106

Southern wall of Spring Tower

13.7, 13.24, 13.25, 13.31

120

Eastern wall of Spring Tower

13.8, 13.9, 13.24, 13.31, 13.32

124

Southern retaining wall of upper staircase which leads down to the spring

13.8

125

Southern wall of Spring house

13.7, 13.8, 13.24, 13.25

126

Northern wall of Spring house

13.7, 13.9, 13.24 13.32

127

The outer façade of the Spring House showing the entrance into a pointed vault

13.8, 13.9

144

Vincent’s Wall I

13.8, 13.9, 13.31, 13.32, 13.126

145

Vincent’s Wall J

13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.31, 13.32

146

Remains of staircase abutting inner side of small opening (Wall 103)

13.8, 13.24, 13.31

149

This wall supports a small “balcony” over and to the left of the spring

13.8, 13.25

150

Wall 150 built across Channel II

13.20, 13.25, 13.61, 13.74

151

In Segment 11

13.74

152

In Segment 13

13.74

153

In Segment 14

13.74, 13.75

154

In Segment 14

13.74, 13.75

155

In Segment 9

13.74

Some walls continue into Areas C, H

CHAPTER 17

AREA H STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

Area H (Figs. 2.4, 3.1) consists of two squares that were excavated northeast of the Spring House in January–March 1997 (Reich 2011: 163–169). The purpose of the excavation was to examine the area close to the spring and determine whether the fortifications that were observed to the south and west of the spring (Area C) were also present on the northern and eastern sides. Remains of massive walls were indeed encountered, including a corner that enabled us to understand that a tower had been constructed around the spring.

BEDROCK We reached bedrock only in Square 1 (Fig. 17.1). On the westernmost edge of the square (height 642.00 masl; Fig. 17.2), which is the uppermost part of a rock scarp, we encountered Wall 554 (see below), which turned out to be the northern wall of the Spring Tower (Fig. 17.3).1 In Square 2, we found that Wall 554 descends even lower to 638.00 masl. The excavation in this square did not reach bedrock.

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE The excavation of Square 1, located on the outer, northern face of the Spring House (Reich 2011: Fig. 114), began with the removal of the asphalt pavement and thick modern bedding (height 645.80– 643.80 masl). Below the bedding, we encountered a massive construction, which left little space for digging (Fig. 17.4). A second square was therefore added on the east. Once this square was opened, our aim of locating the outer corner of the Spring Tower proved successful (Fig. 17.1). The debris and architectural elements of several sections were documented (Figs. 17.5, 17.6). The uppermost parts of the sections could not be recorded, however, since the deep probes were supported with wooden planks and iron struts that covered the upper part of the baulks. The stratigraphic and chronological attribution of various walls, loci and architectural elements is presented in Table 17.1. Table 17.1: Area H, Chronological Attribution of Walls and Loci Period

Square 1

Square 2

Medieval

Walls 551–553?

Loci 20–23, 36

Late Roman

Loci 2, 6, 7, 9, 8, 12, 14-16

Loci 24, 26, 29, 30

Early Roman Iron II MB II

1    

Loci 31, 32 Wall 554

Wall 554 (Wall 105), Wall 555 (Wall 104), Locus 24

At a later phase of the excavation, when the entire layout of the Spring Tower was exposed, its walls were given new numbers. Note that the present Wall 555 is the same as Wall 104 and that the present Wall 554 is Wall 105 (see Regev et al. 2017: 4, Fig. 2).

P295

386 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

C

C B

C

638.43

645.55 641.62

640.86

640.14

641.62

640.88

B

B

641.62

639.66

L31

640.43 641.80

638.85

640.50

W

A

641.80

C

638.50

639.68

C 5 W10 554=

642.48

D

D

104

W555=W

W557

Spring House

0

Figure 17.1: Plan of Area H and stairs leading to the spring.

5 m

AC

L30

639.07

L19

A

L32

639.66

Square 1

Square 2

A C

D

B

D

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 8 7

Square 1 Beneath the modern bedding mentioned above, three scanty walls (Walls 551–553) made of stones of various sizes were uncovered (heights 643.50–642.70 masl). Only the inner faces of these walls could be traced. Wall 551 incorporated large boulders, probably in secondary use from the Middle Bronze Age fortifications in Area C. Wall 553 incorporated a disused stone trough in its construction (Figs. 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 17.7). At ca. 643.40 masl, a horizontal layer of clay was exposed (Locus 2; Fig. 17.8). This layer, with five superimposed horizontal seriations of clayish mud of varying thickness, devoid of stones and pottery vessels, separated by thin layers of debris containing small stones and pottery sherds (see Chapter 20), occurred in both Squares 1 and 2, and on the eastern extension of Area C (Figs. 17.9, 17.10; see also Reich 2011: 163–169). The nature and circumstances of the accumulation of these horizontal layers of clay was not fully understood at the time. Although the nature of such accumulations may be the result of seasonal flooding due to winter rains, the steep gradient of the Kidron would not allow for such layers to accumulate horizontally. In the later excavation in Area C, a small dam composed of several boulders bonded with small stones and debris was discovered. It appears that the dam was built in the riverbed intentionally in order to cause the accumulation of these layers. The horizontal nature of the alternating layers of clay and debris is noteworthy, as it stands in clear contrast to the steep incline of the layers of debris excavated in the western part of Area C. The thick inclined layers were created as a result of the refuse dumped down the slope,

P_001

A-A 644 00 Obstructed by scaffolding W551

L1

643 00

L2

L12

L22 642 00

L24

L6 L7

L25

L18 L26 L27

641 00 L28 640 00

L29 W554

L29

W554

L29

L31 639 00

638 00

Figure 17.2: Section A–A, Squares 1 and 2, looking south.

388 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

P294

A C

C

Figure 17.3: View to the south of Square 1, with Wall 554 (the southern wall of the Spring Tower) in the foreground, abutting the rock scarp on the right. D

Square 1

643.20 643.14

C

643.00

643.14

W553

643.34 643.07

L1 L2

C

643.12

L3

642.72

W5 52

643.16

642.72 643.35

W

643.01

55

643.34

643.12

1

643.22

642.91 643.53

643.52 643.10

643.28

0

Figure 17.4: Plan of Square 1.

D 3 m

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 8 9

W55

2

Figure 17.5: Square 1, looking east, with walls and stone trough in the upper part of the square. The stone trough can be seen between the iron struts.

Figure 17.6: Wood and iron supports on baulks of Square 1, looking northwest.

390 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

P299

Figure 17.7: Closeup view of stone trough in the upper layers of Square 1, looking north. D-D

644 00

Obstructed by scaffolding

643 00

L1 L2 W552

642 00

L12 L14

641 00

640 00 W554

L15 L19

639 00

638 00

fallen boulders

Figure 17.8: Section D–D, Square 1, looking east.

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 9 1

while the clay layers are clearly the setting of clay from a local pond that was created by the simple dam during the rainy season. It seems that Walls 551–553 were built above the second clay layer from above (Locus 12), but subsequently sealed by the thick upper layer of clay (Locus 2; Figs. 17.4, 17.8). This simple construction was probably in use for a short time, perhaps only one dry season. This clay layer, which was the surface at the time (ca. 642.72 masl), was slightly lower than the apex of the intrados of the vault (at ca. 643.80 masl) built in the Early Roman period above the spring (see Chapter 13). This may indicate that the inhabitants of this construction had access to the inner part of the vault, and in turn, to the spring, although entrance to it would have been awkward. When the last layer of clay covered this construction (Locus 2, upper level 643.40 masl), the entrance to the vault and spring was almost completely blocked. The spring water could no longer be accessed from this side; the Siloam Pool on the other side of the hill remained the only access to the spring. After the dismantling of Walls 551–553 and the removal of the trough, we encountered bedrock and the massive remains of Wall 554 (Figs. 17.12–17.14). Three courses of Wall 554 were exposed in this square, creating a straight, northern outer face. The magnitude of this wall is notable: among the boulders used in its construction, for example in its uppermost course, a single rock measured 1.80 × 1.00 × 0.90 m, with a volume of ca. 1.6 cu m and weighing ca. 3.5 metric tons! On the western side of Square 1, the bedrock formed a flat step, possibly due to the geological bedding plane between two rock layers, with a natural dip (the geological inclination of the rock layers) to the southeast. On the southern side of the square, it seems that the stones of the massive masonry (Wall 554) were adapted to the flat rock surface (Figs. 17.1, 17.2, 17.8, 17.11). To the north, there are signs that large chunks of rocks or boulders were dislodged in order to create a rock step with a vertical face.

Square 2 After the northern line of the Spring Tower was successfully established in Square 1, we opened the second square (with a 1 m baulk in between) in order to follow the line of the wall. This led to

L29 L22 L25

W55

4

W55 5 Figure 17.9: Square 2, northeast corner of the Spring Tower, looking north. Note the layers of clay with loose debris in between them.

392 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 17.10: Square 2, northeastern corner of Spring Tower, looking east. Note the layers of clay with loose debris in between them.

L12

W5 54

Figure 17.11: Square 1, detail of point abutting Wall 554 on the left and rock scarp on the right, looking south. Note horizontal layer of clay at upper part.

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 9 3

W5 54

Figure 17.12: Square 1, with Wall 554 on the left and the rock scarp on the right, looking south.

W5 54 Figure 17.13: Square 1, with Wall 554 (the southern wall of the Spring Tower), abutting the rock scarp on the left, looking north.

394 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

W55

4

Figure 17.14: Square 1, northern face of Wall 554 abutting the rock scarp on the right-hand side, looking southwest.

Figure 17.15: View of pit with Medieval pottery, in situ, looking north.

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 9 5

the exposure of the outer, northeast corner of the Spring Tower (Fig. 17.1). Several layers of debris overlying Walls 554 and 555 were encountered in Square 2. From the asphalt pavement to a height of 643.80 masl, the modern bedding of the paving and modern debris were removed with mechanical equipment. Here, too, the sides of the square were reinforced prior to the commencement of the manual excavation. In the northeast corner of the square, a pit (Loci 20, 21, 23 and 36; see Chapter 21) filled with Medieval pottery sherds was exposed (Fig. 17.15). Due to the supports constructed around the upper edges of the square, the sections were obstructed and the exact boundaries of the pit could not be fully traced on the sections. As in Square 1 and in Area C to the south, alternating layers of clay and debris with stones and pottery were excavated (Loci 2, 12, 22, 25, 27 and 29; Figs. 17.1, 17.2, 17.10, 17.16–17.19). Sealed beneath these layers, the northeast corner of the Spring Tower was uncovered. Here, four courses of stones of the corner of Wall 554 (the northern wall of the Spring Tower) and Wall 555 (the 644 00

B-B

643 00 L22 L24

642 00 L25 L26

641 00

L27 L28

640 00

L29 L30 W555

639 00 L32

638 00

Figure 17.16: Section B–B, Square 2, looking west.

396 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

eastern wall of the Spring Tower) were exposed. The corner is built of hard Mizzi boulders, roughly hewn to a rectangular shape, with smaller stones (10–30 cm) used to fill in the spaces between the boulders. The corner stones of Walls 554 and 555 are laid alternately, with the long side to the west and south (Figs. 17.1, 17.2, 17.9, 17.16, 17.20), measuring as follows: • Course 1: 1.00 × 1.25 m, ca. 0.85 m high, laid to the west; • Course 2: 1.40 × 0.95 m, 0.80 m high, laid to the south; • Course 3: 0.90 × 1.00 m, 0.40 m high, laid to the west. This is a relatively small stone which was chosen to level out the protrusion of the large underlying stone in the fourth course; • Course 4: 1.60 m long, of unknown width and height as only the upper 40 cm were exposed, laid to the south. Later, the entire wall was exposed by Uziel and Szanton (2015). The layers of stone are stepped, each layer protruding ca. 20–30 cm from the one above it. To the north of the tower, two large fallen boulders were exposed (Fig. 17.17), as was the case in Square 1. At the bottom of Square 2, two loci contained only Iron II pottery (Loci 31, 32; see Chapter 19). As these earthen deposits abut the outer face of the Spring Tower, they provide only a terminus ante quem, indicating the tower had been constructed prior to their deposition, and may have been exposed and visible in this period. All of the architectural remains in Square 2 were sealed by the horizontal layers of clay, as well as debris containing rubble and substantial amounts of pottery sherds, mostly dating to the late 1st

Figure 17.17: Section C–C, Square 2, looking north.

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 9 7

L25 L26 L27

W5 55

W55

4

Figure 17.18: Square 2, northeast corner of the Spring Tower, looking south. Note layers of clay with layers of loose debris in between them.

L29

Figure 17.19: Square 2, detail of northeastern corner of the Spring Tower and clay layers, looking southeast. In the foreground, fallen boulder.

398 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

century CE and Late Roman period. A layer of ash was sealed beneath two fallen boulders—Loci 31 and 32 (Fig. 17.16). The layer yielded late Iron II pottery (Chapter 19). It seems that the stone collapse occurred in the terminal phases of the Iron Age, when the inhabitants did not bother to lift the fallen stones and rebuild the wall, as it was probably easier to drag stones from the west along the top of the wall. Indeed, Early and Late Roman pottery directly overlies the Iron II pottery. Since this area is at the very bottom of the Kidron Valley, which every winter experienced rain runoff, with the deposition and removal of material, according to the magnitude of the water flow, what was encountered here was the sum of these occurrences over centuries and even millennia. In addition, it seems that in the Early and Late Roman periods, the top of this massive fortification was exposed. After the Roman period, this massive fortification simply “disappeared” under the thick mantle of rubbish that constituted the city dump (see Chapter 48). The outer face of the Spring Tower was later exposed in Area C. Subsequent to our excavations, the lower courses of the Spring Tower were excavated by Uziel and Szanton, generating various

W

55

5

Figure 17.20: Square 2, detail of the northeastern corner of Wall 555. Wall 555 is in the foreground and fallen boulder in the background, looking southwest.

A R E A H , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 9 9

new opinions on the dating of the Spring Tower (see Chapter 48). With the continued exposure of the southern portions of the tower, most of the details required for the reconstruction of the entire Spring Tower were obtained. From the details exposed in Areas C and H, it is clear that the Spring Tower has a rectangular outline with outer measurements of 14 m from north to south and 18 m from east to west. The thickness of its walls was encountered along the southern wall (Area C, Wall 106; Reich and Shukron 2010) where it is ca. 4 m on its upper part; and along its eastern wall, where its thickness is ca. 7 m (see its western face in Area F, Figs. 13.8 and 13.24, Wall 120). The other measurements of the Spring Tower were obtained several years later and will be published in the report that deals with Area C.

CONCLUSIONS The excavation of both Squares 1 and 2 did not contribute any data concerning the date of construction of large northern Wall 554 and eastern Wall 555 of the Spring Tower. Their dating to the MB II was established in the excavations of Area C. Recently, new data were gathered on the basis of which new opinions were expressed regarding the construction date of the tower. According to Regev et al. (2017), the construction of the Tower occured in the 9th century BCE based upon 14C dates obtained from organic material extracted from beneath the northeastern corner of the Spring Tower. These opinions were rejected by one of the present authors (Reich 2018, and further discussion in Chapter 48). However, some pottery sherds were associated with debris (Loci 31 and 32) from between some fallen boulders, which had once been part of this fortification. All the pottery dates to the Iron IIB–C (8th–7th centuries BCE), pointing to the date when this fortification went out of use. The subsequent stratigraphic layer, which occupied almost the entire area, is the series of horizontal clay layers with alternating layers of debris. The pottery, stone objects and glass sherds were found mainly in the debris between the clay layers. The latest dateable pottery from these layers dates to the Late Roman period, which were quantitatively the most common in Area H. As the earliest sherds attributed to this period are found in the deepest layers of clay and associated debris (Loci 29, 30), this pottery dates the damming of the Kidron Valley (which was discovered in Area C), and the accumulation of the clay layers. Some additional support is given by the stamped pottery and roof tiles that were found while cleaning the area (see Chapter 20). These put the existence of the dam in the valley roughly in the Late Roman period. All the other pottery fragments found in the alternating clay and debris layers predate the Late Roman period. These certainly rolled down the eastern slope of the City of David or downstream in the Kidron Valley. As the sherds are not particularly weathered, the former option seems more likely. The ceramic repertoire found in Area H is similar to that found elsewhere on the eastern slope, with pottery dating to the Early Bronze Age, MB II, the late Iron II, the Early Roman period (from the 2nd century BCE to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE) and the Late Roman period. Particularly important is the presence of significant amounts of Medieval pottery, noted in the northeastern corner of Square 2 (upper level 643.50 m), where a pit containing an assemblage (Loci 20, 21, 23 and 36) of several almost intact Medieval pottery vessels was discovered. In addition, the upper level of debris in this square yielded stray sherds from this period, probably associated with the construction of the two upper staircases leading to the spring. No Medieval pottery was found in Square 1, although some was found in the eastern part of Area C, where what was defined as the southern foundation trench of the same upper staircase was excavated. This pottery dates the construction of the staircase leading to the spring, as well as the construction of the pointed vault above the spring, to the Medieval period, i.e., the mid-13th–14th centuries CE or slightly later (see Chapter 21).

400 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

REFERENCES Regev, J., Uziel, J., Szanton, N. and Boaretto, E. 2017. Absolute Dating of the Gihon Spring Fortifications, Jerusalem. Radiocarbon 59: 1117–1193. Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. 2018. The Date of the Gihon Spring Tower in Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 45: 27–32. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2010. A New Segment of the Middle Bronze Fortification in the City of David. Tel Aviv 37: 141–153. Uziel, J. and Szanton, N. 2015. Recent Excavations Near the Gihon Spring and Their Reflection on the Character of Iron II Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 42: 233–250.

CHAPTER 18

AREA H THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Helena Roth

Several residual sherds dating to the Bronze Age were found in Area H. These include a single Early Bronze Age sherd (Fig. 18.1: 1) and seven MB II sherds (Fig. 18.1: 2–8).

THE POTTERY An Early Bronze Age Holemouth Vessel A single rim of an Early Bronze holemouth vessel was discovered in a fill of earth and stones (Locus 30) north of Early Roman period Wall 554. The vessel has a flat horizontal rope decoration applied on the exterior, beneath the rim (Fig. 18.1: 1). Parallels of this vessel type were found in the City of David, Area E (Greenberg 2012: Fig. 8.3: 10–12), where they are defined as holemouth kraters. Holemouth vessels with applied rope decoration below the rim appear in the EB I. Although this type is common in southern sites during the EB II, it seems to be less frequent in the EB III (e.g., Amiran 1978: 48, Pl. 8: 14, 16–20, 47; Greenberg 2012: 306).

The MB II Pottery Loci 6, 7, 14, 15, 24, 28, 29, 30 and 31 yielded residual pottery sherds dating to the MB II. Even though these sherds were found out of context, they do provide evidence for human activity in this part of the site. The MB II pottery from Area H consists of bowls (Fig. 18.1: 2–3) and storage jars (Fig. 18.1: 4–8). Bowls

Two shallow bowls with inverted, molded and flattened rims were found. One bowl (Fig. 18.1: 2) is burnished on the interior; the second (Fig. 18.1: 3) is burnished on the rim and exterior. Parallels to both bowls were found in the City of David, Area E (Eisenberg 2012: Fig. 7.11: 3, 5; the bowls in Fig. 7.12: 7 are similar but with no surface treatment). Storage Jars

Several rim fragments of MB II storage jars were found in Area H. The absence of complete profiles makes the distinction between pithoi and storage jars difficult; therefore, they appear together under the same category. On the whole, storage jars similar to those found in Area H, mostly of the molded and everted types, were found in the City of David, Area E (Eisenberg 2012: Figs. 7.4: 5, 7.13: 13, 7.14: 4, 7.15: 19). Further parallels were found in the other areas of the Reich–Shukron expedition. For example, an everted and outfolded rim was also found in Area F (see Chapter 14, Fig. 14.1: 2). In addition, a storage jar with a double-ledged profile rim (Fig. 18.1: 6) was found in Area J (see Chapter 9, Figs. 9.1: 8, 9.2: 33). Another, better stratified example may be found at Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.14: 6), while a storage jar with an everted and thickened rim (Fig. 18.1: 7) was also found in Area F (see Chapter 14, Fig. 14.1: 1, 2). In addition, a body sherd, possibly of a

402 HELENA ROTH

jar, decorated with an applied strip incised with a herringbone pattern, was found (Fig. 18.1: 8). A parallel to this type of decoration was found in Kenyon’s Section A–A (Steiner 2001: Fig. 3.13: 56).

1

2

3

4

6

5

7 0

5

8

10

Figure 18.1: Early and Middle Bronze Age Pottery No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Holemouth vessel

211/19

30

Brown ware, black core

2

Bowl

115/11

6

Light brown ware, wheel-burnished interior

3

Bowl

199/12

28

Light brown ware, burnished exterior and rim

4

Storage jar

134/2

14

Brown ware, light gray core, white grits

5

Storage jar

216/1

31

Brown-gray ware, black core, white grits

6

Storage jar

183/13

24

Light brown ware, white grits

7

Storage jar

180/17

24

Light brown ware, light gray core

8

Storage jar

204/9

29

Light brown ware, gray core

REFERENCES Amiran, R. 1978. Early Arad. Jerusalem. Eisenberg, E. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 18–17 (Middle Bronze Age). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 251–302. Greenberg, R. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 20–19 (the Earliest Periods and Early Bronze Age). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E. The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 303–330. Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas D and P. In: Ussishkin, D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 966–970. Steiner, M. L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. London.

CHAPTER 19

AREA H THE IRON AGE POTTERY Efrat Bocher

A fill between two fallen boulders in Area H (Locus 32, Figs. 17.16, 17.17) yielded a secure Iron Age context of exclusively Iron IIB–C pottery (Fig. 19.1). Additional sherds dating to the period were also found in fills with mixed assemblages from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages and the Iron II (Fig. 19.2).

TYPOLOGY Pottery from Locus 32 (Fig. 19.1) The ceramic assemblage from Locus 32 is similar to that found in Strata 12–10 in the City of David; for the most part it dates to the 8th century BCE, with some forms typical of the 7th century BCE. Only one storage jar sherd (Fig. 19.1: 14) is earlier and uncharacteristic of the region. Loci 31–321 were located in Square 2, between two fallen boulders and a layer of ash. This seemingly represents the time when the Spring Tower went out of use. Bowls (Fig. 19.1: 1–6)

Bowl with an everted, ledge rim (Fig. 19.1: 1–2): These medium- to large-sized bowls with straight, everted walls and a thickened, ledged rim are red slipped on the interior and exterior, either over the entire surface or limited to the rim. This is the most common type of bowl at Judahite sites during the second half of the 8th century BCE. They decrease in quantity during the 7th century BCE (Yezerski 2012: 269). Parallels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Figs. 4.45: 10, 4.49: 12), as well as in the Jewish Quarter, Area T-1 (Yezerski 2012: Pl. 7.1: 4). Bowls with rounded wall (Fig. 19.1: 3–4): These continue the rounded bowl type of Strata 15–14 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 57). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 57, Fig. 4.1: 1–2, Type B1c). Bowl with slightly carinated wall (Fig. 19.1: 5): This type is characterized by a cut, inverted rim. The example found here has red slip and burnish on the interior. Such bowls begin to appear in Stratum 14 in the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 58), and continue to appear in later assemblages as well, for example in Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.1: 4, Type B3) and Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 9: 3). Decorated bowl (Fig. 19.1: 6): This bowl has a straight, everted wall. Similar bowls appear in Stratum 12B and continue into Stratum 11 in the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60–61, Fig. 4.23: 9, Type B7b).

1    

The excavators chose to present sherds exclusively from Locus 32, although they note that sherds from Locus 31 were similar in character.

4 0 4 E F R AT B O C H E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

0

Figure 19.1: Pottery from Locus 32.

5

10

A R E A H, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 405

Figure 19.1: Pottery from Locus 32 No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

215/25

32

Brown ware, gray core, grits, dense wheel burnishing on interior and exterior

2

Bowl

217/12

32

Brown ware, careless wheel burnishing on exterior and interior rim

3

Bowl

217/49

32

Brown ware, dense wheel burnishing on interior and exterior

4

Bowl

217/44

32

Light brown ware

5

Bowl

217/3

32

Brown ware, dense wheel burnishing on interior and exterior

6

Bowl

217/8

32

Brown ware, dense wheel burnishing on interior and exterior, traces of black painted triangles on exterior

7

Krater

217/7

32

Brown ware, wheel burnished on interior and rim

8

Baking tray

220/4

32

Brown ware, gray on convex side, white grits, indentations made diagonally with a tube-like instrument

9

Cooking pot

217/56

32

Brown ware

10

Cooking pot

217/29

32

Brown ware

11

Holemouth jar

217/33

32

Brown ware

12

Storage jar

217/42

32

Brown ware

13

Storage jar

217/7

32

Light brown ware, white grits

14

Storage jar

217/39

32

Brown–gray ware

Krater (Fig. 19.1: 7)

The single krater in this assemblage has an everted, carinated rim. Parallels are known from the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60, Fig. 4.25: 17) and the Jewish Quarter, Area E (Yezerski 2006: Pl. 3.2: 4). Baking Tray (Fig. 19.1: 8)

The baking tray has a cut rim and deep incisions on the upper part (Fig. 19.1: 8). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12–11 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 94, Figs. 4.18: 20, 4.27: 20, 4.29: 23, 4.33: 19) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 18: 14, 23: 22). Cooking Pots (Fig. 19.1: 9–10)

Two globular cooking pots were found. These have a molded rim with one or two ridges on the rim. Interestingly, these cooking pots have a thick wall with few grits. There seems to have been a technological change from the use of grits to the use of quartz, notable in cooking ware from the late Iron Age onward (Cohen-Weinberger, Szanton and Uziel 2017: 11–12). In the City of David, they mainly appear in Stratum 12B (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 67). Parallels from the City of David are known from Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.3: 5) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 21, 17: 24). Holemouth Jar (Fig. 19.1: 11)

One fragment of a holemouth jar was found. It is a small, delicate example of a holemouth, with a smooth, folded thickened and inverted rim. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area D, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 23, 20: 30, 26: 12).

4 0 6 E F R AT B O C H E R

Storage Jars (Fig. 19.1: 12–13)

Storage jar with a thickened, inverted rim (Fig. 19.1: 12–13): This type of jar is common throughout the Iron Age. For parallels from the City of David, see Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012: 85, Fig. 4.6: 7–8, Type SJ2b) and Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 16: 22, 19: 17). Storage jar with a straight neck and a ridge (Fig. 19.1: 14): The rim on this storage jar is externally thickened. This type is not common in Jerusalem; it is more characteristic of the north where they have a long history in the Iron IIA (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 208). Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 15–14 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 208, Fig. 5.4: 7–8, Type SJ1).

Other Iron Age Pottery (Fig. 19.2) Several loci in Area H (Loci 6, 7, 14, 15, 24 and 28–30) yielded a mixed assemblage spanning from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (see Chapter 18) through the Roman period (see Chapter 20). The Iron Age—primarily 8th century BCE—pottery from these contexts is presented here (Fig. 19.2) in order to provide evidence of human activity in the vicinity of Area H, although it does not contribute to the specific dating of these loci, which are most certainly later. Bowls (Fig. 19.2: 1–4)

Bowl with outfolded, everted rim (Fig. 19.2: 1): This bowl is characterized by an everted shelf rim, appearing throughout Strata 12–10 in the City of David (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60). Parallels were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Photo 4.3, Fig. 4.22: 4, Type B4b) and in Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 16–17, 18: 29). Carinated bowls (Fig. 19.2: 2): Bowls with an outturned shelf rim are very common in the 7th century BCE. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Photo 4.4, Figs. 4.16: 15, 4.23: 6, Type B4c), Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 8: 4); Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 18: 28) and on the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 246, Fig. 5.2: 30, Type B4). Thin bowl (Fig. 19.2: 3): The rim on these bowls is gently folded, making it a little thicker than the wall. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Stratum 10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012: Fig. 4.17: 5) and in Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 12, 17: 18). Black-slipped bowl (Fig. 19.2: 4): This bowl is characterized by its black slip and high quality wheel burnishing on the interior and exterior. Such bowls were not found in the City of David, although a bowl of this type was found in Aharoni’s excavations at Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 11: 4) and in excavations along the coast, in the Shephelah and in the Negev, mainly in 7th century BCE contexts. The bowls are quite common in Transjordan (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 52). Other parallels were found at Timnah (Tel Batash), Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 52, Pl. 60: 1) and Aroer, Stratum II (Thareani 2011: 124, Pl. 115: 2). Kraters (Fig. 19.2: 5–6)

Two kraters of the same type, with a folded rim, were found in Area H, one with wheel burnishing on the interior and rim (Fig. 19.2: 5) and the other without (Fig. 19.2: 6). This type is the most dominant krater in Stratum 12 in the City of David as well as in the excavation in the Tyropoeon Valley (Ben-Ami 2013: 72). This type of vessel is also very common in Strata 11–10 of the City

A R E A H, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 407

1

2

3

5

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

5

10

Figure 19.2: Other Iron Age Pottery No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

210/11

30

Brown ware, gray core, white grits, wheel burnished interior and rim

2

Bowl

182/19

24

Brown ware, few grits, wheel burnished interior and rim

3

Bowl

197/11

28

Brown ware, wheel burnished interior and rim

4

Bowl

214/22

31

Black clay, wheel burnished interior and exterior, large disc base

5

Krater

194/2

28

Brown ware, white grits, light brown slip, wheel burnishing on interior and exterior, handle extending from rim to shoulder

6

Krater

218/9

31

Light brown ware, few grits, wheel burnished on interior and rim

7

Cooking pot

181/7

24

Brown ware, gray core

8

Holemouth jar

123/6

7

Orange brown ware, dark brown core, white grits

9

Storage jar

214/9

31

Light brown ware

10

Storage jar

209/11

30

Brown ware

11

Lamp

143/7

15

Brown ware, dark brown core, white grits

4 0 8 E F R AT B O C H E R

of David. Parallels from the City of David were found in Area E, Strata 12–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Figs. 4.13: 7, 4.14: 9, 4.16: 17, 4.19: 7), Area B, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 8: 8–11), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 16: 6, 16) and in the Tyropoeon Valley, Strata XI and IX (Ben-Ami 2013: Figs. 3.6: 16–17, 3.11: 6–7). Cooking Pot (Fig. 19.2: 7)

A large, open cooking pot with a molded, ridged rim was found in Area H (Fig. 19.2: 7). The use of this type continued from the 8th century BCE until the early 6th century BCE (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 250). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 67, Photo 4.24, Fig. 4.3.5, Type CP 6), Area D1, Stratum 12 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 16: 17, 19: 8) and on the Summit of the City of David, Stratum 10 (Yezerski and Mazar 2015: 250, Fig. 5.7: 98–99, Type CP4). Holemouth Jar (Fig. 19.2: 8)

A holemouth jar with a smooth, folded, thickened and inverted rim was found in Area H. The vessel has several gentle ridges on the rim. This type is more common in the 8th century BCE (Freud 2016: Table 16.1). Similar vessels were found at Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016: Fig. 16.3, Type HMJ3). Storage Jars (Fig. 19.2: 9–10)

Storage Jar with a thickened, inverted rim (Fig. 19.2: 9): See above, Fig. 19.1: 14. Storage Jar with inwardly inclined neck and ring-like rim (Fig. 19.2: 10): The best parallel for this vessel comes from Arad, Strata X–VIII (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015: 220, Pl. 2.4.14: 5). Lamp (Fig. 19.2: 11)

One lamp with a high base (Fig. 19.2: 11) was found in Area H. This type of lamp is characteristic of the end of the Iron Age in the City of David, where it appears from Stratum 12A to Stratum 10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 92–94). Similar vessels were found in the City of David, Area E, Strata 12A–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.9: 4, Type L3) and at Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2016: Fig. 16.2, Type L1).

REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel (Season 1959 and 1960). (Università di Roma, Centro di studi semitici, Serie archeologica 2). Rome. Ben-Ami, D. 2013. The Iron Age Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 63–82. Cohen-Weinberger, A., Szanton, N. and Uziel, J. 2017. Ethnofabrics: Petrographic Analysis as a Tool for Illuminating Cultural Interactions and Trade Relations between Judah and Philistia during the Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 377: 1–20. De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. 2000. Ceramic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 91–154. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 57–198. Freud, L. 2016. Pottery of the Iron Age: Typology and Summary. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. I (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Winona Lake: 254–265. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2015. Iron Age IIA–B: Judah and the Negev. In: Gitin, S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Vol. I. Jerusalem: 213–255.

A R E A H, T H E I R O N A G E P O T T E RY 409

Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem 42). Jerusalem. Thareani, Y. 2011. Tel ‘Aroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic-Early Roman Settlement: The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations. Jerusalem. Yezerski, I. 2006. Iron Age II Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Final Report. Jerusalem: 84–93. Yezerski, I. 2012. Iron Age II Pottery from Area T-1 (Nea Church). In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T). Final Report. Jerusalem: 268–275. Yezerski, I. and Mazar, E. 2015. Iron Age III Pottery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports I. Area G. Jerusalem: 243–298.

CHAPTER 20

AREA H THE ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

The pottery assemblage presented below derived from alternating clay and debris layers uncovered in Area H. These layers sealed the remains of the Spring Tower. Other than suggesting a terminus ante quem, which indicated that the Spring Tower was founded earlier than the accumulation of the fill, the pottery cannot provide any chronological data regarding the architectural elements exposed in Area H. The excavators suggest that these fill layers attest to intentional damming of the Kidron Valley, and that therefore the latest pottery in these fills can provide a date for the damming endeavor. Although the plates and their description are divided into two phases, i.e., Early and Late Roman, all the pottery presented here was found in the same loci, with no chronological distinction between them. Therefore, the nature of the fills should be defined as an accumulation including a mixture of finds dated to the entire Roman period. The variety of vessel types from both the Early and Late Roman periods is comparable to those uncovered in nearby excavations. This includes the excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley/Giv>ati Parking Lot (Balouka 2013; Sandhaus 2013; Tchekhanovets 2013); Area D2 on the slope of the City of David (Machline and Gadot 2017); the Ophel excavations (Fleitman and Mazar 2015); the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Peleg 2003; Mazar and Gordon 2007; Adler and Peleg 2007; De Vincenz 2011a, 2011b; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2011); several areas in the excavations of the Jewish Quarter (e.g., Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Magness 2003; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006; Magness 2006; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2006; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014; Magness 2014; Rapuano 2014; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014a; Rapuano 2018); and the pottery uncovered in the workshops at the Jerusalem International Convention Center (JICC ) (Berlin 2005; Magness 2005; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2005).

TYPOLOGY Early Roman Pottery (Fig. 20.1) Local Bowls (Fig. 20.1: 1–4)

Three types of local bowls dated to the late Hellenistic–Early Roman period were uncovered in the fills. The first type is a small, thin-walled bowl with an incurved rim (Fig. 20.1: 1). These bowls first appeared in the late 2nd century BCE and were commonly used during the 2nd–1st centuries BCE. Bowls of this form also appear in assemblages dated to the 1st century CE (Geva 2003a: Pl. 5.3: 18–20; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 9; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 25: 8–14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.10: 1–3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 3). The second type is often referred to as a plate. It typically has thin, flaring walls and an infolded rim (Fig. 20.1: 2). This bowl first appeared in the late 2nd century BCE, then became common during the 1st century BCE (Geva 2003a: 138, Pl. 5.3: 23–26; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.5: 4–6; Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.1: 4). The third type of bowl is wide, with a thin wall, simple, everted rim and a slightly carinated body (Fig. 20.1: 3). This

A R E A H , T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 411

bowl is similar in shape to the Jerusalem painted bowls, although the example presented here bears no painting. These bowls began to appear during the late 1st century BCE, though their presence became much more significant during the 1st century CE. The example presented in Fig. 20.1: 4 can be classified as the same type, based on the remains of dark paint on the interior of the vessel’s base (Bar-Nathan 2002: 126; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.5: 11; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 12–14). Imported Bowls (Fig. 20.1: 5–6)

Two imported bowls were identified. One (Fig. 20.1: 5) is a deep bowl or wide cup with a sharply carinated wall, and a straight, upright neck with two incised lines on the exterior. The glossy redslipped vessel can be defined as Eastern Sigillata A Ware (ESA), Form 47 of the Atlante typology, dated to 10–60/70 CE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 9.11: 23). Fig. 20.1: 6 has a ring base, with thick red slip on the interior and exterior. This is the base of an additional ESA bowl, likely a large, open bowl or plate, such as Type 13 of the Tel Anafa typology (Slane 1997: 296–297; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2006: Pl. 5.3: 3–6). The ESA vessels were probably produced along the northern coast and are well known throughout the country in assemblages dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE. Cooking Vessels (Fig. 20.1: 7–9)

There are three types of cooking vessels in this assemblage: a cooking pot, a casserole and a cooking jug. These three types represent the most common kitchenware of 1st century CE Jerusalem. The cooking pot (Fig. 20.1: 7) has a triangular rim, a short, flaring neck and two handles extending from the neck to a globular body (Geva 2003: 135; Berlin 2005: Fig. 4; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 111, Pls. 4.5: 19–20, 4.8: 9; Tchekhanovets 2013: 113–114, Fig. 5.15.12; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 140; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 2–4). The casserole (Fig. 20.1: 8) has a wide opening, a sharply carinated body, a flaring neck and a thickened rim. Many variations of this form appear in 1st century CE assemblages (Berlin 2005: 39–42; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 31: 51–55; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 13; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 16, 1.6: 8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 8). The cooking jug (Fig. 20.1: 9) has a tall neck and a triangular-sectioned rim. A handle extends from the rim to the bottom of the neck. Cooking jugs of this form are typical of the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: Fig. 6; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 31: 85; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 15; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 18; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 11). Storage Jars (Fig. 20.1: 10–14)

Several storage jars were found in the assemblage. A short, collared-rim storage jar (Fig. 20.1: 10) is characterized by a short, outfolded rim forming a square or concave section on the upper part of the neck. It is usually found in assemblages dated to the 2nd century BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 3: 18; 2006: Pl. 4: 14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.2: 16; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 7: 5). The other storage jars are of the bag-shaped type, with a ridge at the base of the neck, and are dated to the 1st century CE. The four examples differ slightly in rim shape. One has a wide neck and a thickened, everted rim (Fig. 20.1: 11; see Bar-Nathan 2006: 59–60; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 4). Two others have a tall, ridged, straight neck and a flaring or thickened rim (Fig. 20.1: 12–13; see Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 16: 89–90; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 10, 12; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 12–13). The last storage jar has a grooved, triangular rim (Fig. 20.1: 14; see Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.10: 6; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.12: 14). Jug (Fig. 20.1: 15)

The jug uncovered in this fill has a funnel-shaped rim with a triangular section and a groove creating an inner indentation. The neck widens towards the rim, and a handle extends from the rim to the

412 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

13

11

14

18

15

16

20

19

0

23

12

21

5

Figure 20.1: Pottery of the Early Roman period.

22

10

24

25 0

17

2

4

26

A R E A H, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 413

Figure 20.1: Pottery of the Early Roman Period No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

136/21

14

Brown/orange ware, very thin, traces of black paint on rim

2

Bowl

203/10

28

Orange ware

3

Bowl

117/2

6

Light brown ware

4

Bowl

190/5

28

Light brown ware, painted black decoration on interior

5

Bowl

193/19

28

Red-brown ware, red lustrous slip, ESA

6

Wide bowl/plate

190/18

28

Light brown ware, red lustrous slip, ESA

7

Cooking pot

162/8

22

Red-brown ware

8

Casserole

185/20

26

Red-brown ware

9

Cooking jug

196/21

28

Gray brown ware

10

Jar

190/12

28

Light brown ware, gray core

11

Jar

190/24

28

Light brown ware, gray core

12

Jar

126/10

9

Light brown ware, gray core

13

Jar

135/9

14

Light brown ware, orange core

14

Jar

197/28

28

Light brown ware, gray core

15

Jug

192/4

28

Light brown ware, orange core

16

Juglet

122/31

6

Light brown ware, flat, slightly twisted handle

17

Juglet

130/13

12

Light brown ware, flat handle

18

Bottle

122/32

6

Orange ware

19

Flask

183/6

24

Light brown ware, gray core

20

Unguentarium

209/4

30

Light brown ware, dark slip on exterior

21

Miniature bottle

199/16

28

Orange ware

22

Ink-well

199/14

28

Brown ware externally, gray internally, traces of ring-like handle

23

Ladle

181/25

24

Light brown ware

24

Oil lamp

191/22

28

Mold-cast, light brown ware, traces of black slip

25

Oil lamp

119/13

7

Orange ware, knife-carved nozzle and wheel-made body, no traces of soot

26

Oil lamp

144/10

15

Gray ware, black slip, knife-carved nozzle and wheel-made body, decorated with a series of small circles, no traces of soot

shoulder. This form of jug is typical of the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 18: 15; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.3: 4; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.3: 8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 2–3). Juglets (Fig. 20.1: 16–18)

All of the most common juglet types of the Early Roman period are represented in this assemblage. The cup-shaped rim juglet (Fig. 20.1: 16) has a rim with either a square or a rounded section. Beneath the rim is a short narrow neck and a globular body. A twisted strap handle extends from the rim to the shoulder. This type of juglet was popular in Jerusalem and its environs during the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Geva 2003: Pl. 4.3: 7–10; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 33: 1–14; Geva

414 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.4: 12–14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.4: 1; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 2–3; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 7: 13–14). One juglet (Fig. 20.1: 17) is of a less common type, with a simple, flaring rim and an inclined neck. A handle extends from the rim, probably to the shoulder. Similar but not identical juglets have been found in the Jewish Quarter and in the City of David, where they were dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.4: 10; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.8: 7, 5.13: 14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.2: 22; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 4). This type, often referred to as a bottle or unguentarium, was very common during the 1st century CE (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 25, 33, 35; Geva 2010: 124, Pl. 4.4: 2–3; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 147, Pl. 3.13: 17–18; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 13). Flask (Fig. 20.1: 19)

The flask presented here has a tall, narrow, upright neck with an outfolded, thickened rim. Two twisted handles extend from the middle of the neck to the shoulder. This type first appeared during the 1st century BCE and continued to be very common until 70 CE. Numerous examples of flasks have been found in Jerusalem and its environs from the Early Roman period (Berlin 2005: Fig. 16: 1–4; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 22: 70–73; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.7: 20–21; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 13–14; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 12–13). Unguentarium (Fig. 20.1: 20)

The foot and base of a fusiform juglet presented here (Fig. 20.1: 20) has red slip on the exterior. Based on parallels, this vessel is characterized by a downturned, sharpened rim, a long neck and a solid long foot with a flat button base. These vessels, often referred to as unguentaria, were widespread in 2nd century BCE assemblages, and continue to be in use, with certain typological developments, during the 1st century BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 10: 93–102; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2: 48–49; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 34: 1; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.4: 6–10; Berlin 2015: 639; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 10; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 8: 11–12). Miniature Bottle (Fig. 20.1: 21)

A small, cylindrical bottle, with flaring walls and a rounded body above the base, was found. These small bottles are frequently found in 1st century CE assemblages (Bar-Nathan 2006: 34: Pls. 20–30; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.4: 13–14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.18: 23; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 21–22). Varia (Fig. 20.1: 22–23)

Inkwell (Fig. 20.1: 22): The base of an inkwell was found. Based on parallels, such vessels have a cylindrical body with a high rim turned inward and a ring-like handle attached to the top of the body (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 8–9). Ladle (Fig. 20.1: 23): The handle of a ladle is presented in Fig. 20.1: 23. Such vessels consisted of a small, deep bowl connected to a single, high handle. Similar ladles were found in 1st century CE assemblages (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 39: 16–18; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 10; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 16). Lamps (Fig. 20.1: 24–26)

Two types of Early Roman lamps were found in this fill. The first is a Judean Radial Lamp (Fig. 20.1: 24). This mold-made lamp displays radial ridges surrounding the filling hole. Radiating grooves

A R E A H, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 415

usually decorated the area between the filling hole and the nozzle. This lamp was very common during the 1st century BCE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 9–14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.11: 6). The second type of lamp is the “Herodian” knife-pared lamp (Fig. 20.1: 25–26), which constitutes the majority of 1st century CE lamps in Jerusalem and Judea. This lamp’s round body was wheel-made, adjoined with a splayed nozzle, connected by knife paring. On some examples, the nozzle was decorated with concentric circles (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 43–44; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.7: 3; Tchekhanovets 2013: 124, Fig. 5.14: 8–10; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 148, Pl. 4.7: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 1).

Late Roman Pottery (Fig. 20.2) Rouletted Bowls (Fig. 20.2: 1–5)

“Rouletted bowl” is a general categorization for many similar types of bowls that differ in rim and body form. The bowls are primarily characterized by their decoration, which consists of a rouletted impression comprised of various polygons and stripes on the bowl exterior. Some of the bowls maintain the typical rouletted-bowl profile but do not have an impressed rouletted decoration and are probably a variation of this same type. Many of the bowls were covered with a red or black slip after the bowl was rouletted. The slip, covering large areas of the vessel’s exterior and inner rim, was often careless, with vertical drips, and sometimes with more than one layer and hue of slip. One bowl (Fig. 20.2: 1) with a thickened, outturned rim and carinated body is typologically similar to the rouletted bowl category, however it bears no rouletted decoration or slipping. Another example (Fig. 20.2: 2) also displays the typical carinated body and outturned rim, in this case with three incised slits, and is also covered by dark, drippy slip. But this bowl too carries no rouletted decoration on the exterior. The other examples are all of the classic rouletted bowl type, demonstrating a carinated body and a cut, flattened or outturned rim with one or two prominent external rims beneath it (Fig. 20.2: 3–5). Although rouletted bowls are frequently found in most Late Roman and Byzantine assemblages, the bowls uncovered in this fill possess the earlier characteristics of body carination and outer ridges, originally defined by Magness as Form 1. Therefore, these bowls can be dated to the late 2nd/early 3rd–5th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 221–223; 2005: 104–108). Numerous parallels have been found in Jerusalem and its environs, usually in assemblages dated to the 3rd–4th centuries CE (e.g., De Vincenz 2011a: Figs. 3.6: 1, 3.8: 13–15; 2011b: Fig. 8.3: 1–2; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2011: Fig. 3.5: 58–68; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 17–30). Arched-Rim Basins (Fig. 20.2: 6–8)

Numerous examples of arched-rim basins have been found in pottery assemblages of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, as well as in later contexts. These vessels are characterized by thick, straight or rounded walls. The rims, which vary in width, were outturned, with some bent downward and others thickened. Some of the basins have a thin ridge encircling the junction between the rim and body. Others have a slight indentation on the inner rim. Two of the examples (Fig. 20.2: 7–8) bear horizontal combed lines on the upper exterior of the vessel walls. These basins appear towards the end of the 3rd century CE and continue to be common until at least the 6th century CE, after which certain modifications are made to the type (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b; De Vincenz 2011a: Fig. 3.8: 24–27; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 9–13). The basin in Fig. 20.2: 9 is a variation of this type, with a short, outfolded rim, similar to a short arched rim. Four grooves were incised, encircling the rim.

416 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 0

Figure 20.2: Pottery of the Late Roman period.

5

10

A R E A H, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 417

13

12

15

14

16

17

20

21 0

24

18

22 5

26

Figure 20.2 (cont.): Pottery of the Late Roman period.

2

23

10

25 0

19

4

27

418 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Figure 20.2: Pottery of the Late Roman Period No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

123/21

7

Light brown ware, gray core

2

Bowl

205/12

29

Orange ware, traces of red slip or paint

3

Bowl

148/5

16

Brown ware, red-brown slip, rouletted decoration on exterior

4

Bowl

145/5

15

Light brown ware

5

Bowl

106/14

2

Red-orange ware, gray core, black slip, rouletted decoration on exterior

6

Basin

147/3

16

Light brown coarse ware, gray core

7

Basin

134/2

14

Greenish coarse ware, traces of light brown slip, horizontal combing outside

8

Basin

144/15

15

Orange ware, outer horizontal combing

9

Basin

189/9

26

Light brown ware

10

Basin

209/5

30

Orange ware, gray core

11

Basin

205/2

29

Light brown/orange ware

12

Mortarium

205/10

29

Coarse brown-gray ware, large grits and inclusions

13

Jar

183/12

24

Orange-red ware, gray core, red slip, thumb impressed decoration on exterior

14

Storage jar

109/2

4

Orange ware, gray core, white grits, ridge on neck, ribbed body

15

Storage jar

205/9

29

Brown ware, gray core, white grits.

16

Storage jar

187/3

26

Brown ware, gray core, white grits.

17

Storage jar

206/6

29

Light brown/orange ware.

18

Storage jar

184/14

26

Brown-orange ware, gray core.

19

Storage jar

140/2

15

Light brown ware, gray core, ridge on neck

20

Amphora

138/5

14

Orange-brown ware, many inclusions

21

Jug

210/5

30

Light brown ware, handle attached to rim

22

Jug

138/11

14

Brown ware, fine gray ware, thin wall of vessel

23

Jug

121/10

8

Light brown ware, gray core

24

Oil lamp

208/5

30

Orange ware, red slip, mold cast

25

Oil lamp

197/27

28

Orange ware, red slip, mold cast

26

Roof tile

152/9

20

Orange brown coarse ware, bearing impression: LE X [F

27

Roof tile

207/5

30

Light brown, coarse ware

Rilled-Rim Basins (Fig. 20.2: 10–11)

Rilled-rim basins are frequently found in assemblages of the Late Roman period. They have thick walls which were either straight or rounded. The rim was drawn outwards, everted, with incised slits on the upper side. The lower edge of the rim was usually pinched, giving it a hooked appearance. Many times, a ridge is notable on the joint between the rim and body. These basins appear towards the mid-2nd century CE. In the 6th century CE structure excavated in Area XV of Mazar’s Temple Mount excavations, no rilled-rim basins were retrieved, likely indicating that the basins went out of use by this time (Adler and Peleg 2007: 26, 74). In 4th–5th century CE assemblages, this form

A R E A H, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 419

of basin is no longer the most common form, with the arched-rim basin becoming predominant. It seems that before its absence from 6th century assemblages, the production of rilled-rim basins decreased, reflected in lower quantities of these basins in 4th–5th centuries CE contexts (RosenthalHeginbottom 2014b; Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.2: 5–10; Mazar and Gordon 2007: 150; Fig. 15.2: 15–19). Mortarium (Fig. 20.2: 12)

This large mortarium was made of very thick, gritty ware, from a fabric resembling roof-tiles. It displays rounded walls and a thick, flaring rim. A groove encircled the inner part of the rim. A funnel-shaped incision is located on the rim. Mortaria of this type were manufactured in the legionary kilns at the JICC production site, imitating a very common type widespread throughout the Roman Empire. These mortaria are usually attributed to the late 1st–mid-3rd centuries CE (Magness 2005: 96–98). Storage Jars (Fig. 20.2: 13–19)

The first jar type is a wide neck jar (Fig. 20.2: 13), featuring a high, flaring neck with a triangularsectioned rim drawn outwards. Beneath the outer rim, a thumb-impressed decoration encircles the neck. A prominent ridge appears at the base of the neck. This type has been found in contexts dated to the 3rd–5th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 253–256; De Vincenz 2011a: Fig. 3.10: 7; Magness 2012: Pl. 9.2: 15; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5: 65–67). The bag-shaped storage jars in the assemblage have a smooth or ribbed body, two loop handles on the shoulder and a rounded base. A large range of necks and rims were found, enabling a typological and chronological distinction. The first storage jar is thick-walled and had an inclining, concave neck and a thickened rim, with a sharp ridge at the base of the neck (Fig. 20.2: 14). The second has a similar inclining neck, but has an outfolded rim and a blunt ridge (rather than a sharp one) surrounding the base of the neck (Fig. 20.2: 15). The storage jar depicted in Fig. 20.2: 16 is similar to the previous one, but has an upright neck and an outfolded rim, which formed a mild thickening of the upper third of the neck. Two other storage jars (Fig. 20.2: 17–18) are of a similar form, but with an inner protruding rim. Based on parallels, it is possible that this feature indicates a relatively late date for such jars, which developed into the later storage jar with the inner thickening (Magness 1993: 222; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 41–43; Uziel, Lieberman and Solomon 2017: Fig. 10: 17–18). Storage jars with shorter necks and a thick interior fold (Fig. 20.2: 19), classified by Magness as Form 4A, were dated to the 3rd–4th centuries (Magness 1993: 223–224). Its absence from Phase 5 at Wilson’s Arch and its abundance within the fills of Phase 4, suggest that these storage jars first appeared rather late, towards the end of the 3rd century or during the 4th century CE (Magness 1993: 222–224; Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.4: 8–9; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 47–52; Uziel, Lieberman and Solomon 2017: Fig. 11: 13–15). Amphora (Fig. 20.2: 20)

The amphora uncovered in this assemblage has a tall, cylindrical neck and a thickened, everted rim. Two handles extend from the top of the neck to the shoulder. This amphora can be classified as Peacock and Williams’ Type 34, appearing from the late 2nd century CE until at least the late 4th century (Peacock and Williams 1986: 157–157). Jugs (Fig. 20.2: 21–23)

Two jug types were uncovered. The first was similar to the storage jar depicted in Fig. 20.2: 17. This jug has a tall neck, which was either straight or slightly everted. The outfolded rim, which at

420 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

times had an inner pinch, was smoothed on to the outer neck. A thick handle extended from the rim to the shoulder. The distinction between jugs and jars of this type is based on the diameter of the vessel, as the handle may be missing. This jug type is found in 3rd–4th century CE assemblages (Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 71; Uziel, Lieberman and Solomon 2017: Fig. 10: 22). The second type of jug has a thin, tall neck that widens towards the top. The inclining rim was outfolded (Fig. 20.2: 22–23). Based on parallels, a thick loop handle connected the rim to the shoulder (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2: 36, 15.9: 16; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 69–70, 163–166). This type of jug was found in the 4th–5th centuries CE. Lamps (Fig. 20.2: 24–25)

All of the lamp fragments discovered in these fills were ovoid, with a large filling hole. These lamps have a rounded body and a low base with one, two or more rings on it (Fig. 20.2: 24). The fragment presented in Fig. 20.2: 25 has dots around the filling hole, surrounded by radiating lines. Lamps similar to these typically appear in assemblages dated to the 3rd–4th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 249; Sussman 2017: 81–82). Roof Tiles (Fig. 20.2: 26–27)

Ceramic-made building materials were introduced to the local market by the Roman legion after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Following the destruction, building materials, such as floor tiles, roof tiles, bricks and pipes became extremely widespread in Roman Jerusalem and its environs, and appear in large quantities at nearly every site excavated dated to the mid-late Roman period. Many roof tiles were found in the Area H fill layers. One of the roof tiles bears a stamped impression of the Tenth Roman Legion production (Fig. 20.2: 26; see Chapter 38). The other, more common roof tiles did not bear an impression (Fig. 20.2: 27). The example presented here is of a tegula—a flat roof tile with straight vertical edges allowing the tile to be placed in an overlapping manner forming a unified roofing structure. As noted above, roof tiles became extremely common after the destruction in 70 CE, though stamping of tiles probably began somewhat later (Geva 2003b: 405–422; Rapuano 2014: Pl. 24).

DISCUSSION The Roman pottery from Area H originated in a thick fill layer deposited near the Kidron Valley, probably a result of the intentional damming of the valley. This fill abuts the walls of the Spring Tower and therefore accumulated subsequent to its construction. The ceramic assemblage contains vessel forms typical of the entire Roman period, spanning from the 1st century BCE through the 4th century CE. Though the earliest finds in this assemblage date to the 1st century BCE, they are probably residual and do not reflect the dating of the damming of the valley. The latest material dates to the 3rd–4th centuries CE, and as suggested above, with some of the types seemingly appearing for the first time during the early 4th century CE. Therefore, the suggested date of the accumulation of the fills—and therefore the damming of the valley—is the 4th century CE.

REFERENCES Adler, N. and Peleg, O. 2007. The Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Building in Area XVI. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports, Vol. III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem: 71–80.

A R E A H, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 421

Balouka, M. 2013. The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 151–166. Barag, D. and Hershkovitz, M. 1994. Lamps. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G. and Netzer, E., eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 7–78. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Berlin, A.M. 2005. Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period: The Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Series 60). Portsmouth: 29–60. De Vincenz, A. 2011a. The Pottery Assemblage from the Bathhouse. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem: 85–118. De Vincenz, A. 2011b. The Pottery Assemblage from the Bakery. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem: 185–194. Fleitman, Y. and Mazar, E. 2015. The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the 2012–2013 Excavation Seasons: Areas Upper A, B and C. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013, Final Reports: Vol. I. Jerusalem. 211–292. Geva, H. 2003a. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 113–154. Geva, H. 2003b. Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 405–422. Geva, H. 2010. Early Roman Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 118–153. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2014. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 134–175. Geva, H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Local Pottery from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 176–191. Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2017. Wading through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblages of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. In: Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R., Kogler, P. and Rudolph, W. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery 2: 102–139. Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9). Sheffield. Magness, J. 2003. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 423–432. Magness, J. 2005. The Roman Legionary Pottery. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’Uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period: The Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Series 60). Portsmouth: 69–191.

422 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Magness, J. 2006. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Magness, J. 2012. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the Cardo and the Nea Church. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T). Jerusalem: 229–238. Magness, J. 2014. Late Roman Pottery from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 229–238. Mazar, E. and Gordon, B. 2007. The Pottery from the Peristyle and Southern Houses. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem: 149–176. Mazar, E. and Peleg, O. 2003. The Pottery Assemblage from the Large Byzantine Structure in Area XV. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem: 86–103. Peacock, D.P.S. and Williams, D.F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide. London. Peleg, O. and Adler, N. 2007. The Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Building in Area XVI. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem: 23–34. Rapuano, Y. 2014. The Pottery from the Pool from the Period of Aelia Capitolina in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 427–436. Rapuano, Y. 2018. The Pottery from Strata V, VI and VII. In: Re’em, A., ed. The Qishle Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 114–159. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Hellenistic and Early Roman Fine Ware and Lamps from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 192–223. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2005. The 1968 Excavations. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’Uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period: The Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Series 60). Portsmouth: 229–282. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2006. Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Lamps and Fine Ware. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 144–167. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2011. The Pottery Assemblage from Locus 6032. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem: 195–228. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2014a. Lamps, Table and Kitchenware from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 176–199. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2014b. Dating the Jerusalem Rilled-Rim and Arched-Rim Basins. In: PoulouPapadimitriou, N., Nodarou, E. and Kilikoglou, V., eds. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, Archaeology and Archaeometry, The Mediterranean: A Market Without Frontiers I (BAR International Series 2616). Oxford: 657–664. Sandhaus, D. 2013. The Hellenistic Pottery. In: Ben-Ami., D. ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gi>vati Parking Lot) Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 83–108. Slane, K.W. 1997. The Fine Wares. In: Herbert, S.C., ed. Tel Anafa, II, i: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Ann Arbor: 255–393. Sussman, V. 2017. Late Roman to Late Byzantine Lamps in the Holy Land, The Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Oxford.

A R E A H, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 423

Tchekhanovets, Y. 2013. The Early Roman Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 109–150. Uziel, J., Lieberman, T. and Solomon, A. 2017. Two Years of Excavation beneath Wilson’s Arch: New Discoveries and Ponderings. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y., Cytryn-Silberman, K. and Uziel, J., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, Vol. XI. Jerusalem: 239–261 (Hebrew).

CHAPTER 21

AREA H THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY Benjamin J. Dolinka

The excavation of two squares in Area H (see Chapter 17) yielded a small but significant amount of ceramic material that dates to the Mamluk I period (the mid-13th through the end of the 14th centuries CE). The pottery was found in Loci 20, 21, 23 and 36. Loci 23 and 36 contained several restorable and/or nearly complete and intact vessels from Locus 23 (Figs. 21.1: 7, 10, 12; 21.2: 3–5) and from Locus 36 (Figs. 21.1: 4–5, 8; 21.2: 6; 21.3: 1), which aid in dating the construction of the upper staircases that led down to the spring, as well as the vaulted feature above the spring. The assemblage presented here consists of bowls, basins, cooking pots, a small jar, jugs, a flask, a storage jar and lamps.

THE ASSEMBLAGE Glazed Bowls (Fig. 21.1: 1–3)

Three of the glazed bowls recovered from Area H are presented here. Of particular interest is the bowl fragment with molded decoration (Fig. 21.1: 1). This sherd, which comes from the bottom part of the bowl, just above its ring base, consists of a register of superimposed, stylized triangles enclosed within horizontal bands, above which are remnants of an Arabic inscription (see below). It has a reddish-yellow fabric with tiny calcite inclusions that is fired to a very pale brown on the interior and exterior. This well-known class of vessels conforms to Avissar and Stern’s Type I.1.7 (Avissar and Stern 2005: 22, Fig. 8: 8–11, Pl. VII), and are good chronological indicators. Although Bagatti (1984: 194–196) erroneously proposed that these bowls dated to the 12th century CE, and Avissar (2018: 83)1 suggested that the form continued into the 15th century CE, it is now clear that the glazed molded relief bowls had limited production in the 14th century CE, during the Bahri Mamluk Dynasty. This is supported by numismatic finds from Cistern E in the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: 141–142, 147–148), which yielded coins of Sha>ban (1363–1377 CE). The complete form is fairly standardized, consisting of a hemispherical vessel with an incurved rim that is thickened on the interior, accompanied by a high, flared trumpet base. The rim diameter for these bowls ranges between 20 and 26 cm, and the fabric is predominantly reddish-yellow (like the example here), but also occurs in red, pink, very pale brown and occasionally a light reddish-brown. These vessels all have a very thin white slip to which the glaze is added on both the interior and the exterior of the vessel. The lead glaze is thick, shiny and well-adhering, and exhibits a wide variety of colors: primarily green, but also yellow, yellowish-brown, purplish-brown and dark brown. While monochrome glazing is the most common, there are also bichrome examples with different colors utilized for the interior (e.g., yellow) and exterior (e.g., green), as well as polychrome vessels with the rims and selected decorative elements highlighted in a dark brown glaze. 1    

Although published in 2018, the paper was originally written in 2009.

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 2 5

The Arabic inscriptions on these bowls are formulaic, and usually represent a blessing to the emir or a statement that the vessel was made by order of the emir. Bowls with these types of inscriptions were apparently issued to soldiers in Mamluk garrisons as part of their mess-kit (B. Walker, personal communication). Others bear inscriptions of well-wishing, such as an example from HaQimronot Street in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem (Dolinka 2012: Fig. 5: 1), which reads al-fakhr biqa (glory everlasting)2 and was seemingly not for use by the military (B. Walker, personal communication). In addition to the Arabic phrases found on these vessels, a few rare examples are decorated with a highly-schematic zoomorphic depiction of a quadruped enclosed in a double-lined medallion, such as at Misgav Ladach 26 in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (Dolinka, in preparation), Khirbet Ka’kul in the Jerusalem hinterland (Boas 2006: 93, no. 102) and at Khirbet Burin in the eastern Sharon (Kapitaiken 2006). This symbol has been interpreted as a royal emblem of either Sultan Baybars (reigned 1260–1277) or one of his successors. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the bowl from Area H does not allow for the categorization of this bowl into one of these types. A significant quantity of glazed, molded relief bowls with Arabic inscriptions have been recovered from previous excavations in Jerusalem, such as the Damascus Gate (Wightman 1989: 220–222, Pl. 64: 9–13, 65: 1–3), the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: 148, Figs. 39: 12; 41: 31, 36, 41; 44: 13– 15), the Qishle (Avissar 2018: Pl. 7: 2), Colegio del Pilar (Prag 2017: Pl. 29: 28), the Knights Palace Hotel (Weksler-Bdolah and Avissar 2015: Fig. 26: 5–6), the Church of the Redeemer (Vriezen 1994: abb. VIII. 10: 5–6), the Coptic Patriarchate in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (Avissar 2009: Fig. 3: 3), the Church of the Ascension (Corbo 1965: Fig. 12: 17), the City of David (Macalister and Duncan 1926: Pl. XXIII: 7; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: Pl. XVI: 22), the Western Wall Plaza (Baruch and Weiss 2009: Fig. 10: 1), the Jewish Quarter excavations (Avigad 1980: 255, Fig. 302; Ben-Dov 1982: 365; Avissar 2003: 446, Pl. 19.3: 6; 2012: Pl. 10.5: 13–14) and the so-called “Pool of Israel” (Wilson and Warren 1871: Pl. XLIV: 15, 19, 21–25). In addition, there are parallels in recent excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem at the Gloria Hotel and Herod’s Gate.3 Furthermore, a few examples are attested to at hinterland sites surrounding Jerusalem, including Khirbat Ka’kul (Boas 2006: 92, Fig. 16: 97, 99), Tel Beit Shemesh (Grant and Wright 1938: Pl. L. 26), Belmont Castle (Knowles 2000: 103, Fig. 7.3: 37–38) and Ain Karim (Saller 1946: Pl. 35), as well as further afield at Giv>at Dani in the Ayalon Valley (Lazar 1999: Fig. 2: 9) and Tel Gezer (Macalister 1912: Pl. CLXXXIX: 14). Finally, these bowls have been found at other Mamluk regional administrative centers. From Israel, these include Ramla (Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 127, Photo 9.35), Afula (Dothan 1955: Fig. 8: 16), Yoqne>am (Avissar 1996: 102, Fig. XIII: 43: 1, Photo XIII. 26, GLB Type 55), Megiddo (Schumacher 1908: Figs. 269–271), Nazareth (Bagatti 1984: 194–196, Fig. 68, Pl. 78), and Bet She’an (Zori 1966: Pl. 10E). In Jordan, they appear at Kerak Castle (Milwright 2003: Fig. 5: 4; 2008: 370–372), Tel Hesbān (Walker and LaBianca 2003: 464, Figs. 33: 1–4; 34), Pella (Smith 1973: Pl. 72, no. 807), Tel Abu Qa’dan (Franken and Kalsbeek 1975: Fig. 38: 31–33), Tall al->Umayri (Herr 1991: Fig. 12.120: 12), Khirbat Faris (Johns, McQuitty and Falkner et al. 1989: Fig. 27: 59), and Tel Nimrin (Dornemann 1990: Pl. II.2: 12–14; Flanagan et al. 1994: Fig. 17: 3). In Syria, they are known from Damascus (Milwright 2003: 104, Table 3: 11) and Hama (Poulsen 1957: 130, no. 398, Group IV-A), where the excavators mistakenly suggested an Egyptian origin for the vessel. 2     3    

Translation by B. Walker. Pottery from these excavations was processed by the present author: Gloria Hotel (A-5654), Fig. 4: 3–4, from Locus 110; Herod’s Gate (A-4145), Locus 1840 from Square B3.

426 BENJAMIN J. DOLINKA

2

3

4

5

7

8

1 0

2

4

6

9 11

10

12

0

Figure 21.1: Medieval pottery.

5

10

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 2 7

Figure 21.1: Medieval Pottery No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

152/37

20

Decorated body sherd, reddish-yellow (5YR 7/8) fabric with tiny calcite inclusions, fired to very pale brown (10YR 8/3) on interior and exterior, molded decoration on exterior consisting of band of triangles and remains of an Arabic inscription (unglazed)

2

Bowl

152/40

20

Low ring base, reddish-yellow (5YR 7/6) fabric with small calcite inclusions, thin white interior slip, well-adhering light green interior glaze

3

Bowl

154/4

20

High ring base, reddish-yellow (5YR 7/6) fabric with small calcite inclusions, thin white interior slip, well-adhering dark green interior glaze

4

Bowl

233

36

Wheelmade, reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) coarse fabric with small and large calcite inclusions

5

Bowl

228/1

36

Wheelmade, pinkish-gray (5YR 7/2) coarse fabric with calcite and chert inclusions, burnedout organic temper

6

Bowl

119

36

Handmade, reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) coarse fabric with a dark reddish-gray (5YR 4/1) core, calcite inclusions, burned-out organic temper, reddish-brown (5YR 5/3) painted decoration on rim top and interior

7

Bowl

224/1

23

Handmade, reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) coarse fabric with a dark reddish-gray (5YR 4/1) core, calcite inclusions, burned-out organic temper, reddish-brown (5YR 5/3) painted decoration on rim top and interior

8

Bowl

230

36

Handmade, reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) coarse fabric with a dark reddish-gray (5YR 4/1) core, calcite inclusions, burned-out organic temper, reddish-brown (5YR 5/3) painted decoration on rim top and interior

9

Basin

152/33

20

Handmade, coarse pink (5YR 7/3) fabric with a pinkish-gray (5YR 6/2) core, burned-out organic temper and chert inclusions, burnished interior and rim, decorated with reddish-brown (5YR 5/4) paint on top of rim

10

Basin

228/2

36

Light reddish-brown (5YR 6/4) coarse fabric, burnished rim and interior, reddish-brown (5YR 5/3) painted decoration on rim only

11

Small jar

224/2

23

Reddish-yellow (5YR 7/6) fabric with calcite inclusions, yellow (5Y 8/8) interior glaze dripping onto rim and upper shoulder

12

Small jar

168

23

Pink (5YR 7/3) fabric with tiny calcite inclusions

It has been suggested that Jerusalem was the production center for these bowls (Milwright 2004: 237; Avissar and Stern 2005: 22), based upon the discovery of a kiln site (Avigad 1980; Ben-Dov 1982) and pottery workshop (Gutfeld 2012: 4, from Area T1) in the Jewish Quarter, where complete examples were uncovered. However, this assumption has recently been called into question due to the wide variety of fabrics used to produce these vessels (Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 127), in addition to the lack of kiln wasters for this form at the production site (E. Stern, personal communication). In addition, petrographic analysis of the examples from Kerak indicated that there was more than one production center (Mason and Milwright 1998: 184, 188, Fig. 3: 13–15). It is suggested here that perhaps there was an official itinerant potter who brought the molds for these vessels to the various production centers throughout Mamluk Bilad al-Sham and manufactured the bowls on-site using local clays. Future research on this vessel class should include petrographic analysis utilizing large sample groups from several sites throughout the southern Levant; this may indeed clarify both the number and location of workshops for the glazed, molded relief bowls. The example from City of David Area H is of importance because it is unglazed, which strongly suggests that the fragment was discarded during the production process. There are several parallels for this sherd, which has a very distinct decorative motif (Milwright 2003: Fig. 5: 2), all from excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, e.g., the Armenian Patriarchate Road (Seligman 2001: Fig. 10: 2), the Qishle (Avissar 2018: 83, Pl. 4: 7), the Damascus Gate (Wightman 1989: Pl. 64: 11), Colegio del Pilar

428 BENJAMIN J. DOLINKA

(Prag 2017: Pl. 29: 38), Church of the Redeemer (Vriezen 1994: Abb. VIII: 8); Misgav Ladach 26 (Dolinka, in preparation: Fig. 4: 4) and Ha-Qimronot 12 (Dolinka 2012: Fig. 5: 1), which is not only the closest parallel, but illustrates the decorative motif in its context on the complete vessel form. Two ring-bases of monochrome glazed bowls (Fig. 21.1: 2, 3) were also found in Area H. Both have a reddish-yellow fabric with small calcite inclusions, a thin white interior slip and a well-adhering shiny green glaze. The first example (Fig. 21.1: 2) has a low, flat and slightly beveled ring with a light green glaze on the interior. Parallels are known from Khirbat Ka’kul in the Jerusalem hinterland (Boas 2006: Fig. 12: 88). The second (Fig. 21.1: 3) consists of a high, triangular ring with a dark-green glazed interior. Similar vessels were found in the excavations along the Armenian Patriarchate Road in the Old City (Seligman 2001: Fig. 9: 3). Although these are only ring-bases and lack any other diagnostic features, the quality of the glaze is indicative of this period. Typologically, these vessels belong to the general category of Monochrome Glazed Bowls II (Avissar and Stern 2005: 12–15, Figs. 4–5), particularly to Type I.1.4.3 (ibid.: 14, Fig. 5: 7–10) with an outfolded or everted rim, which “seems to be unique to Jerusalem where it appeared in several, so far unpublished, excavations” (Avissar 2012: 310). The rim form of these bowls is distinct, having an upturned stance with a profile that is either a small, internal or external slightly thickened ledge or t-shaped, with either a flat or rounded lip. Several examples of these bowls were recovered in the Old City in the Armenian Garden, Cistern E (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 41: 1–21, passim), the Cardo, Area X-4 (Avissar 2012: Fig. 10.5: 6–7), and the Austrian Hospice, Phase IIIb (Dolinka, in preparation: Fig. 3: 2), as well as from the Mamluk fills in the Crusader subterranean reservoir at Beit Yellin (Dolinka 2018: 194, Fig. 1: 2) in the Jerusalem hinterland. While the glaze on these bowls is usually green, and less occasionally brownish-yellow, bichrome and polychrome versions are attested as well. Taken together, this glazed bowl type seems to be a strictly local production, as attested to by one example recently uncovered in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City (S. Kisilevitz, personal communication). The tripod-stand that it had been stacked on in the kiln was still attached to it and had melted into its interior base. Wheelmade Plainware Bowls (Fig. 21.1: 4, 5)

Wheelmade plainware bowls were not well-represented in the ceramic corpus from Area H. Two examples, both with carinated walls, are presented here. The first (Fig. 21.1: 4) has a reddish-yellow coarse fabric with small and large calcite inclusions and an outturned rounded rim with a very low triangular ring-base. It is known from the post-Crusader deposits at the Damascus Gate (Wightman 1989: Pl. 65: 4), as well as the Colegio del Pilar in the Christian Quarter of the Old City (Prag 2017: Pl. 18: 5). The second bowl (Fig. 21.1: 5) has a pinkish gray coarse fabric with calcite and chert inclusions, as well as burned-out organic temper (i.e., straw), with an upright rounded rim that is slightly thickened on the exterior, and a flat disc base. A close parallel was found at Emmaus elQubeibeh in the Jerusalem hinterland (Bagatti 1993: Fig. 23: 2). Handmade Geometric Painted Bowls and Basins (Fig. 21.1: 6–10)

A number of Handmade Geometric Painted (hereafter HMGP) bowls and basins were recovered from Area H. These belong to Avissar and Stern’s Type II.1.4.2 (Avissar and Stern 2005: 88, Fig. 38: 6–10), which first appeared in the mid-12th century CE and are most commonly found in Mamluk contexts. Among the examples from Area H were three small HMGP bowls (Fig. 21.1: 6–8) that are relatively homogenous in size, shape, fabric and surface treatment. The fabric is coarse and reddish-yellow with a dark reddish-gray core, which contains calcite inclusions and burned-out organic temper. They all have a reddish-brown horizontal linear painted decoration on the rim top and interior, which occasionally drips over onto the exterior of the vessel. It is therefore reasonable to assume that these bowls were

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 2 9

most likely produced in the same workshop, attested to by the parallels that are found primarily in Mamluk contexts in the Old City of Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 39: 25; Wightman 1989: Pl. 51: 4; Raphael 2018: Fig. 6: 4; Prag 2017: Pl. 25: 12, 15). In addition, two HMGP basins with burnishing on the interior and top of the rim are presented here. Like the aforementioned bowls, they are also made from a very coarse ware. The first (Fig. 21.1: 9) has a pink fabric with a pinkish-gray core and inclusions of chert and burned-out organic temper. The rim is slightly everted and has a reddish-brown painted wavy line on its burnished top. Parallels of this vessel have been uncovered in Mamluk contexts from recent excavations at Beit Mazmil (Dolinka, in preparation) in the Jerusalem hinterland. The second basin (Fig. 21.1: 10) has a light reddish-brown fabric which is also coarse but lacks the inclusions of the previous example. It has a slight ledge rim that is internally thickened, and the painted decoration on its rim, also reddish-brown, is more ornate. A similar vessel was uncovered in the Western Wall Tunnels (Bahat 2013: Pl. 5: 2). The HMGP bowls and basins are ubiquitous in the Jerusalem region. While first appearing during the Crusader/Ayyubid period for the Jerusalem region, i.e., the mid-12th–mid13th centuries CE (M. Avissar, personal communication), they are far more commonplace during the Mamluk I period, and completely disappear by the beginning of the 15th century CE. Small Jars (Fig. 21.1: 11, 12)

Small household jars are not commonly found in and around Jerusalem in Mamluk contexts; two examples are presented here. The first example (Fig. 21.1: 11) is a globular, wheelmade vessel with a collared, everted rim that is almost triangular in section. It has a reddish-yellow fabric with calcite inclusions of varying size and is covered with a yellow interior glaze that drips over the rim onto its upper shoulder. While this vessel has no exact parallels, a similar vessel was recovered from the Cardo, Area X-4 (Avissar 2012: 306, Pl. 10.6: 10) and attributed to Avissar and Stern’s Type II.2.1.4 (Avissar and Stern 2005: 92), although the vessel here differs in many respects. The Type II.2.1.4 vessels are much deeper, have a different rim form—as noted by Avissar (2012: 306)—and were likely produced in Lebanon (Stern and Waksman 2003: 173–175), while the example from Area H is clearly made from local clay from the Jerusalem region. The date of this small household jar may be inferred from an exact parallel found in the Ayyubid ceramic assemblage in the Beit Strauss excavations (Dolinka, in preparation), where it originated from a sealed early-13th century CE context. Another similar example was recently uncovered on Es-Sa’idda Street in the Christian Quarter of the Old City, where it was found in a Crusader/Ayyubid context.4 According to Avissar and Stern (2005: 92), the form only appeared during the second half of the 13th century CE. The example found here may indicate that this type continued to be in use in the Mamluk I period, or may be residual. Due to the fact that there was no carbonization present on this vessel and there was no evidence of cooking on its interior, it should be seen as a household jar. Another wheelmade jar found in Area H has a biconical body with a flat base and outturned rim (Fig. 21.1: 12). It has a pink fabric with tiny calcite inclusions. While a similar example is known from Belmont Castle (Gray 2000: Fig. 6.1: 21), the closest parallel was uncovered at the Armenian Garden in the Old City (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 41: 40), where it was dated to the Mamluk period. Cooking Pots (Fig. 21.2: 1, 2)

Only one cooking pot was found in the assemblage from Area H; it consists of a rim, shoulder and handle (Fig. 21.2: 1), and a handle that is clearly from the same vessel (Fig. 21.2: 2). This form 4    

The vessel (Reg. No. 112/2) has yet to be published. It was found in excavations conducted by E.D. Kagan (License A-7573) on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority at 9 Es-Sa’idda Street in the Christian Quarter, just north of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

430 BENJAMIN J. DOLINKA

1 2

3

4

6

5 0

Fiure 21.2: Medieval pottery.

5

10

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 3 1

Figure 21.2: Medieval Pottery No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Cooking pot

224/3

36

Reddish-yellow (5YR 6/8) coarse fabric with calcite and crushed quartzite inclusions, fired to pink (5YR 7/4) on exterior

2

Cooking pot

218

36

Handle with incised decoration, fabric as No. 1 above (from same vessel)

3

Spouted jug

164/7

23

Very pale brown (10YR 8/2) fabric with small calcite inclusions

4

Strainer jar

172

23

Very pale brown (10YR 8/2) fabric, pinpricked/incised decoration on upper shoulder of exterior

5

Strainer jar

173

23

Very pale brown (10YR 8/2) fabric, pinpricked/incised decoration on upper shoulder of exterior

6

Flask

126

36

Pink (5YR 8/3) fabric with tiny chert inclusions, fired to very pale brown (10YR 8/3)

belongs to the general category of “Type II.2.2.2 Handmade Cooking Pots of the Mamluk Period” (Avissar and Stern 2005: 94–94, Fig. 40: 2–7). The rim form here differs, however, as it is not everted to form a defined corner point where the rim joins the body. The upright neck and slightly outturned and rounded rim of the example from Area H appear to be of a local Jerusalem production, as this type is only attested to in the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding hinterland. The vessel from Area H has a coarse reddish-yellow fabric with calcite and crushed quartzite inclusions, fired to a pink color on the exterior. This also differs from the descriptions of the general type in Avissar and Stern, which not only have a darker, light brown clay, but also all originate from sites far north of Jerusalem. Parallels from sites in the Old City include the Hurva Synagogue (Avissar forthcoming: Pl. 5.6: 11) and the Damascus Gate (Wightman 1989: Pl. 54: 1), with another found at Khirbat Ka’kul (Boas 2006: Fig. 2.8) in the Jerusalem hinterland. The cooking pot handle (Fig. 21.2: 2) is also typical of Mamluk ceramic repertoires in the region, such as those from Khirbat Ka’kul (Boas 2006: Fig. 2: 11) and Cardo Area X-4 (Avissar 2012: Pl. 10.6: 12). Jugs with Swollen Neck (Fig. 21.2: 3)

Jugs with a plain, swollen neck (Avissar and Stern 2005: 108–110, Fig. 45: 4, 5, Type II.4.2.1) are common in ceramic assemblages of the mid-13th to the end of the 14th centuries CE from Jerusalem. The example from Area H (Fig. 21.2: 3) has a very pale brown fabric with small calcite inclusions. These jugs have a biconical body which sat on a fairly high, triangular ring base, a lower neck with pronounced double or triple horizontal ridges, a bulbous upper neck which ends with a flared and everted rim, a simple handle from the middle of the neck to the shoulder, and a very diagnostic swollen spout with a disc end. The earliest types of this vessel form date to the 13th century CE and have a buff fabric. By the 14th century CE, they begin to have a darker fabric, usually either pink or pale red. Close parallels were found at the Cardo, Area X-5 (Avissar 2012: 310, Fig. 10.10: 10), the Colegio del Pilar in the Christian Quarter (Prag 2017: Pl. 18: 12) and the Damascus Gate (Wightman 1989: Pl. 59: 6), while an exact parallel was uncovered in Cistern E in the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 41: 37). Strainer Jars with Incised and Pinpricked Decoration (Fig. 21.2: 4, 5)

Two restorable and nearly complete examples of strainer jars with incised and pinpricked decoration were found in Area H. They were previously published by Avissar and Stern (2005: 111, Fig. 46: 3, 4), where they correspond to Type II.4.3.2, which has been assigned a broad chronological range,

432 BENJAMIN J. DOLINKA

spanning the 13th–15th centuries CE. These vessels are also known from the Danish excavations at Hama, where they were defined as Category D.XVIII (Poulsen 1957: 258–260, Figs. 943–947). While the overall form exhibits some variety, they are usually characterized by a globular body, long inverted-conical neck ending in a tapered triangular rim, a pronounced horizontal ridge at the shoulder/neck join, two handles attached from the middle of the neck to the upper shoulder, a strainer that is placed on the interior of the vessel at its mid-point, a depressed ring-base that is concave in section, and incised and pinpricked decoration on the exterior. Both of the examples from Area H have a very pale brown fabric with small calcite inclusions, with the decorative elements limited to the upper shoulder. Similar decorated strainer jars are known from previous excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, where they were dated to the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods. These include the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: 149, Fig. 43: 1–8), Damascus Gate (Wightman 1989: Pl. 61), Colegio del Pilar (Prag 2017: Pls. 34–36 passim), and Area J from the Jewish Quarter (Avissar 2014: Pl. 7.1: 18). They have also been uncovered in the Jerusalem hinterland at Emmaus/El-Qubeibeh (Bagatti 1993: Photograph 61). The vessel illustrated in Fig. 21.2: 4 differs from known examples of this type in that the decoration does not appear on both the upper and lower halves of the body as well as on the neck (e.g., Tushingham 1985: Fig. 43: 1–3). Although this is also true of the vessel shown in Fig. 21.2: 5, a vessel with a similar decorative scheme was found at Hama (Poulsen 1957: Fig. 943), and another example from the Colegio del Pilar in the Christian Quarter (Prag 2017: Pl. 34: 111) has the exact form and similar decoration. It has been previously noted that it is “… not clear where these vessels were made. There were probably local workshops…” (Avissar and Stern 2005: 111). Given the fact that all of the examples noted in Avissar and Stern’s corpus come from the Old City of Jerusalem, have a homogenous buff fabric, and are only decorated on the upper shoulder, it is suggested here that these two strainer jars from Area H are of a local production, and most likely from the same workshop. Undecorated Plainware Flask (Fig. 21.2: 6)

Like the aforementioned decorated strainer jars, no exact parallels were found for an undecorated flask found in Area H (Fig. 21.2: 6). This vessel has a pink fabric with tiny chert inclusions that is fired to a very pale brown color on the interior and exterior. While these vessels are commonplace in Ayyubid and Mamluk pottery assemblages from the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding hinterland, they are only found in small numbers when compared to the entire corpus from any given site. While some of these flasks have a similar rim form as the vessel from Area H (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 42: 8; Kletter and Boas 2002: Fig. 21: 12), many of the Mamluk examples have either multiple ridges on the neck (De Vaux and Stève 1950: Pl. G34; Tushingham 1985: Fig. 44: 22–24), different body or rim forms (Bagatti 1993: Fig. 28: 2–3, 11–12, 16), or decorative motifs on their exterior (e.g., Avissar 2014: Pl. 7.1: 19). Handmade Geometric Painted (HMGP) Jar (Fig. 21.3: 1)

Of interest is the restorable and nearly complete HMGP table jar (Fig. 21.3: 1) found in Area H. It has a pink fabric with numerous calcite inclusions, a burnished exterior and rim and light reddishbrown linear and geometric painted motifs on the rim, neck, handle and central portion of the body. Unlike other HMGP jars, which usually have handles that are either attached from the rim or middle of the neck to the shoulder, the example from Area H has simple, vertical loop handles that are attached at the middle of the body. This vessel measures 32 cm in height, is 22 cm in diameter at its widest point, and has a rim diameter of 10 cm. The form corresponds to Avissar and Stern’s

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 3 3

1 0

5

10

2

3 0

Figure 21.3: Medieval pottery.

2

4

434 BENJAMIN J. DOLINKA

Figure 21.3: Medieval Pottery No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Jar

227

36

Handmade, pink (5YR 8/4) fabric with numerous calcite inclusions, burnished exterior and rim, light reddish-brown (5YR 6/4) linear and geometric painted decoration on rim, neck, handle and central portion of body

2

Oil Lamp

154/16

20

Moldmade, very pale brown (10YR 8/3) fabric with tiny calcite inclusions, linear and geometric decoration in raised relief

3

Oil Lamp

160/20

21

Moldmade, very pale brown (10YR 8/3) fabric with tiny calcite inclusions, linear and geometric decoration in raised relief, bent handle pressed into upper shoulder of vessel, band of relief decoration on base

Type II.4.4.1 (Avissar and Stern 2005: 113), most common in the Mamluk period, when many of these vessels exhibited a horror vacui decorative schema, whereby the entire surface of the vessel was painted with a variety of motifs. The jar from Area H is unique in that its decoration is sparse. The upper neck, just below the rim zone, is adorned with a series of pendent triangles with a triple outline that are filled with diamond-shaped lozenges with cross-hatching (cf. Franken and Kalsbeek 1975: 168; Gabrieli et al. 2014: 200, Fig. 5i). At the apex of each pendent triangle is a double-lined wavy motif, also found on the rim exterior of a Mamluk bowl at Khirbet >Addasa in the Jerusalem hinterland (Adawi 2015: Fig. 4: 13). The only painted decoration on the remainder of this vessel is a “star” motif which is located on the center of the body at the same level of its vertical loop handles. A close parallel of this adornment was found on an HMGP cooking pot from the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 38: 31). The single painted horizontal band on the rim exterior is reminiscent of the surface treatment found on the three HMGP bowls illustrated above (Fig. 21.1: 6–8), suggesting that perhaps all four vessels were produced in the same workshop. Moldmade Lamps with Bent Handles (Fig. 21.3: 2–3)

Two moldmade Mamluk slipper lamps were found in Area H. Both lamps have a very pale brown fabric with tiny calcite inclusions, adorned with linear and geometric decoration in raised relief. These lamps date from the mid-13th to the end of the 14th century CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 128, Fig. 53: 2–4, Type III.2.1.2), as found at Bet She’an (Hadad 2002: 112–114, Type 45, nos. 482–489), and the Damascus Gate (Tushingham 1985: 151, Type 2). A number of these lamps, along with the molds from which they were made, were found at Nebi Samwil (Magen and Dadon 1999: 76) in the Jerusalem hinterland. Their form represents a development of the Ayyubid almond-shaped slipper lamp with the high tongue handle, but differs in that the handle is bent so that it is either touching the rim of the lamp or completely pressed down onto the rim. Instead of having a decorative scheme consisting of arabesques, floral patterns and pseudo-calligraphy rendered in a thin, fine relief which typically characterize their predecessors, they are most often limited to geometric designs in a thicker relief. The first fragment (Fig. 21.3: 2) consists of the lamp's nozzle, with an exact parallel from Nebi Samwil (Magen and Dadon 1999: 76, photo from column 1, top row, left). The second fragment (Fig. 21.3: 3) is the lamp’s back half, including part of its filling hole and the complete, folded handle. The bottom of the lamp also has raised relief decoration on it, which is one of the hallmarks of local production. Other lamps from the Old City of Jerusalem bear this distinctive undermarking and have been found in recent excavations at the Hospital of Saint John the Baptist in the Muristan (Re’em and Forestani 2017: Fig. 13: 12). While an exact parallel for this type has been found as far afield as Khirbat Yamma in the northeastern Sharon Plain (Stern 2017: Fig. 3: 2), it was

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 3 5

also found at Nebi Samwil, where it was likely produced (Magen and Dadon 1999: 76, photo from column 1, top row, right).

CONCLUSIONS Taken together, the ceramic assemblage uncovered at Area H clearly demonstrates that the upper staircases which led down to the Spring Tower, as well as the vaulted roof associated with it, can be dated firmly within the Mamluk I period, i.e., the mid-13th–end of the 14th centuries CE. This is supported by the presence of the molded relief bowl, the HMGP jar and the moldmade lamps with pressed-down handles, which represent the latest forms in the assemblage. The earliest vessels in the assemblage, including the wheelmade plainware bowls, HMGP bowls and basins, cooking pots, small jar and undecorated plainware flask, can also be attributed to this period. Of great importance is the fact that not only were many of the vessels recovered from the excavation nearly complete and intact, but several of them have few published parallels, thereby providing important insights into the Mamluk I ceramic repertoire of Jerusalem.

REFERENCES Adawi, Z. 2015. Jerusalem, Khirbat >Addasa. Hadashot Arkheologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 127. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=23821&mag_id=122 (accessed 7/9/2019). Avigad, N. 1980. Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Avissar, M. 1996. The Medieval Pottery. In: Ben-Tor, A., Portugali, Y. and Avissar, M., eds. Yoqne>am I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports No. 3). Jerusalem: 75–197. Avissar, M. 2003. Early Islamic through Mamluk Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 433–446. Avissar, M. 2009. The Pottery from the Coptic Patriarchate, Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Unpublished manuscript, courtesy of the excavators (G. Avni, J. Seligman). Avissar, M. 2012. Pottery from the Early Islamic to the Ottoman Period from the Cardo and Nea Church. In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T) Final Report. Jerusalem: 301–345. Avissar, M. 2014. Mamluk Pottery from Area J. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies—Final Report. Jerusalem: 239–242. Avissar, M. 2018. The Pottery from Strata I, II, III and IV. In: Re’em, A., ed. The Qishle Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 82–113. Avissar, M. Forthcoming. Pottery of the Early Islamic to Ottoman Periods from Area X-9. In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IX: The Hurva Synagogue and Other Studies – Final Report. Jerusalem. Avissar, M. and Stern, E.J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 26). Jerusalem. Bagatti, B. 1984. Gli Scavi di Nazareth II: Dal secolo VII ad oggi. Jerusalem. Bagatti, B. 1993. Emmaus–Qubeibeh: The Results of Excavations at Emmaus-Qubeibah and Nearby Sites, 1873, 1887–90, 1900–1902, 1940–1944. Jerusalem. Bahat, D. 2013. The Jerusalem Western Wall Tunnel. Jerusalem. Baruch, Y. and Weiss, D. 2009. Jerusalem, the Western Wall Plaza. Hadashot Arkheologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1285&mag_id=115 (accessed 7/9/2019). Ben-Dov, M. 1982. Hafirot Har ha-Bayit (Excavations on the Temple Mount). Jerusalem. Boas, A. 2006. The Medieval Ceramics from Khirbat Ka’kul. >Atiqot 54: 75–104. Corbo, V. 1965. Ricerche archeologiche al Monte degli Ulivi. Jerusalem.

436 BENJAMIN J. DOLINKA

Crowfoot, J.W. and Fitzgerald, G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual No. 5). London. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. The Ceramic Evidence. In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque (Qedem 51). Jerusalem: 97–212. De Vaux, R. and Stève, A.M. 1950. Fouilles à Qaryet el->Enab, Abu Ghosh, Palestine. Paris. Dolinka, B. 2012. The Pottery from Locus 103. In: Kagan, E.D. Jerusalem, The Old City: Final Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel 124. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_ detail_eng.aspx?id=2140&mag_id=119 (accessed 25/12/2012). Dolinka, B. 2018. Ayyubid and Mamluk Pottery from the Subterranean Crusader Reservoir at Moza. >Atiqot 91: 193–204. Dolinka, B. In preparation. The Islamic Ceramics from Misgav Ladach 26 in the Jewish Quarter. Dornemann, R. 1990. Preliminary Comments on the Pottery Traditions at Tell Nimrin, Illustrated from the 1989 Excavations. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 34: 153–181. Dothan, M. 1955. Excavations at Afula. >Atiqot 1: 19–70. Flanagan, J., McCreery, D. and Yassine, K. 1994. Tell Nimrin: Preliminary Report of the 1993 Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38: 204–244. Franken, H.J. and Kalsbeek, J. 1975. Potters of a Medieval Village in the Jordan Valley: Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla, A Medieval Tell (Tell Abu Ghourdan, Jordan) (North-Holland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology 3). New York. Gabrieli, R.S., Ben-Shlomo, D. and Walker, B.J. 2014. Production and Distribution of Hand-Made Geometric Painted (HMGP) and Plain Handmade Wares of the Mamluk Period: A Case Study from Northern Israel, Jerusalem and Tall Hisbān. Journal of Islamic Archaeology 1/2: 143–192. Grant, E. and Wright, G.E. 1938. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine): Part IV: Pottery (Biblical and Kindred Studies 7). Haverford. Gray, A.D. 2000. The Unglazed Pottery. In: Harper, R.P. and Pringle, D. eds. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Oxford: 87–100. Gutfeld, O. 2012. Introduction. In: Gutfeld, O. ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T) Final Report. Jerusalem: 1–12. Hadad, S. 2002. Excavations at Bet She’an I: The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet She’an (Qedem Reports 4). Jerusalem. Herr, L. 1991. Pottery Typology and Chronology. In: Herr, L. and Geraty, L., eds. Madaba Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tel el-‘Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: 232–245. Johns, J., McQuitty, A. and Falkner, R. 1989. The Fâris Project: Preliminary Report upon the 1986 and 1988 Seasons. Levant 22: 63–95. Kapitaiken, L. 2006. Note on a Glazed Bowl with a Medallion of a Feline from Khirbat Burin. >Atiqot 51: 215–219. Kletter, R. and Boas, A. 2002. Har Hozevim: A Frankish Farmhouse North of Jerusalem. >Atiqot 43: 185–205. Knowles, M. 2000. Glazed Pottery. In: Harper, R.P. and Pringle, D., eds. Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Oxford. Lazar, D. 1999. Giv>at Dani. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19: 44. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. London. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925 (Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund 4). London. Magen, Y. and Dadon, M. 1999. Nebi Samwil (Shmuel Hanavi, Har Hasimha). Qadmoniot 118: 62–77 (Hebrew). Mason, R.B. and Milwright, M. 1998. Petrography of Middle Islamic Pottery from Kerak. Levant 30: 175–190. Milwright, M. 2003. Modest Luxuries: Decorated Lead-Glazed Pottery in the South of Bilad al-Sham (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries). Muqarnas 20: 85–111. Milwright, M. 2004. An Inscribed Pottery Bowl of the Mamluk Period. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 48: 233–238. Milwright, M. 2008. The Fortress of the Raven: Karak in the Middle Islamic Period (1100–1650). Leiden.

A R E A H , T H E M E D I E VA L P O T T E R Y 4 3 7

Poulsen, V. 1957. Les poteries. In: Riis, P.J. and Poulsen, V., eds. Hama. Fouilles et récherchés, 1931–1938, T. IV.2: Les verreries et poteries médievales. Copenhagen: 117–283. Prag, K. 2017. The Pottery from the Excavations. In: Clamer, C., Prag, K. and Humbert, J.-B., eds. Colegio del Pilar: Excavations in Jerusalem, Christian Quarter, 1996. Leuven. Raphael, K. 2018. Jerusalem, the Old City: Second Tempe Period Quarry and a Medieval Building. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 130. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. aspx?id=25480&mag_id=126 (accessed 25/03/2020) Re’em, A. and Forestani, R. 2017. Jerusalem, Old City, Muristan. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129 http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=25216&mag_id=125 (accessed 28/05/2017). Saller, S. 1946. Discoveries at St. John’s: >Ein Karim, 1941–1942. Jerusalem. Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim. Leipzig. Seligman, J. 2001. Yet Another Medieval Tower and Section of Jerusalem’s Ancient Walls (Armenian Patriarchate Road). >Atiqot 42: 261–276. Smith, R.H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis I. Wooster. Stern, E.J. 2017. Pottery from the Mamluk–Early Ottoman and Late-Ottoman Periods from Khirbat Yamma (Yaḥam) with Insights on Regionalism and Imports. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/images//YammaPottery.pdf (accessed 28/05/2017). Stern, E.J. and Waksman, S.Y. 2003. Pottery from Crusader Acre: A Typological and Analytical Study. In: Bakirtzis, C., ed. VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Athens: 167–180. Tushingham, A.D. 1985. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. I: Excavations in the Armenian Garden of the Western Hill. Toronto. Vriezen, K.J.H. 1994. Die Ausgrabungen unter der erlöserkirche im Muristan Jerusalem, 1970–1974 (ADPV 19). Weisbaden. Walker, B.J. and LaBianca, Ø. 2003. The Islamic Qusur of Tall Hisbān: Preliminary Report on the 1998 and 2000 Seasons. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 47: 433–471. Weksler-Bdolah, S. and Avissar, M. 2015. An Excavation in the Courtyard of the Knights’ Palace Hotel in the Christian Quarter, the Old City of Jerusalem. >Atiqot 80: 67–108 (Hebrew). Wightman, G.J. 1989. The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem: Excavations by C.M. Bennett and J.B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964–66 (BAR International Series No. 519). Oxford. Wilson, C.W. and Warren, C. 1871. The Recovery of Jerusalem: A Narrative of Exploration and Discovery in the City and the Holy Land. London. Zori, N. 1966. The House of Kyrios Leontis at Beth Shean. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 123–134.

CHAPTER 22

AREA H THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

Five copper-alloy coins were uncovered in Area H, all found in the same context (Locus 20), the upper level of debris in Square 2. The coins were registered under the same basket (Reg. No. 157). The late chronological horizon of most of the coins, which dated to the 13th and 14th centuries CE, is consistent with the pottery found in Locus 20, as well as a pit (Locus 23) at the very upper level of the square with complete and restorable medieval pottery vessels (see Chapter 21). The excavators associate the Mamluk finds with the construction of the staircase leading down to the Spring House, and with the pointed vault above the Gihon Spring. 1. Permit A-2833; Reg. no. 157; Locus 20 Alexander Jannaeus, Jerusalem, 80/79 BCE and later. Obv. Anchor in circle. Rev. [- - -] Eight-pointed star. Æ, 0.93 g, 11 × 13 mm. Cf. TJC: 210, subgroup Locus 7. 2. Permit A-2833; Reg. no. 157; Locus 20 Al-Kamil Sayf al-Dīn Sha’ban I (AH 746–747/1345–1346 CE). Obv. ‫[\ الملك الكامل‬- - -] Rev. \ [‫\ وسبعماية] [في] سنة سبع واربعين ضرب بدمشق‬ Æ fals, 2.54 g, 16 × 18 mm. Cf. Balog 1964: 179, Nos. 303–304. 3. Permit A-2833; Reg. no. 157; Locus 20 Unclear Mamlūk ruler, 13th century CE. Obv. [- - -] ‫الملك الكامل‬ Rev. [- - -] ‫الالله‬ Æ fals, 0.90 g, 17 mm. 4. Permit A-2833; Reg. no. 157; Locus 20 Unclear Mamlūk ruler, 14th century CE. Obv. and Rev. illegible. Æ fals, 1.20 g, 12 × 18 mm. Cut half coin.

AREA H, THE COINS 439

5. Permit A-2833; Reg. no. 157; Locus 20 Maḥmūd II (>Ādli) (AH 1223–1255/1808–1839 CE), Qustantiniye. Obv. Tughra Rev. ۱۲۲۳ / ‫ قسطنطينية‬/ ‫ في‬/ ‫منرب‬ š-Æ yirmi paralik, 0.97 g, 21 mm. Pierced. Pere 1968: 251, No. 827.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The coins were cleaned in the laboratories of the IAA by Raisa Vinitzky and Oded Reviv. I am grateful to Ariel Berman who identified Nos. 2–5.

REFERENCES Balog, P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamlūk Sultans of Egypt and Syria (Numismatic Studies 12). New York. Père, N. 1968. Coins of the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul (Turkish). TJC: Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Trans. R. Amoils. Jerusalem-Nyack, N.Y. 2001.

AREA H

INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS Index of Loci Locus

Square

Levels

Description

Period

Fig.

1

1

643.80 643.40

Layer of brown earth with some gravel

2

1

643.40 643.18

Layer of clay

Late Roman

17.2, 17.4, 17.8, 17.17

3

1

643.53 642.72

Fill of clay in space between Walls 551–553

Early Roman

17.4

4

1

-------

Combined with Locus 3

5

1

-------

Combined with Locus 3

6

1

642.65 642.00

Layer of earth and rubble

Late Roman

17.2, 17.17

7

1

642.00 641.60

Between large stones of Wall 554

Late Roman

17.2, 17.17

8

1

-------

Dismantling of Wall 552

Late Roman

9

1

-------

Cleaning top of Wall 554 and rock step

Late Roman

17.17

10

1

-------

Dismantling of Wall 551

11

1

-------

Dismantling of Wall 553

12

1

642.65 642.20

Second layer of clay

Late Roman

17.2, 17.8, 17.17

13

1

-------

Combined with Locus 12

14

1

642.60 642.00

Combined with Locus 6

Late Roman

17.8

15

1

641.50 640.25

Similar to Locus 7, overlying and to the side of rock step

Late Roman

17.8, 17.17

16

1

--------

Combined with Locus 6

Late Roman

17

1

--------

Cleaning top of rock scarp, equivalent to Locus 9

18

1

641.50 640.00

Layer of small stones between rock step and Wall 554 (the space where a stone was probably extracted)

17.2

19

1

640.00 638.75

Earth at bottom of square, above collapsed stones from Wall 554 and abutting it from the north

17.1, 17.8, 17.17

20

2

645.80 644.40

Cleaning the area after removal of modern layers. Concentration of Medieval pottery abutting Wall 557 from the north

Medieval

21

2

644.05 643.15

Uppermost layer of debris removed by mechanical equipment

Medieval

17.2, 17.4, 17.8, 17.17

17.17

A R E A H , I N D E X O F L O C I A N D WA L L S 4 4 1

Locus

Square

Levels

Description

Period

Fig.

22

2

643.30 642.27– 642.62

Layer of clay (upper edge not traced on section, concealed by wooden supports)

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

23

2

643.45 643.15

Pit with medieval pottery (boundaries not traced on section, concealed by wooden supports)

Medieval

17.17

24

2

642.27– 642.02 641.75

Layer of debris and small stones between layers of clay (parallel to Locus 6)

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

25

2

641.75 641.70

Layer of clay (absent in Square 1)

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

26

2

641.70 641.00

Fill of earth and small stones

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

27

2

641.00 640.88

Fourth layer of clay

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

28

2

640.88 640.20

Fill of earth and small stones

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

29

2

640.20 639.65

Fifth layer of clay. Thick layer sealing Walls 554, 555

Late Roman

17.2, 17.16, 17.17

30

2

639.45 638.75

Fill of earth and stones north of Wall 554

Late Roman

17.1, 17.16, 17.17

31

2

639.05 638.00

Fill of earth and stones east of Wall 555

Iron IIB–C

17.1, 17.2

32

2

638.75 638.07

Earth, stones and ash between fallen stone boulders

Iron IIB–C

17.16, 17.17

33

2

-

Canceled

34

2

-

Canceled

35

2

-

Canceled

36

2

Equivalent to Locus 23

Medieval

Index of Walls No.

Square

Levels

Remarks

Plans and section

551

1

643.53 642.75

Fig. 17.4

552

1

643.34 642.72

Figs. 17.4, 17.8

553

1

643.20 642.72

Figs. 17.4, 17.17

554 (= Wall 105)

1, 2

642.62 [638.00]

Northern wall of Spring Tower

Figs. 17.1, 17.2, 17.8

555 (= Wall 104

2

640.88 [638.10]

Eastern wall of Spring Tower

Figs. 17.1, 17.16

CHAPTER 23

AREA D STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron

In June, 1996, a small salvage excavation was carried out on the south side of the eastern slope of the City of David. This small excavation, labeled Area D (see Figs. 2.4, 3.1), was conducted beneath and slightly to the south of the foundations of the southern part of the modern house known as Beit Meyuhas (Weill 1920: Pl. III: maison moderne; reproduced in Reich 2004: Pl. III), the foundations of which had become unstable and needed reinforcement. In 1994, a similar salvage excavation had been carried out by Billig (1999: 62) on the eastern edge of the same house. The site is located on the eastern edge of a flat rock step, which then descends into the Kidron Valley.

BEDROCK The entire excavated area (maximum 6 × 4.5 m) was located on an ancient quarry covered by brown earth (Figs. 23.1–23.4). From the separation and severance channels, it was possible to discern the size of the extracted stones, which produced medium-sized ashlars, ca. 0.90 × 1.30, 1.40 × 1.90, 0.80–1.00 m thick. At this location and level, the limestone of the Meleke Formation was exposed (Gill 1996: 9–10; Figs. 3, 4), which seems to have been the reason this quarry was exploited. The size of the blocks mentioned, as well as the type of the quarried rock, indicates that the stones were used in public building operations.

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE The main feature exposed in Area D was the quarry; as noted above it occupied the entire excavated area, extending beyond the excavation limits in all directions. The quarry exposed in Area D is the southern extension of the quarries uncovered by Weill immediately to the north of Beit Meyuhas in 1913–1914 (Weill 1920: Pls. III, Q1, XXI). It appears that this part of the quarry was abandoned when the Meleke layers were exhausted. It is important to note that a large number of bronze coins was uncovered in the debris (Locus 463) that sealed the western side of the quarry (see Chapter 25), in addition to a small number of pottery sherds (see Chapter 24). As all of the coins originated from a single location, they may be defined as a hoard or cache, despite the lack of evidence as to the method of hoarding. In the western part of the area, small segments of walls survived (Walls 361 and 362, see plan and sections in Figs. 23.1, 23.5–23.7), built of small- and medium-sized fieldstones. No traces of floors or other elements to directly date these walls were extant.

DATING The date of the quarry was securely determined in Weill’s excavations. The large quarry, or at least part of it, postdates the Early Roman period, as it cuts a stepped ritual bath (miqweh) (Installations P1 and P2 on Weill 1920: Pls. III, XVII, XXB; see Figs. 23.8, 23.9), a cultural feature found in Jerusalem only in the Early Roman period (Reich 1980: 244–247; 2013: 116–118).

446 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON 2

L462

649.29

W362

L463

1

L465 649.06

648.91

W361

1

648.66

L464

2 m

0

2

1-1 651

00

650

00

649

00

648

00

648.91

W361

W362

L463

2-2 651

00

650

00

649

00

648

00

Figure 23.1: Plan and cross-sections.

W362

A R E A D , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 4 7

W3

62

Figure 23.2: View of quarry remains, looking south.

W362

W361

Figure 23.3: Walls 361 and 362 built on abandoned quarry, looking west.

448 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 23.4: Quarrying marks on bedrock, looking north.

W

W 36 1

Figure 23.5: General view, looking southeast.

36

2

W

36

2

A R E A D , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 4 9

W3

61

Figure 23.6: General view, looking northeast.

Figure 23.7: Walls 361 and 362 built on abandoned quarry, looking northwest.

The debris that sealed the quarry yielded pottery sherds and coins. The sherds found in Loci 462–465 are mixed, including Iron II, 1st century BCE and 1st century CE pottery. However, the latest pottery found in these fills dates to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods (Fig. 23.10, see Chapter 24). Of particular importance is Locus 463, which sealed the quarry’s western side, yielding mostly Byzantine pottery, as well as six coins from the 5th–7th centuries CE (see Chapter 25). This provides a terminus ante quem for the quarry, which could not have been in use in the late Byzantine period. Furthermore, in most other excavation areas farther uphill, extensive Early Roman period remains were found (see Chapter 2). The lack of such remains in Area D, as well as in the area exposed by Weill (save for the lower parts of water cisterns and miqwa’ot—Weill 1920; Reich 2004: 129–132, 140–145; 2013: 116–118) suggest that they were removed subsequent to the Early Roman period, in order to expose bedrock for the sake of utilizing the quarry. Although any date within the Late Roman and the Byzantine periods may be given, it seems more likely that the quarry was used in the Byzantine period (see below).

450 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 23.8: Weill’s excavation, looking northeast. Note quarry cutting through miqweh.

Figure 23.9: Weill’s excavation, looking northwest.

A R E A D , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 5 1

Figure 23.10: Northern edge of the quarry, looking northeast. Note the debris in the section.

DISCUSSION The excavations in Area D yielded remains of a different nature than those exposed in most areas of excavation on the eastern slope of the City of David. The thick mantle of debris that covered the entire eastern slope of the City of David, which was encountered in Weill’s, Kenyon’s, Shiloh’s and our excavations of Areas A, C, H, J and L (Reich and Shukron 2003), was totally missing in Area D. The thick dumped deposit on the slope contained almost only pottery sherds of the Early Roman period (mainly 1st century BCE and 1st century CE) and was only occasionally covered with a very thin deposit which contained some Late Roman pottery. It appears that in order to access the bedrock for quarrying, the building remains as well as the layers of refuse which had accumulated along the eastern slope, were pushed downslope into the Kidron Valley. While it was suggested that the entire thick mantle of debris covering the slopes was the outcome of such activities (Shiloh 1984: 30), it appears that the clearing of houses in the Late Roman or more likely in the Byzantine period, added only a thin layer of debris to the extremely thick deposit (in places 8–10 m thick), which was dumped upon the slopes in the 1st century CE. The clearing of the bedrock after 70 CE, which removed all the layers that had accumulated in this area, was a preparatory act that exposed the rock for quarrying in the Late Roman period, or more likely in the Byzantine period. The largest building operation carried out in the vicinity in these periods known from the historical record are those undertaken under the command of Empress Eudocia (mid-5th century CE; see Pomialovsky 1895: §§ 24, 25), which include the fortifications of the southern part of the city, and the building of the Church of Siloam, parts of which were excavated by Guthe (1882: 52–133) and extensively by Bliss and Dickie (1898: 143–210; Reich 2011: 50–53). Parts of the church were recently re-excavated and are visible today (see Chapter 2).

452 RONNY REICH AND ELI SHUKRON

REFERENCES Billig, Y. 1999. Jerusalem, the City of David. Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110: 62 (Hebrew). Bliss, F.J. and Dickie, A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Gill, D. 1996. The Geology of the City of David and Its Ancient Subterranean Waterworks. In: Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations in the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 1–28. Guthe, H. 1882. Ausgrabungen Bei Jerusalem, III: Die Arbeiten am Aufstieg des Siloahkanal. Zeitschrift für des Deutschen Palãŝtina-Vereins: 7–204. Pomialovsky, J. ed. 1895. Antonini Placentini Itinerarium. St. Petersburg. Reich, R. 1980. Mishnah Sheqalim 8:2 and the Archaeological Evidence. In: Oppenheimer, A., Rappaport, U. and Stern, M., eds. Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume. Jerusalem: 225–256 (Hebrew, English summary p. xiv). Reich, R. 2004. Reassessment of R. Weill's Excavations and Notes on Vincent 1912. In: Shanks, H., ed. The City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations: English Translations of Reports by Raymond Weill and L.H. Vincent. Washington, D.C.: 123–152. Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. 2013. Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Baths) in the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift für des Deutschen Palãŝtina-Vereins:119: 12–18. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1913–1914. Paris.

CHAPTER 24

AREA D THE LATE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

The pottery assemblage described below was retrieved from earthen fills (Loci 463–465) that sealed the quarry in Area D. Since the stones had already been hewn from the quarry by the time the fill and debris accumulated above it, the fills provide a terminus ante quem for the quarry’s use. It is not possible to determine from the pottery assemblage alone whether the extraction of the stones occurred immediately before the quarry was sealed or significantly earlier; however, the excavators believe that the quarry was in use in the Late Roman period or, more likely, in the Byzantine period, suggesting that the quarry was sealed soon after its use by these fills. The vessel forms in the assemblage suggest a date within the 6th–7th centuries CE for the fills’ deposition. Of particular importance are several vessels that first appear during the 7th century CE. The fills, therefore, cannot be dated any earlier than that time.

TYPOLOGY Bowls (Fig. 24.1: 1–4)

Fine Byzantine ware bowl, Magness Form 1A (Fig. 24.1: 1): This small, locally produced bowl was common during the 6th and 7th centuries CE. It has a deep, rounded body, at times with a carination in its upper third, and a slightly thickened rim. An incised wavy line decorates the outer wall of the vessel. Many bowls of this type were made of well-levigated fine ware. Evidence of knife paring is apparent on the lower part of the outer body (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.4: 14–15; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 155). Fine Byzantine ware bowl, Magness Form 2C (Fig. 24.1: 2): This is a wide, shallow bowl with straight or rounded walls. The rim is offset and tilted out and downward. This bowl type was dated by Magness (1993: 198) to the mid-7th–9th/10th centuries, although recently, parallels have derived from slightly earlier contexts, dating to the late 6th–7th centuries CE (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.4: 26). Phocaean red slip bowl, Hayes Form 3 (Fig. 24.1: 3–4): One imported bowl, from the fine Phocaean Red Slip ware family (commonly referred to as PRS or LRC—Late Roman C ware), is wide and straight-walled, with a thickened, perpendicular rim. Incised vertical lines cover the outer face of the bowl below the rim. Thin red slip coats the entire vessel. From the 5th until the mid6th centuries CE, this type of bowl was the most common PRS import (Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.7: 4; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 198–202). The bowl shown in Fig. 24.1: 4 may be classified as subtype H of the PRS Form 3 bowls, dated by Hayes to the first half of the 6th century CE (Hayes 1972: 329–338; Magness 2012: Pl. 9.3: 8). Basin (Fig. 24.1: 5)

A large, thick-walled basin with an outdrawn rim was found in the assemblage (Fig. 24.1: 5). A shallow indentation encircled the junction of the rim and the body. Wavy combing decorates the

454 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

2

1

3

5

4

7

6

9

8

10

11

0

5

10

12

Figure 24.1: Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery No.

Vessel

Basket

Locus

Description

1

Bowl

5072/6

464

Light ware, lower exterior smoothed by knife paring

2

Bowl

5074/9

463

Light ware

3

Bowl

5074/10

463

Red slip on exterior and interior, rouletted decoration on outer body

4

Bowl

5073/18

465

Black slip on rim and upper exterior

5

Basin

5074/14

463

Thick, gritty ware. Combed wavy decoration on exterior

6

Bowl lid

5074/12

463

Several shades of hue between brown and gray, as a result of firing

7

Casserole

5074/16

463

Dark brown, coarse and brittle ware, white incrustation inside

8

Casserole

5074/2

463

Dark brown coarse and brittle ware, ribbed exterior

9

Amphora

5074/18

463

Light slip on exterior

10

Jar

5073/8

465

Combing decoration and smeared clay on body exterior

11

Jug

5074/7

463

Light brown ware

12

Roof tile

5074/3

463

Thin (12 mm) tile. Brown ware, gray core

A R E A D , T H E L AT E R O M A N A N D B Y Z A N T I N E P O T T E R Y 4 5 5

outer walls of the vessel. This basin was originally categorized by Magness (1993: 33–34) as Form 2 of the arched rim basins. Though previously dated later, recent excavations have uncovered basins of this type in contexts dated as early as the 4th century CE (Mazar and Gordon 2007: 150–151, 154–155; Balouka 2013: 153; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 116–119). Bowl Lid (Fig. 24.1: 6)

This bell-shaped bowl lid has typical rounded walls, a thickened rim and light ribbing on the body (Fig. 24.1: 6). Some vessels of this type are carinated in the upper part. These bowl lids have tall ring bases, which were used as handles. It has been suggested that the workshop excavated in Naḥal Refaim, dating to the 4th–5th centuries CE, was the production center of lids of this form (Magness 2006: 185–186). Many parallels of this vessel have been found in Roman and Byzantine contexts in Jerusalem, dating to the 4th–mid-6th centuries CE (Magness 2006: Pl. 7.2; Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.6: 6, 14; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Fig. I.5.1: 31–38). Casseroles (Fig. 24.1: 7, 8)

Casseroles are represented in the assemblage by both the base (Fig. 24.1: 7) and upper part (Fig. 24.1: 8) of such vessels. These casseroles were thin-walled, rounded or straight bowls, with a cut, flattened or simple rim. The base shown here appears to be rounded or flat. Casseroles were widespread for a long period of time, with the form remaining almost unchanged from the 2nd to the 9th centuries CE (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Pl. 15.8: 13, 15.10: 13; Magness 2012: 9.2: 5–8; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Pl. I.5.1: 81–87). Magness (1993: 211–214) categorized the casseroles into subtypes based on the shape of the handles. The fragments presented here lack evidence of handles and therefore cannot be attributed to a specific subtype. Amphora (Fig. 24.1: 9)

A thickened, conical base of an amphora was found (Fig. 24.1: 9). The base has a thin layer of lightyellow slip and outer ribbing. It is not possible to attribute this fragment to a specific type of amphora. Gazan Jar (Fig. 24.1: 10)

This jar type is often referred to as a Gazan jar, relating to its production origin along the southern coast of Israel. Jars of this type were common over a wide time span, beginning towards the end of the 1st century CE and continuing until the end of the 8th century. Gazan jars have been categorized into subtypes based on the development of the rim and body (Majcherek 1995). Typically, these jars had a narrow body, a thickened rim and two ring handles attached on the shoulders. On most vessels, excess pieces of clay were attached or spread below the outer rim. The example illustrated here (Fig. 24.1: 10) is of the shoulder of a jar. The small fragment cannot be attributed to a specific subtype of the jar. Jug (Fig. 24.1: 11)

This jug type features a thickened, flattened rim with an inner indentation (Fig. 24.1: 11). The neck is wide, tall and flaring. Based on parallels, a handle rising above the rim extended from the rim to the upper shoulder. Parallels were dated to the 6th–7th centuries CE (Adler and Peleg 2007: Pl. 2.3: 1–2; Magness 2012: Pl. 9.5: 12; Fleitman and Mazar 2015: Pl. I.5.1: 163–166). Roof Tile (Fig. 24.1: 12)

A fragment of a convex roof tile was found (Fig. 24.1: 12). This convex tile (imbrex) was placed above the flat tiles (tegulae). The example shown here has a flattened ledge rim. Imbrices of this

456 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

type are commonly uncovered in Byzantine contexts in Jerusalem and its environs, dating to the 5th–7th centuries CE (Pele 2003: Pl. I.20; Balouka 2013: Pl. 6.4: 14).

DISCUSSION The fill sealing the quarry yielded the pottery assemblage presented above, as well as a considerable number of small bronze coins. A few of the retrieved coins were dateable, most to the 5th–7th centuries CE (see Chapter 25). The latest date suggested by the coins correlates well with the dating of the pottery assemblage. The ceramic assemblage encountered from the fill contained vessel types commonly found in Late Roman and Byzantine contexts. The latest forms comprising the assemblage are dated, as were the coins, to the late 6th–7th centuries CE. The information provided by the archaeological finds can only attest to the time the quarry was covered and no longer in use. These finds suggest that the quarry was abandoned and filled no later than the late Byzantine period, though it is impossible to know how long the quarry was in use before it was sealed. A more precise date of the actual use of the quarry is undeterminable based merely on the ceramic and numismatic evidence (see Chapter 23).

REFERENCES Adler, N. and Peleg, O. 2007. The Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Building in Area XVI. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem: 23–34. Balouka, M. 2013. The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot). Jerusalem: 151–166. Fleitman, Y. and Mazar, E. 2015. The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the 2012–2013 Excavation Seasons: Areas Upper A, B and C. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013, Final Reports: Vol. I. Jerusalem. 211–292. Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London. Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9). Sheffield. Magness, J. 2006. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Magness, J. 2012. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the Cardo and the Nea Church. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T). Jerusalem: 229–238. Majcherek, G. 1995. Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered. In: Meyza, H. and Mùynarczyk, J., eds. Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean, Advances in Scientific Studies. Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Nieborów, 18–20 December 1993. Warsaw: 163–178. Mazar, E. and Gordon, B. 2007. The Pottery from the Peristyle and Southern Houses. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem: 149–176. Pele, O. 2003. Roof Tiles of the Byzantine Period from Area XV. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 43). Jerusalem: 23–34.

CHAPTER 25

AREA D THE COINS Donald T. Ariel

A total of 199 coins were uncovered in Area D, Locus 463, a fill that sealed the western portion of the exposed area of the ancient quarry. Significant parts of the same quarry were uncovered by Weill in 1913–1914. Forty-six of the coins were cleaned and 11 of these were identified (see below). The coin finds from Locus 463, registered on the day they were found (June 9, 1996), coincide with the ceramic evidence (see Chapter 24), which indicates that the quarrying most likely occurred in the Byzantine period, but prior to the end of the 6th century CE, when the quarry was sealed by Fill 463. 1. Permit A-2236 ; Reg. No. 5075; Locus 463 First Jewish Revolt, Jerusalem, 67/8 CE Obv. ‫ ש[נת שת]ים‬Amphora Rev. Illegible Æ, 1.60 g, 16 mm Cf. TJC:241, No. 196 2. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 5075; Locus 463 Roman Provincial, 1st–2nd century CE? Obv. Bust r. Rectangular countermark: [letters?] Rev. Illegible Æ, 6.68 g, 25 mm 3. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 463; Locus 5075 4th century CE Obv. [- - -] Bust r Rev. [- - -] Figure to l Æ, 5, 0.68 g, 11 mm Possibly 383–395 CE 4. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 5075; Locus 463 4th century CE? Obv. [- - -] Bust r Rev. Illegible Æ, 0.89 g, 15 mm

4 5 8 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

5. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 463; Locus 5075 4th century CE? Obv. Illegible [- - -] Figure to l? Æ, 0.40 g, 10 × 12 mm 6. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 463; Locus 5075. Anastasius I, Constantinople, 498–518 CE Obv. [- - -] Diademed, cuirassed bust r., with paludamentum Rev. K(?) To l., cross; to r., remains of star; beneath: Э (?); in exergue: COИ. Traces of a crescent (?) punch mark (?) Æ half follis?, 6?, 4.28 g, 21 mm Cf. DOC 1:13, No. 18 7. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 463; Locus 5075 Justinian I, Cyzicus, 561/2 CE Obv. [- - -] Diademed, cuirassed bust r., with paludamentum Rev. I To l., [A]/N/N/[O]; above, cross; to r.: X/XX/; in exergue: [K]V Æ decanummium, 3, 1.64 g 14 mm Cf. DOC 1:132, No. 196l. 8. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 463; Locus 5075 Maurice Tiberius (582–602 CE), Constantinople Obv. [- - -] Bust facing, in cuirass and crown with cross, holding globus cruciger Rev. K To l., A/N/N/O; above, cross; to r: X[··]; beneath: A Æ half follis, 6, 4.50 g, 23×25 mm Cf. DOC 1:335, No. 142 9. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 5075; Locus 463 5th–6th century CE Obv. [- - -] Bust r Rev. Illegible Æ, 0.68 g, 11 mm 10. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 5075; Locus 463 6th century CE, Alexandria Obv. [- - -] Bust r Rev. I and B flanking cross; in exergue: ΑΛΕ[ξ] Æ dodecanummium, 0, 0.64 g, 11 mm Imitation 11. Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 5075; Locus 463 6th–7th century CE Obv. Two figures stg.? Rev. K(?) Æ half follis?, 3.96 g, 20 mm

AREA D, THE COIN 459

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Coins were cleaned in the laboratories of the IAA by Hila Rosenstein, Ludmila Strokanov and Raisa Vinitzky.

REFERENCES DOC 1: Bellinger, A.R. 1966. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, Vol. I: Anastasius I to Maurice 491–602. Washington, D.C. TJC: Meshorer, Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Translated by R. Amoils. Jerusalem–Nyack.

AREA D

INDEX OF LOCI AND WALLS Index of Loci Locus no.

Levels

Description

Period

Fig.

462

651.05 649.00

Brown debris covering quarry in northern part of area

6th–7th centuries CE

23.1

463

649.00 648.35

Brown debris sealing western part of quarry; 199 coins found in hoard just above bedrock

6th–7th centuries CE

23.1

464

649.00 648.30

Brown debris sealing quarry in eastern part of area

6th–7th centuries CE

23.1

465

649.00 648.40

Brown debris sealing quarry

6th–7th centuries CE

23.1

Index of Walls Wall no.

Levels

Description

Fig.

361

649.20 648.38

Wall built of dry masonry using small- to medium-sized fieldstones. Built into quarry; creating corner with Wall 362

23.1

362

648.97 648.57

Wall built of dry masonry using small- to medium-sized fieldstones. Built into quarry; creating corner with Wall 361

23.1

CHAPTER 26

AREA L STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Ronny Reich, Guy Bar-Oz and Eli Shukron

Along the eastern slope of the City of David, ca. 150 m north of the Gihon Spring and opposite the “Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter ” (Figs. 2.4, 3.1), a deep trench formed as a result of damage to a gutter, that drains water from the Dung Gate and Ophel Road (Figs. 26.1–26.4). Due to damage to the gutter, waters flowed down to the Kidron Valley over a period of several years, penetrating the slope and creating a deep ravine (Fig. 26.1). The ravine—labeled Area L—was approximately 7–8 m deep at its lowest spot, occupying about two thirds of the lower slope. When the ravine was first surveyed at the beginning of the 20th century, some artifacts were collected. Subsequently, a small sample of debris was sifted, followed by a focused study dedicated to the research of this dump, based on the wet sifting and hand picking of artifacts collected from the debris.1 The results of this project were published in various studies (Bouchnick, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; 2006; 2007; Bouchnick et al. 2006; 2009; Reich and Bar-Oz 2006; Weiss et al. 2006; Bar-Oz et al. 2007; Hartman et al. 2013). Following the archaeological work in Area L, the depth of the ravine grew significantly (Figs. 26.4, 26.5; Reich 2011: 219–225), until the the municipality of Jerusalem repaired the damaged gutter and filled the ravine with earth in the early part of 2010. An examination of the sections and the debris found in the Kidron Valley (Figs. 26.6– 26.8), which originated from the slope, yielded interesting data, including earth, rubble, small stones (not larger than 10–20 cm), broken artifacts and other anthropogenic waste which had accumulated on the slope as a result of the dumping of refuse. Pottery was the most common artifact found, although fragments of stone vessels, glass, and broken animal bones were also present. Other than a single wall (Wall 1; Figs. 26.9–26.11) exposed at the uppermost edge of the ravine, no traces of architecture were found (Section 1–1). The debris extracted from this section was wet sifted en bloc without issuing loci numbers (see Chapter 3). The primary archaeological feature exposed in this ravine was a thick layer of debris (8–10 m thick) which had been dumped down the slope. In this respect, this section resembles others that were exposed further south (e.g., Areas A, B, C and J; also noted by Weill [1920: 96, and n. 2, 194–195],2 Macalister and Duncan [1926: Fig. 46], Kenyon [1974: 132, Pl. 44] and Shiloh [Cahill and Tarler 1994: 42]). More recently (2013 onwards), Gadot has conducted extensive excavations in order to examine the same dump (Gadot 1    

2    

The project was carried out by Bar-Oz, Bouchnick, Lernau and Reich on behalf of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa (Permit G-27/2005). The project was supported by a grant of the National Geographic Society (Grant No. 7894-05). Part of the Weill excavation’s dumped debris was sifted and studied by Amit and Adler (2007). See also Chapter 2. Note that this debris consisted of both remains from the city dump and from the other stratified layers he excavated.

464 RONNY REICH, GUY BAR-OZ AND ELI SHUKRON

2014; Machline and Gadot 2017). Area L is located 150 m north of the Gihon Spring, as opposed to Gadot’s excavations, which are some 200 m south of the spring (see Fig. 2.4). The nature and chronological attribution of these layers indicates that the various excavations exposed portions of the same feature—the Early Roman period city dump (see Chapter 48). As noted above, a wall (Wall 1) was noted in the upper part of the section, running from north to south, following the topographical contours of the hill. It was constructed of small (30–40 cm) fieldstones, without mortar in between the stones. Within the ravine, 5–6 courses survived, although an additional 4–5 courses were noted in the northern section. The layers of debris cover the wall, abutting its eastern face, indicating that the wall predated the dumping activities, which occurred in the Early Roman period (see further discussion below).

P345

Modern Manhole

2 1 1

W

669.00

2

1

0

Figure 26.1: Plan of Area L.

5 m

A R E A L , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 6 5

Figure 26.2: Northern part of the eastern slope of the City of David, looking north; the ravine of Area L is seen mid-slope. The southeastern corner of the Temple Mount is in the background.

Figure 26.3: Eastern slope of the City of David, with Area L on the right, looking southwest.

466 RONNY REICH, GUY BAR-OZ AND ELI SHUKRON

CONTENTS OF THE DEBRIS As noted above, the most common find in the debris was pottery sherds, followed by faunal remains. These artifacts are discussed in Chapters 27 and 28 respectively. Beyond the pottery and fauna, other remains were found in the debris, including stone and rubble, plaster, coins, tesserae, cooking installations, stone vessels and glass. These are discussed below. Stones and rubble: It appears that stones used for construction were not discarded in the city dump; none were noted in the Area L sections, or in the published sections and photographs of the Macalister and Duncan, Kenyon and Shiloh expeditions (Macalister and Duncan 1926: Fig. 46; Kenyon 1974: Pl. 44; Shiloh 1984: Pls. 18.1, 36.2). It appears that as the private houses were exclusively constructed using nari stones quarried in the vicinity, it is likely that the construction stones from destroyed houses would have been recycled and reused in new houses, hence their absence in the city dump. That said, fieldstones, broken stones and loose debris were cleared from residential areas and sent to the city dump. Therefore, it seems that damage and repair to houses would have led to the reuse of building stones, but not other building materials (such as fieldstones) which could have easily been replaced.

Figure 26.4: Eastern slope of the City of David with Area L on the left and the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount in the background, looking northwest.

Figure 26.5: General view of the city dump with the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount in the background looking north. Area L is in the center.

A R E A L , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 6 7

Figure 26.6: General view of Area L, with Al-Aqsa Mosque in background, looking northwest.

Figure 26.7: Closeup of Area L, looking west.

Wall plaster: The stone walls of the Jerusalem houses were usually coated with white lime plaster (e.g., Avigad 1983: Figs. 83, 87–89, 100–101). Fragments of white wall plaster were observed in the city dump, as the very distinct flat smooth face often survived. Occasionally, faint remnants of color survived, which belonged to walls painted in the fresco/secco techniques, which were in use in the mansions of Jerusalem of the 1st century CE, similar to those excavated in the Upper City (Avigad 1983: Figs. 166–174; Rosenberg 2003). Tesserae: Mosaic floors were a common feature in upper class houses of Early Roman Jerusalem. Typically, two types of rooms had such floors: dining halls (triclinia) and washing rooms (Avigad 1983: Figs. 100, 160–165). The presence of loose tesserae in the city dump supports the notion that certain building materials were recycled, while others—tesserae, fieldstones and plaster—were discarded. Cooking installations: Cooking installations, such as stoves (kira, kirayim in Rabbinic literature) and ovens (tanurs; erroneously named tabuns in scholarly treatises; see Dalman 1935: 73–140) were very common in Early Roman Jerusalem. They were constructed from mud or wet Terra Rossa earth. A daily process of heating and cooling pertaining to these installations slowly fired the mud into brittle terra cotta. Usually, in archaeological excavations, only the bottoms of these installations are discovered in situ as the upper portions frequently disintegrated or collapsed, and had to be constructed anew. The installation would then be replaced by constructing a new one next to the old one, or even into the remains of the older one. The fragments of the collapsed installations could then be discarded in the city dump. Remains of such installations were discovered in various

468 RONNY REICH, GUY BAR-OZ AND ELI SHUKRON

Figure 26.8: View through Area L towards the Kidron Valley, looking southeast. 678 00

P343

Figure 26.9: Area L, Wall 1 at the top of the ravine, looking northwest.

677 00 676 00 675 00 674 00 673 00 672 00 671 00 670 00 669 00 668 00 667 00 666 00 665 00 664 00 663 00 662 00 661 00 660 00 659 00 658 00 657 00 656 00 655 00 654 00

Figure 26.10: Area L, southern section of ravine.

W1

P346 A R E A L , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 6 9

669 00

W1

668 00

667 00

666 00

Figure 26.11: Western section showing Wall 1.

locations in the Upper City (appearing as circles on the plans, with a diameter of 40 cm on average; Avigad 1983: 64, 118, 120, 121, 137; Reich 2003a). A large number of stoves and ovens (some 230!) was found within the dwellings of the Sicarii on Masada (Reich 2003b). Stone vessels: Several fragments of stone vessels were retrieved, although only two rims were found, constituting a very small percentage of the finds. This is somewhat surprising, as the excavations in Area D yielded a much higher percentage of stone vessel fragments (Adler and Gadot 2016). Only two rims were found in Area L—a significantly small number when considering the ubiquity of stone vessels in private houses in Jerusalem in this particular period (see, e.g., Avigad 1983: 106–7, 125–7, Fig. 125, 131, 141; Reich 2003c). The small number of stone vessel fragments found in Area L is most probably due to the fact that stone vessels are far less fragile than pottery vessels; hence, while they are abundant in domestic buildings, in the city dump they ended up only in small numbers.

COINS The sifting of sediment from Area L yielded 126 coins. Of these, 52 were cleaned and 47 were identified (Table 26.1).3 All of the coins are bronze prutot minted in Jerusalem. The coins can be divided into several chronological categories: Alexander Jannaeus (15 coins); Agrippa I (14 coins); Nero (11 coins); Year 2 of the First Jewish Revolt, i.e., 67 CE (four coins); and Year 3 of the First Jewish Revolt, i.e., 68 CE (one coin). These findings date the dump to the 1st century CE. This is largely in accordance with the finds of the southern portions of the city dump, which were also dated to this period (Ariel 1990: 114–115; Gadot 2016: 158). However, one distinct difference can be noted, as the southern portions of the city dump did not yield any coins from the Jewish Revolt. It may be cautiously suggested that the proximity of Area L to the Temple Mount and the public areas around it (streets, monumental staircases) are the reason that these late coins were found specifically here, likely the outcome of cleaning activity in these areas in the troubled days of the Revolt and siege, while the city itself, and particularly the domestic areas, gradually fell into neglect. The numismatic evidence gives the impression that the city dump reflects two specific periods within the 1st century CE—the first in the days of Agrippa I, and the second during the procuratorship 3    

The coins were identified for dating purposes by Yaniv Sfez. As this was limited to a sifting project and not an excavation, it was decided to note in this chapter only the dates obtained from the coins.

470 RONNY REICH, GUY BAR-OZ AND ELI SHUKRON

of Festus in the days of Nero. It is possible that special care was devoted to garbage disposal and sanitation during this time. Subsequent to the encompassing numismatic studies by Ariel (1982) and Gitler (1996; 2003), and with the publication of numerous coin catalogs from excavated sites in Jerusalem in recent years, a new overall numismatic study is in order. Such a study may consider similarities and differences in the numismatic assemblages of private houses with that of the public areas and city dump. This, however, is beyond the scope of this report. Table 26.1: Identified Coins from Area L No.

IAA Reg. no.

Minting authority

Date

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

1

164664

Jannaeus

104–76 BCE

1.77

15.5–14

2

164646

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.62

12–9

3

164657

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.68

11–10.5

4

164659

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.47

12–0

5

164662

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.58

13–9

6

164665

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.71

8

7

164666

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.65

11

8

164667

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.37

12–10

9

164668

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

1.04

13

10

164669

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.32

10–9

11

164670

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

1.11

13

12

164671

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

1.06

13

13

164672

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

1.13

15.5–13

14

164681

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.36.

9

15

164656

Jannaeus

76–79/80 BCE

0.54

11

16

164655

Tiberius (Valerius Gratus)

15/16 CE

1.87

17–16

12

17

164654

Tiberius (Pontius Pilate)

30/31 CE

1.85

15

12

18

164647

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.47

17–16

12

19

164648

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.07

16

12

20

164650

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.13

16

12

21

164653

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.79

18

12

22

164658

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

1.89

16

12

23

164660

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.44

17–16

12

24

164661

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

1.91

17

12

25

164663

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

3.2

18–16

1

26

164678

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.48

16–15

12

27

164679

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.98

17

Axis

A R E A L , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 7 1

No.

IAA Reg. no.

Minting authority

Date

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Axis

28

164680

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.52

18–17

12

29

164684

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

3.23

18–17

10

30

164686

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.46

18–17

31

164687

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

2.16

18–17

32

164673

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

1.85

16–15

10

33

164674

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.32

17

12

34

164675

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.4

17

12

35

164676

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.22

17–15

11

36

164677

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.2

16–15.5

6

37

164685

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.13

15

2

38

164688

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

1.67

16

11

39

164689

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.45

17–16

12

40

164690

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

1.82

16–15

10

41

164691

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.15

17–16

6

42

164692

Nero (Festus?)

58/59 CE

2.41

16–15

12

43

164651

Jewish war

67 CE

2.54

17.5–17

12

44

164652

Jewish war

67 CE

2.97

18–17

12

45

164682

Jewish war

67 CE

3.47

19

12

46

164683

Jewish war

67 CE

3.59

17–16

6

47

164649

Jewish war

68 CE

2.23

17–16

12

Glass: A small amount of very tiny glass fragments was retrieved from sifting the debris in Area L. This scant amount is a result of the careful handling of such vessels in antiquity. There is a possibility that broken glass objects were kept for recycling. Fragments which did end up in the city dump were probably further crushed as they rolled downslope. Finally, the glass fragments which were deposited in the city dump were subject to extensive weathering in the open air, as well as detrition within the debris along the slope. Varia: Fragments of two perforated, undecorated, small dome-shaped bone discs were found. Unfortunately, these items were lost and cannot be included in this report, however, such items are commonly found in archaeological excavations (Avigad 1983: Fig. 236). In addition, a few shapeless, tiny bronze fragments, which seem to be part of some fittings, were found. The small number of bronze implements found point to the fact that scrap metal was also gathered for recycling and did not find its way to the city dump.

CONCLUSIONS The chance discovery of Jerusalem’s Early Roman (1st century CE) city dump provided the first opportunity to conduct a quantitative analysis of garbage components that present us with a snapshot of the mundane daily life that Jerusalemites led, and the kind of animals that were featured in their

472 RONNY REICH, GUY BAR-OZ AND ELI SHUKRON

diet. Most of the garbage consists of pottery sherds, all common tableware, with prestige objects entirely absent. Other significant garbage components include numerous fragments of cooking ovens, wall plaster and animal bones. Of the pottery vessels, cooking pots are the most abundant type. Most of the refuse can be defined as “household garbage” originating in the domestic areas of the city, some of it added by cleaning the public areas encircling the Temple Mount area. The large numbers of cooking pots may point to both domestic garbage and the garbage added by pilgrims. Significantly, the faunal assemblage, which is dominated by kosher species and the clear absence of pigs, set Jerusalem apart from all other contemporaneous Roman urban centers.

REFERENCES Adler, Y. and Gadot, Y. 2016. A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frequencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City’s Garbage Dump. Israel Exploration Journal 66: 202–219. Amit, D. and Adler, Y. 2007. Revisiting the 1913–1914 Weill expedition: Recent Excavation in the City of David. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David Studies on Ancient Jerusalem 2: 69–81 (Hebrew). Ariel, D.T. 1982. A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (Until the End of the Byzantine Period). Liber Annus 32: 273–326. Ariel, D.T. 1990. Coins, Flans and Flan Moulds. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem: 99–118. Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnik, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D. and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2004. Animal Bone Remains from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 10. Ramat-Gan: 71–80, (Hebrew, English abstract p. 50*). Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2006. Faunal Remains from the Late Second Temple Period: A View from the Village Burnat and Jerusalem City Dump Assemblages. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies in Jerusalem 12: 109–122 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 16). Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2007. Jewish Fingerprints on Animal Bone Remains from the Late Second Temple City-Dump of Jerusalem. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies in Jerusalem 13: 73–85 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 21*–22*). Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G., Shukron, E. and Reich, R. 2006. More Bones from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A., eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 11. Ramat-Gan: 175–185 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 40*–41*). Bouchnick, R., Lernau, O., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2009. A Jerusalem Fish Menu from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies in Jerusalem 15: 97–117 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 10*–11*). Cahill, J. and Tarler, D. 1994. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, directed by Yigal Shiloh. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 31–45. Dalman, G. 1935. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Bd. IV. Gütersloh. Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2/3: 279–292. Gadot, Y. 2016. Urban Judaism under Roman Rule: The Dedicating of the Kidron for Garbage Disposal in the 1st Century CE. In: Stiebel, G.D., Uziel, J., Cytryn-Silverman, K., Re’em, A. and Gadot, Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 10: 149–165 (Hebrew). Gitler, H. 1996. A Comparative Study of Numismatic Evidence from Excavations in Jerusalem. Liber Annus 46: 317–362. Gitler, H. 2003. The Coins. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 453–492.

A R E A L , S T R AT I G R A P H Y A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 7 3

Hartman, G., Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R. and Reich, R. 2013. The Pilgrimage Economy of Early Roman Jerusalem (1st Century BCE–70 CE) Reconstructed from the δ15N and δ13C Values of Goat and Sheep Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 4369–4376. Kenyon, K.M. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925 (Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund 4). London. Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2017. Wading through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblages of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery 2: 102–139. Reich, R. 2003a. Fragments of Clay Stoves. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 292–295. Reich, R. 2003b. Cooking and Baking at Masada. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 140– 158. Reich, R. 2003c. Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments from Areas A, W and X2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969– 1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 263–291. Reich, R. and Bar-Oz, G. 2006. The Jerusalem City Dump in the Late Second Temple Period: A Quantitative Study. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies in Jerusalem 12: 83–98 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 14*–15*). Rosenberg, S. 2003. Wall Painting Fragments from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 302–328. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations in the City of David I, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David, Campagne de 1913–1914. Paris. Weiss, E., Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2006. A Dump Near the Temple? Two Difficulties Regarding the City Dump Adjacent to the Second Temple. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies in Jerusalem 12: 99–107 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 15).

CHAPTER 27

AREA L THE ROMAN POTTERY Tehillah Lieberman

The pottery assemblage presented below was found in 8–10 m thick earthen fills dumped along the eastern slope of the hill of the City of David in Area L. These layers of debris have been noted in several excavation areas along the eastern slope of the City of David. Examination of the fills and the various finds within them have indicated that the eastern slope was utilized as a garbage refuse area during the Early Roman period (Reich and Shukron 2003; Gadot 2014). The pottery assemblage was comprised of vessels that date to the Early Roman period, primarily the 1st century CE, though the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE are also represented. A recent study carried out in Area D3 on similar stratified fills suggests that this slope functioned as the dumping area over a wide time range, and that the earlier vessel types are not residual but rather represent the earliest phase of dumping in the area (Machline and Gadot 2017). The large quantities of vessels discarded in the dump layers are characteristic of the typical household ceramic repertoire during the Early Roman period. As opposed to the other analyzed deposits, the sediment excavated in Area L yielded only two fragments of stone vessels. This phenomenon is quite unusual when compared to the frequency of stone vessels in excavated private houses in the Upper City of Jerusalem during this period, and to the abundance of stone vessel fragments exposed in the deposits excavated in Area D3 (Gadot and Adler 2016).

TYPOLOGY Local Bowls (Fig. 27.1: 1–3)

The bowls are characterized by thin, well-fired ware. Such bowls appear abundantly throughout Jerusalem and Judea in assemblages dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE, with a variety of forms. The bowl shown in Fig. 27.1: 1 has flaring walls, a carinated body and a thickened, incurved rim. Traces of black slip are visible on the vessel’s interior. The bowl in Fig. 27.1: 2 has rounded walls and a slight carination below the upright, thickened rim, whereas the example in Fig. 27.1: 3 has a sharply carinated body with a straight, incurved rim. Traces of red slip were perceived on the vessel’s interior. Numerous examples of bowls similar to these have been exposed in Jerusalem and Judea. In the Jewish Quarter, the Tyropoeon Valley and Masada they have been dated between the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.2: 44; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 25: 1–16; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.9: 5; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 7; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.5: 1–2, 7–9; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 7: 1, 3). The absence of the common incurved bowl, defined in Jericho as “the Hasmonean bowl” commonly exposed in 2nd–1st BCE contexts (Bar-Nathan 2002: 79–80), may suggest a later date within the Early Roman period for the accumulation of these fills, possibly no earlier than the late 1st century BCE.

A R E A L, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 475

Krater

The ring illustrated in Fig. 27.1: 4 is part of the base of a krater, which consisted of three such rings. Based on parallels, the krater had a wide mouth, a grooved ledge rim and a pyriform body. Often, such kraters had painted decorations on the rim and body. Two complete kraters and several fragments were uncovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations, where they were dated to the 1st century CE (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.2: 33; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 15). Cooking Vessels (Fig. 27.1: 5–10)

Closed cooking pot (Fig. 27.1: 5): This cooking pot is characterized by a globular body, a short, flaring neck and a flanged, triangular rim. A moderate ridge encircled the vessel between the neck and the shoulder. Parallels for this vessel were found in Jerusalem and nearby sites (e.g., Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 29: 42–43; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.10: 18; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.10: 20). In the Jerusalem International Convention Center (JICC) workshop, the production of this type was restricted to Phase 4, the last production phase of the Early Roman period, from the second half of the 1st century CE until 70 CE (Berlin 2005a: 42, Fig. 10). Carinated casserole (Fig. 27.1: 6): This casserole was characterized by a wide mouth, a short, flaring neck and a triangular rim. Two strap handles were placed on the rim and on the sharply carinated shoulder. A blunt ridge occasionally appears between the neck and the shoulder. These casseroles first appear at the end of the 1st century BCE, becoming very popular during the 1st century CE, exposed in various excavated sites in Jerusalem and Judea (Berlin 2005a: 39–42; BarNathan 2006: Pl. 31: 51–55; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 13; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 16, 1.6: 8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 8). Cooking jugs (Fig. 27.1: 7–9): The three cooking jugs presented are of the same type, with a triangular rim, a short flaring or tall cylindrical neck, a pyriform body and one handle connecting the rim to the upper body. Two rim variants are present: triangular (Fig. 27.1: 7) and triangular with a deep ridge (Fig. 27.1: 8, 9). Cooking jugs were part of the household ceramic repertoire during the late 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 13: 168–169; Berlin 2005a: 39; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 31: 85–89; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.5: 15; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.1: 18; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 11: 11, 12). The earlier examples tend to have shorter necks and wider mouths, indicating that the jugs in this assemblage are likely dated to the 1st century CE. Lid (Fig. 27.1: 10): The fragmentary lid found was made of cooking ware, indicating that it likely covered closed cooking pots, casseroles or cooking bowls. The fragment—with only the tall handle preserved—does not allow for the reconstruction of the lid’s original size. The lid had a perforated knob handle, allowing steam to evaporate. It is noteworthy that cooking lids are found in much smaller quantities than the respective cooking vessels. Parallels from Jerusalem have been dated to the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.1: 13, 6.6: 35; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.1: 31) Storage Jars (Fig. 27.1: 11–15)

The storage jars found in the assemblage are typical of the 1st century CE, save for one type, the collared-rim storage jar (Fig. 27.1: 11), which is more characteristic of the 1st century BCE. This jar is characterized by a tall neck and an outfolded rim forming a flanking collar on the outer neck. The long fold covering almost the entire neck is typical of jars dated to the 1st century BCE (BarNathan 2006: Pl. 4: 15; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.4: 18; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.6: 19; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 1: 4–5). The other storage jars have a ridge surrounding the base of the neck, a feature typical of

476 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

1

2

3

5

9

6

10

14

19

4

7

11

15

12

16

20

21

22

18

23

25 0

5

10

27

28 0

Figure 27.1: Roman pottery.

13

17

24

26

8

2

4

29

A R E A L, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 477

Figure 27.1: Roman Pottery No.

Basket

Vessel

Description

1

12/14

Bowl

Light brown ware, traces of black painted decoration on interior

2

12/10

Bowl

Brown ware

3

12/17

Bowl

Brown ware, traces of red-brown painted decoration on interior

4

12/12

Krater

Grooved ring base

5

12/21

Cooking pot

Brown ware

6

12/5

Carinated casserole

Brown ware

7

12/7

Cooking jug

Brown ware

8

12/2

Cooking jug

Dark brown ware

9

12/49

Cooking jug

Dark brown ware

10

12/16

Lid

Brown ware

11

12/18

Storage jar

Brown ware, gray core

12

12/56

Storage jar

Light brown ware

13

12/15

Storage jar

Light orange ware

14

12/20

Storage jar

Light brown ware

15

12/19

Storage jar

Orange ware

16

12/1

Jug

Orange-brown ware

17

12/4

Jug

Light brown ware

18

12/21

Jug

Red-brown ware, gray core

19

12/8

Juglet

Thick body fragment, light brown ware

20

12/13

Juglet

Light brown ware

21

12/35

Juglet

Light brown ware

22

12/3

Juglet

Brown ware

23

12/48

Flask

Light brown ware, gray core

24

12/26

Ladle

Hand-made, small straight piece of clay shaped by hand. Broken off at connection to container spoon

25

12/9

Stand

Brown ware, gray core, incrustation

26

12/23

Oil lamp

Nozzle, knife-pared, carved, gray ware, black slip, decorated with small circles and two lines of indented dots

27

12/24

Oil lamp

Nozzle, knife-pared, carved, orange ware, traces of soot, decorated with small circles and line of indented dots, smaller type than usual

28

12/25

Oil lamp

Nozzle, knife-pared, carved, orange ware, traces of soot

29

12/55

Cooking installation

Remains of one (out of three or four) props of a cooking device implement, brittle brown ware

478 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

the 1st century CE. The various subtypes differ in the form of the neck and rim. One (Fig. 27.1: 12) has a tall, straight neck and a slightly everted rim (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 8: 37; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.2: 12; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 12). The jar shown in Fig. 27.1: 13 is characterized by an everted rim and a sharp ridge encircling the neck (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.8: 1; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.7: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 18). Another jar (Fig. 27.1: 14) is thick-walled, with a relatively short, flaring neck and a thick ledge rim (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 13: 70; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.17: 4; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 10: 2017). The last jar illustrated (Fig. 27.1: 15) has a tall, flaring neck and a triangular, grooved rim (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.2: 8). Jugs (Fig. 27.1: 16–18)

Three types of jugs were defined in the assemblage. The first (Fig. 27.1: 16) has a wide mouth and a high, narrow neck with an outturned, perpendicular rim forming an inner indentation. A handle extends from the rim to the shoulder. Jugs of this form have been dated to the late 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.10: 6, 4.13: 4; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 18: 14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.18: 9–10; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 2, 3). The jug in Fig. 27.1: 17 is characterized by a flaring neck and a triangular-sectioned rim with an inner indentation. A strap handle extends from the rim to the shoulder (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 19: 18; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.7: 8; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 4). A ridged-neck jug (Fig. 27.1: 18) has a tall, narrow neck with a prominent ridge beneath the outer flaring rim. One strap handle extends from the rim to the shoulder. Jugs of this form have been dated to the late 1st century BCE–1st century CE (BarNathan 2006: 25–29; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.11: 7; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 6–9). Juglets (Fig. 27.1: 19–22)

The body fragment of a fusiform juglet (Fig. 27.1: 19), usually referred to as an unguentarium, was found in the assemblage. These juglets were spindle-shaped, with a long, solid leg and a tall narrow neck. The rim was either outfolded and pointed or flaring. These vessels were widespread during the 2nd–1st centuries BCE, although they are frequently found in 1st century CE contexts as well (BarNathan 2002: Pl. 10: 93–102; Geva 2003: Pl. 5.2: 48–49; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 34: 1; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.4: 6–10; Berlin 2015: Pl. 6.1.20; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 8: 11). The pyriform juglet (Fig. 27.1: 20) is characterized by a pyriform body, a tall, narrow neck and a simple, outturned rim. These juglets are commonly found in 1st century CE contexts (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.10:10; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.4: 4–10; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.8: 20; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 13–16). The cup-rim juglet illustrated on Fig. 27.1: 21 is characterized by a narrow neck, a cup-shaped rim with a round or square section and a globular or pyriform body. One twisted strap handle extends from the rim to the shoulder. These juglets were very common throughout Jerusalem and Judea during the 1st century BCE–1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.9: 8; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.8: 1–4; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 3; Rapuano 2018: Pl. 9: 5). A tall juglet with a ribbed, inclining neck and an outturned rim was also found (Fig. 27.1: 18). A handle extends from the rim to the shoulder. Juglets of this form have been exposed in 1st century CE contexts at Masada (Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 33: 16–19). Similar, but not identical juglets have been published in a 1st century BCE context from the Jewish quarter (Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.2: 22) and the 1st century BCE–1st century CE refuse debris in Area D3 in the City of David (Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 9: 4). Flask (Fig. 27.1: 23)

The flasks uncovered were characterized by a tall, flaring neck, a thickened rim and two twisted handles extending from middle of the neck to the top of the body. Flasks of this form are common in

A R E A L, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 479

1st century CE contexts in Jerusalem (Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.3: 5; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: Pl. 3.13: 4; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 8: 12, 13). Utensils (Fig. 27.1: 24–25)

Ladle (Fig. 27.1: 24): A long handle was found, which was originally connected to a small cupshaped bowl, forming a large ladle. Parallels of this type exposed in Jerusalem have been dated to the 1st century CE (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 10, 11; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.14: 3; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 16). Stand (Fig. 27.1: 25): A stand with a carinated wall and a square-sectioned upper rim was found. Stands similar to this one appeared in large quantities in every production phase at the JICC workshop, from the mid-1st century BCE through 70 CE. Stands of this form were used to support vessels with round bases, such as cooking pots and cooking jugs. These stands may have been used during the production process, either in drying the completed vessels prior to firing, or perhaps as a support inside the kiln, separating one vessel from the other (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.6: 36–37; Berlin 2005a: 45; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.6: 12–14; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 17–18). Lamps (Fig. 27.1: 26–28)

Knife-pared lamps (Fig. 27.1: 26–28): The knife-pared, Herodian lamp was the only lamp found in Area L dating to the Roman period. This lamp first appeared in the final years of the 1st century BCE, becoming the most common lamp in Jerusalem and Judea during the 1st century CE (AdanBayewitz et al. 2008: 39, Bar-Nathan 2002: 112–113). Typically, the lamp’s body was wheel-made and its splaying nozzle was knife-pared to adjoin the body. Numerous variations of this very common lamp type have been found, with three examples presented here. The first (Fig. 27.1: 26) is made of grey ware with a black slip. Two lines were incised across the nozzle and two circles were stamped at its tip. The second (Fig. 27.1: 27) is similar in shape to the previous example, bearing two stamped circles and one incised line across the nozzle. The lamp was manufactured of orange-ware and was relatively smaller than most lamps of this type. The third lamp (Fig. 27.1: 28) was made of orange ware and bears no incised decoration. These lamps are all dated to the 1st century CE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 24–78; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 114; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.4: 14–15, 5.9: 4–9; Machline and Gadot 2017: Fig. 12: 1–12). Varia (Fig. 27.1: 29)

Cooking installation (Fig. 27.1: 29): A thick, brittle fragment of a cooking installation (tannur or kira) was found. These installations were made of clay with many inclusions and straw. Many of the fragments of this ware carry round, shallow finger indentations, as the one presented here. The purpose of the finger depression is unknown (Netzer 1991: 356–357; Reich 2003: 292, Pl. 9.1).

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The stratified layers in Area L yielded a pottery assemblage typical of the Early Roman period (late 1st century BCE–1st century CE). Typologically, close parallels for the vessels in this assemblage originated in other contexts dated to the same time period both in Jerusalem and Judea. The Judean character of the assemblage and its chronologically homogenous nature suggest it originated in neighboring residential contexts and was accumulated over a relatively short period of time, perhaps, as suggested, serving as the dump area of the Jerusalem residents during the Early Roman period.

480 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN

Based on the character of the pottery assemblage, along with the other finds in the fill layers, it appears that the finds originated in typical households of 1st century CE Jerusalem. Although most of the common vessel types of the Early Roman period were present in this deposit, as Machline and Gadot (2017) noted, only a small percentage of imported vessels were found, as opposed to the larger concentration of imports retrieved from the Upper City dwellings. This may indicate that the refuse deposits along the eastern slope did not originate in the Upper City as previously suggested, but may reflect the nature of the local surroundings of the Lower City. The absence of imported vessels in the typologically rich assemblage cannot be a random coincidence, and parameters such as affluence and halakhic observance should be considered (Berlin 2005b: 442–448; Adler 2011: 270–274). Though both present residential assemblages, the finds from the Upper and Lower City differ in several ways. Hopefully, as more data is published from other excavations throughout Jerusalem, a comprehensive study addressing the complex diversity reflected in the material culture of the city will be undertaken.

REFERENCES Adan-Bayewitz, D., Asaro, F., Wieder, M. and Giauque, R.D. 2008. Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century B.C.E.–70 C.E.). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350: 37–85. Adler, Y. 2011. The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Erez Israel from the Hasmonaean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (164 BCE–400 CE) (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Adler, Y. and Gadot, Y. 2016. A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frequencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City’s Garbage Dump. Israel Exploration Journal 66: 202–219. Barag, D. and Hershkovitz, M. 1994. Lamps. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G. and Netzer, E., eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 7–78. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Berlin, A.M. 2005a. Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Series 60). Portsmouth: 29–60. Berlin, A.M. 2005b. Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Jewish Studies 36: 417–470. Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2/3: 279–292. Geva, H. 2003. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 113–154. Geva, H. 2010. Early Roman Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 118–153. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2014. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 134–175.

A R E A L, T H E R O M A N P O T T E RY 481

Geva, H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Local Pottery from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 176–191. Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2017. Wading through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblages of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery 2: 102–139. Netzer, E. 1991. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports: The Buildings— Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Rapuano, Y. 2018. The Pottery from Strata V, VI and VII. In: Re’em, A., ed. The Qishle Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 114–159. Reich, R. 2003. Fragments of Clay Stoves. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 292–296. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Tchekhanovets, Y. 2013. The Early Roman Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem–Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 109–150.

CHAPTER 28

AREA L THE FAUNAL REMAINS Ram Bouchnick, Guy Bar-Oz and Ronny Reich

This chapter presents the analysis of the faunal remains discovered in the excavations of Area L. As noted im Chapter 26, a survey of the area prior to excavation revealed that the slope was covered with a 6–10 m thick deposit layer, containing massive quantities of debris, rubble and waste, primarily pottery sherds, glass, animal remains and several coins (Bar-Oz et al. 2007). Reich and Shukron (2000, 2003) suggested that this layer represents the garbage dump of Jerusalem in the Early Roman period. According to the pottery and coins, it is clear that the waste was deposited from the mid-1st century BCE until the Great Revolt of 66 CE, when this area ceased to be used for this purpose (Reich and Shukron 2000). Faunal remains were collected from a section naturally formed by water draining along the slope. One hundred sandbags of earth were collected and subsequently sifted using a 5 × 5 mm sieve. The fauna were separated and identified in the archaeozoological laboratory of the University of Haifa. The identification of the various fauna from the garbage dump provides us with important information on the consumption habits and the implicit religious and cultural practices of Jerusalem’s population in the Early Roman period. Such practices are reflected in culinary traditions, including the way in which meat was prepared, cooked and consumed.

METHODOLOGY The archaeozoological data from Area L includes the study of all fauna collected during the excavation. Diagnostic bone, skull and teeth fragments were separated. Identification of the bones included determination of animal species and their body parts. Species were identified according to shape and unique aspects of the bone, in comparison to modern parallels from the zoological collection housed in the archaeozoological laboratory at the University of Haifa. Differentiation between animal species with similar characteristics and adaptations were determined according to the size and form of specific skeletal portions, following indexes for sheep/goat (Boessneck 1969; Zeder and Lapham 2010; Zeder and Pilaar 2010) and horse/donkey (Davis 1980). At times, the fragmentary nature of the assemblage caused difficulties in determining species with a high degree of certainty, and many bones were only identified according to size. In such cases, the mammals were divided into three main groups: large (cattle and horses); medium (sheep/goats and pigs); and small (rodents). The identification of species and their skeletal elements enabled us to determine animal consumption patterns of Jerusalem in the Early Roman period, as well as to determine the ethnic origin/cultural inclination of the city’s inhabitants during this period. Furthermore, the study of the fauna provided us with data on the presence of livestock, beasts of burden, and other species (e.g., birds and rodents) that lived alongside the city’s human population. Studying the wildlife fauna aids in the reconstruction of the climate and environment that surrounded Jerusalem at that

A R E A L , T H E FA U N A L R E M A I N 483

time. Moreover, the distribution of skeletal elements within a given species provides us with data regarding consumption preferences, according to primary anatomical areas: skull, axial (ribs and vertebrae), forelimbs, hindlimbs, and feet. Significant preservation of skull and feet fragments, which have minimal amounts of meat attached and have limited function in consumption patterns, does not necessarily emphasize the presence of butcher’s waste, but may reflect the preservation conditions in the garbage dump (Lam et al. 1999). Body parts and limbs, which yield large amounts of meat, are also present in large quantities, attesting to consumption refuse in the garbage dump. Similarly, the ratio of body parts to their nutritional value may attest to domestic or industrial refuse (O’Connor 2003). Subsequent to the identification of skeletal elements, taphonomic signs caused by damage from natural destruction agents, such as the physical conditions in the garbage dump as well as human activities, such as meat consumption, roasting, and cooking methods were examined. These included cutting and burning marks, which were documented according to their position on the skeleton. Skinning, deboning and chopping marks and their anatomical position attest, e.g., to the processing of animals for meat. Further analysis focused on determining age according to bone fusion, teething and teeth eruption. These processes occur at a steady pace according to species, allowing for the determination of age at the time of death. The method used here focuses on dividing the various species into two main categories: young (up to 18 months old, prior to bone fusion in most limbs and the appearance of permanent teeth) and mature (over 18 months old after bone fusion in limbs and wear of permanent teeth). Animal mortality profiles aid in analyzing the use of caprine and cattle herds in and around Jerusalem, and contributes to the assessment of the role of the various animals in the city and in its economic hinterland. A high percentage of young animals indicate their exploitation for meat consumption, while the presence of mature animals indicates the production of secondary products, such as milk, wool or the use of the animals for traction (Marom and Bar-Oz 2009). The analysis of the faunal assemblage and the relative frequency of species in Area L was based on three methods, widely used in archaeozoological research: the total number of skeletal fragments identified (Number of Identified Specimens—NISP); the minimum number of individuals for each species (MNI); and the relative frequency of the skeletal elements (Minimum Animal Units— MAU). These methods present the basis for comparison between the frequencies of species within the assemblage and between different faunal assemblages (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Davis 1987: 19–75; Lyman 1994).

RESULTS Many of the animal remains collected in Area L were fragmentary and therefore not identifiable. Many of the samples were scraps of unidentifiable long bones, as expected in domestic refuse (Rathje and Murphy 2001; O’connor 2003). In addition, almost no complete bones were identfied, other than small, compact bones such as feet elements (i.e., metapodials and phalanges) and teeth. It is possible that the damage to the bones attests to the destructive processes of waste deposits, typified by long-term sediment movement. A significant portion of the fauna showed signs of redeposition, supporting the interpretation that the fill in Area L was a garbage dump. Some of the bones showed breakage after the bone was dry, attesting to damage caused by redeposition of the waste. It seems that all of the bones were affected in the same manner, regardless of bone density or animal species.

484 RAM BOUCHNICK, GUY BAR-OZ AND RONNY REICH

The assemblage (Table 28.1) includes 351 identified bones (NISP), 264 of which belong are sheep and goat (Ovis aries and Capris hircus, 76%), 42 are cattle (Bos taurus, 12.1%) and 16 fowl bones (Gallus gallus domesticus, 4.6%). In addition, seven fish bones were identified.1 A single donkey bone was identified (Equus asinus). Donkeys are a traditional pack animals and were used in many ancient sites in the Levant (Rossel et al. 2008). Additional species included in the assemblage are small animals that appear in settled areas, such as rats (Rattus rattus) and songbirds. Of the 264 sheep and goat remains identified, only 23 depicted characteristics diagnostic to one of the species and could be securely identified as goat (Capra hircus, NISP=10) or sheep (Ovis aries, NISP=13). The remaining fauna were either non-diagnostic or poorly preserved. That said, the large number of bones belonging to caprines and the identification of both sheep and goat indicate that both species were equally present in the garbage dump. Similar ratios between sheep and goat are known from other contemporary sites (e.g., Horwitz et al. 1990; Horwitz 1996; Bar-Oz 2005; Bouchnick 2016). It is important to note that no pig bones were identified in this sample, similar to the faunal assemblages found at several sites in Jerusalem. The absence of pig is noted in other areas of Jerusalem’s garbage dump, such as Mount Zion (Bouchnick 2010) and Area D3 (Spiciarich, Gadot and Sapir-Hen 2017), as well as other sites in and around Jerusalem, such as the Herodian street beneath Robinson’s Arch (Reich et al. 2015) and Qumran (Bouchnick 2016). The retrieval of additional fauna from excavations of the garbage dump may shed further light on this phenomenon. The frequency of body parts of cattle and caprine, according to five anatomical portions of the body, reveals a similar distribution of the skeletal elements (Fig. 28.1). Amongst cattle, the skull and hindlimbs are most-often represented (29%), followed by forelimbs, feet and axial, all equally present (14%). For caprines the skull is the best-represented (37%), followed by hindlimbs (27%) and forelimbs (18%), with feet and axial bones represented equally (9%). The presence of all anatomical regions indicates the consumption of all parts. Similar frequencies between cattle and caprine body parts indicate similar consumption patterns within the confines of the city; this pattern is in-line with the results from other Jerusalem assemblages (Horwitz 1996; Reich et al. 2015). Butcher marks on caprine (n=7) and cattle (n=5) indicate that animals were slaughtered in or near the city (see Fig. 28.2 and Table 28.2). Most of the cut marks indicate dismemberment and skinning. In addition, three bones showed signs of sawing (Table 28.3): caprine humerus and rib and a donkey metacarpal. It is possible that the marks caused by skinning, as well as the sawed bones, indicate that beyond a butcher’s shop, other animal-based industries involving leather, horn, bone, etc., may have been active in the city as well. This is however difficult to ascertain due to the small sample. The presence of these marks indicates that the refuse contained in the garbage dump was not just domestic refuse but industrial as well. Only 3% of the identified bones showed signs of burning (caprine, n=8; cattle, n=2; see Table 28.3). The current sample does not indicate any patterns of burning of specific bones (for example, meat-rich bones as opposed to lean-meat bones) and does not allow for the analysis of the distribution of burn marks. Despite the small sample, a distinct pattern of age distribution was detected in the caprine and cattle remains. Most of the cattle bones identified belonged to young animals (86%), as opposed to only 44% among caprine (see Table 28.4). Therefore, it appears that cattle were primarily used for meat consumption, while caprine were primarily used for secondary products (i.e., sheep’s wool and goat’s milk). 1    

The fish bones were analyzed by O. Lernau.

A R E A L , T H E FA U N A L R E M A I N 485

50%

Caprine Ca�le

38% 25% 13% 0%

Skull Skull Axial Forelimb Hindlimb Feet

Axial Caprine 37% 9% 18% 27% 9%

Forelimb

Hindlimb

Feet

Cattle 29% 14% 14% 29% 14%

Figure 28.1: Distribution of caprine and cattle according to five anatomical regions.

Table 28.1: Number of Identified Species Parts (NISP=351) and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) of Animal Remains from Area L Species Caprine

NISP

%NISP

MNI

241

68.7%

4

Sheep

Ovis aries

13

3.7%

1

Goat

Capra hircus

10

2.8%

1

Cattle

Bos taurus

42

12.0%

2

Pig

Sus scrofa

0

0.0%

0

Donkey

Equus asinus

1

0.3%

1

Rat

Rattus rattus

2

0.6%

1

Fowl

Gallus domesticus

16

4.6%

4

Pigeon

Columba livia

5

1.4%

1

Song birds

14

4.0%

5

Fish

7

2.0%

Total

351

100.0%

486 RAM BOUCHNICK, GUY BAR-OZ AND RONNY REICH

Rib

Figure 28.2: Position of butcher marks on caprine and cattle (see details in Table 28.2).

Table 28.2: Butchering, Sawing and Dismembering Marks Divided According to Type* on Caprine, Cattle and Donkey Bones from Area L Species

Caprine

Cattle

Donkey

Bone

Part

*Cut marks

No.

Scapula

Glenoid fossa

Dismemberment

1

Humerus

Distal

Saw

1

Radius

Distal

Dismemberment

1

Metapod

Distal

Skinning

1

Metapod

Shaft

Fileting

1

Pelvis

Acetabulum

Dismemberment

2

Vertebrae

Lumbar

Fileting

1

Rib

Shaft

Saw

1

Tibia

Shaft

Fileting

1

Metapod

Distal

Skinning

2

Rib

Shaft

Fileting

2

Metacarpal

Proximal

Saw

1

Total

15

* Dismembering, skinning and removal of meat, following Binford 1981: 86–181. Morphological differences were noticed in the faunal assemblage of Area L, indicating that animals from different environmental regions were brought into Jerusalem. Due to the sample size, morphological analysis was only conducted on the first phalanx of caprines, as this bone is the most common in the assemblage (n=11). Fine-tuned analysis of these bones revealed significant differences in the size and shape of the first phalanxes. Some of the bones were thin and delicate, similar to desert species, while others were robust, similar to northern species. Other morphological analysis, such as the level of tooth eruption, indicate other regions, such as sandy areas. This evidence,

A R E A L , T H E FA U N A L R E M A I N 487

Table 28.3: Burnt Cattle and Caprine Bones from Area L Species

Caprine

Bone

Part

No.

Vertebrae

Cervical

2

Rib

Shaft

1

Femur

Distal

3

Teeth-Molar Phalanx 1

1 Proximal

1

Total Cattle

8 Astragal

1

Phalanx 1

1

Total

2

Table 28.4: Mortality Profiles of Caprine and Cattle Caprine

Cattle

Fused

23

1

Unfused

18

6

Fused + Unfused

41

7

% Juvenile

44%

86%

along with isotope analysis, indicates the arrival of animals from different regions into Jerusalem. Regional variance of caprine herds contributes greatly to our understanding of the economy in Jerusalem and its hinterland during the Early Roman period (Hartman et al. 2013).

CONCLUSIONS The results of the faunal analysis of the Area L assemblage enables us to identify unique aspects in the life of Jerusalem’s residents in the Early Roman period. Several general conclusions may be drawn regarding the dietary habits and cultural characteristics of the city’s population: Meat consumption revolved primarily around sheep, goat and cattle. All of the bones that showed evidence of consumption marks are from kosher animals, as there was an absence of pig in the assemblage. This aspect of the assemblage fits well with the data regarding the ethnic and cultural background of Jerusalem’s population. The high percentages of caprine bones, alongside the consumption patterns and sawing marks on some of the bones, indicate that the dump included domestic and industrial waste. This seems to suggest an efficient and well-organized sanitary system running in Jerusalem at the time, which collected refuse from different locales and deposited them in a designated area on the western slope of the Kidron outside the city (Reich and Shukron 2003: 17; Spiciarich, Gadot, and Sapir-Hen 2017). The high ratio of young cattle indicates that these animals were brought to Jerusalem for meat consumption and were not kept for secondary products (i.e., milk) or as beasts of burden. This is expected in a consumer society, where agricultural production does not occur (see Marom and BarOz 2009 for the mortality profile in a production society). This is also supported by the presence of

488 RAM BOUCHNICK, GUY BAR-OZ AND RONNY REICH

butchery marks on cattle bones, with few cases having evidence of pathologies, as a result of labor or carrying heavy loads. Analysis of the caprine bones indicates morphological differences in the size of the animals slaughtered in or around the city. As such this indicates that caprine were brought to Jerusalem from different environmental regions (see Hartman et al. 2013). The faunal assemblage presented here, in contrast to the nature of other archaeological remains such as coins and architecture, through which little can be ascertained about daily activities of past populations, provides a rare opportunity to study social and cultural aspects of Jerusalem’s residents in the Early Roman period. The faunal assemblage presented here, is a representative sample of Jerusalem city dump of the Late Second Temple period and as such serves as a diachronic archive of resource use and disposal. Uncovered archival information allows us to analyze social and cultural aspects of the daily life of Temple City residents. Information on the animal economy, including the consumption of edible animals, which includes the Jewish ethnic marker of taboo on eating pork and unclean animals (Greenfeild and Bouchnick 2010; Bouchnick 2016; Spiciarich, Gadot and Sapir-Hen 2017). Reinforcement of ethnic identification arises from the focus on the view of taphonomy and the identification of a Jewish fingerprint in the slaughter marks and the dismemberment of the flesh (Bouchnick et al 2007; Greenfeild and Bouchnick 2010). Diverting view to the centrality of the Temple City during this period also emerges from the fauna assemblages discovered in the Kidron dump. Evidence of comprehensive local (Bouchnick 2010) national (Bouchnick et al. 2009; Hartman et al. 2013) and international (Bouchnick et al. 2009) all illustrate the centrality of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period.

REFERENCES Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weissbrod, L., Mayer, B. and Reich, R. 2007. Holy Garbage: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Binford, L.R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York and London. Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and Goats (Capra hircus Linne). In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology. 2nd Edition. London: 331–358. Bouchnick, R. 2010. Meat Consumption in the Society of Judea (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Haifa). Haifa. Bouchnick, R. 2016. Meat Consumption Patterns as an Ethnic Marker in the Late Second Temple Period: Comparing the Jerusalem City Dump and Qumran Assemblages. In: Marom, N., Yeshurun, R. and Bar-Oz, G., eds. Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia, Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology. Oxford: 302–322. Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2007. Jewish Fingerprint on Animal Bone Remains from the Late Second Temple City-Dump of Jerusalem. New Studies in Jerusalem 13: 73–86 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 21*–22*). Bouchnick, R., Lernau, O., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2009. Jerusalem Fish Menu from the Late Second Temple Period. New Studies in Jerusalem 15: 97–118 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 10*–11*). Davis, S.J.M. 1980. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Equid Remains from Israel. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 70: 289–312. Davis, S.J.M. 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven and London. Greenfeild, H., and Bouchnick, R. 2010. Shechita - kosher slaughtering and Jewish identity in zooarchaeology. In: Whiteway, A., ed. Identity Crisis: Archaeology and Problems of Social Identity, 42th Chacmool conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: 106-120. Hartman, G., Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R. and Reich, R. 2013. The Pilgrimage Economy of Early Roman Jerusalem (1st Century BCE–70 CE) Reconstructed from the δ15N and δ13C Values of Goat and Sheep Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 4369–4376.

A R E A L , T H E FA U N A L R E M A I N 489

Horwitz, L.K. 1996. Faunal Remains from Areas A, B, D, H and K. In: Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Vol. IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 302–317. Horwitz, L.K., Tchernov, E. and Dar, S. 1990. Subsistence and Environment of Mount Carmel in the RomanByzantine Period to the Middle Ages as Evidenced by Animal Remains from the Site of Sumaqa. Israel Exploration Journal 40: 287–304. Klein, R.G. and Cruz-Uribe, K. 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago. Lam, Y.M., Chen, X. and Pearson, O.M. 1999. Intertaxonomic Variability in Patterns of Bone Density and the Differential Representation of Bovid, Cervid and Equid Elements in the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 64: 343–362. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge. Marom, N. and Bar-Oz, G. 2009. Culling Profiles: the Indeterminacy of Archaeozoological Data to Survivorship Curves Modeling of Sheep and Goat Herd Maintenance Strategies. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1184–1187. O’Connor, T.P. 2003. The Analysis of Urban Animal Bone Assemblages: A Handbook for Archaeologists (The Archaeology of York 19). York. Rathje, W.L. and Murphy, C. 2001. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Tucson. Reich, R., Billig, Y., Hakker-Orion, D. and Lernau, O. 2015. Faunal Remains from the 1994–1996 Excavation at the Temple Mount. >Atiqot 80: 19–34. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2000. The Excavations at the Gihon Spring and Warren’s Shaft System in the City of David. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 327–339. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18. Rossel, S., Marshall, F.B., Peters, J., Pilgram, T., Adams, M.D. and O’Connor, D. 2008. Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes, and Indicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 3715– 3720. Spiciarich, A., Gadot, Y. and Sapir-Hen, L. 2017. The Faunal Evidence from Early Roman Jerusalem: The People behind the Garbage. Tel Aviv 44: 98–117. Zeder, M.A. and Lapham, H.A. 2010. Assessing the Reliability of Criteria Used to Identify Postcranial Bones in Sheep, Ovis, and Coats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2887–2905. Zeder, M.A. and Pilaar, S.E. 2010. Assessing the Reliability of Criteria Used to Identify Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth in Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 225–242.

CHAPTER 29

TWO LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SCARAB IMPRESSIONS Baruch Brandl and Anat Cohen-Weinberger

The two scarab impressions presented here were unearthed in the years 2000 and 2001, during the excavations carried out in Area J. An attempt was made in this chapter to list the excavated parallels for each item as a basis for future studies; a deliberate effort was made to standardize the vocabulary and terminology employed in the description of similar elements, features, etc.

GENERAL NOTES In order to avoid footnotes and repetitions, mainly of a technical nature, which pertain to both items, those are arranged here under the same headings used in the individual descriptions of these items.

Dimensions The two main dimensions rendered in this publication are length (L) and width (W).

Impression Design All Egyptian hieroglyphic signs are referred to in brackets (e.g., [S 34]), as they appear in Gardiner’s (1973) Sign List.

Typology Both impressions are described according to Tufnell’s design classification (Tufnell 1984: 115–150, Pls. 1–64).1

Origin An attempt was made to determine whether the stamping scarabs were imported (from Egypt) or locally made. D. Ben-Tor (1997, 1998) convincingly showed that most of the early Middle Bronze Age design scarabs found in Canaan were local products (her “early Palestinian scarab series”) as were the later Middle Bronze Age ones (her “late Palestinian [scarab] series”). Although Ben-Tor’s observation regarding the origin of the objects is correct, the terminology used here was modified to reflect the continued local production of imitations of Egyptian scarabs in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age and later. Therefore, the terms used here are “early MB Canaanite Scarabs” (EMBCS) and “late MB Canaanite Scarabs” (LMBCS) for her late series.

Date The factors used for dating the stamp seals and their design groups are design components appearing on parallels originating from secure contexts in controlled excavations.

1    

On the history and development of Tufnell’s design classification, see Brandl 1986: 247, n. 4.

4 9 4 B A R U C H B R A N D L A N D A N AT C O H E N - W E I N B E R G E R

The dating used here for the EMBCS differs from Ben-Tor’s, and begins 30 years later than she suggested.2 Therefore, the following dates are used here: EMBCS: early MB IIB, 1680–1650 BCE, following Bietak’s (1996) Low Chronology (= Tell elDab>a E/3). LMBCS: late MB IIB and MB IIC, 1650–1530 BCE with a division between early LMBCS, 1650–1590 BCE (= Tell el-Dab>a E/2 and E/1) and late LMBCS, 1590–1530 BCE (= Tell el-Dab>a D/3 and D/2).3

CATALOG 1. Area J, Permit A-3230/2000, Reg. No. 829, Locus 124; (Fig. 29.1) Description: Scarab impression near jug base Previous reference: Brandl 2007: 198, No. 6–Origin Material: Pottery, light brown surface (see below) Impression dimensions: L 11.5 (est. 18) mm, W 12.5 (est. 13.5) mm Method of manufacture: Impressing the stamping scarab before firing of jug Workmanship: Jug: good; impression: mediocre Technical details: Impressed relatively deep on the lowest part of jug wall. The stamping scarab had a linear engraving Preservation: The jug was broken, with only a small fragment preserved. The impression was also found broken Impression design: A vertical oval frame encircles a continuous chain made of ten hooked oblong scrolls. The encircled space is occupied by a broad column made of several hieroglyphic signs of which only two are clear, tweens of the phonogram anx “live” [S 34].4 This combination of hieroglyphic signs is meaningless and its purpose was clearly decorative Typology: Design scarab, Tufnell’s design classes 3A3 “Egyptian Signs and Symbols, Varia” and 7A2a “Scroll Borders, Continuous—oblong, hooked” (cf. Tufnell 1984: Pls. 8b and 29: 2266, respectively). Ben-Tor incorporated the latter class into 7A2 (compare Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 91: 3 with Tufnell 1984: Pl. 29: 2266) Origin: Canaanite. The stamping of a jug’s wall instead of its opening’s sealing is a nonEgyptian attribute (Brandl 2006: 426–427, No. 1, Origin). Only one impression on the same location on the vessel is known, from Stratum XII at Tel Mor (the earliest in the site), dated to MB IIC (Brandl 2007: 197, No. 6, with previous bibliography) Date: The non-administrative and rather decorative use of seal impressions began in Canaan during MB IIC (Brandl 1993a: 131; 1993b: 213), including the above-mentioned parallel from Tel Mor. Therefore, the stamping scarab and its impression belong to our late LMBCS group (MB IIC, 1590–1530 BCE)

For a full discussion, see Brandl 2004:124–125. Following Bietak 1996: 6, Fig. 3. Ben-Tor does not support the latter division, which is very relevant for the dating of the items discussed in this chapter. 4     See also Keel 1995: 169, § 449. 2     3    

B829

T W O L AT E M I D D L E B R O N Z E A G E S C A R A B I M P R E S S I O N S 4 9 5

0

0

Figure 29.1: Scarab impression near jug base.

1

2

0,5

1

4 9 6 B A R U C H B R A N D L A N D A N AT C O H E N - W E I N B E R G E R

Figure 29.2: Petrographic analysis of jug base.

Archaeological context: Locus 124 is located near Channel II in the central part of Area J, where the central baulk was removed. It contained mostly Iron II pottery and a few MB II sherds. Therefore, the stamped jug was found in secondary deposition Petrography: The jug base was petrographically analyzed in order to determine its provenance. The raw material is characterized by optically active clay, somewhat calcareous, with Atiqot 23). Jerusalem: 129–142. Brandl, B. 1993b. Scarabs and Other Glyptic Finds. In: Finkelstein, I., ed. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 10). Tel Aviv: 203–222. Brandl, B. 2004. Scarabs, Seals, an Amulet and a Pendant. In: Ben-Arieh, S. Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim (IAA Reports 23). Jerusalem: 123–188. Brandl, B. 2006. Two Stamped Jar Handles. In Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 426–429. Brandl, B. 2007. Glyptics. In: Barako, T.J., ed. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960 (IAA Reports 32). Jerusalem: 191–210. Brandl, B. 2012. Scarabs, Scaraboids, Other Stamp Seals, and Seal Impressions. In: De Groot, A. and BernickGreenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIB: Area E: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 377–396. Brandl, B. 2017. Nos. 114–124c. In: Keel, O., ed. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Katalog. V. Von Tell el- ͨIdham bis Tel Kitan (OBO, Series Archaeologica 35). Fribourg: 328–335. Gardiner, A. 1973. Egyptian Grammar (3rd rev. ed.). London. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 23). Tel Aviv. Keel, O. 1995. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Einleitung (OBO, Series Archaeologica 10). Freiburg. Keel, O. 2017. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Katalog. V. Von Tell el- ͨIdham bis Tel Kitan (OBO, Series Archaeologica 35). Fribourg. Sneh, A., Bartov, Y. and Rosensaft, M. 1998. Geological Map of Israel. Scale 1:200,000. Sheet 2. Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 30

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS Sara Levavi-Eilat

This chapter presents a catalog of 35 figurines: 19 from Area J, nine from Area F, five from Area A, and two from Area H. Twenty-eight of the objects are zoomorphic figurines, four are anthropomorphic figurines and three fragments appear to be furniture models. All of the figurines were manufactured in styles typical of Iron II–III Judah. Excavations in Jerusalem have brought to light well over 1,000 terra cotta examples like the ones in this corpus, e.g., the City of David (Gilbert-Peretz 1996; Fadida 2015), the Western Wall Plaza (Kletter and Saarelainen forthcoming), the Ophel (Winderbaum 2015), the Jewish Quarter (Yezerski and Geva 2003) and the Giv>ati Parking Lot1 (D. Ben-Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets, personal communication). Taken together, these assemblages demonstrate that such items are an integral part of the Iron IIB–C Judahite ceramic tradition. The following abbreviations will be used in this chapter: JPF—Judean Pillar Figurines; HR—Horse-and-Rider Figurines.

CATALOG 1. Area F; Reg. no. 2294; Locus 232 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Head, neck and partial torso of a quadruped. Front legs broken off, leaving round sections. Ears facing upwards broken. Short square-shaped snout. Right side of face may have incised decoration, though this would be quite unusual. No mouth, eyes or nostrils. Reddishbrown ware, gray/white core with few grits 2. Area F; Reg. no. 2313; Locus, 236 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Head and neck of equid. Long thick neck and round elongated face. Pointed ears that face upward. No mouth, nostrils or eyes. Right ear almost entirely intact and back of left ear broken. Reddish-brown ware and brown core with few grits 3. Area F; Reg. no. 2255; Locus 224 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Long flattened body—elliptical in section—and partial hind quarters of quadruped. Legs mostly broken off (small parts of inner legs remain) and tail completely broken off. Back part of right side also broken. No front legs or head. Reddish-brown ware and gray core with few grits

1    

I would like to thank Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets for generously providing me with information on the figurines from their excavation.

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS 501

4. Area J; Reg. no. 945/1; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Neck and partial front quarters of quadruped. Neck and body both long and thick and have round sections. Light pinkish-orange ware with gray/white core with few grits. Right leg completely missing and left leg mostly missing. Right side of neck also broken 5. Area J; Reg. no. 945/2; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Neck and partial front quarters of quadruped. Neck broken and has round section. Body mostly missing, but enough survives to show section is elliptical. Front legs also broken off. Reddish-brown ware with dark gray core with few grits 6. Area J; Reg. no. 945/3; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Short animal leg (or part thereof) that tapers at bottom and has slightly curved shape. Cross-section of top round. Pinkish-orange ware and gray core with few grits. Side of leg that faced inward (concave side) has elliptical hole, perhaps from air pocket in clay 7. Area J; Reg. no. 945/4; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Animal leg that tapers at bottom and whose upper part curves. Because of break near top, the shape of the section is unclear. Pinkish-orange ware with dark gray core with few grits 8. Area J; Reg. no. 945/5; Locus171/72 Type: Anthropomorphic Description: Mid-section of anthropomorphic figurine. It is concave in middle and both ends flare outward. One end has elliptical section, and other end has round section. Pillar-shaped bodies can be seen both in JPF and HR, and therefore sex of figure represented cannot be determined. Pinkish-orange ware with dark gray core with few grits 9. Area J; Reg. no. 945/6; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Animal leg that tapers at bottom. Bottom slightly broken on one side, top flares out and is elongated, likely on side that faces out. Because of break near top, shape of section unclear. Pinkish-orange ware and dark gray core with few grits 10. Area J; Reg. no. 945/7; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Part of body and hind quarters of quadruped. Legs are mostly broken off, but stumps that remain indicate they are quite small. Body flattened and has narrow elliptical section. Large break where neck and head would have been attached. Light pink ware with dark gray core with grits 11. Area J; Reg. no. 945/8; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic

5 0 2 S A R A L E VAV I - E I L A T

Description: Part of quadruped body. Sherd broken in half to create triangular section with two corners that protrude outward. One protrusion round and may be location of broken off tail. If this interpretation is correct, then this piece is a large hind leg that tapers at bottom. However, this protrusion could also be location of missing leg, in which case the sherd is part of the hind part of the body and the upper part of a hind leg. When viewing it this way, an indentation on what would be the rear edge could perhaps be a long, pinched tail. Light pinkish ware with dark gray core and few grits 12. Area J; Reg. no. 945/9; Locus 171/72 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Part of quadruped body. This sherd has solid pillar shape that tapers slightly at one end. One side of this end has two small breaks that are not uniform in size. These perhaps indicate the location of hind legs. The other side of this end also has small break which may indicate the location of a tail. Wider end has one large break with elliptical section. Reddishbrown ware with dark gray core and many grits 13. Area F; Reg. no. 2329; Locus 239 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Partial neck and front quarters of quadruped. Neck and legs are mostly broken off, as is upper part of back. Because upper part of back is broken, it cannot be determined whether body is round or flattened. Reddish-brown ware and dark gray core with grits 14. Area F; Reg. no. 2312; Locus 235 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Animal head with round, elongated face.Ears point upward, but are broken, so their shape cannot be determined. There is no indication of eyes or nostrils. Bottom part of face is broken, so it is unknown whether there was a mouth. Right side of head and neck also has large break. Reddish-brown ware and dark gray core with few grits 15. Area F; Reg. no. 2324; Locus 238 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Part of an animal leg that tapers in at bottom. Clay is gray throughout, but darker in some places, perhaps indicating having been burnt after firing. Contains many grits 16. Area F; Reg. no. 2322/1; Locus 238 Type: Furniture model Description: Large furniture model leg that tapers at bottom, with bottom pressed flat. Top of leg also flat, indicating that this belongs to a furniture model—likely a bed—rather than an animal. While the other leg figurines in this catalog could theoretically also be furniture, because animal figurines are much more common in this and other assemblages in the City of David, they have been classified as animal legs. Pinkish-orange ware with a dark gray core with few grits. Because it was found near Legs 17 and 18, which have a similar shape and ware, they all likely belong to the same figurine 17. Area F; Reg. no. 2322/2; Locus 238 (Fig. 30.1) Type: Furniture model

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS 503

Description: Large furniture leg that tapers at bottom. Leg stands straight and only curves slightly at top where it extends into what was likely a bed platform. Pinkish-orange ware and light gray core with few grits. Because it was found near Legs 16 and 18, which have similar shape and ware, they all likely belong to the same figurine (this is also why they have been classified as furniture legs rather than animal legs) 18. Area F; Reg. no. 2322/3; Locus 238 (Fig. 30.2) Type: Furniture model Description: Part of furniture leg that tapers at bottom and that has elliptical break at top. Pinkish-orange ware and dark gray core with few grits. Because it was found near Legs 16 and 17, which have a similar shape and ware, they all likely belong to the same figurine (this is also why they have been classified as furniture legs rather than animal legs)

0

4

8

Figure 30.1: No. 17.

0

4

8

Figure 30.2: No. 18.

19. Area J; Reg. no. 920; Locus 167 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Partial front quarters of a quadruped body. Solid flattened pillar with elliptical section. Front legs broken off, but two uniform circular sections remain. Large elliptical break on upper front part of sherd. likely where neck would have been. Pinkish-orange ware with dark gray core and few grits 20. Area J; Reg. no. 934; Locus 175 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Partial hind quarters of quadruped. Right leg mostly broken off and left leg completely missing, leaving a round section. Body is slightly flattened,, creating elliptical section, where it is broken in the middle. Stump of tail survives, but it too is broken; unclear whether it was short or long. Reddish-brown ware and a dark gray core with few grits 21. Area J; Reg. no. 937; Locus 174 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Front right leg of quadruped. Leg tapers at bottom and curves slightly at top in the direction of opposite leg, which did not survive. Slight upward flare on one side indicates where neck would have been. Pinkish-orange ware with dark gray core with few grits

5 0 4 S A R A L E VAV I - E I L A T

22. Area J; Reg. no. 931; Locus 171 (Fig. 30.3) Type: Zoomorphic Description: Large mid-section and partial hind quarters of quadruped. Sherd is flattened, creating a rough elliptical section where the front is broken. On back is large elliptical break where left hind leg would have been, and smaller circular break where right hind leg would have been. Two small protrusions located on either side of sherd—one of which appears to be applied—are perhaps remains of legs of rider that did not survive. That figurine may have originally featured rider is also indicated by large break on the animal’s back. Orange-pinkish ware and gray core with grits 23. Area J; Reg. no. 917/1; Locus 170 (Fig. 30.4) Type: Anthropomorphic Description: Torso of JPF. The waist is solid cylinder with round section. Top, from neck to breasts, hollowed out, indicating head—which did not survive—was mold-made and attached to body with a peg. Arms were broken off, but two spherical breaks indicate their original location, and much smaller breaks under each breast indicate location of hands. Breasts are pointed and protrude straight outward. Right one fully intact and left slightly damaged on the bottom. Reddish-brown ware and dark gray core with grits

0

Figure 30.3: No. 22.

4

8

0

4

8

Figure 30.4: No. 23.

24. Area J; Reg. no. 917/3; Locus 170 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Part of animal leg that curves slightly and tapers at bottom, with bottom pressed flat. Pinkish-orange ware and dark gray core with few grits 25. Area J; Reg. no. 917/4; Locus 170 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Part of animal leg that tapers at bottom. Very light fine pink ware throughout

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS 505

26. Area J; Reg. no. 944; Locus 173 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Animal leg that tapers at bottom. Break at top, where leg was attached to body, is elliptical in shape. Pinkish-orange ware with gray core with grits 27. Area J; Reg. no. 581; Locus 81 (Fig. 30.5) Type: Zoomorphic Description: Hind quarters of quadruped. Body flattened and has elliptical section. Legs broken in middle and have elliptical sections. Tail is intact, and the fact that it is short suggests that figurine represents a canine or caprid. Pinkish-orange ware and a dark gray core with grits 28. Area H; Reg. no. 217; Locus 32 (Fig. 30.6) Type: Zoomorphic Description: Partial front quarters of quadruped. Legs are broken off, leaving small round sections, and neck and body are broken off, leaving large round sections. Light brown ware with a gray core and grits

0

Figure 30.5: No. 27.

4

8

0

2

4

Figure 30.6: No. 28.

29. Area H; Reg. no. 206; Locus 29 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Partial front quarters of quadruped. Body flattened and has an elliptical section. Legs are broken off, leaving round sections, and neck broken off, leaving elliptical section. Pinkish-orange ware with gray core and grits 30. Area J; Reg. no. 917/2; Locus 170 Type: Anthropomorphic Description: Upper torso of JPF. Solid sherd with only right breast intact. Left breast broken off, leaving round section. Small round sections indicate the location of the arms, which are broken off, and large elliptical section can be seen at location of the neck. The fact that the figurine has a solid neck indicates that head—which did not survive—was the handmade type. The figurine is broken at waist, leaving elliptical section. Light pinkish-orange ware with dark gray core with few grits

5 0 6 S A R A L E VAV I - E I L A T

31. Area A; Reg. no. 738; Locus 52 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Hollow head and neck of animal. Ears point upwards and are slightly damaged. Eyes formed from small spherical appliqués. Right ear intact; the left damaged. Snout broken and therefore original shape unknown. Grooves on left flank indicate that body was wheelmade, as opposed to the head and neck, which were handmade. Very light pink ware throughout with few grits 32. Area A; Reg. no. 563; Locus 50 Type: Zoomorphic Description: Animal leg that tapers at bottom. Elliptical break at top. Light pink ware with dark gray core and traces of white slip 33. Area A; Reg. no. 348; Locus 25 (Fig. 30.7) Type: Zoomorphic Description: Hollow head and neck of animal. Snout broken off so it is unclear whether it was elongated, and ears have not survived; however, long neck suggests the figurine depicts an equid. Grooves on neck indicate that this part was wheel-made, though face, which is not hollow, was handmade. A protrusion on right side of head may be ear (description based only on drawing, not physical examination) 34. Area A; Reg. no. 734; Locus 54 (Fig. 30.8) Type: Zoomorphic Description: Head and neck of equid. Long, thick neck and elongated face comprised of incised nostrils and mouth. The ears are broken off, but the stumps indicate that they pointed upward. No eyes were formed (description based only on drawing, not physical examination) 35. Area A; Reg. no. 342; Locus 21 (Fig. 30.9) Type: Anthropomorphic Description: Head of JPF or HR. Handmade by pinching clay to form eye sockets and nose (description based only on drawing, not physical examination)

0

Figure 30.7: No. 33.

1

5

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS 507

0

2

Figure 30.8: No. 34.

4

0

2

4

Figure 30.9: No. 35.

DISCUSSION Zoomorphic Figurines The figurines in this assemblage overwhelmingly depict animals, all of which appear to be quadrupeds. This, as well as the style of almost all the figurines (undecorated heads, solid, handmade bodies and tapered legs) is typical of Iron Age II–III Judah. The figurines are extremely schematic and the sort of indicative characteristics that could aid in the identification of a species are often absent. One rare such element is the short tail on No. 27 (Fig. 30.1), which suggests that the figurine represents a dog or caprid. Similarly, the short, square-shaped snout of No. 1 is similar to that of a bovine, and the pointed ears and long snout on Nos. 2 and 34 (Fig. 30.2) indicate equids. The latter identification is supported by virtually identical heads found on HR (see, for instance, Kletter and Saarelainen 2014: 198, Fig. 1; Mackenzie 1912–13: Pl. 54: 3, 55). Regarding the significance of zoomorphic figurines, Moorey (2003: 64) wondered whether they are representations of sacrificial animals, but ultimately demured from drawing conclusions, as there is a more diverse range of species depicted than there are types of animals known to have been sacrificed. Kletter and Saarlainen, who consider most of the quadruped figurines to be horses, note that these were far less common and played a much smaller role in everyday Judahite life than caprids and bovines. They therefore view them as having played a symbolic role in the household, rather than reflecting reality (Kletter and Saarelainen 2014: 217). Yezerski and Geva (2003: 67) question whether zoomorphic figurines had the same cultic significance as anthropomorphic figurines, as the excavation of the Jewish Quarter revealed a sharp decline in the latter, but not the former in the 7th century BCE, when religious reform is said to have taken place. While this is certainly an intriguing suggestion, the evidence from one excavation does not indicate a widespread phenomenon, as others have noted the continued use of anthropomorphic figurines until the Babylonian Exile (Gilbert-Peretz 1996: 39; Kletter 1996: 40–41). One of the figurines (No. 22, Fig. 30.3) appears to belong to HR. Following JPFs, during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, these were the most common anthropomorphic figurines in Judah. While

5 0 8 S A R A L E VAV I - E I L A T

HRs are seen throughout the ancient Near East, a specific subtype can be attributed to Iron Age Judah. These feature simple handmade riders, whose bodies are either narrow or pillar-shaped, and whose hands are placed on either side of the horse’s face or neck (Kletter 1999: 38). Their heads are similar to handmade JPF heads, but tend to be smaller (Kletter and Saarelainen 2014: 197). It has been suggested that their rise in frequency during this period is related to a rise in the use of cavalry in ancient Near Eastern armies during the 8th century BCE (Uehlinger 1999: 706). However, Kletter and Saarelainen (2014) note that the Kingdom of Judah does not seem to have had cavalry forces, and thus HRs could be viewed as having had an aspirational quality. HRs have also frequently been associated with the divine, particularly with YHWH or with sun worship (Kletter and Saarelainen 2014: 202–206, and references therein). However, Cornelius (2007: 30) dissents from these interpretations, pointing to an absence of divine attributes. In the case of the possible HR in this assemblage, the rider has not survived. That the figurine may have originally featured a rider is indicated by the large break on the animal’s back at the location where the rider would have been attached, and by two small protrusions on either side of the back, which are likely the remains of the rider’s legs. It should also be noted that one anthropomorphic head (No. 35, Fig. 30.4), as well as several of the quadruped figurine fragments could potentially have been HRs, although the evidence for this was simply not preserved. The assemblage also includes two zoomorphic figurines—No. 31 and No. 33 (Fig. 30.5) that may be classified as vessels. This is because, unlike the other zoomorphic figurines, which are all solid and handmade, these are hollow, and feature wheel-made elements. Though the bodies have not survived, these figurines appear to be examples of a common type of zoomorphic vessel that features handmade heads and barrel-shaped, wheel-made bodies. The number and placement of the openings of these types of vessels vary. Sometimes, they feature handles, and sometimes they are burnished or painted. Like the solid zoomorphic figurines, the animals depicted on these vessels are highly schematic (Tufnell 1953: 376, Pl. 30.23, 24, 26–30). According to Holland’s classification they belong to Type J3—zoomorphic spouted vessels/cylindrical wheel-made jugs. The distribution of zoomorphic spouted vessels in general is quite widespread, and also includes major sites outside Judah, such as Ashdod, Megiddo and Samaria (Holland 1995: 168). Additionally, this specific type has been found throughout the Iron Age in Philistia, with the assemblage from Tel Miqne-Ekron illustrating that while some follow local traditions, others follow the distinctive decorative traditions of other types of Philistine ware (Ben-Shlomo 2008: 39, 40).

Anthropomorphic Figurines In addition to the animal figurines, the assemblage includes four anthropomorphic figurines. Two of these are definitely JPFs, and two may be JPFs. JPFs have pillar-shaped bodies that curve inward at the waist. They have arms that hold protruding breasts, and no legs. The heads have two variants: simple handmade heads whose eye sockets and nose are created by pinching the clay, and larger mold-made heads that often feature short headdresses with wavy patterns. JPFs are the most studied type of figurine in the southern Levant, first having been cataloged by Pilz (1924), Albright (1939), Pritchard (1943), and Holland (1975), and becoming even more prominent with the rise of Asherah studies (see, for instance, Engle 1979; Dever 1982, 2005; Hadley 2000), with the most comprehensive examination being that of Kletter (1996). Given how exhaustively they have been scrutinized, and the fact that this assemblage only includes four possible JPFs, we will forgo any further discussion of their use and significance. Of the JPFs in this assemblage, one has a mold-made head (No. 23, Fig. 30.6) and two have handmade heads (No. 30 and No. 35). In the case of Nos. 23 and 30, although the heads themselves

FIGURINES AND ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS 509

did not survive, their type can be surmised from their upper torsos: One is solid, indicating that the head and body were formed from a single piece of clay, and therefore the head was of the pinched variety, and the other is hollowed out, indicating that the head was made with a mold and then attached with a peg. In the case of No. 8, only the pillar has survived, and so the type cannot be determined. It is even possible that it is not a JPF at all, but rather the type of HR that features a pillar body. The same can be said of No. 35, for which only the head has been preserved. This handmade, pinched type is seen on both JPFs and HRs.

Furniture Models The third type of figurine included in the corpus depicts furniture. In this case, three leg fragments (Nos. 16–18, Fig. 30.7) may belong to the same figurine—likely a bed. Bed and chair figurines are less common than zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines, but can still be found in Iron Age Judah in significant numbers (Gilbert-Peretz 1996: 38). Furniture figurines are known from as early as the Early Bronze Age, and the most well-known types are the striking Philistine Ashdoda models, which depict a chair or bed bearing human female attributes. In contrast to the Ashdodas, Judahite furniture figurines are simply depictions of what would have been found in an ordinary household. Moorey, who views these figurines as votives, suggests that given how minimal furnishings must have been in antiquity, even the small number of furniture models that exist bear significance. He views them, together with anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, as an attempt to create a full reflection of domestic continuity (Moorey 2003: 64–65). Overall, this type of figurine has received little scholarly attention, a fact that will hopefully be rectified by future researchers.

Archaeological Context In general, across regions and historical periods, terra cotta figurines are found fragmented and in secondary contexts. This is also the case with late Iron Age Judahite figurines in general (Kletter 1996: 55–56; Moorey 2003: 51; Yezerski and Geva 2003: 63), and with the assemblage presented here as well. None of the figurines in this catalog are complete, and with the exception of No. 28 (Fig. 30.8) which was found in a sealed collapse containing only late Iron II material—all were found in mixed debris. Although some were discovered in groups, such as Nos. 2–3, 13–18, and 34 (Figs. 30.2, 30.7) in Channel II and Nos. 4–12, 19–26, and 28 (Figs. 30.3, 30.6 and 30.8) on or next to Wall 513, which runs parallel to Channel II—the fact that their find spots were not inside buildings indicates that they were found where they were discarded or redeposited, rather than where they were used. Regarding the dating of the figurines, their stylistic attributes strongly suggest an Iron IIB date. Nevertheless, given the fact that similar figurines are known from Iron IIA (see Winderbaum 2015: 542 and references therein), some of the examples found here may also be of an early date, although this cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

Breakage As noted above, none of the figurines in this corpus are complete. However, this does not imply deliberate breakage. While some have posited that JPFs were broken as part of a religious reform, Kletter has effectively demonstrated otherwise—establishing that breaks at structurally strong points do not occur significantly more often than breaks at weak points, and that JPFs are not broken more frequently than any other type of figurine (Kletter 1996: 54–56). Likewise, there is no evidence that the zoomorphic or furniture figurines were deliberately mutilated; their fragmentary state is more likely the result of the casual manner in which they were disposed.

5 1 0 S A R A L E VAV I - E I L A T

REFERENCES Albright, W.F. 1939. Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim. In: Mélanges Syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud, Vol. III. Paris: 107–120. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2008. Zoomorphic Vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron and the Different Styles of Philistine Pottery. Israel Exploration Journal 58: 24–47. Cornelius, I. 2007. A Terracotta Horse in Stellenbosch and the Iconography and Function of Palestinian Horse Figurines. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 123: 28–36. Dever, W.G. 1982. Recent Archaeological Confirmation of the Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel. Hebrew Studies 23: 37–43. Dever, W.G. 2005. Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids. Engle, J.R. 1979. Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Asherah/Asherim (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Pittsburgh. Fadida, A. 2015. Iron Age Figurines from the Rock-Cut “Pool” in the City of David (M.A. thesis, University of Haifa). Haifa (Hebrew). Gilbert-Peretz, D. 1996. Ceramic Figurines. In: Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 29–86. Hadley, J.M. 2000. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: The Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (UCOP 57). Cambridge, England. Holland, T.A. 1975. A Typological and Archaeological Study of Human and Animal Representations in the Plastic Art of Palestine during the Iron Age (Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University). Oxford. Holland, T.A. 1995. A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines, with Special Reference to Jerusalem: Cave I (republication from Levant [1977 (121–155). In: Eshel, I. and Prag, K., eds. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Oxford: 159–189. Kletter, R. 1996. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (BAR International Series 636). Oxford. Kletter, R. 1999. Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314: 19–54. Kletter, R. and Saarelainen, K. 2014. Horses and Riders and Riders and Horses. In: Rainer, A., Alpert Nakhai, B., Olyan, S.M. and Schmitt, R., eds. Family and Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Cultural Studies. Winona Lake: 197–224. Kletter, R. and Saarelainen, K. Forthcoming. Iron Age II Clay Figurines. In: Weksler-Bdolah, S., ed. Jerusalem, The Western Wall Plaza Excavations: The Iron Age (IAA Reports). Mackenzie, D. 1912–13. Excavations at Ain Shems (Beth Shemesh). Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 2: 1–100. Moorey, P.R.S. 2003. Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy). Oxford. Pilz, E. 1924. Die Weiblichen Gottheiten Kanaans. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 47: 131–168. Pritchard, J.B. 1943. Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known Through Literature. New Haven. Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age. Oxford. Uehlinger, C. 1999. Riding Horsemen. In: van der Toorn, K., Becking, B., and van der Horst, P., eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd Edition). Grand Rapids: 705–707. Winderbaum, A. 2015. The Iron Age IIA Figurines and Amulets from the Ophel. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013. Final Reports, Vol. I. Jerusalem: 531–548. Yezerski, I. and Geva, H. 2003. Iron Age II Clay Figurines. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 63–84.

CHAPTER 31

IRON AGE STAMPED AND INCISED JAR HANDLES Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Efrat Bocher

This chapter presents the stamped and incised storage jar handles found in Areas A, J and L that belong to three well-known groups: lmlk, concentric circle and rosette stamp-impressed jar handles. According to petrographic analysis, the jars impressed with these stamps were manufactured at a central workshop in the Judean Shephelah (Yellin and Cahill 2004) in a process of increasing standardization between the late 9th century BCE (when they did not bear impressions) and the destruction of the kingdom of Judah in the early 6th century BCE (Sergi, Karasik, Gadot and Lipschits 2012). As a result of the Assyrian strike in the lowland area, some of the production centers moved to the hill country, but it appears that the production center in Socoh continued to exist without being moved (Lipschits 2018: 250). The dating of the stamped jar handles system in question is now supported by a paleomagnetic study (Ben-Yosef et al. 2017). The lmlk typology used here follows Lemaire’s (1981) typology, commonly used by other scholars. The dating of these handles is based on the chronological conclusions set forth by Lipschits, Sergi and Koch (2010). The typological classification of the rosette stamps is based on Koch and Lipschits’ (2013) update of that defined by Cahill (1995: 233–240). According to their new classification, there are four main types, divided into 11 subtypes and 24 classes.1

CATALOG 1. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 392/1; Locus 30 (Fig. 31.1) Object: lmlk handle. Light reddish ware, many white grits Impression: Impression close to the meeting point of vessel and handle. Two-winged sun-disc. Sealing made in very soft clay, causing the stamp impression to be distorted. Icon obliterated after stamping and before firing. Part of the scarab’s head and wings are preserved; the inscription “[l]ml[k]” is possibly preserved as well Classification: Type II, subtype cannot be determined Date: Last quarter of the 8th century–beginning of 7th century BCE 2. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 858; Locus unknown (Fig. 31.2) Object: Jar handle, circular seal impression on the right edge, below the meeting point with the body. The fabric is is light brown to whitish, not the typical reddish-brown ware of the lmlk jars; the handle is larger and thicker than most lmlk handles. It possibly belongs to a pithos defined in Beer-sheba by Singer-Avitz as Type SJ-15, made of fine dolomitic Moza marl (Singer-Avitz 2016: 619, 620; 765, Fig. 12.71: 1; Momsen, Perlman and Yellin 1984). Large concentrations of these pithoi were found at Kuntillet >Ajrud (Ayalon 1995) and at Tel >Ira Stratum VII (Kletter 1999); however, specimens with lmlk stamp impressions on their handles are very rare, with 1    

On the cultural origins of the rosette symbol, see Koch 2018: 33–34.

5 1 2 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

only three examples published to date. The known examples were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations, bearing the inscription “lmlk mmšt” (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 246), at Tell enNaṣbeh (Barkay 1992: 126, n. 2) and Beer-sheba (Singer-Avitz 2016: 619, 620) Impression: Circular seal impression. The word “lmlk” is inscribed above a four-winged scarab. The lower part of the stamp seal was not impressed well. The stamp was impressed at least twice (as in the example from Beer-Sheba, see Lemaire 1981: 56*). The script indicates a relatively early date for this stamp impression Classification: Type HIa Date: Last quarter of the 8th century BCE (Singer-Avitz 2016: 220; Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010: 11, Figs. 1 and 2; 2011: 7) 3. Area A, Permit 3230; Reg. No. 763; Locus 51 (Fig. 31.3) Object: lmlk jar handle, seal impression on top of handle Impression: Four-winged scarab; the inscription ḥbrn is probably preserved on lower register Classification: Type HIa or HIb CAR EN 11/ Date: Last quarter of the 8th century MBCE 201 7

06/0

2/20

18

A-3 23

0 P 2

Alin

a1

0

1

2/2

018

2

CARMEN 11/2017

Figure 31.1: No. 1: lmlk stamped handle 858 from Area J. Alina 12/2018

06/02/2018

A-3230 P2

0 2

858

0

0

1

2

2

Figure 31.2: No. 2: lmlk stamped handle from Area J.

0

10

20

0

1

2

I R O N A G E S TA M P E D A N D I N C I S E D J A R H A N D L E S 513

4. Area J, Permit 3230; Reg. No. 543; Locus 61 (Fig. 31.4) Object: Jar handle with concentric circles incised on top of handle near meeting point with body and lmlk stamp impressed beneath it Impression: Two-winged solar disc. The left-hand side of the stamp was not well stamped. Above icon, the letter m (for [l]m[lk]) is preserved; below icon, the letter z (for z[p]) is preserved Incision: Dot and two circles, 2 cm in diameter, near the meeting point with body Incision measurements: 2 cm diameter Classification: Type ZIIb Date: Beginning of the 7th century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2011: 7)

2

0

1

2

CARMEN 11/2017

61/548

0

2 2

0

1

0

2.5

CARMEN 11/2017

0

5

61/548

Figure 31.3: No. 3: lmlk stamped handle from Area J.

0

1

2

0

0,5

1

07/02/2018 A-3230 P3 0

1

2

07/02/2018 A-3230 P3

Figure 31.4: No. 4: lmlk stamped handle with incised concentric circles from Area J.

5 1 4 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

5. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 325; Locus 17 (Fig. 31.5) Object: Jar handle with concentric circles incised on top of handle near meeting point with body. Many white grits Incision: Dot and two circles Measurements: 2 cm diameter Date: Late 8th–early 7th centuries BCE 6. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 131; Locus 25 (Fig. 31.6) Object: Jar handle with incised concentric circles. Incision close to the connection of the handle with the body of the jar Incision: Dot and two circles, partly broken Measurements: 1.5 cm diameter Date: Late 8th–early 7th centuries BCE 7. Area L; Permit G-27\2005; Reg. No. 27; Locus 12? (Fig. 31.7) See also Chapter 27 Object: Fragment of a storage jar handle. Two concentric circles encircling a central impression. The handle presented here has no additional stamp, though it is possible that a stamp was situated on the portion of the handle that was not preserved. Handles carrying such incisions are known from late 8th–early 7th centuries BCE (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 246–247, images 5, 20, 34–35). Measurements: 1.5 cm diameter 8. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 873; Locus 104 (Fig. 31.8) Object: Rosette jar handle with circular impression close to the point where it joins the body of the jar Impression: Highly eroded impression, possibly impressed twice. Double round border, 8 petals. Remains of petals visible mainly near edge of impression Measurements: 2 cm diameter Classification: Type IA8 or IC8

0 0

2.5

5

0

1

1

2

2

Figure 31.5: No. 5: Handle with incised concentric circles from Area A.

Figure 31.6: No. 6: Handle with incised concentric circles from Area J.

I R O N A G E S TA M P E D A N D I N C I S E D J A R H A N D L E S 515

0

0

2.5

5

1

2

Figure 31.8: No. 8: Rosette stamped handle from Area J.

Figure 31.7: No. 7: Handle with incised concentric circles from Area L.

DISCUSSION lmlk Stamped Handles Four lmlk stamped handles were found in Area J and are presented here.2 One of the handles (No. 4) was also incised with concentric circles. To date, 113 lmlk seal impressions have been found in the City of David.3 Of these, 65 were unearthed in Kenyon’s excavations, although no documentation or descriptions have thus far been included in the reports (Franken and Steiner 1990: 129; Steiner 2001: 126–131); 46 impressions were found in Shiloh’s excavations (Shoham 2000); and 2 were found during E. Mazar’s excavations, both bearing a lmlk impression and concentric circles (Mazar 2015: 88–89 and Fig. 1.13: 7; 144–145 and Fig. 1.45:2). Seventeen additional lmlk handles, some of them incised with concentric circles, were found in the Western Wall Plaza excavations (WekslerBdolah et al. 2008: 40–43; Weksler-Bdolah et al. 2009). With the four additional lmlk stamped handles presented here, the total number reaches 134, although the many recent excavations have yielded many more, and this number will certainly increase significantly (J. Uziel, personal communication). The impressed handles presented here belong to Types HIa, HI (a or b), and ZIIb. One impression (No. 1) is assigned to Type II, but its subtype cannot be determined. Four Type HIa and HIb handles (ḥbrn, four-winged icon; lmlk in upper register and place name in lower register),4 were found in Shiloh’s excavations as well (Shoham 2000: 76, Nos. 1–4). Type ZIIb handles (zp, two-winged icon; place name in lower register, divided) were also found in Shiloh’s excavations, with six definite examples, and two others that also possibly belong to this group (Shoham 2000: 76, Nos. 17–24, 79: 17, 19, 20, 22, 23). Five additional impressions were found in Kenyon’s excavations but were not published.5 The excavators documented an additional lmlk handle (Area F, Locus 232) in the fieldnotes. Unfortunately, this handle could not be located at the time of writing. 3     Including stamped handles which have not been fully published but which were reported in various platforms, such as the internet (www.lmlk.com). 4     The distinction between Subtypes Ia and Ib, that is the distinction between the cursive (Ia) and lapidary (Ib) scripts on the seals, is difficult to distinguish, especially when the state of preservation is poor, as in this case. 5     These are recorded on the lmlk Research Website (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_jerusalem.htm). 2    

5 1 6 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

Two of the impressions (Nos. 2 and 3) are of the four-winged, early types and are thus dated prior to 701 BCE, while the two other impressions (Nos. 1 and 4) are of the two-winged type, dated according to Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch (2010; 2011) to the beginning of the 7th century BCE. Unfortunately, only the two latter handles were found in secure stratigraphic contexts.6 The first (No. 1) was found in secondary deposition in the 1st century CE refuse dump (Locus 30); the second (No. 4) was found in an Iron Age II layer (Locus 61). One of the handles of the four-winged type (No. 2) belongs to a rare ceramic type, a pithos, with only three other published examples. In addition to the chronology based on the ceramic typology (Singer-Avitz 2016), the chronology based on Lemaire’s typology and Lipschits, Sergi and Koch’s (2010; 2011) dating also attribute this type to the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.

Handles with Incised Concentric Circles Thus far, 49 handles with incised concentric circles from the City of David have been published: 16 handles from Kenyon’s excavations (Steiner 2001: 126–131); 31 handles from Shiloh’s excavations (Shoham 2000: 77); and two from E. Mazar’s excavations (Mazar 2015: 88–89, Fig. 1.13: 7; 144–145, Fig. 1.45:2). An additional four handles are published here (one of which, No. 4, also has a lmlk stamp, see above), bringing the total number of incised handles from the City of David to 53. Handles with incised concentric circles are known throughout northern Judah and Jerusalem, being much scarcer in southern Judah. Approximately one third of the known concentric circles were incised on jar handles next to lmlk stamp impressions (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2011: Table 3). Handles with concentric circles are closely linked to the lmlk administrative system, and most probably replaced the latter as the administrative system of Judah during the mid-7th century BCE.

Rosette Stamped Handles Fifty-four rosette stamped handles have been found in the City of David (including the Ophel). Six handles originated in Macalister and Duncan’s excavations (Cahill 2003: 90); three handles were published from Kenyon’s excavations (Steiner 2001: 126–131); three from B. Mazar’s excavation in the Ophel (Nadelman 1989: 132); 37 from Shiloh’s excavations (Cahill 2000),7 and five from E. Mazar’s excavations on the Summit of the City of David (Mazar 2015: 88–89, Fig. 1.13: 8; 106–107, Fig. 1.24: 23; 110–11, Fig. 1.27: 18; 158–159, Fig. 1.53: 2, 3). A complete corpus of rosette-stamped handles from Jerusalem was published by Cahill (2003), including an additional 30 stamps found in the Western Hill and the vicinity of the city of the 7th century BCE, such as the Armenian Garden, the Third Wall and the Jewish Quarter (see Cahill 2003: 90). Jerusalem holds the main concentration of rosette stamped handles,8 with secondary concentrations found at Ramat Raḥel and at sites in the Judean Shephelah. One rosette-stamped impression is published here, belonging to Type IA8 or IC8. These types are the most common in Jerusalem, and at Ramat Raḥel and other Judahite sites in the Shephelah and Beer-sheba Valley (Koch and Lipschits 2010: 16, n. 34; 2013: 62, n. 20). Eight handles of Type The other two lmlk handles lacked loci numbers, prohibiting any discussion of their stratigraphic contexts. Koch and Lipschits (2013: 57, n. 4) note that Cahill (1995: 230) included Persian period finds and handles that are not part of the rosette system. In addition, they report some 30 handles from Jerusalem that have not been published. Therefore, they come up with a different number of handles from the City of David than Cahill’s count. For their updated corpus of rosette stamped handles, according to their updated typological classification, see addendum in Koch and Lipschits 2013: 76–78. 8     Here, too, the excavations in the City of David continuously add to this number, with more examples from the newer excavations to be hopefully published in the near future (J. Uziel, personal communication). 6     7    

I R O N A G E S TA M P E D A N D I N C I S E D J A R H A N D L E S 517

IA8 are known from Shiloh’s excavations (Cahill 2000: 86–88). This type is dated, together with the other rosette types, to the last third of the 7th century and until 586 BCE (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 60–63).

REFERENCES Avigad, N. and Barkay, G. 2000. The lmlk and Related Seal Impressions. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 243–266. Ayalon, E. 1995. The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet >Ajrud). Tel Aviv 22: 141–205. Barkay, G. 1992. “The Prancing Horse”: An Official Seal Impression from Judah of the 8th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 124–129. Ben-Yosef, E., Millman, M., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L. and Lipschits, O. 2017. Six Centuries of Geomagnetic Intensity Variations Recorded by Royal Judean Stamped Jar Handles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114/9: 2160-2165. doi: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1615797114 Cahill, J.M. 1995. Rosette Seal Stamp Impressions from Judah. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 230–252. Cahill, J.M. 2000. Rosette-Stamped Handles. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 85–108. Cahill, J.M. 2003. Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 85–98. Franken, H.J. and Steiner, M.L. 1990. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. II: The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. Oxford. Kletter, R. 1999. Late Iron Age Pithoi Bearing Potter’s Marks. In: Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Tel >Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 350–359. Koch, I. 2018. New Light on the Glyptic Finds from Late Iron Age Jerusalem and Judah. In: Uziel, J., Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y. and Peleg-Barkat, O., eds., New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region XII. Jerusalem: 29–46 (Hebrew). Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2010. The Final Days of the Kingdom of Judah in Light of the Rosette-Stamped Jar Handles. Cathedra 137: 7–26 (Hebrew). Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129: 55–78. Lemaire, A. 1981. Classification des estampilles royales judéennes. Eretz Israel 15: 54*–60*. Lipschits, O. 2018. The Age of Empires: History and Administration in Judah in Light of the Stamped Jar Handle (between the 8th and the 2nd Centuries BCE). Jerusalem. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O., and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3–32. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2011. Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for Studying the History of Late Monarchic Judah. Tel Aviv 38: 5–41. Mazar, E. 2015. Stratigraphy. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008, Final Reports, Vol. I: Area G. Jerusalem: 13–168. Momsen, H., Perlman, I. and Yellin, J. 1984. The Provenience of the “lmlk” Jars. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 89–113. Nadelman, Y. 1989. Hebrew Inscriptions, Seal Impressions, and Markings of the Iron Age II. In: Mazar, E. and Mazar, B., eds. Excavation in the South of the Temple Mount—The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem (Qedem 29). Jerusalem: 128–141. Sergi, O., Karasik, A., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2012. The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-Generated Typology and Its Archaeological and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 39: 64–92.

5 1 8 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

Sergi, O., and Koch, I. 2016. Chapter 21: Concentric Stamp Impression. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv: 356–367. Shoham, Y. 2000. Lmlk Seal Impressions and Concentric Circles. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 75–80. Singer-Avitz, L. 2016. Chapter 12: Pottery from Strata III-I: The Iron IIB Period. In: Herzog, Z. and SingerAvitz, L., eds. Beer-Sheba III Vol. II: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB Cities (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 33). Tel Aviv: 583–991. Steiner, M.L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. London. Weksler-Bdolah, S., Greenhut, Z., Onn, A., Kisilevitz, S. and Ononna, B. 2008. An Impressive Architectural Complex from the First Temple Period in the Western Wall Plaza. In: Stiebel, G.D. and Amit, D. eds., New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region II. Jerusalem: 35–43 (Hebrew). Weksler-Bdolah, S., Onn, A., Ouahnouna, B. and Kisilevitz, S. 2009. Jerusalem, the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005–2009. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121. http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1219 (accessed 17/10/2019). Yellin, J. and Cahill, J.M. 2004. Rosette-Stamped Handles: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. Israel Exploration Journal 54: 191–213.

CHAPTER 32

LION STAMP IMPRESSIONS Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Efrat Bocher

Seven jar handles bearing lion stamp impressions were found in Reich and Shukron’s City of David excavations. They were dated to the Babylonian period (586–539 BCE), Five of the impressions originated in Area J and two in Area A. Seven is a relatively large number of impressions, attesting to a significant presence on the southern side of the eastern slope of the City of David in the Babylonian period. To date, the Babylonian period—a transitional period between the Iron Age and the Persian period—has not been widely attested to in the City of David. The typological classification of the lion stamp impressions is based on Lipschits 2010 (for a discussion of the iconographic origins of the lion stamp impressions, see Ornan 2010; Sass 2010; Lipschits and Ornan forthcoming). The excavations at Ramat Raḥel support the 6th century dating of the lion stamp impressions; this dating is further strengthened by petrographic and iconographic analyses, as well as by a recent study of their paleomagnetism (Lipschits 2018: 91). According to Lipschits (2018: 97), these impressions reflect the administration in Judah under Babylonian rule after the destruction of the First Temple.

CATALOG 1. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 339; Locus 66 (Fig. 32.1) Object: Jar handle. Circular seal impression near junction with body, with the top of the seal at a 45° angle to the rim. Impression depicts lion crouching, facing left Classification: Type 1 2. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 897; Locus 66 (Fig. 32.2) Object: Jar handle, whitish-gray clay. Circular seal impression near junction with body, with the top of the seal at a 90° angle in relation to the rim. Crouching lion facing right Classification: Type 1 3. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 418; Locus 30 (Fig. 32.3) Object: Jar handle, pale orange-whitish ware. Rectangular lion impression very close to the junction with body, depicting marching lion facing right. Top of seal facing base of jar Classification: Type 7 4. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 577; Locus 30 (Fig. 32.4) Object: Jar handle, light color. Circular impression near junction of handle and body, slightly damaged on the left side, depicting roaring lion facing right Classification: Type 5/6

5 2 0 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

0

2

4

Figure 32.1: No. 1.

0

1

Figure 32.3: No. 3.

0

1

2

0

5

10

Figure 32.2: No. 2.

2

0

1

2

Figure 32.4: No. 4.

5. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 318; Locus 29 Object: Jar handle, light brown ware. Top of the seal facing angle to the rim, near the body. Impression is deep, depicting roaring lion facing right Classification: Type 5 6. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 268/1; Locus unknown (Fig. 32.5) Object: Jar handle fragment. Circular lion impression on center. Top of the seal at a 90° angle to the rim, depicting lion facing left Classification: Type 4 7. Area J; Permit 3376; Reg. No. 935; Locus 175 (Fig. 32.6) Object: Jar handle, reddish-brown ware with gray core. Circular impression near junction of handle and body. Lion standing, facing left. Impression of bezel can be seen around seal impression Classification: Type 4

L I O N S TA M P I M P R E S S I O N S 521

0

1

Figure 32.5: No. 6.

2

0

2

4

Figure 32.6: No. 7.

DISCUSSION To date, 130 lion stamp impressions on jar handles and bodies are known from Judah (Lipschits 2018: 93). The largest number (71) was found at Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits and Koch 2010; 2016; Lipschits 2018: 93). Thirty-two additional impressions are known from the City of David, six from Duncan’s excavations (Duncan 1931), 23 from Shiloh’s excavations (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 141) and another three from the Summit of the City of David (Winderbaum 2015). The seven impressions from Reich and Shukron’s excavations raise the total number of lion stamp impressions from Judah to 137, with 39 from Jerusalem. The Jerusalem assemblage is thus the second largest concentration of lion stamp impressions in Judah. The system of lion stamp impressions is considered to be the missing link in the administrative continuum in Judah, part of the Babylonian administration that began at the end of the Iron Age, replacing the lmlk, concentric circles and rosette impressions, which were then replaced at the beginning of the Persian period with the Yehud stamp impression system. The statistical analysis of the handles has led to conclusions regarding the shift in bureaucratic centers in the Iron Age from Lachish to Jerusalem, and in the Babylonian period from Jerusalem to Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits 2010: 19). The rise in popularity of the lion in the Babylonian period is seen as connected to the new political powers at play in Judah following the destruction of 586 BCE (Koch 2018: 39–42). The two impressions found in Area A originated in a fill east of Wall 10 dated to the end of the Iron Age and the beginning of the Persian period (Locus 66). In Area J, three impressions were found in secondary deposition in refuse layers of the 1st century CE (Loci 29, 30). An additional impression was found in Area J in a fill above Wall 513, dated to the end of the Iron Age and the beginning of the Persian period (Locus 175). The findspot of one impression could not be located.

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. and Shoham, Y. 2000. Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 137–171. Duncan, J.G. 1931. Digging Up Biblical History: Recent Archaeology in Palestine and Its Bearing. London. Koch, I. 2018. New Light on the Glyptic Finds from Late Iron Age Jerusalem and Judah. In: Uziel, J., Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y. and Peleg-Barkat, O., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region XII. Jerusalem: 29–46 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. 2010. Initial Thoughts on the Corpus of Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. In: Lipschits, O. and Koch, I., eds. Summary Booklet. New Studies in the Research of the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. Tel Aviv: 17–19 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. 2018. The Age of Empires: History and Administration in Judah in Light of the Stamped Jar Handle (between the 8th and the 2nd Centuries BCE). Jerusalem.

5 2 2 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

Lipschits, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Summary Booklet. New Studies in the Research of Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. and Koch, I. 2016. Lion Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. II (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv: 389–408. Lipschits, O., and Ornan, T. Forthcoming. The Lion Stamp Impressions from the Persian Period: Typology, Chronology, Distribution and Function. Ornan, T. 2010. The Origins of the Lion in the Judahite Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O. and Koch, I., eds. Summary Booklet. New Studies in the Research of the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. Tel Aviv: 15–16 (Hebrew). Sass, B. 2010. The Lion Stamp Impressions from 6th Century BCE Babylon and Their Connection to the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. In: Lipschits, O. and Koch, I., eds. Summary Booklet. New Studies in the Research of the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. Tel Aviv: 13–14 (Hebrew). Winderbaum, A. 2015. Lion Seal Impressions. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008, Final Reports Vol. I. Jerusalem: 541–543.

CHAPTER 33

YEHUD STAMPED IMPRESSIONS Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Efrat Bocher

Six Yehud stamp impressions were unearthed in the Reich-Shukron City of David excavations, all of them in Area A. Other than one impression (No. 3) found in Locus 71, all of the impressions were found in fills to the east and west of Wall 10, which is dated to the end of the Iron Age and to the Persian period (see Chapter 4). Two impressions belong to the early and four to the middle types of Yehud stamp impressions, both of which date to the Persian period. The impressions were initially published by Reich and Shukron (2007). The classification of impressions here follows the updated typology set forth by Lipschits and Vanderhooft (2011), who included the City of David finds in their comprehensive study. Reich and Shukron did not include Impression No. 1 in their (2007)1 publication and it was also overlooked by Lipschits and Vanderhhoft. Number 6 (Reg. No. 1063/1) is poorly preserved and hard to identify. However, we believe that it should be classified as Type 6. In addition, it is now clear that Reich and Shukron’s (2007) impression No. 4 (Reg. No. 699) is not a Yehud impression, but rather an Islamic period stamp impression (see Chapter 37).

CATALOG 1. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 1063/1; Locus 78 Object: Jar handle, light brown ware. Impression close to junction of handle and body Impression: Oval, with four letters seen with certainty, arranged in one line, but highly eroded2 Classification: Type 6; subtype cannot be determined Reading: yhwd (?) Date: Late 6th–5th centuries BCE 2. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 392; Locus 26 (Fig. 33.1) Object: Jar handle, light reddish-brown ware Impression: Oval seal impression, highly worn, close to junction of handle and body Classification: Possibly Type 7; subtype cannot be determined. Illegible Date: Late 6th–5th centuries BCE

   Reich and Shukron’s publication also includes impressions from other excavation areas not presented in this volume. 2     A second handle from the same basket was noted by the excavators but not found during the preparation of this report. 1 

5 2 4 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

3. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 1063; Locus 78 (Fig. 33.2) Object: Jar handle, whitish ware Impression: Oval seal impression, 17.5 mm diameter. Shallowly impressed; traces of bezel around seal impression. Top of seal facing rim Classification: Type 13a Reading: yhd Date: 4th–3rd centuries BCE Original publication: Reich and Shukron 2007: No. 1

0

2

4

0

5

10

Figure 33.1: No. 2. Yehud stamped handle from Area A.

0

2

4

0

0

1

1

2

cm

Figure 33.2: No. 3. Yehud stamped handle from Area A. Drawing by Rodica Penchas. Drawing courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

4. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 369; Locus 29 (Fig. 33.3) Object: Jar handle. Light brown ware Impression: Rectangular seal impression, 15.5 mm wide, bottom left of impression damaged. Top of the seal at a 90° angle to the rim Classification: Type 13C Reading: yhd Date: 4th–3rd centuries BCE Original publication: Reich and Shukron 2007: No. 3 5. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 970; Locus 71 (Fig. 33.4) Object: Jar handle, light orange-whitish ware Impression: Rectangular. Top of the seal facing base of jar Classification: Type 13C or 13E Reading: yhd Date: 4th–3rd centuries BCE Original publication: Reich and Shukron 2007: No. 2

0

Y E H U D S TA M P E D I M P R E S S I O N S 525

6. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 1062; Locus 78 (Fig. 33.5) Object: Jar handle, orange-pink ware Impression: Circular impression, 24 mm in diameter, near junction with the body. Top of the seal facing the rim of the jar. Impression of complete round bezel seen around the stamp impression. Inner impression is 20 mm in diameter Classification: Type 14a Reading: yh Date: 4th–3rd centuries BCE Original publication: Reich and Shukron 2007: No. 5

0

1

0

1

0

2

Figure 33.3: No. 4. Yehud stamped handle from Area A. Drawing by Rodica Penchas. Drawing courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

0

5

10

0

2

0

cm

4

4

0

5

10

cm

Figure 33.4: No. 5. Yehud stamped handle from Area A.

1

2

0

Figure 33.5: No. 6. Yehud stamped handle from Area A.

2

4

5 2 6 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H A N D E F R AT B O C H E R

DISCUSSION One hundred thirty-six Yehud stamp impressions have been found in the City of David (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 11). Hence, the City of David produced the second largest concentration of these impressions, after Ramat Raḥel, which includes an assemblage of 308 impressions. Petrographic analysis has shown that all of the impressed handles belonged to storage jars made of clay typical of the Jerusalem area, mainly of the Moza Formation. According to Lipschits and Venderhooft (2011: 759; see also 2016), Jerusalem was a secondary collection center of these jars, whereas Ramat Raḥel was the main center of their collection.

REFERENCES Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 2011. The Yehud Stamp Impressions. A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Pesian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah. Winona Lake. Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 2016. Forty Unpublished yhwd Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. II (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv: 409–436. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007. The Yehud Stamp Impressions from the 1995–2005 City of David Excavations. Tel Aviv 34: 59–65.

CHAPTER 34

YRŠLM STAMP IMPRESSION Efrat Bocher and Anat Mendel-Geberovich

The yršlm stamp impressions, primarily a pentagram and five ancient Hebrew letters, spell the word Jerusalem. It was the final link in the long chain of the tradition of administrative stamping (Bocher and Lipschits 2013: 103–104). Only a single yršlm stamp impression was unearthed in the Reich-Shukron City of David excavations. It was found in Area J in a layer of 1st century CE debris. The stamp was dated to the 2nd century BCE (see Chapter 8). To date, 119 handles bearing these stamp impressions have been found; most of them have been published or mentioned in preliminary or full reports. One hundred and nine of these handles were discovered in Jerusalem and its environs (about 92% of the total finds): 67 stamped jar handles were discovered within the area of 2nd century BCE Jerusalem.1

CATALOG 1. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 705; Locus 41 (Figure 34.1: No. 1. Yršlm stamped handle from Area J.) Object: Jar handle with a round impression at the top of the handle Impression: Circular, highly worn in the lower part. Three points of a star are visible in the upper part. Traces of the letter yod can be seen Classification: Type A Date: 2nd century BCE

DISCUSSION 119 yršlm stamp impressed jar handles from Judah are currently known. These impressions are dated to the Hasmonean period, specifically to the 2nd century BCE (Bocher and Lipschits 2013: 103–104). Sixty-seven of these handles were found in Jerusalem, including both the City of David and the Western Hill (Bocher and Lipschits 2013: 103). The resurgence of stamped handles in 1 

   The area of the 2nd century BCE city of Jerusalem includes the City of David, the Ophel excavations and the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem (the modern-day Jewish and Armenian Quaerters). For the finds in this area, see Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188, Fig. 5, Table 203, 7; Duncan 1931: 140–141, Table 140; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 68; Amiran and Eitan 1970: 64–68, 1973: 213–218, Table mb-5; Avigad 1974: 56, 1983: 78, Table 54–55; Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161–163, Tables 123–144); Reich 2003: 256–257, Tables 7.1–7.2. Two stamped handles were found in Area U excavations east of the Warren shaft, but they have not yet been published (O. Chalaf and M. Hagbi, personal communication). In the renewed excavation of the Giv>ati Parking lot two stamped handles were found (Y. Shalev and Y. Gadot, personal communication), In the excavations of the “first wall” of Jerusalem, two stamped handles were found, but they have not yet been published (G. Finkielsztejn, personal communication),

A-3230 P11

?

5 2 8 E F R AT B O C H E R A N D A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H

0

1

2

858

CARMEN 02/2018

0

2

41/705 0

5

10

Figure 34.1: No. 1. yršlm stamped handle from Area J.

Jerusalem, as seen in the yršlm stamp impressions, in comparison to nearby Ramat Raḥel, attests to the rejuvenation of Jerusalem as an administrative center in the Hasmonean period (Bocher and Lipschits 2013: 111–113).

REFERENCES Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. 1970. Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel. Qadmoniot 10: 213-218 (Hebrew). Ariel, D.T. and Shoham, Y. 2000. Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 137–172. Avigad, N. 1974. Judean Post-Exilic Stamps. Israel Excavation J ournal 24: 52–58. Bocher, E. 2016. yršlm Stamp Impressions. in: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds, Ramat Rahel III. Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni's Excavations (1954, 1959–1962). (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35) Tel Aviv and Winona Lake. Bocher, E. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The YRSLM Stamp Impression on Jar Handles: Distribution, Chronology, Iconography and Function. Tel Aviv 40: 99–115. Crowfoot, J.W. and Fitzgerald, G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoen Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 5). London. Duncan, J.G. 1931. Digging Up Biblical History 2. London. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925 (Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund 4). London. Reich, R. 2003. Local Seal Impressions of the Hellenistic Period. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem 2. Jerusalem: 256–262.

CHAPTER 35

STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLES Donald T. Ariel

Stamped Hellenistic amphora handles have been unearthed in Jerusalem over the past 150 years (Ariel 1990: 14). In 1990, more than 1,200 handles were noted (Ariel 1990: 23, Fig. 4), some 1,000 of which were published with a full range of levels of interpretation. Since 1990, some 64 additional handles have been published (Ariel 2000; 2004; 2013; 2015; Finkielsztejn 2008). Today, numerous new finds are known to me (e.g., from Yeshayahu Street in Jerusalem in 2017; see below, under No. 78). Nevertheless, the number of stamped amphora handles found in the Judean capital does not surpass Grace’s calculation for the numbers reported from the 20th century excavations in Samaria (2,077; Ariel 1990: 17, Table 1). Research into the dates, distribution and import of the stamped amphora handles in Jerusalem has continued unabated since 1990 (Finkielsztejn 1990; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1999; 2000; 2001). This report concerns 91 stamped Hellenistic and early Roman amphora handles found in the City of David excavations between 1994 and 2012. The overwhelming majority (77; 85%) belong the Rhodian class. One (No. 77) is Knidian, three (Nos. 78–80) are Koan and ten (Nos. 81–90) are Latin classes. There is a consensus that despite the near absence of imported stamped amphora at many Jewish sites in Judea, from a point well into the period of Hasmonean hegemony, some amphoras did arrive there. A limited importation of Rhodian amphoras to Jerusalem began in Period V (e.g., No. 59), after ca. 135 BCE (Finkielsztejn 1999: 24), and there are a number of Period VI finds as well (Finkielsztejn 2001: 170; Ariel 2015). As with Jerusalem, there appear to have been Period VI imports to Gezer (Lawall 2004: 186).

CATALOG The dates in the catalog are based upon Finkielsztejn’s lower chronology (Finkielsztejn 2001; 2004a) and should be viewed as approximate. Years are given, when known; when not known, periods are provided. It should be borne in mind that, in terms of current knowledge, both years and periods are still in a state of flux. That having been said, the field has advanced significantly in the past two decades. For eponyms, which officiated for only one year, year-dates are now accurate to within one or two years. As for periods, they are usually only used for fabricants, who can have long time-spans of activity. Unless subsequently revised (as noted below), all dates of eponyms refer to Finkielsztejn’s tables (2001: 188–195). Badoud’s researches (2014; 2015) are likely to further adjust the current datings, but should not significantly change the overall conclusions. Nevertheless, ca. has been added in every case in order to note that refinements are likely. The arrangement of the handles and the conventions regarding the readings also follow Finkielsztejn (2001: 213–216). The catalog is arranged chronologically and is followed by an index of names, ethnics, months and devices found on the stamps. The parallels refer to the same eponyms and fabricants found in the City of David, not to the same dies or even the same layout of the inscriptions or same months, when cited.

5 3 0 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Rhodian Stamped Handles 1. Area C; Permit A-5339; Reg. No. 29185; Locus 2196 (Fig. 35.1) Curved rectangular stamp ’Eπὶ Αἰσ/χυλίνου Rhodian eponym: Αἰσχύλινος Date: ca. 219–210 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204 2. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 10746; Locus 1445 (Fig. 35.2) Angular rectangular stamp ἈγοράνακτοV/Καρνείου Rhodian fabricant: Ἀγοράναξ Date: ca. 203–199 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ΑΓΟΡAΝΑΞ-ΚAΡΝΕΙΟΣ-006 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204; Ariel 1990: 33, S16–17 3. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2759; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.3) Angular circular stamp Δαμo[κράτ]euς rose Rhodian fabricant: Δαμοκράτης 1st; device: rose Date: ca. 200–172 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not read Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 9; Ariel 1990: 49–50, S169–177; Snow et al. 2008: 390, Nos. 82, 130; Ariel 2013: 331, No. 9; Giv>ati Parking Lot (2003 season, unpublished) 4. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7424/1; Locus Topsoil (Fig. 35.4) Angular circular stamp [Δαμο]κράτευς or [Ἱππο]κράτευς rose Secondary stamp: K Rhodian fabricant: Δαμοκράτης 1st or Ἱπποκράτης; device: rose Date: ca. 200–145 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not read Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207–208; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 9; Ariel 1990: 46, S146; 49–50, S169–177 (Δαμοκράτης 1st); 52, S192 (Ἱπποκράτης); Snow et al. 2008: 390, No. 65

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 531

5. Area J; Permit A-3590; Reg. No. 13; Locus 1 (Fig. 35.5) Curved rectangular stamp Θεσμοjο(ρίου)/[- - -]eυος Rhodian fabricant: name illegible Date: Periods II–III (ca. 234–161 BCE) 6. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 388/1; Locus unknown/unregistered (Fig. 35.6) Curved rectangular stamp [Δι]oγένευς (or [Δι]oγένης)/Pαn[ά]mou Rhodian fabricant: possibly Διογένης Date: ca. 234–161 BCE (if reading is correct) (Reading kindly suggested by Gérald Finkielsztejn, based upon his examination of the card files of the Amphora Project offices in Athens) No parallels in the City of David

0

1

2

Figure 35.1: No. 1.

0

1

1

Figure 35.5: No. 5.

1

2

Figure 35.2: No. 2.

2

Figure 35.3: No. 3.

0

0

0

1

2

Figure 35.4: No. 4.

2

0

1

Figure 35.6: No. 6.

2

5 3 2 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

7. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 9341/1; Locus 997 (Fig. 35.7) Curved circular stamp [- - -] rose Rhodian: illegible; device: rose Date: Period II, and well into Period III (based upon curved profile of handle) No parallels in the City of David 8. Area C; Permit; A-3590; Reg. No. 11295; Locus 1530 (Fig. 35.8) Angular rectangular stamp Νικάγιδος Rhodian fabricant: Νίκαγις Date: Late Period II, and well into Period III Matrix in CEAlex: RF-NIKAGIΣ-011 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 209; Ariel 1990: 55, S218–224; Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 1153 9. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 680; Locus 24 (Fig. 35.9) Curved rectangular stamp Δαλίου/Ἁγησίλα Rhodian fabricant: Ἁγησίλας Date: ca. 196–190 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 2 10. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7942/‫ ;א‬Locus 935 (Fig. 35.10) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Σωδά[μου]/Πανάμ[ου] Rhodian eponym: Σώδαμος Date: ca. 195 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 211; Ariel 1990: 37, S51; Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 1483 11. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2757; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.11) Angular circular stamp [Ἀντιγό]νου Θεσμοφορ[ίου] (retrograde) rose Rhodian fabricant: Ἀντίγονος 2nd Date: ca. 192–185 BCE

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 533

Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ANTIGONOS 02- QESMOFORΙΟΣ-001 (and in Jöhrens 2013: 70–71, No. 51) Parallels in the City of David: Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 4; Ariel 1990: 51, S189 12. Area C; Permit A-4077; Reg. No. 11455; Locus 1555C (Fig. 35.12) Angular circular stamp [Ἐπὶ Κλ]eιτομάχου rose Rhodian eponym: Κλειτόμαχος; device: rose Date: ca. 193 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016, Vol. 2: 370, RE-ΚΛΕΙΤΟΜΑΧΟΣ-003 No parallels in the City of David

0

1

2

Figure 35.7: No. 7.

0

1

2

Figure 35.9: No. 9.

0

1

0

1

2

Figure 35.8: No. 8.

0

1

2

Figure 35.10: No. 10.

2

Figure 35.11: No. 11.

0

1

2

Figure 35.12: No. 12.

5 3 4 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

13. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 230; Locus 11 (Fig. 35.13) Angular rectangular stamp [Ἐπ]Í Θέσ[τορος]/Pανάμου (nu retrograde) Rhodian eponym: Θέστωρ Date: ca. 192 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 51, S187 14. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 381/2; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.14) Angular circular stamp [Ἐπὶ] Qέστ[ορος + month] rose Rhodian eponym: Θέστωρ; device: rose Date: ca. 192 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 51, S187 15. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2876; Locus 257 (Fig. 35.15) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Α{ἰ}νήτορος/Ὑακινθίου Rhodian eponym: Αἰνήτωρ Date: ca. 190 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 86, No. 5; Ariel 1990: 41–42, S94–95; Snow et al. 2008: 396, No. 5684 16. Area B2; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2552; Locus 252 (Fig. 35.16) Angular rectangular stamp [Ἐπὶ Α]/[ἰνή]τορος/[Παν]άμου Rhodian eponym: Αἰνήτωρ Date: ca. 190 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 86, No. 5; Ariel 1990: 41–42, S94–95; Snow et al. 2008: 396, No. 5684 17. Area K2; Permit A-5029; Reg. No. 705; Locus 90 (Fig. 35.17) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Ξενο[φ]άνε(υς)/του Ἱέρωνος/Πανάμου Rhodian eponym: Ξενοφάνης son of Ἱέρων Date: ca. 189 BCE

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 535

Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016: Vol. 3: 142, RE-ΞΕΝΟΦΑΝΗΣ Ο ΙΕΡΩΝΟΣΠΑΝΑΜΟΣ- 002 No parallels in the City of David with tou Ἱέρωνος 18. Area B; Permit A-2997; Reg. No. 5189; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.18) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Ξενοφ/άνευς/Διοσθύο(υ) Rhodian eponym: Ξενοφάνης Date: ca. 189 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 209–210; Ariel 1990: 56, S234– 235; Ariel 2013: 333, No. 16

0

1

2

1

2

Figure 35.15: No. 15.

0

1

Figure 35.17: No. 17.

1

2

Figure 35.14: No. 14.

Figure 35.13: No. 13.

0

0

0

1

2

Figure 35.16: No. 16.

2

0

1

Figure 35.18: No. 18.

2

5 3 6 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

19. Area C; Permit A-4709; Reg. No. 20588; Locus 2071 Angular rectangular stamp Φιλαινίου Rhodian fabricant: Φιλαίνιος Date: ca. 189–161 BCE Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 211; Ariel 1990: 59–60, S269–272; Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 1481 20. Area K2; Permit A-5029; Reg. No. 375; Locus 54 (Fig. 35.19) Angular circular stamp [Ἐ]πὶ Κρατίδa rose Rhodian eponym: Κρατίδας; device: rose Date: ca. 187 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 53–54, S207–208 21. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 732; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.20) Angular circular stamp Ἐπ᾽ Ἱ[έρ]ωνος Sμινθίου rose Reading kindly suggested by Gérald Finkielsztejn Rhodian eponym: Ἱέρων 1st Date: ca. 186 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 208; Ariel 1990: 51, S189; Snow et al. 2008: 390, No. 3 22. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7033; Locus 712 (Fig. 35.21) Angular rectangular stamp Μαρσύα/Παnάμου (nu retrograde) Rhodian fabricant: Μαρσύας Date: ca 186–165 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 209; Ariel 1990: 54, S209–214; Snow et al. 2008: 393, No. 1104; 394, No. 1324; 395, No. 2719 23. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 701; Locus 52 (Fig. 35.22) Angular rectangular stamp Παnάμου/Μαρσύa (lunate sigma) Rhodian fabricant: Μαρσύας

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 537

Date: ca. 186–165 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 209; Ariel 1990: 54, S209–214; Snow et al. 2008: 393, No. 1104; 394, No. 1324; 395, No. 2719 24. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2816; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.23) Angular rectangular stamp Ἀριστάρχου asterisks in corners Rhodian fabricant: Ἀρίσταρχος; device: asterisks Date: ca. 183–175 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 205; Ariel 1990: 44, S121–122; Snow et al. 2008: 393, No. 1103

0

1

2

0

Figure 35.19: No. 20.

0

1

1

2

Figure 35.20: No. 21.

2

0

Figure 35.21: No. 22.

1

2

Figure 35.22: No. 23.

0

1

Figure 35.23: No. 24.

2

5 3 8 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

25. Area B; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2520; Locus 252 (Fig. 35.24) Angular rectangular stamp Ἀμύντα wreath Rhodian fabricant: Ἀμύντας; device: wreath Date: ca. 179/177 and 159/158–154/153 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 3; Ariel 1990: 42, S96–102; Snow et al. 2008: 395, No. 3882 26. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 833/1; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.25) Angular rectangular stamp [Ἐ]πὶ ἈρχιλαΐδαV/ἈγριαnÌου Rhodian eponym: Ἀρχιλαΐδας Date: ca. 177 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 206; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 8; Ariel 1990: 47–48, S156–161; Snow et al. 2008: 392, No. 654; 393, No. 1012 27. Area B2; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2563; Locus 252 (Fig. 35.26) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Ἀrχίλαΐδα/Παμάμου Rhodian eponym: Ἀρχιλαΐδας Date: ca. 177 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 206; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 8; Ariel 1990: 47–48, S156–161; Snow et al. 2008: 392, No. 654; 393, No. 1012. 28. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 888; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.27) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπικράτευς double cornucopiae Rhodian fabricant: Ἐπικράτης; device: double cornucopiae Date: Period IV Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207 29. Area C; Permit A-5851; Reg. No. 31151; Locus 2287 (Fig. 35.28) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Καλλικρα/τίδα/Βαδρομίου Rhodian eponym: Καλλικρατίδας 2nd Date: ca. 175–173 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016, Vol. 2: 339, RE- ΚΑΛΛΙΚΡΑΤΙΔΑΣ 02-ΒΑΔΡΟΜΙΟΣ-001 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 208; Ariel 1990: 52, S197

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 539

30. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 9323/1; Locus 997 (Fig. 35.29) Angular rectangular stamp Ἀριστοκρατεῦ[ς] asterisks in corners Rhodian fabricant: Ἀριστοκράτης; device: asterisks Date: ca. 192–184 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΡΑΤΗΣ 02-006 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 206; Ariel 1990: 46–47, S147–148 31. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2901; Locus 264 (Fig. 35.30) Angular rectangular stamp Δίου Rhodian fabricant: Δίος

0

1

2

Figure 35.24: No. 25.

0

1

1

Figure 35.28: No. 29.

1

2

Figure 35.25: No. 26.

2

Figure 35.26: No. 27.

0

0

0

1

2

Figure 35.27: No. 28.

2

0

1

Figure 35.29: No. 30.

2

5 4 0 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Date: ca. 192–169 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207; Ariel 1990: 50, S178–182; Ariel 2013: 331, No. 11 32. Area B; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2656; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.31) Angular rectangular stamp Δίου Rhodian fabricant: Δίος Date: ca. 192–169 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207; Ariel 1990: 50, S178–182; Ariel 2013: 331, No. 11 33. A-4077/2004, Area C, Locus 1565C, Reg. No. 11462 (Fig. 35.32) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ [- - -]τοφάνης/Ἀγ[ριανίου] Rhodian eponym: Πρατοφάνης or Ἀρατοφάνης 1st Date: ca. 188–169/167 BCE Matrices of Πρατοφάνης or Ἀρατοφάνης 1st in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 210; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 18; Ariel 1990: 58, S255 34. Area A; Permit A-2204; Reg. No. 252; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.33) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐ[πὶ Θει]aδήτου/Ἀρταμιτίου Rhodian eponym: Θειάδητος Date: ca. 171/169 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016, Vol. 2: 198, RE-ΘΕΙΑΔΗΤΟΣ-ΑΡΤΑΜΙΤΙΟΣ-004 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 208; Ariel 1990: 51, S186 35. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2793; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.34) Angular circular stamp Ἱπποκράτευς rose Rhodian fabricant: Ἱπποκράτης; device: rose Date: ca. 171–148 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 208; Ariel 1990: 52, S192 36. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 217; Locus 9 (Fig. 35.35) Angular rectangular stamp

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 541

Σαραπίω[ν] asterisks in corners inverted omega Rhodian fabricant: Σαραπίων; device: asterisks Date: ca. 175–165 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ΣΑΡΑΠΙΩΝ-007 Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 58, S257–259 37. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 9086/1; Locus 959 (Fig. 35.36) Angular rectangular stamp [Σα]ραπίωνος (rho appears as alpha due to mis-impression) Rhodian fabricant: Σαραπίων Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ΣΑΡΑΠΙΩΝ-006

0

1

2

Figure 35.30: No. 31.

0

1

2

Figure 35.32: No. 33.

0

1

0

1

2

Figure 35.31: No. 32.

0

1

2

Figure 35.33: No. 34.

2

Figure 35.34: No. 35.

0

1

2

Figure 35.35: No. 36.

5 4 2 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Date: ca. 175–165 BCE Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 58, S257–259 38. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 10181/1; Locus 1266 (Fig. 35.37) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Νικασα/γόρα/[Ἀρταμιτί]ου Rhodian eponym: Νικασαγόρας 1st Date: ca. 172/170 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016: Vol. 2: 84, RE-ΝΙΚΑΣΑΓΟΡΑΣ O2-APTAMITIOΣ005 and Lawall 2007: 44, No. AH34, allowing for the reconstruction of the month. CankardeşŞenol corrected Lawall’s identification as Νικασαγόρας 1st to Νικασαγόρας 2nd (dated to ca. 132 BCE). This is unlikely, because of the early terminus of the chronological profile of stamped amphora handles in the City of David Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 209; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 15; Ariel 1990: 55, S225; Snow et al. 2008: 391, No. 174; 396, No. 7048; Giv>ati Parking Lot (2003 season, unpublished) 39. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2815; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.38) Angular rectangular stamp Caduceus, head left Ἀντιμάχου Rhodian fabricant: Ἀντίμαχος; device: caduceus Date: ca. 171–147 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ANTIMAXOΣ – 007 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204–205; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 5; Ariel 1990: 42–43, S104–110 (same matrix as S110); Ariel 2013: 329, No. 4; 40. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 552/1; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.39) Angular rectangular stamp Ἀντιμάχ/ου (ou retrograde) Caduceus, head left Rhodian fabricant: Ἀντίμαχος; device: caduceus Date: ca. 171–147 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ANTIMAXOΣ – 011 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204–205; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 5; Ariel 1990: 42–43, S104–110; Ariel 2013: 329, No. 4 41. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2515; Locus 250 (Fig. 35.40) Angular circular stamp Ἀριστοκλεῦς rose Rhodian fabricant: Ἀριστοκλῆς 2nd; device: rose

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 543

Date: ca. 171–140 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 206; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 8; Ariel 1990: 45–46, S136–145; Snow et al. 2008: 393, No. 658 42. Area K2; Permit A-5029; Reg. No. 1197/1; Locus 113 Angular circular stamp Ἀ[ρ]iσ[τ]o[κλεῦς] rose Rhodian fabricant: Ἀριστοκλῆς 2nd; device: rose

0

1

2

0

Figure 35.36: No. 37.

0

1

1

2

Figure 35.37: No. 38.

2

0

Figure 35.38: No. 39.

1

Figure 35.39: No. 40.

0

1

2

Figure 35.40: No. 41.

2

5 4 4 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Date: ca. 171–140 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 206; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 8; Ariel 1990: 45–46, S136–145; Snow et al. 2008: 393, No. 658 43. Area B2; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2677; Locus 253 (Fig. 35.41) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Ἀριστοδάμου/Ἀρταμ[ι]τ[ίου] Rhodian fabricant: Ἀριστόδαμος 2nd Date: ca. 166/164 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RE-APIΣTOΔAMOΣ 02- APTAMITIOΣ-005 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 205–206; Ariel 1990: 45, S134–135 44. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2862; Locus 258 (Fig. 35.42) Angular rectangular stamp Τιμακράτευς Rhodian fabricant: Τιμακράτης Date: Period III–ca. 166/64 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 211; Ariel 1990: 59, S266–267; Snow et al. 2008: 390, No. 81; 395, No. 3497 45. Area C; Permit A-3590; Reg No. 11235; Locus 1522 (Fig. 35.43) Angular rectangular stamp Τιμ{α}[κ]ράτευς error of omicron in place of alpha Rhodian fabricant: Τιμακράτης ? Date: Period III–ca. 166/164 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 211; Ariel 1990: 59, S266–267 46. Area K2; Permit A-5029; Reg. No. 1114; Locus 109 Angular circular stamp Ἐπὶ Ξενό[·]το [- - -]ου rose Rhodian eponym: Ξενόφων 1st? Date: 164/162 BCE? Perhaps matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016: Vol. 3: 170, RE-ΞΕΝΟΦΩΝ-ΣΜΙΝΘΙΟΣ-002 47. Area B; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2551; Locus 252 (Fig. 35.44) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐ[πὶ] Ἀgεστράτου/Βαδρομίου Rhodian eponym: Ἀγέστρατος 2nd Date: ca. 163 BCE

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 545

Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204; Ariel 1990: 39–40, S72–83; Snow et al. 2008: 393, Nos. 886, 1102; 394, No. 2508; 395, No. 3498; Ariel 2013: 329, No. 1 48. A-6135/2012, Area L, Locus 2347, Reg. No. 34782 Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Ἀγεστ/ράτου/Σμινθίου Rhodian eponym: Ἀγέστρατος 2nd Date: ca. 163 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 204; Ariel 1990: 39–40, S72–83; Snow et al. 2008: 393, Nos. 886, 1102; 394, No. 2508; 395, No. 3498; Ariel 2013: 329, No. 1 49. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 381/3; Locus unknown Angular rectangular stamp [Ἐπὶ Ἀρισ]/τόμ[αχ]ου/Ἀgρ[ι]ανίου Rhodian eponym: Ἀριστόμαχος 1st Date: ca. 160–154/3 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 60–61, S276–280; Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 2294; Ariel 2013: 330, No. 7

0

1

2

1

Figure 35.43: No. 45.

1

2

Figure 35.42: No. 44.

Figure 35.41: No. 43.

0

0

2

0

1

Figure 35.44: No. 47.

2

5 4 6 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

50. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 148; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.45) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Πεισιστρά/του Ἀρταμιτίου Rhodian eponym: Πεισίστρατος Date: ca. 160 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 210; Ariel 1990: 64–65, S307–315; Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 1479 51. Area B; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2528; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.46) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Πεισιστράτου/Ὑακινθίου Rhodian eponym: Πεισίστρατος Date: ca. 160 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016: Vol. 3: 244, RE-ΠΕΙΣΙΣΤΡΑΤΟΣ-ΥΑΚΙΝΘΙΟΣ-002 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 210; Ariel 1990: 64–65, S307–315; Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 1479 52. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2753; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.47) Angular circular stamp Ἐπ[ὶ Δα]μαινέτου Ἀρταμιτίου rose Rhodian eponym: Δαμαίνετος Date: ca. 159/158–154/153 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RE- ΔAMAINETOΣ-APTAMITIOΣ-004 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207; Ariel 1990: 61–62, S287–289 53. Area C; Permit A-4077; Reg. No. 11345; Locus 1554 Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Δαμ[αιν]έτου/Ἀγρανίου Rhodian eponym: Δαμαίνετος Date: ca. 159/158–154/153 BCE Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207; Ariel 1990: 61–62, S287–289 54. Area J; Permit A-3590; Reg. No. 12; Locus 1 (Fig. 35.48) Angular circular stamp Ἐπὶ Ἡραγόρα Ἀγριανίου rose Rhodian eponym: Ἡραγόρας Date: ca. 159/8–154/3 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016, Vol. 2: 175, RE-ΗΡΑΓΟΡΑΣ-ΑΓΡΙΑΝΙΟΣ-006

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 547

Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 207; Ariel 1990: 62–63, S292–301 55. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7119; Locus 733 (Fig. 35.49) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐπὶ Σώσικλεῦς/D[αλί]ου Rhodian eponym: Σωσικλῆς; month unclear Date: ca. 159/158–154/153 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016: Vol. 3: 374, RE-ΣΩΣΙΚΛΗΣ-ΔΑΛΙΟΣ-006 Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 211; Ariel 1990: 65, S321; Snow et al. 2008: 395, No. 2720

0

1

0

2

1

2

Figure 35.46: No. 51.

Figure 35.45: No. 50.

0

1

0

2

Figure 35.47: No. 52.

1

2

Figure 35.48: No. 54.

0

1

Figure 35.49: No. 55.

2

5 4 8 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

56. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 9118; Locus 936 Angular rectangular stamp Ἀττάλο[υ] Rhodian fabricant: Ἄτταλος Date: before the mid-2nd century BCE Matrix in CEAlex: RF-ATTALOΣ- 05 Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 67, S333 (same matrix); Giv>ati Parking Lot (2003 season, unpublished) 57. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 251; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.50) Angular rectangular stamp Ἐ[πὶ Π]aυσανία/Ὑακινθίου Rhodian eponym: Παυσανίας 3rd Date: ca. 153 BCE Matrix in Cankardeş-Şenol 2015–2016 and CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 87, No. 17 (if Pausan…aj 3rd); Ariel 1990: 64, S306; Snow et al. 2008: 395, No. 3495 58. Area K2; Permit A-5029; Reg. No. 1197/2; Locus 113 (Fig. 35.51) Angular rectangular stamp Caduceus, head right Ἰμᾶ Rhodian fabricant: Ἰμᾶς; device: caduceus Date: ca. 159/158–154/153 and 146 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Macalister and Duncan 1926: 208; Ariel 1990: 51, S190, cf. S191 59. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7003/10; Locus 701 (Fig. 35.52) Angular circular stamp

0

1

Figure 35.50: No. 57.

2

0

1

Figure 35.51: No. 58.

2

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 549

Ἀλε[ξάνδ]ρου rose Rhodian fabricant: Ἀλέξανδρος; device: rose Date: ca. 124–121 BCE Matrix in CEAlex: not found Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 66, S325

0

1

2

Figure 35.52: No. 59.

Rhodian Stamped Handles: Illegible Names 60. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 381/4; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.53) Angular rectangular stamp [- - -]/τομάχου/Ἀγριανίου Rhodian eponym: name illegible Date: ca. 2nd cent. BCE? 61. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 530/1; Locus unknown (Fig. 35.54) Angular circular stamp [- - -] Δαλίου rose Rhodian: name illegible Date: 2nd century BCE? 62. Area J, Permit A-3376; Reg. No. 921; Locus 167 Angular rectangular stamp [- - -]/νο[- - -]/Δα[λίου] Rhodian eponym: name illegible Date: 2nd century BCE?

5 5 0 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

63. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2794; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.55) Angular rectangular stamp [- - -]/Θεσμοφορίου Rhodian eponym: name illegible Date: 2nd century BCE? 64. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 9538/1; Locus 1045 (Fig. 35.56) Circular stamp Ἐπὶ Δ[- - - Θ]eσμοφορίου rose Rhodian eponym: name illegible Unclear date 65. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 9338/1; Locus 999 (Fig. 35.57) Circular stamp [- - - Θε]σμοφορίου rose Rhodian: illegible Unclear date 66. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 245; Locus 5 (Fig. 35.58) Circular stamp [- - -]τίδα Κάρνειος rose Rhodian: name uncertain. Assuming the stamp names an eponym, based upon preserved letters and CEAlex database, the closest matrices name Κρατίδας (RE-ΚΡΑΤΙΔΑΣ-ΚAΡNEIΟΣ) and Καλλικρατίδας 2nd (RE-ΚΑΛΛΙΚΡΑΤΙΔΑΣ 02-ΚAΡNEIΟΣ) Date (range between Krat…daj and Kallikrat…daj 2nd: ca. 187–175/173 BCE 67. Area C; Permit A-6135; Reg. No. 32110; Locus 2347 (Fig. 35.59) Angular circular stamp [- - - Πα]νάμου rose Rhodian: illegible name Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 68. Area C; Permit A-4359; Reg. No. 11800; Locus 1643 (Fig. 35.60) Angular rectangular stamp [Ἐ]π[ὶ - - -]/Πανάμου Rhodian eponym: name illegible

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 551

Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 69. Area C; Permit A-5571; Reg. No. 30150; Locus 2286 (Fig. 35.61) Angular rectangular stamp [- - -]Δ[·]σους herm, head left Rhodian: name illegible; device: herm

0

1

2

Figure 35.55: No. 63.

0

1

2

Figure 35.56: No. 64.

0

1

Figure 35.59: No. 67.

2

0

1

2

Figure 35.57: No. 65.

0

1

Figure 35.60: No. 68.

2

0

1

2

Figure 35.58: No. 66.

0

1

Figure 35.61: No. 69.

2

5 5 2 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 70. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2828; Locus 254 (Fig. 35.62) Angular rectangular stamp [- - -]/[- - -]leuh Rhodian: name illegible Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 71. Area C; Permit A-2833; Reg. No. 121; Locus 20 Angular rectangular stamp [- - -] asterisks in lower right corner Rhodian: illegible Date: First three quarters of the 2nd century BCE No parallels in the City of David 72. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 381/1; Locus unregistered Angular rectangular stamp Helios head [- - -] Rhodian: illegible; device: Helios head Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 73. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 881/1; Locus unknown Angular circular stamp [- - -] rose Rhodian: illegible; device: rose Date: 2nd century BCE (short handle) 74. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7034/27; Locus 713 Angular rectangular stamp [- - -] Rhodian: illegible Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 75. Locus and area unknown; Permit A-4192; Reg. No. 2040 Angular rectangular stamp [- - -]

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 553

Rhodian: illegible Date: 2nd century BCE? No parallels in the City of David 76. Area J; Permit A-3376; Reg. No. 924; Locus 167 Rectangular stamp [- - -] [- - -]τευ [- - -] Rhodian: illegible Date unknown 77. Area B1; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 2504; Locus 250 (Fig. 35.63) Circular stamp Helios head, ¾ face Rhodian lagynos with double-barrel handle; device: Helios head, ¾ face Date: ca. 198–168 BCE Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 79, S477

0

1

2

Figure 35.62: No. 70.

0

1

2

Figure 35.63: No. 77.

Knidian Stamped Handle 78. Area L; Permit A-6135; Reg. No. 32414; Locus 2347 (Fig. 35.64) Curved circular stamp [Ἐπι νικίδ[α Μ]ενε[σ]τράτου Κν[ιδι(] (the rho and second and third nu are retrograde; the sigma is lunate) boukranion Knidian eponym: Ἐπινικίδας; Knidian fabricant: Μενέστρατος This stamped amphora handle was kindly identified and dated by Tania Panagou Date: 146–108 BCE Fourteen examples of this stamp type (KT 974) are recorded in Grace’s (1962) files. Only one of these examples is published (Dumont 1871: 351, No. 96, restored by Grace). The eponym Ἐπινικίδαj is dated to Period V (146–108 BC). Cf. Jöhrens 1999: 172–173, No. 543. The

5 5 4 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

fabricant Μενέστρατοj is also dated to Period V, but he continued to produce amphoras into Period VI. Cf. Jöhrens 1999: 193–194, Nos. 621–626. There are no parallels in the City of David—or from Jerusalem—for the eponym or fabricant, but two Knidian stamped handles with other names were published in Ariel 1990: 74, S451– 452 (see also p. 83 and 88, Pl. 3: 4 for a possible Knidian amphora toe) and another one was published in Snow et al. 2008: 394, No. 1402.

0

1

2

Figure 35.64: No. 78.

Koan Stamped Handles (All Double-Barreled) 79. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 7790/‫ ;א‬Locus 908 (Fig. 35.65) Angular rectangular stamp Ἡραύδο[υ]1 Koan: Ἡραύδος Date unknown There are no parallels in the City of David—or from Jerusalem—for the locally unlisted name (i.e., not in Finkielsztejn 2004b: 159, Table 1). See, however, a discussion in 2004 of all of the Koan stamped amphora handles from Jerusalem known to me (some 21) in Ariel 2004: 183– 184—including this find and No. 81 in this report. Two more Koan stamped amphora handles, from the Kenyon excavations, were reported by Snow et al. (2008: 391, No. 176; 396, No. 6406). Ten additional Koan stamped handles were excavated in Jerusalem since then, all not yet published: seven from the post-2007 seasons at the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Ariel in preparation), and three on Yeshayahu Street in Jerusalem in 2017 (Finkielsztejn and Ariel in preparation). 80. Area C; Permit A-5571; Reg. No. 30913; Locus 2284 (Fig. 35.66) Angular rectangular stamp Ὀροβ[ίων] Koan: Ὀροβίων 1 

    Reading kindly suggested by Gérald Finkielsztejn.

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 555

Date unknown No parallels are published from the City of David, but an unpublished stamp naming ’Orobίwn was found in the 2011 excavation season at the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Ariel, in preparation). A Koan stamp with this name is cited (from >Akko-Ptolemais) in Finkielsztejn 2004b: 159, Table 1. A full, if outdated, discussion of the person appears in Grace 1962: 122, No. 21, where the dating is also discussed. 81. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7095; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.67) Curved rectangular stamp Ζώπυ(ρος) in frame Koan: Ζώπυρος Date unknown No parallels in the City of David. A Koan stamp with this name is cited from >Akko-Ptolemais in Finkielsztejn 2004b: 159, Table 1. Burow (1998: 114. No. 518) identified the type as Koan Corpus No. 319. According to Lawall (2007: 54, No. A67d), a context for a Koan stamped handle of the same type from the Peloponnesian site of Koroni has a likely date of the late 270s or early 260s BCE.

0

1

2

Figure 35.65: No. 79.

0

1

2

1

2

Figure 35.66: No. 80.

0

Figure 35.67: No. 81.

5 5 6 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Latin Stamped Handles 82. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 8954; Locus 939 (Fig. 35.68) Curved rectangular stamp AППVLEI Latin stamp: Appulei (Lucii Liberti Pilonis) Date unknown Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 77, S465; Snow et al. 2008: 393, No. 1106 83. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7586; Locus 829 (Fig. 35.69) Circular stamp on rim Latin stamp: ΛÆ Date unknown No parallels in the City of David 84. Area C; Permit A-2599; Reg. No. 8730; Locus 886 (Fig. 35.70) Oval stamp Latin stamp (?; based upon round section of handle): Three-four illegible glyphs or ligatured letters FEC[·] ? Date unknown No parallels in the City of David

0

1

2

Figure 35.68: No. 82.

0

2

Figure 35.69: No. 83.

4

0

1

2

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 557

85. Area B; Permit A-2997; Reg. No. 5190; Locus Surface (Fig. 35.71) Rectangular stamp M٠TVCCI٠L٠F/GALEO Latin stamp: M(arci) ٠Tucci٠ L(ucii)٠F(ilii)/Galeo[nis] Date: First half of 1st century CE (Finkielsztejn 1993: 179) Parallels in the City of David: Saller 1971: 159, 162; Ariel 1990: 77–78, S466–467 86. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7652; Locus 768 (Fig. 35.72) Curved rectangular stamp M٠TVCCI٠L٠F/GALEON (TV ligatured; AL ligatured) Latin stamp: M(arci) ٠Tucci٠ L[(ucii)٠F(ilii)]/Galeon[is] Date: First half of 1st century CE (Finkielsztejn 1993: 179) Parallels in the City of David: Saller 1971: 159, 162; Ariel 1990: 77–78, S466 87. Area J; Permit A-3230; Reg. No. 881/2; Locus unknown/unregistered (Fig. 35.73) Round stamp: anchor. Apparently, secondary stamp applied to amphoras of the same type as Nos. 85–86 Date: First half of 1st century CE (Finkielsztejn 1993: 179) Parallels in the City of David: Ariel 1990: 77–78, S466

0

1

2

Figure 35.70: No. 84.

0

1

Figure 35.72: No. 86.

0

1

2

Figure 35.71: No. 85.

2

0

1

2

Figure 35.73: No. 87.

5 5 8 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

88. Area A; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 185; Locus 2 (Fig. 35.74) Curved rectangular stamp [- - - ]VS BE[- - - ] Latin stamp: illegible name (Brindisian?) Date unknown 89. Area C; Permit A-2236; Reg. No. 7120/1; Locus 734 (Fig. 35.75) Rectangular stamp [- - - ]C Latin stamp: illegible name Date unknown

0

1

2

Figure 35.74: No. 88.

90. Area K2; Permit A-5029; Reg. No. 500; Locus 76 Curved oval stamp [- - - ]NIΛO[٠] Latin stamp: illegible name Date unknown 91. Area C; Permit A-5571; Reg. No. 31052; Locus 2286 Curved rectangular stamp [- - - ]ṆEIC[- - - ] Latin stamp: illegible name Date unknown

INDICES A. Names of Persons: Greek Names are Rhodian unless otherwise noted. Ἀγέστρατος 2nd Ep. 47–48 Ἁγησίλας Fab. 9 Ἀγοράναξ Fab. 2 Αἰνήτωρ Ep. 15–16

0

1

2

Figure 35.75: No. 89.

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 559

Αἰσχύλινος Ep. 1 Ἀλέξανδρος Fab. 59 Ἀμύντας Fab. 24 Ἀντίγονος 2nd Fab. 11 Ἀντίμαχος Fab. 39–40 Ἀρατοφάνης 1st Ep. 33 Ἀρίσταρχος Fab. 24 Ἀριστόδαμος 2nd Fab. 43 Ἀριστοκλῆς 2nd Fab. 41–42 Ἀριστοκράτης Fab. 30 Ἀριστόμαχος 1st Ep. 49 Ἀρχιλαΐδας Ep. 26–27 Ἄτταλος Fab. 56 Δαμαίνετος Ep. 52–53 Δαμοκράτης 1st Fab. 3–4 Διογένης ? Fab. 6 Δίος Ep. 31–32 Ἐπικράτης Fab. 28 Ἐπινικίδας Knidian Ep. 78 Ζώπυρος Koan 81 Ἡραγόρας Ep. 54 Ἡραύδος Koan 79 Θειάδητος Ep. 34 Θέστωρ Ep. 13–14 Ἱέρων (Father of Xenof£nhj) see 17 Ἰμᾶς Fab. 58 Ἱπποκράτης Fab. 4, 35 Καλλικρατίδας 2nd Ep. 29, 66 Κλειτόμαχος Ep. 12 Κρατίδας Ep. 20, 66 Μαρσύας Fab. 22–23 Μενέστρατος Knidian Fab. 78 Νίκαγις Fab. 8 Νικασαγόρας 1st Ep. 38 Ξενοφάνης Ep. 18 Ξενοφάνης son of Iἕrwn Ep. 17 Ξενόφων 1st? Ep. 46 Ὀροβίων Koan 80 Παυσανίας 3rd Ep. 57 Πεισίστρατος Ep. 50–51 Πρατοφάνης Ep. 33 Σαραπίων Fab. 36–37 Σώδαμος Ep. 10 Σωσικλῆς Ep. 55 Τιμακράτης Fab. 44 Τιμακράτης ? Fab. 45 Φιλαίνιος Fab. 19

5 6 0 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

B. Names of Persons: Latin AППVLEI 82 ΛÆ 83 FEC[·] ? 84 M٠TVCCI٠L٠F/GALEO 85–86 [- - - ]VS BE[- - - ] 88 [- - - ]C 89 [- - - ]NIΛO[٠] 90 [- - - ]NEIC[- - - ] 91

C. Rhodian Months ’Αγριάνιος 26, 33, 49, 53–54, 60 ’Αρταμίτιος 34, 38, 43, 50, 52 Bαδρόμιος 29, 47 Δάλιος 9, 61–62 Διόσθυος 18 Θεσμοφόριος 5, 11, 63–65 Κάρνειος 2, 66 Πάναμος 6, 10, 13, 16–17, 22–23, 27, 67–68 Σμίνθιος 21, 48 Ὑακίνθιος 15, 51, 57

D. Ethnic Κν[ιδι( 78

E. Devices Anchor 87 Asterisks 24, 30, 36, 71 Caduceus 39–40, 58 Double cornucopiae 28 Helios head 72, 77 Herm 69 Rose 4–5, 8, 11–12, 14, 20–21, 35, 41–42, 46, 52, 54, 59, 61, 64–67, 73 Wreath 25

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My thanks to Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron for inviting me to work on this material. I am grateful to Gérald Finkielsztejn for his assistance on the Rhodian and Koan material and Tania Panagou for her identification and dating of No. 77 of the Knidian class. The stamps were photographed by Clara Amit of the IAA photography studio. I researched this material based upon visual examination of all the objects and was aided by rubbings which I prepared. At some point, well after the identifications were made, but before the stamps’ photography was completed, a number of the handles in this assemblage were apparently misplaced. Rubbings have therefore been used to illustrate most of those items.

S TA M P E D A M P H O R A H A N D L E S 561

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. 1990. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Ariel, D.T. 2000. Imported Greek Stamped Amphora Handles. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X–2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 267–283. Ariel, D.T. 2004. Stamped Handles. In: Maeir, A.M. and Bahat, D., eds. Excavations at Kikkar Safra (City Hall), Jerusalem 1989. >Atiqot 47: 183–184. Ariel, D.T. 2013. The Stamped Amphora Handles. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 327–337. Ariel, D.T. 2015. A Stamped Amphora Handle from the Ophel. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount, 2009–2013. Final Reports I. Jerusalem: 117–118. Badoud, N. 2014. The Contribution of Inscriptions to the Chronology of Rhodian Amphora Eponyms. In: Guldager Bilde, P. and Lawall, M.L., eds. Pottery, Peoples and Places. Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery. Aarhus: 17–28. Badoud, N. 2015. Le Temps de Rhodes. Une Chronologie des Inscriptions de la cité fondée sur l’Étude de ses Institutions (Vestigia. Beitrage zut Alten Geschichte 63). Munich. Burow, J. 1998. Die übrigen Stempel aus Pergamon. In: Börker, C., and Burow, J. Die Hellenistischen Amphorenstempel aus Pergamon (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Pergamenische Forschungen 11). Berlin: 71–138. Cankardeş-Şenol, G. 2015–2016. Lexicon of Eponym Dies on Rhodian Amphora Stamps (Études Alexandrines 33, 35, 37, 39; AmphorAlex 3–6). 4 vols. Alexandria. CEAlex: Centre d’Etudes Alexandrines. Matrices Des Timbres Des Eponymes et Fabricants Rhodiens. http: // www.amphoralex.org/timbres/eponymes/accueil_epon/requete.php (accessed October 27, 2017). Crowfoot, J.W. and Fitzgerald, G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927 (PEFA 5). London. Dumont, A. 1871. Inscriptions céramiques de Grèce (Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Littéraires. Choix de Rapports et Instructions (2eme serie) VI). Paris. Finkielsztejn, G. 1990. Amphores et timbres ďamphores importées en Palestine à l’époque hellénistique. Orientations de recherche et premiers résultats. Unpublished manuscript presented to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Jerusalem. Finkielsztejn, G. 1993. Amphores et timbres d’amphores importées en Palestine à l’époque hellénistique: études de chronologie et d’histoire (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris). Paris. Finkielsztejn, G. 1994. Review of Ariel 1990. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 126: 71–72. Finkielsztejn, G. 1995. Chronologie basse des timbres amphoriques rhodiens et évaluation des exportations d’amphores. Acta Hyperborea 6: 279–296. Finkielsztejn, G. 1999. Hellenistic Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps. In: Faust, A. and Baruch, E., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 5. Ramat Gan: 21–36 (Hebrew). Finkielsztejn, G. 2000. Les amphores importées au Levant sud à l’époque hellénistique et la revision de la chronologie des timbres amphoriques rhodiens. In: Ε’ Επιστημονική συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική: Χρονολογικά προβλήματα, κλειστά σύνορα – εργαστήρια. Πρακτικά. Acts of the Fifth Scientific Conference on Hellenistic Pottery (Chania, Crete, April 1997). Athens: 207–220. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie détailée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ. Premier bilan (BAR International Series 990). Oxford. Finkielsztejn, G. 2004a. Interests and Limits of Amphorae to Date Other Pottery in Hellenistic Contexts. In: Zapheiropoulou, D. and Kazakou, M. eds. ΣΤʹ Επιστημονική συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική: Προβλήματα χρονολόγησης, κλειστά σύνολα – εργαστήρια. Βόλος, 17–23 Απριλίου 2000 [Sixth Scientific Meeting on Hellenistic Pottery. Problems of Dating, Closed Assemblages-Workshops (Volos, 17–23 April 2000)]. Athens: Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων [Tameio Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon] (Sixth Scientific Meeting on Hellenistic Pottery. Problems of Dating, Closed Assemblages. Workshops, Volos, 17–23 April 2000). Athens: 279–288.

5 6 2 D O N A L D T. A R I E L

Finkielsztejn, G. 2004b. Koan Amphorae Imported in the Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period. In: Höghammer, E. ed. The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture. Proceedings of an International Seminar Organized by the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 11–13 May, 2000 (Boreas 28). Uppsala: 153–164. Finkielsztejn, G. 2008. Jerusalem, Sonnenfeld Street Final Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=935&mag_id=114 (accessed October 27, 2017). Grace, V.R. 1962. Stamped Handles of Commercial Amphoras. In: Colt, H.D., ed. Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir: Palestine) 1. Princeton: 106–130. Jöhrens, G. 1999. Amphorenstempel im Nationalmuseum von Athen. Zu den von H. G. Lolling aufgenommenen “uneditierten henkel-inschriften”. Mit einem Anhang: Die Amphorenstempel in der Sammlung der Abteilung Athen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Mainz. Jöhrens, G. 2013. Amphorenstempel aus Gadara. In: Hoffmann, A. and Bührig, C., eds. Forschungen in Gadara / Umm Qays von 1987 bis 2000 (Orient-Archäologie 28). Rahden: 53–101. Lawall, M.L. 2004. Archaeological Context and Aegean Amphora Chronologies: A Case Study of Hellenistic Ephesos. In: Eiring, J. and Lund, J., eds. Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5). Aarhus: 171–188. Lawall, M.L. 2007. Hellenistic Stamped Amphora Handles. In: Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. and Lang-Auinger, C., eds. Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. 2. Teil: Funde klassischer bis römischer Zeit (Forschungen in Ephesos IX/2/3). Vienna: 28–60. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925 (Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund 4). London. Saller, S. 1971. Short Greek and Latin Inscriptions on Small Objects Found or Preserved in Palestine and Nearby Places. Liber Annuus 21: 158–179. Snow, D., Prag, K., Dimoulinis, A., Koehler, C.G. and Matheson, P.M.W. 2008. The Stamped Amphora Handles. In: Prag, K. ed. Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. V: Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem Centenary Volume: Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906–1978 (Levant Supplementary Series 7). Oxford: 389–409.

CHAPTER 36

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS Anat Mendel-Geberovich

This chapter presents primarily Iron Age ceramic items with markings that were unearthed in the various Reich-Shukron City of David excavation areas. The markings are varied, and they often appear on vessel handles or body fragments; they were created using different techniques and at different stages in the object’s lifetime. Some of the markings were incised, others were stamped, some were made before the vessel was fired, while others were possibly created after breakage.

CATALOG Chiseled or Incised Hebrew Letters Chiseling is commonly noted on late Iron Age finds from Judah, especially in Jerusalem (e.g., Nadelman 1989, 1990; Naveh 2000: 7; Shoham 2000b: Figs. 21–22; Barkay 2003). Chiseled body sherds and handles bear various signs and symbols. There are also many chiseled Hebrew inscriptions which contain personal names (Aharoni 1981: 107, Inscription 93, 100, 114; Nadelman 1989: Pl. 27: 5; Photos 132–133; Shoham 2000a: 17–23), titles (Nadelman 1989: 128–129; Pl. 21), or one or two letters (e.g., Zimhoni 2004: 1838, Fig. 26.21: 7). Chiseling was also used for writing South Arabian inscriptions in Jerusalem (Höfner 2000; cf. Sass 1990). It is possible that this technique was adopted from engraving on soft limestone, an example of which was found in the Ophel (Naveh 1982: esp. 197–198, n. 6). Hebrew letters were also incised on body sherds throughout Iron Age Judah, as attested to on one sherd from the excavations presented here. 1. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 960; Locus 65 (Fig. 36.2: No. 2) Body sherd, vessel type unknown. A fragmentary Hebrew yod is inscribed on the sherd. Unclear if the incision was made pre- or post-firing 2. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 326; Locus 49 (Fig. 36.3: No. 3) Body sherd, vessel type unknown. A fragmentary Hebrew yod chiseled after firing, intersects with a shallow straight incision made before firing

0

2,5

Figure 36.1: No. 1.

5

0

2,5

5

Figure 36.2: No. 2.

5 6 4 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H

X or Cross-Shaped Incisions X or cross-shaped incisions on various types of cooking pots, made before firing, have been reported from many Judahite sites since they were first noticed at Tell Beit Mirsim in the early 20th century (Albright 1932: 81, 88): at Ramat Raḥel (Bocher, Ras and Freud 2016), Moza (Greenhut 2009: 132–136), Beer-sheba (Singer-Avitz 2016), Gezer (Gitin 1990: 225, Pl. 27:8), Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pls. 65: 9; 95: 3–4), Lachish (Zimhoni 2004: Figs. 25.4: 6–7; 26.21: 5; 26.36: 3), Tel ’Ira (Freud 1999), Arad (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 25: 8), and Ḥorvat >Uza (Freud 2007: Fig. 3.35: 6). However, they are most common in Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 4: 9; Nadelman 1989: 132; 140, Photos 173–180; Franken and Steiner 1990: Fig. 2029: 4; Eshel and Prag 1995: Figs. 18: 2, 18; 19: 3, 12–13; 20: 2, 5–9; De Groot and Ariel 2000: Figs. 17: 13; 21: 17; 25: 12; 26: 1; Shoham 2000b: 110, 113–115, Figs. 17–19, 20: 1–12; Barkay 2003: 55–56, Pl. 2.3). Most of the markings appear on the uppermost part of the handles, close to the meeting point of the handle and rim; in a few cases the mark appears on the lowermost part of the handle, close to the meeting point of the pot’s handle and body. In most cases, the exact type of cooking pots could not be identified with certainty, although the majority do appear to be Iron II forms, commonly found in Strata 12–10 in the City of David (Shoham 2000b: 110, and see Maeir 2010: 45–46 for a discussion on the dating of Judahite marked cooking pots). Although the stratigraphic attribution of many of the objects presented here was uncertain, their main importance is in their cumulative value, especially in light of their ubiquity in late Iron Age levels throughout Jerusalem. Literature on the meaning and function of marked vessels from various periods and regions has been vast (Donnan 1971; Potts 1981; Bikaki 1984; Helck 1990; Wood 1990; Kletter 1999: 354–359; Maeir 2010). Although often dubbed “potter’s marks,” this nomenclature embodies an interpretation. Regarding the Judahite phenomenon of marked cooking pots, as duly noted by Barkay (2003: 55), “the large number of similarly marked pots, obviously from different workshops and extending over a long period of time, indicates that these marks do not support this view.” Additionally, it is less likely that these marks represent capacity, as the same mark is found on cooking pots of various sizes; nor does it represent quality of the contents, as the pots were used for cooking. They have also been related to the appearance of script and literacy, but the presence of fully developed Hebrew writing on vessels in the same period and region exclude this interpretation as well. Recently, it has been suggested that the markings should be related to cult in the framework of the centralized religious activities in Jerusalem during this period (Maeir 2010). Actually, however, the original meaning and function of the X or cross-shaped marks on the handles of cooking pots, as well as many other signs made in different techniques on various types of vessels, is still unknown to us. Of all the handles with cross shapes found only one handle in this catalog (No. 20) has a cross shape that was incised with a sharp tool after firing. The handle bears incisions of two lines forming a cross (when looking at the handle of the vessel with the rim facing upwards). Other excavations in Jerusalem have unearthed post-firing incisions forming an X (Shoham 2000b: Pl. 4: 15; Barkay 2003: 57–58). 3. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 1064; Locus 78 (Fig. 36.3) Jar handle, incised “X” with various additional incisions 4. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 893; Locus 67 (Fig. 36.5: No. 5) Jar handle; incised “X” before firing, on the top part of the handle 5. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 986; Locus 54 (Fig. 36.6: No. 7) Cooking pot handle; X-shaped incision made before firing, close to rim

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS 565

6. Area F; Permit 2599; Reg. No. 2324; Locus unknown Cooking pot handle; cross-shaped incision made before firing, close to rim 7. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 917; Locus 63 (Fig. 36.7: No. 9) Cooking pot handle; X-shaped incision made near rim before firing 8. Area F; Permit 2599; Reg. No. 2322; Locus 238 Cooking pot handle; cross-shaped incision and an additional short line made before firing. Incision touching rim 9. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 356; Locus 23 (Fig. 36.8: No. 10) Cooking pot handle. Deep cross-shaped incision made in soft clay before firing. Remains of part of incision on top of handle close to rim 10. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 649; Locus 23 (Fig. 36.9: No. 11) Cooking pot handle. Cross-shaped, deep incision made in soft clay on top of handle before firing 11. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 798; Locus 127 (Fig. 36.10: No. 12) Cooking pot handle; incision before firing, close to meeting point with body 12. Area J; Permit 3376; Reg. No. 946/1; Locus 172 (Fig. 36.11: No. 20) Cooking pot handle; X-shaped incision made on handle’s upper part before firing

0

5

10

0

Figure 36.3: No. 3.

5

10

Figure 36.4: No. 4.

0

5

Figure 36.6: No. 7.

10

0

5

10

Figure 36.5: No. 5.

5 6 6 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H

13. Area J; Permit 3376; Reg. No. 946; Locus 172 Cooking pot handle; cross-shaped incision close to meeting point of handle and body, made before firing 14. Area H; Permit 2833; Reg. No. 228/12; Locus unknown Cooking pot handle; cross-shaped incision made before firing, incision on top of handle close to rim 15. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 932; Locus 171 Cooking pot handle with cross-shaped incision on top of handle close to rim made before firing, 16. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 919; Locus 170 Cooking pot handle; fragment of cross-shaped incision made in soft clay before firing 17. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 919/1; Locus 170 Cooking pot handle; shallow cross-shaped incision made before firing 18. Area F; Permit 2599; Reg. No. 2319; Locus 237 Cooking pot handle; X-shaped incision on handle’s top, close to rim 19. Area F; Permit 2599; Reg. No. 2291; Locus 230 Jar or jug handle; X-shaped incision made before firing on handle’s center 20. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 859; Locus unknown (Fig. 36.12: No. 21) Jar of jug handle; cross-shaped incision on center of handle, incised after firing

0

2

4

0

Figure 36.7: No. 9.

0

2

2

4

0

Figure 36.8: No. 10.

4

Figure 36.10: No. 12.

2

4

Figure 36.9: No. 11.

0

2

4

Figure 36.11: No. 20.

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS 567

Incised Parallel Lines Incised parallel lines, usually intersected by an additional line or two, were usually made before firing, either in soft clay or in the leather-hard state, on the handles of cooking pots and kraters. They are attested (before and after firing) in other Judahite sites, including Beer-sheba, Strata III–II and V (Singer-Avitz 2016: 1006, Figs. 13.7: 19–22; 13.14: 16–17; 1008, 13.8: 11; 1009, 13.9: 12–13; 1011, 13.10: 7–9; 1012, 13.11: 1–6), Lachish, Levels III and II (Zimhoni 2004: 1848, Fig. 26.28: 6), and the City of David (Shoham 2000b: 127, Figs. 20: 15–23; 133, 23: 19–20; 135, 24: 27). The meaning of such incisions is also difficult to explain. Nevertheless, it is reminiscent of stampimpressed handles of cooking pots of the late Iron Age found at sites in the south of Judah, such as Beer-sheba (Singer-Avitz 2016: 992–993; Fig. 13.1), Khirbet Yattir, Gezer, Tell es-Safi/Gath, Kadesh Barnea, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Maresha (for a survey of these stamp impressions with references and a discussion, see Shai, Ben-Shlomo and Maeir 2012). It should also be noted that this sign appears on jar handles from the Late Bronze Age II (Shai, Ben-Shlomo and Maeir 2012: 240). 21. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 845; Locus unknown (Fig. 36.13: No. 22) Jar handle, two parallel lines intersected by a third line, incised before firing. Next to the incision there is a small round impression made after firing. Incision on upper part of handle close to meeting point with body 22. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 751; Locus 123 (Fig. 36.13) Jar handle with two parallel lines incised or chiseled on handle’s center 23. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 865; Locus unknown (Fig. 36.14) Cooking pot handle; one line intersected by two additional parallel lines, shallowly incised before firing on handle’s center 24. Area J; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 848; Locus unknown (Fig. 36.15) Cooking pot handle with one line intersected by two additional parallel lines, shallowly incised before firing on handle’s center

0

2

4

0

Figure 36.12: No. 21.

0

2

4

Figure 36.14: No. 23.

2

4

Figure 36.13: No. 22.

0

2

4

Figure 36.15: No. 24.

5 6 8 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H

25. Area F; Permit 3230; Reg. No. 2345/38; Locus 243 (Fig. 36.17: No. 26) Cooking pot handle; two parallel lines intersected by a third line incised on handle’s upper part close to rim

0

5

10

Figure 36.16: No. 25.

Finger-Impressed Handles Finger marks impressed when the clay was still soft on the upper parts of handles (of cooking pots, jugs, holemouth jars, storage jars, and large kraters) date to the Late Bronze Age, Iron I and Iron II. Parallels are known from Beer-sheba, Strata III and II (Singer-Avitz 2016: 993); Tel Batash Strata VII, V; Tel Miqne-Ekron, Stratum VI; Ashdod, Strata XV, XIII, XI (Ben-Shlomo 2014: 21, 24, Fig. 1: 10–11); dozens were found at Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang and Garfinkel 2015). They are also known from northern sites, such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Yoqne>am (for details and references, see BenShlomo 2014: 24). Again, their meaning is unclear, although it appears that they were meant to be seen on the jars and to differentiate them for some reason (cf. Ben-Shlomo 2014: 24–25; Kang and Garfinkel 2015). 26. Area F, Permit 2833; Locus 239; Reg. No. 2329 (Fig. 36.18: No. 27) Jar handle; deep impression on meeting point of handle and body

0

2

4

Figure 36.17: No. 26.

Punctured Handles The handles under discussion were punctured while still soft with a small rounded tool or reed, arranged in lines. Barkay (2003: 59, No. E6) assumed that “these drilled (in our case, impressed) markings stand for some kind of numerical symbol and the two holes mean two or twenty. The drilled hole markings are known to appear in groups of two or three and they are arranged horizontally or vertically….” A possible parallel is attested to at Tell el-Ful (Lapp 1981: 213, Fig. 50: 35). Other handles were marked using a mixed technique: puncturing the clay and connecting the holes with incised lines. This marking technique is attested to at Negev sites, such as Tel Masos, and in the

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS 569

north, at Mount Ebal (Mazar 2015: 65, Pl. 1.1.29). This technique is also attested in Jerusalem (Shoham 2000b: 135, Fig. 24: 8, 9; Barkay 2003: 58, Pl. 2.5: 6). 27. Area A, Permit 2236; Locus 50; Reg. No. 585 (Fig. 36.19: No. 28) Jar handle; three deep impressions made with a pointed object and connected by two shallow incised lines, on the handle’s top close to the meeting point with the body 28. Area A, Permit 2236; Locus 7; Reg. No. 215 (Fig. 36.20: No. 29) Jar handle; six round, shallow impressions made before firing, arranged in two lines 29. Area J, Permit 3376; Locus 172; Reg. No. 947 (Fig. 36.20) Jar handle; six round, shallow impressions arranged in a circle close to meeting point of the handle and body

0

5

0

10

Figure 36.18: No. 27.

5

0

10

Figure 36.19: No. 28.

2

4

Figure 36.20: No. 29.

30. Area J, Permit 3376; Locus unknown; Reg. No. 843 (Fig. 36.22: No. 31) Jar handle; a single deep, circular reed impression on handle top, close to the meeting point with body 31. Area J, Permit 3376; Locus 168; Reg. No. 923 (Fig. 36.23: No. 32) Jar handle; eight circular reed impressions arranged in two rows of four, with shallow incised lines connecting each pair of circles. Made before firing

0

2

4

Figure 36.21: No. 30.

0

2

Figure 36.22: No. 31.

4

5 7 0 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H

Varia One impression of a star-shaped stamp was found in Area A, in a mixed fill, preventing a secure stratigraphic dating. Cross-shaped symbols within circular frames are known throughout Judah, appearing both as stamp impressions on handles, as well as incised on the bodies of jars and inscribed on ostraca. Unfortunately, due to their vast distribution, their chronology, meaning and typological classification is difficult to establish, and they were probably stamped in different periods for different purposes (Bocher 2016: 458). Although the impression from the City of David presented here has five prongs and is not strictly cross-shaped as the impressions discussed above, and in addition its frame is more square than round, we suggest relating it to the ṭet- or ṭet-like (or cross-like) impressions (for a recent overview of research of the “ṭet”-symbol, see Na’aman 2012: 93–95). Another close parallel was found in the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 157). 32. Area A, Permit 2236; Locus 29; Reg. No. 407 (Fig. 36.24: No. 33) Body sherd; broken, unidentifiable pattern incised on sherd 33. Area F, Permit 2833; Locus 238; Reg. No. 2328 (Fig. 36.24) Jar handle with a generally rectangular incision framing a cross, made after firing. An additional round incision is on the intersection of the lines of the cross. Incision is on top of the handle near the meeting point with body

Discussion One body sherd with an unrecognizable pattern and one incised jar handle are presented here. The latter has parallels from Jerusalem (Shoham 2000b, Fig. 22: 8, 9 or Fig. 22: 14, 15; Pl. 4: C2; Barkay 2003: 53, Pl. 2.2: B1).

STAMP IMPRESSED HANDLE 34. Area A, Permit 2236; Locus 51; Reg. No. 880 (Fig. 36.25) Jar handle; seal impression on handle’s center with clay protrusion on left side as a result of seal’s impression. Impression is squarish, containing a five-pronged star.

0

5

10

Figure 36.23: No. 32.

0

5

10

0

Figure 36.24: No. 33.

2

4

0

5

10

Figure 36.25: No. 34.

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS 571

CONCLUSIONS Thirty-four handles and body sherds of different vessels, marked before or after firing with a variety of marks, were unearthed in the excavations presented in this volume, primarily from Areas A, F, and J. Cooking pot handles incised before or after firing with an X or a cross-mark constitute the largest group. This is by far the largest group of late Iron Age marked potsherds excavated in Judah, including other excavations in Jerusalem. Other groups consist of handles (of cooking pots and storage jars) incised with parallel lines, impressed with a fingertip, punctured with a sharp tool before firing, or chiseled after firing. These groups also find many parallels in excavations throughout Jerusalem. In fact, the phenomenon of marked handles and bodies of vessels, mainly storage jars and cooking pots, is vast and found in almost every pottery assemblage of the ancient world (e.g., Ben-Tor 2009; Mazar 2015: 49, Pl. 1.1.18: 7; Ben-Shlomo 2014; Taxel and Amitai-Preiss 2016: 560, Fig. 36.3; Kleiman 2017: 364–366). The function and meaning of these markings has been discussed extensively, with various suggestions having been put forward, such as that the marks signify quantity, contents or potters’ guilds, that they have cultic functions or that they are connected to the spread of literacy (Barkay 2003; Maeir 2010). Nevertheless, there is not a single accepted explanation for the various markings’ function and meaning of their designs, other than the assumption that they differentiated the vessels for some reason.

REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem. Albright, W.F. 1932. The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine, Vol. I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research). New Haven. Ariel, D.T. and Shoham, Y. 2000. Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 137–171. Barkay, G. 2003. Iron Age II Incised Potsherds and Potters’ Marks. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 50–62. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2014. Marked Jar Handles from Tel Miqne-Ekron. In: Spencer, J.R., Mullins, R.A., and Brody, A.J., eds. Material Culture Matters. Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Winona Lake: 17–32. Bikaki, A.H. 1984. Ayia Irini: The Potters’ Marks. Mainz. Bocher, E. 2016. Chapter 28: “tִet”-Like Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. II (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv: 458–460. Bocher, E., Ras, K., and Freud, L. 2016. Potter’s Marks. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Vol. II (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv: 482–488. De Groot, A. and Ariel. D.T. 2000. Ceramic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas. Jerusalem: 91–154. Donnan, C.B. 1971. Ancient Peruvian Potter’s Marks and Their Interpretation through Ethnographic Analogy. American Antiquity 35: 460–466. Eshel, I. and Prag, K. 1995. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Oxford. Franken, H. and Steiner, M. 1990. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. II: The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. Oxford. Freud, L. 1999. Pottery: 2. The Iron Age. In: Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Tel >Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 189–289.

5 7 2 A N AT M E N D E L - G E B E R O V I C H

Freud, L. 2007. Iron Age Pottery. In: Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Ḥorvat >Uza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 25). Tel Aviv: 77–121. Gitin, S. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Jerusalem. Greenhut, Z. 2009. Impressed and Incised Sherds. In: Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A., eds. Salvage Excavations at Tel Moẓa: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations (IAA Reports 39). Jerusalem: 129–136. Helck, W. 1990. Thinitische Topfmarken. Wiesbaden. Höfner, M. 2000. Remarks on Potsherds with Incised South Arabian Letters. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 26–28. Kang, H. and Garfinkel, Y. 2015. Finger-Impressed Jar Handles at Khirbet Qeiyafa: New Light on Administration in the Kingdom of Judah. Levant 47: 186–205. Kleiman, A. 2017. A North Israelite Royal Administrative System and Its Impact on Late-Monarchic Judah. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3: 354–371. Lapp, N. ed. 1981. The Third Campaign at Tell el-Fûl: The Excavations of 1964 (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 45). Cambridge. Maeir, A.M. 2010. “And brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully” (2 Chron. 31:12): On the Meaning and Function of the Late Iron Age Judahite “Incised Handles Cooking Pots.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130: 43–62. Mazar, A. 2015. Chapter 1.1: Iron Age I: Northern Coastal Plain, Galilee, Samaria, Jezreel Valley, Judah, and Negev. In: Gitin, S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Vol. I. Jerusalem: 5–70. Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem 42). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 2012. A New Look at the Epigraphic Finds from Ḥorvat >Uza. Tel Aviv 39: 84–101. Nadelman, Y. 1989. Hebrew Inscriptions, Seal Impressions, and Markings of the Iron Age II. In: Mazar, E. and Mazar. B., eds. Excavations on the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem (Qedem 29). Jerusalem: 128–137. Nadelman, Y. 1990. Chiseled Inscriptions and Markings on Pottery Vessels from the Iron Age II (Discussion and Catalogue). Israel Exploration Journal 40: 31–41. Naveh, J. 1982. A Fragment of an Ancient Hebrew Inscription from the Ophel. Israel Exploration Journal 32: 195–198. Naveh, J. 2000. Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 1–14. Potts, D. 1981. The Potters’ Marks of Tepe Yahya. Paléorient 7: 107–119. Sass, B. 1990. Arabs and Greeks in Late First Temple Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 122: 59–61. Shoham, Y. 2000a. Inscribed Pottery. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 17–25. Shoham, Y. 2000b. Incised Handles. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David, 1978-1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 109–136. Singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29: 110–214. Singer-Avitz, L. 2016. Chapter 13: Potmarks. In: Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L., eds. Beer-sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB Cities, Vol. II: The Pottery (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 33). Tel Aviv: 992–1019. Taxel, I. and Amitai-Preiss, N. 2016. Marked and Inscribed Pottery Vessels of the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L., eds. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959-1962) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 35). Tel Aviv: 553–566. Tushingham, A. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. I. Toronto.

MARKED HANDLES AND POTSHERDS 573

Wood, B.G. 1990. The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 103). Sheffield. Zimhoni, O. 2004. The Pottery of Levels III and II. In: Ussishkin, D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol. IV (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1789–1906.

CHAPTER 37

A STAMPED HANDLE WITH AN ARABIC INSCRIPTION Nitzan Amitai-Preiss

A handle with a stamped Arabic inscription was found in Area A in a fill in Channel II (Locus 52, Fig. 37.1). This is the latest find from Channel II, which was filled with sediment yielding finds from the 1st century CE and earlier. The stamp impression is located on the upper part of a jar handle. The inscription is only partially preserved, however it can be discerned that it is in angular script (wrongfully called Kufic). The stamp contains two words. The first is: [‫ﺍﻠﻠﻪ ﺍ [ﺤﺪ‬ Transliteration: Allāh a[had] Translation: “Allāh is one” This phrase comprises part of Surah Al-Ikhlas, (also called surah al-Tawḥīd), Verse 1 (Qur’ân 112:1): “Qul Huwa-Allahu Ahad” meaning, “Say, He is one God.” The same religious phrase, “Allāh is one,” is found on jar handles that were discovered elsewhere in Palestine. For example, the phrase is found on a handle unearthed at Caesarea (Sharon 1996: 438–440; Arnon 2008: 162–164) and Ramla (Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 102, Photo 9.3). In Caesarea, the handles were dated in accordance with their script to the end of the 8th–9th centuries CE. The same phrase was found on two impressions on a single handle unearthed at Kfar Mar (AmitaiPreiss, Cohen-Weinberger and Har-Even 2017: 81).

0

0

2.5

1

2

5

Figure 37.1: Handle with stamped Arabic inscription.

A S TA M P E D H A N D L E W I T H A N A R A B I C I N S C R I P T I O N 575

REFERENCES Amitai-Preiss, N., Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Har-Even, B. 2017. Stamped Jar Handles and Their Contribution to Understanding the Administrative System of Jerusalem’s Rural Hinterland in the Early Islamic Period. In: Gadot, Y., Zelinger, Y, Cytryn-Silverman, K. and Uziel, J., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 11: 74–90 (Hebrew). Arnon, Y. 2008. Caesarea Maritima. The Late Periods (700–1291 CE) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1771). Oxford. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. The Ceramic Evidence. In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Ramla Excavations North of the White Mosque (Qedem 51). Jerusalem: 97–211. Sharon, M. 1996. Arabic Inscriptions from Caesarea Maritima: A Publication of the Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae. In: Raban, A. and Holum, K.G., eds. Caesarea Maritima, A Retrospective after Two Millennia (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 21). Leiden: 401–440.

CHAPTER 38

ROOF TILES Ronny Reich

Two late Roman terracotta roof-tiles are presented here. They are impressed with the abbreviated name of the Tenth Roman Legion Fretensis which was garrisoned in Jerusalem after the sacking of the city in 70 CE. The first impressed roof-tiles of this type were found in Jerusalem by Bliss and Dickie (1898: Pl. XXVII: 36–38). Since then, large numbers of such objects have been retrieved in various excavations in and around the city (most recently by Nenner-Soriano 2017, and see bibliography there). The items presented here do not add new data to the typology of the impressions. Of the two items discussed here, No. 1, from Area A, is of no particular significance, as it was found in the debris dumped down the slope. This debris, which was found as a thick mantle covering the entire eastern slope of the hill, is identified as the city dump (Reich and Shukron 2003). As such, it contained refuse collected from the entire city, therefore the roof-tile’s stratigraphic value is minimal as a redeposited object. The second roof-tile (No. 2), found in Area H, is of some significance, as it originated from the bottom of the Kidron Valley, a location which thus far has not yielded this type of object. The rooftile originated from a disturbed locus, yet it joins nicely the concentrations of Late Roman pottery found within the mud layers deposited in the Kidron Valley. 1. Area A; Permit 2236; Reg. No. 103; Locus 12 (Fig. 38.1) LEXFR[ 2. Area H; Permit 2833; Reg. No. 152; Locus 20 (Fig. 38.2) LEX[

0

Figure 38.1: No. 1.

2.5

5

0

Figure 38.2: No. 2.

2.5

5

ROOF TILES 577

REFERENCES Bliss, F.J. and Dickie, A. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem 1894–1897. London. Nenner-Soriano, R. 2017. Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from Areas Q, H and O-2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VII. Jerusalem: 263–268. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18.

CHAPTER 39

A GREEK INSCRIPTION Ronny Reich

Three broken stone slabs, which bore the remains of a Greek inscription and were reused as capstones for Channel I, were noted when documenting the inner parts of the channel (Area F, Chapter 13). As space seveerely limited mobility, we could obtain only a few snapshots with a common camera and poor lighting (Fig. 39.1). These three broken slabs bore four lines of an incised Greek inscription. The letters are well executed and are approximately 10 cm high. It seems that all three slabs are part of a single inscription that was broken into pieces.

Figure 39.1: The Greek inscription in its findspot.

The northern slab (and the first to be encountered), measures ca. 30 × 40 cm. It reads: +MNHMA ONTA T[ΩN Translation: +tombstone property of The next stone, which measuresg ca. 20 × 30 cm, but is upside down in relation to the slabs on either side of it, reads: THC Translation: of (the genitive case) The southern slab, which measures ca. 17 × 25 cm, reads: ∆] ΙAΦΕ[ ΡΟΝ Translation: re[lat]ed to This means that several people who were related to another person whose name was not preserved were buried in the original tomb. This person, probably a member of the clergy, was probably of a

A GREEK INSCRIPTION 579

high rank or standing. It seems that all three inscribed stones were part of one inscription that was broken into narrower pieces. The complete inscribed slab served as a tombstone. This tombstone, from the Byzantine period, joins several similar stones which were discovered over the years along the Kidron Valley, particularly east of the Temple Mount (e.g., Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: III: 213, 224–228, 242, 247–250, 256–262).

REFERENCES Bieberstein, K. and Bloedhorn, H. 1994. Jerusalem, Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der Osmanischen Herrschaft. Wiesbaden.

CHAPTER 40

STONE SCALE WEIGHTS Ronny Reich

Three Iron II weights and 19 Early Roman period weights were found in the excavations. This chapter presents the findings according to their chronological attribution.

THE IRON AGE WEIGHTS The first Iron Age weights were discovered in the City of David by Guthe and by Bliss and Dickie (1898: 267–269; Guthe’s finds are cited by Bliss and Dickie). The others, from various excavations, were compiled by Kletter (1998). To these, more recent finds from the City of David should be added (Reich and Shukron 2011: 88–92; Reuven 2015: Nos. 1–8). The three weights presented here (Fig. 40.1) join similar objects discovered in the City of David in previous excavations.

1

2 0

5

3 10

Figure 40.1: Iron Age Weights* No.

Area

Reg. no.

Locus

H

D

M

A

Remarks

1

A

689

52

2.7

3.25

--

47.3

Dome-shaped weight, brown hard stone, incised hieratic signs on top of dome

2

A

896

61

1.1

3.1

--

13.1

Flat disc made of rough stone, incised sign on flat side

3

A

2588

51

1.0

1.75

5.15

--

Dome-shaped weight, reddish hard limestone, incised sign on top of dome

* Legend: (H): Height of weight (maximal height, usually in its center, in cm) (D): Diameter of weight (in cm) (M): Measured mass of item (intact or damaged), in grams (A): Amended mass in grams of incomplete weights (by calculation, see Metrological discussion, Reich 2015: 180–219).

STONE SCALE WEIGHTS 581

Weights Nos. 1 and 3 are typical Iron II weights of the sheqel series. No. 1 weighs 4 sheqel, in accordance with the sign incised on its top, to the right-hand side of the looped sheqel sign—a rather infrequent symbol. The amended mass of the weight is somewhat heavier (by ca. 4.3%) than the average mass of weights of this group. No. 3 is attributed to the small weights of the gera series. It is marked with the hieratic sign for 10. The weight’s mass is close to the average mass of 10 gera, i.e., 5.129 g (Kletter 1991: 134, Table 4). No. 2 is somewhat unique in shape and mass. The sign on its top suggests it should be dated to the Iron Age, although the shape is more reminiscent of Early Roman period weights (Reich 2015: 27–32, Type 1). However, it is too small to be attributed to this period, as the smallest Early Roman items known are at least twice as heavy as this one.

THE EARLY ROMAN PERIOD WEIGHTS Stone scale weights, commonly found in City of David excavations, were also encountered in the excavations presented here, particularly in the layer of refuse along the eastern slope of the City of David ridge. A comprehensive study of the Early Roman period weights was already undertaken (Reich 2015). Of the 20 weights dating to the Early Roman period, eight are presented in Fig. 40.2, including references to past studies on the subject (Reich 2006; 2007; 2009; 2015). These include four previously published weights (RS13, RS14, RS15, RS16; Reich 2015: 142–143), as well as four previously unknown weights that were encountered while preparing this report (RS17, RS18, RS19, RS20). Two of the newly added weights can be defined as Type 2 cubical weights. This is a rare type (less than 30 are known) in comparison to the cylindrical Type 1 weights, of which more than 600 are known. The finds from Area E in the Jewish Quarter excavations provide evidence that in fact the Type 2 weights are earlier, dating to the latter half of the 1st century BCE (Reich 2006). To the four items of Type 2 which have an average weight of 147.34 g (Reich 2015: 186: Table 51), the two items presented here (RS18 and RS19) are now added. The new calculated average of Weighing Group 14 is now 146.44 g. The lines incised on Weight RS19 closely parallel those seen on Weight EIM36 (Reich 2015: 70, 163), although their meaning remains unknown. All the weights presented here originated in loci related to the thick mantle of debris and waste which was dumped on the eastern slope of the hill, down to the Kidron Valley. This mantle was identified as the city dump (Reich and Shukron 2003; Reich and Bar-Oz 2006; Bar-Oz et al. 2007). The stone weights unearthed in the recent excavation in the City of David are of particular interest, as they represent the final stop of the weights on the way from the workshop where they were produced (at an unknown location), through their places of use (private houses, markets) to the city dump. Their state of preservation is poor, with all of them broken and no longer usable as reliable weights. Of the eight items presented here, three (Nos. RS17, RS18, RS19) are almost intact. Two items (Nos. RS13, RS15) are missing some 7% of their weight, while two other weights (Nos. RS14 and RS16) lack more than 30% of their mass. RS20 is missing more than 80% of its mass. This is in contrast to the high degree of preservation (with a loss of up to 5%), typical of the weights found in the private houses of the Upper City (Reich 2006: 344–346; 2015: 32–37). This contrast is clearly a result of the context in which they were found, with broken and discarded weights finding their way to the city dump. The mass of the stone appearing in bold font is the mass of the stone, which was taken for the metrological calculations. It is either the mass of an intact stone (given under column M), or, in

582 RONNY REICH

case of a damaged item, the reconstructed mass (given under column A). The full discussion on the various features of the present weights, which are but a small fraction of the entire known corpus of weights (598 items) is given in Reich (2015).

RS 13

RS 16

RS 14

RS 18

0

4

RS 17

RS 19

8

Figure 40.2: Early Roman Period Weights* No.

Area

Reg. no.

Locus

H

D

T

M

A

%

C

G

D/H

Remarks

RS13

H

198

28

4.0

6.5

1

340.55

366.15

93.0

-

45

1.62

Hard calcite, inscribed

RS14

H

-

5.1

9.6

1

527.30

775.56

68.0

?

46

1.88

Traces of letter L?

RS15

H

-

4.8

7.5

1

345.89

372.65

92.8

-

45

1.56

RS16

L

2922

10

6.8

8.0

1

494.70

708.73

69.8

?

36

1.17

RS17

J

941

-

2.2

4.3

1

75.4

76.9

98.0

-

23

1.95

RS18

J

521

83

4.5

35 x 37

2

145.9

147.36

99.0

-

14

-

Traces of incised lines

RS19

J

11

1

3.0

4.7 x 4.9

2

138.1

140.8

98.0

-

14

-

Three straight incised lines

RS20

J

141

26

?

?

1

106.7

--

~ 15

?

?

?

A small fragment of a weight. Made exclusively from calcite

221/1 221/2

Trace of inscribed line

STONE SCALE WEIGHTS 583

* Legend: (H): Height of weight (maximal height, usually in its center, in cm) (D): Diameter of weight (in cm) (T): Morphological type of weight (see Typology of weights, Reich 2015: 24–31) (M): Measured mass of item (intact or damaged), in grams (A): Amended mass in grams of incomplete weights (by calculation, see Metrological discussion, Reich 2015: 180–219) (C): Traces of calibration of the weight in antiquity (%): Part (%) of weight which survived. M*100/A (G): Group of weights, within a certain weighing system, to which a weight belongs (Reich 2015: 180–211) (D/H): Diameter/height, indicating the proportion ratio

REFERENCES Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnik, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D. and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Bliss, F.J. and Dickie, A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem 1894–1897. London. Guthe, H. 1882. Ausgrabungen bei Jerusalem im Auftrage des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palaestinas. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 5: 7–204, 271–378. Kletter, R. 1991. The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah. Tel-Aviv 18: 121–163. Kletter, R. 1998. Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 276). Sheffield. Reich, R. 2006. The Stone Scale-Weights of the Late Second Temple Period from the Jewish Quarter. In: Geva, H., ed. Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, Final Reports, Vol. III. Jerusalem: 329–388. Reich, R. 2007. Stone Scale-Weights from Masada. In: Aviram, J., ed. Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 207–215. Reich, R. 2009. The Distribution of Stone Scale-Weights from the Early Roman Period and Its Possible Meaning. Israel Exploration Journal 59: 175–184. Reich, R. 2015. Stone Scale-Weights of the Late Second Temple Period. Jerusalem. Reich, R. and Bar-Oz, G. 2006. The Jerusalem City Dump in the Late Second Temple Period: A Quantitative Study. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 12. Ramat Gan: 83–98 (Hebrew, English abstract: 14*–15*). Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Verein 119/1: 12–18. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2011. An Assemblage of Rooms and Rock-Cut Installations of the Iron Age II Period from the City of David. In: Amit, D., Stiebel, G. and Peleg-Barkat, O., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region V. Jerusalem: 78–95 (Hebrew). Reuven, P. 2015. Stone and Metal Weights. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David, Excavations 2005–2008, Final Reports. Vol. I: Area G. Jerusalem: 519–523.

CHAPTER 41

LATE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD STONE VESSELS Ronny Reich

Fragments of stone vessels and implements dating to the late Second Temple (Early Roman) period—1st century BCE–1st century CE—were discovered in Areas A, H, J and L. These stone fragments were not found in their original place of use. After the vessels were broken and discarded in antiquity, the fragments were gathered with other accumulated waste, taken to the city limits and dumped over the eastern slope of the hill into the city dump (Reich and Shukron 2003; Chapter 26). The similar fragments found in previous excavations on this slope, and particularly those retrieved by Weill, Macalister, Crowfoot and Shiloh (Cahill 1992, and further references therein, and recently Gadot and Adler 2016) can be seen in the same light. The importance of production and use of stone in 1st century BCE–1st century CE Jerusalem has already been established and discussed extensively (Magen 2002; Deines 1993; Gibson 1983; Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2000; Cahill 1992; Reich 2003; Geva 2010; Gadot 2016). This was also true at other contemporary Jewish sites, such as Gamla in the Golan (Gibson 2016). The religious background of this unique phenomenon was recently revisited by Adler (2011: 161–220; Adler 2019). It seems that from a typological perspective, the various stone fragments presented here do not contribute new insights to the subject, or present a new type of vessel, hence they are presented here in a somewhat laconic manner. The short descriptions and plates present the fact that the large amounts of debris, defined as part of the city dump, contained not only vast amounts of 1st century CE pottery and coins, but occasionally also broken and discarded stone vessels and objects.

MATERIAL Various types of stone were used in the Early Roman period in Israel, including Jerusalem, in order to produce vessels and utensils. The vast majority of the fragments found, a sample of which is presented here, are made of local, soft chalk (i.e., limestone of a biogenic origin), which was the easiest type of stone to carve and manipulate for household objects. Other types of stone were also used in Jerusalem’s stone production industry, including local, hard and medium-hard limestone, basalt and bituminous limestone. Although no statistical analysis was undertaken here, it is clear that vessels and objects made of chalk are by far the majority, while only a few objects of harder limestone, basalt and marble were found. In addition, it is important to note that the excavations in the Jewish Quarter demonstrated that the intensive use of chalk for the production of vessels was predated by a short period in which these were created from semi-hard and hard limestone (Mizzi Hilu) and dolomite (Mizzi Yahudi), probably carved by stone masons, using particular techniques to work these harder stones (Reich 2003: 263–265). Objects made of basalt are not represented here, and yet a word must be said on this absence. Basalt is the hardest type of stone in use in Jerusalem. Due to its specific virtues, such as hardness, rough texture, black color, resistance to water, extensive heat and mechanical wear, it was the ideal material for the production of mills and grinders of any kind throughout the ages, with the periods under discussion here being no exception. On the other hand, the durability of this type of stone

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 8 5

affected its presence in the contexts exposed in the excavations along the eastern slope of the City of David. While it is quite frequently found in private houses (e.g., Avigad 1983: Figs. 123, 209: 4), the objects did not break frequently, hence making them rare in the city dump. The use of marble was rare in the Early Roman period in Israel, as attested by the appearance of very few marble objects. It became more widespread in the Late Roman period, although fragments of a few marble bowls are known from the Upper City (Avigad 1983: Figs. 110, 206) and Masada. No traces of marble for constructional purposes were found in any contemporary building in Jerusalem, Caesarea Maritima or any of the Herodian palaces. Even in Rome, its common use, coating brick-built houses by marble verneer, began with Augustus (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars 1.28). The extensive use of marble for construction, as well as for creating vessels and utensils, began only after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE. From all the stone fragments presented here, only a single vessel fragment, found in Area L, is made of marble (Fig. 41.4: 1). It belongs to a large platter or very shallow basin, and is clearly an import. The following description of the stone fragments is divided according to material. The vast majority of fragments are vessels made of chalk, with other stone types represented by a few fragments. Within the category of chalk vessels, the objects are divided by manufacturing technique, then further divided by morphological types.

CHALK As noted above, chalk was the most common stone used for vessels and objects in Jerusalem. These vessels can be divided into two categories by their method of production: those carved by hand with the aid of a knife or a chisel, and those turned on a mechanical device resembling a lathe. It should be noted that the larger parts of the large lathe-turned vessels (their cavities and the bottom part of their legs) were carved and hollowed out by hand as well. Although it seems that the mechanical method of carving objects on a lathe was very popular, as deduced from their vast numbers and the findings in the two known chalk vessel workshops (Magen 2002: 5–62; Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2000), the hand-carving of certain types, particularly mugs, continued in large quantities up until the sack of Jerusalem. It does not seem that the price of the objects (with the hand-carved objects likely being cheaper) was the reason behind their continued use, rather religious tradition, often linked to the use of the hand-carved objects.

Hand-Carved Vessels Mugs

Mugs are the most common hand-carved object in Jerusalem (e.g., Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3: 11, 13–15) as well as at other sites, such as Masada (Reich 2007) and Gamla (Gibson 2016: 49–55, 76–79). They usually appear in three sizes: small, medium and large, all having a vertical flat rectangular handle with a bored circular hole in it. The small mugs occasionally appear with a spout or funnel at a right angle to the handle (always made for right-handed persons, pouring to the left; not a single spout was found enabling one to pour the liquid towards the right). The large size occasionally appears with two handles placed opposite each other. Most types are represented in the assemblage (Figs. 41.1: 1; 41.2: 12–14; 41.3: 14–18; 41.4: 10–13). At Masada and in the Jewish Quarter, a large number of mugs were found intact or restorable to an extent that their volume could be accurately measured (Reich 2007). Through such analysis, it was determined that these vessels were not used as measuring devices for specific

586 RONNY REICH

standard volumes, hence the term “measuring cup” attributed to them in the past should be replaced by the neutral term “mug.” Gibson (2016: 79, n. 11) recently suggested that the mugs may have been used for pouring water over the hands. This may be the case for the large mugs, although less likely for the medium ones. This does not hold true however, for the small vessels, and does not explain their spouts. Therefore, an overall explanation for these vessels should still be sought. Basins

The second most frequent type of hand-carved vessels are basins with flat bottoms, straight, out-flaring sides and plain rims (Figs. 41.1: 2; 41.2: 1, 3, 33; 41.3: 1–4; 41.4: 3). They usually have two flat, narrow ledge handles. Most basins can be attributed to two types: the first is circular (cf. Geva 2010: Pl. 5.5: 6) and the other is elongated, with two long, straight sides and two semicircular short sides (Geva 2010: Pl. 5.5: 1). It is not always possible to ascertain to which of these two types a circular fragment belongs. Unfortunately, as opposed to mugs, not many basins survived to an extent that permits the calculation of their exact volume. It is suggested here with caution that these vessels, or at least the circular ones, are the type of vessel termed midah in the Rabbinic literature (e.g., Mishnah Terumot 4:3) and in actuality served as the vessel to measure volumes of dry goods, such as cereals. Cups

A cup found in the assemblage (Fig. 41.1: 3), with a spherical section, is similar in shape and size to spherical lathe-turned vessels (e.g., Fig. 41.1: 5, 8). This may be a case in which the cup was supposed to be lathe-turned for final shaping, after it was first roughly hand-carved, although the vessel was never finished.

Parts of Lathe-Turned Vessels Carved by Hand Lathe-turned vessels on which a handle was required were produced in a twofold process: the entire object was created on a lathe, leaving an unworked band on the circumference of the vessel. The band, in turn, was chiseled off, save for the handle which was left protruding. On large containers (qalal), the band left rather rough chisel marks upon the very smooth body (Fig. 41.1: 16). On smaller vessels, like cups (Fig. 41.1: 10), the outer face was given a smooth finish.

Lathe-Turned Vessels and Objects The elaborate technique of producing stone vessels on a lathe has been described thoroughly by Magen (2002; see also Gibson 2016). The present finds do not contribute new insights to this matter, nor can they contribute much to the precise use of each type. It is hoped that the full study of the workshop discovered on Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2000) will advance our knowledge of this industry, which seems quite unique both chronologically (1st century CE, and perhaps slightly earlier) and culturally, relating exclusively to the Jewish community of the late Second Temple period. Adler (2019: 9–12) is currently excavating relevant remains in Galilee, leading to further insights on the subject. Cups, Chalices and Bowls

Hemispherical bowls and chalices with discoid bases (Figs. 41.1: 3–9; 41.2: 5–11; 41.3: 6–11; 41.4: 2, 4) and flat bowls with vertical sides (Figs. 41.1: 10–11; 41.2: 4; 41.4: 7) are the most frequent types of lathe-turned vessels.

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 8 7

Qalals

Several fragments of large, chalice-like basins commonly found in 1st century CE contexts in Jerusalem were discovered. Of these, quite a large number of complete, reconstructed items are known from near the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: 81–82) and the Upper City (Avigad 1983: Figs. 125, 195, 196). It is the largest type of lathe-turned vessel known. Magen (1988: 53, 98, 156, n.14; 2002) first identified this type of stone vessel with the Mishnaic qalal (‫( )קלל‬e.g., Mishnah Parah 3: 3), and suggested that it was used to hold water and protect it from becoming ritually impure. It seems that the contemporary sages (Tannaim) chose this term for the vessel which stood at the gate to the Temple court (‫ )עזרה‬and contained sin-offering water (Mishnah Parah 3, 3; 10, 3; Tos. Para 9: 10, 5). Rabbinic sources do not provide any clue to the shape, size or material from which this particular vessel was made. The types of these vessels differ particularly in their outer profile and rim shape. The most frequent types are those with relatively vertical sides. Among these, two types of rims are most common: a rim with a tripartite ridge on its outer side (Figs. 41.1: 13, 14; 41.2: 17, 20, 24; 41.3: 19–23; 41.4: 15), and a rim with a triangular cross-section (Figs. 41.2: 18, 23, 26; 41.3: 21; 41.4: 14, 16, 17). The difference probably points to the products of two different workshops. This may be confirmed when a workshop of such vessels will be found, as both known workshops, in Hizma and on Mount Scopus, specialized in the production of small vessels. Rarely, plain rims are found (Fig. 41.1: 16). Other types of these large vessels are known, but in very small numbers. Among these are large, more open vessels (Fig. 41.3: 19–20). It should be noted that for most of these qalals, a peculiar phenomenon can be observed in their inner wall, namely that they are thoroughly weathered. This weathering produces small cavities in the soft chalk. The weathering ceases beneath the rim, indicating they were weathered by water (or perhaps by some other liquid that they contained). This type of weathering deserves a special study whose aim is to identify the liquid they held.

Stone Cores Several small chalk cylinders were discovered in the various areas (Fig. 41.4: 18–21), clearly cores extracted from vessels during the manufacturing process, as attested to by the vast amount of these found in the Hizma (Magen 2002) and Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2000) workshops. As these objects are found occasionally in the city dump, and in domestic contexts (e.g., Geva 2010: Photo 5.6), their significance in these areas should be addressed. Do they point to the presence of workshops for the production of stone vessels within the boundaries of the city, and not only in conjunction with the stone quarries, such as in the ones discovered at Hizma and Mount Scopus? Or alternatively, were these cylinders reused in the private households for some yet unknown use? They were certainly not used as weights, since weights in this period were made of semi-hard limestone (Reich 2015: 24–27) and given a slightly different shape. Furthermore, the cores were not calibrated to a specific weight. The reason behind their presence in the city remains a mystery.

HARD LIMESTONE Only one fragment of an object made of hard limestone was found. This is the rim of a hand-carved platter (Fig. 41.1: 20). This type of vessel was first identified by Cahill (1992: 191–198, Fig. 14) in Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David. She defined the stone as chalk and suggested a Persian/ Hellenistic date. Later, this was found to be erroneous, with the publication of similar items from

588 RONNY REICH

stratified deposits in the Upper City, where they were accurately dated to the late 2nd–early 1st century BCE, and suggested to be forerunners of the more developed stone industry, using soft chalk, in the 1st centuries BCE/CE (Reich 2003: 263–265).

ALABASTER Alabaster, a calcium-sulphate or gypsum not found naturally in Israel, is rare in the Early Roman period in comparison with the abundance of vessels made of limestone or chalk (both of calcium carbonates). The small fragment of a cosmetic plate (Fig. 41.1: 18) was found. A similar dish originates from the Upper City (Reich 2003: 269–270, Pl. 8.6: 3). It may be a fragment which survived from the Iron II strata, when this material was imported (usually from Egypt) to produce cosmetic palettes. A double cosmetic dish from earlier periods which survived and was later reused was found at Masada (Yadin 1966: 149, bottom left).

SANDSTONE Vessels and objects made of sandstone are rare in the archaeological record of Jerusalem. In Area J, the base of a hand-carved mug made of this material was found (Fig. 41.3: 5). This points to a vessel which was brought from abroad, possibly from the Jewish community of the Peraea in Transjordan.

CONCLUSIONS The definition of this particular area as the Early Roman period city dump provides an interesting aspect of the life cycle of the stone vessels, with four stages of their history identified: 1. Phase 1: The vessels in the workshop in which they were produced. To date we know of two major workshops discovered and excavated. The first was excavated at Hizma (Gibson 1983; Magen 2002). The second was excavated on the eastern slope of Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2000). It may also be that some production, or post-production manufacturing processes, took place in a workshop within the boundaries of the city. This is attested to by objects which bear signs of manufacturing discovered on the Ophel Road (excavated by the authors in 1995; unpublished), on the eastern perimeter of the city. It is possible, however, that incomplete and damaged stone vessels, as well as stone cores—the waste material of the stone industry—found their way to the markets and the households for an unknown reason. 2. Phase 2: The vessels in the places they were used. Here, abundant information was retrieved by the Avigad expedition in the Jewish Quarter, where several private houses were exposed, including a wealth of complete stone vessels in their place of use (Avigad 1983: 125–128, 174– 183; Reich 2002). It should be noted that one stage, between the place of manufacturing (above, Phase 1) and the place of use (Phase 2) is missing: the location where these objects were sold. No shops have been excavated which specialized in these types of objects. 3. Phase 3: The broken and discarded vessels in the places where waste accumulated within the city. It seems that the thin layer of debris, which was found covering the surface of the large stone-paved street along the western wall of the Temple Mount, is such a case (Reich and Billig 2000). Here the waste accumulated on the street and not moved to the city dump. 4. Phase 4: The fragments at the city dump which are represented by the objects published here. A quantitative examination and study of a large sample of debris taken from the dump was undertaken in Area L (Reich and Bar-Oz 2006). Subsequent to the wet sifting, a deposit of ca. 236.55 kg remained. This contained earth, rubble, wall plaster fragments, stove and oven fragments, animal bones, pottery sherds and fragments

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 8 9

of stone objects. Of this deposit, the pottery sherds weighed 23.865 kg (10%), while the stone fragments made up only 0.685 kg (0.29%) of this residue. Moreover, when counting the indicative fragments (mainly rims) and calculating the number of vessels that these fragments represented, it was found that the pottery fragments represent 359.25 vessels. In contrast, only two rim fragments of stone vessels were found (ibid.), representing two vessels. This implies that only a few broken stone vessels reached the city dump. This was due, most probably, to the stone vessels being less prone to accidental breakage or to intentional mutilation as were pottery vessels that were broken if contaminated by a source of ritual impurity. The writer of the above paragraph, Y, Gadot, carried out his excavation on the same slope, some 200 m south of the spring, and ca. 350 m south of Area L. The quantitative study of the stone fragments found at that dig was published by Gadot and Adler (2016) with a totally different result concerning stone vessels. This difference can be explained by the fact that the sites investigated were disparate, hence the garbage they received was from different regions of the city. This point deserves further study. Among the stone fragments themselves, one sees a difference between the various types of stone. Almost all the fragments presented here are of chalk, a very soft stone. Only a handful of fragments made of common local limestone are presented here, and there are no item made of basalt. The percentage of stone vessels in the city dump is distinctly smaller than its relative proportion in the repertoire of the private houses of the Upper City. The difference can be attributed to the fact that stone vessels, although produced in large quantities, due to their firmer structure, break less frequently (whether intentionally or accidentally), in comparison to pottery vessels. Interestingly, none of the soft chalk fragments of whitish color bear any signs of charring or soot, as do many of the objects found in situ in the city. This implies that the fragments arrived at the city dump before the siege and sack of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE. On the other hand, the small sundial presented in Chapter 43 bears such signs, although these were likely the outcome of the use of fire on the stone in its original use.

590 RONNY REICH

1

2

5

3

6

9

7

10

4

8

11

12

13

14

15

16 Figure 41.1: Area A, stone vessels and objects.

0

5

10

17

18

19

20

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 9 1

Figure 41.1: Area A, Stone Vessels and Objects No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Material

Type

Description

1

1020/2

77

Chalk

Mug

Knife-carved, flat base, traces of vertical handle, simple rim, traces of hand-carving on smoothed interior. Vessel of the medium size type (Gibson 2016: Fig. 9.1). 8.3 cm high

2

475

41

Chalk

Small basin

Knife-carved, simple rim with horizontal ledge handle, slightly tilted side

3

687

51

Chalk

Cup

Knife-carved on the exterior, carved and smoothed on the interior. Spherical body with rim inverted inwards

4

1047/2

77

Chalk

Cup

Traces of hand-carving on the interior, smoothed exterior, flat base, spherical body

5

997/2

77

Chalk

Cup

Lathe-turned, simple rim of spherical body, slightly inverted inwards, horizontal incisions on rim

6

204/1

7

Chalk

Cup

Lathe-turned, simple rim of spherical body, slightly inverted inwards, horizontal incisions on rim

7

261/1

5

Chalk

Cup

Lathe-turned, body fragment of upright body, prominent horizontal band on body

8

183/1

4

Chalk

Cup

Lathe-turned, simple rim of spherical body, slightly inverted inwards, horizontal incisions on body.

9

1047/1

77

Chalk

Cup

Lathe-turned, discoid base, spherical body

10

1048

77

Chalk

Cup

Handle with small part of body. The part of the body below the handle shows traces of lathe-turning. Handle loop drilled from both sides. Outer sides of handle carved by hand with knife

11

246

5

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned bowl with flat base, vertical side, slightly thickened rim

12

1045/2

77

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned base of bowl with lower part of vertical side

13

261/2

5

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, rim fragment, thickened outwards, upper flat surface

14

150/1

6

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with deep lid groove on the interior. Slightly worn inside

15

1053/1

77

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with shallow groove on the interior

16

268

14

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, body fragment, wide band with combed chisel marks, traces of soot, slightly worn interior

17

1047/3

77

Chalk

Lid

Lathe-turned, flat bottom, central knob missing, traces of soot

18

187

2

Alabaster

Cosmetic plate

Circular plate, flat wide rim

19

216

7

Limestone

Cosmetic plate

Hard gray limestone mottled with brown spots, flat stone plate with hemispherical cavity, traces of second cavity

20

758

53

Limestone

Platter

Shallow platter with flat horizontal rim or handle. Traces of smoothing

592 RONNY REICH

1 1 3 3

2 2

4 4

5 5

7 7

9 9

8 8

10 10

14 14

13 13

12 12

6 6

11 11

15 15

16 16

17 17

21 21

18 18

22 22

19 19

23 23

20 20

0

5

10

0

5

10

Figure 41.2: Area H, stone vessels from clay layers, Early Roman period.

24 24

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 9 3

25

26

27

29 31

28

32

33

35

34

38

36

39

40

Figure 41.2: Area H, Stone Vessels from Clay Layers, Early Roman Period No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Material

Type

Description

1

203/1

28

Chalk

Basin

Hand-carved

2

210/3

30

Chalk

Platter

Hand-carved

3

179/2

23

Chalk

Basin

Deep basin

4

205/2

29

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned

5

123/17

7

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned

37

594 RONNY REICH No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Material

Type

Description

6

123/16

7

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned

7

101/4

1

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned

8

134/6

14

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, base fragment

9

107/25

3

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, base fragment

10

125/1

7

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, base fragment

11

142/2

15

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, base fragment

12

159/9

21

Chalk

Mug

Rim fragment

13

146/15

16

Chalk

Mug

Base fragment

14

210/2

30

Chalk

Mug

Base and handle

15

112/1

6

Chalk

Chalice

Lathe-turned, knob on outer face

16

159/13

21

Chalk

Chalice

Lathe-turned, horizontal ridge on outer face

17

137/1

14

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

18

210/1

30

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

19

135/1

14

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

20

101/6

1

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

23

159/35

21

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

24

127/3

9

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

25

144/1

15

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

26

192/11

28

Chalk

Qalal

Stone jar (qalal), lathe-turned, rim fragment

27

139/1

15

Chalk

Qalal

Base of stone jar (qalal)

28

178/15

24

Chalk

Qalal

Base of stone jar (qalal)

29

199/25

28

Chalk

Bowl?

30

205/1

29

Chalk

Lid

31

142/9

15

Chalk

Lid

32

182/4

24

33

127/6

9

Chalk

Basin

Manufacturing incomplete

34

160/25

21

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, incomplete

35

199/19

28

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, incomplete

36

159/6

21

Chalk

Bowl

Base fragment, hand-carved, incomplete

37

144/21

15

Chalk

Stone core

38

207/2

30

Chalk

Stone core

39

183/2

24

Chalk

Stone core

40

209/1

30

Chalk

Table

Stopper

Base fragment

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 9 5

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 0

Figure 41.3: Area J, stone vessels.

5

10

596 RONNY REICH

28

30

29

31 0

Figure 41.3 (cont.): Area J, stone vessels.

5

10

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 9 7

Figure 41.3: Area J, Stone Vessels No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Material

Type

Description

1

140/6

26

Chalk

Basin

Circular basin, hand-carved, remains of horizontal handle

2

574/4

30

Chalk

Small basin

Fragment of circular part, hand-carved, ledge handle

3

300/1

30

Chalk

Basin

Fragment of elongated vessel with rounded short sides, hand-carved

4

562/1

30

Chalk

Large basin

Circular vessel, hand-carved, traces of soot outside

5

140/2

26

Sand stone

Mug

Flat base of vessel, handmade of an unusual gray stone

6

140/10

26

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, very smooth exterior

7

380/1

30

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, very smooth exterior

8

140/7

26

Chalk

Cup

Lathe-turned, very smooth exterior

9

307/1

30

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, very smooth exterior

10

534/1

30

Chalk,

Bowl

Ring base

11

140/8

26

Chalk

Bowl

Lathe-turned, very smooth exterior

12

378

35

Chalk with brown spots

Cup

Hand-carved

13

338

35

Chalk

Cup

Straight sides, rim with rounded profile

14

534/4

30

Chalk

Mug

Vessel with vertical handle, large type, hand-carved

15

140/4

26

Chalk

Mug

Medium size type, hand-carved

16

287/2

30

Chalk

Mug

Large size type, hand-carved

17

503/2

29

Chalk

Mug

Medium size type, hand-carved

18

287/4

30

Chalk

Mug

Medium size type, hand-carved

19

507/1

78

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with three ridges, weathered interior

20

132/1

25

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with three ridges, weathered interior

21

303/2

30

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with three ridges, weathered interior

22

300/4

30

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with three ridges

23

405/2

29

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with three ridges, weathered interior

24

140/9

26

Chalk

Small saucer

Hand-carved, traces of filing on the exterior

25

283/1

29

Chalk

Basin

Hand-carved

26

534/5

30

Limestone

Cup?

Base of vessel?

27

--

--

Gray limestone

Foot of table?

Fragment of circular object ca. 18 cm in diameter, carvings imitating fluting of column

28

310/1

30

Chalk

Kantharos?

Lathe-turned, rim with triangular profile

29

287/1

30

Chalk

Small qalal

Lathe-turned

30

555

29

Chalk

Qalal

Lathe-turned, rim with triangular profile

31

102

10

Yellowish limestone

Large bowl

Bowl with funnel and three ledge handles, hand made

598 RONNY REICH

1

2

5

3

4

7

8

6

9

11 12

10

13

15 14

16 Figure 41.4: Area L, stone vessels.

17

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 5 9 9

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 0

5

25

10

Figure 41.4: Area L, Stone Vessels No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Material

Type

Description, parallels

1

16/12

--

Marble

Large platter

Rim of large object

2

11/64

--

Chalk

Bowl

Flat disc base, lathe-turned, slightly charred

3

16/15

--

Chalk

Basin

Simple rim with ledge handle, hand-carved

4

16/10

--

Chalk

Bowl

Hemispherical vessel, discoid base, lathe-turned

5

11/46

--

Chalk

Bowl

Rim of deep bowl, lathe-turned, large diameter

6

16/11

--

Chalk

Bowl

Thick fragment of carinated bowl, lathe-turned

7

16/9

--

Chalk

Bowl

Vertical side, low disc base, lathe-turned

8

16/7

--

Chalk

Chalice

Rim

9

11/40

--

Chalk

Chalice

Base of vessel with vertical sides, lathe-turned

10

16/8

--

Chalk

Mug

Base of large type, traces of handle, hand-carved

11

11/70

--

Chalk

Mug

Base of large type, hand-carved

12

11/59

--

Chalk

Mug

Base of small type, hand-carved exterior, signs of extraction of core by lathe-turning on interior, extraction of core was executed too early leaving a considerably thick base

13

11/11

--

Chalk

Mug

Handle of large type

14

11/21

--

Chalk

Qalal

Rim, triangular profile, lathe-turned, slightly charred, weathered interior

15

11/22

--

Chalk

Qalal

Rim, ridged profile, lathe-turned, slightly charred

16

11/37

--

Chalk

Qalal

Rim, triangular profile, lathe-turned, charred

17

11/20

--

Chalk

Qalal

Rim, triangular profile, decorated exterior with a series of vertical wide and narrow incisions, lathe-turned

600 RONNY REICH No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Material

Type

Description, parallels

18

16/16

--

Chalk

Core

Core of medium size vertical vessel

19

16/17

--

Chalk

Core

Core of small vertical vessel

20

11/25

--

Chalk

Core

21

11/2

--

Chalk

Core

22

11/72

--

Chalk

Lid

Central knob broken off and missing, lathe-turned

23

11/29

--

Chalk

Qalal

Base, lathe-turned, interior bears signs of flat chisel

24

11/13

--

Chalk

Qalal

Base, lathe-turned, interior bears signs of flat chisel

25

11/64

--

Chalk

Bowl

Unfinished vessel. Exterior turned on a lathe, interior bears signs of core extraction by a lathe. Signs that stump on the bottom was hand carved

REFERENCES Adler, Y. 2011. The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Eretz-Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat-Gan. Adler, Y. 2019. New Insights in the Study of Roman Period Jewish Chalk Vessels. Qadmoniot 157: 2–17 (Hebrew). Amit, D., Seligman, J., and Zilberbod, I. 2000. Stone Vessel Workshops of the Second Temple Period East of Jerusalem. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Expanded Edition 2000. Jerusalem: 353–358. Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Barag, D. 1985. Phoenician Stone Vessels from the Eighth–Seventh Centuries BCE. Eretz Israel 18 (Nahman Avigad Volume): 215–232 (Hebrew). Cahill, J. 1992. The Chalk Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 190–274. Deines, R. 1993. Jüdische Steingefässe und pharisäische Frömmigkeit (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2, Reihe 52). Tübingen. Gadot, Y. 2016. Urban Judaism under Roman Rule: The Dedicating of the Kidron for Garbage Disposal in the First Century CE. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 10: 149–165 (Hebrew). Gadot, Y. and Adler, Y. 2016. A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frenquencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City’s Garbage Dump. Israel Exploration Journal 66: 202–219. Geva, H. 2010. Stone Artifacts. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 154–212. Gibson, S. 1983. The Stone Vessel Industry at Hizma. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 176–188. Gibson, S. 2016. Soft Limestone Vessels. In: Syon, D., ed. Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989, Finds and Studies. Part 2 (IAA Reports 59). Jerusalem: 49–84. Magen, I. 1988. Stone Vessels Industry in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen, I. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period (JSP 1). Jerusalem. Reich, R. 2003. Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 263–291. Reich, R. 2007. Stone Mugs from Masada. In: Aviram, J., ed. Masada VIII, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 195–206.

L AT E S E C O N D T E M P L E P E R I O D S T O N E V E S S E L S 6 0 1

Reich, R. 2015. Stone Scale-Weights of the Late Second Temple Period. Jerusalem. Reich, R. and Bar-Oz, G. 2006. The Jerusalem City Dump in the Late Second Temple Period: A Quantitative Study. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 12. Ramat-Gan: 83–98 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 14*–15*). Reich, R. and Billig, Y. 2000. Excavations near the Temple Mount and Robinson’s Arch, 1994–1996. In: Geva, H., ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Expanded Edition 2000. Jerusalem: 340–352. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 119: 12–18. Suetonius. 1914. Lives of the Caesars, Vol. I: Books 1–4. Translated by J.C. Rolfe (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA. Yadin, Y. 1966. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. New York.

CHAPTER 42

THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGE Yoav Weingarten

An assemblage of 111 stone objects are included in this report: 86 can be defined as tools while 25 are fragments of an unclear nature. Both quantitative and qualitative data are presented below. All relevant information for the objects as well as the fragments is given in the form of a catalog. Whenever possible measurements and mass are noted and are abbreviated in the following manner: length (L); width (W); thickness (T); and diameter (D). For some vessels, the depth (Dp) and measurements of the walls, rims and legs are also noted. The objects were divided into six main categories: grinding elements; handstones/pebbles; vessels; pestles; varia; and fragments. Specific types were distinguished for each object in the different categories. However, subtypes were only mentioned whenever it seemed relevant. Quantitative analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistical platform version 24.

THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGE Grinding Elements (Table 42.1) This category includes grinding stones that were used only in a “resting precaution technique” (de Beaune 2004), employing reciprocal back and forth motions. Rotary mills and one possible donkey mill were allocated to a different category (cf. Varia). Sixteen grinding elements were discovered, five lower elements and 11 upper elements. Lower elements were sub-divided based on their body shape and type of grinding surface. All of the lower elements have a flat grinding surface, and only differ in body shape, ranging from classic loaf-shape to oval. Upper elements are divided according to “two handed” and “one handed” varieties, the latter of which are dubbed “handstones.” It should be noted that the two types of upper elements not only differ in size but in function and method of operation. Although both tools have one main grinding surface, and were probably operated in a generally similar fashion, the handstones were more versatile as indicated by the use-wear patterns (cf. Quantitative Analysis). It seems that handstones were not only used to grind but to crush and pound other materials. While it is possible that two-handed upper elements were used for activities other than grinding, as attested to in ethnographical accounts (Robitaille 2016), no macroscopic evidence supported this. Furthermore, the fragmentary nature of the assemblage may have concealed different use-wear patterns.

Handstones/Pebbles (Table 42.2) These are expediently designed, multipurpose tools small enough to be manipulated in one hand. Two main tool types were defined: Hammerstones: Spherical objects which exhibit pounding wear and scars. Based on the wear patterns, it seems that hammerstones were used to strike other materials. Striking was performed with variable force. Less powerful blows created small depressions on the circumference of the tool (often dubbed “pecking marks”), while the more powerful blows were responsible for the typical scarred pattern associated with these tools. Shaping/reshaping of other objects and even

THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGE 603

re-roughening the working surfaces of grinding elements are possible functions for these tools. However, some hammerstones exhibit a clear grinding face which may indicate that they were also used as crushers. Grinders/pounders: Small stones of different shapes that exhibit a combination of grinding and pounding wear patterns. They may have been used to crush, grind or pound any type of material ranging from pigments to small quantities of food. Three objects (Fig. 42.2:1, 25, 31; Table 42.2:1, 25, 31) were classified as “other” as their subtype could not be securely determined.

1

2

3

4

5 0

5

Figure 42.1: Grinding elements (all drawings appear in Table 42.1).

10

6 0 4 Y O AV W E I N G A R T E N

Table 42.1: Grinding Elements Permit

Area

Locus

Basket Context

Type/ subtype

Raw material

Dimensions Mass Remarks (cm) (g)

1

A-3230 J

31

757

2nd century BCE coins; 1st century CE lamps

Upper Handstone

Compact basalt

W=6; T=4

Sub-rectangular; slightly convex working surface; one ground end; broken

2

A-3230 J

60

423

Iron II pottery

Upper Two handed

Red sandstone

W=11

Fine grained; fragment

3

A-3230 J

61

544

Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Upper Handstone

Vesicular basalt

W=7; T=3.5

Slightly ground dorsal and ends; battered in center; end fragment

4

A-3230 J

63

416

Iron II pottery

Lower Loaf/Flat

Vesicular basalt

W=17; T=5

5

A-3230 J

78

889/6

Mainly 1st century CE; a few late Iron II

Upper Loaf/Flat

Flint

T=9

Plano convex in section; scarred working surface; end fragment

6

A-3230 J

80

570

Mainly 1st century CE; a few late Iron II

Lower Oval/Flat

Red sandstone

W=13; T=4

Triangular ends; one flat grinding surface; not fine as the fragments; broken

7

A-3230 J

124

815

Mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Lower Netherstone

Flint

Two flat working surfaces; broken

8

A-3230 J

132

710

Mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Lower or Upper Loaf/Flat

Flint

Flat dorsal; flat perhaps slightly concave base; lower? broken

9

A-3230 J

133

742

Mostly Iron II pottery, a few EB I sherds

Upper Two handed

2092 Fragment ~30%

Fig. 42.1

1

2

Fragment

10 A-3230

982/2

Upper Loaf/Flat

Limestone

W=12; T=5

1025 End fragment

11 A-3230 J

364/2

Lower Loaf/Flat

Flint

T=10

4243 End fragment

12 A-3230 J

268

Lower Rectangular/ Flat

Vesicular basalt

T=10

Irregular fragment

13 A-3230 J

205/2

Upper Handstone

Vesicular basalt

T=4

End fragment

Upper Handstone

Vesicular basalt

L=12; 891 W=9.5; T=3

Oval; convex 4 working surface; broken dorsal; battered in center of working surface

Limestone

W=14; T=5

Broken

14 A-2833 F

234

2310

Channel II

15 A-2833 J

10

105

Mostly 1st century Upper? CE Two handed

16

17 A-2599 H

203

Upper Handstone

Limestone

Upper Handstone

Compact basalt

651

Sub-rectangular; convex working surface; ground ends; broken dorsal; no registration number Flat working surface; convex dorsal; ground and battered end; end fragment

3

5

THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGE 605

1

2

3

5

4

6 0

5

7 10

Figure 42.2: Handstones/pebbles (all numbers appear in Table 42.2).

Table 42.2 Handstones/Pebbles Permit Area Locus Basket Context

Type/ Subtype

Raw material

Dimensions Mass Remarks (cm) (g) L=7; W=5

1

A-3230 J

29

399

1st century CE Dumps; Other large amounts of 1st Whetstone? century CE pottery, Polisher? and some earlier

Red sandstone

2

A-3230 J

30

301/1

1st century CE Dumps; Grinder/ pottery same as Locus Pounder 29; 3rd century BCE coins

Flint-Lime

Oval; Three smooth working surfaces; one surface is slightly deformed due to intensive grinding; scarred; broken

3

A-3230 J

30

301/2

1st century CE Dumps; Grinder/ pottery same as Locus Pounder 29; 3rd century BCE coins

Flint-lime

Oval; two smooth working surfaces; battered at one end; grooves on one surface; battered at the center of opposite; whitish patina; broken

4

A-3230 J

30

531

1st century CE Dumps; Hammerstone pottery same as Locus 29; 3rd century BCE coins

Flint

D=8

5

A-3230 J

43

324

Close to W.501; Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Hammerstone

Flint

D=6.5

6

A-3230 J

51

290/1

Adjacent to Channel II; Iron II pottery

Grinder/ Pounder Pestle-like

Flint-lime

L&W=8; T=6

641

Dome shaped; flat and wide working surface; white spotty appearance; slightly scarred

7

A-3230 J

51

290/2

Adjacent to Channel II; Iron II pottery

Hammerstone Grinder/ Pounder

Limestone L&W=8 (flint T=7 core?)

695

Irregular sphere; one ground face

Dark red; axe like shaped; two smooth surfaces; coarse circumference

736

Scarred; battered

Scarred; battered; broken

Fig. 42.2

6 0 6 Y O AV W E I N G A R T E N Permit Area Locus Basket Context

Type/ Subtype

Raw material

Dimensions Mass Remarks (cm) (g)

Fig. 42.2

8

A-3230 J

59

433

West of Channel II; Hammerstone Iron II pottery, a single EB I sherd

Flint

9

A-3230 J

66

490

Channel II

Hammerstone

Limestone D=9 (flint core?)

819

Slightly battered

1

10 A-3230 J

73

396

Near Channel I; Late Iron Age II pottery

Hammerstone

Flint

475

Scarred; battered;

2

11 A-3230 J

74

400/1

Near channel I; Late Iron Age II pottery, few MB sherds

Hammerstone? Flint

12 A-3230 J

74

400/2

Near Channel I; Late Iron II pottery, few MB sherds

Hammerstone

Flint

13 A-3230 J

74

400/3

Near Channel I; Late Iron II pottery, few MB sherds

Hammerstone

Flint

Scarred; battered; broken

14 A-3230 J

74

401

Near Channel I; Late Iron II pottery, few MB sherds

Grinder/ Pounder

Limestone W=8 (flint core?)

Oval; two smooth working surfaces; battered at one end

15 A-3230 J

78

513/1

1st century CE Dumps; Hammerstone mostly 1st century CE, a few late Iron II

Flint

D=8

542

Scarred; battered; broken

16 A-3230 J

78

513/2

1st century CE Dumps; Hammerstone mostly 1st century CE, a few late Iron II

Limestone D=9 (flint core?)

684

Broken

17 A-3230 J

78

889/5

1st century CE Dumps; Hammerstone mostly 1st century CE, a few late Iron II

Flint

18 A-3230 J

84

551

1st century CE Dumps; Hammerstone mostly 1st century CE, a few late Iron II

Flint

19 A-3230 J

89

884

Stone gravel below Locus 81; Late Iron II, few MB sherds

Limestone (flint core?)

20 A-3230 J

91

537

Near W.501; above Hammerstone bedrock; only late Iron Grinder/ II sherds Pounder

Flint-lime

21 A-3230 J

113

841

Near Wall 501; mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Hammerstone

Flint

D=7

217

Scarred; battered; broken in half?

22 A-3230 J

115

811

Near Wall 501; mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Hammerstone

Flint

D=6

354

Scarred; battered

23 A-3230 J

132

762

Near Wall 501; mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Hammerstone Grinder/ Pounder

Flint

392

Scarred; battered; one ground face; broken ~70-80%

24 A-3230 J

133

734

Dismantling baulk parallel to Wall 501; Iron II pottery, a few EB I sherds

Hammerstone

Flint

330

Scarred; battered; broken ~ 60%

25 A-3230 J

144

828

Near Wall 501; mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Other Grinder/ Pounder

Limestone L=5.5

26 A-3230 J

151

758

West of Wall 503; down to bedrock; mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Hammerstone Grinder/ Pounder

Flint

D=7

449

Scarred; battered; one ground face; broken ~70-80%

Grinder/ Pounder

Yellowred sandstone

L=6; W=6.5; T=2.5

163

Rectangular; smooth; ground; three working surfaces

27 A-3230 J

389/3

Grinder/ Pounder

Scarred; battered; orange slice fragment

D=7

Fragment D=9

Scarred; battered; broken

D=10

Scarred; battered; broken

425

D=6

3

Scarred; battered; broken

4

Cubical-round

5

Cubical-round; slightly scarred; ground

6

Cubical

7

THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGE 607 Permit Area Locus Basket Context

Type/ Subtype

Raw material

Dimensions Mass Remarks (cm) (g)

28 A-3230 J

389

Hammerstone

Flint

29 A-3230 J

808

Hammerstone Grinder/ Pounder

Flint-lime

D=6

293

Cubical-round; slightly scarred and battered

30 A-3230 J

882

Hammerstone Grinder/ Pounder

Flint

D=8

735

Slightly ground on one face; scarred; battered

31 A-2833 J

140/7

Other Whetstone? Polisher?

Flint

Scarred; battered; broken

Rectangular; smooth

32 A-2833

2311/2

Hammerstone

Flint

D=9

648

Battered; broken

33 A-2833 H

1228/1

Hammerstone Grinder/ Pounder

Flint

D=6

337

Scarred; battered; broken

34 A-2833 H

238/2

Grinder/ Pounder

Red sandstone

L&W=7; T=3

503

Two ground surfaces; slightly ground ends; slightly broken

Hammerstone

Flint

D=9

510

Scarred; battered; slightly diformed; broken

Grinder/ Pounder

Limestone L=10; W=5; 447 (flint T=3.5 core?)

35 A-2833 F

234

2309

36 A-4709 H

96

933

Channel II

Fig. 42.2

Sub-recangular; one ground surface; battered opposite;one ground end broken opposite

Vessels (Table 42.3) Most of the vessels in this assemblage are parallel to the “grinding bowls” category defined by Hovers (1996). One exception, however, should probably be classified as a type of container (Table 42.3:2; Table 42.2: 2). The grinding bowls were most likely coupled with flat base pestles or handstones to perform miscellaneous grinding activities (Ebeling and Rosenberg 2015). This is indicated by the fact that pestles and handstones were occasionally found alongside stone bowls (Elliott 1991; Geva 2010; Marinatos 1991 [1969]). All the vessels are represented by fragments.

1

2 0

5

10

Figure 42.3: Vessels (all drawings appear in Table 42.3).

6 0 8 Y O AV W E I N G A R T E N

Table 42.3: Vessels Mass (g)

Type/ Subtype

Raw material

Dimensions (cm)

1st century CE dumps; large amounts of 1st century CE pottery, and some earlier

Deep bowl Round rim/ everted walls

Compact basalt

Wall.t=2.5; rim.t11

Black-gray fine interior and exterior; broken

106

809

Near Wall 508; late Iron II pottery

Bowl

Compact basalt

Wall.t=1.5

Fragment; ground interior

132

711

Near Wall 501; mostly Iron II pottery, a few MB II sherds

Bowl

Compact basalt

Wall.t=1.5

Fragment; ground interior

421

Bowl Rectangular/ round rim

Compact basalt

Wall.t=2; rim. t=1

Fragment; visible handles or lugs

J

840/1

Bowl

Compact basalt

Wall.t=1.5

Fragment; ground interior

A-3230

J

840/2

Bowl Tripod bowl

Compact basalt

Wall.t=2; leg. l=5; leg.w=4; lug.l=5; lug. w=1.5; lug. t=2

Fragment; groove on leg; lug between the leg and the base

8

A-3230

J

881/4

Bowl Round rim

Compact basalt

Wall.t=3; rim. t=1

Fragment; ground interior

9

A-2599

H

23

164

Bowl Tripod bowl

Compact basalt

Wall.t=4; leg. l=2; leg.w=4

Fragment; round base leg

1

10

A-2599

H

7

124

Bowl Round rim/ everted walls

Compact basalt

Wall.t=3; rim. t