Jerusalem before Islam 9781407301419, 9781407331782

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
PREFACE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM
CHAPTER 3: JERUSALEM AND THE JEBUSITES
CHAPTER 4: THE NAMES OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM
CHAPTER 5: JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION
CHAPTER 6: JERUSALEM IN THE AMARNA LETTERS
CHAPTER 7: JERUSALEM IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD
CHAPTER 8: A HISTORY OF EXCAVATION IN JERUSALEM
CHAPTER 9: JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENNIA BC: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
CHAPTER 10: JERUSALEM IN THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. ARCHAEOLOGICAL VERSUS LITERARY SOURCES?
CHAPTER 11: JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE
CHAPTER 12: JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE
CHAPTER 13: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
CHAPTER 14: THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD (37 BC – AD 70)
CHAPTER 15: AELIA CAPITOLINA
CHAPTER 16: JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD
CHAPTER 17: EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM
CHAPTER 18: THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM: CHOCOLATE-ON-WHITE WARE AND CHRONOLOGY
CHAPTER 19: SYNTHESIS: JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Citation preview

BAR  S1699  2007  

Jerusalem before Islam

KAFAFI & SCHICK (Eds)  

Edited by

Zeidan Kafafi Robert Schick

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

BAR International Series 1699 B A R

2007

Jerusalem before Islam

Edited by

Zeidan Kafafi Robert Schick

BAR International Series 1699 2007

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1699 Jerusalem before Islam © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2007 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407301419 paperback ISBN 9781407331782 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301419 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2007. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS PREFACE by Zeidan Kafafi and Robert Schick .................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION by Zeidan Kafafi .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 SECTION 1: LAND AND PEOPLE CHAPTER 2: DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM by Eduard Lipiński ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-16 CHAPTER 3: JERUSALEM AND THE JEBUSITES by Ulrich Hübner.............................................................................................................. ...........................................17-22 CHAPTER 4: NAMES OF JERUSALEM by Gerrit van der Kooij .................................................................................................................................. ............23-27 SECTION 2: TEXTS CHAPTER 5: JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTS by Kenneth A. Kitchen ................................................................................................................................................. 28-37 CHAPTER 6: JERUSALEM IN THE AMARNA LETTERS by George Mendenhall ................................................................................................................................................ 38-39 CHAPTER 7: JERUSALEM IN THE ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN TEXTS by Wolfgang Röllig ...................................................................................................................................................... 40-44 SECTION 3: ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY CHAPTER 8: HISTORY OF EXCAVATIONS IN JERUSALEM by Henk J. Franken ..................................................................................................................................................... 45-53 CHAPTER 9: JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC by Kay Prag................................................................................................................................................................. 54-68 CHAPTER 10: JERUSALEM IN THE LATE SECOND MILLENIUM AND THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST MILLENIUM BC by Margreet Steiner..................................................................................................................................................... 69-73 CHAPTER 11: JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE by Larry Herr .............................................................................................................................................................. 74-85 CHAPTER 12: JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE by Ernst Axel Knauf................................................................................................................................................... 86-105 CHAPTER13: JERUSALEM IN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS by David Graf.......................................................................................................................................................... 106-117 CHAPTER 14: JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD 37 BC-AD 70 by Achim Lichtenberg.............................................................................................................................................. 118-133

i

CHAPTER 15: AELIA CAPITOLINA by Klaus Bieberstein................................................................................................................................................ 134-168 CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE JERUSALEM by Robert Schick...................................................................................................................................................... 169-188 CHAPTER 17: CHURCHES IN JERUSALEM by Michele Piccirillo ............................................................................................................................................... 189-199 SECTION 4: SPECIAL TOPICS CHAPTER 18: MIDDLE BRONZE AGE II POTTERY FROM JERUSALEM (1700-1500 BC) by Peter Fischer ...................................................................................................................................................... 200-211 SECTION 5: SYNTHESIS CHAPTER 19: SYNTHESIS: THE HISTORY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM by Zeidan Kafafi ...................................................................................................................................................... 212-214

ii

PREFACE Zeidan Kafafi and Robert Schick was delayed and eventually was transferred from the Al al-Bayt Foundation to the Royal Committee for Jerusalem Affairs. To facilitate the completion of the project, the President of Yarmouk University graciously reduced the teaching load of Zeidan Kafafi to three credit hours for the first semester of the 2003-2004 academic year, which enabled him to complete his editorial work. Robert Schick, with the assistance of Sri Bala Mylavarapu in Hyderabad, India, worked on the page layout of the book in the fall of 2004 and submitted it in January 2005.

This long-delayed book has its origin in a desire by the Al al-Bayt Foundation to sponsor a book on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem before Islam, aimed at presenting Jerusalem to readers in an objective manner based on the results of the archaeological excavations conducted in the city and the historical documents. To achieve that goal, Prof. Mahmoud Abu Taleb was appointed the editor in-chief in 1996, and scholars from various institutions around the world were invited to contribute to the book. Unfortunately, Mahmoud Abu Taleb was unable to continue, and Zeidan Kafafi took over from him in 1997.

In November 2005 the editors were informed that the Royal Committee for Jerusalem Affairs had decided not to proceed with the publication of the book. Rather than let the book die, the editors investigated other options for publication and ultimately decided to submit the book to the British Archaeological Reports International Series.

The idea of contributing to a book on Jerusalem before Islam was welcomed by all the colleagues who were invited to share in this volume, and most of them submitted their contributions in 1996 and 1997; the last contribution was received in 2000. Robert Schick kindly agreed to copy-edit the book and finished his editing in early 2001.

The editors wish to thank the contributors for their patience, given the long delay in publication of their chapters, which are published here in the form they were submitted in 1996-1997 or earlier, without significant later revision.

Due to different circumstances such as the absence of the Zeidan Kafafi for a sabbatical year in France, the project

iii

v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Zeidan Kafafi This book attempts to present a picture of Jerusalem before Islam. The city of Jerusalem is more familiar to a wider public than most other ancient cities: religious instruction learned in our childhood showed that it is viewed in a special way. As we turn to the picture of Jerusalem before Islam presented by recent publications we are faced with a disturbingly altered scene. Indeed, not only are familiar features in the landscape surveyed from different viewpoints, but quite major and fundamental characteristics in it are obscured by clouds of doubt, or blotted out entirely. To begin with the most basic questions, where was the location of the ancient city? Who were the inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem before Islam? What kind of archaeological remains are excavated in ancient Jerusalem?

of information varying in kind and value. The archaeological activities done in Jerusalem have been overwhelmingly Bible-oriented and many of the excavators were theologians or Hebrew philologists and historians by training. Objectives of excavations were mainly the biblical periods, and buildings and finds of possible religious significance or that could be ascribed to biblical personages were particularly sought after. These facts, unfortunately, affected in one way or another writing the history of Jerusalem before Islam. The archaeological excavations conducted in Jerusalem during the period 1960-1967 by Kathleen Kenyon must be singled out among others. This is due to the excavator having applied scientific methods in her digging operations and interpretation.

While such matters will be discussed in the following chapters of the book, the vital question continues to be the sources of information used in presenting the studied subjects.

The methods of excavations conducted in Jerusalem must now be closely discussed. The earliest attempts by Charles Warren in 1867-1870 were by excavating an underground tunnel or shaft revealing architectural and archaeological objects, but still lacking the means to date them. After the Israeli occupation of the Old City a large number of excavations have been undertaken intended to explore remains from the time of the Monarchs. However, Henk Franken discusses this matter in detail in his article.

Concerning the Old Testament texts, I maintain that they cannot be cited as a main source of information, since the archaeological evidence should be given priority. It seems, though, that some other scholars could not jump over their biblical backgrounds in their use of the biblical narratives for their studies. It must be understood that sometimes due to the absence of either other documents or archaeological materials scholars will find themselves obliged to cite biblical information.

Moreover, in Jerusalem objects closely dated to the Bronze Ages, such as inscribed seals and scarabs, are rare, while inscriptions indicating that a certain ruler put up or restored a building are at present unknown. However, the situation is completely different during the last phase of the Iron Age, the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods. Thus, scholars used pottery as the main source for establishing the chronology of Jerusalem before Islam. The pottery chronology of Palestine was worked out between the World Wars by William Albright and elaborated during the 1960s by Ruth Amiran.

The written documents related to Jerusalem are of great value and a section of this book has been devoted to their study. However, the available materials are unequally distributed in time and space. Not a single written document has been found in Jerusalem before the eighth century BC; the Egyptian documents, the Amarna letters and the Assyrian and Babylonian written documents related to Jerusalem were found outside Palestine. Most of the written sources from the eighth century BC and later periods come from late pre-Exilic Judah. Epigraphic discoveries in Palestine and neighboring countries supplement those from Jerusalem. Egypt and Mesopotamia understandably figure most prominently, but not exclusively.

Another fact must be mentioned in this regard, that there has also been disagreement about the use of datable finds in the dating of the excavated strata at the archaeological sites. For example, one school, which follows Kathleen Kenyon, holds that the time when floors in buildings were laid down is determined by the latest datable objects below them; meanwhile some American and Israeli excavators regard deposits on floors as chronologically decisive.

Archaeological surveys and excavations have now gone on in Palestine for more than a century. Their goals, methods, interpretations and standards of achievement have changed from time to time, leaving us with a body 1

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

due to the absence of the archaeological objects dated to the period ranging from ca. 1300 to 900 BC.

To conclude, it has been argued that the available literary and archaeological resources are not sufficient to provide as comprehensive, detailed and specific a picture of Jerusalem before Islam as we wish; moreover their interpretation is frequently a matter of dispute. However, this book aims at throwing light on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem before Islam.

Achim Lichtenberger mentioned that “from AD 41 to AD 44, the client kingdom of Herod with his grandson Agrippa I was once again restored for a short time. The king had a palace in Jerusalem, but his main residence appears to have been in Caesarea. That choice of a capital city also did not change after AD 44 when the kingdom was once more disbanded and annexed to the province of Syria and put under a procurator. The seat of the governor was not Jerusalem, but Caesarea”. This may indicate that Jerusalem did not have any political role during the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods.

This book contains 17 chapters written by well-known scholars from different backgrounds. It aims at studying and presenting the history of Jerusalem before Islam on scientific and unbiased bases. Despite the fact that the written sources and the archaeological material excavated in Jerusalem must be considered as the ground for writing this history, unfortunately, some colleagues could not give up their biblical background. Thus, some chapters included in this book have been influenced by some of the biblical narratives. Moreover, in some cases such as in the chapter discussing the Jebusites the writer found himself obliged to use the Bible as a major reference due to the fact that this name was only mentioned in this holy book. However, to demonstrate that this book is an unbiased scientific one, those chapters are included despite the fact that the historical events cited in the Bible did not agree most of the time either with the archaeological material or the historical documents. This is obvious in the chapter discussing the Iron Age periods. For example, Larry Herr in his chapter agrees with Cahill and Tarler in seeing that both the subterranean support walls and the stepped structure belong to one and the same structure with pottery dating to the early twelfth century. In fact, these installations were dated to the tenth century BC by the excavator. Unfortunately, Larry Herr did not present any scientific support for this argument, although I agree with him that the archaeological finds did not support the claim that Jerusalem was a royal city during the beginning of the Iron Age I and IIA (ca. 1200-900 BC).

Byzantine archaeological remains excavated in Jerusalem indicate that the city lived in prosperity and flourished during this period. Two chapters are devoted to this period. The first aims at discussing Jerusalem in the literary sources and the archaeological remains related to this period, while the second concentrates on studying the Byzantine churches found in the city. The study of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period is based on written records in a variety of languages, principally Greek and Latin, and on the results of archaeological excavations and the architectural analysis of standing monuments. The Byzantine period is amply documented and Robert Schick, the author of this article, declared that one can hardly attempt to summarize everything that is known about the period. Rather, this article concentrated on selected aspects of the period, such as the impact of the Sasanian occupation from AD 614 to 628, the ecclesiastical and secular administration of the city, the religious and ethnic composition of the city, and the secular archaeological features of the city. A discussion of the churches is presented in a separate chapter by Michele Piccirillo. The archaeological story of Jerusalem is not yet fully told; but what we know at present indicates little that was exceptional about the town during the Bronze Age; it fits the pattern revealed elsewhere in the region, a pattern that was also governed by its limited agropastoral economy, and the political events of the third and second millennia. Peter Fischer made the following statement in this book, and we think he is right, that “until then we can call the Late Bronze Age Jerusalem a rural settlement with some international contacts”.

Due to the absence of the archaeological evidence that may prove the existence of the United Monarchy, Axel Knauf found himself obliged to study the biblical narratives to offer us information about Jerusalem during the tenth century BC. How far can one claim and deduce unbiased results based on the Hebrew Bible? Despite the fact that Axel Knauf himself stated in his chapter, “discrepancies and contradictions within the final product betray the use of sources, or at least, the reception of traditional material that did not always agree with the intentions or the world-view of the final redaction. So the question is at least open whether and which bits and pieces of historical information contained in the final compilation lead us back to the tenth century. According to a number of scholars, including the present writer, some do”. Actually, it might be right to deduce that after reading Axel Knauf’s statement he himself is not completely convinced that the Bible may be used as the sole reference to write a history of a people or a state. He found himself obliged to do so as he claims,

After the above discussion of the history and archaeology of Jerusalem before Islam, it has been noticed that the city witnessed two whole-scale destructions: in 586 BC by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and in AD 70 by the Roman Titus. However, the Jerusalemites always proved that they were able to overcome all difficulties and threats and after each destruction rebuilt Jerusalem, this holy city that presently contains holy shrines belonging to the three main religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. 2

CHAPTER 2 THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM Edward Lipiński The earliest evidence of human presence in the area of Jerusalem has been assigned to the Lower Palaeolithic. Flint implements of the Acheulean and Levalloisian types were found in 1933 and 1962 southwest of the city in the 1 al-Baq‘a Valley (Rephaim Valley), near the Abu Tor neighborhood. These assemblages show some affinities with the Jabrudian culture and the Mousterian, dated to ca. 50,000 BC. Mousterian man in the Levant is close to the Neanderthal race, which replaced the Homo erectus and is well represented in Palestine by a series of Neanderthaloid burials in the Mount Carmel caves. The prevailing dryness of the following periods made life conditions more difficult for prehistoric man in the Jerusalem area and only scanty information is available from Mesolithic and Neolithic times. Some sherds of the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4300-3300 BC) were found in clefts and natural pits in the bedrock on the slopes of the 2 Southeast Hill (Ophel), the spur to the south of the Old City, which was the nucleus of the pre-Judaean site and is called “City of David” in 2 Samuel 5:7 and 9. The advantage of this hill lies in its sharply descending and easily defensible slopes, and in its vicinity to the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj (Gihon Spring).

have been introduced by a new ethnic group. This can be identified confidently with Semites having “Egyptian connections”. However, during the Early Bronze Age Jerusalem does not emerge into the full light of history and it is represented in the Early Bronze IV / Middle Bronze I period (ca. 2250-2000 BC) only by a one-period unwalled settlement with brick and stone houses that was excavated southwest of the city, in the al-Baq‘a Valley. The overall area of the site is ca. 5 hectares, but only half of it was built up and its population was thus estimated at 6 390 inhabitants. In Middle Bronze Age IIA-B Jerusalem was a fortified town. The foundation of the massive city wall was 7 assigned by its excavators to about 1800 BC, i.e. to the period in which the Egyptian Execration Texts mention 8 Jerusalem for the first time. Its name is spelled 3wš3mm, which would imply a pronunciation *Rušalimum. However, the spelling Urusalim in the Amarna letters of 9 the 14th century BC seems to indicate that the initial vowel or syllable was not marked. Apheresis occurs in Semitic languages, but Egyptian orthography sometimes omits the initial vowel also in genuine Egyptian words, like in Bśt.t, the goddess whose name is later pronounced Ubasti, or in rwd, “to be flourishing”, which appears in 10 Coptic as ourot. The probable original form of the name Jerusalem should thus be Urušalimum or rather Wurūšalimum, as suggested by the later Hebrew form Yerūšalēm, where the characteristic Northwest Semitic development w > y in initial position has taken place.

There was certainly occupation in Jerusalem during the Proto-Urban period of the Early Bronze Age, for some of the most beautiful specimens of Proto-Urban B pottery come from a tomb discovered on the slopes of the 3 Southeast Hill. This pottery is characterized by geometric weaving patterns painted in thin red lines by using a delicate brush. The pottery type occurs also at Tell en-Nasbeh and ‘Ai (et-Tell), in some of the Jericho tombs, in a later phase of Early Bronze I at Bab edhDhra‘ contemporary with the first permanent settlement at this site, and in one tomb in northern Jordan at ‘Arqub 4 ed-Dahr. Excavations on the slopes and summit of the Southeast Hill have produced more Early Bronze Age pottery, but only fragments of occupation levels, especially part of a typical dwelling of Early Bronze I-II built on the bedrock. In this period, apparently, the 5 settlement here was not walled. Early Bronze I, the end of which can be placed at ca. 3050 BC, was a creative period, characterized by cultural features that seem to

6.

7. 8.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The results of the excavations of 1933 and 1962 have been published by Stekelis 1948 and Arensburg and BarYosef 1967. Shiloh 1984: 7 and 25. Vincent 1911: 31-32, pl. VII-XII; Kenyon 1966: 74. Mazar 1990: 102-103. Shiloh 1984: 25.

9. 10. 3

This low estimate of 156 inhabitants per built-up hectare is proposed by Sasson 1998: 25-26, based on the density coefficient of the village of Beit Duqqu, northwest of Jerusalem, in 1945. Only the settlement of the intermediate period Early Bronze IV / Middle Bronze I is taken into account, not the settlements of Middle Bronze IIB and of the Iron Age. They were uncovered by Edelstein and Eisenberg (1985: 4, 7-8, 9, and 12); also Eisenberg 1993; Eisenberg and Edelstein 1993; Edelstein and Milevski 1994. Kenyon 1974: 83; Shiloh 1984: 25; Shiloh 1985: 114115. Sethe 1926: 53, e27 and e28; p. 58, f18; Posener 1940: 86, E45. The identification of 3wš3mm can be considered as certain (Helck 1971: 48), since the “weak” Semitic liquids r and l are often marked in Egyptian by 3; cf. Lipiński 1997, § 2.4; § 17.2. Knudtzon 1915, Moran 1987 and 1992, nos. 287: 25, 46, 61, 63; 289: 14, 29; 290: 15. Westendorf 1965-1977: 267-276.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

The final m of the toponym is the mimation affixed to common nouns and to proper names; it generally disappears in the mid-second millennium BC. As for wurusalim, it seems to be a genitive compound name in which a noun wuru is qualified by Salim, the Amorite name of the divine evening star. The noun wuru is apparently a derivative of the common Semitic root wrw, the basic meaning of which is likely to be “to launch”, hence to “bring forward”, “to lead”, “to attack”. It appears in the 11 Qatabanic personal name Wrw'l, probably “Offshoot of El”. Šalim appears in several Amorite personal names, such as 'Abu-Šalim, 'Ila-Šalim, ‘Ammu-Šalim, MutŠalim, Yatar-Šalim or Yitur-Šalim, Yi'uš-Šalim, Yindub12 Šalim, Yīsi'-Šalim. However, the toponym *WurūŠalim-um does not designate a person but the rocky spur to the south of the present-day Old City, which was thus considered to be a creation of this Amorite godhead: 13 “Offshoot of Šalim”.

belonged to a tribal group different from the rulers, and it should therefore be considered as Amorite. The mention of this small city in the Egyptian Execration Texts can probably be explained by its good defensive position, its influence on the surrounding areas, and its location on crossroads in the highlands of Canaan. No archaeological evidence is available on the Southeast Hill for the period extending from Middle Bronze IIA-B (18th century BC) to the final phase of Late Bronze II (12th century BC), but Egyptian finds from the end of the 13th century BC, uncovered in the area of the St. Stephen monastery and Ecole Biblique, suggest that an Egyptian 20 temple was there in the Late Bronze Age II. Its existence implies the presence of some Egyptian temple officials and other personnel in Jerusalem. In the same period, in the late 13th or in the 12th century BC, the early nucleus of the Middle Bronze city wall was used for a great townplanning operation, in which a series of terraces were constructed on the northeastern slope of the Southeast 21 Hill, forming a massive substructure that added an area of some 200 square meters to the top of the hill.

The earlier group of Execration Texts mentions two 14 rulers of Jerusalem: Yq3'mw and Śt'nw; one more appears in the slightly later group, but his name is 15 illegible. Yq3'mw is an Amorite anthroponym that appears as Ha-mu-ia-qar in Mari, in the 17th century 16 BC. The inverted order of the components does not affect its meaning “the Ancestor is esteemed”, ‘Ammu17 yaqar or Yaqar-‘Ammu, as authors commonly agree. The second name Śt'nw is most likely Amorite as well, as suggested by the hypocoristic suffix or afformative – 18 ānu, but the base śt', which seems to correspond to šassā'u, “crier”, “implorer”, and to the verb šasū, “to 19 cry”, is attested so far only in Akkadian.

If those dates are correct and if we neglect the few sherds scattered on the hill, we remain nevertheless with an archaeological gap in the city’s history of five hundred years, from ca. 1700 to ca. 1200 BC. Fortunately, archaeological evidence for the settlement of Jerusalem in Late Bronze I and II comes from burial caves on the western slopes of the Mount of Olives, across the Wadi Sitti Maryam, and in Naḥalat Aḥim northwest of the Old 22 City, as well as from a cistern on the grounds of the 23 Government House south of the city. Aegean, Cypriot, and Egyptian imported pottery, and also an Egyptian scarab of the Eighteenth Dynasty, were found in those places and witness the relative importance of Jerusalem in the Amarna age, when the city ruler was corresponding with Pharaoh. His name is written mARAD-Ḫeba in the 24 Amarna letters. Since the logogram ARAD, “servant”, can be read ‘abdu in West Semitic, the ruler’s name is usually transcribed ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, “Servant of Heba(t)”, the 25 Hurrian great goddess. However, it might also be read 26 pōra- in Hurrian, as suggested not only by the

The situation and topography of the Amorite city have been clarified to a large extent in the course of archaeological research. Scholars agree that the earliest city was situated only on the narrow ridge of the Southeast Hill and that its surface area amounted to ca. 4.4 ha. If the demographic density coefficient is taken as 200-250 inhabitants per built-up hectare, the total population of Jerusalem at that time can be estimated at about 880-1,100 people, women and children included. There is no reason to suppose that this population 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

Harding 1971: 641. Birot 1979: 49, 101, 118, 158, 235; Gelb 1980: 182. The divine name is written with the initial cuneiform sign SA, which corresponds in Amorite names to a phonemic ša; cf. Lipiński 1997, § 13.4-5. The often alleged meaning “foundation” for yrw is not attested so far in Semitic languages. Sethe 1926: 53, e27 and e28. Posener 1940: 86, E45. Dossin 1971: 52, col. X, 62; Birot 1979: 101. Huffmon 1965: 214; Helck 1971: 48. Huffmon 1965: 135-138. Von Soden 1981: 1194-1197. The etymological basis of šasû can be śs‘, since ancient Egyptian t usually corresponds to Semitic s. The translation “Der Kluge” proposed by Helck 1971: 48 can hardly be justified.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 4

Barkay 1996. Franken and Steiner 1992 and Steiner 1994, correcting Kenyon 1974: 95-97, and Shiloh 1984: 16 and 26; Shiloh 1985: 115-117, but see p. 122. Mount of Olives: Lemaire 1955; Saller 1964. Mycenaean fragments and Egyptian faience belong to the contents of this large tomb. Naḥalat Aḥim: Amiran 1960. The homogeneous material of this tomb dates from Late Bronze II. Baramki 1935. An Egyptian scarab belongs to the material found in the cistern. Knudtzon 1915, Moran 1987 and 1992, nos. 280: 17, 23, 34; 285: 2, 14; 282: 2, 65; 286: 2, 7, 61; 288: 2, 63; 289: 2, 48; 290: 3, 19. Trémouille 1997. Lipiński 2004: 498-499. The interpretation of ARAD is considered as uncertain by Hess 1993: 176-177.

LIPIŃSKI, THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM 39

theophorous element Heba(t), but also by the title EN-ri 27 the ruler attributes to Pharaoh in one of his letters. In fact, this word should be read ewri in Hurrian, i.e. “lord”, 28 “(great) king”.

type, attested also in Amorite as a proper name 40 Ṣaduqum, with mimation. The Book of Judges preserves a conquest tradition of the tribe of Judah’s military subjugation of Jerusalem (Judges 1:8), but that is contradicted by a later verse in the same chapter (1:21) and by the narrative of 2 Samuel 5:6-9, where Jerusalem is described as a Jebusite city until its 41 capture by David around 970 BC. The ancient 42 inhabitants of the city are called Jebusites in the Bible, and the Jebusites are included in the stereotyped list of 43 the pre-Israelite populations of Palestine. The Chronicler deduced from this appellation that Jebus was an ancient 44 name of the city itself, but that deduction is not supported by any ancient source and the Jebusites are not recorded in any written document independent from the Bible. However, Yabusi'um is attested at Mari as an 45 Amorite anthroponym. One can assume therefore that e Y būsī is the name of the Amorite clan or tribe that had 46 settled in Jerusalem, just like Yabasīy is the name of a 47 Hanaean clan mentioned in the Mari archives. This tribal name does not derive from the root ybš, “to be dry”, but from bus, “to trample upon”, as indicated by Hebrew Yebūsī, written with a samek.

The “Canaanisms” of the Jerusalem Amarna letters should not be attributed systematically to the dialect spoken in the city in the Late Bronze Age, since their 29 scribe appears to have been of Syrian origin. Even the usual linkage of the first person singular pronoun a-nu-ki, 30 found in one of the letters, with Hebrew 'anōkī cannot be accepted without qualification, since 'nky occurs also in 31 Sam'alian, an Early Aramaic dialect, and 'nwky appears 32 twice in a fragmentary law from Palmyra. The presence of a Hurrian ruler and a Syrian scribe in Jerusalem certainly implies that some exogenous families had settled there, but nothing indicates that the bulk of the Jerusalem population of some 1,000 individuals changed 33 ethnically or linguistically in the Late Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age terminates ca. 1130 BC, at the end of the last phase of Egyptian domination in Canaan. In the late Ramesside period, however, Jerusalem is not 34 mentioned in Egyptian sources, and only the Joshua 10:1-15 narrative may refer to an event of the immediately following Iron Age IA (ca. 1130-1000 BC). The story records a war waged by Joshua against the league of five Amorite kings in the hill country under the leadership of the ruler of Jerusalem, called Adoni-Sedeq. The mediaeval Masoretic vocalization of this name 35 should probably be corrected into 'Adōnī-ṣaduq, “My lord is righteous”, as suggested by the parallel Amorite names 'Aḫī-ṣaduq, 'Ilī-ṣaduq, ‘Ammī-ṣaduq(a), Laḥiy36 ṣaduq. The same element ṣaduq appears as the name of 37 the priest Sadoq (Ṣdwq) at the time of David. It is not a 38 theophorous element, but a stative adjective of the qatul27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

No remains pointing to the existence of a distinct Jebusite material culture or the city’s seizure by David were found in the excavations of the Southeast Hill. The city was not destroyed and nothing suggests that its population 48 changed drastically, although David’s men and the 49 armed contingent of “Cherethites and Pelethites” had to be located somewhere in the small city, which was enlarged only under Solomon’s reign later in the 10th

Knudtzon 1915, Moran 1987 and 1992, no. 286: 7, 15, 32 Loretz 1974; Moran 1975: 163, note 52. Older opinions are discussed by Schröder 1915, col. 295-296. Rainey 1978: 151 considers EN-ri as an erroneous transposition for LUGAL-ri = šarri, but such a mistake can hardly occur three times in the same letter. Moran 1975. Knudtzon 1915, Moran 1987 and 1992, no. 287: 66, 69. Gibson 1975, no. 14: 19: 80. Hillers and Cussini 1996, PAT 2767: 3, 4. However, another location of the city may imply a new population. Its location on the site of the Haram al-Sharif was proposed by Knauf 2000. The rough estimate of 2,500 inhabitants proposed by Wilkinson 1974: 46, is too high. It is based on the available water supply and not on the built-up area. Görg 1996: 5-7. This name is attested also at Ugarit: Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1995, no. 4.129: 8. Birot 1979: 99, 122; Gelb 1980: 196. Such names occur also at Ugarit: Gröndahl 1967: 187. Samuel 8:17; 15:24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 36; 17:15; 18:19, 22, 27; 19:12; 20:25; etc. Contrary to the opinion of Huffmon 1965: 93, 98-99, 257, followed by Gröndahl 1967: 187. The writing with final -

39.

40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

5

a, known with the royal name Ammisaduqa, is an archaizing form that preserves the a-ending of the predicative; cf. Lipiński 1997, § 32.4, 11. Gelb 1958: 158, § 3.3.7.1.9. Instead, the ṣaduq of a Jerusalem Amarna letter (Knudtzon 1915, no. 287: 32) seems to be an imperative: a-mur LUGAL EN-ia ṣa-duuq a-na ia-a-ši, “See, O king, my lord, be righteous towards me!” Bauer 1926: 41. Higher dates, often proposed, are based on the assumption that the forty years of David’s and Solomon’s reigns are exact figures. This is certainly not correct. Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:21; 2 Samuel 5:6, 8; 1 Chronicles 11:4, 6 (cf. Zechariah 9:7). Genesis 10:16; 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deuteronomy 7:1; 20:17; Joshua 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; Judges 3:5; 1 Kings 9:20; Ezra 9:1; Nehemiah 9:8; 2 Chronicles 8:7. 1 Chronicles 11:4-5. Birot 1979: 214. The Jebusites can by no means be considered as Hurrians, as suggested by Mullo Weir 1967: 82. Kupper 1979: 37; Gelb 1980: 102. 2 Samuel 23:8-12, 24-39; 1 Chronicles 11:10-14, 26-47; 27:2-15. 2 Samuel 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kings 1:38, 44. They came from southern Philistia, as 1 Samuel 30:14 seems to suggest.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

century BC. The phrase “Cherethites and Pelethites” 50 would seem to refer to Cretans and Philistines, while David’s men belonged to various tribal groups, including 51 an Ammonite, a “Hittite”, an Arab, a man from Zobah, very likely the Beqa‘ Valley in Lebanon, and a royal 52 scribe who was probably Aramaean. This diversity did not leave any archaeological trace in Jerusalem, but it matches the general diversity of burial types in Iron Age 53 Palestine. Such diversity reflects the presence of 54 “different cultural groups”, but demographic considerations are often hampered by the poor state of preservation of human skeletal remains.

and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Following the enthronement of Joash, says the author, “all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet, and they killed Athaliah with the sword in the palace” (2 Kings 11:20). That opposition should not be understood in the sense that Jerusalem and Judah were two comparable entities. According to an estimate based on a density coefficient of 250 inhabitants per built-up hectare, the kingdom of Judah had a population of ca. 110,000, with a density of 22 per sq. km in the regions that are situated north of the 60 Negev. Even if we reduce that estimate to about 80,000 with a density of 16 per sq. km, there is no common measure between those figures and the supposed 2,500 inhabitants of Jerusalem living in an area of about 13 ha, inclusive of the Temple and palace precinct.

This situation did not change significantly in the 9th 55 century BC, poorly represented in the excavations, except in the area immediately south of the Haram alSharif. The allegedly Davidic structure discovered there in recent excavations probably provides evidence for Jerusalem rising to prominence in the 9th century BC, at the time of kings Asa and Jehoshaphat. A different chronology of the pottery unearthed at the site would indeed suggest dating the stratum in question to the postSolomonic period. This is a general problem facing the archaeology of the Holy Land and bearing some historical consequences for Jerusalem. A lower datum of the fine building excavated south of the Haram al-Sharif would show that, contrary to prevalent opinions, the dislocation of the short-lived United Kingdom of David 56 and Solomon, the Palestinian campaigns of Sheshonq I, 57 the protracted wars between Israel and Judah, and the probable dependence of Judah from Israel, culminating in 58 Athaliah’s seizure of power in Jerusalem, certainly did not hamper the urban development of the city, the demographic contexture of which might have been not so simple at that time. At any rate, it appears from the events linked with Athaliah’s overthrow that in the 9th century BC there was a clear-cut distinction between the population of the capital and the people of Judah. The account of the death of Athaliah and of the accession of Joash explicitly distinguishes “the people of the land”, 59 which is the name of the assembly of Judaean citizens, 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Great changes took place during the late eighth and seventh centuries BC, when the walled city of Jerusalem was considerably enlarged. A topographical reminder may be useful at this point. The eastern ridge of Solomonic Jerusalem, comprising the Haram al-Sharif and the Southeast Hill, was bordered on the west by a valley, later called Tyropaeon (al-Wad). The ridge to the west of that valley, known as the Western Hill, comprises today’s Jewish and Armenian quarters in the Old City, as well as Mount Zion, outside the Ottoman city walls. That hill is bordered on the west and south by the Wadi alRababah (Hinnom Valley) and on the north by the socalled Transversal Valley. A segment of a 7-m thick stone city wall was discovered along that valley, attesting the extension of the walled city to the Western Hill. That wall, dated by the excavators to the late 8th century BC, probably continued until just south of the present-day Jaffa Gate. From there its direction was most likely southward along the western crest of the hill, above the Wadi al-Rababah, until it swung to the east following the curve of the valley to join the southern corner of the Southeast Hill, at the confluence of the Wadi al-Rababah, 61 al-Wad, and Wadi al-Nar. The area encircled by that wall is about 50 or even 65 hectares. Houses seem to have spread over the entire Western Hill, as suggested by impressive amounts of broken pottery of the 8th and 7th 62 centuries BC found at several locations on the hill. Besides, remains of constructions outside the city wall, dating to the end of the 8th century, confirm the important growth of the city, which may have counted at 63 that time up to 15,000 inhabitants.

Prignaud 1964; Delcor 1978. The name of the Pelethites seems to be a phonetic variant of “Philistines”. Zeleq the Ammonite: 2 Samuel 23:37; 1 Chronicles 11:39. “Uriah the Hittite”: 2 Samuel 11:3-17; 23:39; etc. (cf. Lipiński 2004: 499-500). Obil the Ishmaelite, in charge of the camels: 1 Chronicles 27:30. Yigal, son of Nathan, from Zobah: 2 Samuel 23:36. Shay-Shi’ the scribe: 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Kings 4:3; 1 Chronicles 18:16; cf. Lipiński 1994: 180-181. Bloch-Smith 1992: 25-62; cf. her Catalogue of Iron Age Burials, pp. 152-245. Bloch-Smith 1992: 55. Shiloh 1984: 27; Mazar 1989, especially 58-60. Lipiński 2006: 99-130. Cf. Kitchen 1986: 293-302, 432447, 575-576. 1 Kings 15:16-22; 2 Chronicles 16:1-6. 2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22:9-23; 23. Cf. Lipiński 1985: 104 and note 34 with literature on the subject.

60. 61. 62. 63.

6

Broshi 1991: 15; Broshi and Finkelstein 1992: 54. Geva 1979; Geva 1983: 56-58; Avigad 1983: 31-60; Shiloh 1985: 132-134; Mazar 1990: 417-424; Stern 1993: 705-706, 716. Avigad 1983: 35-36; Tushingham 1985: 1-24. The assumption that a middle size city of ca. 30 ha already existed in the mid-8th century BC with a population estimated at 7,500 is not corroborated so far by concrete evidence. This opinion was expressed by Broshi and Finkelstein 1992: 51-52.

LIPIŃSKI, THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

That rapid and sudden expansion cannot be explained by normal demographic or economic growth. It resulted most likely from the destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians and by the influx of numerous refugees into independent Judah and its capital. A second wave of refugees was composed of Judaeans fleeing from their villages and towns when Sennacherib invaded the 64 Kingdom of Judah in 701 BC. That unprecedented influx of people from Israel and Judah radically changed the composition of Jerusalem’s population.

Those differences show that the merger of native populations from Israel and Judah in the single city of Jerusalem and its suburbs had to lead to the formation of a new social texture. Conservative and traditional forces seem to have gained the upper hand in that society living in a mountainous area situated somewhat off the main international thoroughfare along the coastal plain. 66 Josiah’s reform, following the collapse of Assyria, undoubtedly corresponded to a trend towards isolationism, favoured by the geopolitical situation of Jerusalem and by a religious fervour, possibly inherited from the Israelite refugees, bearers of Elijah’s and Elisha’s northern prophetic traditions. The nostalgia for ancient days that characterizes the Book of Deuteronomy already prepared for the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.

To understand the significance of that change one should remember that the distinction between Israel and Judah was far older than the political schism that marked the end of David’s and Solomon’s United Kingdom shortly 65 after 930, probably in 929/8 BC. The Song of Deborah in Judges 5, composed towards the end of the 2nd millennium BC, shows that at that time Judah was neither a part of Israel nor a tribal entity in close contact with the peoples of central and northern Canaan. The events that led to David’s accession to the throne of Judah and of Israel, the Israelite revolts against him, and Solomon’s political and administrative measures show that Judah and Israel were two separate geopolitical entities even during the reign of those two kings. The historical background and evolution of those two nations was quite different. Judah, which seems to have become a tribal entity only in David’s time, originally stemmed from a few Rubenite and Simeonite clans and, above all, from some Kenizzite, Kenite, and Ephrataean tribes living in and around “the land full of ravines”, 'ereṣ yehūdā, which gave its name to the tribe of Judah, when it came into existence as such and was given an eponym, who was subsequently integrated in the pan-Israelite framework of the patriarchal traditions.

The conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC was followed by the destruction of the city, ordered by the Babylonian commander Nabu-zera-iddina: “He burned the Temple of Yahwe, and the royal palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every notable’s house he burned with fire,... and broke down the walls of Jerusalem all round,... and deported the people who were left in the city” (1 Kings 25:9-11). The disruption of life in Jerusalem was such that Gedaliah, the appointed governor, had to place his seat of government in Mizpah, probably Tell en-Nasbeh, 13 km north of Jerusalem. The complete destruction of the city is corroborated by 67 archaeological findings. The low ebb of civilization in Judah, which lasted for the next three centuries or so, makes it difficult for archaeologists to recover any evidence. In particular, we know virtually nothing of what happened in Jerusalem during the sixty or seventy years that followed the sack of the city. One reason, no doubt, is that it was mainly the unprogressive peasantry that escaped deportation, and the impetus to restore Jerusalem, when it came, did not come from those survivors. The resettlement of the city and the rebuilding of the temple was initiated in the Achaemenid period by the descendants of Jerusalem’s and Judah’s upper classes deported to Babylonia in 597 and 586 BC.

If we accept the definition of a nation as a community bound together by common traditions, customs, civilization, idiom, and a determined geopolitical situation, it is clear that, in spite of the numerous religious and sociocultural aspects that they had in common, Israel and Judah were, from a historical point of view, two separate nations. In fact, besides the clear geographical boundary that existed between them, there were differences even in the traditions: those related to Abraham and Isaac, for instance, were typical of the Palestinian south, while those concerning Jacob-Israel were peculiar to the tribes of central Canaan. Likewise, the institution of a hereditary monarchy always met with a strong opposition in the traditionalist circles of Israel, whereas the people of Judah was devoted to the dynasty of David, the founder of Judah as a political entity. Furthermore, the Hebrew language spoken in Judah differed from that spoken in Israel. And lastly, Judah’s isolation can be seen also in its material culture, whose regional features gain in being studied from the viewpoint of rather radical differences between Judah and Israel. 64. 65.

The Babylonians did not introduce a new population into the region, but the figure of nearly 50,000 Jewish resettlers given in the Bible is nevertheless very high 68 indeed. That figures must either include all the successive groups of returned exiles and their descendants, or more likely represent a census of the mid-5th century, which gives the total population of the Persian province 66.

67. 68.

Broshi 1974: 23-26. See the detail of the discussion in Lipiński, 1985. 7

2 Kings 23. See Reuter 1993: 231-258, Niehr 1995 and Handy 1995, where earlier literature can be found. One could also mention the reprint of Würthwein 1994: 188216. For the account of the reform in 2 Chronicles 34, see Glat-Gilad 1996. Shiloh 1984: 29. Ezra 2; Nehemiah 7:6-72; 3 Ezra 5:4-45, with some variants in names and figures.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM 75

of Judah in Nehemiah’s day. That figure would amount to half the population of the Kingdom of Judah in Iron Age 69 II, which is a fairly good estimate in the circumstances.

Ptolemaic garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, which in all probability was located north of the temple. After the Seleucid conquest of the town, Antiochus IV Epiphanes built a new fortress in the Lower City, where a 76 Macedonian garrison was stationed. The exact location of the Seleucid Acra or fortress is a controversial question 77 in the topography of Jerusalem. There is no direct archaeological evidence so far, except perhaps the hundreds of handles of Hellenistic wine amphorae bearing Rhodian seal impressions that were found in the 78 excavations of the Southeast Hill. That was the core of the city in the early Hellenistic period and in the time of Seleucid rule, thus also the center of the Hellenization of Jerusalem described in 1 Maccabees 1:1-16, guaranteed by the presence of the Macedonian garrison and culminating in the erection of a gymnasium.

Archaeological excavations supplied unequivocal evidence that the Western Hill of Jerusalem was entirely 70 unoccupied during the Persian period and that Nehemiah’s wall was built on the eastern crest of the 71 Southeast Hill, thus backwards in respect to the older city wall. Post-Exilic Jerusalem therefore shrank back to the summit of the eastern ridge and was even somewhat smaller than Solomon’s city, with an area of about 12 ha, a situation that did not change during the Early Hellenistic period, i.e. in the late 4th and in the 3rd 72 centuries BC. The conclusion is that the population of Jerusalem could hardly have exceeded 2,500 persons in the 5th-3rd centuries, and even in the first half of the 2nd century BC, at least up to the outbreak of the Hasmonaean revolt.

With the advent of Hasmonaean rule in the mid-2nd century BC the urban center shifted again to the Western Hill and a new wall, called the “First Wall” by Josephus 79 Flavius, enclosed the two ridges. Several segments of that city wall have been discovered, including its northern 80 line with a Hasmonaean tower, and the picture that emerges makes it quite clear that the area of the walled city can be estimated at 65 ha with a population of about 15,000 persons, as in the 8th-7th centuries BC. Most of the inhabitants were obviously Jewish at the time and it is remarkable that relatively few Rhodian stamped jar 81 handles have been found on the Western Hill, included in the city after 150 BC, while many hundreds of such 82 handles have come to light on the Southeast Hill. That difference obviously reflects the decline of the ties between Judaea and Rhodes in the aftermath of the Hasmonaean revolt.

According to Ezra 2:70 and Nehemiah 7:72, the priests, the Levites, and some of the people settled in Jerusalem. Now, the figures provided by that list give a total of 73 4,363 persons for the priestly and Levitic families alone. If that is correct, it seems that the shrinking of Jerusalem cannot readily be explained solely by the fact that those relatively few exiles were incapable of repopulating a larger city. For some reason, the majority of those people had to live outside the city proper. A further question is raised by a sentence in Nehemiah 7:4, which in the present context refers to the condition of the city after Nehemiah’s wall had been rebuilt: “The city was large and spacious, but there were few people in it and no houses had yet been rebuilt.” That hardly seems appropriate in describing the 12 ha city, and Nehemiah must have been alluding to the earlier town that had occupied the Western Hill as well. Different redactional layers should therefore be distinguished in that passage and verse 4 would thus refer originally to the situation at the time when Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judah and arrived in Jerusalem in the twentieth year of 74 Artaxerxes I, i.e. in 445 BC. From Nehemiah’s statement in verse 4 we can conclude that there were almost no settled inhabitants in Jerusalem up to his days.

King Herod, who reigned over Judaea for thirty-three years (37-4 BC), completely transformed the external aspect of Jerusalem. From the demographic point of view, the extension of the Herodian city is of paramount importance, but the population estimates must here take various factors into account, like the size of the temple esplanade (ca. 14 ha), which was not inhabited, the presence of gardens and of large mansions within the city walls, but also of at least two-storey buildings. The size of the city depends upon the course of the “Second Wall”, referred 83 to by Josephus Flavius, who mentions it as being traced from the Garden or Gennath Gate, at the point of juncture

In the long history of Jerusalem from the end of the Persian period and the death of Alexander the Great up to the rule of the Hasmonaeans, some demographic facts have to be referred to. Josephus Flavius mentions the 69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74.

75.

See here above, note 62. Avigad 1983: 62; Stern 1993: 709, 720. Kenyon 1974: 182-185; Kenyon 1979: 306-308. Broshi 1975: 9-10. One can hardly see what are the archaeological foundations of a hypothetical “great Jerusalem” in the Persian period, advocated by Laperrousaz 1994, with former literature by the same author. Ezra 2:36-40; Nehemiah 7:39-43. Nehemiah 2:1; 5:14.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 8

Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities XII, 3, 3, § 133 and § 138. Ibid., XII, 5, 4, § 252. The question is discussed by Dequeker 1985. Macalister and Duncan 1926: 203-212; Crowfoot and FitzGerald 1929: 86-89; Tushingham 1985: 60-61; Ariel 1990: 13-98. Josephus Flavius, War of the Jews V, 4, 2, § 142-145. Avigad 1983: 65-75. Avigad 1983: 77-78. See here above, note 80. Josephus Flavius, War of the Jews V, 4, 2, § 146.

LIPIŃSKI, THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

of the First and Second Walls, to the Antonia fortress. Its course most likely followed the shortest line from Antonia to Khan al-Zayt Street, then turned to the south 84 in the direction of David Street, passing through the site of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer where possible 85 remains of the Second Wall have been uncovered. In such a way the wall enclosed the new quarter that had developed between the present-day Haram al-Sharif and Khan al-Zayt Street, bringing the total surface area of the 86 walled city to about 75 ha. Considering the uninhabited space of the temple platform, it is doubtful whether the Herodian city would have had more inhabitants than the Hasmonaean one, i.e. about 15,000.

them settled in the city. Nevertheless, there was in Jerusalem a Synagogue of Freedmen, comprising Cyrenians 91 and Alexandrians, and people from Cilicia and Asia. But no figures can be proposed. In any case, the most likely location of the Third Wall is about 400 m north of 92 Damascus Gate, where Sukenik and Mayer have 93 identified a defense line. That wall and the Old City wall may have enclosed an area of 170 hectares, which 94 normally could shelter to some 35,000-40,000 people, but the northern quarter seems to have been sparsely occupied. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Many people were either killed or perished from hunger, and the survivors were sold into slavery or executed. The Legio X Fretensis remained however in the city and the soldiers 95 lived there with their families. It seems that also some elderly people and women forced to prostitution by the 96 Romans lived in the ruins. Jewish pilgrims who still came to Jerusalem appear to have stayed in the nearby 97 villages, like Bethphage on the Mount of Olives.

Although Herod was Idumaean, he sought to win over the hearts of the Jewish population by rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem in a magnificent way. The richly ornamented houses excavated on the Western Hill reflect the dominant Hellenistic fashion of the time, but the finds indicate that the Jewish laws of ritual purity and the 87 prohibition of graven images were strictly kept. There is little doubt therefore that also the population of that rich city quarter was Jewish. The lower classes, influenced by the Pharisee faction, opposed foreign influences.

98

According to Eusebius, the Christians had left Jerusalem for Pella during the siege but returned to the city after the events of AD 70. The only likely source for that 99 information is Aristo of Pella. Considering his origin, one might ask whether he was reporting a historical fact or laying a claim on behalf of his home town. However,

The last Jewish prince to rule over Jerusalem under the Roman procurators was Herod Agrippa (AD 41-44), who began to build a new wall on the north side of the city, which was developing further in that direction, but he was forced to abandon it after having laid only its founda88 tions. Josephus Flavius, however, himself contradicts that statement, since he actually describes that “Third 89 Wall” of Jerusalem. The probable mixture of two 90 different accounts of building enterprises in his text does not solve the problem of the Third Wall’s location. Besides, if it was a wall hastly built by the Zealots, as some authors suppose, its purpose may have been to offer a shelter to refugees from the countryside. In that case, the apparent growth of the city can hardly be significant demographically. The same could be said if the new city area was intended to shelter the pilgrims who streamed to Jerusalem at the time of the three major Jewish feasts. According to Acts 2:5-11, pilgrims were then coming from numerous countries, but it is uncertain how many of 84. 85. 86.

87. 88.

89. 90.

91. 92. 93.

94.

Comp. Ma‘oz 1985: 51-53 with a city map on p. 49. See also Kuhnen 1990: 138. Despite the conclusions of Lux 1972; see also Kuhnen 1990: 216 and Vriezen 1994. The larger superfices proposed by Broshi 1975: 10, is based on the assumption that the Damascus Gate corresponds to a Gate of the Second Wall, as proposed by Avi-Yonah 1968. For this gate, see now Wightman 1989. Avigad 1983: 81-204; Stern 1993: 729-736. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities XIX, 7, 2, § 326, attributes the stoppage to an order given by the Romans, but according to War of the Jews II, 11, 6, § 218-219, and V, 4, 3, § 152, Agrippa’s death or fear was the cause of the abandonment of the work. Josephus Flavius, War of the Jews V, 4, 2-3, § 147-159. Ma‘oz 1985: 54.

95.

96. 97. 98. 99. 9

Acts 6:9. Schmitt 1981, with earlier literature. See also Ma‘oz 1985: 54; Kuhnen 1990: 156-157; Stern 1993: 744-745. Sukenik and Mayer 1930, corroborated by Ben-Arieh and Netzer 1974. See also Netzer and Ben-Arieh 1983, especially p. 171, where the building excavated is related to Herod’s monument mentioned by Josephus Flavius, War of the Jews V, 3, 2, § 108, and V, 12, 2, § 507. One could hardly believe that the Sukenik-Mayer wall was built by the soldiers of the Legio X Fretensis after A.D. 70 as “a northern ‘barrier wall’ for their camp on the southwestern hill”, as stated by Wightman 1989: 102. This figure corresponds quite well to the 97,000 captives taken by the Romans during the war, according to Josephus Flavius, War of the Jews VI, 9, 3, § 420. Other figures, like 1,100,000 dead (ibid.) or 600,000 besieged in Jerusalem (Tacitus, History V, 13), simply cannot be taken seriously. Dąbrowa 1993. Many tiles and bricks bearing the stamp of the Legio X Fretensis have been found in Jerusalem: Iliffe 1933: 124-125; Avigad 1983: 206-207; etc. There are also a few inscriptions: Lifshitz 1969. A Latin inscription records that an officer of the Tenth Legion, Ti. Cl. Fatalis, lived in Jerusalem with his freedwoman Cl. Ionice: reedition by Lifshitz 1977: 470-471. This is suggested by the speech of Eleazar, son of Yair, at Masada, in Josephus Flavius, War of the Jews VII, 8, 7, § 377. Thus a pilgrim coming from Galilee to Jerusalem is said explicitly to have stayed at Bethphage; Lifshitz 1977: 471-472. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica III, 5, 3; IV, 5-6; V, 12. Ibid., IV, 6, 3. Cf. Leudemann 1989: 205; MurphyO’Connor 1994: 303.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

boasting of an early Christian presence at Pella does not diminish the credibility of Aristo’s information, and one should not consider the flight of some Jerusalem 100 Christians to Perea as a myth. It is a safe assumption that most of those Christians in Jerusalem were Jews. Indeed, it seems that even after the destruction of the city in AD 70, the Jerusalem Church was made up principally of Jewish Christians. That is as good as confirmed by Christian writers recognizing that the bishops of the Jerusalem Christian community right up to the time of the 101 Bar Kochba revolt were all circumcised Jews.

period in the Jewish Quarter always lay directly over the layer of destruction from AD 70, with no intervening 106 Roman stratum. Hadrian’s edict excluding Jews from the Jerusalem district is referred to by Eusebius, Orosius, 107 and other Christian writers. Even the small Christian community was forced to change its bishop of Jewish 108 origin for a gentile, namely Marcus of Caesarea. The population of this insignificant provincial town was thus composed mainly of soldiers of Legio X and of their families, of Roman veterans, and of Hellenized SyroPhoenician artisans and dealers. The exclusion of Jews would have remained in force throughout the Antonine period, until the end of the 2nd century AD, when the rule is likely to have fallen into neglect.

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), who was born near Eleutheropolis (Beit Gibrin) in Palestine, tells that when Emperor Hadrian visited Jerusalem in AD 129/130 he found there only a few standing houses, but as many as 102 seven synagogues and a small church. While one can doubt the accuracy of that information from the 4th century AD, there is no doubt that Hadrian had decided to establish a Roman colony on the ruins of Jerusalem 103 before the Bar-Kochba revolt of AD 132-135.

Jerusalem rose again to prominence only with the advent of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, when Constantine became master of Palestine in AD 324. Churches were built in the city, which then assumed a predominantly Christian character. That development was temporarily interrupted by the Emperor Julian, who 109 issued edicts of universal toleration, and used his imperial influence to favour the restoration of the ancient Graeco-Roman religion. In 363 he permitted the recon110 struction of the temple of Jerusalem, although his death in the same year on the battlefield put an end to this project. According to Jerome (ca. AD 348-420), the prohibition against the entrance of Jews into Jerusalem was again in force in his days, with the exception of the 9th of Av, when Jews were allowed to lament over the 111 Temple. A growing number of Jews, who had settled in Jerusalem in the 3rd-4th centuries AD, converted to Christianity. A translation of biblical and liturgical texts was made for them from Greek into the so-called 112 Christian Palestinian Aramaic, a dialect closely related

Aelia Capitolina, the name given to the new colony, was built after the suppression of the revolt in the shape of a square Roman camp. Our knowledge of the city is very 104 scanty, but it was certainly much smaller than the present-day Old City. The built-up area was restricted to the northern part of the town, while Legio X Fretensis camped in the southwest. The only things certainly set up in the area of the present Haram al-Sharif were two 105 statues, and the excavated remains from the Byzantine 100. Contrary to the opinion of Murphy-O’Connor 1994: 303304. 101. Lederman 1997. See also here below, note 110. 102. Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus 14. The seven synagogues are also mentioned in the Itinerarium Burdigalense 592: 6-7 (Geyer 1898: 22; Itineraria 1965: 16), but only one was left in AD 333: “Et septem synagogae, quae illic fuerunt, una tantum remansit, reliquae autem arantur et seminantur”. This sole remaining synagogue is mentioned also by Epiphanius, loc. cit., who compares it to “a shanty in a vineyard”. Contrary to the opinion of Murphy-O’Connor 1994: 298299, there is no objective reason why this dilapidated structure, which does not even imply the presence of a Jewish community, should be considered as a Jewish Christian worship place and identified with the Cenacle (cf. Acts 2:44-45), described by Egeria XLIII, 3 as “being now used as a church”, “alia modo ecclesia est” (Geyer 1898: 94; Itineraria: 85: 20). 103. Lifshitz 1977: 474-481, based mainly on the coins of the Bar Kochba revolt. For these coins, see at present: Mildenberg 1984. 104. However, see Stern 1993: 758-766. 105. St. Jerome, Comment. in Is. 2: 9 (Adriaen 1963: 33): “ubi quondam erat templum et religio Dei, ibi Hadriani statua et Iovis idolum collocatum est”; id., Comment. in Mt. 24: 15 (Hurst and Adriaen 1969: 226): “potest autem simpliciter aut de Antichristo accipi aut de imagine Caesaris, quam Pilatus posuit in templo, aut de Hadriani equestri statua quae in ipso sancto sanctorum loco usque

106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

112. 10

in presentem diem stetit”. The Itinerarium Burdigalense 592: 4 (Geyer 1898: 22; Itineraria 1965: 16), the itinerary of a Christian pilgrim from Bordeaux, dated AD 333, mentions two statues of Hadrian. Whether a temple of Jupiter stood there, as contended in Dio Cassius, Roman History LXIX, 12, 1, is uncertain; cf. Kuhnen 1990: 176177. Wilkinson 1981: 36 and 157, n. 1, thinks that the area of the Haram al-Sharif was a field of ruins from the 1st to the 7th centuries AD. Avigad 1983: 207. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica IV, 6, 3; Orosius, Historiae adversus Paganos VII, 13; cf. Harris 1926, with further references to Christian literature. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica IV, 6, 4. Cf. Wagner-Lux and Brakmann 1996, col. 680 and 690. Bidez 1930: 225-235. Abel 1952: 282-283. St. Jerome, Comment. in Soph. 1: 15-16 (Adriaen 1964: 673-674). Cf. also Origenes, Comment. in Iosuam 17: 1 (Baehrens 1921: 401-402). The Itinerarium Burdigalense 591: 4-6 (Geyer 1898: 22; Itineraria 1965: 16) alludes to the same situation: “Est et non longe de statuas lapis pertusus [the Wailing Wall?], ad quem ueniunt Iudaei singulis annis et unguent eum et lamentant se cum gemitu et uestimenta sua scindunt et sic recedunt”. General presentation in Müller-Kessler 1991: 1-3.

LIPIŃSKI, THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

to Samaritan Aramaic and to Galilean Aramaic, with traces of Mishnaic Hebrew influence. Jerusalem seems to be the most likely home town of that dialect, which was used from the 3rd/4th to the 8th/9th centuries, mainly in the area around Jerusalem, and also in central Jordan around Amman. The texts are written in Syriac script, like other Christian Semitic texts at the time, but the language and the area where they were used initially betray the Jewish origin of the speakers of that dialect.

Roman descent settled in Jerusalem in the 4th-5th centuries, as well as an increasing number of Christian priests and monks, without counting the huge amount of pilgrims already referred to by Cyril of Jerusalem in AD 120 347. The presence of Jews in Jerusalem after the middle of the 5th century is implied by the story of the monk 121 Barṣauma and by the Life of Sabas, written by Cyril of 122 Scythopolis. There were of course also Christians converted from Judaism, as indicated by the Christian Palestinian Aramaic texts, the oldest of which date 123 Besides, a Hebrew precisely from that period. inscription from the Byzantine period, engraved on the remaining western wall of the Herodian temple and 124 quoting Isaiah 66:14, has been attributed to a Jew visiting the ruins of the Temple at the time when masses of Christian pilgrims were arriving to Jerusalem.

The rabbinic immigration from Babylonia to Palestine during the Amoraic period, in the 3rd-4th centuries AD, was directed to the main centers of Jewish learning at the 113 time, i.e. to Tiberias and to Sepphoris, not to Jerusalem. Commoners from Babylon immigrated also to Jaffa, Lydda, and Caesarea, which were among the centers of 114 the textile and dyeing industries in Palestine. Jerusalem, which appeared at the time as a Christian center, did not attract Jewish immigrants from Babylonia. One of the reasons probably was the prohibition against the entrance of Jews, which was not lifted officially.

It is not possible to determine proportions between the various segments of Jerusalem’s population at that time. Jews seem to have played a significant role in the capture of Jerusalem by the Sasanian Persian army of Chosroes II in 614, since they are reported to have mobilized about 125 20,000 men, and a Jewish leader known only under his symbolic name Nehemiah was then appointed as 126 governor of Jerusalem. It is doubtful however whether those Jews were settled in Jerusalem proper before 614, since Eutychius refers to the revolt of the Jews “in the Jerusalem mountains”, thus in the area surrounding the city. According to literary sources, the Persian conquest led to the destruction of most of the churches in Jerusalem and to the massacre of a large part of its Christian population. The Opusculum de Persica captivitate, attributed to Modestus, vicar and successor of the exiled patriarch Zacharias, states that “up to 65,000” 127 people were killed then. That figure corresponds approximately to the totals given by some manuscripts of the Expugnatio Hierosolymae A.D. 614, an account preserved in a Georgian and in an Arabic version, but other manuscripts of that work give totals reduced almost 128 by half. Those figures may give an idea of the Christian population in the municipal area of Jerusalem and in its surroundings. As for the city itself, a reexamination of the archaeological evidence for the Persian destruction of the main Byzantine street in the Tyropaeon Valley (al-Wad) suggests that the destruction caused by the Persians and

Around AD 438-439 the Empress Eudocia Augusta 115 visited Jerusalem for the first time. Due to her intervention, Jews were again allowed to live in the city, 116 at least according to the Life of Barṣauma. After her separation from her husband, Theodosius II, in 442-443 she settled permanently in Jerusalem until her death in 460, spending lavishly on churches and having a new city wall constructed, which included the Siloam pool and 117 Mount Zion. The surface area of the walled city was thus extended to about 120 hectares, but the area of the Haram al-Sharif probably was a wasteland. The inhabited area thus amounted to some 100 ha with a population of ca. 25,000. That estimate corresponds to the 23,000 118 people living inside the Old City walls in 1967, while the number of Jerusalem’s inhabitants in 1845 was 119 estimated at only 15,000. Many aristocratic families of 113. Schwartz 1983: 58-63. 114. Schwartz 1983: 63-65. 115. The main sources for Eudocia’s activity are John Malalas, Chronographia 14 (Dindorf 1831), The Life of Barṣauma (Nau 1914, 1927a-b), Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Euthymios (Schwartz 1939: 6-85), The Life of Petrus Iberus (Raabe 1895: 48-49), and John of Beth-Ruphina, Plerophoriae (Kugener 1904: 39-43). For a general description and evaluation of the sources, see Gregorovius 1892; Seeck-Cohn 1907; Beck 1966; Holum 1976, 1982. 116. Nau 1927a: 122-123. The Life of Barsauma was written between 550 and 650 according to Honigmann 1954: 15. 117. For the archaeological and historical evidence of Eudocia’s building activity in Jerusalem, see Lagrange 1894: 61-73; Vincent and Abel 1914-1926: 909-911. See on the Byzantine period in general: Stern 1993: 768-784. 118. Roth 1971, vol. 9, col. 1507. This is practically the same figure as in 1870: 22,000 persons according to Ben-Arieh 1977: 403. See Tsafrir 1996. 119. Roth 1971, vol. 9, col. 1455. Prior to 1858, Jerusalem was confined within its 16th-century walls.

120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 17, 16. Nau 1914: 119-123. Schwartz 1939: 54, 57. See above, note 108. Eitan 1972, No. 171. Eustathius, Annales II, 5-7 (Selden and Pococke 18581859; Migne 1864; Cheikho 1906). On the author of this work, who was the Melkite patriarch of Alexandria and died in 940, see Graf 1947: 32-38. 126. Avi-Yonah 1976: 266. 127. Migne 1865, col. 3236B. 128. See Milik 1961, with the addition of Garitte 1960, 1973, 1974, and of the results of the Jerusalem excavations: Avigad 1983: 208-246. 11

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

their allies were less than often alleged. The street and the houses apparently saw continuous occupation from the Byzantine period into the Islamic period with no archaeological evidence for destructions in 614 or at the 129 very end of the Byzantine period, in 630-638.

Baramki, D.C. 1935 An Ancient Cistern in the Grounds of Government House, Jerusalem. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4: 165-167. Barkay, G. 1996 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem? Israel Exploration Journal 46: 23-43.

The victories of the emperor Heraclius led to a return of the Byzantines and, on March 21, 630, the Emperor made a triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He encouraged the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews and ultimately ordered 130 their expulsion from the city. Byzantine Jerusalem met its end a decade later, in March-April 638, when the patriarch Sophronius surrendered the city to the Muslim caliph ‘Umar.

Bauer, Th. 1926 Die Ostkanaanäer. Eine philologisch-historische Untersuchung über die Wanderschicht der sogenannten Amoriter in Babylonien. Leipzig. Beck, H.G. 1966 Eudokia. Pp. 843-847 in H.G. Beck, ed., Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Ben-Arieh, Y. 1977 A City Reflected in Its Times. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Bibliography Abel, F.-M. 1952 Histoire de la Palestine II. Paris.

Ben-Arieh, S. and E. Netzer 1974 Excavations along the ‘Third Wall’ of Jerusalem, 1972-1974. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 97-107.

Adriaen, M., ed. 1963 Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Esaiam libri IXI (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 73). Turnhout. 1964 Hieronymus: Commentarii in Prophetas Minores (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 76A). Turnhout.

Bidez, J. 1930 La vie de l’empereur Julien. Paris. Birot, M. 1979 Noms de personnes. Pp. 43-249 in Archives royales de Mari XVI/1. Répertoire analytique. Paris.

Amiran, R. 1960 A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 6: 25-37 (Hebrew; English summary 27*).

Bloch-Smith, E. 1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7). Sheffield.

Arensburg, B. and O. Bar-Yosef 1967 Yacimento paleolítico en la valle de Refaim, Jerusalén, Israel. Ampurias 29: 117-133.

Broshi, M. 1974 The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 21-26. 1975 La population de l’ancienne Jérusalem. Revue Biblique 82: 5-14. 1993 The Population of Iron Age Palestine. Pp. 14-18 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Supplement. Jerusalem.

Ariel, D.T. 1990 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh II. Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass. Qedem 30. Jerusalem. Avigad, N. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville.

Broshi, M. and I. Finkelstein 1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287: 47-60.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1968 The Third and Second Walls. Israel Exploration Journal 18: 98-125. 1976 The Jews of Palestine. A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. Oxford.

Cheikho, L. 1906 Eutychii patriarchi Alexandrini annales I (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 50. Series Arabica 6). Louvain.

Baehrens, W.A. 1921 Origenes: Werke VII (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 30). Leipzig.

Crowfoot, J. and G. Fitzgerald 1929 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927. London. Dąbrowa, E. 1993 Legio X Fretensis (Historia. Einzelschriften 66). Stuttgart.

129. Magness 1992. 130. Avi-Yonah 1976: 272; Kazhdan 1991: 1040. 12

LIPIŃSKI, THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

1973 Expugnationis Hierosolymae A.D. Recensiones Arabicae, I: A et B (Corpus torum Christianorum Orientalium 340-341. Arabica 26-27). Louvain. 1974 Expugnationis Hierosolymae A.D. Recensiones Arabicae, II: C et V (Corpus torum Christianorum Orientalium 347-348. Arabica 28-29). Louvain.

Delcor, M. 1978 Les Kéréthim et les Crétois. Vetus Testamentum 28: 409-422. Dequeker, L. 1985 The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem. Pp. 193-210 in E. Lipiński, ed., The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 19). Leuven.

614 ScripSeries 614 ScripSeries

Gelb, I.J. 1958 La lingua degli Amoriti. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. VIII, 13: 143-164. 1980 Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite (Assyriological Studies 21). Chicago.

Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín 1995 The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second enlarged edition) (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-SyrienPalästinas und Mesopotamiens 8). Münster. Dindorf, L., ed. 1831 Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae). Bonn.

Geva, H. 1979 The Western Boundary of Jerusalem at the End of the Monarchy. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 8491. 1983 Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 19791980: Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 55-71.

Dossin, G. 1971 Deux listes nominatives du règne de Sûmu-iamam. Revue d’Assyriologie 65: 37-66. Edelstein, G. 1993 Rephaim, Naḥal. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 4: 1277-1282.

Geyer, P. 1898 Itineraria Hierosolymitana saec. III-VIII. Vienna.

Edelstein, G. and Z. Greenhut 1988-1989 Manaḥat – 1988/1990. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7-8: 117-123.

Gibson, J.C.L. 1975 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume II. Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford.

Edelstein, G.M. and I. Milevski 1994 The Rural Settlement of Jerusalem Re-Evaluated: Surveys and Excavations in the Repha’im Valley and Mevasseret Yerushalayim. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 126: 2-23.

Glatt-Gilad, D.A. 1996 The Role of Huldah’s Prophecy in the Chronicler’s Portrayal of Josiah’s Reform. Biblica 77: 16-31. Görg, M. 1996 Zu zwei angeblichen Belegen für Jerusalem. Biblische Notizen 85: 5-7.

Eisenberg, E. 1988-1989 Naḥal Refa’im. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7-8: 84-89. 1989-1990 Nahal Refa’im – 1988/1990. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 9: 150-156. 1993 Naḥal Rephaim: A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 26: 82-95 (Hebrew). 1994 Jerusalem, Nahal Refa’im. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12: 67-71.

Graf, G. 1947 Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur II. Rome. Gregorovius, F. 1892 Athenaïs: Geschichte Kaiserin. Leipzig.

byzantinischen

Gröndahl, F. 1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl 1). Rome.

Eisenberg, E. and G. Edelstein 1985 ‘Emeq-Refa’im – 1985. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 4: 54-56.

Handy, L.K. 1995 Historical Probability and the Narrative of Josiah’s Reform in 2 Kings. Pp. 252-275 in W. Holloway and L.K. Handy, eds., The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. Sheffield.

Eitan, A., ed. 1972 Inscriptions Reveal. Jerusalem. Franken, H.J. and M.L. Steiner 1992 Urusalim and Jebus. Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104: 110-111.

einer

die

Harding, G.L.H. 1971 An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8). Toronto.

Garitte, G. 1960 La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 202-203. Series Iberica 11-12). Louvain. 13

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Kitchen, K.A. 1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC), 2nd ed. Warminster.

Harris, J.R. 1926 Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem. The Harvard Theological Review 19: 199-206.

Knauf, E.A. 2000 Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal. Tel Aviv 27: 75-90.

Helck, W. 1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 5), 2nd ed. Wiesbaden.

Knudtzon, J.A. 1915 Die El-Amarna Tafeln Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.

Hess, R.S. 1993 Amarna Personal Names (American Schools of Oriental Research, Dissertation Series 9). Winona Lake.

(Vorderasiatische

Kugener, M.A. 1904 Vie de Sévère, par Jean de Beth Aphtonia (Patrologia Orientalis 8.2-3). Paris.

Hillers, D.R. and E. Cussini 1996 Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore.

Kuhnen, H.-P. 1990 Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit (Handbuch der Archäologie. Vorderasien II/2). München.

Holum, K.G. 1976 Family Life in the Theodosian House. Kleronomia 8: 280-292. 1982 Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 3). Berkeley.

Kupper, J.-R. 1979 Noms géographiques. Pp. 1-42 in Archives royales de Mari XVI/1. Répertoire analytique. Paris. Lagrange, M.-J. 1894 Saint Étienne et son sanctuaire à Jérusalem. Paris.

Honigmann, E. 1954 Le couvent de Barsauma et le patriarcat jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 146. Subsidia 7). Louvain.

Laperrousaz, E.-M. 1994 L’étendue de Jérusalem à l’époque perse. Pp. 123156 in La Palestine à l’époque perse. Paris.

Huffmon, H.B. 1965 Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore.

Lederman, Y. 1997 Evêques juifs de Jérusalem. Revue Biblique 104: 211-222.

Hurst, D. and M. Adriaen 1969 Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Matheum libri IV (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 77). Turnhout.

Lemaire, P. 1954-1955 Une tombe du Récent Bronze au Mont des Oliviers. Rapport préliminaire. Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 5: 261-299.

Iliffe, J.H. 1933 Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Museum. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2: 120-126.

Leudemann, G. 1989 Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis. Lifshitz, B. 1969 Légions romaines en Palestine. Pp. 458-469 in Hommages à Marcel Renard II (Collection Latomus 102). Bruxelles. 1977 Jérusalem sous la domination romaine. Histoire de la ville depuis la conquête de Pompée jusqu’à Constantin (63 a.C.-325 p.C.). Pp. 444-489 in H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II/8. Berlin 1977.

Itineraria 1965 Itineraria et alia geographica (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 175). Turnhout. Josephus Flavius 1927-1928 Jewish Antiquities, edition with English translation by H.St.J. Thackeray in The Loeb Classical Library, London (reprint: 1997). 1930-1965 War of the Jews, edition with English translation by H.St.J. Thackeray and R. Marcus in The Loeb Classical Library, London (partial reprint: 1998).

Lipiński, E. 1985 Juda et ‘tout Israël’: Analogies et contrastes. Pp. 93-112 in E. Lipiński, ed., The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 19). Leuven. 1994 Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 57). Leuven. 1997 Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80). Leuven.

Kazhdan, A.P., ed. 1991 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford. Kenyon, K.M. 1966 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1965. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98: 73-88. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London. 1979 Archaeology in the Holy Land, 4th ed. London. 14

LIPIŃSKI, THE DEMOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

2004 Itineraria Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia XVIII; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 127). Leuven. 2006 On the Skirts of Canaan on the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 153). Leuven.

Müller-Kessler, Chr. 1991 Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen. Teil 1. Schriftlehre, Lautlehre, Formenlehre (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 6). Hildesheim.

Loretz. O. 1974 ENri iwri in EA 286. Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 485.

Mullo Weir, C.J. 1967 Nuzi. Pp. 73-86 in D. Winton Thomas, ed., Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Oxford.

Lux, U. 1972 Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabung unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem in den Jahren 1970 und 1971. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 94: 185-201.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1994 The Cenacle and Community: The Background of Acts 2: 44-45. Pp. 296-310 in M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum and L.E. Stager, eds., Scripture and Other Artifacts. Essays in Honor of Ph. J. King. Louisville.

Macalister, R.A.S. and John Duncan 1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 19231925. London.

Na’aman, N. 1996 The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 17-27.

Magness, J. 1992 A Reexamination of the Archaeological Evidence for the Sasanian Persian Destruction of the Tyropaeon Valley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287: 67-74.

Nau, F. 1913-1917 Résumé de monographies syriaques (Barsauma). Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 18 (1913): 272-276, 379-389; 19 (1914): 113-134, 278-289, 414-440; 20 (1915-1917): 3-32. 1927a Deux épisodes de l’histoire juive sous Théodose II (423 et 438), d’après la Vie de Barsauma le Syrien. Revue des Etudes Juives 83: 184-202. 1927b Sur la synagogue de Rabbat Moab (422) et un mouvement sioniste favorisé par l’impératrice Eudocie (438), d’après la Vie de Barsauma le Syrien. Journal Asiatique 210-211: 189-192.

Ma‘oz, Z.U. 1985 On the Hasmonaean and Herodian Town-Plan of Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 18: 46-57 (Hebrew; English summary, 66*-67*). Mazar, A. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 BCE. New York. Mazar, E. and B. Mazar 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem (Qedem 29). Jerusalem.

Netzer, E. and S. Ben-Arieh 1983 Remains of an Opus Reticulatum Building in Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 163-175.

Migne, J.P., ed. 1864 Eutychius, Contextio Gemmarum. Col. 889-1232 in Patrologia Graeca 111. Paris. 1865 Opusculum de Persica captivitate. Col. 3235-3268 in Patrologia Graeca 86/2. Paris. Mildenberg, L. 1984 The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War. Aarau.

Niehr, H. 1995 Die Reform des Joschija. Methodische, historische und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte. Pp. 33-56 in W. Gross, ed., Jeremia und die Deuteronomistische Bewegung (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 98). Weinheim.

Milik, J.T. 1961 La topographie de Jérusalem vers la fin de l’époque byzantine. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 37: 127-189.

Posener, G. 1940 Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire. Bruxelles.

Moran, W.L. 1975 The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. Pp. 146-166 in H. Goedicke and J. Roberts, eds., Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore. 1987 Les lettres d’El Amarna (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13). Paris. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore.

Prignaud, J. 1964 Caftorim et Kerétim. Revue Biblique 71: 215-229. Raabe, R., ed. 1895 Petrus der Iberer. Leipzig. Rainey, A.F. 1978 The Scatterbrained Scribe. Pp. 141-150 in Y. Avishur and J. Blau, eds., Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to S.E. Loewenstamm on his Seventienth Birthday. Jerusalem. 15

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Stekelis, M. 1948 Rephaim-Ba‘ca: A Palaeolithic Station in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 21: 80-97.

Reuter, E. 1993 Kultzentralisation. Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12 (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 87). Frankfurt. Roth, C., ed. 1971 Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem.

Stern, E., ed. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem.

Saller, S.J. 1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem). Part II. The Jebusite Burial Place (Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 13/II). Jerusalem.

Sukenik, E.L. and L.A. Mayer 1930 The Third Wall of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Trémouille, M.-Cl. 1997 dḪepat, une divinité syro-anatolienne. (Eothen. Collana di studi sulle civiltà dell’Oriente antico 7). Firenze.

Sasson, A. 1998 The Pastoral Component in the Economy of Hill Country Sites in the Intermediate Bronze and Iron Ages: Archaeo-Ethnographic Case Studies. Tel Aviv 25: 3-51.

Tsafrir, Y. 1996 Some Notes on the Settlement and Demography of Palestine in the Byzantine Period: The Archaeological Evidence. Pp. 269-284 in J.D. Seger, ed., Retrieving the Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake.

Schmitt, G. 1981 Die dritte Mauer Jerusalems. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 97: 153-170. Schröder, O. 1915 Zu Berliner Amarnatexten. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 18: col. 293-296.

Tushingham, A.D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961-1967. Toronto.

Schwartz, E., ed. 1939 Kyrillos von Skythopolis. Leipzig.

Vincent, L.-H. 1911 Jérusalem sous terre. London.

Schwartz, J. 1983 Aliya from Babylonia during the Amoraic Period (200-500 C.E.). The Jerusalem Cathedra 3: 58-69.

Vincent, L.-H. and F.-M. Abel 1914-1926 Jérusalem Nouvelle. Paris.

Seeck, O. and L. Cohn 1907 Eudokia 1. Col. 906-912 in A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft VI/1. Stuttgart.

Von Soden, W. 1981 Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 3. Wiesbaden. (2nd ed. 1985). Vriezen, K.J.H. 1994 Die Ausgrabungen unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan, Jerusalem (1970-1974). Wiesbaden.

Selden, J. and A. Pocock 1858-1859 Contextio Gemmarum. Oxford. Sethe, K. 1926 Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des Mittleren Reiches (Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1926. Phil.-hist. Kl. 5). Berlin.

Wagner-Lux, U. and H. Brakmann 1996 Jerusalem I. Cols. 631-718 in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum vol. 17. Stuttgart. Westendorf, W. 1965-1977 Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg. Wightman, G.J. 1989 The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 519). Oxford.

Shiloh, Y. 1984 Excavations at the City of David I (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. 1985 The Material Culture of Judah and Jerusalem in Iron Age II: Origins and Influences. Pp. 113-146 in E. Lipiński, ed., The Land of Israel: CrossRoads of Civilizations (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 19). Leuven.

Wilkinson, J. 1974 Ancient Jerusalem. Its Water Supply and Population. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 106: 33-51. 1981 Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, 2nd ed. Warminster.

Steiner, M. 1993 The Jebusite Ramp of Jerusalem. The Evidence from the Macalister, Kenyon and Shiloh Excavations. Pp. 585-588 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Jerusalem. 1994 Re-dating the Terraces of Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 44: 13-20.

Würthwein, E. 1994 Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 227). Berlin.

16

CHAPTER 3 JERUSALEM AND THE JEBUSITES Ulrich Hübner The nomen gentis Yebûsî and the resulting place name Yebûs used for Jerusalem are found exclusively in the Old Testament (HALAT3 366; Ges.18 432) and sources deriving from it.

3:1 'Ornān [4QSama 'rn'; Septuaginta Ορναν; Joseph, ant. 7.3.3 (§ 69); 7.13.4 (§ 329-332) Ορον(ν)ας; Vulgate Areuna; Ornan]. Commonly the name is derived from the Horite / Hurrite language (Horite 3wr = Ugaritic iwri “Lord”; Gordon 1955: 234, no. 77; Gray 1952: 212; Hess 1993: 36ss. 229; Wyatt 1985) or the Hittite (arauanni “freeborn, noble, the freeman”) (Friedrich-Kammenhuber 1979: 257-258; Feiler 1939; Goerg 1991; Rosén 1955; cf. Tallquist 1914: 270; cf. Stolz 1979: 10). It is conceivable that the name could be derived alternatively from the Semitic (Palmyrene 'rwn', Syriac 'arwānā' “calf”: cf. the kings’ name ‘Aeglôn “Litte calf” in Judges 3:12-17) (Schneider 1992: 36).

Evidence for the place name Yebûs is seldom to be found and then only in more recent references in the Old Testament, for example in Judges 19:10-11 and 1 Chronicle 11:4-5 (*Ybws, cf. Septuagint). It is transcribed in the Septuagint as Ιεβους and in the Vulgate as Iebus (Reed 1992a). “This city of the Jebusites” is only referred to in Judges 19:11 (‘îr ha-Yebûsî ha-zô't). There can be no doubt that the place name Yebûs is an artificial creation based on the gentilic with the intention of giving the usual toponymic Jerusalem an additional archaic pseudonym. Jerusalem was certainly never called “Yebûs” except in a few references in the Old Testament. The question remains whether its population or part of it were ever really known as “Jebusites”.

The etymology of the gentilic Yebûsî or of the place name Yebûs is not clear. Possibly it could be derived from the root bws (HALAT3 111; Ges.18 132; DNWSI 147-148); the name would then mean “He has trampled underfoot” being thus hypocoristic but failing to include the theophoric element. In so far as it could be an Israelite name for Jerusalem, the missing divine element could be Jahwe, in consequence the meaning would be “Jahwe has trampled underfoot”. On the other hand, should it be a pre-Israelite name, another divine name should be expected. In any case the formation of the name is archaic, or possibly made to look archaic. Personal names which could be compared to Yebûs(î) are Ya-bu-sú-um and Ya-ba-śid-Da-gan (Huffmon 1965: 38, 177, unexplained bś'; Gelb 1980: 17, 380-381 bsj “To be, to exist”). Another possibility could perhaps be found in the place name Yebûs meaning “Dry, arid place” from the root ybš “dry” (HALAT³ 367-368; Ges.18 434-435; DNWSI 433; cf. the place name Yābeš) (Priebatsch 1975; Otto 1980; Schottroff 1995), although this poses philological problems and can hardly be said to apply to Jerusalem, which is well-watered by the ‘Ayn Umm alDaraj (Gihon) and Bir Ayyūb (Rogel). In spite of all the philological difficulties that would forbid such etymologies, native speakers are able to form a connection on grounds of the sound proximity to the root bzz “To capture, plunder” (“*He, Jahwe, has captured”?) (HALAT3 113; Ges.18 135; DNWSI 149). Apparently the gentilic and / or place name Yebûs(î) is a particular name with its own content, which cannot and does not intentionally reveal the secret of its fictional etymology since it aims to conjure up before its readers in a playful way free associations about the seizure of the city and the ensuing claims to sovereignty. All attempts to give the “Jebusites” a Hurrite (Hoffner 1973) or any other nonSemite origin cannot be proved. The names of one pre-

In comparison to the place name, the nomen gentile Yebûsî (sing. coll.; in Septuagint Ιεβουσαι; Ιεβουσαιος; Vulgate Iebusei) is mentioned in the Old Testament much more frequently. Generally it is used to refer to the inhabitants of Jerusalem before the Israelites (e.g. Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:21; 2 Samuel 5:6; 1 Chronicles 11:4). The “Jebusites” are only cited in 2 Samuel 5:8; Zechariah 9:7 and 1 Chronicles 11:6 without using the definite article and are most frequently mentioned in the many stereotyped ethnographical enumerations of the different peoples in Palestine before the Israelites (Genesis 10:16; 15:21; Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Numbers 13:29; Deuteronomy 7:1; 20:17; Joshua 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; Judges 3:5; 1 Kings 9:20; Ezra 9:1; Nehemiah 9:8; 2 Chronicles 8:7; cf. Judith 5:18). It is noticeable that they are nearly always named at the end or just before it. The gentilic can also be applied to a single inhabitant of Jerusalem, for instance, in the case of the owner of the “threshing floor” on which later Solomon’s temple was built as was stated in the Bible (2 Samuel 24:16, 18; 1 Chronicles 21:15-28; 2 Chronicles 3:1). However, he is the only Jebusite whose name is given, although the transmission of this name is somewhat uncertain (HALAT3 83.87; Ges.18 18.97; Goerg 1991; Nelson 1992). In the Masoretic text of 2 Samuel 24:16 he is called ha-'Arawnāh (Qere 'rwnh), in 2 Samuel 24:18 'Aranyāh (Qere 'rwnh), in 2 Samuel 24:20, 22-24 'Arawnāh and in 1 Chronicles 21:15, 18, 28; 2 Chronicles 17

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Israelite city ruler ‘Abdi-Ḫeba (EA 285-290; ANET3 487489) or of Arauna do not change the situation. Both personal names prove at best that non-Canaanites had married into the upper class in Jerusalem (Hess 1997), not, however, the historic authenticity of the usage of Yebûsî for Gentiles or that there was a non-Semitic population majority in pre-Davidic Jerusalem. The personal name ‘Abdi-Ḫeba proves the veneration of a Hurrite goddess too in the Late Bronze Age Jerusalem. The personal names 'Adōnîṣaedaeq (Joshua 10:1, 3) and / or 'Adōnîṣaedaeq (Judges 1:5-7), Mālkîṣaedaeq (Genesis 14:18; Psalm 110:4) and the name of the Hittite 'Ûrîah (e.g. 2 Samuel 11:3-26) are common Northwest-Semitic Canaanite personal names and certainly partly fictional (Goerg 1991: 333; Engelken 1995; Reiling 1995).

“Jebusites” and not simply the inhabitants of Jerusalem or something similar? Could it be that Jerusalem, which in the pre-Israelite period barely extended over four hectares, housed several, but at least two ethnic groups, namely: the (Canaanite) Jerusalemites and the (nonCanaanite) “Jebusites”? Were the “Jebusites” the ethnically dominant group in the city? If this was the reality, why had no one other than several Old Testament authors and transmitters known about it? Was not the population of Jerusalem to a very great extent homogeneous? An attempt at an explanation should possibly take into account the fact that according to Old Testament historiography Jerusalem was the last and most important of the Canaanite cities to be captured by the Israelites; perhaps the placing of the “Jebusites” in the aforementioned lists of pre-Israelite peoples in the Old Testament is the result of this (Ishida 1979). The chief location in a small city state became the chief city of the small state of Judah and therefore the focus point for countless historiographic and theological projections (Tsevat 1982; Otto 1989). Some of these cannot survive critical examination.

Miller (1974) tried to solve the problems that resulted from the place names given in the Old Testament by regarding the double names and the equation of Yebûs with Jerusalem as a later construction, an argument I am inclined to follow. For this reason he believed that the toponymics, both of which he thought were authentic, could be separated from one another. He wanted, in my opinion erroneously, to locate a pre-Israelite Yebûs at the insignificant site of Śu‘faṭ, circa 4.5 kilometers to the north of Jerusalem. He cited for this particularly the two toponymics Kaetaef ha-Yebûsî (Joshua 15:8; 18:16) and we-ha-Yebûs (Masoretic text fem.) (Joshua 18:28 lege wiYebûs). His argument cannot be maintained, especially in the face of the fact that he would then be forced to locate Bir Ayyūb and the al-Baq‘a and Wādī al-Rabābah Valleys further to the north beyond Jerusalem.

Fictional ethnonymics (such as place or personal names) are by no means unknown in the Old Testament. The stereotyped grouping of the “Jebusites” with the Canaanites, Hittites, Horites, Amorites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites and Rephaim etc. only serves to demonstrate the vast ignorance of the Old Testament authors about the pre-Israelite period. Only the occasional Hittite can have lived in Palestine, yet, as a people this can be counted as a mere fiction of Old Testament ethnography since they never formed a noteworthy ethnic group within Palestine (Hoffner 1973; Hoffner 1994; Seters 1972). The supposed ethnic entities “Canaanites”, “Amorites” and “Horites” (Buccellati 1997; EdzardKammenhuber 1975; Goerg 1991: 90-92; Goerg 1995: 437-439; Grieshammer 1975; Hackett 1997; Hostetter 1995; Knauf 1992; Lemche 1991; Liverani 1973; Mendenhall 1992; Rainey 1996; Schmitz 1992; Schoville 1994; Seters 1972; Weippert 1980; Wilhelm 1995; Zobel 1984) demonstrate with their never-ending lack of definition that the Old Testament authors did not know what they actually meant when employing these ethnonymics in accordance with the usage of the first millennium BC to describe the ethnic relationships of the second millennium BC (Knauf 1992; 1994: 94-98). “Perizzites” are nothing more than a pseudo-ethnonymic (Niemann 1993; Reed 1992b: 231), “Rephaim” (as with “Samsummites”) nothing more than a fictional mutation developing from underworld deities to a pseudoethnonymic (Hübner 1992: 163-164, 276-279; Toorn 1995: 1307-1324). One can do no more than speculate about the genuineness, origins (and etymology) of the bizarre “Girgashites” and “Hivites” (Baker 1992a: 1028; Baker 1992b: 234; Goerg 1991: 846; Goerg 1995: 171172; Hostetter 1995: 62-66, 72-76; Margalith 1988). They can be supposed to be at best pseudonyms or at least

It cannot be emphasized enough that the nomen gentile usage and the analogous place name are found only in the Old Testament and those sources dependent on it. In those sources independent of the Old Testament, Jerusalem is always called Jerusalem and never Yebûs. Even in the oldest sources such as the Egyptian Execration texts (19th-18th century BC: otherwise Na’aman 1992) or the Amarna Letters (14th century BC) Jerusalem is called Jerusalem, namely 3w3šmm (Sethe 1926, 53, 58, nos. e27, e28, f18; Posener 1940: 86, E 45) and (uru)uru-sa-lim (EA 287, 289, cf. ANET3 487-489). This is no different in the Neo-Assyrian inscriptions (Parpola 1970: 375; ANET3 288; uruur-sa-li-im-mu/ma) or in epigraphic and numismatic Hebrew (cf. Khirbet Beit Layy inscription, 8th century BC) Yršlm; Lachish Ostracon 6:10 .... šlm (Renz 1995: 245-246, 425-427)], or in Aramaic (Yrwšlm; Yršlm; cf. ANET3 492), Nabatean ('wršlm; CIS 2,1 no. 320B), Syriac ('U/'Orišlem) or in Mandaic (‘Ura'ašl'am). Also the (early) Greek sources show the same usage (Ιερουσαλημ; Ιεροσαλυμα etc.). The place and its inhabitants are never called “Yebûs” or “the Jebusites” apart from in the Old Testament or texts dependent on it. Why then according to the Old Testament in many instances, but only in this book, are the inhabitants of Jerusalem again and again, but not always, called the 18

HÜBNER, JERUSALEM AND THE JEBUSITES

anywhere in the whole Pentateuch, allowing for the abbreviated form Šālēm in Genesis 14:18 (Emerton 1971). The most impressive linguistic expedient by means of which the history of Jerusalem was molded to fit the historiographical and ethnographical desires of the Israelites themselves was the choice of a fictional ethnonymic or toponymic. This has an intentionally archaic spoken form; its possible meaning, “He, Jahwe, has trampled underfoot” is an attempt theologically to give expression to something that cannot have taken place historically in that way (cf. Schaefer-Lichtenberger 1993; Oeming 1994). Only in those passages where the Old Testament authors thought it important to draw attention to the pre-Israelite habitation of Jerusalem and at the same time the ethnic and religious differences between the pre-Israelite population and the Israelites that they found so significant (e.g. 1 Kings 9:20; Ezra 9:1; cf. ‘îr nåkrî Judges 19:12), do they use the artificial ethnonymic the “Jebusites”. On the other hand, they speak much more frequently of the population of Jerusalem [e.g. ywšb(y) Yrwšlm; Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:21; 2 Kings 23:2; Jeremiah 4:4; 8:1; 11:2, 9, 12; 13:13; 17:20, 25; 18:11; 19:3; 25:2; 32:32; 35:13, 17; 36:31; 42:18; Isaiah 22:21; Ezekiel 11:15; 12:19; 15:6; Zechariah 12:5, 7-8, 10; 13:1; Zephaniah 1:4; Lamentations 4:18; 2 Chronicles 20:15, 18, 20; 21:11, 13; 22:1; 31:14; 32:26, 33; 33:9; 34:30, 32; 35:18; 38:18; Nehemiah 7:3; Daniel 9:7 etc.). According to their understanding of events, the Israelites who had immigrated to Palestine were themselves the original inhabitants and the autochthonous population were aliens.

anachronistically employed ethnonymics. If all these ethnically parallel groupings are a vague, obscure, anachronistic or even unhistoric, why should the gentilic the “Jebusites” alone be precise, concrete and historic? By no means unusual are the double appellations in the Old Testament for cities that played a particular role in the early history of Israel. Comparable to the double place name of Jerusalem – “Yebûs” are the double appellations of places that were to be given a fictional chronology that split into two parts, namely: pre-Israelite and Israelite, underlined by the two names. Thus the toponymics Qiryat (ha-)’Arba‘ and Qiryat-Sepher (in all probability to be attributed to the Persian period; Knauf 1990: 139) were considered the pre-Israelite names for the city of Hebron (Genesis 23:2; 35:27; Joshua 14:15; 15:13, 54; 20:7; 21:11; Judges 1:10; Nehemiah 11:25) (Ofer 1993) and Debir (Joshua 15:15-16; Judges 1:11-12; Khirbet Rabūd) (Kochavi 1993). According to Numbers 13:22, 28, 33 etc. Hebron was lived in by the legendary “Anakites” (HALAT3 813; Lipinski 1974; Mattingly 1992), according to Genesis 14:13; 23:3-20; 25:10; 49:32; Numbers 13:29 by the “Hittites” and “Amorites” (Goerg 1991: 100-101). Bethel also supposedly had another name in the pre-Israelite period, namely, Lūz (Genesis 28:19; 35:6; 48:3; Judges 1:23) (Kelso 1993). The change in its name is aetiologically attributed to Jacob (Genesis 28:10-22). This came about as a result of the intention to view the early history but in one of discontinuity and distance. “Jebus” was by no means the only fictious toponymic that was linked to Jerusalem, as can be seen in the examples of (ha-) Mōriyā (Schult 1999), 'Arī'ēl (Isaiah 29:1-2.7; Goerg 1991) and 'Oholībah (Ezekiel 23:4ss; Zimmerli 1979: 528-555).

The old original place name Jerusalem is most probably to be understood as “Foundation of God” Šālēm / Šālim (cf. the place name Šālēm used for Jerusalem in Genesis 14:18; Psalm 76:3) (Huffmon 1995; Keel-Uehlinger 1994). It was at no period replaced by the fictitious place name “Yebûs” or the politically motivated attempt to rename it “David’s City” (e.g. 2 Samuel 5:7, 9; 1 Kings 2:10; Isaiah 22:9; Nehemiah 3:15; 1 Chronicle 15:1, 29). It is just as improbable that there was ever in Jerusalem a population or group within the population called the “Jebusites”. The inhabitants of Jerusalem were always Jerusalemites, whether Canaanites, Judeans, Arabs (Hübner 1998) or others.

Why then did more than one Old Testament author call the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem the “Jebusites”? Because the later Israelite-Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem were called Jerusalemites and their city had or kept the same name as the pre-Israelite city. With the help of these differing toponymics or ethnonymics both the fictitious distinctions “Yebûs” – Jerusalem and the “Jebusites” for the inhabitants of Jerusalem divided the one city into two ethnic groups of Israelite and preIsraelite inhabitants who were, however, in reality extremely closely related. This type of pseudo-ethnic differentiation covered up the historical, ethnic (cf. Joshua 15:63; Ezekiel 16:3, 45), cultural and religioussacral continuity of the pre-Israelite and Judean Jerusalem (Stolz 1970; Rupprecht 1977). Where no story that the original population had been eliminated by ethnic cleansing was possible, as was so often the case (above all yrš and ôrm, HALAT3 339-340, 421; Ges.18 397-398, 500-502; Lohfink 1982), some other historiographical, ethnographical and ideological arrangement had to be made. The literary ethnographical differentiation aimed to give a historical foundation by fictional means to a claim to possession, as if Jerusalem first became Jerusalem through the Israelite occupation. This is also the reason why the place name Jerusalem is not mentioned

The Old Testament passages that employ the nomen gentile Yebûsî and the toponymic Yebûs to obtain a historiographic and ethnographic effect are fictional or formative texts. They attempt to give an answer to the questions “Who are we?”, “Where do we come from?”, or “How did we become what we now are and want to be?”. They give an answer to questions about their own historical existence (Davies 1992; Mueller 1972: 5ff; Whitelam 1996). At the same time, they attempt to give legitimacy to the possession of the former Canaanite city of Jerusalem and the domination over the former autochthonous native population. This early type of nationalistic and ethnocentric history writing is trying to 19

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

form an identity that can only be achieved by simultaneously creating ethnic, anti-Canaanite divisions (Hillers 1985; Thompson 1994: 301ff). The aim is not historicity, but a largely fictional history created through stories. Because the readers are prepared to believe these stories they become true, even though they are not historically accurate. That is the reason for the literary plausibility of such texts. Unhistorical fiction becomes historically influential and manufactures history in its turn. The fictional “Jebusites” came to life as literary creations but developed their own destinies in the historical consciousness of the readers – The “Jebusites”, who never existed in historical reality, have since their invention in the Old Testament lived happily ever after.

Davies, P.R. 1992 In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Summary: The nomen gentis “Yebûsî” and the similar place name “Yebûs” are only mentioned in the Old Testament and those sources dependent on it. Both can only be considered as fictitious. In the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Jerusalem was always called Jerusalem and its population accordingly the inhabitants of Jerusalem and / or Jerusalemites never “Jebusites”. The first differentiation between the pre-Davidic “Jebus” and the Jerusalem that came after David was for reasons of propaganda and appeared in the Old Testament.

Engelken K. 1995 Melchisedek. Neues Bibel-Lexikon 2: 754-756.

Edzard, D.O. and Kammenhuber, A. 1975 Hurriter, Hurritisch. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4: 507-514. Emerton, J.A. 1971 Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV. Vetus Testamentum 21: 24-47. 1990 The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18). Pp. 45-71 in J.A. Emerton, ed., Studies in the Pentateuch (Suppl. to Vetus Testamentum 41). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Feiler, E. 1939 Hurritische Namen im Alten Testament. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 45: 216-229. Friedrich, J. and Kammenhuber, A. 1979 Hethitisches Wörterbuch I.4. Heidelberg: Winter. Gelb, I.J. 1980 Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

(I would like to thank Mrs. Lilit Bornemann in Kiel for translating this article into English. A German version was published in 2002).

Giveon, R.

ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. J. B. Pritchard, ed. 3rd ed.: Princeton: Princeton University, 1969.

1975 Amurru. Lexikon der Ägyptologie 1: 251-252. Görg, M. 1991 Adoni-Besek; Adoni-Zedek; Amoriter; Anakiter; Arauna; Ariel; Girgaschiter. Neues Bibel-Lexikon 1: 33, 33, 90-92, 100-101, 151, 167, and 846. 1995 Hiwiter; Kanaan. Neues Bibel-Lexikon 2: 171-172; 437-438.

DNWSI = Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions. F. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.

Gordon, C.H. 1955 Ugaritic Manual. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

EA = El-Amarna Letters.

Gray, J. 1952 Canaanite Kingship in Theory and Practice. Vetus Testamentum 2: 193-220.

Abbreviations

18

Ges. = W. Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 1987-1995.

Hackett, J.A. 1997 Canaanites. OEANE 1: 409-414.

HALAT3 = Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, eds. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967-1995.

Hess, R.S. 1993 Amarna Personal Eisenbrauns.

OEANE = The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. E.M. Meyers, et al., Oxford: Oxford University, 1997.

Names.

Winona

Lake:

Hillers, D.R. 1985 Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion. Jewish Quarterly Review 75: 253-269.

Bibliography

Hoffner, H.A. 1973 The Hittites and Hurrians. Pp. 197-228 in D.J. Wiseman, ed., Peoples of the Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon. 1994 Hittites. Pp. 127-155 in A.J. Hoerth, et al., eds., Peoples of the OT World. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Baker, D.W. 1992a Girgashite. Anchor Bible Dictionary 2: 1028. 1992b Hivites. Anchor Bible Dictionary 3: 234. Buccellati, G. 1997 Amorites. OEANE 1: 107-111. 20

HÜBNER, JERUSALEM AND THE JEBUSITES

Lohfink, N. 1982 Hrm; yrsh. Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 3: 192-213, 953-985.

Hostetter E.C. 1995 Nations Mightier and More Numerous. The Biblical View of Palestine’s Pre-Israelite Peoples. North Richland Hill: Bibal.

Margalith, O. 1988 The Hivites. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100: 60-70.

Hübner, U. 1992 Die Ammoniter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1998 Pre-Islamic Arabs in Ancient Palestine. In U. Hübner, et al., eds., Nach Petra und ins Königreich der Nabataeer. Festschrift für M. Lindner zum 80. Geburtstag. Bodenheim: Philo. 2002 Jerusalem und die Jebusiter. Pp. 32-44 in U. Hübner and E. A. Knauf, eds., Kein Volk für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel / Palästina und Ebernâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 186), Fribourg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Mattingly, G.L. 1992 Anak. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1: 222. Mendenhall, G.E. 1992 Amorites. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1: 199-202. Miller, J.M. 1974 Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 90: 115-127. Müller, K.E. 1972-1980 Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung vols. I-II. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Huffmon, H.B. 1965 Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. 1995 Shalem. Pp. 1428-1431 in K. van der Toorn, et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Na’aman, N. 1992 Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275-291. 1996 The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 17-27.

Ishida, T. 1979 The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations. Biblica 60: 461-490. Keel, O. and Uehlinger, Ch. 1994 Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem. Pp. 269-306 in W. Dietrich and M. Klopfenstein, eds., Ein Gott allein? Fribourg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Nelson, R.D. 1992 Araunah. Anchor Bible Dictionary 2: 353. Niemann, M. 1993 Das Ende des Volkes der Perizziter. Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105: 233-257.

Kelso, J.L. 1993 Bethel. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1: 192-194.

Ofer, A. 1993 Hebron. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 606-609.

Knauf, E.A. 1990 Hesbon, Sihons Stadt. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 106: 135-144. 1992 Horites. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 3: 288-289. 1994 Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Otto, E. 1980 Jerusalem. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5: 278281. 1989 Sijjôn. Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 6: 994-1028.

Kochavi, M. 1993 Rabud, Khirbet. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4: 1252.

Parpola, S. 1970 Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. Neukirchen-Vluyn – Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker – Neukirchener Verlag.

Lemche, N.P. 1991 The Canaanites and their Land. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Posener, G. 1940 Princes et Pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth.

Lipinski, E. 1974 ‘Anaq – Kiryat ’Arba‘ – Hébron et ses sanctuaires tribaux. Vetus Testamentum 24: 41-55.

Priebatsch, H.Y. 1975 Jerusalem und die Brunnenstraße Merneptahs. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 91: 18-29.

Liverani, M. 1973 The Amorites. Pp. 100-133 in D.J. Wiseman, ed., Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon.

Reed, S.A. 1992a Jebus. Anchor Bible Dictionary 3: 652-653. 21

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Stolz, F. 1970 Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

1992b Perizitte. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 231. Reiling, J. 1995 Melchizedek. Pp. 1047-1053 in K. van der Toorn, et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Tallquist, K.L. 1914 Assyrian Personal Names. Helsinki: A. Pries.

Renz, J. and Röllig, W. 1995 Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik vol. I. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Thompson, T.L. 1994 Early History of the Israelite People. 2nd ed. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Rosén, H.B. 1955 Arawna - nom hittite? Vetus Testamentum 5: 318320.

Toorn, K. van der 1995 Rephaim. Pp. 1307-1324 in K. van der Toorn, et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Rupprecht, K. 1977 Der Tempel von Jerusalem. Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Tsevat, M. 1982 Jerûshalem. Pp. 930-939 in Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 3.

Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 1993 David und Jerusalem – ein Kapitel biblischer Historiographie. Eretz Israel 24: 197*-211*.

Weippert, M. 1980 Kanaan. Pp. 352-355 Assyriologie 5.

Schmitz, P.C. 1992 Canaan. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1: 828-831.

Wilhelm, G. 1995 Horiter / Hurriter. Pp. 194-195 in Neues BibelLexikon 2.

Schneider, Th. 1992 Asiatische Personennamen in den ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches. Fribourg and Goettingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

in

Reallexikon

der

Whitelam, K.W. 1996 The Invention of Ancient Israel. London and New York: Routledge.

Schottroff, W. 1995 Jebus, Jebusiter. Neues Bibel-Lexikon 2: 280-281.

Wyatt, N. 1985 ‘Araunah the Jebusite’ and the Throne of David. Studia Theologica 39: 29-53.

Schoville, K.N. 1994 Canaanites and Amorites. Pp. 157-182 in A.J. Hoerth et al., Peoples of the OT World. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Zimmerli, W. 1979 Ezechiel vol. 1, 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Seters, J. van 1972 The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament. Vetus Testamentum 22: 64-81.

Zobel, H.-J. 1984 kena‘an, kena‘anî. Pp. 224-243 in Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 4.

Sethe, K. 1926 Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten. Berlin.

22

CHAPTER 4 THE NAMES OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM Gerrit van der Kooij During the Middle Bronze Age the site had a walled town on the Southeastern Hill. It is possible that this town is mentioned on some of the Execration Texts from the 12th dynasty of Egypt, written on statuettes and sherds, dated in the second half of the 19th century and around 1760 BC. The Egyptian texts deal with a number of foreign lands, towns and people in the southern Levant, addressing their princes. About fifty of them are mentioned on the papyri, and one of them is the “foreign place” written 3wš3mm. That can be transcribed as rwšlmm and read as urušalimum, which can be connected with Jerusalem through Akkadian usage as known 400 years later.3

The study of place names is an important aspect of historical topography. Such a study may be purely philological and historical, but when the precise location is known archaeological information can be added to the historical data. Jerusalem is a special case in many respects, but the study of its names deals with the same problems and processes that one meets when studying other place names in the southern Levant: first: identification of the historically known place name with a geographically visible archaeological site, and second: examination of the background and use of the name or names and their development. In this contribution on the names of Jerusalem before Islam the starting point is the known location of the Old City of Jerusalem, which saw historical and archaeological continuity down to the Byzantine period, the chronological end of this survey. For this presentation it is useful to describe topographically the location as the Eastern Hill (southern part: Southeast Hill), the Western Hill, the valley in between and the hillocks bordering to the north.

During the Late Bronze Age pharaohs of the 18th and 19th dynasty, mainly the 15th-13th centuries, made several lists with place names of the southern Levant. Notably none of the lists had a name identified with Jerusalem. On the other hand the place is identified in letters from the royal archive found at Tell el-Amarna. That archive includes almost 400 letters that rulers in the Levant sent to their lord the pharaoh dating to the later years of the reign of pharaoh Echnaton, about 1360 BC. They were written in Akkadian, the international diplomatic language, but the scribes were of variable skill and used elements of the local language of their princes. Six letters (EA285-290 of the Knudtzon edition) were from Abdi-hiba, ruler of u-ru-sa-lim, generally identified with Jerusalem, taking uru as an Akkadisation of yerw, justified by the Akkadian spelling used by Sennacherib in the eighth century BC (see below).4 The place name is mentioned six times in those letters and also in some letters from other rulers. It is written (with few exceptions) with the determinative URU for town or fortification and, like other towns, is described as having extensive land around – making it a city state. However, archaeologically the location of this place has not been determined, since, apart from a tomb on the Mount of Olives, the evidence for a Late Bronze Age settlement at Jerusalem is very meagre so far.5 Attempts to identify the site name Beth-salem (mentioned in letter no. 6, AE290) with Jerusalem have not been accepted; the site is

During the period concerned, only two names for the city were used internationally (Jerusalem, with its variants, and Aelia Capitolina), whereas many names, including these two, were used locally. Another, more exceptional aspect is that some of the names had added chronological and topographical value for some religious people, being applied respectively to a future new city and to an ideal city in heaven.1 In order to gain an impression of the kinds of names and their use, the following questions have to be answered: what names were used, who used them, how were they used, and where were their sites located? The subject will be dealt with in chronological order.

The Bronze Age In the Early Bronze Age Jerusalem is known archaeologically as a settlement (with graves) on the Southeastern Hill, but its name at that time is not known. Attempts to identify a name in the Tell Mardikh-Ebla archives of the mid-third millennium with this site are not convincing.2 1.

2.

3.

General information sometimes with a wealth of details is to be found in the following monographs and articles: Vincent and Steve 1956, 610ff.; Kosmala 1964; Fohrer 1964; Lohse 1964; Otto 1980; Tsevat 1982; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994; Wagner-Lux and Brakmann 1996; Thraede 1996. Reference in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994 1:23.

4. 5.

23

Cf. Vincent 1942, esp. 199; Ahituv 1984: 122. For critical remarks (especially concerning 3=r), see Jirku 1952. See Edzard 1985, part III about the local elements; Moran 1975, especially about Abdi-Heba’s position. This problem may lead to some consequences concerning the identity of u-ru-sa-lim, such as the suggestion of Steiner 1994: 20: “a royal dominion of the pharaoh, managed by a steward who lived in a fortified house”.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

indicated as another place in the region belonging to Jeru-salem.6

The Old Testament uses several names for Jerusalem. Their use is connected with the time and context of the origin or version of the texts concerned. The most commonly used name is Jerusalem, which occurs more than 600 times, although not in the Pentateuch. There are some differences in vocalization, sometimes implying a difference in meaning. The consonants are yrwšlm, with the Masoretic vocalization pronounced as yerušalayim. In later texts the spelling with an additional yod (yrwšlym) is found a few times and once with an additional he (for location). The vocalization of the Aramaic parts of the Old Testament (and post-exilic seals; see above) read yerušalem. This reading is also reflected in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation and now – after many decades of discussion – is generally taken as the original local name. The ending –ayim is a later artificial adaptation referring to a dual aspect of the town, possibly the higher and the lower part of the Eastern Hill, or, preferably because of chronological reasons, the Eastern and Western Hills.

The Iron Age During the Iron Age up to Hellenistic times, Jerusalem is mentioned often in the Old Testament and a few times in local and foreign inscriptions. Jerusalem appears in two foreign Akkadian inscriptions. 1. The name ur-sa-li-im-mu is mentioned as a city name in Palestine on the six-sided clay prism dated 691 BC of the Assyrian king Sennacherib that describes his campaign to the west in 701 BC. Its identification with Jerusalem is not disputed. 2. The “Babylonian Chronicle”, describing the campaign of Nebuchadrezzar to Palestine in his seventh year (598597 BC) when Jerusalem was captured, refers to the place as al ja-a-hu-du (“City of Judah”).7 Three local Hebrew inscriptions are also of interest.

The meaning of the name is clear.11 Although many etymological interpretations have been given since Antiquity (see below), nowadays the name is seen as of Canaanite origin and composed of yeru-šlm: “The foundation/town of (the god) Šlm”. Šlm (read as šalim or šalem) is the name of a god that occurs in Late Bronze Age Ugaritic texts as well as in some Iron Age texts. He is connected with šhr (for “morning light”) and stands for “evening twilight”.

1. A tomb at Khirbet Beit Layy (east of Lachish) has several carved Hebrew inscriptions on the sides of burial chambers. They are difficult to read, but one text of two lines interpreted as a song of praise for God mentions yršlm – Jerusalem. That text is dated around 700 BC, mainly based on palaeography.8 2. Lachish ostracon no. 6 (early sixth century) is one of the letters to Ya'ush in Lachish and refers to events possibly in Jerusalem, but not all scholars agree that the city is meant by ???šlm in line 10.9

The name Jerusalem was used in the Old Testament in many ways and for many purposes.12 Its geographical use mentions its hills, walls, gates, streets and squares, along with its inhabitants, its sons and daughters. This Jerusalem is known archaeologically on the Southeastern Hill and for the seventh century BC also further west, while in Persian times the town was reduced again in size. The name was used politically for the royal residence and head of the tribal state of Judah; in exilic and later times Jerusalem and Judah are parallel expressions. Its religious use referred to it as the seat of the central deity (on Mount Zion see below); the whole town was a temple city. This led, already in early exilic times, to mythological concepts such as “the highest mountain” and the “streams” with living water that flow from the temple or from Jerusalem, as of paradise.

3. In the Achaemenid Persian period seal impressions on store jars (presumably for wine) were used to indicate official capacity. Many of them have yhd or yhwd in Aramaic script, but some have yršlm, Jerusalem (written around a five-point star) in early Hebrew script, but taken as an Aramaic spelling. Others have h'yr “the city”, which must refer to Jerusalem, and use also early Hebrew script.10 6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

This is made by Lewy in 1940 (see Vincent and Steve 1956: 612, n. 3; see also Kosmala 1964). But see Fohrer 1964: 297, n. 46 It concerns the chronicle of the 7th year of Nebuchadrezzar on tablet B.M. 21946, reverse line 12 (see Wiseman 1956). See Renz 1995: 242-247 for a clear survey of opinions. The reading “Jerusalem” is not doubted, but much of the preceding text is unclear. A date in the early 6th century BC has been proposed as well, but for palaeographic reasons a date around 700 BC is to be preferred. The script shows features apparent in the 8th, 7th and 6th centuries BC, but within the limited tradition of the specific alef-shape, it is best dated at the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century. See Renz 1995: 425 ff. Lak(6):1.6 for a survey of opinions. To me the context is too unclear to interpret the remains of the word as “Jerusalem”. See for example, Vincent and Steve 1956: 614. The complicated language situation is interesting because

In post-exilic times that religious use took on new dimensions. On the one hand Jerusalem is described as an eschatological feature (Isaiah 60): there will be a New Jerusalem, a city of light with darkness around, and the wealth of all people coming to it. On the other hand Jeru-

11. 12. 24

Achaemenid rule had imposed (probably not by force) the Aramaic language and script as the international means of communication. Many local languages and scripts went out of use almost completely within a few centuries. A convenient survey with most opinions is to be found in Fohrer 1964: 296 f.; see also Kosmala 1964. See especially Fohrer 1964: 305-318 for a broad and concise summary; see also Tsevat 1982.

VAN DER KOOIJ, THE NAMES OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

salem becomes for some groups ideologically the desired city of theocracy: Judah and Jerusalem are set apart in the world (for example 2 Chronicles 6:6).

g. ‘ir haqqodeš (“holy city”) is occasionally used in late texts, twice realistically (Isaiah 48:2, Nehemiah 11:1) and once eschatologically (Isaiah 52:1). h. ‘ir yehuda (“city of Judah”) is mentioned once in some manuscripts of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 25:28) where most have “city of David”, but that reading is not considered original.

The second name for Jerusalem, used more than 150 times, is Zion, written sywn and transcribed in Greek (LXX) as sion or seion.13 The etymology of the word is not clear. However, generally a pre-Israelite West Semitic background is to be preferred, connecting it with different words, meaning “to protect”, “to put up” or “to be dry, bare”. Thus it appears that the name originally had a topographical meaning, which would still be visible in the word har, “hill” that was often added.

The Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods In these periods the history of Jerusalem is well documented. Several names were used, both locally and internationally, and different groups of people, depending on their traditions and perspectives, applied a variety of meanings to those names. The names are found in the Greek and Roman historians and the writings of the Jewish and Christian traditions. The three periods are taken together here because of the general use of Greek, but Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin were also in use. The attestation of the name in a Nabatean inscription is no longer accepted.18

The use of the name Zion in pre-Hellenistic times is limited to the Old Testament. There it generally has the same functions as the name Jerusalem, but it hardly occurs in prosaic texts and slightly more often refers to the cult site or temple. The geographical use originally referred to a part of the Southeastern Hill, but often meant the whole town, including the inhabitants. Since Herodian times it was used for the higher Western Hill, later again specifically to the Southwestern Hill.

The Old Testament names of “Jerusalem”, “Zion” and “Holy City” continued in use, although with a variety of meanings and purposes, and a new name Aelia Capitolina was introduced from outside.

A number of other names and predicates were used, but rarely. Some refer to a part only, or to a specific function: a. Jebus (ybwś) is a derivation of the group name “Jebusites” and was used twice as a late explanatory addition for (part of) Jerusalem.14 Before the discovery of the Amarna texts it was often taken as the original name for the place. b. Šalem (see above for the name) is used twice, in one case (Psalm 76:3) certainly standing for Zion/Jerusalem. c. ‘ari-‘el (LXX: Ariel) means “offer hearth”,15 referring to the cult place of Jerusalem, but used for the whole city in a prophetic poem (Isaiah 29). d. Oholiba is a name given allegorically to Jerusalem, together with her sister’s name Ohola for Samaria, in the story of Ezechiel 23 to describe the religiously unfaithful behaviour of Judah and Israel.16 e. ‘opel (“bulge”) is sometimes used (in exilic and postexilic texts) in connection with Jerusalem (also with Samaria, and in the Mesha stele with Karak), but referring to a part of the “high” town (of the Eastern Hill) only. f. ‘ir dawid (“city of David”) is sometimes used (in exilic times) mainly in texts dealing with King David, stressing God’s choice of Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty.17 13. 14.

15. 16. 17.

The name Jerusalem was used, however rarely, in Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic texts, with the ending -lm or -lym, but without a specific connotation. The name is sometimes used by the nationalistic Maccabeans on coins in Hellenistic times, and also on coins, with ideological motives, by the Jewish opposition in Roman times.19 The spelling yrwslm also may occur (although instead of waw a taw is written) in an Aramaic funeral text from Jerusalem, written on a wall of a burial chamber and using a developed paleo-Hebrew script from probably the first century AD. The place is mentioned as the birthplace of the deceased.20 The name was again used in the Jewish religious scholarly circles that produced the Mishnah and Talmud 18.

19.

See especially Fohrer 1964: 292-294 for a summary. “Shoulder of the Jebusites” in Joshua 15:8, 18:16 (a gloss in Judges 19:10 and 1 Chronicles 11:4). Miller’s attempt (1974) to connect the name with another site located north of Jerusalem has not been accepted (see Keel, et al. 1984: 300a). Through the Akkadian word arallu an additional connection with the realm of the dead is possible (cf. summary in Vincent and Steve 1956: 613f.). Only Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994 1:22 refer to this name, but correctly. Cf. Tsevat 1982: col. 934.

20.

25

The reading 'wrslm ('urislem) was given in CIS 2 I, nr. 320B (p. 294), based on a drawing (given in pl. 41) by C.M. Doughty of a group of short inscriptions found at Medain Saleh. This reading was corrected to 'dr slm by Jaussen and Savignac 1909, no. 183 (=CIS 2, no 320 C, B), p. 245 and drawing on pl. 29. The two published drawings make a waw not possible, but rather a d or r (cf. Fohrer 1964, p. 296, n. 32). See good summaries of Lohse 1964, pp. 318 ff. and Thraede 1996, col. 720 ff. For the coins and their role in national rebirth, see Wagner-Lux and Brakmann 1996, col. 645; for examples see Muehsam 1966. See Naveh 1973. Naveh dealt with this “Abba-inscription” from Giv'at ha-Mivtar (north part of modern Jerusalem) palaeographically, but did not mention that a clear taw is used here, instead of a waw, so yrtslm is written. Naveh apparently assumed Jerusalem is mentioned because of the location of the burial chamber, on the other hand he noted a Samaritan connection because of the script.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

in Late Roman and Byzantine times. There it is explained as composed of yr'h + šlm, two names for the town, one given by Abraham and the second by Melchizedek; in order not to give preference to one of them God joined the names (Bereshit rabba, ch. 56:10).21 The Jewish tradition also uses the words bet ‘olamim “house of eternity” for Jerusalem.22

Latin authors (such as Cicero, Tacitus) generally use Hierosolyma. The Latin Vulgate translation of the Old and New Testament as well as the Christian writers use Ierusalem (mainly) and Ierosolyma, but Hierusalem and Hierosoluma also appear in some versions of the Vulgate. That subsequently led to the distinct use of Ierusalem in the Old Testament and Hierusalem in the New Testament. Following the Greek tradition, Hierusalem caelestis (“heavenly Jerusalem”) was also used.24

The name Jerusalem was used in Greek for the LXX translation of the Old Testament, in the books of Maccabees, in the New Testament, by classical authors (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo), by Jewish-Hellenistic historians (Philo and Josephus), and by Christian authors of Late Roman and Byzantine times.

The name Zion in the Old Testament was transcribed as Seion or Sion in Greek. It is rarely mentioned in the New Testament, mainly in quotations of texts from the Old Testament. The name is used occasionally, in an allegorical way, in the Christian tradition, often referring (as “Jerusalem” does) to the Church and the Christian community as well as to the heavenly Jerusalem.

Generally a Graecized form, Hierosoluma (taken as a plural or singular), is used. However there are three important exceptions: the LXX uses Ierousalem (the other spelling occurs only in the Books of Maccabees), the New Testament uses the graecized spelling somewhat more often than the LXX spelling (especially where the Old Testament is quoted), while the early church fathers used both. That difference of spelling is interesting, because the graecized form has a special meaning, referring to the holiness (hieros) of the place (Salem) – an aspect that is stressed in another name of the city (see below). Some scholars take the graecized form as the profane name for hellenized readers.23

Other names or qualifications are also applied. The name “Holy City” (often without “Jerusalem”) is used, picking up the usage already found in the Old Testament, but probably a sign of hellenization as well. It is written in two ways: hagia polis, especially used in the New Testament, referring to the actual city, as well as to the apocalyptic heavenly city (the name is used as a predicative on the sixth century Madaba mosaic map) and hiera polis used by Josephus and hieropolis by Philo and others, also referring to the town as the goal for pilgrimage, as well as in philosophical thinking. The word metropolis (“mother city”) is also applied to Jerusalem, especially in the allegorical and philosophical thoughts referred to earlier.

The use of the name Jerusalem in the New Testament corresponds with its use in the Old Testament, but it occurs more frequently together with “holy city”. However the name is also used in a more abstract way.

The name Colonia Aelia Capitolina was given to Jerusalem by the Roman Emperor Aelius Hadrianus after his own name and that of the main Roman god Jupiter Capitolinus. This name was apparently given just before the war of 132-135 (the second Jewish revolt of Bar Kochba) and applied to the city, refounded in a Hellenistic-Roman style and the headquarters of a Roman legion in the new Provincia Syria Palaestina.25 Jews were not allowed to enter, but Christians were. Such a new name given from outside to a locally very important city is an example of the kind of acculturation that causes social stress, as actually occurred.

Hellenistic Platonic-Stoic philosophy (the reality “above” is reflected in the “down-to-earth” reality) led the influential Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria (1st century) to develop the thought that the “higher” Jerusalem is best understood by taking the etymology as jarah + šalom, in Greek horasis eirenes, meaning “vision of peace”, and being present in all people. Also among the Christian communities the use of the name Jerusalem went far beyond the actual city. This appears clearly in fourth century theology. Eusebius explains that Jerusalem features in three ways: materially as the physical

The name was used in a complete form on coins,26 and has also been found used on a stone slab, but generally the abbreviation Aelia was used officially. That is the form used both in Greek (as Ailia) and Latin by the Christian church, as well as in Arabic (Iliya’) on coins of the early caliphs. That name always refers to the physical city, which gradually expanded.27 The name slowly went out of use from the fourth century onwards, being last mentioned on seventh century Arabic coins.

city, allegorically as the Christian community, and philosophically as the heavenly city or state. That last perception is also based on Platonic-Stoic and Gnostic philosophy and was developed in Christianity mainly by Origin in the third century. It is also conceived in a chiliastic way: heavenly Jerusalem, i.e. the “vision of peace” will come down to earth some day. 21. 22. 23.

See for example the translation of Neusner 1985, vol. 2, pp. 286 ff. (Midrash about Genesis 22:14). Neubauer 1868/1965, p. 134, refering to Tosefta, Tohorot, ch. 1. He sees a parallel with Rome as the “eternal city”. See, for example, Sylva 1983 and Jeremias 1974, p. 275. However the name implies for Hellenized readers not a profane, but a religious attitude.

24. 25. 26. 27. 26

See conveniently Thraede 1996, col. 749 ff, for the use of the names for Jerusalem in the Latin Christian traditions. See for a summary and references, especially WagnerLux and Brakmann 1996, cols. 634 and 665f. Examples in Meshorer 1985, pp. 60-63. The expansion of the city is conveniently summarized by Wagner-Lux and Brakmann 1996, col. 672f.

VAN DER KOOIJ, THE NAMES OF JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore.

Epilogue Concluding this survey of names of Jerusalem before Islam it may be said that a wide variety of names were used reflecting an even greater variety of uses and functions. That reflects the history of that time, clearly one of much social, political and religious change.

Muehsam, A. 1966 Coin and Temple. A Study of the Architectural Representation on Ancient Jewish Coins. Leiden. Naveh, J. 1973 An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in PaleoHebrew Script. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 8291.

Bibliography Ahituv, S. 1984 Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden.

Egyptian

Neubauer. A. 1868 La Géographie du Talmud. Amsterdam (re-edition Amsterdam 1965).

Bieberstein, K and H. Bloedhorn 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft. Wiesbaden.

Neusner, J. 1985 Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A New American Translation 2. Providence.

Edzard, D.O. 1985 Amarna und die Archive seiner Korrespondenten zwischen Ugarit und Gaza. Pp. 248-259 in J. Amitai, ed., Biblical Archaeology Today. Jerusalem.

Otto, E. 1980 Jerusalem. Pp. 1976-1980 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5. Berlin.

Fohrer, G. 1964 Sion, Ierousalem, Hierosoluma, Hierosolumites – A. Pp. 291-318 in G. Friedrich, ed., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 7. Stuttgart.

Renz, J. 1995 Die althebräischen Inschriften. Teil 1 Text und Kommentar (=J. Renz and W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik 1). Darmstadt.

Jaussen, A. and R. Savignac 1909 Mission archéologique en Arabie (mars-mai 1907) I. De Jérusalem au Hedjaz, Médain-Saleh. Paris.

Steiner, M.L. 1994 Re-dating the Terraces of Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 44: 13-20. Sylva, D.D. 1983 Ierousalem and Hierosoluma in Luke-Acts. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74: 207-221.

Jeremias, J. 1974 Miszelle: Ierousalem/Hierosoluma. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 65: 273-276. Jirku, A. 1952 Bemerkungen zu den ägyptischen sog. “Aechtungstexten”. Archiv Orientální 20: 167-169.

Thraede, K. 1994 Jerusalem II (Sinnbild). Col. 718-764 in E. Dassmann, ed., Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 17. Stuttgart.

Keel, O., M. Küchler, and C. Uehlinger 1984 Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 1. Göttingen. Kosmala, H. 1964 Jerusalem. In B. Reicke and L. Rost, Biblischhistorisches Handwörterbuch II. Göttingen.

Tsevat, M. 1982 yrwslm. Col. 930-939 in G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 3. Stuttgart.

Lohse, E. 1964 Sion, Ierousalem, Hierosoluma, Heirosolumites – B, C, D. Pp. 318-338 in G. Friedrich, ed., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 7. Stuttgart.

Vincent, L.-H. 1942 Les pays bibliques et l’Égypte à la fin de la XIIe dynastie égyptienne. Vivre et Penser (=Revue Biblique) 51: 187-212.

Meshorer, Y. 1985 City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem.

Vincent, L.-H. and M.-A. Steve 1956 Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament: recherches d’archéologie et d’histoire. Paris.

Miller, J.M. 1974 Jebus and Jerusalem: a case of mistaken identity. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 90: 115127.

Wagner-Lux, U. and H. Brakmann 1996 Jerusalem I (stadtgeschichtlich). Col. 631-718 in E. Dassmann, ed., Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 17. Stuttgart.

Moran, W.L. 1975 The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. Pp. 146-166 in H. Goedicke, et al., eds.,

Wiseman, D.J. 1956 Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. London. 27

CHAPTER 5 JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION Kenneth A. Kitchen fortress or citadel, mining the walls and scaling them with ladders, to the consternation of the occupants. Meanwhile other Egyptian soldiers kill or capture Asiatics, leading them off into captivity. At the left, only fragments of six lines of inscription remain, from a text that once described that whole military episode. Its almost total loss is much to be deplored, as the fifth line once listed a series of captured settlements. Of these only one and a half names remain. The complete one is Nd-i3 (Semitic, Nå-'il or Lå-'il) and despite Helck (1971: 21, n. 59), is still best understood as a *La(w)d(h)i-'il, “El is my refuge” with Albright (1934: 9 and n. 23). The damaged name began with cn (cAin-...) and is clearly “Well/Spring (of) [place lost]”.

This subject is one of the scantiest in terms of real documentation. However, if we patiently set our handful of fragments and non-fragments(!) in their contexts, and use the terms “documents” and “documentation” rather broadly, we may find something modestly useful. Before c. 2000 BC From the extremely limited finds of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages known in Jerusalem, nothing Egyptian has yet come to light. And until Egypt’s Archaic Period and Old Kingdom periods (from c. 3000 BC onwards), no written documents could be expected to throw any light on contemporary Palestine’s Early Bronze Age. However, this bleak prospect may be tempered by taking a slightly wider perspective. During the Early Bronze Age I in particular, there was a highprofile Egyptian presence in the southwest region of Palestine, from near Tel-Aviv in the north to south of Gaza in the south, and as far east inland as Arad in the south (nearly 60 km/37 miles south of Jerusalem) and erRujum/Hartuv only about 25 km/14 miles west-southwest from Jerusalem. That Egyptian presence may have culminated in military incursions by Pharaohs NarmerMenes and Hor-Aha Teti, first kings of Egypt’s 1st Dynasty (for their identities, cf. Kitchen 1993a: 153, with comments; Kitchen 1993b: 120-121). Several sites in the whole area have yielded Egyptian pottery from that period, both imported and locally made. For that overall phenomenon, compare the data presented by Amiran and Gophna, Oren and Yekutiel, Gophna, Kempinski, Porat, and Brandl (in van den Brink 1992: 357-477, with maps, ibid., 437). That petered out in Early Bronze II, but in Early Bronze III at Et-Tell, only some 16 km/10 miles north of Jerusalem itself, remarkable finds included Egyptian alabaster vessels, Egyptian stone-cutting techniques on pillar-bases and no-core walling in Temple A, and a once-elegant Egyptian ivory knife-handle (Callaway in Stern 1993 vol. 1: 43, 44 for a summary). Any settlement at Jerusalem in that period could in principle have been open to Egyptian cultural influences in the later third millennium BC.

Further early place-names occur in other Egyptian inscriptions of the third millennium BC. During the first five Dynasties (c. 3000-2300 BC), the name Wanat is found written in a crenellated oval, a counterpart to the Palestinian citadel shown at Deshasheh, and also often having bastions at intervals around the outside. At first, it was seemingly a Levantine place-name, quite close to Egypt; but from the 6th Dynasty, wanat became simply a term for fortified settlements of this particular type (see in more detail, Fischer 1959: 264 with figs. 23, 24). Of special interest is the official Kai-caper, who bore the title(s) “Scribe of the army of the King, in Wanat, in Sarir, (in) Tapar/l, in Adar, (in) the turquoise-terraces [Sinai], (and) in the deserts (both) Eastern and Western” (Fischer 1959: 257 fig. 22; 260-265 passim). We appear to have him active in three geographical zones: the deserts east and west of the Nile in Egypt itself, in Sinai (for the turquoise-mines), and up in Palestine. Of the four names there, Wanat was perhaps nearest Egypt; was it an early precursor of Raphia? Sarir does not appear in known Palestinian sources for geography, but the name closely resembles the Old-South-Arabian word S1RR for wadi-side cultivated land (cf. Biella 1982: 346; Beeston et al. 1982: 128, I). Perhaps along the Brook Besor? Then Taper or Tapel is reminiscent of the Tophel of Deuteronomy 1:1, often linked with Tafilah some 30 km/18 miles southeast of the Dead Sea. Finally, Ader could in principle be the later Hazar Addar of Numbers 34:4 (variant, Addar, in Joshua 15:3), in the Wilderness of Zin. Archaeologically, however, none of these locations seem to coincide with known remains of Early Bronze Age III. So, Kai-caper’s terms of office in Canaan may have been spent a little further north; cf. such distribution-maps of EB sites (esp. for EB III) as those

Our textual evidence is likewise fugitive, but not wholly absent in the wider perspective. Almost our sole Egyptian visual and textual witness for Palestine in the third millennium BC is found in the well-known tomb-chapel of Inti at Deshasheh in Middle Egypt, of the 5th/6th Dynasties, roughly 2300 BC (Petrie 1898, pl. IV). Here, a scene shows Egyptians besieging a buttress-walled 28

KITCHEN, JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION

vowels are added, we have: (i) Rusharimum, (ii) Rushalimum, (iii) Lushalimum, (iv) Lusharimum, where the root sh-l-m is the likeliest resolution of the second and main part of the name. No place Lushalimum is known or very likely; but Rushalimum is extremely close to an *(U)rushalimum or a *(Ye)rushalimum for “(Je)rusalem”. The loss of an initial weak consonant, vowel or semi-vowel/consonant is by no means unknown when names pass from one language or writing-system into another. Thus, Egyptian Wah-ib-ra passed into biblical Hebrew as Hoph-ra and into Greek as Ap-rie(s), with loss of initial Wa(h). Egyptian/Libyan Wasilkan/“Osorkon” went into Assyrian as Shilkanni, again with loss of Wa/O. So a fugitive initial U or Ye is nothing remarkable, and interpretation of 3wš3mm as “Jerusalem” ought to stand.

given by Seger (in de Miroschedji 1989 vol. 1: 118, fig. 1) or by Mazar (1990: 95, map 4.1). The net result of this investigation is as follows. Egyptian traders and even settlers (involved in trade) penetrated at least southern Canaan in Early Bronze I and II, contemporary with the end of Predynastic Egypt, and the rise of the single Egyptian monarchy (Narmer, Aha). Thereafter, Egyptian interests moved north to Phoenicia, but there was renewed (but limited) Egyptian involvement in Palestine c. 2300 BC, in the 5th/6th Dynasties; Egyptian exotic objects were treasured at EtTell, only a few miles north of Jerusalem, such that any settlement there would be accessible to Egyptian contacts. Egyptian texts preserve mention of about six place-names whose location is still guesswork.

Sometimes in Egyptian lists of foreign place-names, one may find sequences that can be followed like a route on a map, and which may, in fact, derive from itineraries. In other cases, the names occur in no special order, or only small clusters of three or so may in fact be geographically contiguous. In the Execration Texts, attempts have been made to see consistent sequences, but that does not work out in the Western Asiatic series that interest us here; only small clusters can be found. An additional complication is that only 7 out of 15 toponyms in the Berlin series can be located with certainty or near certainty, and only 28 out of 60 places in the Brussels series – about half in each case. Thus, in the Berlin series (Sethe 1926), we find ‘Irqata (e.22) in Phoenicia right next to Ascalon (e.23) in southwest Palestine, and in the Brussels series ‘Irqata (E.54) is set next to Shim‘anu (E.55; biblical Shimron) in Galilee. So, there is little help from context in most cases. That is certainly true of Jerusalem, in the Berlin texts (e.27-28; f.18) between Mutir (e.26; f.17) near Lebanese Tripoli, and the unlocated ‘Akhimuti (e.29; f.19), followed by other obscure names. Likewise, in the Brussels texts, Jerusalem (E.45) comes between the obscure Layati or Rayati (E.44) and a damaged name (E.46). Also in different copies of the Western Asiatic names in these texts, variations in order can occur, in sharp contrast with the Nubian series of names, where the course of the Nile provides a long, clear sequence of settlements and territories (cf. Posener 1940: 42-43).

Early Second Millennium BC For this period, our information improves a little. We have two possible sources: the so-called Execration Texts from Egypt itself, and Egyptian traces from Middle Bronze Age Jerusalem. At present, the latter are virtually zero, but the Execration Texts are more useful. They represent a form of written and enacted magical damnation of people judged hostile (or potentially so) to Egypt, and of related activity (plotting, dreams, etc.) Suspects listed in such texts included named local rulers and districts up the Nubian Nile south of Egypt, Libyan groups out west, and named local rulers and political entities in Palestine and Syria, plus Egyptians (named and otherwise). Such texts were commonly written on wooden, stone or clay statuettes (representing foreign captives), and also on pottery vessels (Berlin series, some from Mirgissa series); and always in hieratic, Egypt’s cursive, non-monumental script. (For listings of the primary documents from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period, see Posener 1987: 2-6). Out of all the known series, two sets of texts matter to us. The first set is written on bowls now in Berlin (Sethe 1926), dating to the mid to late 12th Dynasty (after c. 1850 BC) The second set is inscribed on clay statuettes (mainly in Brussels; Posener 1940), of the late 12th/early 13th Dynasties, c. 1800 BC and shortly after. The two sets are not more than a generation apart (within 20-30 years), as they twice include mention of men who were father-andson rulers in Nubian princedoms (Posener 1940: 34; cf. Helck 1971: 44-45).

However, it can be useful to place the identifiable half of the names on a map (cf. Fig. 1) and see how things lie that far. The following zones then appear in skeletal form. First, along the coast (or near it) from south to north, we find ports and close neighbours: Ascalon (e.23-25; E.2), Accho (E.49), Tyre (E.35), Byblos (f.2; E.63), Mutir (inland; e.26; f.17), ‘Irqata (e.22; f.12; E.54), and Ullaza (f.3; F.2). Second, up the main part of west Palestine/Canaan. Here, we may have Ekron just west of the hills (E.58), and Apheq [Ras al-‘Ayn] (E.9), unless this name is in fact one of the other Apheqs (west of Accho; west of Lake Galilee). In the hill-country, Ya‘anaq (e.1-3; f.4; E.36, 64) is often compared with the

The importance for us of the Berlin and Brussels series is that they each include mentions of a place-name that may be read as “(Je)rusalem”, spelled identically in all three occurrences. The Egyptian word in transliteration is 3wš3mm, where Egyptian 3alif reproduces Semitic r or l at this period. In the graphic conventions used in these texts for foreign names, w can stand for the vowel u. Thus, the limits of transcription are (i) Rush-r-m-m, (ii) Rush-l-m-m, (iii) Lush-l-m-m, (iv) Lush-r-m-m, where the hyphens stand for unwritten vowels. If appropriate 29

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

satellite lands and their rural populace. (Exactly the same is true on a far vaster scale in the lists of the New Kingdom.) Clear evidence for this is provided by the entries in the Brussels texts for Byblos and ‘Irqata. Each of these places is indubitably known to have been a settlement, on external evidence; one may still visit the remarkable ruins of ancient Byblos today, while ‘Irqata is shown as a town under siege in a war-scene of Ramesses II (Kitchen 1996a: 73, §53b; Kitchen 1997: Section 53b). Yet, in the Brussels texts, we have the entries “the tribesfolk of Byblos” (E.63), as well as “the tribesfolk of ‘Irqata” (E.61), distinct from the formal entry (E.54) for ‘Irqata as a settlement-centre. In other words, both Byblos and ‘Irqata were city-states in the Ancient NearEastern sense of a township or permanent, built settlement (and its urban inhabitants) plus the lands that belonged to it. Part of that land would be agricultural and part pastoral. On those lands lived tribal people, perhaps the pastoral element in that polity. There is no reason to treat the entries for Jerusalem any differently. On the basis of the Execration Texts, we would expect it to be a small (perhaps walled) settlement, controlling an area of territory of uncertain extent northward and southward (bounded by the terrains of Shechem to the north, and Ya‘anaq/Hebron to the south?), and on its immediate west and east flanks at least. Traces of a Middle-Bronze Jerusalem are attested and indicate a walled settlement occupying an unknown proportion of the southeast (Ophel) hill. Walling up to 30 to 40 metres long and 2 to 3 metres thick of large stones (and internal buttresses added later) belong to this period, which indicate a regime able to levy labour for such public works. (Cf. already, the summaries of this phase by e.g. Shiloh in Stern 1993 vol. 2: 701 (strata 18-17); Tarler and Cahill in Freedman 1992 vol. 2: 54). Gold leaf found with bone inlays, etc., from a vessel in one house may suggest that MB Jerusalem’s citizens were not entirely paupers, under princes who could command good walls. There is, therefore, no compelling reason to conclude either that “it was too small to have existed on its own” as a state, or that merely “it was rather the provincial outpost of a more powerful city-state”, as Auld and Steiner suggest (1996: 27). They further err (p. 28) in thinking Jerusalem to have been too insignificant to feature in the Egyptian texts. An allegedly only 12-acre site may not be overly impressive to us today, but its modest physical scale has no bearing on the possible local power and influence of its rulers, which is what would have counted in Egypt. There are plenty of other places named in these texts that were probably of comparably modest size at the time. As indicated above, Jerusalem in these texts falls into the same pattern as other towns-plus-terrain. There is no warrant for simply dismissing it as a patch of land in these texts.

‘Anaqim (Joshua 15:4) near Hebron, some 30 km/18 miles south of Jerusalem; then we have Jerusalem (e.2728; f.18; E.45). North by 50 km/30 miles, we reach Shechem (E.6), then probably (Y)ible‘am (E.47). In the transverse vale of the Kishon and Jezreel, between Accho and the Jordan River, we find Achsaph (E.11), possibly Apheq (unless this is Ras al-‘Ayn [see just above], or beyond Lake Galilee), Shim‘anu (E.58; Shimron), and Arhab, i.e. Rehob (e.11-12; f.8; E.14; Tell es-Sarem). In Galilee and northwards, we have Hazor (E.15), Laish (E.59), and ‘Iyyon (E.18). North of that point, the texts give us the Biq‘a Valley (E.20), S(h)iryon (E.30), North and South Apum (Damascus area; E.33/34), and perhaps Labwe (Lebo; E.31). Across the Jordan from Rehob and Galilee (if not an Apheq), there is probably ‘Astartu (E.25), Bosranu (E.27), and certainly Pihil (E.8; Pella). South of these, we have Qarqor (E.56) out towards the desert (Judges 8:10), then South and North Shutu (e.4-6; f.5; E.52/53; precursor of Moab), and then Kushu (E.50/51; cf. biblical Kushan), precursor of later Edom and Midian. Seen in this light, the central hills of Canaan were ruled by princes at Shechem, Jerusalem and the vicinity of Hebron, and these may have been the three main local power-centres there at the time (later 19thearly 18th centuries BC). Their smaller neighbours northward were strung along an axis from Accho to Pella, while in the plains west of their hills were perhaps Ekron, Beth-Shemesh (E.60, unless it is the one in southwest Galilee) and Apheq in these texts. That other powercentres existed in that zone is clear, of course, from Middle-Bronze archaeology; it would be interesting to know which of our unlocated names in the Execration Texts were actually those of sites whose occupation ended with the Middle Bronze Age, such that their names did not pass into later biblical or other tradition, causing the links of place and name to be lost. So, if we have a realm of Jerusalem (c.1840-1780 BC) sandwiched between Shechem to the north and Ya‘anaq to the south, what more can these texts tell us about it? The name itself is determined with the foreign-land sign (land-with-three-hills). Throughout these texts, this sign is used uniformly for all the place-names. Of those that are identifiable, the vast majority are towns with their territory. In the Berlin texts, this is clear for Arhabu/Rehob, ‘Irqata, Ascalon, Mutir (four places); only Shutu is a wider territory without a homonymous towncentre. In the Brussels texts, Ascalon, Migdol(aya), Shechem, Pihil, Apheq, Achsaph, Arhab/Rehob, Hazor, ‘Iyyon, Ullaza, ‘Astartu, Bosranu, Labwe, Tyre, (Y)ible‘am, Accho, ‘Irqata, Shim‘anu, Qarqor, Ekron, Laish, Beth-Shemesh and Byblos are all clearly settlements plus terrain in virtually every case – 23 all told. Purely area-names include: the Biq‘a, Shiryon(?), Apum (South and North), Kushu (South and North), and Shutu (South and North) – a mere five names at most. In other words, where a name is known otherwise as a townname (and not just as an area of land), that is how it should be understood here – but as the town with its

A noteworthy point about (Je)rusalem in these texts is that it had two named rulers in the Berlin texts (Yaqar‘ammu and Saz‘anu), and one in the Brussels texts ([...]bar/l[...]) a generation later. This is not unique. In the Berlin texts, a place Raqahi has two rulers (e.20-21), 30

KITCHEN, JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION

zones (south and north, or “upper” and “lower” in Egyptian terminology), each with its own chief, instead of one area having two, three or four undifferentiated chiefdoms. The interplay of urban centres of petty citystates and (semi-) independent tribal groups becoming drawn into their orbit finds echoes in two other sources. In the patriarchal narratives of Genesis 12-36, Abraham and his clan move between such towns (Hebron, BeerSheba, (Jeru)salem, Gerar, etc.), and he and Isaac enter into treaty-relations with such centres (as with Gerar), while the incident over Dinah (Genesis 34) portrays the polity at Shechem as seeking to absorb Jacob’s tribal group. That well illustrates the tendency of the urban centres to draw in the tribesfolk as their satellites, then as settled members – hence one ruler only in the overall territory. Far further east, in contemporary OldBabylonian Mesopotamia, a similar phenomenon of parallel town-dynasties with tribal-group dynasties flourishing within their territorial orbit is now clearly attested (see Yuhong and Dalley 1990). That reflection of the changing political conditions in our two sets of Execration Texts was first observed early on by Alt (1941: 37-38, 70-71) and Albright (1941: 19-20).

three rulers appear for Ya‘anaq (e.1-3), for Shutu (e.4-6), for Qahar/lmu (e.8-10), for Asinu (e.13-15), and four for Anhia (e.16-19). But a generation later, all definite citystates have only one ruler, while some regions have north and south divisions with just one ruler over each part (so, Marzahki South and North, E.23/24; Apum South and North, E.33/34; Qahar/lmu South and North, E.39/40; Shutu South and North, E.52/53; and upper and lower Kushu, E.50/51). So, clearly, there was development in the political system in Canaan in that time, of which these texts preserve a fleeting snapshot. In the past, a variety of explanations have been offered for the early multiplicity of rulers. In the case of the townships, Sethe (1926: 4344) suggested that they were being ruled by pairs or trios of rulers, referring to the sufetes or magistrates of Carthage, twin rulers in Sparta, and triumvirs in Rome, all from very much later times, which does not favour such a comparison across so wide a gulf in time. He and Dussaud (1927: 218-220) viewed the three rulers of Ya‘anaq as having been perhaps the rulers of three linked towns, comparing the ‘Anaqim of Joshua 15:13-15 as rulers of Debir, Hebron and Qiryat ‘Anab. More appositely, he compared the multiple rulers of regions (Shutu, etc.) to the twin sets of tribal rulers of the Midianites, as with Oreb and Zeeb (Judges 7:25; 8:3) and their kings Zebah and Zalmunna (Judges 8:5, 12). Helck (1962: 67; 1971: 63) had preferred to take the apparently multiple rulers in towns as the names of successive rulers, deceased and current. But this means assuming that the Egyptians had elicited the names of three successive rulers in some cases (and in one area or town even four), while differences in order of rulers in some of the Berlin texts (cf. already, Helck 1971: 49 end) would rule out any such explanation – dead rulers can not succeed live ones.

Finally, the names of the rulers of Jerusalem in these texts. The names of the two rulers in the Berlin texts are clearly North-West Semitic of the Amorite type. Their Semitic originals were diagnosed accurately long ago by Albright (1928: 248). The one is Yaqir-‘ammu, “(my) people is honourable”, the other Shas‘anu, “the cleaver”. Sadly, most of the one name in the Brussels texts is lost, except the middle, [...]bal/r[...]. Here, the surviving segment may be a fragment of some name compounded with balih, or with barih. A name that may be compounded with either of these terms is already known from the Berlin texts (e.3 – either Halu-balih or Halubarih) (Helck 1971: 46).

The real explanation would seem to lie elsewhere. We noted above that the towns of Byblos and ‘Irqata appeared in these texts not simply as towns on their own, but (especially in the case of ‘Irqata) as a town plus a separate entry “tribesfolk of (town) x”. Thus, on this explicit analogy, it seems in order to suggest that the two rulers of Jerusalem were, in fact, one ruler over the urban populace based on the town itself, with its agricultural land, while the second (parallel) ruler was chief of a tribal/pastoral populace on grazing land within Jerusalem’s overall territorial holdings. This explanation would also apply to other urban centres, where likewise one ruler would have been based on the township, while the other ruler (or rulers) would in fact be the concomitant chief(s) of the tribal group(s) on its pastoral terrain.

Late Second Millennium BC Here we come to three historical phases, one of positive textual evidence, one of non-evidence textually, and one of archaeological origin and a textual link. The first, of course, concerns the appearance of Jerusalem and its ruler Abdi-Hepa in the famous El-Amarna correspondence of the 14th century BC (for the last handbook edition in English, see Moran 1992). It has very recently been suggested (Auld and Steiner 1996: 29) that Abdi-Hepa had no town of Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age (no Late Bronze remains have been located so far), merely “a fortified house” in a (rural) domain or estate of pharaoh. One may remark that Abdi-Hepa puts himself on the same level as all other local city-rulers of the area (Shechem, Ascalon, Lachish, etc.), and claims to occupy his father’s house by the pharaoh’s grace and favour, i.e. in a dynastic succession. Nobody was going to claim this for a mere farmstead. Also the familiar fallacy among today’s archaeologists rears its ugly head: “We didn’t find it, so it never existed” (cf. Auld and Steiner 1996:

Then, by a generation later, the attached tribal groups had become so assimilated to the rule of the central authority in the township (and perhaps to a sedentary existence) that their separate political role largely disappeared. Thus, in the Brussels texts, we then have just one ruler per centre. In those areas without a named urban centre (like Shutu, Kushu, etc.), we find the area divided into two 31

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

out that in Joshua 15:9 and 18:15 the place-name macyan – me – Neptoah (usually translated: “Spring of the waters of Nephtoah”) should most likely be understood as originally “Spring of Me(r)enptah”, incorporating that king’s name. In much later times, on the analogy of the phrase macyan mayim, “waterspring”, the name was interpreted tautologically as in translations today. “Nephtoah” is usually located at Lifta, about 4 km/2.5 miles northwest of old Jerusalem. (For the change n > l, cf. Rendsburg 1981: 172). Calice’s suggestion has been widely followed and is reasonable in itself (for references see Rendsburg 1981: 171 n. 9, and Yurco 1990: 38 and nn. 36-37 among others). Some support comes from firsthand sources of Merenptah’s time. Papyrus Anastasi III, Verso, cols. 6 and 5 (in that order) contains a ‘postal register’ of messengers commuting between the pharaoh’s border-post at Sile and various places in Canaan and Phoenicia. In Verso 6:4-5, we read: “Year 3, 1st Month of season Shomu, Day 17 [= 23rd February, 1210 BC], arrival effected by the troop-commanders of the Wells of Merenptah Pleased-with-Truth, which are the hills/mountain-ridges, to conduct an enquiry at the fortress which is in Sile” [= Egypt’s East Delta border-township]. (Hieroglyphic text, see Gardiner 1937: 31:10-11; earlier translations, Caminos 1954: 108, and Wilson in Pritchard 1969: 258). It seems, again, reasonable to link these “Wells of Merenptah in the hills/mountain-ridges” with the suggested “Spring of Me(re)nptah” now Lifta. The qualifying phrase “hills/mountain-ridges” rules out completely Ahlström’s evasive suggestion (1993: 283 n. 5) that Merenptah’s Wells were down near the trunk road (or “Ways of Horus”) from Canaan to Egypt – there are no mountains there. Troop commanders from such a place suggests in turn that some kind of strongpoint was established by the Egyptian power to control such wells in the late 13th century BC.

29: “No remains of a 14th century city have yet been discovered ... in Jerusalem, not even a sherd of pottery.” Hence, the false logic, “Archaeologically speaking, Jerusalem was not occupied at all during the Late Bronze Age.”) It is too easily forgotten that no archaeological remains are totally indestructible (not even pottery) and that even the southeast (Ophel) hill of Jerusalem was built anew by the supposed Jebusites in the 13th century, by the new Hebrew regime of David, then Solomon in the 10th century, then occupied (with inevitable internal clearances and rebuildings) throughout the 10th to early 6th centuries, plus all the accidents that have happened in over 2,000 years since. Archaeology is always, at best, an incomplete source of data, and its optical illusions have often to be corrected or supplemented by first-hand textual evidence (like the Amarna letters). Jerusalem in Abdi-Hepa’s time may have been physically no more impressive than Middle-Bronze Jerusalem (so far...), and have (in effect) simply stayed within the remnant of the old Middle-Bronze rampart; but to reduce it to one glorified farmhouse does not do justice to the total content or tenor of the Amarna data. Those data are fuller and more informative than the Execration Texts, but even on that basis it is instructive to consult the map of Canaanite cities from that correspondence given by Moran (1992: 124). Just as in the Execration Texts, there is no main centre of authority between Jerusalem and Shechem to its north, or between it and Lachish to its southwest (Qiltu/Keilah was hardly a sovereign ministate). Enough said. Now, we turn to one of our non-fragments. After the famous Battle of Qadesh fought by Ramesses II in his fifth year (c. 1275/74 BC), he continued to fight back against the Hittite dominion in Syria. We have at his memorial temple in Western Thebes (the Ramesseum), part of a massively incomplete victory scene, in which long processions of princes (his sons) once were shown bringing captives from numerous South Syrian and North Palestinian cities to the now-lost figure of the King. The scene is a mere fragment, with only 15 or 18 forts from an original roster of between 36 and 54 such forts (so great is the loss) (cf. Kitchen 1997: 55-56, §§48-50). At the top of the surviving series, in the ends of the three topmost rows, we have (below) a Merom, possibly linked with the Waters of Merom in Galilee, (middle) just possibly a Beth-ez also in Galilee, then (top) a Shalim or Shalam(u). On overall context, this too would have been a place in South Syria, or Galilee. And certainly not (Jeru)salem, as there was no revolt in Canaan that far south for Ramesses II to quell, either in Year Eight or any other time. The reliefs including Ascalon belong to the reign of Merenptah, not his father Ramesses II (for the latest summary, cf. Kitchen 1997: 72-78, §§82-88).

Can we go further? Possibly, on two lines of evidence, textual and archaeological. First, textual. In the Anastasi III postal register (Verso 5:1-2; Gardiner 1937: 31:16-17; Caminos 1954: 109), in an entry five days after that quoted above [i.e., about 28th February, 1210 BC], on Day 22, we have the entry: “Going up (i.e., to Canaan) by Nakhtamun son of Tjir, messenger of the fort of Merenptah Pleased-with-Truth, which is near Dj-rr-m” (then postal details are added). The place-name here given in consonantal form as Dj-r-r-m was misleadingly transcribed as Sar-ram (S for Dj) by Wilson in Pritchard 1969: 258, and unwittingly cited in this form by Aharoni 1979: 184. This, in turn, led to a slip of the pen by Barkay (1996: 41), giving the impression that this “Sar-ram” could be for Salem, i.e. (Jeru)salem, comparing Genesis 14:18 and Psalm 76:3. However, this is a total impossibility, as Egyptian dj (å) transcribes Semitic ḏ/ê and z/å – but never s or š; (cf. Hoch 1994: 405-406, 408409, and 437 table). And the doubled r also would exclude such an interpretation. So, Dj-r-r-m is not itself Jerusalem. Up till now, it has remained unidentified and

Third, there are data of some significance under Merenptah, in what we may take as Jerusalem and environs. Long ago, F. Calice (1903: 224) acutely pointed 32

KITCHEN, JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION

deity – certainly not Seth, and not very likely to be Osiris either. For people on stelae presenting bouquets (or single blooms) to deities in this way, cf. the stela of Mami from Beth-Shan just cited, or (at random) Rio de Janeiro Cat. 29, and even better Cat. 30 (middle register) (in Kitchen 1990, II: pls. 63/64, 65/66); in a recently-published tomb (El-Saady 1996, pl. 51) – all mid-19th-Dynasty examples.

unlocated, except for the passing suggestion by Burchardt (1909-1910 vol. 2: 62, no.1237) that it may be for a ḏr-rm in Semitic. A Ḏ(u)r ram (or rom), “high rock” would make sense as a name for a settlement or location reflecting such a geographical feature. Is there such a place? The Levant has plenty of hill-sites to choose from, but could it be somewhere close to Jerusalem, like Merenptah’s Wells (Lifta)? This would be pure speculation.

The surviving text (see our Fig. 2) may be restored as either an adoration-text, “Praise to you, O [DEITY], that you may give...”, or as the common type of invocation, “An offering which the King gives (to) [DEITY], that he/she may give...”, (various benefits in either case). In our case, these benefits probably ended with [...qrs nfr m]ót i3w , nty Imntt, n Ôr(.i)-ôr-M3ct, [m3córw] – “... and a goodly burial af]ter a old age, for Hra(i)-hi(r)-Maat, [justified]”. The last visible sign in the last column is a person-name determinative of a man squatting, holding a flagellum; above him, what appears as a reversed maat-feather sign. In the previous line, clearest is the word for “West”, but with the two ts miswritten before (instead of after) the word-sign; above it, t plus two-stroke y can combine with a clear n at end of previous line to give nty. After “West”, another (dative) n and face-plus-sky signs to spell ôr. The small sign below can then be the upper part of a second ôr. This would give a name typically New Kingdom, “My face is towards ... (Deity or the like)” (cf. examples, Ranke n.d., I, 252, nos. 15, 17-21). In our case, we have a parallel name, “(My) face is towards (the goddess) Maat”. Above the terminal n of the third line back, is the “old man” sign, used to write “old age”; the traces above it may be for m-ót or n-ót, “after”. This would be part of a very common expression of a wish (by the living) for sundry benefits, plus a good burial after a long, happy life. Our inscription then makes good sense. The text as read here replaces my earlier one (1970/1983: 255: F.2). Such a stela might well have been dedicated in a temple. The traces on its verso are beyond recovery, except that the loop is not cankh by its shape – it is much more like the top of a sistrum of the goddess Hathor.

At this point, we turn to possible archaeological data: Egyptian objects of New-Kingdom date found in the vicinity of St. Stephen’s monastery and the École Biblique de St. Étienne, not far north of the present Damascus Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem, recently highlighted by Barkay (1996). These include the following items: (i) fragment of a stela or inscribed block (Barkay 1966: 23-29, figs. 4-6; cf. James 1966: 174 and figs. 98:3, 99:2, whence Kitchen 1970/1983: 255:4-6, F.2; cf. Auld and Steiner 1996: 30, fig. 12); (ii) offeringtable (Barkay 1996: 29-32, figs. 7-8); (iii) two alabastra (Barkay 1996: 34-35, figs. 11-12); (iv) small statuette (Barkay 1996: 35-37, figs. 13-15); and (v) papyrus-umbel capital from a column (Barkay 1996: 37-40, figs. 16-18). These all came from the Dominican excavation of the Byzantine church ruins starting in 1882, except for (iv) found in the gardens in 1975. Barkay (1996: 41-43) would add all these together to argue for the presence of an Egyptian temple just north of Jerusalem, and specifically in the 13th century BC. Of this material, little can be said for the alabastra or the statuette; they could be stray votives from tomb or temple, or even a house. The offering-table may have been in situ, but at what date? In itself, it is of very un-Egyptian style (contrast those shown, e.g., in Vandier 1954: 524-534, figs. 307-309, among many others). Of much more interest are the capital and the stela. Capitals of similar kind were associated with a temple at Beth-Shan (cf. James 1966: fig. 95), and were used in New-Kingdom Egyptian houses (as at El-Amarna, for example). If the inscribed block is a fragmentary stela (which is likely), then it might well have been dedicated in a temple. Parallels spring to mind, like the stela of the Egyptian official Mami dedicated in the temple of Baal at Ugarit (Schaeffer 1939: 39f. and fig. 30), or the stela of the Egyptian officer Amenemope for Mikal at Beth-Shan (Rowe 1940: frontispiece, p. 59 and ref.) The stela from St. Étienne presented by Barkay had been mistaken for a piece excavated at Beth-Shan – hence its presence both in the book by James (1966) and in my Ramesside Inscriptions, V (Kitchen 1970/1983: 255). From the James photo (lit from above), the text could not be read satisfactorily; the new photo (Barkay 1996, fig. 6) (different angle and smoother) can now be combined with it to give an entirely new reading of the text and of the monument. The traces below the text are clearly of the top of a bouquet (as Barkay also noted), and at its left of the top and brow of the person (facing to the left) who presents it to a lost figure at the left, most probably a

However, the Egyptians did not just build temples in isolation. One would expect it to be part of a wider set-up – in a fort, as on Egypt’s Libyan borders. A good example is that of Zawiyet Umm er-Rakham (Habachi 1980: esp. 17, plan). So, it is at least just possible that such a temple was part of an Egyptian strongpoint to the north of Jerusalem, next to rising ground (and some hamlet known as High rock, Ḏur-rom, Egyptian Dj-r-rm?), between early Jerusalem and the Wells of Merenptah near modern Lifta. If so, why such a concentration of Egyptian interest here? The question is best answered in terms of strategic geography. Ancient Jerusalem stood at the crossing-point of two routes, south-north (BeerSheba-Hebron-Jerusalem-Shechem-Esdraelon) and westeast (Ajalon ascent via Beth-Horon to Gibeon and Jerusalem; thence down to Jericho, the Jordan and Transjordanian lands). An Egyptian presence here could 33

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

down the coast-road to Egypt. That leaves Row IV. It once contained 13 place-names, of which all but two are lost. And those two surviving, one (no. 40) is too indefinite to locate (an Abel, “stream”) and one too obscure (no. 45, Bayt-Saba) to identify, as are other traces (e.g., in no. 51, sså...). There are ten other names, all lost except for illegible or unusable traces, and we cannot know to which part of Palestine they related. Two names have traces (double k?; final d?) that are incompatible with the name ‘Jerusalem’ in any form. But that leaves no less than 8 names, totally lost, any one of which might have been Jerusalem, if it had been listed. So, the great list of Shoshenq I either never needed to list Jerusalem in the first place, or else if it did, there is ample room for it in the devastated Row IV. One final point may be made here. It is occasionally alleged that the biblical accounts speak only of an invasion of Judah, while the Shoshenq list concentrates on Israel, up north. This is total nonsense. The Israel segments of placenames occupy only two whole rows (III, V), and part of one other (II). Contrast Judah and the Negeb, with five whole rows (VI-X) and part of two others (I, II). Apart from Raphia, almost nothing can be said about Row XI, while Row IV is destroyed or mainly illegible and unidentifiable. The biblical accounts were written from a Judean viewpoint, hence are not concerned with what befell their northern neighbour. Given those facts, that the biblical accounts are Judean-based, and that Shoshenq I’s list amply covers both mini-kingdoms, the correspondence from these two very different sources is as good as might be expected. So, we end!

have efficient oversight of movements of merchant caravans and of less innocent travelers in such a zone. First Millennium BC Here, we turn finally to our last “non-fragment”. One of the few explicit contacts between Egypt and the Levant in the early first millennium BC was the invasion in 925 BC of the twin kingdoms of Judah and Israel by Shoshenq I, the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. From time to time, inadequately-informed commentators are tempted to wonder why the name of Jerusalem is not to be found in the great list of place-names included by Shoshenq I in his scene of victory at the temple of Karnak in Thebes. The answer is very simple, and embraces two options. First, Rehoboam and Jerusalem probably surrendered to Shoshenq I, who had then to be bought-off with the treasures of palace and temple; the town was not conquered by force, so was never in the list. Or second, people generally overlook the fact that the great list is very damaged in places, with ample scope for the name of Jerusalem to have been lost from it through such damage. The list consists of ten rows of names (all reading from right-to-left, as the orientation of the hieroglyphs proves), above each other, behind the figure of the god Amun; while an eleventh row (reading from left-to-right) ran under the king’s part of the scene. The long series of names does not constitute a continuous itinerary; but segments of routes do occur in parts of these rows of names. Their distribution geographically may be summarised as follows. (For all details with references to earlier discussions, and a map of the routesegments, see Kitchen 1996b: 432-447, 587 end, xlvi end, narrative, 294-300 with 575-576, maps, 297 and especially 434 (segments), chart of relief, 433 [cf. Table 1, here]). The top row (I) is introductory, listing Egypt’s traditional foes (“the Nine Bows”), giving a title, then listing the campaign’s starting-point in Palestine, namely G[aza], if not on to Makkedah and Rubuti. Row II has three distinguishable segments. (A) from Esdraelon valley east-southeast to Rehob (Tell es-Sarem). (B) its continuation over the Jordan to Mahanaim. (C) a separate segment that runs up the vale of Ajalon, to Gibeon and the vicinity of Jerusalem. Thus, practically, Row IIC continues from the data in Row I, while Row IIA and B represent a northeastern section of Shoshenq’s campaign. Row III then jumps away to present part of the route homeward from Megiddo south to Socoh and beyond, plus part of what may have been a raid from Megiddo into southwest Galilee. There is no place in Rows I to III for Jerusalem. If we pass over IV (see just below) to Row V, its two segments cover a Transjordanian route between Mahanaim and Adamah (by the Jordan) and a route from Zemaraim (north of Jerusalem) up to [Tir]zah and “the Vale” (i.e., of Esdraelon). No place for Jerusalem here either. Then, Rows VI-X, so far as identifiable, relate to southern Judah and areas in the Negeb, while Row XI (with Raphia) – almost entirely destroyed – looks back

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. 1979 The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography, 2nd ed. London: Burns & Oates. Ahlström, G. 1993 The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic (JSOT Supplement 146). Albright, W.F. 1928 The Egyptian Empire in Asia in the Twenty-First Century B.C. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 8: 223-256. 1934 The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. New Haven: American Oriental Society (American Oriental Series 5). 1941 New Egyptian Data on Palestine in the Patriarchal Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 81: 16-21. Alt, A. 1941 Herren und Herrensitze Palästinas im Anfang des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins 64: 21-39 = A. Alt (ed. M. Noth), Kleine Schriften, III. Munich, 1959: 57-71. 34

KITCHEN, JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION

Auld, G. and M. Steiner 1996 Jerusalem I: From the Bronze Age to the Maccabees. Cambridge: Lutterworth. (Cities of the Biblical World).

Helck, W. 1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 5) 2nd ed.

Barkay, G. 1996 A Late Bronze Age Temple in Jerusalem? Israel Exploration Journal 46: 23-43.

Hoch, J.E. 1994 Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: Princeton University.

Beeston, A.F.L., M.A. Ghul, W.W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans, eds. 1982 Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Louvain: Peeters and Beirut: Librairie du Liban.

James, F., et al. 1966 The Iron Age at Beth Shan. Philadelphia: University Museum. Kitchen, K.A. 1970/1983 Ramesside Inscriptions V. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993a Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Translations, I. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993b Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, I. Oxford: Blackwell. 1996a Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Translations, II. Oxford: Blackwell. 1996b The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC). Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 2nd ed., augmented reprint. 1997 Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II. Oxford: Blackwell.

Biella, J.C. 1982 Dictionary of Old South Arabic. Chico: Scholars. (Harvard Semitic Studies 25). van den Brink, E.C.M., ed. 1992 The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21-24. October, 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Jerusalem: van den Brink/IES. Burchardt, M. 1909-1910 Die altkanaanäische Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Ägyptischen, I-II. Leipzig, Hinrichs.

Kitchen, K. A. with M. da C. Beltrão 1990 Catalogue of the Egyptian Collection in the National Museum, Rio de Janeiro, I-II. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Calice, F. 1903 König Menephtes im Buche Josua? Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 3, col. 224. Caminos, R.A. 1954 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. Oxford: Oxford University. (Brown Egyptological Studies 1).

Mazar, A. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE. New York: Doubleday. (Anchor Bible Reference Library).

Dussaud, R. 1927 Nouveaux renseignements sur la Palestine et la Syrie vers 2000 avant notre ère. Syria 8: 216-233.

de Miroschedji, P., ed. 1989 L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien, Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles – Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20-24 octobre 1986), I-II. Oxford: BAR (BAR International Series 527).

El-Saady, H. 1996 The Tomb of Amenemhab: no. 44 at Qurnah. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Fischer, H.G. 1959 A Scribe of the Army in a Saqqara Mastaba of the Early Fifth Dynasty. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15: 233-272.

Moran, W.L. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University.

Freedman, D.N., et al., eds. 1992 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 7 volumes. New York: Doubleday.

Petrie, W.M.F. 1898 Deshasheh. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. (Excavation Memoirs 15).

Gardiner, A.H. 1937 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 7).

Posener, G. 1940 Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. 1987 Cinq figurines d’envoûtment. Cairo: IFAO (Bibliothèque d’Étude 101).

Habachi, L. 1980 The Military Posts of Ramesses II on the Coastal Road and the Western Part of the Delta. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 80: 13-30.

Priebutsch, H.Y. 1975 Jerusalem und die Brunnenstraße Merneptahs. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins 91: 1729. 35

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Pritchard, J.B., ed. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University.

Mittleren Reiches. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1926, Phil.- Hist. Klasse, Nr. 5. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Ranke, H. n.d. Die ägyptische Personennamen, I-III. Hamburg: Selbstverlag.

Stern, E., ed. 1993 The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 volumes. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rendsburg, G. 1981 Merneptah in Canaan. SSEA Journal 11.3: 171172. Rowe, A. 1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Vandier, Jacques 1954 Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Paris: Picard. Yuhong, W. and S. Dalley 1990 The Origins of the Manana Dynasty at Kish and the Assyrian King List. Iraq 52: 159-165.

Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1939 Ugaritica I. Paris: Geuthner.

Yurco, F. 1990 3,200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt. Biblical Archaeology Review 16.5: 20-38.

Sethe, K. 1926 Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefässscherben des

36

KITCHEN, JERUSALEM IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN DOCUMENTATION

Figure 2. The Jerusalem Stela of St Étienne

Figure 1: Some Locatable Places in the Execration Texts Table 1: Geographical Areas in the Topographical List of Shoshenq I 1st Section: (right to left) I II III IV V

South-West: Judah South-West: Judah Israel (North-West) […mainly lost – not locatable…] Israel )North-Central

TITLE Israel (North)

NINE BOWS Israel (East)

Israel (East)

2nd Section: (right to left) VI VII VIII IX X

South Judah Negeb, West to East East Negeb South-West Judah / South Judah (South-West? And) South Judah

Central Negeb South Judah? Uncertain Location

3rd Section: (left to right) XI

[……….lost……….] SSW: Philistia – Sinai coast-road 37

South Judah

CHAPTER 6 JERUSALEM IN THE AMARNA LETTERS George E. Mendenhall have been brought to Jerusalem with him, since they use a type of cuneiform syllabary that is characteristic of the Syro-Hittite region, and sharply contrasts to that used by the Canaanite kings of Byblos and Tyre (Moran 1975).

Among the 380 cuneiform tablets discovered at Tell elAmarna in Egypt over a hundred years ago were seven tablets that were addressed to the king of Egypt, Amenophis III, before the middle of the 14th century BC by a certain Abdu-Khepa, king of Urusalima, certainly Jerusalem. Brief and limited as they are – one of the tablets is too fragmentary to be translated – they yet give vivid information concerning the history of Jerusalem and its population nearly 400 years before its seizure by the Israelite King David. Fortunately, the international correspondence of the Egyptian kings furnishes much information concerning the political and even cultural context of this important period in ancient Near Eastern history.

Together with the king and his scribes, the Egyptian king also supplied him with a small mercenary army whose identity has long been in question. They were a group called kaši who are referred to ten times in the Amarna corpus. They have usually been identified with the Egyptian and biblical Kushites traditionally thought to be Ethiopians, though more probably Nubians/ Sudanese. This view is almost certainly wrong, for there is a far more probable identification for them that also explains an otherwise perplexing problem in the Jerusalem letters. The text in EA 287 tells that the Kashi attacked AbduKhepa in his fortified house and almost killed him. It is not at all clear that these Kashi were garrison troops, rather it is possible that they were inhabitants of the city who for some reason were opposed to him and wanted him out of the way.

This voluminous information is supplemented by the materials from the archives of the other three great empires of the time: the Hittite, Mitannian and the Assyrian. They divided virtually all the Near East among themselves, and as usual, were engaged constantly in the attempt to extend their political, military and of course, economic control at the expense of their neigh-bors, and above all at the expense of the local populations who produced the goods that made their ambitions possible.

The improbability of Nubians in Jerusalem at this time led me to search for an alternative explanation. It is to be found in Hittite archives. In the Instructions for the Commanders of the Border Guards (Pritchard 1975: 210211) we read: “Should Kassiya people, Tegaramma people and Isuwa people be there, attend to them in every way.” Hittite sources elsewhere make other references to Kassiya, so that it is well attested as an element or province of the Hittite empire. Whether or not the term has anything to do with the contemporary Cassite people of Babylonia is moot, but it seems unlikely that they should have been attested so far west.

The same pattern unfortunately held true on a smaller scale within the Syro-Palestinian region, and probably elsewhere as well. The various population centers were ruled by local chieftains who claimed the title ‘king’ in their local domain but who had the status of ‘overseer’ in their relationship to the king of Egypt to whom they all vowed eternal loyalty and obedience. At the same time they were usually attempting to expand their control and consequently their wealth at the expense of their neighbors, and on a couple occasions they attempted to form coalitions with other local dynasts in the hope of becoming independent, so that they would not be required to share their wealth with the Egyptian overlord. It needs considerable emphasis, however, to point out that these political centers were very small by modern standards, and in the case of Jerusalem , the archaeological record so far gives us no information about the city, which in all probability was not much more than the royal palace and housing for his bureaucracy and praetorian guard.

The Amarna letters give us more information, but it is still a curious problem. In EA 288:36 the king of Jerusalem tells that: “The strong arm of the king took Nakhrima and the land of Kashi.” This rules out the identification of Kashi with Cassite Babylonia, while three letters from Rib-Addi of Byblos state specifically that Kashi is a state with a king (EA 76:15 and cf. 104:20, 116:71): “Who is Abdu-Ashirta...is he the king of the land of Mitana or king of Kashhe?” Elsewhere (EA 127:22) the same king asks the Pharaoh to send him 100 soldiers of the land of Kashi, and later he asks for 300 soldiers, 30 chariots and 100 “men of Kashi” to guard Byblos. Another local king evidently from northern Syria asks for two young men of the palace of the land of Kashi and for a physician from the palace (EA 49:21-24).

Abdu-Khepa states repeatedly in his letters that he was placed in charge of Jerusalem by the king of Egypt, and therefore gives his undying loyalty to the Pharaoh. There can be no doubt about the truth of the statement. His name is Hurrian, which means that he originated from somewhere in central Anatolia that became part of the Mitanni empire before it was conquered in turn by the Hittites. It has been shown years ago that his scribes must

Even though the references to the Kashi are perplexing, it seems clear that they were a group under the Hittite 38

MENDENHALL, JERUSALEM IN THE AMARNA LETTERS

Evidence from a much later period also sheds light on this Amarna period in Jerusalem. Some 800 years later, another biblical prophet refers to the earliest known Arabic tribe of Midian in a poetic passage that uses in parallel lines the name Cushan (Habakuk 3:7): “I have seen the tents of Cushan terrified, the pavilions of the land of Midian shuddering.” Still later a passage in Numbers 12:1 is even more informative: “Miriam, and Aaron too, spoke against Moses in connection with the Cushite woman he had taken. (For he had married a Cushite woman.)”

empire and were taken over by the Egyptians and resettled in various parts of their empire from northern Syria to Jerusalem. The fact that they appear in connection with the border guards indicates also that they were on the Hittite side of the line bordering the Mitannian, i.e. Hurrian empire. This then explains why there was an attempt on the life of the Hurrian king of Jerusalem. The hostilities of the north were transferred to the city of Jerusalem in the time of the new Empire of Egypt. This also places into a vivid historical context the statement of the prophet Ezekiel (16:1-3; Jerusalem Bible) some 800 years later concerning the city of Jerusalem in its last days as capital of Judah: “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her filthy crimes. Say, The Lord Yahweh says this: By origin and birth you belong to the land of Canaan. Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.”

By the time this passage was written, the ancient land and people of Kashi were entirely forgotten, and only the land and people of Cush, then regarded as Ethiopia, remained in memory. It is most interesting, however, since Zipporah, the wife of Moses, is identified as Midianite in Exodus 2:21. This means that a population element resident in or near Jerusalem in the 14th century BC is named as a subsection of the Midianite Arab population several centuries later. The confusion between Kashi and Cushi was of course inevitable once the Kashi were forgotten.

At that late date, the distinction between Hittites and Hurrians was doubtless gone; both were Anatolians. Some have objected that the term Hittite in later biblical sources merely meant North Syrian, but this objection is evidently ignorant of the fact that northern Syria in the early Iron Age was to a large extent the successor to the Hittite empire in Anatolia.

To sum up, from the earliest evidence we have – the Egyptian Middle Kingdom Execration texts from the 19th century BC – to the present day, the city of Jerusalem has always, like virtually every other city in history, been a cosmopolitan community with populations of diverse origins and diverse languages. When it was taken over by a superior power, the result was always catastrophe, sometimes unrecorded as in the case of the unfortunate Abdu-Khepa, at other times as in the case of the biblical city, recorded with tragic detail. In fact, however else a municipality may be defined as a city, it is virtually always the meeting place of diverse peoples who at times have learned to live together in harmony. It is the reduction of God to mere power that characterized the ancient pagan Canaanite worship of Baal, and the same process in the modern world is very likely to result in a similar disaster.

What can we conclude concerning the city of Jerusalem at this time? There is no doubt that both Hurrian and Hittite ethno-linguistic elements were resident in or near the city. From the fact that the city sometime later was known as Yebus, inhabited by the biblical Jebusites, we also know that a native, Semitic-speaking, element had taken over power from the extraneous, Egyptiansupported, Anatolian population. The name yebus occurs in three different forms in old Amorite personal names from Middle Bronze Age sources in northeast Syria. Already in the 19th century BC the king of Jerusalem cited in the Egyptian Execration Texts has the Amorite name of Yaqar-`Ammu. This is another illustration of the linguistic history of the region also exhibited in the Ugaritic texts, the dynastic history of Byblos, and other Late Bronze Age sources. At or near the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, Amorite elements from northeast Syria took over control of virtually every SyroPalestinian city from which we have evidence, and their language was superimposed upon a still earlier Semitic language that can only have been the remote ancestor of Arabic (Mendenhall 1985: chapter 10).

Bibliography EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915 Die El-Amarna Tafeln. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2. Leipzig (Reprint: Aalen 1964). Mendenhall, G.E. 1985 The Syllabic Inscriptions from Byblos. Beirut: American University of Beirut. Moran, W.L. 1975 The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. Pp. 146-166 in H. Goedicke and J. Roberts, eds., Unity and Diversity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. 1992 Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Pritchard, J. 1955 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University.

To sum up, long before the biblical period in Palestine, the city of Jerusalem had a long and complex history that included varying control of the city by various population groups, and by imperial overlords. As everywhere else in the Levant, the original complex linguistic structure that had somewhere between 25 to 30 consonants, case endings for nouns, and a complex verbal structure, was drastically simplified to yield the common 22 consonant language of Jerusalem (the “lip of Canaan” – Isaiah 19:18), and Phoenicia. 39

CHAPTER 7 JERUSALEM IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD Wolfgang Röllig It is known but not at all surprising that the city of Jerusalem very seldom comes into view during the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, i.e., between the rulers Aššur-dān II and Ashurbanipal and his successors. Beginning in 935 and continuing until ca. 612 BC, the Assyrian sources themselves are almost completely silent concerning the city. Even in the periods of exceptional Assyrian efforts at westward expansion,1 under Shalmaneser III (859-824) and Tiglath-pileser III (746727), it is not mentioned, just as the kingdom of Judah, whose capital city had been Jerusalem since the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam, also is rarely mentioned in Assyrian sources (see below). There are several reasons for this silence in the Assyrian sources.

Der‘a. A road did lead eastward to Jericho and into the Jordan Valley, but practically no direct access over the Judean Hills toward the west was possible. Therefore, it is not surprising that the state of Judah with its capital city Jerusalem lay in the lee of history, remaining unharmed by many a historical turbulence. However, there were occasional altercations with the Israelite brothers, and Judah frequently meddled in events outside its borders, e.g., Asa (908-868) fought against Baasha of Israel with Damascene support. The northern king Ahab, but significantly no Judean, belonged to the coalition of Syrian leaders who setback Shalmaneser III’s drive for expansion. Later relations with Damascus were not at all peaceful. King Joash of Judah (840-801) had to purchase his own freedom with part of the temple and palace treasures after Hazael of Damascus conquered the city of Gath and was ready to march against Jerusalem as well. His son Amaziah (801-773) then began a dispute with the northern kingdom of Israel, but he was defeated in the battle at Beth-shemesh, whereupon part of Jerusalem’s city wall was destroyed and the temple and palace treasures, which in the meantime had apparently been refilled, were plundered. At any rate, his son Azariah (773-736?) was – if we may believe the chroniclers – in a position to extend his military influence in Edomite territory all the way to the Gulf of ‘Aqabah and to fight against the Philistines and even the Arabs. Whether this Judean king was the one who is listed as Azriyau among the tributaries to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in the year 738 has long been disputed owing to the fragmentary state of the text and is not very probable.2

Undoubtedly, Judah along with Jerusalem belonged to the regions or nations that lay outside the focus of Assyrian interests, just as Moab, Ammon, or Edom did. The coastal regions of Syria Palestine on the one hand, and the forests of Lebanon and Antilebanon as well as of Amanus on the other, were more accessible and were promising in terms of building timber and of rich spoils and tribute. The regions south of Damascus, far away from the center of Assyria, were also difficult for the Assyrian armies to reach in the days when the armies were still recruited from the rural population of Assyria itself. The distances were too great, and the return march of an army in fall and winter was too wearing and costly in terms of losses. Not until the military reform of Tiglath -pileser and the establishment of a standing army that could winter in enemy territory and extend sieges beyond the fall, was it possible for the Assyrians to press forward with their expansion all the way to Egypt, e.g., under Esarhaddon. It was also only under those new circumstances that Shalmaneser V could lay siege to Samaria in 722-721 BC. Nevertheless, Judah remained untouched by Assyria’s greed in those days, and Jerusalem likewise was not besieged.

Ahaz (741-725), his co-ruler for a time and then successor, had learned a lesson from the stormy advance of the Assyrians, however: not to leave Judah’s – and thus Jerusalem’s – favorable geographical niche. Because of this, he did not join the anti-Assyrian coalition of Raṣyān of Damascus and Pekah of Israel. The disappointment about that led to the “Syro-Ephraimite war”.3 In the course of that war even Jerusalem was attacked by its neighbors, whereupon Ahaz in 733 issued a call to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III for help, who in turn imposed a penalty on the Arameans of Damascus as well as on Israel. But the price was high: Judah became an

The reason for that was certainly the city’s geographic location. David chose quite well when he made Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom. In contrast to, e.g., Tadmor/Palmyra or later Petra, however, it was not a junction of highways or an important trade center. The preferred north-south connections were either ca. 50 km to the west via Gaza and Joppa on the coastal plain toward Carmel or were ca. 60 km to the east going through Karak and ‘Amman to the Yarmuk Valley and 1.

2. 3.

Cf. Lamprichs 1995. 40

See most recently Tadmor 1994: 273-278. In recent times, Mayer 1995: 308, relegated this war “to the sphere of later legends” without any really convincing reasons.

RÖLLIG, JERUSALEM IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD

Assyrian vassal, and Jauḫazi, i.e., Jehoahaz (= Ahaz) had to pay tribute. His successor Hezekiah (725-697), probably having been warned by the prophet Isaiah, continued his Assyria-friendly policy at first, building on rapprochement rather than resistance. Thus, the country of Judah as well as its capital Jerusalem remained untouched when in 722 Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria, the capital of Israel, which his successor Sargon II finally conquered; Sargon’s deportation of the ten tribes eliminated the northern kingdom.4

predecessor with the Assyrian name Šarru-lū-dāri was put back on the throne. Before Ekron could be conquered, several Egyptian support troops did in fact arrive. Led by “the kings of Egypt” and with the help of “the king of Meluḫḫa”, i.e., Libyans from the Nile Delta, the Ethiopian Pharaoh – in the meantime probably Shebitku – opposed the Assyrian ruler near Eltekeh but suffered a crushing defeat. This time Ekron, probably a Jewish outpost at that time,9 fell, and Sennacherib could turn towards Judah, which was about to have its first concrete encounter with Assyria’s policy of conquest.

During the time of the powerful Sargon (721-705), deliberate restraint was practiced.5 However, the “letter to god” K 6205+,6 whose historical classification is disputed due to its very fragmentary condition, appears to indicate that in 720, the year to which the events depicted are probably to be dated,7 Sargon already had Hezekiah of Judah in his sights. Sargon had probably besieged and conquered the Judean city Azekah after the Philistine kings had brought him tribute. That event and the subsequent storming of a Philistine city appear to have been sufficient warning. Two brief administrative texts from Nineveh document that once 10 minas (ca. 5 kg) of gold and on another occasion an undetermined amount of silver were sent from Judah to the Assyrian king.8 When Sargon’s son Sennacherib (705-681) began to reign after Sargon’s shameful death in enemy territory, those in Palestine apparently saw a glimmer of hope for independence from Assyria. This hope was probably reinforced by the fact that Egypt had been reunified and its political power thereby strengthened under the Ethiopian Shabako (716-701), so that help from there might be expected. Likely incited by Hezekiah, the Phoenician city -states of Arvad, Biblos and Sidon, the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ekron, and probably the kings of Ammon, Moab and Edom as well, therefore stopped their payment of tribute in 705. There were allegedly even contacts with the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Marduk-aplaiddina II), but the episode reported in 2 Kings 20:12-19 about a legation that brought “letters and gifts” to Hezekiah has so far found no confirmation in Assyrian or Babylonian sources.

Concerning the subsequent events, there is on the one hand Sennacherib’s own report, which is preserved in an account of the third campaign on the so-called Rassam Cylinder (with parallels).10 On the other hand, 2 Kings 18:13-19:37 (corresponding to Isaiah 36f. and 2 Chronicles 32:1-23) provides us with a quite thorough, but probably partially embellished story about the same event. It is not surprising that the perspectives of the different accounts vary greatly. Sennacherib’s version is a relatively sober report that presents only the bare facts while apparently striving to cover up the failure of the siege of Jerusalem. In 2 Kings 18:13-16 there is likewise a sober note about Hezekiah having “done wrong” and therefore having had to yield to the Assyrian a large amount of silver (300 talents, i.e., ca. 10,260 kg) and gold (30 talents, i.e., ca. 1,026 kg) from the treasuries of the temple and the palace. The sum named here agrees in part, curiously enough, with the amount that Sennacherib finally received: 30 talents of gold and 800 [sic] talents of silver, according to his own records.11 Sennacherib is, however, a little more precise in the account of his military campaigns. After conquering Ekron and punishing the insubordinate inhabitants, he reinstated Padī as their king after he had “made him to come out of Jerusalem [ultu qereb uruUr-sa-li-im-mu]”.12 The subjects of this Padī, a “sworn vassal of Assyria”, i.e., a loyal follower of Sennacherib, had put him in iron chains and handed him over to the custody of Hezekiah. The release of this hostage was perhaps Hezekiah’s final desperate attempt to once more avert destruction from Judah and Jerusalem, for that act was an unmistakable termination of loyalty to the alliance with his Palestinian neighbors.

It was only with some delay that Sennacherib could react to that affront by the Syrian states. However, when he appeared with his feared army in Syria on his third campaign in 701, the coalition quickly fell apart. The Phoenician cities immediately resumed a submissive posture and sent the king lavish gifts. Next, the Philistine cities were attacked. Ashkelon fell, King Sidqia was deported along with his family, and his apparently loyal 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

However, Sennacherib now proceeded to attack Hezekiah with the usual Assyrian tactics: “I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth-)ramps, and battering-rams

Cf., e.g., Na’aman 1990; Hayes 1991; Becking 1992. As in the warning of the prophet Isaiah 20:1ff. Cf. esp. Na’aman 1974: 25-39, and most recently, Frahm 1997: 229-232, with important collation results and a discussion of the classification. For a different opinion, see Galil 1992b: 111-133; 1992a: 61f. Fales and Postgate 1995: no. 33.5f; no. 57.

9. 10. 11. 12. 41

Cf. Mittmann 1990. Modern transcription with variants etc. listed in Frahm 1997: 47ff. Sennach. Rassam Cyl. 56, according to Frahm 1997: 55; also ANET: 288. Sennach. Rassam Cyl. 48 (Frahm 1997, 54) = Taylor Prism III 14f., according to Borger, BAL II: 68.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using) mines, breeches as well as sapper work”.13 That finds confirmation in the laconic note in 2 Kings 18:13: “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them”. Furthermore, the attack is vividly portrayed in the relief from Room 36 of the southwest palace in Nineveh,14 today in the British Museum. The city situated in mountainous country is stormed with siege ramps and battering-rams, a large contingent of shield-bearing soldiers and archers approaches, defenders are depicted plummeting from the walls, being led out of the city, or already impaled at the foot of the hill. Traces of this exemplary siege, which Sennacherib also recorded in an annotation to the relief,15 have meanwhile been proven beyond any doubt in the excavations by Ussishkin.16 How the number of 46 fortified cities was arrived at is difficult to say. In any case, probably all the important settlements in Judah plus the surrounding villages and hamlets were plundered and perhaps burned down. Only a few of them may have required the elaborate siege operations such as those documented for Lachish. As was usual in such raids, the inhabitants were deported. In this case, 200,150 are supposed to have been deported, an unusually high number that has for this reason often given rise to doubt.17 Measured against the number of towns, an average of 4,351 persons per settlement would have been deported, certainly not a realistic number in view of the quite small Iron Age settlements in Palestine. At any rate, it is conspicuous that here – unlike in the other annals of Sennacherib – a very precise number is given.

introduced above (verses 13 through 16) offers an apparently independent and very detailed description in two episodes.19 After laying siege to Jerusalem, Sennacherib pitched his camp outside of Lachish. From there he sent his turtānu (his commander in chief), his rab ša rēši (his chief eunuch), and the rab šāqê (the chief cupbearer), thus the highest dignitaries in the administration of the Assyrian Empire, before the walls of Jerusalem. Should that be true, it would be an action totally without precedent. It is probably intended to underscore the significance that Judah and the siege of Jerusalem are supposed to have had in Sennacherib’s eyes – but which it could scarcely have had. As the story continues, only the cupbearer spoke, who after taking his position “by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field” sent for King Hezekiah. Instead of Hezekiah, however, the palace administrator Eliakim, Shebnah the secretary, and Joah the recorder arrived, whom the cupbearer in a long speech called upon to surrender to the superior Assyrian forces. He even did so in the Hebrew language, which was awkward for the negotiators in view of the people on the city wall, as this could have demoralized them. They therefore asked the Assyrian to use the Aramaic language, which they could understand, but not the people. Naturally, the chief cupbearer refused, for his message was also directed to the people. They should not put their trust in help from Egypt and also not in the support of the God Yahweh, for “Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?” – and he gave examples, even that of Samaria. “But the people were silent and answered him not a word.” Instead of immediately beginning the siege, the chief cupbearer returned to Sennacherib, who had in the meantime withdrawn from Lachish and laid siege to Libnah not very far from there. He had in addition – so the Old Testament – learned that Tirhakah “king of Kush” had set out to fight against the Assyrians. This cannot possibly be right, for we find ourselves in the year 701 BC, and Taharqa did not ascend the throne in Egypt until 690.

Hezekiah is shut up in his residence Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage”.18 Siegeworks are erected, thereby making it “impossible to go out through his city’s gate”, i.e., a true blockade is launched. Apparently, the situation of the city on and between the individual hills made necessary such siege tactics, which are described nowhere else in this form. Parallel to that is the account in 2 Kings 18:1319:37, which in addition to the very brief narrative 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

Be that as it may, according to the highly legendary narrative in 2 Kings, Sennacherib again sent a messenger to Jerusalem, who this time was supposed to deliver a letter whose contents agreed entirely with what the chief cupbearer had already said: Do not rely on the God of Israel! All the other rulers of Syria who depended on their gods have lost their thrones through the power of Assur. King Hezekiah went to the temple with this letter and prayed to Yahweh, who sent him an answer by the mouth of the prophet Isaiah: “He [Sennacherib] shall not come into this city or shoot an arrow there, or come before it with a shield or cast up a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same he shall return, and he shall not come into this city, says the LORD” (2 Kings 19:32f.). As the fulfillment of this prophecy, it is reported

ANET: 288; Sennach. Rassam Cyl. 59f. = Taylor Prism III 19-23; cf. also Borger, in Galling 1968: 68; TUAT 1:388-391. Layard 1853, pls. 20-23. Illustrations, e.g., also in Yadin 1963: 428-437; Orthmann 1975, pls. 230f. See now also Russell 1991: 207-209. See the text in Borger, BAL II2: 76; Russell 1991: 276f.; see also Frahm 1997: 127. Ussishkin 1990, 53-80; Ussishkin 1982. Cf. Oded 1979: 18ff.; De Odorico 1995: 114f., 172f. The problem is not solved by the devices of Sauren 1985: 84ff., who tries to find here the number of all the cities of Syria Palestine previously mentioned as conquered. The same is true of the recent attempt by Mayer 1995: 42ff., who proposes the inclusion of the captured cattle and horses in the number of the deported inhabitants. Sennach. Rassam Cylinder 52 (Frahm 1997: 54) = Taylor Prism III 27f. (see BAL II: 68): šāšu kīma iòòur quppi qereb uruUr-sa-li-im-mu āl šarrūti-šu esir-šu.

19. 42

Cf. the thorough discussion in Vogt 1986: 24ff.

RÖLLIG, JERUSALEM IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD

that “the angel of the LORD” killed 185,000 men in a single night in the camp of the Assyrians, whereupon Sennacherib withdrew and remained in Nineveh.

were all dead bodies”. That does not sound very credible, but it may contain an element of truth about which we can only speculate.22 In any case, the unusual aspect of the departure of the Assyrians without taking the city demanded an explanation.

This report bears all the marks of a miracle story, and its historicity is quite doubtful. The fact is that Jerusalem, for reasons unknown to us, was released by Sennacherib, that the siege – in case there actually was one – was called off. That is concealed in Sennacherib’s account of the campaign, e.g., by the repeated interruption of the report about the conflict with Hezekiah by other information:

Under the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (669-ca. 627), Jerusalem and its dynasty find no mention in the relevant texts. Judah appears to have again remained in the lee of history and to have refrained from any political pursuit of independence, though Josiah (639-609)23 did effect a demonstrative religiopolitical uncoupling from Assyria when in the course of his reform throughout the land he also eliminated foreign religions, among others those of the “queen of heaven” Ishtar and of the moon and sun gods, removed their symbols from the temple precincts, and thereby drove back the ideological influence of the Assyrian sovereigns.24 The explanation as to how that could happen apparently without any Assyrian reaction may be found not so much in the political weakness of the last Assyrian kings as in the decidedly peripheral location of Jerusalem and Judah relative to Assyria and thus their insignificance. In any case, Jerusalem remained untouched by enemies until the double conquest by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon.

Col. III 14f.: Padī is removed from Jerusalem. III 16f.: Further use of Padī. III 18-23: The 46 cities and their surroundings are conquered. III 24-27a: Deportees and spoils from these cities. III 27b-30: Jerusalem is surrounded and sealed off. III 31-36: Tribute from other kings. III 37-41a: Hezekiah’s fear and withdrawal (?) of the troops. III 41b-49: Tribute sent to Nineveh. Two things that stand out in contrast to other accounts of conquests are to be stressed here. First, the discussion about the proper action in the face of a large army such as that seen in Sennacherib’s forces appears to have been very intense in Jerusalem itself. That is reflected in the brief note that “Urbi and the elite troops he had brought into his residence Jerusalem to strengthen it” refused to fight.20 Unfortunately, we do not know exactly what kind of people the “Urbi” were,21 however it must have been an unusual and particularly effective contingent of troops to have earned express mention alongside one’s own elite troops. If this part of the troops refused to follow orders, the morale in the besieged city cannot have been good. It is thus all the more surprising that the city was not conquered and pillaged.

Bibliography AfO = Archiv für Orientforschung (Wien). Ahw. = W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden). ALASPM = Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-SyrienPalästinas und Mesopotamiens (Münster). ANET = Pritchard, J. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament (Princeton). AOAT =Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn).

Secondly, Sennacherib notes that Hezekiah had his heavy tribute “brought to my residence city Nineveh after me”. This departs from the normal scheme of things in so far as the Assyrian king usually had the tribute brought to him into the encampment and then carried it home himself in order to display it there in triumph. Therefore, there must have been a reason for departing from the usual procedure and choosing a different course of action. The explanation is offered in 2 Kings 19:35: “that night the angel of the LORD went forth, and slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these 20.

21.

BAL = R. Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, vol. II (Rome, 2nd ed. 1979). Becking, B. 1992 The Fall of Samaria. SHANE 2 (Leiden). CAD = Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago). Cogan, M. 1974 Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C. (Missoula). Eph’al, J. 1974 “Arabs” in Babylonia in the 8th Century B.C. Journal of the American Oriental Society 94: 108115.

Cf. CAD B 176b sub baàiltu. The alternative reading eršu-ú til-la-a-ti (Urbi and elite troops, whom ...) “he had taken on as reserve units” that is again preferred, e.g., by Frahm, cannot be ruled out, though, which means that even these mercenaries were handed over along with the spoils to the Assyrians. Eph’al 1974, 110 note 16, last suggested a kind of warrior; AHw. 1428b “eine Arbeitstruppe”.

22. 23. 24. 43

On such speculations, see Vogt 1986: 71-75. Na’aman 1991. Cf., e.g., Cogan 1974.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Fales, F.M. and J.N. Postgate 1995 Imperial Administrative Records, Part II. SAA 11 (Helsinki).

De Odorico, M. 1995 The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. SAAS 3 (Helsinki).

Frahm, E. 1997 Einleitung in Beiheft 26.

Orthmann, W. 1975 Der alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14 (Berlin).

die

Sanherib-Inschriften.

AfO

Russell, J.M. 1991 Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh (Chicago and New York).

Galil, G. 1992a Conflicts between Assyrian Vassals. SAAB 6/1: 55-63. 1992b Judah and Assyria in the Sargonic Period. Zion 57: 111-133 (in Hebrew).

SAA = S. Parpola (ed.), State Archives of Assyria (Helsinki).

Galling, K. 1968 Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels2 (Tübingen).

SAAB = State Archives of Assyria, Bulletin (Padova). SAAS = State Archives of Assyria, Studies (Helsinki).

Hayes, J. and J.K. Kaun 1991 The Final Years of Samaria (730-720 BC). Biblica 72: 153-181.

Sauren, H. 1985 Sennachérib, les Arabes, les déportés Juifs. Die Welt des Orients 16: 80-99.

Lamprichs, Roland 1995 Die Westexpansion des neuassyrischen Reiches. Eine Strukturanalyse. AOAT 239.

SHANE = Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East (Leiden).

Layard, A. H. 1853 A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh ... (London).

Tadmor, H. 1994 The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem).

Mayer, W. 1995 Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer. ALASPM 9.

TUAT = Kaiser, O. (ed.) 1982-1985 Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Vol. I (Gütersloh)

Mittmann, S. 1990 Hiskia und die Philister. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16: 91-106.

Ussishkin, D. 1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv). 1990 The Assyrian Attack on Lachish: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Corner of the Site. Tel Aviv 17: 53-86.

Na’aman, N. 1974 Sennacherib’s “Letter to God” on His Campaign to Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 214: 25-39. 1990 The Conquest of Samaria (720 BC). Biblica 71: 206-225. 1991 The Historical Background to the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3-71 (Reprint 1992).

Vogt, E. 1986 Der Aufstand Hiskias und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr. Analecta biblica 106 (Rome). Yadin, Y. 1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, vol. 2 (New York).

Oded, B. 1979 Mass Deportations and Deportees in the NeoAssyrian Empire (Wiesbaden).

44

CHAPTER 8 A HISTORY OF EXCAVATION IN JERUSALEM Henk J. Franken building purposes. In mountainous areas where stone is used as building material tells will not be very high because building stone is always taken from ruins and used for new edifices, in contrast to mud brick sites where new buildings are constructed from freshly made mud bricks. Dressed stones from quarries and undressed stones that are taken from the wadis can both be re-used in later buildings – not just once, but several times – especially where ordinary family houses had no mud brick superstructure. This process of demolishing and rebuilding creates very complicated situations for the excavator since remains of buildings from different periods are found on the same horizontal level. That situation proved to be far too complicated for the early explorers of underground Jerusalem and is often challenging for archaeologists today.

The Aims of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem The search for ancient remains in the soil of Jerusalem has served many purposes. Biblical history and religion have always been a source of inspiration for research work in and around the city. Treasure hunting was a motive in the early days of exploration as was an interest in locating historical buildings, known from ancient maps and literary sources. Most excavations were carried out in order to reconstruct the topography and political history of the town, but recent developments have aroused increasing interest in the socio-economic history of the different periods. The Problems Encountered in Archaeological Research in Jerusalem

Undertaking

Another drawback in the early days was a total lack of techniques to date any ruins that were found. Today, we are somewhat better off in that pottery that is associated with floors of excavated buildings can be roughly dated to centuries or sometimes even somewhat closer, but in the early days of excavations pottery was not seen as an aid in dating ruins. Objects like coins could sometimes indicate time, but scholars by and large put their trust in descriptions found in the existing literature like the works of Josephus and the Bible. Using these descriptions, they set out to find the landmarks provided by the great buildings mentioned in the ancient literature. But this literature hardly ever gives more than a vague indication of the whereabouts of those buildings for the modern reader, because the points of reference have long since disappeared along with the ruins being looked for. And as for the location of the town of the Israelite kings, described in the Old Testament, Josephus put everybody on the wrong track by situating that city on the Western Hill.

The archaeological situation of Jerusalem can not be compared with that of the great ancient sites on the plains or valleys of the Tigris-Euphrates or the Nile. Excavations and surveys made in those areas in the first half of the nineteenth century inspired scholars to explore ancient Jerusalem. The great successes obtained in archaeological research in Egypt and Mesopotamia were entirely due to the fact that the great cities and monuments of the past were free from later disturbances such as those arising from continuous habitation. After they were destroyed, the great cities in Mesopotamia such as Babylon or Nineveh, were only affected by natural processes like wind erosion or occasional digging for clay or bricks. The same was true of Egyptian monuments that usually were not buried under many layers of debris from later occupation, and had only suffered from windblown sand, the flooding of the Nile or the occasional reuse of building blocks in later buildings. The results of excavations in those places were immediate and spectacular, both in the haul of art treasures and written documents. The latter made it possible to reconstruct the history of the great ancient kingdoms and empires that were hitherto only vaguely known, mainly through the biblical references to them and the works of ancient Greek historians. Was there a possibility that similar treasures were hidden in the Palestinian soil?

That indicates the third drawback, namely the misplaced trust in ancient records, or rather the failure to develop a critical approach to the ancient sources. First of all there was little awareness of the fact that all the locations mentioned in the literature represented only a fraction of all the building remains one would encounter when starting to excavate. And since excavation only exposed small parts of the once built-up areas, archaeologists were inclined to identify fragments of buildings with those known from history and give labels or names that had never had anything to do with what they had found. Here lies one of the main drawbacks to Palestinian archaeology when compared to the great ancient nations around

Jerusalem turned out to present a totally different case. Since the beginning of the twelfth century BC it has been continually occupied, although the built-up area has often shifted, leaving formerly inhabited areas bare. Those areas were then used for agriculture, or at times of great building activity as quarries to extract the stones for 45

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

was only written down during, or after, the so-called Exile of the Judeans in Babylon in the sixth century BC, by people who were more interested in the religious aspect of the disaster, which the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was to them, than in history for history’s sake, how accurate can it be?

Palestine, including Syria. There ruins are selfexplanatory through the ancient texts written on clay tablets found in them or from information found written on stone walls like in Egypt. One only has to point to Ugarit, Ras Shamra in northern Syria, with its rich textual finds, to see how different it is from the situation in Palestine. Documents that are clearly contemporary with the ruins in which they are found provide us with important information about royal deeds or trade or religion. But in world archaeology when ruins have to be interpreted in the light of external ancient literary sources, the maxim “if it can go wrong, it will go wrong” would seem to apply initially.

And finally, it appears that remains of the Iron Age town are only preserved on the Western Hill, which, however, was not occupied before the end of the eighth century BC, and on the eastern slopes of the Southeast Hill. Subsequent building activities and the large-scale quarrying of stone for building purposes have removed most ruins from the crest of the Southeast Hill, right from the ancient temple in the north down to well beyond the Maccabaean tower in the south. And if there was anything left, excavations carried out before the Second World War have removed all traces without giving proper indications of what it was or when it was constructed.

When no texts are found that are directly associated with ruins a problem of identification arises. Thus for example the Bible speaks about royal tombs of the kings of Judah at Jerusalem and there are tombs carved in the rock around the ancient city, but where is the tomb area of these kings? When found the tombs were empty, having been opened and robbed of their contents in antiquity; there are no inscriptions in the rock to give us a lead and usually the original facades no longer exist, having either been eroded or removed by quarrying for building stone. Thus when R. Weill in 1913 found two long artificial caves in the rock in the southern slope of the Southeast Hill, he argued that they were the tombs of the kings of the house of David because they were situated inside the city wall, saying that this was in agreement with the indications of 1 Kings 2:1 and 11:43. In 1913 it was almost impossible to date a town wall with any accuracy so it is uncertain whether the caves were inside the Iron Age city wall or not. If those caves were tombs they could also have belonged to military or priestly families rather than being a section of the royal tombs. One does not a priori want to deny the possibility that Weill was right, but there seems to be no way of telling one way or the other. Quite often one gets the impression that excavators assumed that everything found in the soil is also mentioned in a literary source. The reasoning proceeds in the following way: here was a man-made cave, and presumably the Israelite kings were buried in a man-made cave, so the identification of the caves was considered to be clear-cut. Sometimes it is possible to make the right identification, either on the basis of the layout of a building, especially if it is very large, or on that of an accurate description, but very often it is impossible to say more than: this cave may have been used as a tomb, this was an Iron Age house, this was a Roman cistern, and the like.

Excavating in Jerusalem is an extremely difficult enterprise, but the proper interpretation of the excavated ruins seems to be even more difficult. In the early days of archaeological research in Jerusalem, around the middle of the nineteenth century, there was only one source of archaeological “knowledge” about pre-Islamic times that was considered to be important, and that consisted of the stories about the founding of the Christian and Jewish holy places. These holy places commemorated events described in the Bible that were considered to be of beneficial religious influence on the fate of those who made a pilgrimage to the holy city. Pilgrims have described many of these monuments and the first records go back to the third and fourth centuries AD Most famous among the pilgrims was the Empress Helena, who visited Palestine and Jerusalem in AD 324, where she identified the important places of the Gospels on the basis of divine inspiration. The Early Years of Exploration Captain C. Warren was the first person to explore underground Jerusalem in 1867, having been commissioned by the British Palestine Exploration Fund (Moorey 1991:26). Being an army engineer, Warren knew how to dig tunnels in all kinds of soils, and since he was not allowed to dig up large areas, for instance the area along the walls of the Haram al-Sharif, in order to find out about its early history, he dug tunnels instead. Thus he began to map the contours of the rock under the city and encountered many ancient installations. He made careful records of those structures, without being able to date them.

Another element of uncertainty should also be mentioned. It is generally agreed that Josephus’ description of the topography of the Iron Age town of Jerusalem is unreliable. But to what extent can one trust the topographical indications found in the Bible in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles? And how valuable is the historical information in the Bible about Israelite history during the Iron Age? If much of this information

Warren knew about the tells that had been found all over the country but he seems to have interpreted them as hills on which buildings had once stood. But slowly it became clear that tells consisted of layers of ruined ancient 46

FRANKEN, A HISTORY OF EXCAVATION IN JERUSALEM

the capture of Jebus (2 Samuel 4:8) does indeed mean “tunnel” is not certain, and whether the biblical text refers to this cavity giving access to the water is also not certain.

settlements. Flinders Petrie, who first worked in Egypt in the 1880s and who went to Palestine in 1890, introduced new insight into the structure of artificial earth mounds. He had learned how to excavate and record the finds from the British archaeologist Pitt Rivers and he must have known the system of classifications of artifacts that was devised by Montelius in Sweden and his three-period system, classifying objects as Stone Age, Copper Age and Iron Age. Montelius called this object classification system “typology”, a word derived from a traditional Christian theological system of interpreting the Old Testament as preparatory to the New Testament, like the biblical figure of Melchizedeq of Salem (Genesis 14, 1819), being “typologically” or according to his function a forerunner of the Messiah. Petrie added an element that became fundamental for the construction of a chronology of Palestine. He chose a Palestinian site for excavation that could be expected to contain imported Egyptian objects. In Egypt such objects could be dated on the basis of Pharaonic history and these objects could be used to date Palestinian objects when found in stratigraphic association with them on Palestinian sites. Since the most common objects found during excavation were sherds from broken pottery, Petrie started to analyze the shapes of the ceramics and put them in chronological order. Thus it was only during the last decade of the 19th century that a beginning could be made of the work of estimating the age of ruins.

One more large excavation took place during the Ottoman period on the southern slopes of the Southeast Hill. In 1913 a French archaeologist, R. Weill, dug a large area from the surface down, discovering some towers and fragments of town walls, a large monumental staircase and some tombs. Weill was by no means in a position to make reliable plans that could show cohesion between the building elements, but he compensated for the uncertainties by references to biblical texts, thus claiming for instance that he had found the tombs of the kings of Judah and other historical buildings. Later Developments In 1923 under the Palestinian Department of Archaeology R.A.S. Macalister excavated large areas on the crest of the Southeast Hill on behalf of the newly founded British School of Archaeology. He excavated the tower on the east side of the crest, which he attributed to King David and which was attributed to the period of the Maccabees by K.M. Kenyon. His work (Macalister and Duncan 1926) and that of his successor on the site J.W. Crowfoot in 1927 (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929), suffered from the same lack of well-developed excavation techniques but also from the pressing need to find remains from biblical times.

In Jerusalem, Warren’s work for the PEF was continued by F.J. Bliss, an American from Lebanon and A.C. Dickie, a British architect, who excavated at the southern slopes of the Southeast Hill from 1894 to 1897. On the whole they still had to work by digging tunnels. Nevertheless they achieved remarkable results. They excavated a street dating from Herodian times, a city wall from the same period or somewhat later, and a Byzantine church above the pool of Silwan. Bliss and Dickie made accurate plans and descriptions of the ruins.

Excavations were carried out by the Palestine Department of Antiquities in 1931 and 1937-1938 at Damascus Gate, where R. Hamilton found a Roman gate (Hamilton 19421943). C.N. Johns, also working for the Department in 1934-1940, excavated inside the Citadel close to Jaffa Gate. Johns found remains from Hellenistic and Herodian times. Both excavators worked with precise techniques and produced reliable results. Johns found historical information about the buildings under the Citadel in the work of Flavius Josephus, who was an eyewitness of the topography of Jerusalem before its destruction in AD 70.

Of exceptional importance for the research in and around Jerusalem in the first half of the 20th century was the presence of Père L.-H. Vincent OP in the École Biblique et Archéologique de Saint Étienne. He did not excavate himself, but did follow all developments closely and made notes of new finds. He became intimately acquainted with all the building elements that were discovered underground and he was able to publish in his work Jerusalem sous Terre, in 1911, the ancient waterworks of the town. Incorporated in this work were the finds of a British expedition headed by M. Parker in 1909-1911. The expedition ended abruptly, but one important conclusion was drawn from a cleaning operation of the Virgin’s Fountain, which had already been explored by Warren. The link was made with the biblical story of the capture of Jebus by King David, whose commander entered the city through a tunnel. It was concluded that Jebus was to be sought on the Southeast Hill. But whether the Hebrew word used in the story of

The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem resumed work in 1961 under the leadership of Kathleen Kenyon, in cooperation with the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, the Royal Ontario Museum and the École Biblique. It was at a time when British and American archaeologists were highly interested in the question of what was the most advanced system of excavating and Kenyon’s understanding of the structure of stratigraphy was certainly the best that was available. She had decided for herself which problems relating to the ancient biblical city had to be clarified and she was determined to provide the answers. She excavated in restricted areas wherever she could obtain permission to dig and she hoped to find the clues. She only managed to publish some preliminary reports and popular accounts of her results before her 47

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

than 40 m. wide and 20 m. high built against the upper half of the eastern slope. This construction was made to fill up a deep gully into the slope just south of the ridge mentioned above, and its purpose must have been to enlarge the area on the crest of the hill. No other structures have been found dating from the same period. This is commonly referred to as the Jebusite town, but a construction made up of terraces is not a town. Was there a fortress on top of this platform or a temple or something else? If it served as a base for a fortress the only likely power that could have made it was an Egyptian military force. The biblical stories about the capture of Jebus by David suggest that there was a town. It is estimated that King David captured the town in about 1000 BC. In the tenth century a stone ‘mantle’ was constructed that covered the terraces. It was leaning against these terraces on the north side but further to the south it is separated from it by a rubble fill. This stone mantle is called a ‘stepped stone structure’ because of the way it has been constructed. It was discovered early on by Macalister and although Kenyon also found fragments of it she did not connect it with Macalister’s finds. Then Shiloh found its northern half during his excavations (1978-1985).

death (Kenyon 1974). Subsequent study of her excavation documents makes it possible to give a more balanced view of the history of the town during the Bronze Age and Iron Age than is found in her preliminary reports. An Interpretation of Kenyon’s Finds It is now clear that the earliest human occupation of the site consisted of a village that existed in the first half of the third millennium BC, the period known as the Early Bronze Age II. Y. Shiloh, who excavated after 1967 on the eastern slope of the Southeast Hill in the same area where Kenyon worked (Shiloh 1984), found a small building from this period, while Kenyon only found some pottery, mostly in bedrock pockets. A small cemetery on the Mount of Olives, found by accident, dates from the end of the third millennium (Middle Bronze Age I) and indicates that herdsmen regularly visited the area, but no dwellings of that period have been found (Prag 1991). Around 1800 BC a small town was founded, and stretches of its town wall were found by Kenyon and also by Shiloh further south on the eastern slope. It was built of ‘cyclopean’ stones, very heavy boulders. Kenyon noticed a problem with this defensive wall where it runs across the crest of the hill at a spot where the crest still rises on the north, exterior side of the wall. That makes no military sense because any attackers who came from the north would be on higher ground outside the wall than the defenders of the town were. M.L. Steiner found a plausible answer while studying the relevant documents (Steiner 2001). By following the contour lines of the rock as they are known today, she found that the Middle Bronze Age wall was constructed on a rock ridge that runs east-west over the crest of the Southeast Hill. Immediately to the north the rock surface has been lowered by several meters, while the crest becomes narrower because of a recession of the rock on the east side. That natural feature of the hill dictated where to build that wall. Kenyon supposed that this wall served a succession of towns until well into the first millennium BC, the time of the Judean kings. However it is now clear that the town and the wall fell into disuse not long after they were founded. Likewise habitation in the mountainous area around the site ceased, and although there are indications that there were people living on the hill, there is no trace of either village or town until the end of the thirteenth century BC. After 1600 BC there was probably an Egyptian trade station or control post during what is known as the Late Bronze Age, until about 1200 BC. A large family tomb covering that time span was excavated on the western slope of the Mount of Olives (Saller 1964). But there are no traces of a walled town in the socalled Amarna period, the fourteenth century BC.

The dating and identification of these structures went as follows: the dates for the terraces and the stepped stone structure are derived from a comparison of the pottery fragments that were found in them with the existing archaeological pottery chronology. The name of the place, Jebus, for the terraces, and those of the persons, David or Solomon for the construction of the stepped stone structure, are derived from the Bible. The link between pottery and names is based on a synchronization of the pottery dates with biblical stories, but there is no independent testimony that supports such identifications. The Question of Historicity At this point we have to question whether this procedure of connecting elements from different sources like pottery and biblical texts for the reconstruction of historical events is valid or not. In this case the answer must be in the negative. First we have to establish what excavations have revealed. No town was found dating from the twelfth or eleventh century BC, as Kenyon suggested, who thought that the town wall from the Middle Bronze Age was still functioning at the time of the construction of the terraces. She thought that the terraces were made to support houses that were built on the slopes because there was not enough room on the crest of the hill. But in both cases her interpretations were wrong. Long before the houses that she found on the terraces were built, the terraces had lost their function. Nowhere have houses been found that are contemporary with the construction of the terraces. It seems fairly certain that the date of the pottery associated with the terraces is reliable: middle of the thirteenth to early twelfth century BC. And this coincides with the colonization of the surrounding mountainous region, where new settlements are found,

It was only when the region of Jerusalem began to be cultivated again and new villages founded, that the site of Jerusalem was also built up and inhabited, sometime during the thirteenth century BC. There is no trace of a real town, but Kenyon found a number of terraces more 48

FRANKEN, A HISTORY OF EXCAVATION IN JERUSALEM

Solomon is mere guesswork as long as there is no agreement among biblical scholars about the historicity of these kings. To demonstrate that they were historical persons one must only and exclusively use the literary evidence from the Bible or from other literary sources. True enough, famous events, like the capture of the town of the Jebusites by David or the miracle of the collapse of Jericho before the eyes of Joshua and his people, the capture of Troy by the Greeks by means of a giant wooden horse, or the founding of the city of Rome by two people who were reared by a she-wolf, are an accepted part of our cultural heritage, but this does not mean that such legends are history. This situation must be clarified before archaeology can say who did it. After all we are dealing with persons and archaeological finds supposedly dating back to three thousand years ago. This is not a matter of what one wishes to believe, as it is in religion or in certain nationalistic movements, but of history as an academic discipline, which needs to demonstrate the reliability of its sources before historical dates can be accepted. The walls are there, the dates of their construction are known roughly, but there are no inscriptions with the builders’ names. In this context archaeology does not know anything about either the town of the Jebusites or the city of David.

for instance in the al-Baqa Valley (Finkelstein 1988). To say that there was a fortress on top of the expanded crest of the hill is not quite in agreement with the Bible, which also talks about a town. Archaeology did not find a town or a fortress. Neither was any pottery found that on the basis of comparative pottery studies can be attributed to the eleventh century BC. Normally, given these circumstances, an archaeologist would say that there were no people living permanently at the site until the tenth century, when the stepped stone structure was made, meaning that the site was uninhabited when the new settlers came. The trustworthiness of the story of Jebus, its capture by David and the building activities of the kings David and Solomon depends entirely and exclusively on the reliability in the historical sense of the biblical narratives and is independent of the archaeological finds and interpretations. But on the other hand one has to admit that there may be a flaw in the traditional archaeological system of comparing pottery shapes in order to find a date for excavated ruins (Franken 1996). This system is founded on the assumption or axiom that all the potters in a certain area change their production simultaneously. Somehow every new generation of potters is supposed to have invented new shapes and this is done right through the country as if ancient pottery is like a modern industrial product. However this assumption cannot be confirmed by independent tests and the fact that there is no ‘eleventh century’ pottery at the site does not mean that the site was uninhabited. It does mean that potters, who produced their ceramics for the inhabitants of the place, did not change or develop their production, whereas potters elsewhere did.

Jerusalem in the First Millennium BC No buildings are connected with the period of the terraces. That may be due to the fact that in Roman times and later the crest of the hill was used as a quarry to furnish building stones, and there may have been a village or even a small town with a town wall. From the period of the ‘stepped stone structure’ traces of houses have been found on the eastern slope of the Southeast Hill, and Kenyon found what seems to have been a casemate wall on the eastern edge of the crest where it was supposedly connected with the ‘stepped stone structure’. The wall was five meters wide and was probably a town wall that incorporated an area to the north into the original built-up area. On the basis of biblical information it is supposed that this relates to the area between King Solomon’s town and the temple area. Excavations by B. Mazar south of the Haram al-Sharif for the Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University did not reveal houses in this northern extension of the settlement nor do we know of any buildings south of the ‘stepped stone structure’ (Mazar and Mazar 1989).

The problem of ‘biblical archaeology’ or rather ‘fundamentalist’ archaeology is clear: either there was no town to be conquered when David went to a non-existent Jerusalem, or this pottery dating method must be revised. It is by no means as accurate as some would like to think. But in that case the dates mentioned above for the two stone constructions must also be doubtful. This in turn influences another axiom of fundamentalist archaeology, namely that ruins can be dated by reference to biblical information, and that consequently archaeological evidence can date biblical events. This is the much advocated, so-called dovetailing of archaeological and biblical evidence, invented in order to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible as a historical source. That was a common procedure until about twenty years ago, when new insights began to appear. It is now perfectly clear that there is a great deal of circular reasoning between the Bible and archaeology: the Bible being used to date archaeological finds and the finds being used to demonstrate that the biblical history is true. But it must be said that the builder of the stepped stone construction dating to some time in the tenth century BC can not be properly identified without texts being found that are associated with the ruins. To attribute them to David or

We can say that in the tenth century BC Jerusalem consisted of a small town with some houses outside the city wall down the eastern slope. If the wall fragments mentioned above were part of a casemate wall that was connected with the ‘stepped stone structure’ then we find here the beginning of a new administrative center and the seat of the kings of the tribes of Israel and Judah. Steiner reckons that the town measured about 12 hectares with no more than 2000 inhabitants, most of them officials and their families (Franken and Steiner 1990). 49

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Hill date from this period. Kenyon thought that they were built on the terraces, but in fact they were built on stretches that were leveled and cut into. These houses show traces of trade, probably as far as South Arabia and northern Syria. The cutting of the water tunnel from the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj to the pool of Silwan was probably the work of King Hezekiah, although this is not certain. The kings of Jerusalem must have spent a great deal of energy to create a satisfactory water supply for the inhabitants of the city. Many tombs have been found dating from the Iron Age; the rock-cut tombs in the village of Silwan have been published by D. Ussishkin (1993).

In the following two centuries slowly more houses were built inside and outside the enclosed area, but from the middle of the eighth century BC the number of inhabitants increased greatly, possibly because of the Assyrian military campaigns that affected not only northern Israel, but many towns in the south as well (Auld and Steiner 1996). Dated to the eighth century is the extra-mural quarter of the town, possibly the town of tradesmen and a place of rest for people who came to town. A cave was there that was probably where a soothsayer plied his trade.

From the ninth to the sixth centuries BC the pottery did not change much in terms of shape. Few new shapes were introduced in the course of time. As I have pointed out already, pottery shapes are used as criteria for dating ruins, but the many disagreements that used to exist between archaeologists about the dates of important sites are due to this lack of change in shape. What really did change in the pottery production of Jerusalem were the amounts of the various kinds of vessels that were produced. Stronger ones slowly replaced badly constructed forms and some shapes became more popular than others. But the mode of production remained the same until, probably under the influence of the Assyrian culture, a faster technique of producing pottery was introduced. Because archaeologists did not use statistics to demonstrate their finds, these facts were only recently discovered during the work for the publication of the Jerusalem pottery that Kenyon excavated (Franken and Steiner 1990).

Built right across this cave and the buildings from the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century was a new town wall that encircled not only the Southeast Hill but also the Western Hill or the southern part of it. This wall was found on the eastern slope of the Southeast Hill by Kenyon and by Shiloh. It is six meters wide and a ‘covered street’ paved with small stones is in front of it. ‘Covered’ as a technical term indicates that the street in front of the main wall was protected on the outside by a small stone wall. Kenyon thought that the main wall was repeatedly rebuilt because there are several horizontal recessions at regular intervals, but it seems more likely that these recessions contained wooden beams that served to keep the wall together in the event of earthquakes. A small gate was found in this wall above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj. Fragments of probably the same wall were also found by Mazar on the Western Hill. The course of this wall beyond the excavated parts is unknown and there are several different proposals as to its direction and the extent of the city encompassed by the wall. It is clear that one does not build a strong wall when there are only a few houses to be protected and we have to assume that Jerusalem was by that time an important center for the economy of the country.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city in 587 BC and exiled those who survived the siege. But in 538 BC the Persian king Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to their homeland and to rebuild their temple. It seems that the town remained largely in ruins and that the walls were only restored by Nehemiah, who was appointed governor of the town by the Persian King Artaxerxes, probably in 445 BC. This rebuilding took place only on the Southeast Hill and no traces of reoccupation in the fifth century BC have been found on the Western Hill. Fragments of a tower and remains of a defensive wall dating from the Persian period have been excavated on the Southeast Hill, but there is of course no trace of the temple. The Persian name of the province yhd, read as Yehud, is found on many jar handles dating from that time.

It seems that the Assyrian invasion in Palestine under Sennacherib in 701 BC was of crucial importance for the city. On the Taylor Prism found at Nineveh, Sennacherib mentions Hezekiah, who was then king of Judah at Jerusalem, whose country he destroyed including the cities and villages, without being able to capture Jerusalem itself. The same story is told from the biblical point of view in 2 Kings 18 and 19. After that event Jerusalem changed from an administrative center into a ‘primate city’, in which the political, social, and economic power was concentrated, while the other towns of the Judean kingdom remained in ruins or were only partially restored and inhabited. At the same time the countryside seems to have been developed, as it had never been before with the construction of agricultural terraces and waterworks. Even in the Jordan Valley many new sites were founded wherever the water sources permitted irrigation.

Jerusalem in the Persian Period and Ceramic Developments In the following centuries Jerusalem changed hands several times, but there is very little archaeological information about these events, except for coins. Potsherds and inscriptions on jar handles show that there was a growing influence from the Greek world, from where pottery had already been imported into the city

Also the houses that Kenyon and Shiloh found on the ancient terraces on the eastern slopes of the Southeast 50

FRANKEN, A HISTORY OF EXCAVATION IN JERUSALEM

names of buildings or points in the town that were well known in his day to describe their position. But as none of these buildings still exist and their location is mostly not known, there are many opinions about the size of the town after it had expanded to the north, but no conclusive evidence has been found. Much ingenious guesswork is devoted to questions of topography, such as where to look for the so-called Akra, a fortification built by Antiochus Epiphanes in 169 BC to help enforce Hellenistic culture and religion on the Jewish people. We have no archaeological means to reconstruct a plan of the late Hellenistic town, apart from excavated installations that are not mentioned in the description by Josephus – mostly cisterns and baths hewn in bedrock as well as the tunnel that was originally a water tunnel, which the Israelis recently opened for tourists along the west wall of the Haram al-Sharif.

during the Persian period. This is not only the Athenian or Corinthian art pottery, like the red on black figured pottery, but shiploads of undecorated and unslipped pottery were exported from Greece to the Palestinian coast, probably as ship’s ballast, and brought to Jerusalem. Most of it was probably produced in Corinth. Besides this import of Greek kitchen wares, Greek pottery shapes began to be produced in Palestine itself. It has been assumed that the Iron Age tradition of pottery ended with the Babylonian invasion, but potters from the countryside who had escaped the Babylonian armies settled near Jerusalem and continued to produce the old style ceramics. Slowly that was replaced by the new Greek techniques of pot making, which consisted of the use of finer clays, a quicker production of thin walled vessels and better firing of the pottery in the kilns. Greek potters who settled in Palestine must have introduced these new methods into the country. Probably by the third century BC this pottery was the only form of ceramics available in the country. Its development during the ages was independent of the land of origin (Franken 2005). There does not seem to be much change in the different pottery shapes until the first century BC, and this may well be the reason why archaeologists are uncertain about dating ruins from the post-exilic period. Moreover it was not until recently that more became known about the cultures of Persian and Hellenistic times through excavations (Stern 1982).

When Herod the Great became king of Jerusalem in 37 BC a new period of building activity began. For the first time a number of buildings known from historical sources have been excavated and can be identified. There is still considerable uncertainty about the position of the walls and some buildings that Josephus describes and locates, but the identity of the structures excavated along the western wall of the city can be established. In the southwest corner along the west wall of the Old City the podium on which King Herod’s palace stood was excavated and duly published by Tushingham (1985). The Citadel is the site of three strong towers, named Phasael, Hippicus and Mariamne, which the Roman army left standing after the siege of AD 70, and adjacent to the northwest corner of the Haram al-Sharif, Herod built a fortress called Antonia. Since 1968 excavations have taken place along the western and southern walls of the Haram al-Sharif that have thrown light on the construction of the platform and ways of gaining access to it. In 1867 Warren had already established the original height of the wall on the west side and the depth of alWād, named by Josephus the Tyropoeon Valley, that runs from north to south along and under the west wall. Across this wadi Herod built a bridge, of which Wilson’s Arch was part and which connected the western quarters of the town with the temple platform. Further south, Robinson’s Arch formed part of a broad sloping causeway that ran north-south in the wadi and then turned east toward the platform, with an arch over the street, which in turn was built over a number of shops or rooms. This street turned east at the southwest corner and gave access to two multiple gates, called the Huldah Gates. There were wide steps leading up to these gates at the front. Further south the excavators found remains of fairly large houses. All this illustrates King Herod’s ambitions, but the glory was not to last for very long. After the Roman siege and destruction of the city little but ruins remained.

The Hellenistic Period Monuments from the Hellenistic period are the monumental tombs in the Wadi Sitti Maryam, later named after pre-exilic persons like Absalon, Jehosafat and others. In the Rehavia Quarter of West Jerusalem the tomb of Jason is to be found, dating from about 100 BC during the period of the Maccabees. From this time dates the new expansion of the town over the Western Hill, and various fragments of the town wall have been found in the Citadel of the Old City, by Johns to the south of it, by Broshi still inside the present west wall of the Old City, and by Bliss and Dickie on the southern slopes, roughly three hundred meters south of the southwestern corner of the wall. From there it ran to the east and at the southern tip of the Southeast Hill it turned north again. On the Southeast Hill the Maccabean tower that was formerly attributed to David by Macalister, formed part of this defensive system. The wall continued to a point inside the present platform of the Haram al-Sharif to the east, where it presumably encircled a much smaller temple area than the present platform and from the southwestern corner it turned west to join the west wall at the present site of the Citadel. The Iron Age wall fragments discovered by Avigad that were mentioned above were integrated into the defensive works of the Hasmoneans in the second century BC.

Concerning the direction of the three northern town walls that Josephus mentioned, only the position of the oldest and innermost one is roughly known, as described above. The two walls further to the north played an important

Josephus describes the city in his book on the Jewish Wars (V, 136ff.) and mentions important buildings and three town walls on the north side of the town, using the 51

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

role in the siege of the city by Titus. One of the two ran along the line of the present north wall of the Old City and below the Damascus Gate and was found by Hamilton. Kenyon later found part of a monumental gate and the foundations of a town wall, which was probably the third wall or the one further to the north. However some archaeologists think that the Third Wall ran some five hundred meters further north.

Three periods of building are known. Constantine started the founding of Christian churches in the early 4th century, and the Empress Eudocia built several churches between 443 and 460, while the Emperor Justinian, who reigned between 527 and 565, also erected the large New Church of Mary. The Byzantine period ended with the Sasanian Persian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem in 614, and the Islamic conquest that followed in 638.

The Roman Town

Archaeologists found stretches of a parallel road to the Roman cardo on its east side, close to the west wall of the Haram al-Sharif, the street of al-Wād, which probably ran from the Damascus Gate south to the pool of Silwan. Bliss and Dickie had already found its southern end. Its construction is attributed to Justinian, who built the Nea church close to the Byzantine continuation of the Roman cardo. Fragments of the Nea church were found by N. Avigad, on behalf of the Hebrew University, the Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Department of Antiquities (Avigad 1983). A large cistern was found close to the church with a Greek inscription that referred to the Emperor Justinian as the builder. The cistern belonged to the monastery that was attached to the church.

The Romans left the Tenth Fretensis Legion to keep a watch over the city that was still inhabited, ruins permitting. The castrum of the legion was situated in the southwest corner of the present Old City, but objects belonging to the soldiers were also found to the south of the ruined temple platform. Jerusalem had lost its central position in the country and it was economically unimportant. When the Emperor Hadrian took an interest in the city in AD 130, he gave orders to turn Jerusalem into a Roman town that was to be called after him Aelia, and after the three deities of the Capitol Hill in Rome: Capitolina. Very few building remains have been found that originate from this new town. The size of the town was presumably the same as that of the Hellenistic town. The layout was planned as a classical Roman town with a main street, cardo maximus, which started below the present Damascus Gate, and a cross street, the decumanus, which probably ran east-west below the present David Street. Remains of the forum have been identified, while the Ecce Homo arch in the Via Dolorosa as well as the Lithostrotos pavement in the monastery of the Sisters of Zion are not what traditional Christian interpretation made of them, namely witnesses to the sufferings of Jesus during his trial, but rather belong to the Roman city instead.

Some Final Remarks It is not surprising that ruins from this and following periods are better preserved than those of earlier times. That however does not mean that it is easier to work in those periods or to attribute what one finds to the right time. It is not until the archaeologists have managed to publish final excavation reports that what has been said about the Roman or Byzantine period can really be appreciated and evaluated. Dependence on written historical sources for the interpretation of finds remains a hazardous way of drawing conclusions, as I have already argued. Large public works are always accompanied by the removal of soil and stones, dumping of debris at the most unexpected places and this can make it virtually impossible to give proper interpretations. Whether this is the case with some of the ruins found in those large areas that were exposed west and south of the Haram al-Sharif, or elsewhere in Jerusalem, remains to be seen. The case is not different from the Kenyon excavations, or earlier ones: only full publication can remedy this.

The Jewish revolt of AD 132-135 did not leave any noticeable impact on the Roman town, defended by the Tenth Fretensis Legion. Archaeologists did not find traces of a reconstruction of the town walls nor have any other large public buildings that normally formed part of a Roman town been found. It is possible that after the Jewish revolt had been suppressed and the Jews were no longer a threat for the Romans, the rebuilding of the town had a low priority for the occupation forces. The Byzantine Town

Bibliography

It seems that a true revival of the town only took place about two hundred years later when Christianity was proclaimed the official religion of the empire by Constantine the Great. For this period there are many written historical documents about the town and its monuments and even pictorial evidence from the Madaba mosaic map. Much archaeological investigation has been directed towards the discovery of those monuments.

Editor’s Note: This article by the late H.J. Franken was written in 1992. Final proofs were checked by Margreet Steiner. A full bibliography of the archaeological sites in Jerusalem, along with a fuller history of excavations can be found in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994. Only the works specifically cited in the article are listed here.

52

FRANKEN, A HISTORY OF EXCAVATION IN JERUSALEM

Johns, C.N. 1950 The Citadel, Jerusalem. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 14: 121-190.

Auld, G. and M.L. Steiner 1996 Jerusalem I: From the Bronze Age to the Maccabees. Cities of the Biblical World. Cambridge.

Kenyon, K.M. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London.

Avigad, N. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville.

Macalister, R.A.S. and G. Duncan 1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923-1925. London.

Bieberstein, K. and H. Bloedhorn 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft. Wiesbaden.

Mazar, E. and B. Mazar 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem.

Broshi, M. 1976 Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion. Pp. 57-60 in Y. Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem.

Moorey, R. 1990 A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Cambridge.

Crowfoot, J.W. and G.M. Fitzgerald 1929 Excavations in the Tyropoean Valley, Jerusalem, 1927. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 5. London.

Prag, K. 1991 An Early Middle Bronze Age Burial in Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 123: 129-132.

Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem.

Saller, S.J. 1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem). Part II, The Jebusite Burial Place. Jerusalem.

Franken, H.J. 1996 On Method. Newsletter, Department of Pottery Technology 13/14. Leiden University.

Shiloh, Y. 1983 Excavations at the City of David I. Qedem 19. Jerusalem.

2005 A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient Jerusalem: Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961-1967. Sheffield.

Steiner, M.L. 1983 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. 3. The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield.

Franken, H.J. and M.L. Steiner 1990 Excavations at Jerusalem 1961-1967, vol. II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-east Hill. Oxford.

Tushingham, A.D. 1984 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Toronto. Ussishkin, D. 1992 The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Jerusalem.

Hamilton, R.W. 1942-1943 Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem 1937-38. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 10: 1-53.

53

CHAPTER 9 JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENNIA BC: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Kay Prag In the more than 130 years since the first remnants of Bronze Age Jerusalem were discovered, the slow, fragmentary and dispersed process of retrieval and publication has hindered our understanding of the city’s past. Like other holy places of forbidden or restricted access, the grudging saga has appeared to enhance a mystery. A tale of a small place in the hills should be an ordinary story, of people of modest means, depending on no great resources, but on grapes and vines and timber, and the flocks pastured on the hill slopes. Such natural resources fuel no more than modest market towns. If, like Jerusalem, it is a town located on natural routes through the hills, such resources can be supplemented by commercial and strategic profits. These apart, the only natural resources that link ancient Jerusalem to its complex later history are the Old Testament traditions of the last 2500 years, that it was the site of an ancient temple, and a religious focus for subsequent millennia. Its location in the hill country may link it also to the ancient cults of high places and mountains, for Jerusalem is not just the holy city, but also the holy mountain. For a very large part of the population of the world, the perception of Jerusalem is deeply affected by those traditions, but no certain archaeological evidence for ancient sanctity at present known predates the first millennium BC.

present in this region sometime between 400,000 and 25,000 years ago (Hermon et al. 1995: 256-257; Copeland 1998: 19); Lower Palaeolithic/Late Acheulian tools are also known from Shaykh Jarrah in the northern suburbs (Noy 1982: 11-12) and from the al-Baq‘a Valley at the edge of the southwestern suburbs (Gibson and Edelstein 1985: 153). There is however no hint of a continuous human presence in the long millennia that followed. A few Aceramic Neolithic and Chalcolithic flints have been found on or near the bedrock in the area above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj (Payne 1995: 253); some pottery of the fifth millennium, including the classic Chalcolithic “churn”, has been found in fill deposits about 150 metres south of the spring, which suggests at least seasonal occupation of the area watered by the spring (Shiloh 1984: 7 and 25). Early Bronze I (EB I) (c. 3650-3050 BC) Only by the second half of the fourth millennium do we know that a more permanent settlement had been established. This settlement was probably small and located immediately west and southwest of the spring, but its limits are uncertain. All the early remains, broken fragments of pottery and flints that survive in crevices and caves in the bedrock, are scattered within an area of little more than 300 x 100 m (Macalister and Duncan 1926: 177, fig. 186, in Field No. 7; Kenyon 1963: 1; 1968: 106; Shiloh 1984: 25, especially in Area E1, fig. 14; and in Area E2, fig. 12). The occupants of the small rectangular buildings (of which only fragments were found) undoubtedly utilized the waters of the spring, as well as the seasonal flow of the waters of the Wadi Sitti Maryam, and the fruits of the gardens of Silwan. The remains reveal no more than the pattern known from the south Levant, of very numerous, small, undefended settlements, in which houses typically have broad rooms (rectangular in shape, with a doorway in one long wall, with benches against the walls), which was the common building style of the region during the fourth and third millennia.

Any attempt to reconstruct the archaeological story of Jerusalem depends on the gathering together of those very dull material fragments that chance has preserved over five millennia of war and destruction, and even more devastating, the quarrying of the bedrock of the hills each time the town was rebuilt. For the archaeologist the process is at once fascinating, rewarding and frustrating. The ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, or the Virgin’s Fountain (Gihon Spring), emerging in the rock, low on the west slope of the Wadi Sitti Maryam (Kidron Valley), was the ancient nucleus of settlement in Jerusalem. Its perennial fresh water provided for man and beast, and for the gardens of Silwan down the Wadi Sitti Maryam to the south. Ancient remains are scattered over the ridges and valleys surrounding the spring (Figure 1). What can be told from viewing and reviewing those much destroyed fragments?

More tangibly, complete pottery vessels were deposited in burial caves during the late fourth millennium, near the crest of the southeast ridge, directly above and to the west of the spring. Those burial deposits were found by the Parker Expedition (Vincent 1911: 24-25, 27-29, pl. VI). Running westwards from a natural gallery in the limestone ridge was a large natural cave, connected by a

To the End of the Early Bronze Age The Earliest Evidence The evidence of a Palaeolithic handaxe on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives shows that man was 54

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

“chimney” (probably a natural feature) at its inner end to the rocky surface of the ridge above. According to Macalister and Duncan (1926: 21-22, fig. 14), who reexcavated this cave, it was c. 23 m long, averaged 6 m in breadth, was usually about 3 m high, and its floor was about 10 m below the present surface of the ridge. Along the sides of the cave, and in walled-off niches or shallow caves along the outer gallery, burials had been placed. In one such niche (called Cave 2), which was separated from the gallery by a rough wall, the dead person was placed on a mud-plastered bench. The best furnished of those walled-off niches, Cave Tomb 3, was quite rich, for the offerings placed with the dead numbered at least 16 vessels: three undecorated vessels (Vincent 1911: pl. VIII:1; pl. VIII:2, pl. VIII:6) and some fragments with stabbed decoration (like Vincent 1911, pl. VII:4, 7); three red-burnished vessels (ibid. pl. VIII:11 and 12; pl. IX:6; pl X:5 and 6); no less than nine “Line Group” painted vessels (ibid. pl. IX:1-5; pl. X:1-4); and a bowl with black polished or burnished slip inside and over the rim, and red polished or burnished lower exterior wall (ibid. pl. XI:1; see also Phythian-Adams 1926). This bowl has attracted considerable interest over the years: Gjerstad (1926: 150 ff., 302-303) noted that it came from Cyprus, an attribution accepted by Amiran (1952: 95), but its date and source have been queried at various times, and now apparently, following chemical and microscopic analysis, it is accepted as an unusual, almost accidental, local product (Maeir et al. 1992).

Early Bronze Age II and III (c. 3050-2350 BC) Shiloh (Stern 1993: 701), and less clearly, Kenyon (1974: 78) refer to just a few scattered sherds of the mid-third millennium from Jerusalem. Certainly there is plentiful evidence elsewhere in Palestine that settlement during the third millennium was somewhat unstable, with some places developing rapidly into defended enclaves with palatial buildings, such as Tell Yarmut (in southwest Palestine), et-Tell (Ai) and Tell Far‘ah (in the hills north of Jerusalem), but for unknown reasons the last-named site was abandoned in EB II, like Tell Arad in the south. There is no clear answer as to why some towns prospered and others fell; it was probably the result of complex factors, not a single cause. It may have been related to the changing organization of the export of raw materials such as olive oil to Egypt. The survey of the region between Ramallah and Jerusalem revealed 12 Chalcolithic and 25 Early Bronze Age sites, so the region of Jerusalem was not unpopulated (Finkelstein and Magen 1993). Jerusalem (according to our current knowledge) appears to have fallen into the pattern of small undefended EB I sites that were abandoned (or virtually abandoned) in favour of larger walled sites located elsewhere – part of a pattern often referred to as the “urbanization” of Palestine, but which ranks on a very low level of demographic intensity. In southern Palestine, the large defended EB III sites that we know existed in the midthird millennium were located at et-Tell, Gezer, Lachish, Tell al-Safi and Tell Yarmuth instead (Broshi and Gophna 1984: 47, Table 7).

The deposits show that this gallery and cave complex must have been a focal point for the population, a site of burial ritual, sometime after 3600 BC, for cemeteries often mark regular gathering points, even for tribal populations.

Intermediate Bronze Age (IB) (c. 2350-2000/1900 BC) From the beginning of the third millennium, the gap in our evidence for settlement near the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj is long, at least a millennium in duration. Only the remains of a cemetery on the east side of the Mount of Olives have been found and dated to this “intermediate” period. In view of the long history (which runs to the present day) of the use of the Mount of Olives as a burial place for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it is legitimate to include these cemeteries as an integral part of the story of Jerusalem itself. The late third millennium cemetery was discovered by Charles Warren during his exploration of Jerusalem between 1867 and 1870 on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund. His finds are not fully documented, and we know only that he discovered and illustrated a number of pots found in caves and crevices in the chalky rock on the east side of the hill (Wilson and Warren 1871: 306; Warren 1884: pl. XLV:5, 14). Another tomb was found in 1941 just to the south, along the line of the Jerusalem to Jericho road near Hablet alAmud. It was excavated by Baramki and published by Sa‘ad (1964). Saller (1962: 159; 1964: 2, fig 1, and p. 8) refers to this tomb also, although he describes it rather loosely as being in Silwan, and locates it more or less directly opposite the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj on his map. On this map he records another find spot to the northwest, c.

The pottery belongs to the mainstream of ceramic production in the central and southern part of the country, with not just monochrome red burnished decoration, but the carefully painted “Line Group” vessels of the EB IB tradition, which occurs in the central hills, the south Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea area. Analyses as yet unpublished of some of the early fabrics are said to indicate that they were produced in a number of different places (Auld and Steiner 1996: 22), suggesting either that the owners also came from, or traveled through, a variety of ceramic production centres (“wandering people”); or else that the pottery was traded (“wandering pots”). However six vessels from Parker’s Tomb 3 were subjected to chemical analysis, which indicates local and near-local production (Maeir et al. 1992). The buildings, burials and the pottery show that Jerusalem was a small part of the mainstream material culture of Palestine at the beginning of the EBA, but nothing otherwise survives to indicate its relationship to other settlements of the period. Shiloh considered that the latest date of this settlement might be the beginning of the EB II period, early in the third millennium, but after that our story again halts.

55

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

period in the hill-country north and south of Jerusalem (Finkelstein 1991: 24, fig. 2), including a site c. 6 km north of Jerusalem (Hariqat al-Kilab, Gibson and Edelstein 1985, 153) and hopefully further discoveries and excavations will shed a much fuller light on this rather obscure period. What a number of those cemeteries and settlements, including those on the Mount of Olives, have in common is that they were re-used in the Middle Bronze Age. This re-use probably happened in Jerusalem (Prag 1995: 223, fig. 6:6), as well as in the al-Baq‘a Valley, at Bait Sahur immediately east of Bethlehem about 9 km south of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj (Hänsler 1908 and 1909; Prag 2000: 170), further south at Efrat (Gonen 1981: 124-126) and at more distant sites such as Jericho. Although there is no evidence that such re-use indicates continuous occupation, or continuity of population, it does seem likely that their location was still marked or known, and their re-use acceptable, in succeeding centuries.

300 m to the northeast of Gethsemane on the slopes of Mount Scopus, but this, like his identification of material from the settlement site in Jerusalem, is unverified or doubtful. Eleven more tombs were excavated in 1965 on the upper eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives, and the dates of these burials should lie around 2000 BC (Kenyon 1965: 74-75; Prag 1995). The burials are all in shaft tombs, the majority of which have a round shaft on the east side of the chamber, with a blocking stone at the entrance, while the shafts vary between 0.48 and 3.45 m in depth. The offerings are mainly pottery, mostly made of the local Jerusalem dolomite clay. The burials conform closely to other hill country cemeteries of the period, at places like the al-Baq‘a Valley and Dhahr Mirzbaneh. Usually the tombs were designed for just one burial, perhaps disarticulated. Thus the few known tombs in this cemetery may represent a tiny population, but many more burials may lie beneath the modern cemeteries that cover much of the area. The tomb found near Hablet al-Amud was different, for it had a rectangular shaft leading to two chambers and had rather more grave offerings. Quite importantly, these included a number of non-local goods (Sa‘ad 1964: 78): copper/bronze pins, many carnelian beads, and blue paste and glazed paste beads that indicate trade or exchange; all those materials are likely to have come from areas to the south, perhaps the Wadi ‘Arabah, Sinai and Egypt. This suggests a population that was not quite isolated from the wider world.

Gonen (1985: 54) refers to the discovery on the ridge above the spring in Jerusalem of sherds of this period by Macalister and Duncan (1926: 173-174) but those fragments come from the characteristic cooking pots of the succeeding period of the Middle Bronze Age (Kenyon’s MB I, usually now MB IIA). Gonen has also suggested that the round shaft in the ceiling of the cave cut in the rock below the Sakhra in the Haram, may originally have been a typical shaft grave of this period; but it is unlikely that evidence will emerge to substantiate the proposal (which is plausible). “Cistern”-shaped features have elsewhere been attributed to the IB period. In Jerusalem the only evidence associated with such types dates to the Late Bronze Age (see below), but does not preclude their origin at this period. Another cave with a round shaft (to one side of the chamber) was noted by Macalister and Duncan (1926: 25) in Field 9, west of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, but no evidence to date the original cutting of that feature was discovered.

It was assumed that those burials were of pastoralists buried in a cemetery that was central to tribal and territorial patterns, a socio-economic change that had at this time completely supplanted settled life (Kenyon 1966: 74-75). However the more recent discovery of permanent settlements associated with those cemeteries in many hill-country sites has led to a reassessment of the evidence, in line with discoveries of village occupation at places such as Tell Iktanu in Jordan (Prag 1974). At the al-Baq‘a Valley, just 6 km southwest of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, permanent, longer-term occupation appears to be proven, on the basis of the pig bones recovered (Horwitz 1989; for Manahat, see Horwitz in Edelstein et al. 1998). Hidden beneath the field terraces of later periods, not only long-established settlements have been revealed by excavations along the north side of the alBaq‘a Valley, but settlements of considerable size, ranging from 3 to 5 ha. (Edelstein 1993; Finkelstein 1991: 25). Depending on agro-pastoralism, but also mining the local dolomite clays for a ceramic industry, this settlement changed perspectives on the nature of contemporary settlement of the central Palestinian hillcountry. It seems possible that such a settlement linked to a cemetery also existed in the Jerusalem area, and evidence for it may one day emerge.

It would therefore be rash to say there was no settlement in Jerusalem at this time, but if it existed, it is probable that it was an open village settlement.

The Middle Bronze 2000/1900-1550 BC)

Age

(MBA)

(c.

It is only around 1800 BC (the MB IIA-B transition) that Jerusalem was established as a fortified settlement on the hill above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj. The new town has for the first time a textual and historical context (see Kitchen, this volume). We know that it was probably called something very like Jerusalem, and that its rulers spoke a West Semitic language, sometimes defined as Amorite (see Kitchen, this volume). Nothing survives directly to inform us of the linguistic affinities of this population, but a general consensus maintains that the West Semitic linguistic pool was long established in this area. If the scatter of EB I artefacts is compared to the area within the

There is a slowly growing body of evidence for the distribution of cemeteries and settlement sites of this 56

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

suggested line of the MBA wall (Shiloh 1984: fig. 3), it is likely that the two settlements, although separated by many centuries, occupied much the same area, but the density factor in a walled settlement is likely to be greater than in an unwalled one. Several factors suggest that the population and the prosperity of Jerusalem increased at this time: one is the presence of a defensive wall, another is the excellent quality of some of the pottery produced, and a third is the recent discovery of another large settlement of the period, just to the north of Jerusalem, as well as of other farming communities to the south.

The Pottery That the people occupying this walled city formed a prosperous and vigorous community is also indicated by the pottery. As well as the standard, well-made pottery of the period (Figure 3.1; Prag 1991), some vessels show a good command of technical skill in throwing vessels on the wheel, married to good craftsmanship. Amongst the pottery found by Warren last century are fine burnished wares, particularly a magnificent black burnished juglet (Figure 3.2), and a strong and soundly-made loop-footed bowl (Figure 3.3) which, it is assumed, came from eroded burial caves on the Mount of Olives. Most of this material appears to date to an early stage of the Middle Bronze Age, perhaps c. 1800-1700 BC, but there are also juglets with short, cylindrical bodies that date to MB IIC/LB I, probably around the 17th-16th century.

The Fortified Town The Middle Bronze II defensive wall was first identified in 1961 and dated to c. 1800 BC by Kenyon in her Area A just above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj (Figure 2). She recorded that it was “massively built, of rough boulders” (Kenyon 1962: 82). Later she speculated that she had uncovered part of a tower protecting the north side of the above-ground access to the spring, perhaps a water gate (Kenyon 1966: 76). This wall was 2 m in width (Kenyon 1974: 83). Shiloh (1984: 12) found a 20 m stretch of this wall, 3 m wide, further to the south in Area EI. Even more massive walls forming two defensive towers were excavated in 1998, associated with a complex system of tunnels, channels and a large rock-cut reservoir that conserved the waters of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj (Reich and Shukron 1999). D. Bahat, in re-excavating part of Macalister’s Field 5 on the flat top of the ridge above the spring, hopes to uncover more evidence of the northern line of the town defenses in what Macalister called his “Jebusite” level (Macalister and Duncan 1926, pl. V; D. Bahat, pers. comm.). That the inhabitants had surplus manpower to carry out these massive public building programs suggests a thriving community, probably drawing on the agricultural resources of the surrounding territory. Already in the MBA it seems that the steep, uneven rocky slope above the spring, with its natural caves and cavities, was being scarped and terraced to support the structures of the inhabitants, and the caves were used for burials, as one (probably intramural) burial found by Macalister in Field 5 illustrates (Prag 1991). Weill (1920: 131-135) recorded “Middle Canaanite” remains in his Tomb 7 at the southern end of the ridge, and “Canaanite” remains in Tombs 4 and 6, and Cave LK, but none of the objects he published date earlier than the Iron Age. Shiloh found some walls and associated MBA storage jars in Area EI (Shiloh 1984, pl. 20:3, 21:1). Some sherds of MB II date have also been found much further to the north just south of the Haram, beyond the probable north boundary of the fortified area (Shiloh 1984: 26), both southwest of the Haram (Gonen 1985: 55, n. 26 citing Mazar) and southeast (Mazar and Mazar 1989: ix, see “Bronze Age” sherds found in the fills under late Iron Age buildings; and Prag, forthcoming, perhaps associated with a small wall on bedrock in Kenyon Site S.II).

Survey Widespread demographic evidence suggests that the population of Palestine increased slightly between the EB II-III and the MB II periods (Broshi and Finkelstein 1992: 56, fig. 2). Certainly there appears to be an increase in the number of sites in the area north from Jerusalem to Ramallah, where 87 MB II sites have been recorded, compared to 28 of the IB period and 25 of the EBA (Finkelstein and Magen 1993). Although many may have been very small (some were represented by no more than a single sherd), on others, such as Site 469, the MBA is well represented. A MB II tomb and a large unwalled settlement on the eastern slopes of Tell al-Ful, just 5 km north of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, have been discovered and partly excavated (see now Negev and Gibson 2001: 184-184). A large settlement here, and farming communities to the south in the al-Baq‘a Valley area (Edelstein 1993; Edelstein et al. 1998), were elements in a more widespread settlement pattern during the later Middle Bronze Age. Recent excavations at Tell alRumaida (ancient Hebron) also show there was a large town with major structures in the south hill country in the MB II. That structural and settlement distribution pattern has been enhanced by the finding of a cuneiform tablet at Rumaida that mentions sheep and goats being paid as tax to a king (Anbar and Na’aman 1986). Compared to the rest of Palestine at this time, it is estimated that Jerusalem was the centre of a large territory with a low population density (e.g. Finkelstein 1992: 215, Table 1 for estimated figures of a territorial unit centred on Jerusalem; also Finkelstein 1993: 122-123). Despite the significant increase in the settlement evidence, the economic limitations of the Jerusalem region are clearly exposed in these figures. Settlements in the Region of Jerusalem Six kilometres southwest of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, the unfortified MB IIB settlement at Manahat in the al-Baq‘a Valley (Rephaim Valley) sprawled over c. 40 dunams (c. 57

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

perhaps from a burial, was found at Khirbat al-Burj (grid ref. 16795.13655; Wolff 1997: 97*). Nine MBA burial grounds were found between Ramallah and Jerusalem, and other sites were also found north of Khirbat al-Burj (Archaeological Survey of the Land of Benjamin, Sites 157, 162, 170, 315).

11 acres). It contained the typical courtyard houses found at contemporary sites in Palestine; the inhabitants produced field crops – barley, wheat, pulses, olives and grapes – and maintained flocks in which goat and, to a lesser extent, sheep were dominant, cattle and pigs played an important role, the production of milk, wool and hides seems to have been important, and the storage jars suggested that this site may have been an element in a wider economic network, perhaps a satellite producer for a central place (Jerusalem is suggested). Evidence for metal and pottery working and a possible cult structure were also uncovered.

As well as the pottery from assumed Middle Bronze Age burials on the Mount of Olives, a MBA burial cave in the village of al-‘Azariya was also noted (2 km east of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj; Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 58*, Site 438). A tomb found in 1936 at Abu Dis (3 km east of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj) with 18 vases that were said to date to the later MB II period, and another tomb at ‘Ayn Karim (8 km west of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj) with a Tell al-Yahudiya ware juglet, were noted by Saller (1962: 168, 170, fig. 2:11). In the MB IIA-B period, the evidence for widely distributed burials is matched by the presence of settlement sites, but after 1700 again the evidence for the settlement of Jerusalem seems to have left little or no trace in the archaeological record. Once again, we have to rely on the evidence from the cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

Although the unfortified farming settlement at Manahat was built over a settlement of the IB period, the archaeological evidence showed discontinuity from IB to MB II: the buildings of the older settlement are said to have been long abandoned before the arrival of the MB IIB population. There were changes in human skeletal types between earlier and later populations and discontinuities in patterns of animal husbandry; all these factors are indicators that settlement here was not a continuous but an interrupted process. Again we are looking at instability in demographic patterns, as in the EBA, for which we do not yet fully understand the causes. This pattern seems to be relevant to the evidence from Jerusalem.

In 1954, Father Bagatti discovered a large, but terribly eroded, cavity in the rock on the western slopes of the mountain (1 km northeast of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, for location, see Bagatti and Milik 1958, end plan; it was located close to the southwest corner of the Franciscan chapel of Dominus Flevit). The surviving remains, extending over an area of 9 x 10 m, suggested to Bagatti that he had found the lower part of a typical late Middle Bronze Age rock-cut “bilobate” tomb, from which the entrance, roof and western side had been eroded, and part of whose contents had also been washed down the steep slope. Despite this damage, and the survival of “extremely few” human bones (Saller 1964: 8), over 2029 reconstructable objects were recovered from this deposit, many of them complete. How many objects had originally been deposited is very difficult to estimate, for huge quantities of fragments were recovered – after one week’s work, 171 complete or nearly complete vessels had been found, plus 11 cement bags of fragments (Saller 1964: 6); the number of vessels was estimated on the basis of the very large numbers of bases, handles etc. (see e.g. Saller 1964: 26, 32). The objects included about 1000 bowls, 342 lamps, 250 dipper juglets, 83 juglets, 80 jars, 60 jugs, 6 flasks, 2 cooking pots, a bowl with three loop feet, pedestal vases and other pots; there were also about 75 metal objects, 28 beads, 26 bone objects, 17 alabaster objects, 8 scarabs, 5 faience objects and 2 glass plaques. The scarcity of cooking pots is one of several factors that confirm the funerary function of the assemblage. The view of the excavator and especially of W.F. Albright at the time, was that they covered a long period of deposition, from the end of the Middle Bronze Age, 1600 BC, to quite late in the Late Bronze Age, 1300 BC (Saller 1964: 3 and 10). The earliest pottery illustrated appears to belong to the middle/end of the Middle Bronze Age and

Although some of the older IB shaft graves in the alBaq‘a Valley were re-used for burial in the MB II period, the dead were also placed in intramural cist graves. This latter practice again is a burial tradition known from many other sites of the period. The settlement was abandoned and the buildings collapsed. It is suggested that it was a dependent settlement of the fortified town of Jerusalem, and perhaps their economic fortunes were linked. It seems unlikely that the fortified settlement in Jerusalem, on which so much effort had been expended in the 18th century, was entirely abandoned in favour of these unfortified, and probably satellite settlements, during the 17th and 16th centuries, but there seems to be very little surviving evidence for an urban community in the later part of MB II in Jerusalem itself. Again, as in the EB II-III period, the main fortified sites seem to have been developed elsewhere. Tombs In the al-Baq‘a Valley (both Manahat and Nahal Refaim) and at Bait Sahur, many of the IB shaft graves appear to have been re-used for burial in the MB II period. In both places either the later population was aware of the existence of the old shaft graves, or they were in some way marked. At Efrat (c. 15 km south-southwest of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj) graves and other structures dating to the IB, MB IIA and MB IIB periods have been discovered, including some wealth of weapons, jewelry and ornamental equipment in the MB II (Gonen 1981). North of Jerusalem a small cache of MB IIB pottery, 58

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

the beginning of the Late Bronze Age; it includes a fine jug with polished white slip and a band with incised herring bone pattern (Saller 1964: 75, fig. 23; cf. Amiran 1969: 112, pl. 34:7, from Megiddo; and Amiran 1969: 99, photo 101, both MB II B-C). Many of the cylindrical juglets belong to the later MBA, and die out during LB I (cf. Saller 1964: figs. 30-32 and Amiran 1969: 146 and pl. 46:2-3). The five faience vases, the seven scarabs (Saller 1964: 166, 186) and many of the metal and bone objects also date to the MB II period. The larger and older objects in such a burial site are likely to be the most damaged, and probably the most difficult group to assess. The bulk of the finds date to the Late Bronze Age, see below. What is particularly relevant about this find is that it is the type of burial, with primary, multiple successive interments over a long period, which is usually linked to urban communities. These remains may represent the burials of many individuals, and are unlikely to be the burials of pastoralists.

immediate cause is said to be the Egyptian attack that followed the expulsion of the Asiatic Hyksos dynasty from Egypt. Most settlements at this time were unfortified. The region of Jerusalem seems to have been virtually unoccupied (Finkelstein and Magen 1993), though Saller (1962: 174-175) notes tombs at Bethany and ‘Ayn Karim. The settlement pattern in the al-Baq‘a Valley appears also to have suffered further disruption and decline, with some slight evidence for occupation in Late Bronze II (Edelstein 1993: 1282). At Manahat one of the MB IIB buildings was reused in the LB II, and some scattered scarabs and a figurine indicate human presence (Edelstein et al. 1998: 30-31, 94-97). The southeast ridge of Jerusalem appears to conform to this general pattern. Bunimovitz (1990; 1993: 445), analyzing “regional settlement systems’ rank-size distribution” patterns for the MB II and LBA, suggests that despite this decline the LBA settlement distribution in the central hill country exhibits an integrated system relevant to a small “city-state” with a “sparse urban elite”.

It is difficult to relate the history of Jerusalem to the wider historical and archaeological background in the current state of our knowledge. The period of prosperity and urbanism in Jerusalem (c. 1800-1700 BC) seems to coincide with the period of Asiatic expansion into the Egyptian Delta, and with the Asiatic development of Tell al-Dab‘ah from the time of Amenemhat IV at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty. We might expect the high point of prosperity for all Palestinian sites to come during the peak of Asiatic rule in the Egyptian delta, during the Fifteenth Egyptian Dynasty (1638-1540 BC, see Kitchen 1996: 12), but this is a time when the evidence suggests Jerusalem and the settlements at the al-Baq‘a Valley were abandoned. If theoretical models of “central place” are applicable to Palestine in the MBA, then Jerusalem appears to have lost such a role after around 1700 BC. Its peak appears to have been reached around the early 18th century, a time of maximum expansion and vigour, perhaps also when the first use of the alphabetic script was being developed in the wider region. Later, as in the EB III period, we appear to be looking at a pattern when prosperity and growth were concentrated at other locations. We have no explanation for the shifting patterns in Jerusalem, unless they were due to the marginal nature of much of its territory and the narrow economic base its territory provided. Even by the standards of the time, Jerusalem was not a large town. The narrow economic base and fluctuating patterns of settlement may be similar to those of southern Jordan.

An Ottoman Period Analogy? It could be suggested that the decline in settlement in the Late Bronze Age is not dissimilar to the pattern existing during the late Ottoman period in Palestine, when the number of settlements declined, the country was ruled from abroad, and the local administration was conducted by foreign and local officials supported by garrisons planted at strategic strong points. In the 19th century AD, the factors contributing most to the decline were the correlation of weak government and powerful Bedouin tribes; this affected in particular the unfortified rural settlements and undermined the agricultural village level of subsistence. In a region where pastoralism was always a major and perhaps the most stable factor in the economy, mobility became the safest economic strategy for survival when the state was unable to protect agriculture. Agricultural activity of course continued, but in a more limited way and under increased vulnerability to pastoralist raiding; mobility was also a factor in tax and conscription avoidance during the Ottoman period.1 Re-establishment of central Ottoman control and increased security led to improved conditions for 1.

Late Bronze Age (LBA) (1550-1175 BC) All over Palestine there was a demographic decline during the 16th century, attested by a sharp decrease in the number of settlements. In addition a higher proportion of smaller sites are found than in the Middle Bronze Age, with the lowest point in the 16th century, and some gradual recovery to the 13th century (Gonen 1984). The 59

Lewis 1987: 39; Finn 1878: II. 43 on conscription in Palestine in 1853: “Of the actual progress of the Russian war we knew not much accurately. In the south [of Palestine] we had little or no voluntary enlistment for the [Ottoman] army. Like all mountaineers, our people had too much attachment to the parent soil to allow of their sharing in foreign military enterprise. It had always been with the greatest difficulty that the Government could obtain half a dozen men for the army by means of conscription; fines were paid when they could not be evaded, the families or villages raising the money among them on behalf of the individuals drawn; but that was all. Indeed it was that very matter, the conscription, which had led to the overthrow of the Egyptian Government in 1840.”

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

structures of the period must be attributed to the destructive effect of later rebuildings, and particularly to quarrying during the Roman period. She concluded (on the basis of much the same evidence as Steiner) that the great stepped terraces and the mantle of massive stones built against it, were a single integrated structure that dated to IA I, sometime in the 12th century or a little later.

agriculture and permanent settlement in the later 19th and early 20th centuries. Does this well-documented modern pattern fit the evidence from Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age? Occupation and Settlement on the Southeast Ridge There is little archaeological evidence that the Middle Bronze Age wall was maintained after c. 1700 BC, or that houses were built within its line. No published pottery of the later Middle Bronze Age has been recognised from the site itself, nor anything that must be earlier than the 14th century. Shiloh (1984: 12, 26) found little more than scattered Late Bronze Age sherds in most areas, but like Kenyon, dated the construction of some massive stonebuilt terracing above the spring (the “Jebusite Ramp”) to the 14th and 13th centuries. This was a tremendous structure of rubble masonry supported on bedrock and debris-filled stone compartments. Both excavators interpreted this structure as the podium for the citadel of Jerusalem in the period of the Amarna letters, perhaps that of the ruler Abdi-Hepa, basing the conclusion to a large extent on the literary source. Shiloh suggested that the hidden water system called “Warren’s Shaft” might also date from this period. Kenyon found evidence for a second phase of the “Jebusite Ramp”, when a mantle of more massive stones encased the early stone terracing, which she proposed should be dated to the 10th century.

If Jerusalem was an unfortified small settlement in the LBA, then it could indeed be difficult to recover the traces of contemporary occupation after millennia of quarrying. However Macalister and Duncan (1926: 33, 178-179) noted finds of readily recognizable imported Cypriot White Slip and Base Ring sherds in a countless mass of sherds within the “Jebusite wall” at the top of the “Jebusite Ramp” above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, but they attributed these to the period 2000-1600 BC, and reckoned that they had very few sherds of the period 1600-1200 BC. White Slip II sherds however belong entirely to the latter period, and so probably did some other sherds of Macalister’s large group, but the rather undistinguished coarse local fabrics were neither distinguished nor published. Elsewhere, in the soil near bedrock in Field 9 (possibly Parker’s backfill), Macalister and Duncan (1926: 22) attributed 207 fragments of pottery found in the bottom 0.20 m of soil on bedrock to this period. Kenyon, in dating the terraces to the Late Bronze Age, noted the presence of some Cypriot White Slip II sherds; only two were registered (Figure 3.4, Kenyon Reg. no. 1259). Importation of WS II pottery began c. 1450 BC and was at its peak c. 1350-1300 BC, but it continued to be produced in Cyprus and importation to Palestine may have continued into the early 12th century (Prag 1985: 156-157). In Palestine it is found principally as fragments on settlement sites, while in Cyprus it was important as a funerary offering (Prag 1985: 156, 157). Sometimes such valued objects had a long life span, but it seems unlikely that they were traded/transported as heirlooms. The presence of these Cypriot sherds does suggest a settlement receiving trade goods in Jerusalem no later than c. 1200/1175, and probably earlier, but the presence of this ware does little to date the settlement. The same comments apply to the collared-rim jar, which has been used to date the terracing to the beginning of the Iron Age, but is a ceramic type which was already in production in the later part of the Late Bronze Age, from c. 1300 BC (e.g. Wengrow 1996: 316). Franken and Steiner (1990: 7; fig. 2-2:1-6) have published some local LBA wares from Site A, but they do not provide a closer date.

Steiner (1998: 28, 33) has argued very clearly that no architectural remains or pottery from the period c. 17001550 BC are found in Jerusalem, that only tombs are found which can be dated from the period c. 1550- c.1200 BC, and that the great stepped terraces (the “Jebusite Ramp”) were built only c. 1200 BC. Formerly she explored an hypothesis, based on this lack of evidence, that the town of Jerusalem mentioned in the Amarna letters should be located elsewhere: that on the modern site only a fortified manor house, belonging perhaps to a feudal lord and his servants and workers may have existed, which should be dated to the late 13th and 12th centuries at the earliest (Auld and Steiner 1996: 32). In this more recent reconstruction of Jerusalem during the 14th century, she agreed that an alternative location for Jerusalem is unlikely, and the Jerusalem of the Amarna letters was most probably to be located here, but that the region may only have supported a royal domain of the Egyptian pharaoh in the care of a steward and a garrison, or a baronial estate. Others maintain that the evidence proves settlement continued, even if on a more limited scale than in the 18th century, at a scale relevant to the political and demographic situation of the times. Cahill (1998: 35-36) argued that the type of occupation reflected in the Amarna correspondence can be discerned in LBA Jerusalem, for traces of the period have been found over a wider area than those of the EBA and MBA, and concluded that the scarcity of stratified levels and

Steiner’s former thesis runs counter to the general acceptance that Abdi-Hepa, ruler of Urusalim, one of the Amarna correspondents, did rule as “mayor” of a small city-state based on Jerusalem in the 14th century BC. If one accepts that, then one also accepts that an Egyptian garrison of Nubian mercenaries was placed in Jerusalem, and Kitchen’s point (this volume) that Jerusalem’s ruler 60

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

was of at least the same status as the contemporary rulers of other Palestinian towns (Gazru, Ayyaluna, Qiltu, Ashqaluna and Shakmu) who were also in correspondence with the Egyptian king. This must imply some level of settlement, political activity and economic production at the time. Na’aman (1998: 43-44) has reassessed the texts of the Amarna letters; Jerusalem is recorded as a town, and Abdi-Hepa is a ruler with the same status as other Canaanite rulers. “Admittedly, Late Bronze Age Jerusalem was no metropolis. It was the seat of a local ruler who effectively governed only a limited territory to the north and south of his town, not all the hill country…. The large highland areas around his territory were a kind of no man’s land, inhabited by local clans and bands of outlaws.” A more recent assessment of the Amarna texts considers the extent of territory controlled by Jerusalem (Kallai 2001).

Tombs Dominus Flevit: most of the pottery recovered by Bagatti from the much-destroyed tomb that has been described above, dated to the Late Bronze Age, especially to LB II. A quantity of it dates to LB I, and LB IIA (perhaps the 16th and 15th centuries), such as the series of fine painted bowls with high pedestal feet (cf. Saller 1964: figs. 8, 16, 17; cf. Amiran 1969: pl. 38:7, 8 from Megiddo, and pl. 40: 8, from Lachish). As well as the locally produced, typically Palestinian pottery, there were over 50 Cypriot Base Ring vessels, or vessels imitating Base Ring Ware (17 jugs including 9 imitations, 33 juglets, 4 bowls and one mug; an imitation of a Base Ring bull vase: Saller 1964: 129; pl. 34:6a+b, pp. 158-159) and at least a few fragments which might be earlier Base Ring I ware (Saller 1964: 130: white painted decoration was more common than plastic decoration: only one fragment with plastic decoration is illustrated, fig. 48:9). In Palestine, Cypriot Base Ring Ware was a common funerary offering. There were also two imported Mycenaean jars (Saller 1964: 156, fig. 58:4). This is not a great quantity of imported pottery for the time, and notably there is no Cypriot White Slip ware – which reinforces the interpretation of this deposit as funerary. The mass of material suggests quite long term stability in burial ritual – the objects in this tomb could suggest almost continuous use through the whole period 1600-1300 BC, or even later, and are undoubtedly the burials of a sedentary population.

A Late Bronze Age Temple? Further tiny strands of evidence have been drawn together by Bahat (1990: 22) and Barkay (1996) to postulate that a temple, perhaps with an Egyptian sponsor, existed c. 1 km northwest of the ‘Ayn Umm alDaraj at this time. This hypothesis depends on a number of Egyptian objects found during the excavation of the Byzantine church in the grounds of the Dominican convent in north Jerusalem. These objects are also described by Kitchen (this volume). Only one object was found in a possible primary context, and (like the find of an Egyptian basalt head in 1925 in the grounds of the Augustinian church at St Peter in Gallicantu on the south side of Jerusalem: Rowe 1936: pl. XXXVII; see Maeir 1989, who suggests a later import of an object dating to the Old Kingdom), it remains questionable whether the concentration of such objects in the vicinity of 19th and 20th century collections of antiquities reflect more modern activities. The LBA stele fragment (found in the fill of a later cistern), and the papyrus capital, are important, and their precise ancient provenance would contribute much to the discussion. The marble libation tray looks rather like a later piece (Kitchen comments on its un-Egyptian appearance). It was found aligned below the altar in the Byzantine basilica and published by Lagrange (1894: 108, 131 no. 7, 136) who related it to the washing of the main altar before the mass. The location of these finds, apparently isolated from other traces of occupation, would not be unusual for temples of the LBA. The Late Bronze Age temple excavated at the old Amman Airport, where many imported objects were recovered, lies several kilometres northeast of the Amman Citadel (Hennessy 1966) and has no immediately associated buildings. On this site in Jerusalem however, the mass of pottery and small objects that should also be associated with such a structure, is entirely lacking. There is in fact no trace of a structure at all. The question of the existence of a LBA temple in Jerusalem must remain open for the time being.

Government House: a curious but intact feature was discovered in the grounds of Government House 2 km south of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, and was described as a “cistern” by Baramki (1935). Cut in soft limestone, a flight of steps, flanked by a balustrade of upright stone slabs, descended from the northeast side into an almost round rock-cut cave c. 6.6 m in diameter and over 4 m deep; the base of the cave narrowed to a point at the bottom of the steps; above, in the centre of the ceiling, a narrow vertical shaft (diameter c. 0.40 m) led to the surface. A fill occupied the bottom of the cave, and approximately 2 m above the base of the cave, resting on this fill, and thus clearly later than the original cutting of the feature, patches of stone paving were laid, above which were two groups of pottery. The pottery is very similar to that dated to the LB II period from the Dominus Flevit group, and included a Cypriot Base Ring jug, and an Egyptian Dynasty XVIII scarab on a bronze finger-ring. The deposits are probably funerary. The “cistern” itself can be closely paralleled by similar features from the Madaba region of Transjordan, which probably date from the IB or MB IIA periods (Waheeb and Palumbo 1993: 153), and from the northeastern suburbs of Amman where they are dated to the IB period (Ibrahim and Qadi 1995: fig. 3). As it is clear that the original use of the feature pre-dated the burial deposit, it may be that it was cut at a rather earlier period, perhaps as a cistern or silo; the animal bones found in the fill beneath the LB deposit at the Government House site, are 61

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

has a central depression in the floor (for collected descriptions of this cave, see Gibson and Jacobsen 1996: 283-289).

a common find in abandoned underground installations, into which animals fall alive and die, or are thrown when dead. Bagatti and Milik (1958: 9-40, pl. 130, and end plan) and Saller (1964: 9, fig. 3) report that an almost identical feature was found at the southern end of the grounds of Dominus Flevit, oval rather than circular, bowl-shaped rather than dropping to a point, of almost the same dimensions, and with steps descending to the bottom (this time from the southwest), but any roof had been quarried away. No clear dating evidence was found for this feature, but apart from the similarity of size and shape, the construction of the staircase, with a stone balustrade, is identical in both cases.

Nahlat Ahim: Amiran (1960; see also Maisler 1933) published a group of 52 pottery vessels said to come from a LB II rock-cut tomb at Nahlat Ahim (c. 2 km west of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj), which included many imported objects. The proportion of imported and imitation vessels to local products in this group is extraordinarily high, but Amiran notes that similar proportions can be found at contemporary coastal sites. She suggested on the basis of the number of vessels in this group that it was probably associated with two burials rather than one, and clearly dated to the 14th century. The pottery attests a level of prosperity and linkage to foreign economic networks in the territory of Jerusalem.

Gonen (1985) suggested that the cave under the Dome of the Rock was originally cut as a burial cave of IB type, with a round shaft, c. 0.45 m in diameter, giving access from the surface. It was a puzzle that the shaft did not descend on the side of the chamber in the normal way, but it is possible that the origins of this cave lay in a similar “cistern-like” feature to those mentioned above, and the present steps, which descend of the southeast side and are probably of Crusader date (but according to Gonen were originally carved in the 10th century AD), overlie an older Bronze Age version. The cave, however, is almost square, but is roughly the same size, c. 7 m and

Although the percentage of local to imported wares in these tomb groups varies greatly, on settlement sites the percentage of local wares generally far exceeds that of imported material. The small percentage of imported wares noted on the settlement site in Jerusalem must represent a much more considerable body of Late Bronze Age pottery; there is undoubtedly still some confusion in the identification and discussion of these local wares.

Table of Assemblages from Jerusalem (Dominus Flevit includes material dated to the MBA) Site

Local Pottery

Cypriot BR Pottery

Mycenaean Pottery

Egyptian Objects

Dominus Flevit Government House Nahlat Ahim

2000? 17 25

46+ 1 25

2 0 0

0 1 0

The inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Jerusalem are referred to as Jebusites in biblical literature and the northern, possibly Hittite or Hurrian origin of the preDavidic population or of its rulers, is often proposed. The names of Abdi-Hepa recorded in the Amarna letters, and of Araunah the Jebusite which features in the Old Testament stories, can be attributed to a northern linguistic group. However, there is nothing in the archaeological record to differentiate the Late Bronze Age population of Jerusalem from those of contemporary Palestinian Late Bronze Age settlements. Thus if northern penetration by people referred to as Jebusites is proposed, complete material cultural assimilation appears to be evident.

evidence of the last century and a half suggests we have a fluctuating pattern of occupation, with variation in demographic intensity linked more probably with political rather than with environmental or climatic changes, but the very marginal level of natural resources may have made Jerusalem and its territory more vulnerable to external influences. The stability of a relatively poor agricultural regime in the hills may have been subject to greater fluctuations than a rich one on the plains, and the role of pastoralism been a more important feature in the long-term economy, as a fall-back strategy in times of stress either environmentally or politically induced. This may be reflected in the Late Bronze Age in Jerusalem, when we have almost less archaeological evidence than for any other time, but this evidence suggests (1) that the occupation of the immediate region was continuous; (2) that the area of the settlement may have been more extensive, but less intensive than during the 18th century; (3) that there was certainly one level of society which was prosper-ous and could afford to bury imported goods with the dead (Bunimovitz 1993, 446: a “sparse urban elite”?).

Conclusions Jerusalem has revealed, and is still revealing, evidence for patterns of settlement during the Bronze Age, and archaeology still has exciting prospects despite the degree of attention that has been given to the city for so many years. Throughout the Bronze Age, the combined 62

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

In line with much of the rest of Canaan, the LBA population in the territory of Jerusalem may have been sparse and scattered. The hypothesis drawn from Ottoman Palestine suggested above, may be realistic: a weak Ottoman government with its centre located abroad in Constantinople, allied to state taxation and conscription systems, may have encouraged a more mobile, pastoral society, in place of settled village communities based on stable agriculture. In the LBA, as well as tribute to be paid to the distant centre of government in Egypt, slaving was practiced to fill Egyptian needs, and represents an even stronger reason for the development of mobile communities practising avoidance strategies. There are many records from the third millennium onwards of Egypt taking large numbers of prisoners and cattle back to Egypt from western Asia and from Nubia;2 in the Jerusalem letters to Pharaoh, Abdi-Hepa lists prisoners, slaves and girls being sent to the Pharaoh (Na’aman 1981; 1998: 43: “‘Abdi-heba sent exceptionally rich caravans to the pharaoh. One such caravan included prisoners, 5,000 unidentified objects and 8 or (18) porters. Another caravan carried ten slaves. A third included 21 girls and 80 prisoners.”). Unless living under the protection of an Egyptian ally or official, contemporary conditions may well have been difficult. Such circumstances may well provide the background for the Old Testament story of Joseph, sold to a passing caravan and then on into slavery in Egypt. Comparable to conditions in the 19th century AD when weak government was a factor in decline, the government of Egypt in the 14th century BC was more concerned with slavery and tribute/ taxation than preserving a peace under which a stable agriculture could flourish. AbdiHepa’s anxiety over the withdrawal of his Egyptian garrison to Gaza, and his need for a garrison of 50 men and for archers to protect his territory in the 14th century BC (Moran 1992: 326 EA 286; ibid. 331 EA 288; ibid. EA 289) is reminiscent of the concerns of the population of Jerusalem for their security when the Ottoman garrison was withdrawn in AD 1853 (Finn 1878: I. 3-4, 327-331). Na’aman (1981: 184) suggests that the economy improved when the Egyptians showed more concentrated activity during the 13th century BC; and similar 2.

patterns were observed when the Ottoman government began to reassert its authority in Palestine and Transjordan in the late 19th century. In both cases, a reestablishment of strong control led to stability, increased levels of sedentary occupation, improved conditions for the agricultural and farming economy and increased agricultural production and exchange. The archaeological story of Jerusalem is not yet fully told, but what we know at present indicates little that was exceptional about the town during the Bronze Age. In a walled town such as that which existed in Jerusalem c. 1800 BC, a small temple within the walls might be anticipated, but no trace of such a structure has yet been found. In the LBA a more varied cultic pattern is known from other sites in the region, and there are possible survivals of an important structure in Jerusalem. Otherwise, Jerusalem fits the pattern revealed elsewhere in the region, a pattern that was also governed by its limited agro-pastoral economy and the political events of the third and second millennia BC. Acknowledgements I am very grateful to: Dr Shimon Gibson, to Dr Ronnie Reich and to Dr Dan Bahat for discussing and showing me recent finds in Jerusalem; to Professor Ken Kitchen for an advance copy of his paper; to Dr Rupert L. Chapman III of the Palestine Exploration Fund for his help in locating the pottery from Jerusalem found by Warren; to Dr Susanne Kerner for providing a copy of the Hänsler references; and to Dr Zeidan Kafafi for his patience. Bibliography Albright, W.F. 1933 Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. IA. The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13. Amiran, R. 1952 Connections between Anatolia and Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 2: 89-103. 1960 A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 6: 27* (English), 25-37 (Hebrew). 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada.

Pritchard 1969: 227-228: Uni’s campaign took prisoners as early as the time of Pepi I (c. 2342-2292 BC); p. 245: Amenhotep II (c. 1911-1876 BC) took Asiatics and cattle as booty; p. 23: the end of the story of the Taking of Joppa set in the time of Tuthmosis III (surviving in a Dynasty XIX copy, c. 1300 BC, Papyrus Harris 500): “Rejoice, for Amon, your good father, has given you the Enemy of Joppa, along with all his people, as well as his city! Send men to take them away as plunder, so that you may fill the House of your father Amon-Re, King of the Gods, with male and female slaves, who are fallen under your feet forever and ever!”; p. 254: Seti I (c. 1294-1279 BC), Year I, Karnak relief, campaign against the Shasu, who were crushed and killed but “He who is spared by his hand is a living prisoner, carried off to Egypt”; p. 255: same text, “The great princes of the wretched Retenu, whom his majesty carried off by his victories from the country of Hatti, to fill the workhouse of his father Amon-Re”.

Anbar, M. and Na’aman, N. 1986 An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron. Tel Aviv 13: 3-12. Auld, G. and Steiner, M. 1996 Jerusalem I: From the Bronze Age to the Maccabees. Cities of the Biblical World. Cambridge: Lutterworth.

63

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Bagatti, B. and Milik, J.T. 1958 Gli Scavi del “Dominus Flevit”. Parte I. La Necropoli del Periodo Romano. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum no. 13. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

1998 Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-1989. Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds. Israel Antiquities Reports, No. 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Bahat, D. 1990 The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Finkelstein, I. 1991 The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 41: 19-45. 1992 Middle Bronze Age ‘Fortifications’: a Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations. Tel Aviv 19: 201-220.

Baramki, D.C. 1935 An Ancient Cistern in the Grounds of Government House, Jerusalem. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4: 165-167.

Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y., eds. 1993 Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Barkay, G. 1996 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem? Israel Exploration Journal 46: 23-43.

Finn, J. 1878 Stirring Times or Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856. London: Kegan Paul.

Broshi, M. and Finkelstein, I. 1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287: 49-60.

Franken, H.J. and Steiner, M.L. 1990 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. BAMA 2. Oxford: Oxford University.

Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1984 The Settlements and Population of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age II-III. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 4153. 1986 Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261: 73-90.

Gibson, S. and Edelstein, G. 1985 Investigating Jerusalem’s Rural Landscape. Levant 17: 139-155. Gibson, S. and Jacobson, D.M. 1996 Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. BAR International Series 637. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Bunimovitz, S. 1990 Changing Shape of Power in Bronze Age Canaan. Pp. 142-149 in A. Biran, ed., Biblical Archaeology Today. Pre-Congress Symposium, Supplement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1992 The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications of Palestine as a Social Phenomenon. Tel Aviv 19: 221-234. 1993 The Study of Complex Societies: The Material Culture of Late Bronze Age Canaan as a Case Study. Pp. 443-451 in A. Biran and J. Aviram, eds., Biblical Archaeology Today. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem, June – July 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Gjerstad, E. 1926 Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Gonen, R. 1981 Efrat. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 124-126. 1984 Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 61-73. 1985 Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery? Biblical Archaeology Review 11.3: 4455. Hänsler, H. 1908 Archäologisches aus Jerusalems Umgebung. Das heilige Land 52: 187-193. 1909 Archäologisches aus Jerusalems Umgebung. Gräberfunde. Das heilige Land 53: 30-33.

Cahill, J. 1998 David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?: It Is There. The Archaeological Evidence Proves It. Biblical Archaeology Review 24.4: 34-41, 63.

Hennessy, J. B. 1966 Excavation of a Late Bronze Age Temple at Amman. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98: 155162.

Copeland, L. 1998 The Lower Paleolithic of Jordan. Pp. 5-22 in D.O. Henry, ed., The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan. BAR International. Series 705. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Hermon, S., Prag. K. and Rosen, S.A. 1995 Note on a Handaxe/Chipped Stone Implement Found on the Mount of Olives. Pp. 256-257 in I. Eshel and K. Prag, ed., Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. IV. The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. British

Edelstein, G. 1993 Rephaim, Nahal. Pp. 1277-1282 in Stern 1993, vol. 4. Edelstein, G., Milevsky, I. and Aurant, S. 64

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 6. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Maeir, A.M. 1989 A Note on a Little-known Egyptian Statue from Jerusalem. Göttinger Miszellen 110: 35-40.

Horwitz, L.K. 1989 Sedentism in the Early Bronze IV: a Faunal Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 15-25.

Maeir, A.M., Yellin, J. and Goren, Y. 1992 A Re-evaluation of the Red and Black Bowl from Parker’s excavations in Jerusalem. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 39-53.

Ibrahim, M. and Qadi, N. 1995 el-Musheirfeh ‘Shnellar’ Tombs. An Intermediate Bronze Age Cemetery. Pp. 81-102 in S. Bourke and J.-P. Descoeudres, eds., Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy. Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 3. Sydney: Meditarch, University of Sydney.

Maisler, B. 1933 Cypriote Pottery at a Tomb-Cave in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 49: 248-253. Mazar, E. and Mazar, B. 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount. The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Moran, W.L. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Kallai, Z. 2001 EA 288 and Biblical Historiography. Revue Biblique 108: 5-20.

Na’aman, N. 1981 Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 172-185. 1998 David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?: It Is There. Ancient Texts Prove It. Biblical Archaeology Review 24.4: 42-44.

Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969 Bit Ninurta = Beth Horon – On the History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138-147. Kenyon, K.M. 1962 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961. Exploration Quarterly 94: 72-89. 1963 Excavations in Jerusalem 1962. Exploration Quarterly 95: 7-21. 1966 Excavations in Jerusalem 1965. Exploration Quarterly 98: 73-88. 1968 Excavations in Jerusalem 1967. Exploration Quarterly 100: 97-109. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London: Benn.

Palestine

Negev, A. and Gibson, S., eds. 2001 Ful (Tell el-). Pp. 184-5 in Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York and London: Continuum.

Palestine Palestine

Noy, T. 1982 Reflections on Twenty-Five Years of Prehistoric Research in Jerusalem and its Environs. The Israel Museum Journal 1: 11-16.

Palestine

Kitchen, K.A. 1996 The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment. Pp. 1-13 in K. Randsborg, ed., Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica 67. Acta Archaeologica Supplementa Vol. 1. Copenhagen: Munksgard.

Payne, J. Crowfoot 1995 The Chipped Stone from Kenyon’s Excavations in Jerusalem. Pp. 253-256 in I. Eshel and K. Prag, ed., Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. IV. The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 6. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Lagrange, M.-J. 1894 Saint Étienne et son Sanctuaire à Jérusalem. Paris: Picard.

Phythian-Adams, W.J. 1926 Selected Types of Bronze Age Pottery. With drawings and notes by G. R. Levy. Palestine Museum, Jerusalem. Bulletin No. 3.

Lapp, P.W. 1966 The Dhahr Mirzbâneh Tombs. Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemeteries in Jordan. New Haven: ASOR.

Prag, K. 1974 The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Levant 6: 69116. 1985 The Imitation of Cypriote Wares in Late Bronze Age Palestine. Pp. 154-166 in J.N. Tubb, ed., Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: Institute of Archaeology.

Lewis, N.N. 1987 Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan 18001980. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 19231925. Palestine Exploration Fund, Annual 4, 19231925. 65

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Steiner, M. 1998 David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?: It’s Not There. Archaeology Proves a Negative. Biblical Archaeology Review 24.4: 26-33, 62.

1991 An Early Middle Bronze Age Burial in Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 123: 129-132. 1995 The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Pp. 221241 in I. Eshel and K. Prag, ed., Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. IV. The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 6. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 2000 Bethlehem: A Site Assessment. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132: 169-181. Forthcoming Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. VI.

Stern, E., ed. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. New York and London: Simon and Schuster. Vincent, H. 1911 Underground Jerusalem. Discoveries on the Hill of Ophel (1909-11). London: Cox. Waheeb, M. and Palumbo, G. 1993 The Cultural Resources Management Project in Jordan. Salvage Excavations at a Bronze Age Cemetery near Tell el-‘Umeiri. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27: 147-163.

Pritchard, J.B., ed. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd edition. Princeton: Princeton University.

Warren, C. 1884 Plans, elevations and sections etc. showing the results of his excavations at Jerusalem 1867-1870. Portfolio. London: Executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Rowe, A. 1936 A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Cairo: Department of Antiquities, Government of Palestine.

Weill, R. 1920 La cité de David: compte rendu des fouilles exécutées, à Jérusalem, sur le site de la ville primitive: Campagne de 1913-1914. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Sa‘ad, Y. 1964 A Bronze Age Tomb Group from Hablet el Amud, Silwan Village Lands. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 8-9: 77-80. Saller, S. 1962 Jerusalem and its Surroundings in the Bronze Age. Liber Annuus 12:147-176. 1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem). Part II. The Jebusite Burial Place. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

Wengrow, D. 1996 Egyptian Taskmasters and Heavy Burdens: highland exploitation and the collared-rim pithos of the Bronze/Iron Age Levant. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15.3: 307-326. Wilson C. and Warren, C. 1871 The Recovery of Jerusalem. London: Richard Bentleigh.

Shiloh, Y. 1984 Excavations at the City of David. I. 1978-1982. Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Yadin, Y. et al. 1961 Hazor. Vol. III-IV, Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes.

66

PRAG, JERUSALEM IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENIA BC

Figure 1. A view of the eastern slope of the ancient site of Jerusalem in summer 1961, looking across the Wadi Sitti Maryam from the village of Silwan; with the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj at the foot of the slope, the Kenyon trench above; and the dome of the Aqsa Mosque at the top. Copyright CBRL Jerusalem Archive neg. no. R.378.

Figure 2. Kenyon’s Site A in Jerusalem, looking south from the bottom of the great trench, with the projecting “tower” of the Middle Bronze II wall in the centre of the photograph; at lower right, the Iron Age II city wall (the small stone walls at top rear are modern retaining walls). Copyright CBRL Jerusalem Archive neg. no. 67.132.

67

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Figure 3. Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery from Jerusalem (1) Jar, well finished, wheelmade; fabric: cream-buff; date MB IIA-B. PEF reg. no. 105; said to be Warren, Jerusalem; not published in Warren 1884. (2) Bowl with three loop feet; wheel-made, inverted rim, incurved shallow bowl, flattened base with three loop feet formed by applied thick straps with cut edges. Radial burnish inside, wheel burnished on rim and exterior above loop feet; fabric: grey, surface grey-black; temper: calcite and ‘blown calcite’ voids; date MB II. PEF reg. no. 5131; found in a “Cave East of Olivet”; Warren 1884, pl. XLVII: 26. (3) Juglet, glossy black vertical hand burnish, triple-strand loop handle from rim to shoulder (partly broken), part rim missing, plump rounded body, ring base around a pointed base; fabric: grey, rather flakey and cracked. For juglet: cf. Yadin et al. 1961, pl. 286:11-12. This juglet has a red-brown burnished slip and a disk base, not a ring and point. For the triple handle, cf. Albright 1933, pl. 22: 25 from TBM St. G = MB IIA. Date probably MB IIA-B. PEF reg. no. 101; Warren 1884, pl. XLVII:7. (4) White Slip II sherd from Jerusalem, Site A.20.3, Kenyon Reg. no. 1259; fabric: brickyred, handmade fabric, thick cream slip, interior almost polished, exterior matt with crude matt brown painted decoration; temper: calcite, pebbles. Amman Citadel Museum reg. no. J.10674. Date LB II.

68

CHAPTER 10 JERUSALEM IN THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. ARCHAEOLOGICAL VERSUS LITERARY SOURCES? Margreet L. Steiner results were surprising, especially for the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I Period. Contrary to traditional wisdom based on biblical and historical sources, there seems to be no town in Jerusalem in those periods. This raises the question of the relation of written texts and excavated material – once again. As happened in Jericho (Tell es-Sultan), there seems to be a significant difference between an interpretation based on archaeological material and one based on written sources.

Introduction The history of Jerusalem in the Bronze and Iron Ages continues to be the centre of a heated debate (see for instance Fritz and David 1996, Na’aman 1996 and 1997 and the discussions in Biblical Archaeology Review 23, 1997). However, the lack of published evidence from the large excavations conducted in Jerusalem since 1960 creates severe problems for scholars who wish to evaluate Jerusalem’s position in those periods. In Manchester, Leiden and Jerusalem, teams are working to publish the results of the excavations by Kathleen Kenyon and Yigal Shiloh, and although work is progressing satisfactorily, not enough information seems to have reached other parts of the academic world.

The Problem: Jerusalem

Writing

a

History

of

The history of Jerusalem in the Bronze and Iron Ages traditionally is based on written evidence of various kinds. Biblical stories, monumental inscriptions and Egyptian and Assyrian texts all play an important role. Often enough archaeological material recovered in excavations is then used only to clarify and confirm this picture. The 14th and tenth centuries BC are good candidates for this style of history writing because long and interesting texts have been discovered for those periods: the Amarna letters and the stories of David and Solomon as recorded in the Bible.

When Kathleen Kenyon died in 1978, she had written several popular books on her excavations in Jerusalem, but post-excavation work had not yet started. A committee on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem assigned part of the material to H.J. Franken of the University of Leiden, who asked me to join him as a research assistant. The material sent to Leiden consisted of the field documentation and the pottery sherds of site C in the Old City and of the large trench cut into the slope of the southeastern hill and connecting areas: excavation squares A/I-XXIX. The documentation of the adjoining squares H and P was sent to Leiden later. The A-squares contained the architecture and pottery of the Bronze and Iron Ages overlaid by debris from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Part of the Iron Age material has already been published (Franken and Steiner 1990; Steiner 2001a, Franken 2005).

In the Egyptian site of el-Amarna an archive was found dating to the 14th century and containing the official correspondence of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his son Echnaton (Moran 1992). Several letters came from rulers of Palestinian cities such as Shechem, Gaza, Megiddo and Beth Shan. The scribe of Abdi Khiba, prince of “Urusalim”, wrote six letters that give an intriguing glimpse into the life and worries of this ruler. Based on the contents of the Amarna letters, most studies describe Jerusalem as a large town protected by sturdy walls. It is assumed to be the centre of a city state (Bunimovitz 1995: 326), the seat of the ruler of a dimorphic chiefdom (Finkelstein 1993: 122), or a centre of commerce and trade for the immediate region (Thompson 1992: 332). This function is then supposed to have continued from the Middle Bronze Age.

Although Franken and I worked closely together, we decided to divide the project into two separate parts. The stratigraphic analysis on the basis of the field documentation, the dating of the pottery, and the historical interpretation of the results were to be my domain, while Franken concentrated on an extensive analysis of all pottery from the Early Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period, which will result in a description of the craft of the Jerusalem potters throughout the ages.

Historical sources for the following Iron Age I period (1200-1000 BC) are almost non-existent, except for some biblical references, most of which were written down at a much later period, but which are often used as historical evidence nevertheless. So the traditional view of Jerusalem in this period is of a small, well-fortified town,

The aim of my study was to present a picture of the occupational history of the site in the Bronze and Iron Ages, as evidenced by the archaeological material. The 69

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age, or the beginning of Iron Age I. Yigal Shiloh excavated another part of the same system and followed Kenyon’s interpretation, although with some caution. Study of the pottery in both Leiden and Jerusalem has now clearly shown that the terraces did not originate in the Amarna period. In the terrace fills Kenyon recovered only 15 pottery sherds from the Late Bronze Age, against several hundred sherds dating to Iron Age I. No Late Bronze pottery was found in any of the other terrace fills excavated in the city.

the centre of an independent city-state inhabited by Jebusites. According to the stories in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, King David captured this small town and transformed it into the capital of his state, a position it kept during the United Monarchy, roughly the tenth century. Solomon, David’s successor, enlarged the town and built several palaces and a grandiose temple. All in all Jerusalem is seen as a beautiful city and capital of a large and wealthy empire.

The interesting situation now exists that from the Amarna period we have letters from a ruler living in Urusalim, but no traces of any settlement in Jerusalem. There are three possible ways to explain why no Late Bronze remains have been discovered in Jerusalem, and all have their advocates: either not enough was excavated, or all remains have been eroded or dug away in antiquity, or there were no remains to begin with.

Recent publications, however, have begun to undermine that traditional picture (Jamieson-Drake 1991; Thompson 1992, Gelinas 1995, Auld and Steiner 1996, Finkelstein 1996, Lemche 1996). Their criticism focuses on two problems. The first one is the absence of any archaeological material that could confirm the thesis that Jerusalem was a large city in the Amarna period. The second problem is the paucity of finds from the tenth century, a problem not confined to Jerusalem. The question is then raised whether the texts really reflect a historical reality, or if they have to be “read” differently.

I maintain that enough work has been done. Since the beginning of the 20th century four large trenches have been excavated in the slope of the southeastern hill, where the ancient settlement must have been located, given that the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj was the only available water source: the large trench made by Weill, Crowfoot’s trench on the western slope, Kenyon’s Trench A, and the trench Shiloh dug in his Areas D and E. Those trenches were all exposed down to bedrock, and no Late Bronze architecture and hardly any Late Bronze Age pottery was found. Besides that several deep trenches were made in and around the Old City, which also yielded negative evidence: Kenyon’s site C in Muristan, Avigad’s exposure in the Jewish Quarter, Ute Lux’ work in the Erlöserkirche in Muristan and the excavations by Benjamin and Elat Mazar on the southeast hill. In my opinion this is more than enough exposure to decide whether or not there was a Late Bronze Age town in Jerusalem.

The Archaeological Evidence I want to argue here that texts are often as difficult to interpret and date as (other) archaeological finds and cannot be taken as “historical facts”, and that negative evidence is sometimes just that: evidence that there was no settlement in a certain period. Let me first describe what was found and what was not found during the many excavations in and around Jerusalem. The Late Bronze Age Material from the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BC) was mainly recovered from tombs. On the Mount of Olives the “Jebusite Burial Place” yielded hundreds of pots dating from ca. 1600-1300 BC, mainly local wares (Saller 1964; Fischer, this volume). A smaller tomb was discovered in Nahlat Ahim, northwest of the city, containing Cypriot pottery from the 14th century (Amiran 1961). Baramki (1935) described a pit with pottery and a scarab from the second half of the Late Bronze Age south of the city. North of the Damascus Gate the remains of a possible Egyptian temple from the 13th century were discovered (Barkay 1991).

The hypothesis of heavy erosion is well-known from Jericho. The problem is that even if architectural remains from a large town were all dug away for some reason, Late Bronze Age sherds would have been found in many of the large fills excavated in present-day Jerusalem. But they are absent, while material from the Middle Bronze Age and from Iron Age II is found abundantly. I find it hard to imagine that not only architecture, but also pottery and other small finds have all disappeared, the more so where architecture and pottery from the Middle Bronze Age have survived. Now that extensive excavations have not revealed any trace of the city of Urusalim, maybe it is time to accept that no city existed then.

No remains of a town or city were ever found; there is not a trace of an enclosure wall, no gate, no house, not one piece of architecture – there is simply nothing. When Kathleen Kenyon discovered part of a large terrace system located above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj, she was so thrilled that she attributed it to the Amarna age without further checking her pottery notebooks. She should have done so, because in these notebooks she herself had dated the sherds found in these layers as “LB/EI”, meaning the

The Amarna Letters Nevertheless, six letters were found written by the ruler of Urusalim, and even though no remains have been 70

STEINER, JERUSALEM IN THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES

occupational layers from this period were found elsewhere on the hill, no town walls, no large buildings. The terrace system consisted of at least seven “steps” descending down the slope of the hill and bounded in the south side by a solid stone wall. The whole structure was at least 20 meters high.

found of this settlement, the letters do exist and have to be interpreted and explained. When I first realized that Kenyon had not found the Amarna period settlement in Jerusalem, I assumed that Urusalim was not ancient Jerusalem, but a city located elsewhere in Palestine. Geographical references in the letters, however, make that possibility very slight indeed.

Most steps were very small. Only the third terrace, excavated by both Kenyon and Shiloh, though still small, was large enough to be built upon. One has to assume that the important buildings connected with this system were constructed on top of the hill. The dating of the fill of the system puts it firmly into Iron Age I.

Then I began to read the Urusalim letters carefully and another possibility presented itself. There is no reference in any of the letters to the city itself, nor to its wall or its strong gates. Maybe Urusalim was not a large city at all. In that case we could possibly interpret the “land of Urusalim” as a royal dominion of the pharaoh, with Abdi Khiba as his steward, who lived in a fortified house somewhere near the spring. This does not (as far as I am able to judge) contradict the contents of Abdi Khiba’s letters.

As only a small part of the southeastern hill was occupied, the question must be raised why such an enormous task as building these terraces was undertaken at all. Careful analysis of bedrock from old maps and excavation reports suggests an answer: the presence of both a high rock ridge that could serve conveniently as the northern protection wall and an enormous erosion gully in the rock just south of it. If people wanted to use the high rock ridge and shelter behind it, they had to fill in the gully to provide enough building space.

Jerusalem would not be the only Late Bronze Age “city” disappearing in the course of continuing research. Gitlin (1992) recently argued that the supposed “important and flourishing” city at Tel Miqne was rather a small “baronial estate”, similar examples of which he detected at Aphek, Tel Batash, Jericho and Lachish. Urusalim might have been such a small estate, protecting the route to Beth Shan and supplying the pharaoh with slaves (notably the only sort of tribute mentioned in the Urusalim letters). The tomb on the Mount of Olives may have been connected with Abdi Khiba’s family, and perhaps we should look for his house there as well.

What kind of building was on top of the hill? In principle it could have been anything from a farmstead to a sanctuary. However, if the above mentioned suggestion is correct, then a fortification of some sort is more likely. So instead of a town we may have a small, fortified stronghold, into the construction of which much effort was put. It could not have housed many people, but it would have dominated its surroundings. If so – no part of the actual building remained – then it would be the only fortified building in the hill country known from Iron Age I. Whether this structure was built by local farmers, the Egyptian empire or another group remains an open question. Although the architecture is incomparable to either that of the local villages or that of contemporary Egyptian residences, and thus suggests other influences, the pottery consists entirely of types commonly found in the villages of the hill country.

An important issue at stake here is the continuity of political organization from the Middle Bronze Age onwards. As there is no evidence for any occupation in Jerusalem between the 17th and the 14th centuries (and for the 14th century we have only the Amarna letters), it seems hardly possible to picture Jerusalem as the centre of a city-state that existed continuously from the Middle Bronze Age until the beginning of the tenth century. The idea expressed by Bunimovitz and Finkelstein that during the whole period the central hill country was politically divided between Shechem and Jerusalem certainly needs revision.

Perhaps in those times without a strong central power, some local chief seized control over the ‘Ayn Umm alDaraj and built his stronghold there to take tolls from wandering herdsmen. Maybe the villagers in the northern hill country called the people living in the stronghold Jebusites (no God-fearing Hebrew farmers that is for sure). And maybe all this is nonsense.

Iron Age I Historical sources for Iron Age I (1200-1000 BC) are almost non-existent. Nevertheless, based on the biblical story of David who captured the fortress of Zion, the traditional view sees Jerusalem in this period as a small, well-fortified town that was the centre of an independent city state.

This new view of Jerusalem in Iron Age I does change the perspective of the situation in the following Iron Age II. If no town or city existed at Jerusalem in Iron Age I, it means that the town from the tenth or ninth centuries excavated there (see below) was a new establishment. The implications of that change are worth exploring, as I have tried to do elsewhere (2001b). The least one can say

However, what was actually found tells (again) a different story. A series of terraces were excavated that were built over an earlier building with a complete collared rim jar on its plastered floor (Steiner 1994). No 71

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

not offer enough space for the inhabitants of the town and they had to use the slope. Not so, however, in the tenth century. The slope was then partly covered by the stepped stone structure, and it seems that the available building area was restricted to the top of the hill. The town apparently was fortified (if at all) by walls along this top. The above-mentioned casemate wall may have functioned to connect this built-up area with another quarter farther north.

is that the continuity in political organization from the Early to the Late Iron Age, presumed by Finkelstein (1993: 125) and Thompson (1992: 332), is again open to question. Jerusalem was a new town with new political functions, be it as a regional administrative centre or even as the capital of a newly established state, however small that may have been. The Tenth Century

Based on the archaeological evidence the settlement of Jerusalem in the tenth or early ninth century can be described as a small town, occupied mainly by public buildings. Its size would not have exceeded 12 hectares and it may have housed up to 2000 inhabitants. Because no trace of an earlier town has been discovered, we have to assume that a new town was founded in that period, a town with impressive public buildings, but without large residential quarters, indicating that it functioned as a regional administrative centre or as the capital of a small, newly established state. Surveys in the hill country of Judah have confirmed this picture of Jerusalem as a regional centre in Iron Age IIA (Ofer 1994).

Archaeology reveals a different situation for the tenth century than for the Amarna period, because architecture was excavated as well as pottery sherds and other objects. Whether the remains really confirm the picture of the city of David and Solomon as described in the Bible is a different question. The most conspicuous discovery is what is commonly called the “stepped stone structure”. Elements of it were discovered by Macalister, who called it the Jebusite Ramp; other parts were excavated by both Kenyon and Shiloh. It consists of a mantle of stones and some adjoining terraces, laid out over the pre-existing building debris on the slope of the hill. Originally it must have been at least 27 meters high and 40 meters wide at the top, which makes it by far the largest and most impressive structure of its kind. Linked with this structure is a casemate wall, a very small part of which has been discovered on top of the hill. This wall probably ran north.

This means that ideas ventured recently by JamiesonDrake (1991) about Jerusalem and Judah have to be reconsidered. It is surprising to see that both skeptics (Thompson and Lemche) and traditionalists (Na’aman) use Jamieson-Drake’s study as a basis for their widely different views of Jerusalem in Iron Age II. JamiesonDrake’s conclusions, however, merit more caution than they usually receive. In his “public works catalogue”, for instance, he notes for Jerusalem in the tenth century only the casemate wall, and does not seem to be aware of the existence of the stepped stone structure and other architectural elements mentioned above, all of which had been published before he started his study. Thus, according to him, Jerusalem became a “real” city with large public works, a bureaucracy and eventually a temple only in the eighth century, during which period Judah supposedly became a state for the first time in its history.

A number of fine ashlars and a large proto-aeolic capital, building elements normally used for public buildings, were found by Kenyon in destruction debris near the stepped stone structure. A wall made of similar ashlars was found in her site SII more to the north, while some luxury items came from Shiloh’s excavation: a bronze fist that may have belonged to the statue of a god (Baal?) and part of a large pottery stand portraying a bearded man. At the foot of the stepped stone structure several traces of habitation were found: plastered floors, a bread oven and some ash layers. Kenyon recovered a total of 122 rim sherds of pottery jars and bowls in the fill of the stepped stone structure and on the plastered floors. Many sherds show the well-known criss-cross burnishing on the inside, which dates them firmly to the beginning of the Iron Age II. However, only one sherd showed the dark red slip layer that is traditionally considered the hallmark of the tenth century. So it is possible that these structures date to the later tenth or even the beginning of the ninth century.

I hope to have shown that the situation is more complicated. Even in the tenth or early ninth century large public works were constructed, implying at least a concentration of power in the hands of an emerging elite and a growing supremacy of the settlement in the region. It seems, however, unlikely that this Jerusalem was the capital of a large state, the capital of the United Monarchy of the biblical texts. Jerusalem was not very different from other towns of the tenth and ninth centuries. Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer and Lachish were all small towns showing the same characteristics: large fortifications, ashlar masonry, public buildings and hardly any residential quarters. Based on the archaeological record alone, one would rather assume that these settlements were the seats of the governments of several small regional states that only later fused into the historically attested states of Israel and Judah. The United

These finds indicate the existence of defensive walls, fortifications and public buildings, maybe even a temple (for Baal?) in the settlement. What is lacking in the archaeological record are houses. Compared to the finds from the Middle Bronze Age and the seventh century the difference is striking. In those periods a city wall was built lower down the slope of the hill to protect a residential quarter there. Apparently the top of the hill did 72

STEINER, JERUSALEM IN THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES

Fritz, V. and P.R. Davies 1996 The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State. Sheffield.

Monarchy is not a historical fact and much more research has to be done on the political and economic situation in the tenth and ninth centuries.

Gelinas, M.M. 1994 United Monarchy – Divided Monarchy. Fact or Fiction. Pp. 227-237 in S.W. Holloway and L.K. Handy, eds., The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. Sheffield.

Conclusion All in all the archaeological remains do not sustain the notion, derived mostly from written sources, that Jerusalem was continuously occupied from the Middle Bronze Age onwards. On the contrary, Jerusalem had a very fragmented history. It was a fortified town only in the 18th century and from the tenth or ninth century onwards, with a large occupational gap from the 17th to the 12th century and sporadic occupation during Iron Age I.

Gitlin, B. 1991 The Late Bronze Age “City” at Tel Miqne/Ekron. Eretz-Israel 23: 50*-53*. Jamieson-Drake, D. 1992 The Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach. Sheffield.

What this means for the interpretation of the written sources is a different, although very interesting question. The Execration Texts, Amarna letters and biblical texts may have to be re-examined in the light of Jerusalem’s history as revealed by archaeology.

Lemche, N.P. 1993 From Patronage Society to Patronage State. Pp. 106-120 in V. Fritz and P.R. Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State. Sheffield. Moran, W.L. 1990 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore.

Bibliography Amiran, R. 1961 A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem. Eretz Israel 6: 25-37 (Hebrew; English summary, 27*).

Na’aman, N. 1996 The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 17-28. 1997 Cow Town or Royal Capital? Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeology Review 23: 43-47.

Auld, A.G. and M.L. Steiner 1996 Jerusalem I, from the Bronze Age to the Maccabees. Cambridge. Baramki, D.C. 1936 An Ancient Cistern in the Ground of Government House in Jerusalem. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4:165-167.

Ofer, A. 1994 “All the Hill Country of Judah”: From Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy. Pp. 92-121 in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem.

Barkay, G. 1990 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem. Eretz Israel 21: 94-106 (Hebrew; English summary, 204*).

Saller, S.J. 1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem). Part II. The Jebusite Burial Place. Jerusalem.

Bunimovitz, S. 1995 On the Edge of Empires – Late Bronze Age (15001200 BCE). Pp. 320-329 in T.E. Levy, ed., The Archaeology of Society. London.

Steiner, M.L. 1994 Redating the Terraces of Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 44: 13-20. 2001a Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961-1967, Vol. III. The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield. 2001b Jerusalem in the 10th and 7th Centuries BCE: From Administrative Centre to Commercial City. Pp. 280-288 in A. Mazar, ed., Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Sheffield.

Finkelstein, I. 1993 The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Pp. 119-131 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. PreCongress Symposium Supplement. Jerusalem. Franken, H.J. 2005 A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient Jerusalem: Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961-1967. Sheffield.

Thompson, T. 1992 Early History of the Israelite People, from the written and archaeological sources. Leiden.

Franken, H.J. and M.L. Steiner 1990 Excavations at Jerusalem 1961-1967, vol. II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-east Hill. Oxford. 73

CHAPTER 11 JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE Larry G. Herr archaeological record of Jerusalem one of the most difficult to sort out anywhere in the Near East. For these reasons the excavators were not able to sort out their finds with enough accuracy to make possible a solid reconstruction of the city at any period.

History of Excavations Serious archaeological excavations, which included Iron Age finds, were first conducted in Jerusalem by the British Palestine Exploration Fund from 1864 to 1867 by Charles Warren, who dug shafts and tunnels along the Haram al-Sharif (Warren 1876). But, except for a shaft leading down to the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj south of the Old City walls, he did not produce results from the Iron Age. Following Warren, most excavations took place on the ridge south of the Haram al-Sharif, where the Iron Age city was located. Bliss and Dickie, again sponsored by the Palestine Exploration Fund, conducted similar tunneling excavations between 1894 and 1897 on the ridge above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj looking for the Iron Age city walls (Bliss and Dickie 1898); although they initially thought they were successful, their conclusions have not stood the test of time. The nadir of archaeology in the Holy Land was the British expedition of M.B. Parker, who in 1909 and 1911 tunneled under Jerusalem in a ludicrous attempt to find Solomon’s rumored treasure (Silberman 1980). Serendipitously, the French archaeologist L. Vincent accompanied Parker and was able to document the tunnels connected with the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj (Vincent 1911). With the help of Rothschild money, R. Weill excavated large parts of the southern tip of the southern ridge near the Silwan Pool in 1913 to 1914 (Weill 1920; 1947). The PEF returned to Jerusalem in 1923 to 1925 when R.A.S. Macalister and J.G. Duncan excavated part of the summit of the southern ridge, including a portion of defensive walls along the top of the eastern slope (Macalister and Duncan 1926). As part of the same project, J.W. Crowfoot excavated a portion of the western slope of the ridge; he found what might be an Iron Age gate (Crowfoot and FitzGerald 1929). However, the results and publications of those digs contained too much speculation and were too inaccurate to be very instructive.

The road to recovery started in 1961 when British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon began her excavations that lasted until 1967 (Kenyon 1974; Tushingham 1985; Franken and Steiner 1990). Although Kenyon was extremely rigorous in methods of excavation and stratigraphic recording procedures, she concentrated on relatively narrow exposure of architecture. Thus, while she was able to establish an excellent vertical stratigraphy, she was not able to describe the nature of her finds within an architectural context. Between 1968 and 1978 B. Mazar and M. Ben-Dov excavated a very large area south of the Haram al-Sharif in which they recovered only a few remains from the Iron Age (Ben Dov 1982); an adjunct of that excavation directed by B. Mazar and E. Mazar uncovered an Iron II gate and public building in 1986-1987 (E. Mazar and B. Mazar 1989). During the same time period N. Avigad excavated in the southern portion of the Old City, the Jewish Quarter, in which significant Iron II finds were made (Avigad 1980: 23-60) including evidence of a major expansion of the city in late Iron II. But the major Iron Age excavations took place on the southern ridge near the location of Kenyon’s trenches by Y. Shiloh from 1978 to 1984 (Shiloh 1984; Ariel 1990; DeGroot and Ariel 1992; Ariel 2000); he expanded Kenyon’s excavations and identified 25 levels of occupation. Other excavations include those of D. Bahat and M. Broshi in the Armenian Quarter, which produced late Iron II pottery (Broshi 1972). Tombs south of the Old City at Ketef Hinnom (Ras ed-Dabbus) were excavated by G. Barkay (1994). Many other excavations and architectural studies have taken place in Jerusalem, but none have produced significant Iron Age remains.

Moreover, early excavators were hampered by their inability to interpret accurately and record completely the remains they found. As a result, much information was lost or reported so poorly that reconstructions of the remains, on paper or in reality, are impossible. Because Jerusalem was occupied through many millennia, the remains themselves thwarted archaeological research. Pits, rebuilding, stabilization of slopes covered with archaeological deposits, ancient removal of debris so new buildings could be founded on bedrock, and the presence of modern structures all combine to make the

This article includes references to many features within the city of Jerusalem and at other sites as well. To cite each one with bibliographic references would double the bibliography already included here. All the uncited references are to features that are very well known by archaeologists specializing in western Palestine. Moreover, they may all be found under the appropriate headings in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Stern 1993).

74

HERR, JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE

the city at the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj in the Wadi Sitti Maryam. To bring the water inside the city and make it available to a much larger population the Silwan tunnel (probably mentioned in 2 Kings 20:20) was built. It brought the water of the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj under the ridge of David’s city to a low spot where the Silwan pool was built to store the water and provide access to scores of water carriers at a single time. 2) To protect this water system and the refugee camp, Hezekiah built a huge wall surrounding the new city (2 Kings 22:14). 3) The crowded conditions of the city may also have forced the royal family to remove themselves from the hustle-bustle by constructing a rural estate near Bir Qadismu (Ramat Rahel), about three kilometers south of Jerusalem, which seems to have been a royal palace of the seventh century.

Overview of Occupational History in the Literary Sources Several literary sources mention events that took place in Jerusalem. The Bible is by far the most significant of these. Most sources, however, are mostly limited to the last centuries of the Iron Age in Jerusalem. Biblical stories of early events in Jerusalem reflect much later time periods. The story of Abraham and Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-24), which describes Abraham giving a tithe to the Priest-King of Salem is probably best understood as coming from Iron I Jerusalem (A. Mazar 1994: 72). The deity mentioned in that story, El-Elyon, most likely the local deity of Jerusalem, was later identified with Yahweh (Exodus 6:3) (Clements 1965: 43-44). Another story is an undatable one in Judges 19, where the Deuteronomistic authors remembered Jerusalem as a Jebusite town. In 2 Samuel 24:15-25 David purchased a threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite; the Hurrian features of this name have suggested the Jebusites were Hurrians (B. Mazar 1986: 35-48); Yadin (1952) proposed that the biblical phrase in 2 Samuel 5:6 “the lame and the blind” refers (mockingly?) to a Hittite military ritual.

When the Assyrians finally invaded Judah toward the end of the eighth century under Sennacherib, they apparently did not destroy the city, but were bought off with tribute (according to Sennacherib – Pritchard 1969: 1987) or were miraculously destroyed by God (according to 2 Kings 19:35-36). With the fall of the Assyrian empire near the end of the seventh century, the city found itself a pawn between the two powers of Babylon and Egypt as they vied for control of the Levant, forcing several changes of allegiance by Jerusalem over the period between 609 and 582 BC (Pritchard 1969: 307). During this period Jerusalem continued to grow so that several of its inhabitants had to build houses on the steep slopes of the site. The Babylonians finally destroyed the city in 586 BC (Pritchard 1969: 563; 2 Kings 24-25).

During the time of David the city was apparently still cosmopolitan with the Deuteronomistic historians calling at least one of David’s soldiers living in Jerusalem a Hittite (2 Samuel 11). After the Israelite monarchy divided, Jerusalem continued to be the capital of the southern kingdom, Judah, but was now reduced to a polity little larger than a city-state called “House of David” by two monumental inscriptions: the Moabite Mesha Stele from Dhiban and the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan (Tell el-Qadi). The Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonk in Egyptian) may have besieged Jerusalem when he invaded the southern Levant and apparently looted Jerusalem of its valuables. Shishak also lists the cities he claims to have conquered (Pritchard 1969).

In the period discussions that follow I will examine Jerusalem in terms of several classes of material culture, including, where appropriate and possible, urban plan, architecture, technology, water systems, trade, religion, art, writing, and burials. Iron I (Twelfth and Eleventh Centuries BC) Excavations have found very few remains from Iron I in Jerusalem and we can not include all the types of material culture listed above in our discussion. Only the excavations of Y. Shiloh on the eastern slope of Jerusalem’s southern ridge (directly south of the Haram al-Sharif) in Areas D1 and E1 uncovered any clear remains at all. But these included only small numbers of potsherds datable to Iron I in Stratum 15 (perhaps the eleventh century) (Shiloh 1984: 26).

Little growth occurred during the next 200 years, but a major change took place when the Assyrians conquered the nation of Israel, Judah’s relative to the north (Pritchard 1969: 284). Droves of refugees apparently fled south into Judah and many settled in a huge, sprawling refugee camp on the hill west of Jerusalem. For the first time Jerusalem grew beyond the original confines of the ridge immediately above the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj. This unprecedented population explosion created many problems for the city and its government. There was a huge unemployed population searching for sustenance; a massive sanitation problem undoubtedly made living conditions very difficult; and the Assyrians were threatening on the horizon. The Judean king, Hezekiah, apparently initiated two large building projects and perhaps a third one to employ many of the refugees and at the same time to create security against the Assyrian threat. 1) The main water source at the time was outside

Kenyon (1974) uncovered a possible fortification wall halfway down the eastern slope above the ‘Ayn Umm alDaraj that she dated to the Middle Bronze Age. She further speculated that it was reused through the LB and Iron Ages. But this is difficult to prove because there are no stratigraphic indications for the reuse of the wall. The only reason it can be considered as a possibility is that there is no other likely candidate for the wall.

75

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

probably did not rise correspondingly. There may have been as many as 2000 people in the city, however, as habitations may have spread to the north toward the governmental buildings (King 1992). Compared to other major centers in the area, Jerusalem seems to have been a relatively small provincial town. It seems that we may speak of the Iron IIA period as containing the seeds of an urbanized Jerusalem. Urban centers tend to house official institutions and a complex organization of job specialization, while towns and villages were for the ordinary peasant population. So far there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that Jerusalem was an urban center.

Probably the greatest feature of this time was identified only in retrospect. Shiloh had identified a large stepped structure on the eastern slopes found by both Macalister and Kenyon in earlier excavations as a tenth-century construction (Shiloh 1984). Beneath it was a series of subterranean support walls for an elaborate terracing system that Shiloh dated to the Late Bronze Age. Recently, Shiloh’s two assistants in that area have published strong arguments for seeing both the subterranean support walls and the stepped structure as belonging to one and the same structure with pottery dating to the early twelfth century (Cahill and Tarler 1994: 34). If they are correct, and I am inclined to agree, it means that the large stepped structure may have supported part of the Jebusite (Iron I) city, perhaps a citadel (A. Mazar 1994: 73).

However, this may be because Jerusalem was continually inhabited for centuries, with each subsequent settlement destroying part of the cities that went before. Further, only a small part of the city inhabited at that time has been excavated; most of the area is in private ownership. If Jerusalem was a royal city, it may have had features similar to the other royal sites. Each of the other royal sites included important city walls and gates (mostly of the six-chambered variety), a palace compound, other public buildings from which to administer and operate the region surrounding them, and impressive water systems. The palaces were separately walled compounds within the city, but usually situated to one edge in order to isolate the royal family and their retainers from the lower classes and to provide security. Jerusalem may also have boasted similar or related features. In every case, water sources were near one edge of the site and all provided access to water from within the city walls.

The city was undoubtedly limited to the southeast ridge located between al-Wad on the west and the Wadi Sitti Maryam on the east. It could not have extended farther south than the tip of the ridge and probably did not go farther north than the slight saddle south of the Haram alSharif. If these limits are correct, and the lack of evidence elsewhere would suggest that they are, the site was merely a medium-sized settlement of approximately five hectares and would not have held more than 1000-1500 inhabitants (Broshi 1974). Iron IIA (Tenth Century BC) The primary results from excavations in Jerusalem datable to Iron IIA (Shiloh’s City of David Stratum 14 and related finds from earlier excavations) are meager. They do not reflect the type of monumental city Jerusalem should have been based on the biblical description (1 Kings 6-9). The monumental stepped structure described above as constructed in the LB/Iron I transition may have been reused (Cahill and Tarler 1994). Wall fragments on the southeast hillside have also been found (Ariel 2000), and parts of thick walls may have belonged to city walls, but a water channel running along the eastern side of the site and often dated to this period, may actually be later (Ariel 2000). Because the finds from Jerusalem at this time are so minor, we cannot substantiate that it was a royal city. If it was, however, several of the features found at other royal cities, such as Hazor (Tell el-Qedah), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), and Gezer (Tell Jezer), may have been present in Jerusalem (Herr 1997: 122-129), but I must emphasize how speculative such an idea is.

Architecture: Nothing of the temple described in the Bible by the Deuteronomist (1 Kings 6) has been found and it probably never will be (Ritmeyer 1996). All descriptions and reconstructions must be based on the biblical text alone (see Herr 1997: 125 for more details). We know little that is certain about the Iron IIA city wall of Jerusalem. Kenyon’s speculation that the MB II wall she found continued in use has no archaeological foundation. It was a solid wall. The other royal cities were fortified with casemate walls (some debate its presence at Megiddo, however). Other casemate walls from Iron IIA were found at Qaimun (Jokneam/Yoqneam XV-XIV), ‘Ain Shems (Beth Shemesh IIA), Tell Beit Mirsim, and Khirbet el-‘Asheq (En Gev 5-4). Early excavations in Jerusalem along the western edge of the site conducted by Crowfoot found a solid wall 27 m long, 8 m thick, and up to 7 m high connected with a gate, the “Western Gate” or “Valley Gate” (Geva 1994: 2). It was certainly in use in Hellenistic times, but was built earlier, perhaps as early as the tenth century. But its description sounds much like the later wall found by Avigad in the Jewish Quarter and could therefore be its contemporary during the end of the seventh century. Kenyon also found a casemate wall, turning westward and crossing the ridge north of Shiloh’s Area G, that probably separated the

Urban Plan: The size and population of the site probably remained the same as it had been in Iron I. If governmental buildings and the temple were constructed north of the city, as the Bible suggests (1 Kings 6-9), the city grew to the north during this period. Those new constructions would have almost tripled the area of the site to around 13 hectares, but, because most of the area was taken up with public buildings, the population 76

HERR, JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE

Throughout Palestine at Iron II sites there is virtually no evidence for small hovels for very poor people (Holladay 1994: 392). It would thus seem that the family-based social system helped support its members with reasonable personal security. The houses probably held a nuclear family or a small extended family. To build a relatively nice house would have required very little of the family’s economic capital, only the sweat to carry thousands of stones, roughly cut them so they could fit with chinking stones holding them in place, and lift them into place. A single family would need several months to build such a house (Douglas Clark, personal communication).

royal and administrative precincts from residential areas to the south (Kenyon 1974: 114-115). The area of administrative activities lay close to this wall as is shown by the ashlar stones and Proto-Ionic capital found nearby. These architectural features are usually associated with royal constructions at other sites. Nothing is known archaeologically about a palace in Jerusalem. Megiddo had two palaces, one with its own wall and gate system (Palace 1723), and another on the northern edge of the site (Palace 6000). Both palaces were similar in plan to a type of large house or small palace in northern Mesopotamia and Syria called a bît hilani, which consisted of a pillared entryway, a central courtyard surrounded by rectangular rooms and a stairwell leading to an upper floor. It could be that such a palace also existed in Jerusalem. Part of the wall separating the royal compound from the residential quarters of the city may have recently been discovered during excavations south of the Haram al-Sharif (E. Mazar 1994). A part of a gateway and fragments of a probable administrative building near the gate were also found. Although the surfaces contained pottery from Iron IIB, there were also sherds that could be dated to Iron IIA. The architectural features are discussed in more detail below in the Iron IIB section.

Technology: Although ashlar masonry is documented in Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age, there is no strong evidence that it came to the southern Levant until the tenth century. At that time it was apparently the Phoenicians who brought it with them (Shiloh 1979). This type of masonry remained typical of royal architecture throughout the rest of Iron II. Associated with ashlar masonry, also throughout Iron II, was the Proto-Ionic capital (also called Proto-Aeolic or volute), which was probably intended to support lintels of monumental gateways or doors (Shiloh 1979). Both ashlar masonry and at least one Proto-Ionic capital were found near the probable administrative quarter of Jerusalem by Kenyon (above).

In the residential quarters, such as the area on the southeast slope (Ariel 2000), fragments of houses were found. These may have followed the typical Iron Age house plan. It was based on four-rooms, a plan already known in many parts of the southern Levant during Iron I. It consisted of a broadroom in the back of the house and three longrooms, which could be subdivided, abutting the broadroom. The middle of these longrooms may have been a family courtyard, because hearths and bins are often found there. The side rooms were often paved with cobbles or flagstones and may have housed the family’s small flock of animals (Stager 1985). More modest families built similar structures, but with only three rooms, a broadroom at the back with two longrooms abutting it. Archaeological and ethnographic studies (Stager 1985; Daviau 1993; Holladay 1994: 387-389) suggest the houses must have had two stories, at least over part of their area. Several sites have produced features that look like mangers in the side rooms where cobbled floors were ideal for stabling animals. Heavy goods, such as grains, fuels, oil, and water, would have been stored on the ground floor, while lighter ones, including dried milk products (cheeses), dried fruits, dung for fuel, and straw to be used for bedding animals could be placed on the roof or second story. But the presence of heavy roof rollers (to flatten the mud roofs periodically) suggests the roofs were stronger than we might think. Sites such as Tall al-‘Umayri in Jordan have also produced thick roof deposits at the bottom of destruction layers indicating that roofs were very solid features.

Trade: The fact that imports from Phoenicia occurred is shown by the technologies of ashlar masonry and ProtoIonic capitals, which seem to have come from that region (Shiloh: 1979). Religion: The Bible is replete with references to Israelite religious practices, but most of this information comes from late compilations, especially by the Deuteronomistic historians. Like we do today, the ancients probably transposed much of their later theological expression, modes of worship, and political ideology into the accounts of earlier periods. Because the temple, as described in the Bible, seems to have been a royal cult attached to the palace, it may have been largely unavailable to the general populace, though the Deuteronomists make it appear as a genuine public institution. Moreover, because Jerusalem was several days’ journey from some tribal centers, such as those in Galilee or the Jezreel Valley, people could not easily travel to the temple. Pilgrimage for those living far from Jerusalem would have entailed great difficulties. We should therefore view the temple as primarily serving an elite population localized to the Jerusalem area. The biblical term “high place” probably refers to what the normal population used for their religious rituals; it was apparently a euphemism for a holy place of sacrifice regardless of altitude. They were most likely easily available to the common people at this time. The temple at Jerusalem may have been viewed in this period as a “high place.”

77

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Burials: Not very many burials from this time in Palestine are known. Somewhat debated are the barrelvaulted rock-cut chambers at the southern tip of the southeast ridge. Some speculate they were royal tombs dating to the united monarchy (Shanks 1995). But the chambers, if they were originally tombs, contained no tomb artifacts and were differently shaped than other Iron II tombs. Indeed, both the function and date of the structures are unknown. Some of the tombs surveyed by Ussishkin in the village of Silwan across the Wadi Sitti Maryam from Jerusalem may date to this period, but no original interments have been found (Ussishkin 1993). For a detailed look at Iron Age burial practices and symbolisms see Bloch-Smith 1992.

Finds from numerous sites and times illustrate temple furnishings, such as lavers, wheeled stands, incense stands, incense altars, lamp stands (Meyers 1976), lamps, cherubim (Borowski 1995), altars of sacrifice, etc (Meyers 1992). Those objects give us a good picture of what the temple furniture probably looked like, for, although they are described in 1 Kings, there is not enough detail in the biblical descriptions alone to imagine what they looked like. At Jerusalem in Shiloh’s Area E1 were found two ceramic chalices and the lower half of a fenestrated cultic stand (Cahill and Tarler 1994: 36), items normally associated with cultic activities. They were probably private cultic furnishings. The God of Jerusalem, known as Yahweh in the Bible, is remembered as a deity derived from Canaanite El (Exodus 6:3), who is often symbolized by a bull. It is likely that at least some of the bovine figurines found in Jerusalem were popular depictions of El/Yahweh. This connection with El may explain the popularity of Asherah figurines from Jerusalem in Iron IIC.

Water Systems: None of the water systems at Jerusalem can clearly be attributed to Iron Age IIA, but one of the channels in the Jerusalem system, sometimes called the Siloam Channel, may have carried water from the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj along the hillside to water fields in the Wadi Sitti Maryam (Shiloh 1993: 709-712; but see Ariel 2000 for a different view).

Art: By far the most important artistic/religious item from the tenth century is the cult stand from a cultic room at Tell Ta‘anek (Taanach). Although not found in Jerusalem, it tells us much about the tenth century cult of Yahweh. It includes four registers of religious symbolism, probably in alternating tiers of Yahweh and Asherah symbols (King 1988: 107; Hestrin 1991). In the lowest register Asherah is depicted nude between two lions, her symbols in Canaanite literary texts; the second register shows a vacant spot (invisible Yahweh?) between two cherubim (composite beasts with a human head, a lion or bull body, and eagle wings), the symbols of Yahweh; the third register has Asherah’s two lions but this time, symbolizing the goddess, a tree of life with goats eating from it; and the fourth register has a solar disk, which many say was associated with Yahweh worship (Dever 1994: 152), above a horse, connected with solar themes in the Bible (2 Kings 23:11). This stand most likely represents a popular Israelite theology that saw Yahweh having, like El, a consort named Asherah. She is by far the most frequently mentioned goddess in the Bible, even invading the sanctity of the Jerusalem temple at times (2 Kings 21:7). Although the popularity of this Yahweh-Asherah worship was suppressed by later “orthodox” biblical writers and editors writing for the literary and religious elite, archaeology indicates that the combined Yahweh-Asherah cult was most likely the one around which most Israelites, including those in Jerusalem, conducted their worship. Even the Bible makes clear that Israel was not afraid of iconographic representations. Depictions of cherubim, symbolizing guardianship, lined the walls of the Jerusalem temple, even covering the most holy ark, or box, of the covenant; and the great sea in the court of the temple was supported by twelve bovines, perhaps remembering the El connections of Yahweh.

Iron IIB (Ninth and Eighth Centuries BC) Toward the end of the tenth century Pharaoh Shishak invaded the southern Levant and both the Bible and Shishak claim that he was largely successful in reducing the several monarchies in that region to little more than frustrated, poverty-stricken kinglets. However, no archaeological evidence for his invasion comes from Jerusalem, even though other archaeological sites in Palestine may contain destruction layers from his campaign. Jerusalem’s subsequent relations with the country of North Israel were hot and cold, according to the Deuteronomistic authors of the Book of Kings. From time to time we hear of negotiations for alliances, such as those in 1 Kings 22, primarily when there was a military threat from outside. Otherwise, the two nations often did not trust each other. This meant that, because the border with North Israel was only a few km north of Jerusalem, security for the city was undoubtedly a prime concern. Settlement Patterns: The literary sources agree that Jerusalem at this time (Strata 13-12 in Shiloh’s phasing) retained its status as a capital city, but ruled over a vastly smaller territory called Judah, centering on the highland regions mostly south of the city and the northern Negev around Tell es-Saba‘ (Beersheba). Urban Plans: Very little archaeological information is known for Jerusalem at this time (Shiloh’s Strata 13 [ninth century] and 12 [eighth century]). It is assumed that the city plan remained the same with the temple and palace compounds to the north still separated from the residential quarters of the city to the south by its own compound wall. Iron IIB royal compounds with a similar relation to the rest of the urban plan come from Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir) in Judah and Sebastia (Samaria) and 78

HERR, JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE

the royal compound was genuinely fortified; the compound walls were not merely for ceremonial activities. Immediately east of the gate was part of an administrative building; the upper floors may have held administrative activities, but the lower floor contained large pithoi dated to the eighth century; the lower rooms probably functioned as part of the palace storehouses. Confirming the royal administrative function of the area was an inscription on a shoulder of one of the pithoi reading lsrh'w...; it may be translated as “belonging to the official of the ...”; the last two letters can be applied to “bakery”, “treasury”, or “stables”. In any case, the title “sar” is a typical one for high government officials. Burned beams, some of which were cedar, overlay the pithoi. Those two structures may have been built in the tenth century, but most of the finds come from Iron IIB.

Hazor in North Israel. Although we cannot use the specifics of these palaces to suggest the plan at Jerusalem, we can use certain parts of their relationship to the rest of the city as heuristic devices to help understand Jerusalem. The palace at Lachish was situated in the middle of the site; it was built on a platform making it the highest visible feature in the city. One entered the palace compound from the main street of the city leading from the city gate. After passing a series of tripartite pillared buildings (probably serving as trade emporia or markets – Herr 1988), one entered the walled palace compound through its own gate. At Samaria the palace was also situated in the middle of the city and separated from the rest of the town by its own casemate wall. The palace at Hazor was, like Jerusalem, located at one of the narrow ends of the city at the highest part; it also had its own fortification wall. Obviously, we can not simply transpose those palaces to Jerusalem, but we can suggest that, like them, the Jerusalem palace would have been in its own walled compound and, viewed from the domestic quarters of the city from the south, appeared to be the highest spot at the site (assuming the temple was actually part of the palace).

Some of the houses built on the eastern slope of the city may belong to the eighth century. But see Iron IIC for their description. Religion, Art, and Writing: The type of religion practiced by ordinary people in Jerusalem is best indicated from finds outside Jerusalem. The inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud dating to about 800 BC illustrate the continued influence of fertility religions on the Yahwism of Judah. Two of the inscriptions invoke blessings for individuals in the name of “Yahweh and his Asherah”. Several seals come from this period, including the impression of one that was most likely the seal of King Ahaz of the late eighth century (Deutsch 1998), though it was purchased on the antiquities market.

Architecture: The three palace compounds discussed above also show similarities in certain features inside the compound. Each had large open spaces where members of the royal families could stroll or address large groups of retainers; there were associated buildings most likely dedicated to the support of the royals and their staff, including storehouses and gateways; and each had a central building that may properly be labeled the “palace”. Sometimes the palaces were located at one edge of the compound and at others they were central. Based on the similarity of urban plan at Jerusalem and Hazor where the palaces were at one end of a narrow city built on a ridge, we may assume that the Jerusalem palace compound was separated from the rest of the city by a wall pierced by a gate. Administrative buildings were most likely clustered around the gate in the southern part of the compound as the storehouses were also. The palace structure itself was toward the northern end of the compound to which the temple was attached. Just how common people entered the temple is completely unknown and no parallel from Palestine allows us to make a suggestion. It would seem unlikely that everyone would normally walk directly through the palace compound.

Burials: The tombs of the Jerusalem area have been well documented (Ussishkin 1993; Barkay and Kloner 1986; Barkay, Kloner, and Mazar 1994). Ussishkin, who studied the architecture of the tombs of Silwan in great detail (1993), suggests that the gabled ceilings and other architectural features relate to Phoenician tombs of the eighth century. The tombs were essentially houses for the dead carved out of the limestone terrace cliffs. A small door led into a room, which could have other rooms attached. Along the sides of the room(s) were benches that sometimes contained omega-shaped headrests. When the tomb was full, the bones of earlier burials were collected and placed in a repository within the tomb. In that way the tomb could be used for many generations. This suggests they were family tombs. Although most of the tombs in the Jerusalem area were robbed of any contents long ago, other, less pretentious tombs outside Jerusalem produced objects such as lamps and jugs that were most likely left as containers for ritual goods to aid the deceased in the realm of the dead. Perhaps they saw their tombs as houses and wanted to outfit them as such. Others have suggested the grave goods were left as funerary offerings (see Bloch-Smith 1992 for more details).

The gatehouse to that area and part of the palace administrative buildings may have been discovered recently (E. Mazar 1994) in an area also partially excavated by Warren and Kenyon. The gate, made up of four chambers, pierced a wall that separated the lower, residential parts of the city from the administrative section south of the Haram al-Sharif. In front of the gate there seems to have been a small tower, suggesting that 79

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

ambitious powers, each seeking to fill the Assyrian vacuum. The Bible records several flip-flops in loyalties for Jerusalem, and the situation was apparently similar among its neighbors. There is both archaeological and literary evidence of a successful Babylonian invasion of the Philistine cities of Ascalon (Ashkelon) and MiqneEkron in 604-603 BC (King 1993). Survival with prosperity depended on how successfully national leaders made and broke alliances.

Iron IIC (Late Eighth to Mid Sixth Centuries BC) Historical Overview: The late eighth and seventh centuries saw several Assyrian invasions into the southern Levant, which were primarily intended to open and maintain a route to Egypt along the coast. But in order to do so, they had to secure their eastern flank, which meant military control first of Damascus and North Israel in the north and then of Jerusalem (Judah) in the south. The Assyrians also sponsored large-scale economic projects tailored to their wide-spread trade system. They preferred to work with kings loyal to them rather than annex territories outright, and their strong military presence ensured very few detractors. As a result, there was a broadened trade base for every nation in the region, and the southern Levant saw one of its most prosperous periods. Whereas the eighth century seems to have been the most prosperous for North Israel before they were destroyed, certain parts of Philistia, Judah, Ammon, Moab, and Edom thrived as never before under what many have called a pax assyriaca.

It obviously did not work for Judah, for Babylon, after several Judean revolts, finally lost patience and razed Jerusalem in 586 BC. They deported much of the populace to Mesopotamia, leaving only a peasant population in the towns and villages of the countryside. A few finds in Jerusalem from this period suggest a small group of inhabitants carried on there. Other nations were more successful. Ammon probably was not subjected directly to Babylon until 582 BC and even then did not experience any major deportation; its monarchy seems to have lasted until the Persians took over (Herr 1993). Moab, Edom, Philistia, and the Samaritans may have experienced similar treatment.

The Assyrians were not bent on simply destroying everything in their path. They wanted a wealthy and prosperous southern Levant, especially as it facilitated and supported their approach to Egypt. The Philistine inhabitants at Miqne-Ekron (Khirbet el-Muqanna‘) were able to use large quantities of olives produced in the highlands to build the largest center for the production of olive oil known from the ancient world. The economy of the region was not simply subsistence with small surpluses, but, at least at Miqne-Ekron and probably elsewhere too, central planners organized efficient production systems that allowed exports of large surpluses to further the economy of the Assyrian empire.

There is no indication in either the written sources or archaeological finds that there was a Persian conquest in Palestine. As the literary evidence suggests, the changeover to the Persian Empire was experienced from afar. Geographical Extent: We now have much more biblical data with which to describe Jerusalem during the Iron IIC period. This was the greatest period of prosperity for the Iron Age city. Thousands of refugees fleeing the Assyrian invasion of North Israel streamed into Judah in the late eighth century, apparently quadrupling the size of Jerusalem and bringing economic capital to spend and invest in the city and its countryside. The biblical story of Hezekiah boasting of his wealth to ambassadors from Babylon (2 Kings 20:12-13) probably reflects this highspirited economic boom. We shall also see below how Hezekiah was able to help solve inevitable problems of under-employment by at least two significant building campaigns in Jerusalem, lending further force to the prosperity. Those and other such activities elsewhere in Judah were done to prepare for the inevitable Assyrian invasion.

But about 700 BC another giant began to stir. Babylon rebelled against Assyria under a governor named Merodach Baladan. The rebellion was well planned; ambassadors apparently came to Jerusalem to enlist the support of King Hezekiah and, most likely, other kings of the small nations of the southern Levant, as well (2 Kings 20:12). The hope was apparently that, by occupying the Assyrians on at least two fronts (Urartu may have formed a third front), they could have a chance. But Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 BC, destroying the winter capital at Lachish, besieging Jerusalem until they paid him tribute, and completely decimating Babylon. Although that rebellion failed, a descendant of Merodach Baladan, Nabopolassar, began a renaissance of Babylonian power in the late seventh century by knocking out the Assyrians with the help of the Medes and began a rapid rise toward making Babylon the next superpower.

Settlement Patterns: Judah outside the Jerusalem area centered around important, but mostly quite small, market and production centers, such as Tell Zakariya (Azekah), Tell es-Saba‘ (Beersheba II-I), Tell Jezer (Gezer V), Tell Khuweilifeh (Halif VIA), Jebel Rumeida (el-Khalil – Hebron), ‘Ain es-Sultan (Jericho), Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish III-II), Khirbet Rabud B-1, and possibly Tell esSafi (Zafit). More than ever, Jerusalem was the center of Judean self-consciousness. Governmental and religious centralization under Hezekiah and then Josiah at the end of the seventh century probably forced the closure of the

Egypt was also developing ambitions for renewed activity in Asia and, after defeating and killing King Josiah of Judah at Megiddo in 609 BC, marched on to fight Babylon in Syria. The nations of the southern Levant thus found themselves caught between the rivalries of two 80

HERR, JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE

in the fortifications of Jerusalem, for a probable new gate was constructed in front of it in the late seventh century. Near that gate were found arrowheads in the style adopted by the Babylonian army, indicating that part of the battle for the city in the early sixth century took place here. Not enough of either gate was uncovered to determine their plans. One of the towers associated with those fortifications had ashlar stones at the corners, suggesting that the wall and the gates were royal constructions.

Arad temple at some point during this period. It also provided a setting for the religious elite of Jerusalem to write and compile the major portion of the Old Testament. The rise of a bureaucracy brought much of the wealth of the nation to the capital. That further spurred a demographic move to Jerusalem, where money, jobs, and influence were available. Small rural sites used for agriculture proliferated, even invading desert areas in the arid Buqei‘a region of the eastern rainshadow, where sophisticated water and irrigation systems allowed hardy pioneers to eke out an existence. That was the only time the region east of Jerusalem toward the Dead Sea was occupied before Roman times.

Several houses were built on the steep slopes of the original ridge of the city above the massive stepped-stone structure of the LB II/Iron I transition, further indicating the crowded conditions that prevailed during Iron IIC. Those houses continued the common plan of three to four rooms separated by solid walls or lines of pillars. In a small cave behind one of the houses was an unusual amount of objects, many of which are usually associated with cultic activities, such as figurines and chalices. It is likely that they were part of a domestic shrine.

Urban Plans: The huge influx of refugees from the north and the arrival of southern fortune seekers must have caused very rapid growth of a chaotic infrastructure. In order to organize its growth and prepare for the Assyrian invasion city planners were forced to alter the city radically. Whereas it had not grown significantly in geographical extent since the beginnings of the Iron II period, the hill to the west of Jerusalem now apparently housed thousands of people in a squalid refugee camp. That problem was solved by the construction of a new wall around the enclave, creating a massive suburb. However, the palace of the king was now situated downwind from the largest part of the city and in the center of a great babble of public demands, cooking fires, and smelly animals, all of which made for a huge sanitation problem. It may have been this impossible situation that caused the construction of a major country palace south of Jerusalem near Bir Qadismu (Ramat Rahel V) along the road to Bethlehem. Thus Jerusalem, as a royal city, outgrew itself and became a huge domestic and bureaucratic center, Judah’s first real urban site (with the possible exception of Lachish).

The palace near Bir Qadismu (Ramat Rahel V) was a larger complex than Jerusalem could have contained. The compound comprised an outer wall that enclosed a large open space typical of palace grounds, buildings for support staff, and a large building for the central palace. The royal family, at least those not involved with the daily administration of the kingdom, probably spent most of their time here to avoid the crowded conditions of Jerusalem. Technology: Ashlar masonry and Proto-Ionic (volute) capitals continued in use for royal structures at Jerusalem and Bir Qadismu (Ramat Rahel V). Most of the private houses discovered from this time sported well-hewn solid stone pillars square or rectangular in section. The pottery of Jerusalem was typical of that produced throughout Judah, but very distinctive from the other regions around them. Burnished bowls with a rim that was thickened on the exterior was the most frequent form. Lamps also took a distinctive turn when they developed a very high stump base. Other typical forms included decanters (water jugs), with double carination, and small, slightly burnished black juglets.

Architecture: The most remarkable city wall from the Iron II period in all of Palestine was the one built in Jerusalem, most likely before the Assyrian attack of 701 BC, and discovered by Avigad (1980:45-54) in the Jewish Quarter. At the point where it was found by excavations the wall was approximately 7 meters thick, constructed of tightly packed, slightly-hewn stones between two rows of large, well-hewn stones. But, although almost every other city, town, and village in Judah was destroyed by the Assyrian invasion, Jerusalem emerged intact after Hezekiah paid off the Assyrian king Sennacherib (as Sennacherib says) or as a result of a miraculous destruction of the Assyrian army (as the biblical Deuteronomists triumphantly declare). Because of the centrality of Jerusalem to the Deuteronomists’ concerns, all the suffering and destruction in the rest of Judah was ignored. But it took most of the following century for Judah to rebuild to another high point at the end of the seventh century.

Trade: The important indicators of trade are the hundreds of jar handles with the word lmlk (“belonging to the king”) impressed on them by seals. They have been found all over the territory of Judah and probably date to the reign of King Hezekiah. They were placed on one type of jar and likely were intended to guarantee the contents or their ownership in official or royal trade. Their significant absence from areas beyond Judah, although they are not totally absent, suggests they were not used frequently to carry goods beyond the borders. Analysis of the chemical makeup of the ceramic ware suggests many of the jars were made in the Jerusalem area (Mommsen, Perlman, and Yellin 1984). Another kind of stamp impression found on many jar handles from

The large wall described above was apparently very close to a northern gate. It may have proved to be a weak link 81

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

century BC. The names on the bullae were typical Hebrew names. Some probably mention the actual people mentioned in the literary texts, such as Gemariah the son of Shaphan, a scribe who served King Jehoiakim in about 604 BC (Jeremiah 36:9-12). The house where the bullae were found was probably burned in the Babylonian destruction of the city.

the end of Iron IIC is the rosette. It probably served the same purpose as the lmlk stamps, but perhaps during the reign of King Josiah (Cahill 1995). Several of the jewelry objects found in the Ketef Hinnom tombs (below) were imported from as far as Assyria, Babylon, and Urartu (Barkay 1994). Writing: The greatest monument of writing to come out of Jerusalem at this time was a significant portion of the Old Testament, including a major version of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic history, many of the prophets, and some of the Psalms. Although no manuscripts of this work date to this time period, the historical, social, and religious issues to which the writers speak date best to Iron IIC (Friedman 1989). Two texts written on silver foil and rolled tightly into small amulets found in a tomb just south of and overlooking Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom contained the earliest extant biblical passage, the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6:24-26.

Very similar to those bullae was another collection of over 200 examples obtained on the antiquities market but with a provenance that must have been the Jerusalem area (Avigad 1986). This group also contained bullae made from seals that belonged to people known from the literary texts to be inhabitants of Jerusalem. They include Baruch the scribe and friend of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:12, for example) and a prince named Jerahme’el (Jeremiah 36:26). Other high officials of the government were included as well. Those bullae provide an important glimpse into the bureaucratic procedures of Jerusalem toward the end of Iron IIC (Avigad 1986: 120130). One of the bullae named a person who was apparently the governor (or mayor) of the city, for his title was “Who is Over the City.”

The most important inscription from Jerusalem is the Siloam Inscription found inside the tunnel that carried water from the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj to the Silwan Pool immediately southwest of the tip of the original ridge of the city. The inscription was located just a few meters from the end of the tunnel and celebrated the tunnel’s completion by two groups of diggers who met in the middle of the tunnel; their tool marks and the join can still be seen. The tunnel was meant to bring water from outside the city to the inside of the western suburb. Probably written just prior to the Assyrian invasion of 701, in preparation for which the tunnel was probably dug, the inscription tells how the diggers worked from both ends and how they met in the middle, hearing each others’ pick strokes before they actually broke through.

Religion: Although the religion of Judah during the Iron IIC period is best expressed in the Bible, much of which was written during this time, archaeological finds are not insignificant. Kenyon found a small hidden cave on the eastern slope of Jerusalem that produced cultic items reflecting unorthodox religious expressions. The objects in the cave included many domestic vessels, such as bowls, jugs, lamps, and cooking pots. But the cave also produced an incense stand, scores of human figurines (mostly pillar figurines probably of Asherah), zoomorphic figurines (primarily horses), and miniature pieces of furniture (chairs and tables) usually associated with cultic activities (Kenyon 1974: 140-142). These finds represent the popular religious views of the majority of people living in Jerusalem.

From one of the Silwan tombs across the valley to the east of Jerusalem comes the Royal Steward inscription. It was difficult to decipher, but, based on the type of script, it dates to about 700 BC. The content of the inscription says there is nothing of value in the tomb, specifically denying the presence of silver and gold and then goes on to curse anyone who opens it.

Probably representing the orthodox views of the literary elite who wrote the Bible is a small ivory scepter head in the shape of a pomegranate (Avigad 1994). Unfortunately, it was not found on an excavation, but was purchased on the antiquities market. On the shoulder of the fruit was an inscription mentioning the word “priest”. It was perhaps associated with ceremonial activity in the Jerusalem temple. The overwhelming evidence from the archaeological finds suggests that orthodox Yahwism as encouraged by the Bible writers was still not practiced by many, if not the majority, of Judeans. Asherah was still a force to be reckoned with.

One of the ostraca from Tell ‘Arad, dated toward the end of the seventh century BC, may mention the temple in Jerusalem (Arad Ostracon number 18; Aharoni 1981: 35). The largest number of inscriptions comprises seals and seal impressions, and the site that has produced the most is, of course, Jerusalem. In one of the partially excavated houses on the eastern slope of the city, Shiloh found 51 bullae – clay seal impressions – that sealed rolled papyrus documents tied up with string. The fire that destroyed the house, aptly named “the bullae house”, also destroyed the documents, but it baked the bullae, fortuitously preserving them for us (Shiloh and Tarler 1986). They undoubtedly sealed documents in a family archive and date to the end of the seventh century and the early sixth

Art: The most significant aspect of art was the scarab beetle on the hundreds of lmlk jar handles found throughout Judah from early Iron IIC. Suffice it to say here that the flying scarab seems to have been a symbol of the Judean monarchy (Younker 1985). Note also that the lmlk seals were not used after the early seventh 82

HERR, JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE

below the many modern houses that stand there today? What could be found of buildings on the western hill? Could Iron Age archaeological remains be found within the precincts of the Haram al-Sharif? In what way could all those potential finds help us understand and better appreciate the long development of the religious and historical importance of Jerusalem for many peoples and cultures around the world?

century. These impressions usually carried the name of one of four cities along with the lmlk designation meaning “belonging to the king”. However, from analyses of the clays and other inclusions in the pottery, most of the jars seem to have been made in the Jerusalem area. Another symbol of the monarchy was the rosette used as seal impressions on jars toward the end of the period much like the lmlk seals were used at the beginning. Indeed, the types of jars that carried the rosette impressions were immediate derivatives of the lmlk jars (Cahill 1995). It is possible that the rosette represented an aniconic trend replacing the scarab as a royal symbol. Most of the seals and bullae from the Iron IIC period avoid the use of figures; instead they limit themselves to names and lines separating registers.

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. 1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ariel, D.T., ed. 1990 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. II. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. 2000 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. V. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Burials: The Silwan tombs probably continued to be used in Iron IIC. Recent excavations just southwest of Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom have produced a wealth of remains including the two silver amulets mentioned above (Barkay 1994). Their presence in Judean tombs suggests the need for blessing in death. Other objects, such as silver jewelry and semiprecious beads, indicate that the wealthy classes of Jerusalem were buried there. The presence of hundreds of pillar figurines of the fertility goddess in many of the tombs of Judah, including those of the Jerusalem area, suggests the inclusion of Asherah in most Judeans’ concepts of the world of the dead (see Bloch-Smith 1992 for an excellent discussion of the symbolism of the tomb furnishings, including the figurines).

Avigad, N. 1980 Discovering Jerusalem. New York: Thomas Nelson. 1986 Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1994 The Inscribed Pomegranate from the “House of the Lord.” Pp. 128-137 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barkay, G. 1994 Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem. Pp. 85106 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Water Systems: The water system of Iron IIB Jerusalem was not sufficient for the swollen population of the city during Iron IIC. Probably by bringing the new western wall slightly south of the original ridge of the city, engineers were able to bring water from the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj to the depression southwest of the ridge. But to keep the water from potential besiegers meant they had to dig a tunnel beneath the ridge on which the city was built. We have mentioned this tunnel, often called Hezekiah’s Tunnel, and its inscription above, but it is probably also mentioned in the Bible (2 Kings 20:20). The tunnel snakes its way through the rock, probably following natural fissures or joints, and emerges into the Silwan Pool 533 meters after leaving the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj. Many more people could now gather around the new reservoir, called the Pool of Siloam in the New Testament (John 9:7), than could effectively use the previous Middle Bronze Age system with its narrow tunnel (Reich 1999).

Barkay, G. and Kloner, A. 1986 Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple. Biblical Archaeology Review 12.2: 22-39. Barkay, G., Kloner, A., and Mazar, A. 1994 The Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. Pp. 119-127 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ben-Dov, M. 1982 In the Shadow of the Temple. New York: Harper & Row. Bliss, F.J. and Dickie, A.C. 1898 Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-1897. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Conclusions

Bloch-Smith, E. 1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

There is much more work that could be done in Iron Age Jerusalem and many questions continue to nag us. For instance, exactly how much larger was the Iron IIC city than that of Iron IIB? Do more administrative buildings exist in the unexcavated areas south of the Haram alSharif? What could be found on top of the southeast ridge

Borowski, E. 1995 Cherubim: God’s Throne? Biblical Archaeology Review 21.4: 36-41. 83

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

1997 The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations. Biblical Archaeologist 60: 114-183.

Broshi, M. 1972 Excavations in the Western Upper City of Jerusalem. Ariel 31: 45-51. 1974 The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 21-26.

Hestrin, R. 1991 Understanding Asherah – Exploring Semitic Iconography. Biblical Archaeology Review 17.5: 50-59.

Cahill, J.M. 1995 Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from Ancient Judah. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 230-252.

Holladay, J.S. 1994 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron IIA-B (Ca. 1000-750 BCE). Pp. 368-398 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T.E. Levy. London: Facts on File.

Cahill, J.M. and Tarler, D. 1994 Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978-1985. Pp. 30-45 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Kenyon, K.M. 1974 Digging up Jerusalem. London: Ernest Benn.

Clements, R.E. 1965 God and Temple. Oxford: Blackwell. Crowfoot, J.W. and FitzGerald, G.M. 1929 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

King, P.J. 1988 Amos, Hosea, Micah – An Archaeological Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1993 Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox.

Daviau, P.M.M. 1993 Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine. Sheffield: JSOT.

Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923-1925. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

DeGroot, A. and Ariel, D.T., eds. 1992 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. III. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Mazar, A. 1994 Jerusalem and its Vicinity in Iron Age I. Pp. 70-91 in From Nomadism to Monarchy, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Deutsch, R. 1998 First Impression: What We Learn from King Ahaz’s Seal. Biblical Archaeology Review 24.3:54-56.

Mazar, B. 1986 The Early Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Dever, W.G. 1994 The Silence of the Text: An Archaeological Commentary on 2 Kings 23. Pp. 143-168 in Scripture and Other Artifacts, eds. M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum, and L.E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Mazar, E. 1994 The Royal Quarter of Biblical Jerusalem. Pp. 6472 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, E. and Mazar, B. 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Franken, H.J. and Steiner, M.L. 1990 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University.

Meyers, C.L. 1992 Temple, Jerusalem. Pp. 350-369 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6, ed. D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Friedman, R.E. 1989 Who Wrote the Bible. New York: Harper & Row. Geva, H. 1994 Twenty Five Years of Excavations in Jerusalem, 1967-1992: Achievements and Evaluation. Pp. 128 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Mommsen, H., Perlman, I. and Yellin, J. 1984 The Provenience of the lmlk Exploration Journal 34: 89-113.

Jars.

Israel

Pritchard, J.B., ed. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton: Princeton University.

Herr, L.G. 1988 Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Market Place in Iron Age Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272: 47-67. 1993 What Ever Happened to the Ammonites? Biblical Archaeology Review 19.6: 26-35.

Reich, R. 1999 Light at the End of the Tunnel. Biblical Archaeology Review 25.1: 22-33.

84

HERR, JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE

Ritmeyer, L. 1996 The Ark of the Covenant: Where It Stood in Solomon’s Temple. Biblical Archaeology Review 22.1: 46-55, 70-73.

Stern, E., ed. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Shanks, H. 1995 Is This King David’s Tomb? Biblical Archaeology Review 21.1: 62-67.

Tushingham, A.D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. I. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

Shiloh, Y. 1979 The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry. Qedem 11. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 1984 Excavations at the City of David I 1978-1982. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 1993 Jerusalem: Excavation Results. Pp. 701-712 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Ussishkin, D. 1993 The Village of Silwan. The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Shiloh, Y. and Tarler, D. 1986 Bullae from the City of David: A Hoard of Seal Impressions from the Israelite Period. Biblical Archaeologist 49: 196-209.

Weill, R. 1920 La cité de David: Campagne de 1913-1914. Vol. 1. Paris: P. Geuthner. 1947 La cité de David: Campagne de 1923-1925. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Vincent, L.H. 1911 Underground Bentley.

Jerusalem.

London:

Richard

Warren, C. 1876 Underground Jerusalem. London: H. Cox.

Silberman, N.A. 1980 In Search of Solomon’s Lost Treasures. Biblical Archaeology Review 6.4: 30-41.

Younker, R. 1985 Israel, Judah, and Ammon and the Motifs on the Baalis Seal from Tell el-‘Umeiri. Biblical Archaeologist 48: 173-180.

Stager, L.E. 1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260:1-35.

85

CHAPTER 12 JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE Ernst Axel Knauf To Mahmud Abu Taleb – gentleman, scholar, and friend

1. Introduction1

will not only pose, but also answer hypothetically the questions: what did David and Solomon really do and in which political roles can they be imagined within the global structures, the possibilities and the limitations of their times?

According to traditional views, the tenth century BCE was pivotal for the history of Jerusalem, Palestine, the Jewish people, and even the history of civilisation: the city became the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah under David, and the One and Only place where Yhwh choose to let dwell His Name under Solomon. Unfortunately, neither David,2 nor Solomon, nor even Jerusalem appear in any piece of contemporary documentary evidence, i.e. in any specimen of tenthcentury writing.3 For the methodological zealots among the historians of ancient Palestine, any attempt to write the history of Davidic and Solomonic Jerusalem cannot proceed beyond stating that it cannot be written.4 This is clearly the easiest way out of the problem, but perhaps not the most challenging one; it would mean avoiding, even suppressing rather than addressing the question of how tradition relates to history. Where the historians keep quiet, tradition (and the traditionalists) is always willing to fill the void; where the historical-critical mind goes to sleep, the nightmares of political myth roam free.5 So I 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

Some clues about the basic structures of daily life, economy, and socio-political organisation are given by archaeology. The tenth century was the very end of the Iron I period.6 The general decline caused by the catastrophic breakdown of the Mediterranean world economy at the end of the Late Bronze Age came to an end and recovery set in, which gradually led to the formation of territorial states in the Southern Levant from the ninth through the early seventh centuries.7 The tenth century was, however, still a period when remnants of LB- type city states coexisted with tribes and chiefdoms that had recently emerged, or were emerging. If there was a “United Kingdom” under David, it could not have been a state,8 but rather a tribal alliance whose head called himself “king”. A Davidic-Solomonic “empire” clearly did not exist. This does not mean, on the other hand, that David and Solomon could not have existed. If they did, it would be necessary to define the kind and amount of political control that they could have exercised.9

An earlier version of this contribution was published as Knauf 1990d. I am grateful to U. Hübner for a preliminary draft of his contribution on the Jebusites (see below n. 107), and to W. Dietrich, I. Finkelstein, O. Keel, S. Münger, H. M. Niemann and Ch. Uehlinger for a discussion of preliminary versions of this contribution or parts thereof. J. Müller-Clemm scrutinized the second-tolast draft. All errors of fact and judgment that might remain are mine. All dates indicated are BCE if not stated otherwise. Even if one interprets the famous bytdwd of the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan as referring to Judah under the name of “House of David”, one has only the name of the eponymic founder of the dynasty and of the political entity of Judah as known to its neighbours at the end of the ninth century; one does not learn from the inscription who he was and how he came to be regarded as the founder of the Judaean state. Cf. Halpern 1994; Na’aman 1995: 389-390; Knauf 1996: 9-10. As opposed to literary sources, like the Bible or the works of Greek and Roman historians, which may or may not contain reliable information about, or even quotations from documents deriving from the tenth century. Unlike epigraphic attestations, these are subject to hypothetical and reasoned speculation (in which the present author will indulge in due course). Cf. Thompson 1992: 312f. Cf. Smyth-Florentin 1994; Uehlinger 1996: 256-263.

For any attempt to do so, the Hebrew Bible is our principal source; simply because the very names of David and Solomon do not figure anywhere else. The canonical version of the Old Testament’s view of Israel’s history is a dogmatic, theo-political construct of the Persian period.10 Discrepancies and contradictions within the final product betray the use of sources, or at least, the reception of traditional material that did not always agree with the intentions or the world-view of the final redaction.11 So 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.

86

Cf. Finkelstein 1988, 1996a, 1996b, 1998; Na’aman 1997. See below, 2.2 and cf. Knauf 1994: 142-145. Cf. Jamieson-Drake 1991: 138-145; Niemann 1993. Cf. Niemann, 1993: 7f, 13f, 26; Finkelstein 1996a: 185, who evidently had the career of Zahir al-‘Umar in mind; for this “David of the 18th century AD” cf. Cohen 1973: 7-19, 30-53; Carmel 1975: 32-44; Niemann 1997: 252299. Cf. Ben Zvi 1995; Albertz 1992: 2.495-535; Kaiser 1993: 157-186, 329-353. Cf. for the literary history of the books of Samuel, Dietrich and Naumann 1995; Dietrich 1997; for 1 Kings 1-11, the only source for Solomon except 2 Samuel 12, Würthwein 1977; Knauf 1991b: 170-180; Edelman 1995.

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

the question is at least open whether and which bits and pieces of historical information contained in the final compilation lead us back to the tenth century. According to a number of scholars, including the present writer, some do.

periphery of the city, only settled in times of high economic activity. The center of occupation has to be sought north of the Southeast Hill, i.e. in the area of the Haram. First, it can be shown that for strategic reasons, a town or city at this location must always have included the area of the Haram.16 Second, the common assumption that the city did not spread to the north before Solomon built the Temple, is baseless and a severe case of “Bible Archaeology”.17

2. The Archaeology of the Tenth Century 2. 1. Jerusalem Archaeologically, we have nearly nothing from tenthcentury Jerusalem. The material assigned to the Iron II A period12 should now be dated to the beginning of the ninth century.13 Purists of illogical positivism might feel entitled to go as far as to claim that Jerusalem did not exist in the LB period and in the tenth century.14 Archaeologically, it is safe to state that LB and Iron I Jerusalem did not exist at the location where it is supposed to have existed, viz. on the Southeast Hill. From the so-called Ophel, no settlement layers are in evidence between the MB period and the eighth century.15 But it would be blatantly absurd to conclude that the Jerusalem attested in the Amarna corpus either did not exist at all, or has to be looked for at some other locality than the one that preserved the name. The solution is rather simple. The MB and the Iron II B/C periods were times of high economic and cultural prosperity in Palestine and at Jerusalem, while the LB and Iron I periods were marked by recession. It is immediately evident from the periods of occupation on the Southeast Hill that it belonged to the

12.

13.

14. 15.

In the Amarna period, Jerusalem was the interface between the Canaanite urban area to its west and the tribal areas to its south and east. It controlled the mountains of Judah and probably some districts in the Negev and the ‘Arabah as far as to the Edomite mountain precipice.18 Hezekiah’s state of Judah was neither more extended nor more powerful. Jerusalem before the tenth century was not the cultural backwater as presented by Alt to the greater glory of King David;19 the town was the only major center between Gezer and the Jordan River, if not beyond, and from the Nebi Samwil ridge to Hebron, if not to the Gulf of ‘Aqabah.20 If Jerusalem had 2000 inhabitants by 1000 BCE, the Jerusalemites were as numerous as the Judaeans.21 2. 2. The Archaeology of Trade The tenth century is marked by its discontinuity into the ninth and the following centuries. In the ninth and the eighth centuries, Phoenicia dominated the economy of the Mediterranean world. It is on Phoenicia’s periphery that secondary states sprang up, importing from the coastal area its script,22 sometimes its gods,23 royal legitimacy by way of diplomatic marriages,24 and luxury items as

The books of Chronicles are irrelevant for the tenth century, cf. Welten 1973; Kalimi 1995. For limitations of space, it will not always be possible to present the full source-critical argument for every biblical reference quoted. In some cases, the quotation by itself must implicitly indicate the present author’s judgment on its source value. = Iron I C in Tarler and Cahill 1992: 54 Table 1, but Iron II(A) on p. 55. One should also note that not all of Y. Shiloh’s strata are “real” strata, i. e. observed sequences of construction and destruction. Some, like his strata 1, 2, 14, 16 are theoretical constructs designed to receive unstratified material according to its (typological) dating. This is as legitimate as assigning a locus number to a probe trench; note, however, that such a locus is not a feature of the tell, but of the excavator’s proceedings; and, that the word “stratum” has a different meaning in Jerusalem strata 1, 2, 14 and 16 as compared to strata 10A, B, C, 11, 12, 17, 18A and 18B. Cf. Finkelstein 1996a: 182, 184. The “Finkelstein correction” also relegates the archeological items used by Weippert 1992: 8-41 in order to validate the biblical report concerning the “construction” of Solomon’s temple to the ninth century, where Knauf 1991b: 178, had already placed the report on the construction of “Solomon’s” palace. Cf. Franken and Steiner 1992: 110-111; and already Thompson 1992: 410. With Tarler and Cahill 1992: 55f, pace Na’aman 1996a: 18f; for a summary of the result of excavations at Jerusalem, cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 1:57-67; 2:13-146 passim.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

24. 87

Cf. Knauf 2000a, for discussion of the archaeological evidence – or rather, the lack of it. See below 3.5 with n. 135, and for the term “Bible Archaeology”, Finkelstein 1998. Cf. Amarnah-letter 288,26; Görg 1989; Na’aman 1996a. Alt 1925: 13f (= 1959, 252f); Donner 1984: 197; Thompson 1992: 409f; Knauf 1994: 51. Cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1994: 281. Cf. Tarler and Cahill 1992: 65 (“Temple Mount Jerusalem” can be assumed to have covered an area approximately the same size as “Ophel Jerusalem”; as the times were troubled and marked by a general economic crisis, the low estimates are to be preferred); Finkelstein, 1988: 332; 1996a: 184. Cf. Naveh 1982: 42, 65f, 78-80 as opposed to p. 53; Renz 1997: 44. Cf. KAI 201, a dedication to Melqart, the god of Tyre, left in the vicinity of Aleppo, presumably by a brother of Hazaël of Damascus; cf. Lipinski 1975: 246f. Whether the “Baal” of 1 Kings 16:31f, 18:16-40; 2 Kings 10:18-27 should also be identified with the Tyrian god cannot be decided; according to Sargon II, there was a temple of Yhwh at Samaria, the foundation of which may have been opposed by the priesthood of Bethel, so “Baal” might as well refer to a Yhwh of questionable legitimacy; cf. for the Yhwh-temple at Samaria, Becking 1997. Cf. 1 Kings 16:31; Timm 1982.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

appurtenances of power and prestige of the emerging elite.25 Statehood as attested by monumental architecture, bureaucracy, and a four-tier hierarchy of settlements was firmly established in the area of Phoenicia’s immediate neighbours – Aram-Damascus and Israel – by the end of the first half of the ninth century. Before the end of the ninth century, it had reached Aram’s and Israel’s neighbours, Ammon and Moab.26 Statehood did not affect Judah before the second half of the eighth century,27 and penetrated into Edom – only incompletely28 – not before the commencement of Assyrian suzerainty, starting in the last decades of the eighth or even at the very beginning of the seventh century.

may have happened. But did they, or is the Saul-David narrative pure fiction? The historical process, with Phoenicia, not Philistia, as the core area, as attested from the ninth century onwards, might have induced some scholars (as, e.g., cited in note 3) to decide the question of Saul’s or David’s historicity in the negative. On the other hand, we have the archaeological evidence of Ekron: a flourishing city of the Iron I period, an insignificant settlement in the ninth and eighth centuries, i.e. in the period of Phoenicia’s ascendancy, and again a metropolis in the seventh century under Assyrian rule.30 The history of Ekron might indicate that the Cypro-Phoenician trade system was preceded – and finally superceded – by another one. The ups and downs of Ekron in the Iron Age are paralleled by the fate of the Faynan copper production area in Wadi ‘Arabah: peaks of copper production were reached in the Iron I, i.e. before Cypro-Phoenician supremacy (re)appeared, and in the seventh century, when the relations between Assyria and Phoenicia were strained and Assyria developed alternative sources for copper, even if these sources, due to their difficult logistics, could never compete with Phoenicia on a free market.31

Schematically, one may represent the Southern Levant around 850 BCE as consisting of the Phoenician core and its Aramaic-Israelite periphery. Jerusalem, seat of a vassal king of Omride Israel,29 lay on the fringe. The Judaean South, once the basis of David’s power, lay beyond it. The question of what made Phoenicia the economic center of this world is not hard to answer: Phoenicia controlled the sea trade and thus, the supply of copper coming from Cyprus. The Cypriote copper, distributed by the Phoenicians, must have dominated the international market whenever the Cypro-Phoenician commercial system operated unimpeded, as can be deduced from the fate of the inland copper production centers in Wadi ‘Arabah (see below).

If copper was the reason for Phoenicia’s supremacy in the ninth and eighth centuries, it stands to reason that copper should also have played its role in Philistia’s pivotal status in the eleventh and seventh centuries. Due to the temporary breakdown of sea trade in the twelfth and eleventh centuries, the Cypro-Phoenician copper supply was supplanted by the Wadi ‘Arabah copper mines, and the maritime-centered trade system gave way to an inland trade system. This is exactly what the archaeological record for the Iron I period shows: decline of the copperexporting sites on Cyprus during the eleventh and tenth centuries,32 decline of the coastal sites in Palestine, but a surprising flourishing of rift valley sites as far north as Tel Dan33 and Kinneret.34 Philistia was linked to the Wadi

The narrative of the Bible, on the other hand, represents the Philistines, not the Phoenicians, as the supreme power in inland Palestine as far north as the mountains of Gilboa and the city of Beth Shean. In fighting the Philistines, Saul established his Benjaminite kingship, and died still fighting them at the northern edge of the central hill country. David started his career as a Philistine vassal, and if he did indeed establish a kingship at Hebron and later, at Jerusalem, that is, on the Philistine periphery, his actions are hardly conceivable without the direct or indirect consent of the dominant power. It is only by Philistine backing that a ruler of Hebron or later, of Jerusalem, could have aspired to the rule of Central Palestine in spite of the eccentricity of his power base vis-a-vis the area he claimed. What may have happened is less important than the structures of power presupposed by a narrative that thought it possible that these events 25.

26.

27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32.

Cf. Mittmann 1976: 149-167; even if the ivories taken by the Assyrians from Samaria were locally produced, they still show, in the second half of the eighth century, Phoenician inspiration; the same holds true for ninth/eighth century Israelite glyptic art, cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1997: 220-223, 282-298. The beginning of Ammonite and Moabite state formation is attested, both by form and content, by the Amman Citadel inscription and the Mesha stela; cf. also Knauf 1994: 117-132. Cf. Jamieson-Drake 1991. Cf. Knauf 1992; 1995a. Cf. Miller and Hayes 1986: 278f; Donner 1986: 279.

33. 34.

88

Cf. Gitin 1997. Cf. Knauf and Lenzen 1987; Knauf 1994: 109f, 143; Bienkowski 1995: 41-92, 46, 48. Copper trading activities were high in the 13th and 12th centuries and declined without disappearing completely during the 11th and 10th centuries, which corresponds well to the low intensity sea trade as observed by the Egyptian Unamun ca. 1050 BCE, and surged again from the ninth century onwards, when Phoenician colonization set in. Cf. Yon 1997; Aupert 1997; Hadjicosti 1997. Cf. Biran 1994: 147-157 (Dan VI and V). Cf. Knauf 2000b. Kinneret VI, VA and VB correspond to Megiddo VIA and Dan VI and V. Being as large as 8-10 ha, Kinneret figures prominently within the copper trading group of Iron I. The link between the flourishing of Kinneret VI and V and the copper trade is now established beyond mere theoretical deduction: in the autumn of 1998 the local Inspector of Antiquites, Jossi Stepansky, showed the author three copper ingots, amounting altogether to 10 kg, which he had unearthed in the course of salvage excavations on the ground of the old Youth

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

‘Arabah copper production centers by way of Khirbet elMshash where both a coppersmith’s workshop and Philistine pottery were encountered within the Iron I occupation of the site.

chronology starts to be reliable with Rehabeam, whose first year is variously dated to 932, 931, 930, 926, 925, 924 or 922 BCE.40 The lengths of the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon are unknown.41 Preliminarily, one may date Saul to the first quarter of the tenth century, David to the second quarter, and Solomon to the third quarter.42 In addition, their reigns overlap: it is fairly certain that David did not wait for the death of Saul in order to become king of Judah, contrary to what the sequence of the narrative suggests; and Solomon was enthroned while David was still alive (1 Kings 1:45-48). In 1 Kings 1, David is represented as suffering from the symptoms of senile decrepitude, which does not, however, indicate how many years he had ruled before Solomon’s accession.43

Philistine economic domination over Palestine in the Iron I period is well attested by the distribution of Philistine pottery, which again allows the reconstruction of a central area with its periphery.35 It is from this picture that a ruler of Philistia’s periphery, having his seat of power at Hebron or at Jerusalem, and controlling southern and central Palestine with parts of Transjordan, becomes feasible and intelligible. If one adheres to the traditional chronology that restricts the Iron I period to the years 1200-1000 BCE, there is no basis for a realm of David in history, but there is if one follows Finkelstein and includes (most of) the tenth century under the term “Iron I”.36

3.2. Saul

Because Jerusalem was an inland site, and controlled one of the links between the coastal area, the Jordan Valley and Transjordan, one should expect that Jerusalem together with Philistia prospered under the conditions of the rift valley trade system. The stepped stone structure of Shiloh’s Area G (twelfth/eleventh century) may indeed indicate the southern limit of the city of David’s time.37 Although the exact area covered by Iron I Jerusalem cannot be determined with any precision, the Jerusalem of the eleventh and tenth centuries exceeded the size of LB and ninth-century Jerusalem, the two periods that are basically absent from the Southeast Hill.

In the biblical narrative, Saul is used to mark the dark background that makes David shine brighter.44 One should expect that the folklore of the northern tribes preserved a more brilliant image of Israel’s first king, but it was suppressed by the rivalry between Jerusalem/Judah and Samaria/Israel from 720 onward, due to Jerusalem’s claim of supremacy over “all Israel”.45 That Saul finally died in battle (like, e.g., Cyrus), does not make his political enterprise a failure;46 on the contrary: he was succeeded by his son Eshbaal, who even enlarged the territory of Israel (see below, 3.3), and he left the name of “Israel” to the emerging state, indisputably documented

3. A Review of the Tenth Century 3.1. Chronology The only benchmark in the chronology of Palestine’s tenth century is the unstratified fragment of the inscription that Sheshonq left at Megiddo.38 In addition, contemporary Egyptian chronology is disputed.39 Biblical

35.

36. 37. 38. 39.

40. 41. 42. 43.

Hostel at the foot of the tell, where the harbour of Kinneret is supposed to have been. Cf. Weippert 1988: 378, Abb. 4. 7. It is a shortcoming that Weippert does not quantify the occurrences of Philistine pottery. The density of sites is, however, sufficient to distinguish core and periphery. Finkelstein 1996a, 1998, 1999. Cf. Tarler and Cahill 1992: 55f (dating recalibrated according to the “Low Chronology”). Cf. Wightman 1990. Shoshenq is dated to 945-924 by Bierbrier 1984: 585, but to 931-910 by Redford 1992: 1221. His list of Palestinian conquests is dated to his 21st year, but actual campaigning (or the first of several campaigns) may have taken place in his fifth year, cf. Niemann 1997: 297. That Shoshenq’s control of Palestine was not just an episode soon to be forgotten, but must have extended for some time, is also attested by his cartouche becoming a “sign of power” to be repeated on Judaean and Israelite seals well into the eighth century, cf. Uehlinger in Keel and Uehlinger 1997: 536f. von Beckerath’s (1997: 68-70) attempt to establish the chronology of the 22nd dynasty

44. 45. 46.

89

on the basis of 1 Kings 14:25f is a prime example of explaining the obscure by the more obscure. For the relations between Solomon, Jeroboam I, and Shoshenq, see below, 3.5 with n. 140 and 142. Cf. Hayes and Miller 1977: 682; Donner 1986: 466; Miller and Hayes 1986: 220. Edelman 1992b: 992f; Edelman 1996; Hayes and Miller 1977: 679; Ahlström 1993: 501 and n. 2; Knauf 1991b: 172-174; Knauf 1994: 22. Cf. also Hübner 1992: 208. David’s state of body and mind may simply serve as a literary device to reconcile Solomon’s coup d’état, which was as anti-Davidic as it was anti-Judaean (see below, 3.5) with the ideology of a Davidic dynasty enthroned at Jerusalem for ever. Even if the picture is historically correct, it has no bearing on absolute chronology. The Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III died worn out and senile at the age of 49, whereas Winston Churchill made his last appearance in the House of Commons when he was 89. Cf. Edelman 1991. Cf. Macchi 1994. That it was not a failure is also indicated by the conflicting and futile attempts of the tradition to show that and how and why Saul was “rejected” by Yhwh; cf. Donner 1983 (= 1994a: 133-163). Saul’s “rejection” had to be “explained” by some rather late biblical authors and redactors, because nobody in the tenth century perceived him a failure, and probably some Israelites did not keep him in bad memory as late as the seventh century when the first “rejection stories” were conceived (which presuppose the opposite view).

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

belligerent53 god Yhwh as tutelary deity of his tribal alliance,54 whose members became, by this very act, “Israel”. At the same time, a problem of identity was solved and tribal competition was avoided: Saul could not proclaim himself “king of Benjamin” without alienating Ephraimites and Gileadites. It is likely that the tribes of central Palestine had developed Jacob as a common ancestor to determine their mutual relationships, notably after Manasseh55 and Benjamin had emancipated themselves from Ephraim, but it is doubtful whether Saul actually controlled all the tribes who regarded themselves at one time or the other as descendants of Jacob. It happened, however, most probably in his sphere of power that “Jacob” became equated with “Israel”.56

as early as the ninth century, when Israel, under the dynasty of Omri, achieved full statehood.47 The extent of Saul’s kingdom has to be evaluated on the basis of reliable local traditions. The biblical presentation of Israel in the tenth century is tainted by the concept of “all Israel” or the “Israel of the Twelve Tribes”, which emerged at the earliest under the sons of Omri, if they had the intention to include Judah in the genealogical framework of Israel, and at the latest under Hezekiah, when Judah as the surviving “realm of Yhwh” claimed the Israelite heritage.48 Saul’s power base was his own tribe of Benjamin (1 Samuel 9:1, 10:2, 14:50, 22:7), to which were added the southern districts of Ephraim (1 Samuel 9:4-5)49 and at least one town in Gilead (1 Samuel 11:1-11). He controlled neither Judah, which did not yet exist (see below, 3.4.1), nor the plain of Esdraelon, nor the Galilee.50 His defeat at Mount Gilboa was not due to an attempt to defend the link between “southern” and “northern” Israel, but rather represented a temporal check of Israel’s expansion to the north, with no grave consequences, as the reign of Eshbaal was to show.

Saul’s capital was Gibeon.57 It is possible that the relations between Gibeonites and Israelites, or between Gibeon and Saul, became strained towards the end of his reign (2 Samuel 21:1), also indicated, perhaps, by Eshbaal’s choice of Mahanaim as his residence.58 The

Saul was the first king of Israel, and this – a political entity named “Israel” – was the lasting heritage he left. There had been a tribe of Israel in the 13th century, destroyed by Merenptah. In the territory formerly occupied by this Israel, new tribes had emerged in the 12th and 11th centuries, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, whose names betray no continuity with their 13th-century predecessor.51 The name “Israel” had probably survived as the designation of a religious community, the adherents of the god Yhwh, introduced into Palestine by refugees from Egypt (among them, in all probability, descendants of Israelites taken captive in or before 1208 BCE) with the kerygma “Yhwh has led Israel out of Egypt” after 1186.52 Saul, it seems, adopted the 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52.

53.

54.

55.

Cf. the Hasaël Inscription from Tel Dan (above, n. 2) and in addition to n. 8-9 and 23-29, Niemann 1993: 63-69. Cf. Knauf 1995c; the assumption that the system of the twelve tribes originated in the Iron I period, is historically untenable (Gad could not have been regarded as “Israelite” prior to the occupation of northern Moab under Omri and Ahab, and the tribe of Manasseh does not figure in any source that can be dated prior to the ninth century with any confidence – instead of Manasseh, we find Machir in Judges 5:14), the view of Levin 1995, who finds an exclusively literary construct from the Persian period, is historically improbable. Older than the incorporation of Judah among the Sons of Jacob is the genuine Judaean perception that Jacob and Esau/Edom were sons of Isaac (= Judah), cf. Knauf 1988b: 69f. Cf. Edelman 1988. Cf. Edelman 1992b: 996-998; Finkelstein 1999: 59-61. Cf. Knauf 1995c: 480f; 1994: 188f. Cf. Knauf 1988a: 106-110,135-141; this is no more than a scenario, but at least, it is a possible one. It is impossible, on the other hand, to postulate a “people of Israel” even before a “state of Israel” had commenced to exist (cf. Knauf 1994: 184-188); it is perfectly possible to abstain from all speculations concerning the relationship of

56. 57. 58.

90

Merneptah’s Israel and, let us say, Mesha’s Israel – but would historians who had not even tried to relate “Israel I” to “Israel II” really have exercised their profession? Belligerent deities were in vogue during the Iron I period, cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1997:129-138, 459-463. It is evident that a god who liberated Canaanites from Egypt conformed to the religious demands of the time; cf. in addition the remnants of belligerent old yahwistic poetry in Exodus 15:21 (Knauf 1997b: 50); Joshua 10:12f (see below); Judges 5:2-30. Whereas the personal god of Saul and his family seems to have been Baal, cf. the names of his sons Meribbaal and Eshbaal; cf. Albertz 1992: 148-150, but also Donner 1983: 144 = 1994a: 240. Actually not attested in the tenth century, when we find Machir and Gilead instead (Judges 5, 14, 17, but see below, n. 81, for the latter). It can safely be inferred that Manasseh emerged out of Ephraim, first because of the tribe’s territory, the northern part of Mount Ephraim, and second because of its name (“Who makes forget”, viz. his ancient allegiance). The tribe may not have existed yet by the time of Saul, originating perhaps during one of Israel’s civil wars between the reigns of Jeroboam I and Omri. Ba‘sha transferred his capital from Shechem to Thirzah (1 Kings 15:33), which is situated in Manassite territory, and Omri could not decide the civil strife between his party and Tibni’s until the latter died (1 Kings 16:21f). The Gideon tradition, insofar as it is a tradition, was rooted in the clan of Abiezer rather than in the tribe of Manasseh. That Benjamin, the “Southener”, presupposes Ephraim as a point of reference (and preeminence) and, concomitantly, excludes the existence of another tribe further to the south regarded equally as Israelite by the time of Benjamin’s formation, goes without saying. Another attempt to explain the name “Israel” for Saul’s chiefdom was made by Ahlström 1986, to which the present author objected (1990c). Blenkinsopp 1972: 86; Edelman 1992b: 993; Ahlström 1993: 435f. The defeat at Mount Gilboa provides an insufficient explanation for the fact, being much less catastrophic than imagined (see below, 3.3. with n. 67). David’s lament in 2

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

northern vicinity of Jerusalem had become more structured and less chaotic during the reign of Saul and it was now prominently situated between two rival powers: the Philisto-Canaanites to the southwest, and the tribal kingdom (or chiefdom) of Saul to the north.59 Both served the interests of Jerusalem by partially pacifying and rudimentarily organizing their respective areas, and both were just remote enough not to become an actual threat to Jerusalem. If there were problems between Saul and the Gibeonites, all the better for Jerusalem: nearby Gibeon was thus prevented from becoming too markedly a central place that could hope to compete with Jerusalem.60 As for the immediate hinterland of Jerusalem, which was to become Judaea, nothing had changed yet.

the third person singular suffix instead of -w) indicates that the redactor found a pre-exilic text that he failed (or refused) to normalize.63 In addition, “all Israel” is geographically and ethnographically defined in a manner irreconcilable with the perception of “all Israel of the twelve tribes”. Judah is not comprised within Israel; in addition, this text states clearly that David was already king at Hebron at the accession of Eshbaal, contrary to the impression produced by the final redaction’s placement of 2 Samuel 2:1-4 after the demise of Saul. The description of Eshbaal’s Israel poses a number of philological problems; addressing them may lead to historical insight. The short list distinguishes Eshbaal’s kingship over Ephraim and Benjamin from his kingship “to” the Ashurite, Esdraelon and Gilead. The easy way out is, as usual, to assume a clerical error.64 But, as Edelman has pointed out,65 the list makes use of the two prepositions to distinguish between the core of Saul’s kingdom, introduced by Hebrew ‘al, and its periphery; or as I would like to phrase it, between Eshbaal’s Saulide heritage and areas newly joined to Israel during his reign.66 To explain the non-idiomatic use of the Hebrew preposition ‘el after himlîk, which makes the verb, so to speak, a verb of movement, one might think of telescoping:67 Abner made him king to Gilead = Abner went to Gilead and made him king there.

3. 3. Eshbaal Being a northern king, Eshbaal again is neglected by the biblical tradition, finally shaped in post-exilic Jerusalem. At least, 2 Samuel 2:8-11 record some trustworthy details, which square badly with the tendency of the overall “story of David” and therefore, are unlikely to have been invented or misattributed: (8) Abner ben Ner, commander of the army that Saul had, took [Eshbaal61] ben Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim. (9) He made him king to (in Hebrew, ‘el) Gilead, the Ashurite, and Esdraelon, and over (in Hebrew, ‘al) Ephraim and Benjamin, i.e.62 over all Israel. (10) Eshbaal ben Saul was 40 years old, when he became king, and reigned for two years; but the house of Judah stood behind David. (11) The time that David spent at Hebron as king of the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

Whether he brought the king with him in person or not, it was in any case Abner who installed Eshbaal as king in Gilead, the valley of Esdraelon, and in the territory of the Ashurite. The acquisition of Esdraelon renders the defeat of Saul an episode without repercussions on the constitution and initial growth of Israel. But who, then, is the “Ashurite”? Most scholars agree that the text intends to speak of “Asherites”.68

One becomes suspicious whenever a biblical text says “all Israel”. In this case, however, the orthography (-h for

59.

60.

61.

62.

Once again, it is easy to assume a clerical error,69 which leaves the nisbah-ending here and in Judges 1:32 unexplained. One might think of the form af’ûlân, the

Samuel 19-27 is explained by the fact that he had lost two lovers, cf. Schroer and Staubli 1996. For population estimates, cf. Finkelstein 1988: 334: 40,000-50,000 Israelites (a good enough estimate for the reign of Eshbaal), as opposed to 36,000-48,000 inhabitants of Philistia. A military conflict between Jerusalem and Gibeon allied with Israel, which would best fit (if it ever happened) into the reign of Saul is narrated in Joshua 10:1-14. The dispute would have focused on the valley of Ayyalon; cf. for the explanation of the incantation v. 12b Keel and Uehlinger 1994: 281-285, which however, may originally have served as an incantation against the Sun God of Gibeon and the Lunar deity of Ayyalon and thus, contradicts the constellation of the prose account to some degree. The “kings” of 10:4 (local chiefs, and/or Philistine vassals/officials as David was to become at Ziklag?) might indicate Jerusalem’s sphere of influence during this period, which would be considerable: Hebron, Jarmut, Lachish, Debir, Eglon. For the name, see above, n. 54; the form “Ish-Boshet” is a xenophobic, slanderous distortion of the second king’s real name. Na’aman 1990 is among the few historians who did not completely neglect Saul’s successor. waw explicativum.

63. 64.

65. 66.

67. 68.

69. 91

Cf. Knauf 1990b: 20. An even easier way out is taken by Stoebe 1994: 99, who states that there was no difference in meaning betwen the two prepositions: the farewell to all philology in biblical studies. Edelman 1992b: 996; along the same line of thought, Ahlström 1993: 440f. Gilead, although an area of Saul’s military operation (1 Samuel 11:1-11), where he found loyalty even after his death (1 Samuel 31:11-13; 2 Samuel 2:4), was not necessarily integrated into Saul’s framework of power much beyond the only town, Jabesh. Cf. for the construction Genesis 24:11; Jeremiah 41:12. Cf. for the minority view, based on the LXX – Geshurites – and its refutation: Edelman 1992a: 494; the Ashuri remains lectio difficilior, even if a Galilaean Aramaean principality, probably called Geshur, with Kinneret VIVA as its capital, is now archaeologically attested for the middle of the tenth century: Finkelstein 1999: 59f. “The Asherite” for “the tribe of Asher” is also found in Judges 1:32.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

plural of the nisbah in Epigraphic South Arabian;70 to a limited extent, the “broken plural” belongs to the West Semitic, even Proto-Semitic heritage.71 In the context of geographical or tribal names, Ashûrî may be translated as “the Asher-tribes” and be referred to the Israelite tribes in Galilee insofar as they existed by the time of Eshbaal.72 Asher, after all, may have been the territorial designation for “Galilee” before the term, probably signifying “district, province”, came up either in the Assyrian period,73 or, at the earliest, in the eighth century when Jeroboam II reestablished Israelite rule over this district populated by Aramaeans, Israelites, and Phoenicians.74 Whether the “tribe” of Asher was ever more than a scribal speculation based on a toponym, the original pertinence of which had been forgotten, remains doubtful.75

represents a linguistic stage that should precede 900 BCE, if the evolution of an Israelite script by that time77 can be taken as an indication of the concomitant evolution of an Israelite standard orthography and grammar; and, the text is Israelite,78 not Judaean. The geographical scope is Eshbaal’s kingdom: Gilead, Galilee, and central Palestine; the Esdraelon may be represented by Issachar.79 The song is the work of a professional rhapsode, imaginable at the courts of “war lords” or tribal kings like Saul, Eshbaal, David, Solomon and Jeroboam,80 who rearranged traditional lines and episodes to support his intention: to celebrate valiant deeds performed in the service of, and to instigate the voluntary participation of the tribes in the “militia of Yhwh”, in Hebrew: ‘am Yhwh. The song, therefore, does not really help to reconstruct what happened, why it happened and when it happened as far as the “Battle of the Qishon” is concerned. It genuinely exhibits, however, the mentality of the incipient state, calling for solidarity with the tribal deity and not with the king (although we have already seen that there never was a political entity called “Israel” prior to the rise of Saul as “king of Israel”). Tribes loyal to the ruling house are praised (Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulon, Issachar, Naphtali), while tribes or territories who kept their distance are scolded (Reuben, Gilead, Asher81). Not all the ten tribes listed actually formed part of Eshbaal’s kingdom. Some names may have been added, during the reign of Jeroboam and even later. The absence of Gad indicates, however, a date of the final composition before the rise of Omri.82

A possible source for the reign of Eshbaal is furnished by the song of Deborah in Judges 5. It is archaic,76 i.e. 70. 71. 72.

73.

74. 75.

76.

Cf. Müller 1978: 161. Knauf 1988a: 69; the toponym Aroer may belong to the Canaanite linguistic stratum, pace p. 93 and note 422. I.e., mainly Naftali and Zebulon. The fact that the traditional territory of Issachar was not yet settled in the tenth century does not preclude the formation of other Galilaean tribes by that time; cf. Viehweger, 1993: 27-35, who rightly states (p. 34f.) that Galilee became part of “Israel” only with the monarchy – but, possibly, already with the monarchy of Eshbaal, not David or Solomon. The official name of the province was, of course, “Megiddo”, which may not have been accepted by the local inhabitants (nor by Jerusalemite scribes acquainted with the landscapes of northern Palestine, their history and their individual profile) because of the eccentric position of the capital vis-à-vis its province. On the other hand, the isrw of Pap. Anast. I T 139 has the determinative of a territory, and the geographical situation evoked by the paragraph is that of Upper Galilee (or Lebanon); the identification is by no means certain (but also, not totally impossible), cf. Fischer-Elfert 1986, 199f. Hence the “circle/Galilee of nations” Isaiah 8:23. Cf. for the historical and linguistic background: Finkelstein 1999: 61-63; Knauf 2000b. With Edelman 1992a; 1992b: 996, one may assume that a clan of Asher belonged to Ephraim. I do not see (pace Edelman) that Asher’s place in the list of 2 Samuel 2:9 attributes a western position to the tribe; the sequence Ashurite-Esdraelon-Ephraim-Benjamin follows a clear line from north to south. The territory of Zebulon as described by Genesis 49:13 leaves no room for a tribe of Asher to the west of Zebulon. The mention of Asher in Genesis 49:20 and Deuteronomy 33:24f are void of any specific information. In Judges 5:17, Asher corresponds to “Gilead” and may still be a territorial designation (here aiming at those inhabitants of Upper Galilee who did not fight with Israel); in Judges 5:17, Dan is intrusive, not belonging to Israel before the time of Ahab (Finkelstein 1999: 60f; or did Jeroboam I already claim Dan, and build Hazor X?) when, for linguistic reasons, the core of the Song of Deborah must already have been composed. The territory assigned to Asher in Joshua 19:24-31 has never been anything else but Phoenician, cf. Lipinski 1991. For the Song of Deborah, proposed dates range from the late 13th/early 12th centuries – based on traditions of the

During the reign of Eshbaal, Jerusalem had the belligerent Israelite tribe of Benjamin as its northern neighbour (Judges 5:14); nothing had changed compared to the times of Saul. But to the south, Jerusalem was now also confronted by the tribe of Judah and its enterprising king, David.

77. 78. 79. 80.

81.

82. 92

Sea People (Schulte 1990) – via the seventh century (in Judah: Bechmann 1989) to the fifth or fourth centuries (Levin 1995:178 n. 39). On linguistic and geographical grounds, only a tenth-century date is feasible, cf. Knauf 1994: 73, 188, 206; Viehweger 1993: 109, 23f. Cf. Renz and Röllig, 1995: 2, 38f. For the archaisms and Galilaeisms/Gileadisms in Judg 5, cf. Knauf 1990b: 18. Cf. Donner 1987 (=1994a); Gal 1994. Circles that may have produced the “Book of the Upright”, cited as a source for Joshua 10:12f; 2 Samuel 1:18-27; 1 Kings 8:12f LXX (see below); and cf. Knauf 1994: 229. For Dan, cf. n. 75. But on formal grounds, v. 17 is doubtful and may represent a scribal addition to bring the number of tribes to ten (cf. 1 Kings 11:30-32), even if, in this case Gilead, which formed part of the Kingdoms of Eshbaal and of Jeroboam I, would not have been mentioned in the original text (but then, where should we look for Machir v. 14?). Cf. Knauf 1991a: 26f; Knauf 1991b: 178.

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

3. 4. David

3. 4. 1. Before Jerusalem

The literary tradition covering the career of David consists of basically two stories, the “story of David’s rise to power” in 1 Samuel 22:1-5, 25:2-43, 27:4-12; 30; 2 Sam 2:1-4 (minimal extent83) and the “story of David’s succession” in 2 Samuel 6 or 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2. Both stories contain historically reliable information – the first story more so than the second – and various redactional additions within and between these two narrative complexes of more or less dubious source value. The “story of David’s rise to power” seems to derive from the local traditions of Hebron, David’s first capital as king of Judah, and the center of the Judaean nobility, notably those circles opposed to the Jerusalemite monarchic establishment, in the eighth and seventh centuries.84 The “story of David’s succession” was probably written during the reigns of Hezekiah or Manasseh at Jerusalem by someone close to the royal court, but nevertheless critical of its policy.85 The David of the “rise to power story” is a ruseful leader, exploiting the intermediate position between the tribal and the state system of power (quite comparable to the career of Zahir al-‘Umar in the 18th century CE),86 more amoral than immoral; the David of the “succession story” is a rather weak potentate of Jerusalem, losing increasingly the support of the tribes to the point that his Judaean supporters are ousted from power by the coup d’état led by a Jerusalemite clique in the name of Solomon. These two representations of David may reflect different perceptions of David by Judaeans on the one hand and by Jerusalemites on the other rather than a change of his character when he moved from Hebron to Jerusalem.

David may have started his career as a courtier, and further pursued it as a general and son-in-law of Saul (1 Samuel 16:14-23, 18:27, 30). A close personal relation between David and Saul’s son Jonathan is suggested by the song of lamentation in 2 Samuel 1:19-27, which may be authentic, notably because of v. 26.88 Having left the service of Saul, David became an Apiru in his native south,89 a leader of a gang of bandits, whose services he finally sold to the Philistines, which made him a condottiere and Philistine vassal king of Ziklag (1 Samuel 27, 30). From Ziklag, he undertook raids against the Amalekites and some other population groups of the Negev. He used the booty he obtained to bribe some other tribes or clans of the region, notably the Judaeans (the clan who settled around David’s native town of Bethlehem and who may have originated from Benjamin),90 the Kenites and the Jerahmeëlites (1 Samuel 27:8-10, 30:26-31). In due course, David organized them into the tribal kingdom of Judah (and may have enjoyed Philistine support in this action)91 with Hebron as his capital. The establishment of the Judaean kingdom may not have been as peaceful as a first and superficial reading of the text (2 Samuel 2:1-4) suggests. 2 Samuel 2:1 contains an oracle as was customarily consulted before a military campaign, in this case against Hebron, the future capital.92 One has to remember that Hebron was neither a Judaean nor Kenite nor Jerahmeëlite town, but the central place of the Kalibbites.93 Now the Kalibbites are excluded from the list of recipients of David’s

Neither one of the two basic accounts addresses the question of how David became king of Jerusalem. If there ever was an historical record covering this event, it is now replaced by the conquest story of 2 Samuel 5:6-8, which describes the acquisition of Jerusalem by David after he had already taken up residence there (2 Samuel 5:5).87 In order to evaluate the “conquest account”, one has to regard the career of David from the beginning.

“succession story”, it might still antedate the “conquest story” of 2 Samuel 2:6-8, see below. Cf. Schroer and Staubli 1996. Cf. Staubli 1991: 238-244. Yehudah is derived from the same root as the name of the Benjaminite clan Ehud, cf. Knauf 1991a: 29f. For the settlers of Iron I Judah coming from the north, cf. Finkelstein 1988: 326f, 355. For the Iron I settlement pattern of Judah, cf. Ofer 1994: 92-121, 130, fig. 4. Nearestneighbour analysis reveals a cluster of small settlements between Jerusalem and Hebron, keeping equal distance from both towns, and a second cluster of few and more widely spaced settlements to the south and west of Hebron, of which Hebron may itself form part. It is safe to identify the northern cluster with the area of preDavidic Judah, and the Hebron cluster either with the territory of the Kalibbites or, if the latter were restricted to their town, with Jerahmeëlite hamlets. Cf. Ahlström 1993: 460f, 463 Cf. Judges 1:1-2, 18:5f, 20:18, 23. 27f; 1 Samuel 14:37; 23:2-4; 30:7f; 2 Samuel 5:19, 23f. According to Veijola 1984 (= 1990: 17 n. 34), the oracles of Judges 18:5f and 2 Samuel 2:1 have nothing to do with war; in the case of Judges 18:5f, even the biblical story points to the opposite; for the non-historical character of 1 Samuel 10:22, cf. ibid., p. 16. Joshua 14:6-15; 15:13-19; Judges 1:20; in Judges 1:1015, based on Joshua 15:13-19, Hebron is already claimed by Judah; and cf. Staubli 1991: 166.

83. 84.

85.

86. 87.

88. 89. 90.

According to Dietrich 1997: 229-273, the two stories are actually one, but one can still distinguish various sources and traditions. For the social cleavage between the city of Jerusalem and the tribe of Judah, which persisted well into the seventh century, cf. Micah 5:1-4; Isaiah 5:1-7; 2 Kings 21:23f; Hosea 8:14; and cf. Knauf 1997a: 88 n. 29. Cf. Dietrich 1997: 267 (who, however, disregards the critical attitude of the author vis-a-vis the dynasty); for an opposition party within the royal entourage, cf. the biography of Jeremiah and Lohfink 1978 (= 1991). Cf. for him already n. 9. 2 Samuel 2:4-5 form a redactional summary, combining the legendary forty years of David’s reign (see above with n. 41) with the historical seven and a half years of kingship at Hebron, drawn from the “rise to power story” 2 Samuel 2:11. Even if 2 Samuel 2:4-5 is a (the?) redactional link between the “rise of power story” and the

91. 92.

93.

93

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

bribes,94 they occur only once in the “rise to power story”, and in rather a negative fashion.95 It is not difficult to guess on the basis of these observations that David established his kingdom of Judah at the expense of the Kalibbites, probably the most prominent group in the region.96 These details were explicitly recorded, most likely in order to enhance the ethno-political cohesion of Judah. From the beginning, Judah was socio-politically more homogeneous than Israel, not suffering from the same degree of economic and linguistic complexity simply by being much smaller. In addition, David had adopted Yhwh, the god who led Israel in war, as his personal deity, and he made the tutelary deity of his family also the tutelary deity of the tribal kingdom that he founded.97

wooing for Israel, that the ditty “Saul has slain thousands, but David has slain tens of thousands”100 was composed and broadcast as pro-Davidic propaganda. How soon the slogan of Israelite anti-Davidic sentiment came into being: “What has Israel to do with David and his House? To your tents,101 Israel”,102 is a moot question; at the latest during the “revolt” of Sheba (2 Samuel 20:1-22),103 at the earliest during the negotiations between David and the tribal representatives of Israel at Hebron. Now the situation of Jerusalem had become precarious: Jerusalem had lost its natural zone of influence by the establishment of David’s kingdom of Judah; with his claim to and (at least partial) acquisition of the kingship of Israel, Jerusalem was sandwiched between the two spheres of David’s power. One should expect that it was now up to Jerusalem, and not to David, to take some action.

As soon as Saul was dead, David aspired to succeed his former employer (2 Samuel 2:4b-7). After the death of Eshbaal, he was successful and was nominated king (by contract) by at least some Israelites (2 Samuel 5:1-3), still residing at Hebron. Whereas it seems that David had supporters among the Israelites, it should also be noted that Judah and Israel had been at war with each other since the kingdom of Judah was established (2 Samuel 3:198) and maintained that kind of relationship well into the beginning of the ninth century (1 Kings 15:7. 16. 32). It is unlikely that all Israelites voluntarily became David’s subjects; what is more important, they did not become subjects at all, they remained free members of their particular tribes whose loyalty to the king was based on consent – which could also be withdrawn (2 Samuel 5:3).99 It was probably during this period of David’s 94. 95.

96. 97.

98.

99.

3. 4. 2. David Becomes King of Jerusalem During the war between the “House of David” and the “House of Saul”, Jerusalem found itself between two millstones. Its relations to its hinterland, vital for any city, must have been seriously disturbed. If Jerusalem had not come to terms with David before the death of Eshbaal,104

100. 101.

1 Samuel 30:31 speaks of “those at Hebron”, 1 Samuel 27:10 suppresses both “Hebron” and “Kalibbites”. 1 Samuel 25 and cf. Staubli 1991: 238-244 and already Winckler 1895: 25-27; Baentsch 1907: 95-97. If a “cattle baron” like the Kalibbite Nabal as depicted by 1 Samuel 25 did already exist in the tenth century, this is further proof of the impact of Philistia on its Judaean periphery; because only Philistia could have provided the market that made large-scale cattle capitalism in Judah feasible, as it was again the case in the seventh century. Cf. above, n. 90. Prior to David, the supreme deity of Judah obviously was a goddess: on the arrowheads from el-Khadr near Bethlehem, Labi’at, “the Lioness” is attested as the theophoric element in personal names (Keel and Uehlinger 1997: 144-146); one of her shrines should have been located at Baalath Judah (Joshua 15:9f; 2 Samuel 6:2 + 1 Chronicles 13:6) “(the place of) The Lady of Judah”. The designations Beth Saul – Beth David are archaic and refer to incipient tribal states (Na’aman 1995a: 19f). That the northern kingdom figures as “Israel” on Hazaël’s stela from Tel Dan, whereas the south is still called “Beth David” signifies well the difference in sociopolitical development: by the second half of the ninth century, Israel had acquired full statehood, Judah not yet. Cf. above n. 2. As it occasionally was already in David’s lifetime (2 Samuel 20), and for good after his death, 1 Kings 12:119. At least according to the Israelite point of view, this berith was not yet the “vassal treaty” the term came to

102. 103.

104.

94

denote in the deuteronomistic literature under the impact of Assyrian practice, cf. Otto 1998: 1-84; Knauf 1994: 132-136. 1 Samuel 18:7; 21:12; 29:5, and cf. Edelman 1996. The tents of the military camp, notably: leaving the battle line in order to pick up one’s belonging from the camp is the first step on the dissenting soldier’s way home; cf. 2 Kings 14:12 with 2 Kings 7:7f and contrast 1 Kings 22:36; cf. also Joshua 3:14. 2 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings 12:16. 2 Samuel 20:2 and, of course, 2 Samuel 15-19 document well that David’s claim to the Israelite kingship met more than episodic opposition. That Sheba derived from the tribe of Saul (once privileged under this king), comes as no surprise (2 Samuel 20:1), nor that his principal power base was his own clan (20:14). 20:14 seems to indicate that Sheba practiced a kind of ambulant kingship over/in Israel for some time. The present text, on the other hand, presents him as fugitive, pursued by David’s victorious general (20:10, 15). That the (Aramaean!) town of Abel Beth Maacah is already loyal to David is what the text wants to insinuate is as clear as it is historically improbable. All one can conclude from 2 Samuel 20 is that at some time during David’s reign, another Israelite exercised an unknown amount of power for an unknown length of time in a way comparable to Eshbaal’s mode of government (cf. 2 Samuel 2:9), and was finally killed by inhabitants of Abel Beth Maacah, who were not Israelites at all (cf. 2 Samuel 10:6. 8); cf. also Niemann 1993: 14. A complete king list of Israel in the tenth century would run: Saul – Eshbaal – David – David | Absalom – David | Sheba – David? – Solomon – Solomon | Jeroboam – Jeroboam (for the latter part, see below, 3.5). In this case, Jerusalem acted contrarily to the Damascenes in 85 BCE, who opted for the more powerful, and concomitantly more distant bedouin sheikh, Aretas III, for protection against the less powerful Ituraeans nearby.

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

it was high time to do so after the Judaean ruler secured (for some time?) the allegiance of (some parts?) of Israel. Now the city was surrounded by potentially hostile territory, in danger of being cut off from its basic area of sustenance. It is only reasonable to assume that Jerusalem sought on its own behalf some sort of integration within the framework of David’s sphere of power.105 All we know for sure is that David started his royal career at Hebron and ended it at Jerusalem. Aspiring to the kingship of Israel made Jerusalem rather attractive for David; David being in control of the hinterland of Jerusalem made him very attractive for Jerusalem. In the absence of reliable sources, we can still guess with some degree of probability that David became king of Jerusalem by mutual accord, exactly in parallel with how he had become king of Israel.106

damaged, it is impossible to decide whether it originally contained a proclamation in favour of the Jerusalemites110 or announced some reward for the beating/killing of one of them;111 in any case the term “Jebusite”, pivotal for the phrase, excludes its historical pertinence. If there is a tradition behind the text, it may have read: David went with his entourage to Jerusalem. People said to David: You cannot come here unless one removes the blind and the lame from your entourage. David took (over) the ZionFortress, and the blind and the lame were abhorred by David’s mind. This is why one says: Blind and lame will not enter the temple. In this form, the text simply is a popular etiology of the interdiction of the physically handicapped from entering the temple precinct.112 It does not speak of conquest, David taking possession of Jerusalem’s royal palace as Saul took possession of kingship over Israel (1 Samuel 14:47). On the contrary, the tale explains some Jerusalemite (but perhaps not Judaean?) religious custom as a condition imposed by the inhabitants of Jerusalem on David, to which the king complied. The reconstructed folk-tale may hit close to the historical reality of the balance of power between Jerusalem and Judah already in David’s time.

That deduction implies that the story of “David’s conquest of Jerusalem” in 2 Samuel 5:6-8 is not historical. If any doubts had remained so far, they are now removed by Hübner’s conclusion that the “Jebusite”, as opponent and victim the second central figure of the “conquest account”, is a (sub-) deuteronomistic con-struct.107 The text in its present form is unintelligible:108 what kind of object is specified by “sinnôr”, and what is going to happen to “whoever strikes a Jebusite” in v. 8? The two problems may be reduced to one, if “he struck at the sinnôr” is a corruption of the lost apodosis produced by a reader/author who thought of “conquest”, induced by the “taking” v. 7 (and the “to say: David will not come here” v. 6, converting the Jerusalemites’ condition for David’s entry into a refusal) and of Jerusalem’s vulnerable, but not that vulnerable, water-supply.109 As the phrase is

It is easily understood why someone had to come up with a “conquest of Jerusalem” in a deuteronomistic (or subdeuteronomistic or post-deuteronomistic) intellectual context: “Thou shalt not conclude a covenant with the people of the land” (Exodus 34:12. 15; Judges 2:2) – while everybody knew that Jerusalem was a Canaanite city, at least until the time of Ezechiel (16:3). Concomitantly, it was not possible to construct an etiology of a Canaanite survival comparable to the case of Gibeon (Joshua 9:3-27), for Jerusalem did not become, in the course of time, just a Judaean city, it became the city of Judah.113 The semantically nerve-wrecking and syntactically neck-breaking peculiarities of the text of 2 Samuel 5:6-8 may well be due to the fact that the redactor knew he was construing a story that the majority of his audience knew was not true.

105. As did Jerusalem in 634 CE vis-à-vis the Muslim Arabs; cf. Busse 1984. In this case, too, the rather trivial event was embellished by tradition to a veritable siege, and formal capitulation to no less a dignitary than the caliph himself. 106. Cf. already Stoebe 1957 (= 1989: 77-81/245-249); recently also Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1993. Alt was basically right that Jerusalem and Judah remained two different socio-political systems at least until the beginning of the seventh century. 107. Hübner in this volume. As Floß 1987 has already seen, v. 6-9 form a later addition to the deuteronomistic summary v. 4-5. 108. Dietrich and Naumann 1995: 117-119. Chronicles, exegetical as usual, does not help to solve historical problems of the tenth century. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994:1.61. 109. As has now been established by the excavations of R. Reich, the interpretation as “Warren’s shaft” may date back to the creation of that reading, but this “installation” has turned out to be a natural scissure in the rock that none ever used as a “shaft”; cf. also Rogerson and Davies 1996. Note, however, that the Siloam Inscription is, on purely philological and paleaographical grounds, not necessarily from the time of Hezekiah, but certainly a Judaean text of the seventh or, at the latest, early sixth centuries BCE; as Ussishkin 1995 has convincingly shown, the Siloam tunnel did in no way contribute to the

110. 111. 112. 113.

95

city’s water supply. According to the nature of the installation as established by Ussishkin, it would best fit the reign of Manasseh. As Stoebe has convincingly argued, nobody could have climbed the shaft before Lt. Warren did (1957: 84f = 1989: 252f). Thus Floß 1987; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1993. Thus Chronicles, Stoebe, and nearly everybody else. Cf. Leviticus 21:16-23. Cf. the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle 5, Rv 12; Grayson 1975: 102. Especially after the old Judaean South was lost to Edom (probably as early as 598/597), Judah became “Jerusalem and her daughter-towns” as much as Northern Israel had become, under the impact of Assyrian urbanisation, “Samaria and her daughter-towns” (Ezechiel 16:44-58).

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Conquest – under the impact of deuteronomistic theology the only legitimate way for a Canaanite town or city to become Israelite – has been postulated in the case of Jerusalem two more times: in Joshua 12:10, by “all Israel” under the command of Joshua; and in Judges 1:8 by the tribe of Judah. Those two contradictory statements reveal a conflict concerning the status of Jerusalem in the post-exilic period: to whom does Jerusalem really belong – to Judah/Yehûd or to “all Israel”? It is understandable that David and his dynasty had lost, after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, their legitimating power for at least some Jewish religious parties; it is hard to see, however, how one could have come up with alternative views if the conquest of Jerusalem were an old and firmly rooted element in the “Geste de David”, known to virtually every Israelite or Judaean.

“places of royal presence” as was the case in the Holy Roman Empire from the 11th through the 13th centuries CE, and in the Umayyad empire of the seventh/eighth centuries CE.121 3.4.3. At Jerusalem David’s rule at Jerusalem is no longer covered by the Hebronite traditions of “David’s rise to power”, which may indicate that his former Judaean supporters lost sight of David once he had disappeared behind the walls of the city’s palace precinct. That very fact indicates a certain estrangement between David, king of Jerusalem, and the tribal kingdom of Judah that he had founded. The same estrangement is indicated by the “succession story”, composed at Jerusalem and drawn from Jerusalemite sources.122 The king of Jerusalem is no longer the victorious hero at the head of the tribal levy; he is rather a Canaanite king who diligently pursues his private affairs while his army is in the field (2 Samuel 10-12). No surprise, then, that both Israelites and Judaeans rebelled, and obviously more than once. It is quite likely that David’s soldiers indeed conducted campaigns against Israel, even if those attempts to quench the “rebellion” were probably less successful than the seventh-century author could have imagined, writing from the perspective of a Palestinian world that had finally achieved the kind of full territorial statehood that did not exist in the tenth century. The story of 2 Samuel 20 could be read to indicate that David did not efficiently control central and northern Palestine.123 Having lost the support of his tribe(s), the tribal leader had become useless for the politics of Jerusalem – and David was ousted from power by a Jerusalemite clique who made Solomon, the son of a Jerusalemite mother, king while David was still alive. This kind of succession is usually called a coup d’état.

Having established himself as king of Judah, David became also, by means of negotiated contracts, king of Israel and probably king of Jerusalem, which he choose as his residence. A “conquest” of Jerusalem never took place. Nor should one consider Jerusalem the “capital” of a “United Kingdom”. Jerusalem was the residence of David, king of Jerusalem, king of Judah and king of Israel. Judah may have lost its independence as early as the reign of Solomon (see below 3.5); Israel cancelled its contract with the House of David temporarily already during the revolt of Abshalom,114 and partially under and with Sheba, and for good under Jeroboam.115 Insofar as a “union” under David did exist, it was a personal union,116 not a real union.117 Israel did not have, and did not need, a capital prior to the reign of Omri.118 Sheba’s kingdom was as peripathetic as the kingdom of Eshbaal seems to have been (cf. 2 Samuel 20:14), and Rehabeam119 was rejected, and Jeroboam proclaimed king at Shechem, not at Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:1). That did not prevent Jeroboam from also residing at Penuël (1 Kings 12:25);120 not because he had to flee before Shoshenq’s armies, which did not pose, as shall be argued in due course, any threat to Jeroboam, but because the high degree of tribalism and regionalism and the low degree of urbanism and centralism in his kingdom required a plurality of

That David built anything at Jerusalem can well be doubted; Hiram of Tyre building his palace (2 Samuel 5:11) is copied from the story of Solomon (1 Kings 5:1526. 32; 7:1-12), where the feature is as anachronistic as for the period of David.124 If the “Millo” is identified with the “stepped structure” of Shiloh’s Area G, which was an impressive piece of civil engineering visible until at least the beginning of the ninth century, David’s constructions “between the Millo and the castle/Temple” should have

114. 2 Samuel 19:9-12; 42-44; Niemann 1993:14. 115. His reign commenced during the reign of Solomon, cf. below. 116. As existed, e.g., between Great Britain and Hanover 1714-1837 CE. Napoleon I, king of Italy, paid an ambassador at Paris to represent him at the court of Napoleon I, emperor of France. 117. As existed between England and Scotland after 1707 CE, and between England, Scotland and Ireland after 1801. 118. Cf. Olivier 1983: 117-132; Niemann 1993: 92-96. 119. If there is a historical core behind the assembly at Shechem, it must have been Solomon who was rejected; see below, 3.5 with n. 142. 120. Whether Jeroboam I ever took Thirzah for a residence, is not beyond doubt; 1 Kings 14:17 belongs to a very deutronomistic context, the author may have found the name in 1 Kings 15:33, where Thirzah is mentioned as Basha’s abode.

121. Cf. Gaube 1979. 122. Cf. Knauf 1997a: 87f, and Willi-Plein 1995: 353f. 123. In 2 Samuel 13-20, not a single Israelite town north of Gibeon (and in Transjordan Mahanaim), and no locality north of Baal-Hazor (Jebel ‘Asur) is mentioned; Geshur (13:37f, 14:23 is as Aramean as Abel Beth Maacah 20:14f). 124. Even in the Septuagint, cf. Kuan 1990: 31-46; cf. Knauf 1991b: 177-180. David still lived and acted within the Philistine periphery. Whereas the Rift Valley – Philistine sociopolitical system may have broken down during the reign of Solomon (see below), Phoenician dominance did not come to bear before the ninth century (see above, n. 23, but also n. 145). 96

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

been located north of the “stepped structure” and left no trace in the archaeological record.125 What David controlled from Jerusalem on a more or less permanent basis can not have exceeded the Philistine periphery.126 Of course he may have send his armies as far as Aram Zoba (2 Samuel 8:3f. 7f,127 north of Aram Beth Maacah, 2 Samuel 10:6-8), to Rabbath Ammon (2 Samuel 11:1, 12:26-29), into Moab (probably Moab north of the Arnon, 2 Samuel 8:2), and into the northern ‘Arabah bordering upon Edom (2 Samuel 8:2). These actions were meant to spread terror (2 Samuel 8:2, 4, 13, 10:18, 12:31) on the periphery of David’s realm much in the same way as the Egyptians protected their province of Canaan and their mining interests in Wadi ‘Arabah by occasional raids into Shasu territory;128 those raids may have resulted in booty both in the form of precious objects and slaves (2 Samuel 12:30f129) and “tribute”, implying a one-time pay-off of the invading bands rather than the establishment of a permanent status of dependency (2 Samuel 8:4, 7f, 10:19). David did not rule Edom by governors (2 Samuel 8:14), because they would have to have lived in tents.130 He did not conquer Damascus, because it had not yet emancipated itself from AramZoba;131 and he did not subjugate the Philistines (2 Samuel 8:1), because, at least economically, his kingdom was wholly dependent on them.132

3.5. Solomon Solomon was the son of a Jerusalemite mother, but not necessarily the son of a Judaean father.133 He became king of Jerusalem by means of a coup d’état, ousting the Judaean elite from power (1 Kings 1-2).134 Most importantly, Solomon did not build the temple of Jerusalem. This temple is already mentioned in the story of David in a rather ancient stratum of the text (2 Samuel 12:20),135 and was situated, because of the “law of stability of holy places”, most probably where today the Qubbat alSakhrah is located. Solomon was not a monotheist. What biblical narrative, a sort of “federal national state” (cf. 2 Samuel 5:17-25, 21:15-22, 23:9-17). That “the Philistines” resented his kingship unanimously is structurally impossible (5:17); that David did not control Gezer (5:25) is corroborated by 1 Kings 9:16. Philistia provided David with soldiers up to the rank of general (2 Samuel 8:18, 15:18-22, 18:2, 20:7. 23). According to the interpretation of meteg ha-ammah in 2 Samuel 8:1 by Mittmann 1983, one is free to speculate that the expression originally implied that David took the fetter out of the hands of the Philistines in order to apply it in his own name – and as their explicit or implicit vassal. 133. Cf. Veijola 1979 (= 1990: 84-105); also Schroer 1992: 169. 1 Chronicles 3:5 even makes Solomon the fourth son of Bathsheba (in an attempt to eradicate the memory of 2 Samuel 11-12 completely?) in opposition to 2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 14:4. As ruler of “Beth Dawid”, Solomon was entitled to the designation “Son of David” regardless of who his biological father was; cf. Na’aman 1995: 18 (note, however, that the expression “king of the House of PN” is not attested prior to the eighth century). 134. Cf. Knauf 1997a: 87-90. That Solomon became king at Jerusalem did not immediately make him king of Israel; it seems that Solomon’s incubation at Gibeon, Saul’s ancient capital, 2 Kings 3:4-15, betrays an attempt to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Israelite tribes, ibid., 89f. 135. Only the designation of this temple as “House of Yhwh” is anachronistic; cf. also 2 Samuel 5:9, and Keel and Uehlinger 1994: 286. The deconstruction of Solomon the Temple-Builder started with Ruprecht (1977); who pointed out that in 1 Kings 6-7, nothing is constructed, something is just redecorated. Donner (1977) added the observation that 2 Samuel 24 actually is an anti-etiology: it is not the sanctity of the temple that is explained, but the absence of any Canaanite predecessor – against all reasonable expectations. Furthermore, Berlejung 1996: 145-168, observed that a crucial element of ancient Near Eastern reports on the founding and construction of temples is missing in 1 Kings 5-8: the divine ordinance (supplied by 1 Kings 8:12f according to the interpretation of Keel and Uehlinger, which, however, presupposes that the temple preexisted as a temple of the Sun; in addition, the Masoretic text does not betray the character of a divine ordinance). Thus, the text either characterizes the temple of Jerusalem as illegitimate (the Samaritan point of view), or presupposes 2 Samuel 7/2 Samuel 24 (neither of the two texts derives from the tenth century) or even Exodus 25-40 (the etiology of the second temple from the early Persian period). Cf. also Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 3.367f, who accept that the Temple was pre-Davidic, but place it, with insufficient reasons, extra muros.

125. For the problem of Kenyon’s Area H. cf. section 3.2. At least it is clear from the textual evidence (and supported by present interpretation of the archaeological evidence) that Solomon did not build the Millo either. 1 Kings 9:15 is altogether a summary of architectural projects the historical Solomon had nothing to do with, see below, n. 139, and in 9:24, the Millo does no more than represent aa additional remark. The author of 2 Samuel 5:9 betrays some knowledge that the Millo predates the reign of David, the author of 1 Kings 9:15. 24 cites a popular tradition that is as easily conceivable, and as historical, as “Pharaoh’s Treasury”, “The Palace of Pharaoh’s Daughter”, and “Pharaoh’s Penis” in the toponymic folklore of Petra. 126. Nor is there textual evidence that he controlled much more, cf. n. 123. 127. The present text is, however, already embellished by features from late ninth century history, cf. Na’aman 1996b: 173-183. 128. Cf. Knauf 1998: 112f. 129. Read “crown of Milkom” rather than “crown of their king”; cf. Hübner 1992: 176 n. 92. 130. For the problem of dating Edom’s Iron I period cf. Bienkowski 1995: 41-92, 45-47; even sites where Iron I pottery had been reported by survey archaeology have so far not yielded Iron-I strata when sounded: Bienkowski 1996: 87. 131. The independent state of Aram-Damascus was established during the reign of Solomon, 1 Kings 11:23-25. 2 Samuel 8:5f is intrusive in the Zoba account 8:3f, 7f: a later addition by a scribe who missed this kingdom, important in his days, among David’s conquests. 132. This does not imply that there may not have been an occasional skirmish between David and the one or the other of the five Philistine cities who did not form, contrary to the anachronistic picture designed by the 97

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

he did do in connection with Jerusalem’s ancient Canaanite temple was to introduce the Judaean tribal deity Yhwh into its pantheon as a subordinate god (1 Kings 8:12f*): “El placed the sun in the sky, whereas Yhwh had decided to dwell in the darkness of a cloud. But I verily built a princely palace for you, therein to dwell for ever and ever”.136 The wild and unruly deity amidst the thickness of the cloud, Yhwh, the weather-god and tribal warrior, who had withdrawn from the bright daylight of creation and, to a certain degree, resisted the civilized intentions of El, is domesticated, confined within a stately palace provided by Solomon. El, the supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon and thus, also of the pantheon of Jerusalem, has integrated even Yhwh, the tribal deity of Israel, and then of Davidic Judah. Jerusalem has won predominance over the tribe of Judah the same way as the Jerusalemite elite supporting Solomon ousted the Judaean tribal leadership from power (1 Kings 1). That is what Solomon (or his Privy Counsellor in Theology) really did concerning the temple: integrate the Judaean tribal deity Yhwh as minor deity in the pantheon of Jerusalem, subservient to the supreme god El.137

Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity, but he ravaged the Negev, which had been the very power-base of David.141 The areas around Shechem and Jerusalem, which are left out of Shoshenq’s list, attest to the contemporary realms of Jeroboam I and Solomon and to their status, in Pharaoh’s eyes, as “non-enemies”, to say the least.142 According to the present state of historical analysis, the “Glory of Solomon” has to be scaled down. Is there archaeological evidence to the contrary? In spite of repeated claims, there is not. One should not overstress the case of Jerusalem, where the tenth century may never be retrievable at the place where it is now expected to have been.143 More important is that there was no sign of a centralized government from Dan to Beersheva even before the “Finkelstein correction”. The central state is well attested in the archaeological record of the eighth and seventh centuries.144 Looking at Omride Megiddo or Hezekiah’s Lachish demonstrates what kind of archaeological evidence is absent from the tenth century. Idiosyncratic labeling of a cluster of miserable desert farmsteads that may be dated anywhere between the eleventh and the early ninth century does not constitute a “Solomonic limes”, nor can willful equation of three city gates (probably belonging to different horizons within the ninth-eighth centuries) with the gates of three cities mentioned in a problematic biblical verse enhance historical analysis. As long as Solomon’s palaces can only be seen by those who want to see them, they remain illusionary.

Under Solomon, Jerusalem started to subjugate Judah.138 Solomon did not rule from the Euphrates to the Brook of Egypt, but rather from Gezer to Thamar (1 Kings 9:17f), if not from Gibeon to Hebron.139 When Shoshenq came to Palestine, he campaigned in the interest of Solomon, rather than against him.140 The Pharaoh did not touch

On the structural level, the campaigns of Shoshenq and the reigns of Solomon and Jeroboam I indicate the end of

136. Cf. Knauf 1997a: 82-86. For the restoration of the first hemistich based on the Septuagint, I am indebted to my student J. Bösenecker (2000). 137. In this case, Solomon established the theological system of pre-exilic Jerusalem as attested by Deuteronomy 32:89 (txt. em.): “When Elyon alloted the peoples in fief | when he distributed the earthlings || he fixed the territories of the hosts according to the number of the sons of El //. Thus it came to be that Yhwh’s share is his levy / Jacob the estate of his fief”. Cf. Weippert 1990: 146f. Regardless of the date of the final composition of Deuteronomy 32:1-43, the fragment v. 8f must have been conceived prior to Josiah, under whom Yhwh, in all probability, became “the supreme god”, cf. Psalm 82 and Handy 1987; on the other hand, “Jacob” for “Israel” in a Jerusalemite tradition indicates a date after Hezekiah. Cf. for a different dating and interpretation Kaiser 1998: 33f. I cannot see, however, that the identification of El Elyon and Yhwh is original to v. 8f. 138. Thompson 1992: 291f rightly states, “The state of Judah was created as the highlands were subjected to the extension of Jerusalem’s power”; the process started, however, 200 years before Manasseh. 139. Knauf 1997a: 91-95, taking 1 Kings 9:17-18 and the Shoshenq list as reliable for the extent of Solomon’s realm. The idea of the three “Solomonic city gates” at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo based on 1 Kings 9:15 has dissolved for good, notably under the impact of the “Low Chronology”: Hazor X was built by Omri, Megiddo IVA by Jeroboam II. 140. Cf. Garbini 1988: 27-30 (one of the most pertinent observations in a book that also contains many less convincing ones); Niemann 1997: 296-299.

141. Cf. 1 Samuel 22:1-5*, 25:2-43*, 27.:4-12*, 30*; 2 Samuel 2:1-4 and above n. 104. 142. Cf. Knauf 1997a: 93-95. Even according to the biblical narrative, Jeroboam aspired to Israel’s kingship when Solomon was still alive, 1 Kings 11:40. For the problem of 1 Kings 14:25-28, having Shoshenq come to Jerusalem (where Shoshenq, according to his own list, did not come) in the fifth year of Rehabeam (when Shoshenq, in all probability, was already dead), the observation of Uehlinger concerning the use of Shoshenq’s name in Judaean and Israelite glyptic (above, n. 39) offers a solution insofar as the Egyptian administration left by Shoshenq in Canaan demanded and collected tribute from Jerusalem at the time indicated. 143. Even if it were possible to excavate under the Haram area, one should not expect Iron Age remains, for Romanperiod civil engineering usually laid foundations in a very thorough manner, as can be seen in the Phonician ports. 144. The attempt of Dever (1997) is not only futile from the point of view of the “Low Chronology” (from his Ranked Settlement List, p. 219, Hazor X, Megiddo VA/IVB, Taanach IIA-B, Far‘ah VIIb, for instance, would move to the ninth century), but also based on insufficient information drawn from preliminary reports; Tel Kinrot V, e.g., does not cover 1.25 hectares, but 9-10 – it is, however, an eleventh-century city according to traditional chronology and certainly not an Israelite settlement. For Tell el-Kheleifeh I, there is no piece of evidence for a tenth-century dating. 98

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

Philistine economic supremacy without, however, replacing it immediately by the Phoenician ascendancy. Philistia’s wealth resulting from 150 years of economic preponderance may have invited Shoshenq’s actions as much as those campaigns might have accelerated its incipient decline.145 David, controlling most if not all of the Philistine periphery, was replaced by two rival nuclear states, centered around Jerusalem and Shechem, none of which could aspire to recover the territory of their common predecessor in its totality, at least not for the next fifty years.

the state of affairs there, and was accompanied by many people who worshipped the Divine Being. For he said, and taught, that the Aegyptians were mistaken in representing the Divine Being by the images of beasts and cattle... Now Moses, saying things of this kind, persuaded not a few thoughtful men and led them away to this place where the settlement of Jerusalem now is; and he easily took possession of the place, since it was not a place that would be looked on with envy, nor yet one for which anyone would make a serious fight; for it is rocky, and, although it itself is well supplied with water, its surrounding territory is barren and waterless... At the same time Moses, instead of using arms, put forward as defense his sacrifices and his Divine Being, being resolved to seek a seat of worship for Him and promising to deliver to the people a kind of worship and a kind of ritual which would not oppress those who adopted them either with expenses or with divine obsessions or with other absurd troubles. Now Moses enjoyed fair repute with these people, and organized no ordinary kind of government, since the people all round, one and all, came over to him, because of his dealings with them and of the prospects he held out to them.

4. Judaean Jerusalem The process that made Jerusalem a spiritual capital of the three Abrahamic religions started in the tenth century, but it was not completed before 398 BCE. David combined the crown of Judah with the diadem of Jerusalem; Solomon, king of Jerusalem, subjugated the tribe to the city, a constellation that was to endure to the beginning of the seventh century, presupposed by Isaiah 5 and protested against by Micah 3, 5:1-4, and acerbated by the reduction of the state of Judah to the city of Jerusalem and its vicinity in 701 and 597 BCE. Under Manasseh, Jerusalem finally became the central place of Judah, where now also the Judaean gentry gathered. It was the Judaean gentry who put Josiah on his throne (2 Kings 21:24). Josiah completed the centralisation of his state, or tried to do so; the temple, inherited from Canaan, became now the temple of Yhwh as the supreme deity of Jerusalem and Judah. It was this kind of centrality that was renewed, when the citizen-temple-community of Jerusalem was established under Persian rule, culminating in the promulgation of the Torah by Ezra in 398 BCE. It was the Torah that gave the second temple a theologically impeccable pedigree, and redefined its God as the God of all the world.

On the factual level, this etiology of Jewish Jerusalem is the most remote from what really happened. On the spiritual level, it is the most accurate. Post-exilic Jerusalem, where orthodox Judaism established itself more or less peacefully with the support of the Persian government, became the center of the worship of the God revealed by the Mosaic Torah;147 it is this Jerusalem that St. Paul called the mother of all the place where their faith originated in history. Bibliography Ahlström, G. W. 1986 Who Were the Israelites? Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 1993 The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeololithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest, ed. D. Edelman. SJOT. S 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

To the three biblical traditions of how Jerusalem became the capital of Judah – all without factual pertinence (Joshua 12:10; Judges 1:8; 2 Samuel 5:6-8), a pagan explanation may be added (Strabo geog. XVI 2,35f):146 Moses, namely, was one of the Aegyptian priests, and held a part of Lower Egypt, as it is called, but he went away from there to Judaea, since he was displeased with

Albertz, R. 1992 Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit 1 and 2. ATD. E 8/1 and 2 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. English translation: A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Nashville: Westminster John Knox.

145. In the same way Nabonidus’ attempt to secure for himself the wealth accumulated by Edom and the North Arabian trading centers in the seventh century resulted in their undoing, and paved the way for the rise of Kedar and later, the Nabataeans; cf. Knauf 1990a. The change from the Philistine Rift-Valley trade system to the CyproPhoenician system may have become visible around the middle of the tenth century: at the inland site of Tel Miqne, Stratum VI marked already some decline as compared to Stratum V, whereas contemporary Ashdod grew considerably from Stratum XI to Xa; cf. Herzog 1997: 202. Ashdod Xa may have been destroyed in the last quarter of the tenth century. 146. Strabo 1930: 283-285.

Alt, A. 1925 Jerusalems Aufstieg. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 79: 1-19. 147. A book and a religion unknown to both David and Solomon. For the Torah as the historical center of Scripture in Judaism and Christianity cf. Knauf 1995b; Crüsemann 1987. 99

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

of Early University.

1959 Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: Beck.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

Bösenecker, J. 2000 Die Septuaginta von 1 Könige 1-11. Diss. theol. masch. Rostock.

Aupert, P. 1997 Amathus During the First Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 1925.

Busse, H. 1984 ‘Omar b. al-Ḫatab in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 5: 73-119.

Baentsch, B. 1907 David und sein Zeitalter. Wissenschaft und Bildung 16. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Carmel, A. 1975 Geschichte Haifas in der türkischen Zeit 15161918. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bechmann, U. 1989 Das Deboralied zwischen Geschichte und Fiktion. DTR 33. St. Ottilien: EOS.

Cohen, A. 1973 Palestine in the 18th Century. Patterns of Government and Administration. Jerusalem: Magnes.

von Beckerath, J. 1997 Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten. MÄS 46. Mainz: von Zabern. Becking, B. 1997 Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel. Pp. 157-171 in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book. Leuven: Peeters.

Crüsemann, F. 1987 Das ‘portative Vaterland’. Struktur und Genese des alttestamentlichen Kanons. Pp. 63-79 in A. und J. Assmann, eds., Kanon und Zensur. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation 2. München: Fink.

Ben Zvi, E. 1995 Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of the Term ‘Israel’ in PostMonarchic Biblical Texts. Pp. 95-149 in St. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy, eds., The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. JSOT S 190. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Dever, W.G. 1997 Archaeology and the “Age of Solomon”: A CaseStudy in Archaeology and Historiography. Pp. 217-251 in L. K. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill.

Berlejung, A. 1996 Der Handwerker als Theologe: Zur Mentalitätsund Traditionsgeschichte eines altorientalischen und alttestamentlichen Berufstands. Vetus Testamentum 46: 145-168.

Dietrich, W. 1997 Die frühe Königszeit in Israel. 10. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Pp. 229-271 in Biblische Enzyklopädie 3. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Bieberstein, K. and H. Bloedhorn 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte von Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Dietrich, W. and Th. Naumann 1995 Die Samuelbücher. EdF 287. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Darmstadt:

Donner, H. 1977 Der Felsen und der Tempel. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 93: 1-11. 1983 Die Verwerfung des Königs Saul. Sitzungsberichte der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 19: 229-260. 1984 Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen 1. ATD. E 4/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (2nd ed. 1995). 1986 Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen 2: Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen. ATD. E 4/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (2nd ed. 1995). 1987 Le Origini di Israele. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: 53-63. 1994a Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten. BZAW 224. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1994b Der Spruch über Issachar (Gen. 49, 14-15) als Quelle zur Frühgeschichte Israels. Pp. 180-188 in

Bienkowski, P. 1995 The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence from Transjordan. Pp. 41-92 in D. Edelman, ed., You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother. Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars. 1996 Reports: Soundings in the Wadi Hasa, Jordan, 1995. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 128: 87. Bierbrier, M.L. 1984 Scheschonq I.-V. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Vol. 5:585-586. Biran, A. 1994 Biblical Dan. Society.

Israel.

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration

Blenkinsopp, J. 1972 Gibeon and Israel. The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History 100

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

Gaube, H. 1979 Die syrischen Wüstenschlösser: Einige wirtschaftliche und politische Gesichtspunkte zu ihrer Entstehung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 95: 182-209.

Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten. BZAW 224. Berlin: de Gruyter. Edelman, D. 1988 Saul’s Journey through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4-5; 10:2-5). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104: 44-58. 1991 King Saul in the Historiography of Judah. JSOT. S 121. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 1992a Ashurites. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1: 494. 1992b Saul. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 989-999. 1995 Solomon’s Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam: A Trio of “Bad Guy” Characters Illustrating the Theology of Immediate Retribution. Pp. 166-191 in St.W. Holloway and L.K. Handy, eds., The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. JSOT S 190. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 1996 Saul ben Kish in History and Tradition. Pp. 142159 in V. Fritz and P.R. Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. JSOT S 228. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Gitin, S. 1997 The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron. Pp. 77-103 in S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, eds., Assyria 1995. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7-11, 1995. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Görg, M. 1989 Zur Identität der “Seir-Länder”. Pp. 135-140 in id., Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte der Anfänge Israels. Dokumente – Materialien – Notizen. Ägypten und Altes Testament 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Grayson, A.K. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley: J.J. Augustin.

Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exporation Society. 1996a The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View. Levant 28: 177-187. 1996b The Stratigraphy and Chronology of Megiddo and Beth-Shan in the 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. Tel Aviv 23: 170-184. 1998 Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder. Levant 30:167-174. 1999 Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314: 55-70.

Hadjicosti, M. 1997 The Kingdom of Idalion in the Light of New Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 49-63. Halpern, B. 1994 The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296: 63-80. Handy, L.K. 1987 A Realignment in Heaven: An Investigation into the Ideology of the Josianic Reform. Ph. Diss. Chicago.

H.-W. Fischer-Elfert 1986 Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I. Übersetzung und Kommentar. ÄgAbh 44. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Handy, L.K., ed. 1997 The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill.

Floß, J.P. 1987 David und Jerusalem. Ziele und Folgen des Stadteroberungsberichtes 2 Samuel 5,6-9 literaturwissen-schaftlich betrachtet. ATS 30. St. Ottilien: EOS.

Hayes, J.H. and J.M. Miller, eds. 1977 Israelite and Judaean History. London: SCM.

Franken, H.J. and M.L. Steiner 1992 Urusalim and Jebus. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104: 110-111.

Herzog, Z. 1997 Archaeology of the City. Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. TAU. MS 13. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass.

Gal, Z. 1994 Iron I in Lower Galilee and the Margins of the Jezreel Valley. Pp. 35-46 in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Hübner, U. 1992 Die Ammoniter. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur und Religion eines trans-jordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ADPV 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991 Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A SocioArcheological Approach. SWBA 9 = JSOT 109. Sheffield: Almond.

Garbini, G. 1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. New York: Crossroad. 101

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

1995a Edom: The Social and Economic History. Pp. 93117 in D. Edelman, ed., You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother. Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars. 1995b Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Pp. 79-86 in M. Weippert and S. Timm, eds., Meilenstein. Festschrift H. Donner. Ägypten und Altes Testament. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1995c Stämme Israels. Pp. 479-483 in Fahlbusch et al., eds., Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon. Bd IV/Lfg. 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1996 Das ‘Haus Davids’ in der alt-aramäischen Inschrift vom Tel Dan. Bibel und Kirche 51: 9-10. 1997a Le roi est mort, vive le roi! A Biblical Argument for the Historicity of Solomon. Pp. 81-95 in L.K. Handy ed., The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill. 1997b Supplementa Ismaelitica 18. “Ross und Wagen warf er ins Meer”. Biblische Notizen 86: 50. 2000a Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Iron I Periods: A Proposal. Tel Aviv 27: 75-90. 2000b Kinneret and Naftali. Pp. 219-233 in A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, eds., Congress Volume Oslo. VT. S. 80. Leiden: Brill.

Kaiser, O. 1993 Der Gott des Alten Testaments. Theologie des Alten Testaments 1: Grundlegung. UTB 1747. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1998 Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Wesen und Wirken. Theologie des Alten Testaments 2. UTB 2024. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Kalimi, I. 1995 Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten. Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuelund Königsbüchern. BZAW 226. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Keel, O. and Ch. Uehlinger 1994 Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem. Pp 269-306 in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein, eds., Ein Gott allein? YHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. OBO 139. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag und Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht. 1997 Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. 4th edition. QD 134. Freiburg: Herder. Knauf, E.A. 1988a Midian. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1988b Supplementa Ismaelitica 13: Edom und Arabien. Biblische Notizen 45: 62-81. 1990a The Persian Administration in Arabia. Transeuphratène 2: 201-217. 1990b War Biblisch-Hebräisch eine Sprache? Empirische Gesichtspunkte zur Annäherung an die Sprache der althebräischen Literatur. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3: 11-23. 1990c Review of Ahlström 1986. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49: 81-83. 1990d Das 10. Jahrhundert: ein Kapitel Vorgeschichte Israels. Pp. 156-161 in D. Trobisch, ed., HeidelBerger Apokryphen. Eine vorzeitige Nikolausgabe zum 50. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. K. Berger; manuscript on file, library of WissenschaftlichTheologisches Seminar, Heidelberg. 1991a Eglon and Ophrah. Two Toponymic Notes on the Book of Judges. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51: 25-44. 1991b King Solomon’s Copper Supply. Pp. 167-186 in E. Lipinski, ed., Phoenicia and the Bible. Studia Phoenicia XI. Leuven: Peeters. 1992 The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Formation: The Cases of the Edomites and Moabites. Pp. 47-54 in P. Bienkowski, ed., Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7. Sheffield: J.R. Collis. 1994 Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar AT Bd. 29. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Knauf, E.A. and C.J. Lenzen 1987 Edomite Copper Industry. Pp. 83-88 in A. Hadidi, ed., Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3. Amman: Department of Antiquities, and London/New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kuan, J.K. 1990 Third Kingdoms 5. 1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the Reign of Solomon. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46: 31-46. Levin, Ch. 1995 Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Pp. 163178 in J. A. Emerton, ed., Congress Volume Paris 1992. VTS 61. Leiden; Brill. Lipinski, E. 1975 Nordsemitische Texte. Pp. 245-284 in W. Beyerlin, ed., Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. ATD. E 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1991 The Territory of Tyre and the Tribe of Asher. Pp. 153-166 in E. Lipinski, ed., Phoenicia and the Bible. OLA 44. Leuven: Peeters. Lohfink, N. 1978 Die Gattung der “Historischen Kurzgeschichte” in den letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des babylonischen Exils. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 90: 319-347. 1991 Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände AT 12: 55-86. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 102

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

Olivier, J.P.J. 1983 In Search for a Capital of the Northern Kingdom. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11: 117132.

Macchi, J.-D. 1994 Les Samaritains: Histoire d’une légende. Le Monde de la Bible 30. Geneva: Labor et Fides. Miller, J.M. and J.H. Hayes 1986 A History of Ancient Israel Philadelphia: Westminster.

and

Otto, E. 1998 Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient. Zeitschrift für altorientalische Rechtsgeschichte 4: 1-84.

Judah.

Mittmann, S. 1976 Amos 3,12-15 und das Bett der Samarier. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 92:149-167. 1983 Die “Handschelle” der Philister (2 Sam 8:1). Pp. 327-341 in M. Görg, ed., Fontes atque pontes. Festschrift H. Brunner; Ägypten und Altes Testament 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Redford, D.B. 1992 Shishak. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 1221-1222. Renz, J. 1997 Schrift und Schreibertradition. Eine paläographische Studie zum kulturgeschichtlichen Verhältnis von israelitischem Nordreich und Südreich. ADPV 23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Müller, W.W. 1978 Abessinier und ihre Namen und Titel in vorislamischen südarabischen Texten. Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik 3: 159-168.

Renz, J. and W. Röllig 1995 Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik I. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Na’aman, N. 1990 The Kingdom of Ishbaal. Biblische Notizen 54: 33-37. 1995a Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 79:17-24. 1995b Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381-394. 1996a The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 17-27. 1996b Sources and Composition in the History of David. Pp. 170-186 in V. Fritz and P. R. Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. JSOT S 228. Sheffield: JSOT. 1997 Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 122-128.

Rogerson, J. and P.R. Davies 1996 Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah? Biblical Archaeologist 59:138-149. Ruprecht, K. 1977 Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? BZAW 144. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 1993 David und Jerusalem – ein Kapitel biblischer Historiographie. Eretz Israel 24 (Festschrift A. Malamat), 197-211*. Schroer, S. 1992 Die Samuelbücher. NSK-AT Katholisches Bibelwerk.

7.

Stuttgart:

Schroer, S. and Th. Staubli 1996 Saul, David und Jonatan – eine Dreiecksgeschichte? Ein Beitrag zum Thema “Homosexualität im Ersten Testament”. Bibel und Kirche 51: 15-22.

Naveh, J. 1982 Early History of the Alphabet. Jerusalem: Magnes. Niemann, H.M. 1993 Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat. Skizzen zur soziokulturellen Entwicklung im monarchischen Israel. FAT 6. Tübingen: Mohr. 1997 The Socio-Political Shadow Cast by the Biblical Solomon. Pp. 252-299 in L.K. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill.

Schulte, H. 1990 Richter 5: Das Debora-Lied. Versuch einer Deutung. Pp. 177-191 in E. Blum et al., eds., Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

Ofer, A. 1994 “All the Hill Country of Judah”: From a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy. Pp. 92-121 in Finkelstein and Na’aman, From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Smyth-Florentin, F. 1994 Les mythes illégitimes. Essai sur la “Terre Promise”. Entrée libre 30. Geneva: Labor et Fides. Staubli, Th. 1991 Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn. OBO 107. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

103

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Gesellschaft 52. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, and Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft.

Stoebe, H.J. 1957 Die Einnahme Jerusalems und der Sinnôr. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 73: 73-99. 1989 Geschichte, Schicksal, Schuld und Glaube. BBB 72. Frankfurt: Athenäum. 1994 Das zweite Buch Samuelis. KAT 8.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher.

Viehweger, D. 1993 Überlegungen zur Landnahme israelitischer Stämme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der galiläischen Berglandgebiete. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 109: 20-36.

Strabo 1930 The Geography of Strabo 7. Translation by H.L. Jones, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University and London: W. Heinemann, reprint 1966),

Weippert, H. 1988 Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie, Vorderasien II/1. München: Beck. 1990 Synkretismus und Monotheismus. Religionsinterne Konfliktbewältigung im Alten Israel. Pp. 143-179 in J. Assmann and D. Harth, eds., Kultur und Konflikt. Edition Suhrkamp NF 612. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

Tarler, D. and J.M. Cahill 1992 David, City of. Anchor Bible Dictionary 2: 52-67. Thompson, T.L. 1992 The Early History of the Israelite People From the Written and Archaeological Sources. SHANE 4. Leiden: Brill.

1992 Die Kesselwagen Salomos. Zeitschrift Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 108: 8-41.

des

Timm, S. 1982 Die Dynastie Omri. FRLANT 124. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Welten, P. 1973 Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern. WMANT 42. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener.

Uehlinger, Ch. 1996 Die ´Jebusiter'. Geschichtliche Hintergründe eines problematischen Jubiläums. ZeitSchrift/Reformatio 45: 256-263.

Wightman, G.J. 1990 The Myth of Solomon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278: 5-22. Willi-Plein, I. 1995 Frauen um David: Beobachtungen zur Davidshausgeschichte. Pp. 349-361, 353f. in M. Weippert and S. Timm, eds., Meilenstein. Festschrift H. Donner. Ägypten und Altes Testament 30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Ussishkin, D. 1995 The Water Systems of Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s Reign. Pp. 289-307 in M. Weippert and S. Timm, eds., Meilenstein. Festschrift H. Donner. Ägypten und Altes Testament 30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Winckler, H. 1895 Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen I. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Veijola, T. 1979 Salomo – der erstgeborene Bathsebas. Pp. 230-250 in J.A. Emerton, ed., Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. VTS 30. Leiden: Brill. 1984 David in Keïla. Tradition und Interpretation in 1 Sam 23,1-13. Revue Biblique 91: 51-87. 1990 David. Gesammelte Studien zu den Davidüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen

Würthwein, E. 1977 Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Könige 1-16. ATD 11.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Yon, M. 1997 Kition in the Tenth to Fourth Centuries B. C. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 9-17.

104

KNAUF, JERUSALEM IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE

Figure 1. Centre and Periphery in the Rise and Decline of Jerusalem a. 6th Century BCE c. 9th/8th Century BCE

b. 11th-10th Century BCE – 7th Century BCE d. 5th Century BCE – 6th Century CE 105

CHAPTER 13 THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS David F. Graf For more than a century and a half, Jerusalem has been the focus of archaeological investigations. In 1838, the American Edward Robinson noticed the spring of a Herodian arch that still bears his name, and identified remains of the Third Wall. The French and British soon followed. Excavations began with F. de Saulcy’s clearing of the so-called “Tombs of the Kings” in 1854, and C. Wilson’s soundings around the Haram in 1864. Afterwards, the international effort continued, and the results continue to accumulate. For the Hellenistic and Roman eras, the excavations have revealed the remains of the private palaces, residential buildings, water supply systems, defensive fortifications and crowded cemeteries scattered over its hills. In addition, its topography has been largely clarified, but there is still much that remains unknown. This is partially because much of ancient Jerusalem lies beneath the crowded Old City and its adjacent neighborhoods, restricting the area that can be exposed to excavations. In the early Hellenistic period, the settlement was restricted to the Southeast Hill called Ophel (“bulge” or “projection”), but during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, there was a shift to the Southwest Hill bordering Wadi al-Rababah. The Southeast Hill is designated the Lower City, comprising an area of about 10 or 15 acres just below the Haram and just west of Wadi Sitti Maryam, while the Southwest Hill is called the Upper City, including traditional Mount Zion, but also the present Jewish Quarter, the Armenian Quarter, and the Citadel. Separating these two hills or ridges is al-Wad, the Tyropoeon Valley (“valley of the cheesemakers”, cf. Josephus BJ 5.4.1), which ran northsouth between the hills. Today, it is represented only by a slight depression, but in antiquity it separated the city from the suburbs.

Hellenistic Period In 332 BCE, Jerusalem and Judah were absorbed into the expansionist kingdom of Alexander the Great. The legendary entrance of Alexander into Jerusalem that Josephus preserves (AJ 11.8.5), is part of the Alexander Romance and lacks any historical credibility. This story of the friendship between Alexander and the Jewish priests at Jerusalem, indeed of the Macedonian king prostrate before the High Priest, who promised him victory over the Persian empire, as recorded in the Book of Daniel, is mentioned in rabbinical sources and PseudoCallisthenes, but its murky origins seems best assigned to a period and location outside Palestine and long after Alexander’s campaign (Momigliano 1979; cf. Bickerman 1988: 8-12). Nonetheless, after Alexander’s death, the Ptolemies of Egypt eventually assumed control of Palestine and administered it for more than a century (301-198 BCE). During the initial wars between the Diadochoi, Ptolemy I seized Jerusalem on the Sabbath, when the Jews refused to fight (AJ 12.1.4-6). During the third century, the Ptolemies of Egypt were engaged in frequent wars with the Seleucids of Syria, with Palestine a battlefield for their encounters, although under Ptolemaic administration. But Jerusalem in this period is obscure. In the middle of the third century, the Zenon papyri from Egypt allude to Jerusalem several times in a list of eleven other Palestinian and Transjordanian towns that supplied wheat flour for Ptolemaic officials in 259 BCE (Papyrus Cairo Zenon 59004/3, and 59005/7). The relative obscurity of most of the other villages mentioned prohibits any great significance being attached to Jerusalem in this context, but the Letter of Aristeas indicates there were a large number of building projects in the city during the early third century. Archaeology has failed to illuminate any of these third century developments, but more can be offered for the next century.

The basic description of Jerusalem, its buildings and fortifications is that of Josephus at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (BJ 5.136-183, 184-247; Feldman 1998). At this time, Jerusalem was considered “the most illustrious city in the East” (Pliny, NH V.70), and “the metropolis of many other countries” (Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 281). These literary descriptions overshadow by far the city known solely by archaeology. Still the emerging archaeological details of this central city of Palestine are far too extensive for a detailed discussion (see Bahat 1990 and 1997; King 1992; Geva 1993; Broshi 1999), but the major developments and achievements can at least be summarized (see Purvis 1988, Geva 1993, and Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994 for bibliography and Yadin 1975 and Geva 1994 for specific reports).

In 201-198 BCE, Antiochus III defeated the army of Ptolemy V Epiphanes and annexed Palestine. As the successors of the Ptolemies, the Seleucids of Syria governed the Levant, and parts of Palestine were reoccupied by the Maccabees. During this period, the city began a slow recovery under Seleucid auspices. This program produced tensions among the Jews, particularly among the upper classes, who adopted Hellenist culture. These proponents of Hellenization included the High Priest Jason, who transformed Jerusalem in 175 BCE into a Hellenistic polis named Antiochia (after Antiochus IV), with a gymnasium located in the city. The gymnasium was under the patronage of Hermes and Hercules, and 106

GRAF, THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

an independent state and the occupation of Jerusalem was complete.

involved Jews in Greek athletic events and pagan customs (2 Maccabees 4:9). In 171 BCE, the newly appointed high priest Menelaus further pursued these Hellenizing policies. The reaction to these changes initiated by the temple priesthood and upper classes was particularly sharp among other Jews, such as the Essenes, a splinter sect, whose dissent led to their migration from Jerusalem to Qumran near the Dead Sea. As a result, Jerusalem became the center stage of a rebellion.

During the period between Alexander’s conquest and the establishment of the Hasmonean state, Jerusalem’s archaeological history is vague. In the earlier Persian era, the city was fairly constricted to the Southeast Hill, the area of the City of David and the temple. This area comprised only about 30 acres and was occupied by an estimated population of only about 4,500. The Western Hill apparently remained unoccupied. These conditions appear to have been maintained in the early Hellenistic era. Hecataeus says the population was 120,000 in the mid-third century BCE (Josephus, Against Apion I.197), but this figure is hardly trustworthy. Neither the excavations in the Jewish Quarter nor those on the southwestern ridge of Mount Zion have yielded anything from the early Hellenistic period. Evidence of early Hellenistic presence is limited to finds in the northern part of Silwan, where numerous Rhodian amphora jar handles were found stamped with seal impressions containing Greek inscriptions. This suggests the early Hellenistic community was still restricted to the traditional areas of Silwan and the Southeast Hill.

Antiochus IV reacted quickly against the dissenters, desecrating the temple by erecting an altar to Zeus, and destroying the walls of the city in 168 BCE (1 Maccabees 1:29-63; 2 Maccabees 6:2-5). At the same time, a garrison was instituted on the Citadel named the Acra (Josephus AJ 12.5.4). Although Josephus locates it in the Lower City on the Southeast Hill, others have proposed a location at the northwestern part of the Haram or on the Western Hill. The lack of any traces of the Hellenistic period in the Upper City recommend the traditional location, which is better suited for surveillance of the temple (1 Maccabees 1.30-36; AJ 12.5.4). The “seam” in the eastern wall of Hellenistic large ashlars with drafted margins led others to propose it was a remnant of the Acra, suggesting the fortress was built in the southeastern part of the temple platform. Others have suggested the Southeast Hill, south of the Huldah Gates, or somewhere beneath the southern Herodian extension of the temple platform as the location of the Acra. Although the location of the Acra is still a matter of dispute, these latter suggestions seem to be the most likely (cf. Geva 1994: 9). An important epigraphic find for the existence of the Acra is the Greek inscription found in the Old City attesting an oath taken by soldiers of the gymnasium who were stationed at the Acra.

Hasmonean Period The Maccabean rebellion eventually resulted in the establishment of the sons of Mattathias as the dynasts of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital in 142 BCE. This independent state was called “Hasmonean” (after the great-grandfather of Mattathias), and the dynasty ruled parts of Palestine for almost a century (from 142 to 63 BCE). As descendants of the family of Mattathias, the Hashmonean and Maccabean rulers also served as high priests. The Hasmonean regime preserved the Upper City as the seat of their administration, but a bridge was also constructed across al-Wad to the temple, uniting the two major hills of settlement. The remains of this bridge are visible today along the Western Wall, represented by an arch that served to support the bridge spanning al-Wad. It is named after Charles Wilson who observed it in the 1860s. The Western Hill was resettled only gradually from about 100 BCE and afterwards, but by the end of the Hasmonean period the expansion reached a total area of about 165 acres and a population of approximately 30,000.

These actions by the Seleucid ruler resulted in a widescale revolt led by the Jewish priest Mattathias and his five sons. Eventually, their efforts led to the reoccupation of Jerusalem, but this was accomplished through a slow process. It began in 164 BCE, when Judas Maccabees purified and rededicated the temple, but Jerusalem still remained a divided city. The Acra was still under Seleucid control. After Judas’ death, he was succeeded by Jonathan (160-142 BCE), who continued the campaign against the Seleucid general Bacchides in Jerusalem and Jewish Hellenizers, but from a distance. The center of Jonathan’s rule was Michmash, just north of Jerusalem (1 Maccabees 9:73), where he gained some degree of recognition by the Seleucid monarch Demetrius as the ruler of a small chiefdom. In 152 BCE, he was able to reoccupy parts of Jerusalem, but the area of the Acra remained under Seleucid control. During this time, the Hasmoneans essentially agreed to a status of a dependent state under Seleucid rule, while seeking some support elsewhere, namely at Sparta and Rome (1 Maccabees 12:1-23). But it was not until his successor Simon (142135 BCE) captured and destroyed the Acra in 141 BCE (2 Maccabees 13:49-51) that the Hasmonean established

The Western Hill was now established as the new heart of the city and remained thus until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. As soon as Jerusalem was reoccupied, the Hasmonean rulers began immediately fortifying the city, encircling the Western Hill with a wall called the “First Wall”, which was completed by ca. 141 BCE. They also erected a fortress called the Baris (Schartz 1996) to defend the northern side of the temple area (AJ 15.403) that Herod would later transform into the Antonia fortress (BJ 1.118). Its location appears to be just inside the northwestern corner of the Haram, where remains of 107

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

BCE (Roller 1998: 176). It was divided into two sectors, the Caesareon, named after Augustus, and the Agrippeon, after Augustus’ chief military leader Marcus Agrippa. The estimated size was 130 x 330 m, built on an artificial platform. Only a few traces of Herod the Great’s palace have been found through excavations in the vicinity of the Citadel (Amiran and Bitan in Yadin 1976: 54) and the Armenian Garden to its south (Bahat in Yadin 1976: 5556). But excavations in the Jewish Quarter also revealed a palatial Herodian-period mansion that comprised several dozen lavishly decorated rooms arranged around a central courtyard, associated with the family of the high priest. Other domestic dwellings built in the Upper City in the Herodian period were also quite elaborate, with frescoes and stuccoed walls and mosaic pavements. The typical wall painting was arranged into rectangular panels, imitating marble and architectural fragments, painted in pastel floral motifs reflecting an illusionary landscape. Inside these houses, cisterns, reservoirs, and stepped Jewish ritual baths (miqva'ot) were found cut into bedrock. Household items also included articles made of stone, such as tables, bowls and ritual jars, but elegant ceramic and glass vessels found in the same context were also typical. It is clear that the royal family and high priests lived an aristocratic lifestyle. Other impressive structures were located elsewhere in the city, such as the Hasmonean Palace situated on the eastern slope of the Upper City (AJ 15.11.410), which continued to be used in the Herodian era by Agrippa I and II, and the palaces in the Lower City of Queen Helena (BJ 5.2.53, 6.355), Monobaz (BJ 5.6.1), and the Graphte family (BJ 4.9.11) of Adiabene, but no traces of their remains have been located.

well-hewn trenches were cut as foundations for the walls of the fortress by the Herodian quarriers. These finds were associated with the remains of a water cistern supplied by an aqueduct along the Western Wall. The large rock-cut trench-like aqueduct was discovered by Warren in 1867 and later rediscovered in 1985. It is really a deep channel cut into the rocky surface and covered with stone slabs for some 80 m between the Strouthion pool and the Western Wall. The southern part of the aqueduct parallels the Western Wall. It apparently collected surface run-off water from the higher ground north and west of the Baris and conveyed it to cisterns beneath the fortress. It is of pre-Herodian construction and now considered part of the Hasmonean fortified palace created on the site of the Baris. These new fortifications were put to the test almost immediately. In the Citadel, excavations produced hundreds of ballista stones and arrowheads marked with insignia and inscribed with Greek letters that suggest they are probably evidence of the siege of the city by the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes in 134-132 BCE (Sivan and Solar in Geva 1994: 173-174). The siege forced John Hyrcanus to agree to sign a treaty with the Seleucid ruler that required him to demolish some of Jerusalem’s fortifications. Afterwards, the recovery of the city began again. Under the rule of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonean regime reached the zenith of its power and influence. The Hasmonean occupation now extended to the northern districts, and made it necessary to construct a Second Wall. An aqueduct was constructed from the Judaean hills in the south to the temple. After the death of Salome Alexander in 67 BCE, the wars of succession among the Hasmonean princes led to the intervention of Pompey in 63 BCE (Regev 1997 and Bellemore 1999). The Roman commander backed Hyrcanus II against his brother Aristobulus II, who sought refuge in the temple. After a three-month siege, Pompey occupied the Upper City, attacked the temple, entered the Holy of Holies, and destroyed the walls of the city (AJ 14.58-71; BJ 1.421-152). The independent state of the Hasmoneans was now over. Judaea was now a Roman-client state. The attempt by Aristobulus’ son, Alexander to re-erect the fortifications was foiled by Gabinius, the Roman procurator in Syria (AJ 4.82-85; BJ 1.160-163), who reorganized the region.

The Herodian period in Jerusalem is also marked by numerous building projects characterized by a distinctive architectural technique and massive masonry. The most prominent and impressive architectural complex of Jerusalem was the Herodian temple (Patrich in Geva 1994: 260-271; Bahat 1999). The area of the enclosure is 144,000 sq m in the pattern of an unusually large temenos constructed over the bedrock of a large rather hilly region, not on a plain, such as the other large temple complexes of Bel at Palmyra or Jupiter at Damascus. The appearance was that of a large plaza with porticoes on each side, focusing on the temple in the center. Its shape was rectangular with irregular sides, the western being the longest (485 m) and the eastern the shorter (470 m), the northern shorter (315 m), and the southern even shorter (280 m). The lower portions of these walls served as retaining walls, and the upper portions rose some 30 m above street level and some 50 m above bedrock. At the corners, towers rose another 5 m in height. The stones used in the construction of the temple walls were of uniform length and approximately a meter high, weighing from 2 to 5 tons each. But at the southern corners of the enclosure, even larger stones were used as headers and stretchers to bind the walls together. These stones were 10 m long and about 2.5 m wide, weighing 50 tons or

Herodian Period Under the lengthy rule of Herod (37-4 BCE), the Upper City reached its greatest development, marked by ruins reflecting great economic prosperity. During the Herodian period, the city comprised 230 acres and a population estimated at about 40,000. Herod’s palace was located at the northwestern corner of the Upper City, and was constituted according to Josephus by large buildings, bed-chambers, banqueting halls, porticoes, gardens, fountains, pools, and other lavish structures and elements (BJ 5.176-183). Its construction perhaps began after 25 108

GRAF, THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

with heavy gold plates. This may have been just the lower parts, as the upper parts must have been of white stone, perhaps white-washed at times. The structure itself was 100 cubits high and 100 cubits square. It was raised some 6 cubits above the exterior courtyard of the priests that surrounded it. The entrance of the Portico was 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide, with a plain unadorned surface. Two columns flanked the entrance, with a golden eagle that Herod affixed to the portal (which pious Jews removed after his death). Fixed in the Portico ceiling were gold chains, which the Mishnah calls “crowns”. The portal of the sanctuary itself had a golden vine over the entrance (BJ 5.210). The doors were multi-colored, ornamented with gold flowers on top of columns, with a vine from which hung clusters of golden grapes as high as a man (AJ 15.394-95).

more. Also in the southern wall, the twenty-eighth course served as a kind of “master course” to stabilize the complex with stones estimated at 100 tons. An even larger stone is embedded in the Western Wall, measuring 12.1 m long and 3.5 m wide, weighing perhaps 300 tons. Each course is recessed 2-3 cm from the one beneath it, so that the outer face is inclined inward, perhaps to increase its strength as much as to serve as an architectural compensation for any optical illusion. These stones were probably quarried locally from northern Jerusalem, just beyond the city boundaries, eliminating any need to lift them to any great height. The blocks were laid side by side without any bonding material, providing retaining walls up to the surface level. The internal area was probably filled with earth, but with a series of vaults supporting the platform and relieving the pressure exerted on the walls by the building complex.

Two Greek inscriptions have been found that once were on the parapet wall that separated the inner court of the sacred enclosure. The first one found in 1870 by Clermont-Ganneau is complete (CIJ no. 1400). A fragmentary inscription discovered outside St. Stephen’s Gate (Bab al-Asbat) appears to have been of an identical text prohibiting Gentiles from entering the inner court of the temple that Josephus mentioned (AJ 15.417, BJ 5.193; 6.125; cf. Mishnah, Kel. 1.8). “No foreigner shall enter within the balustrade of the temple, or within the precinct, and whosoever shall be caught shall be responsible for his own death that will follow for trespassing.”

The court area of the temple complex was paved. A donation for the court pavement was made by a Rhodian Jew named Paris during the time of High Priest Simon son of Boethus in year 20 of Herod’s reign or 18/17 BCE (Isaac 1983 = 1998: 21-28), just a few years after the project began in 23 BCE (BJ 1.21.1) or 20 BCE (AJ 15.11.1). Four gates led to the temple complex from the west (AJ 15.410; Magen 1980): the bridge leading across al-Wad to Herod’s palace, two to the Lower City or suburbs, and the fourth into the valley and upwards by flights of stairs to the Upper City. All are now known archaeologically. The two southern gates known as the Double and Triple gates are exterior to the Hulda Gates in the interior. The eastern gate or Susa gate was for the “Red Heifer” procession. No gate existed on the northern wall. The construction of the outer walls and porticoes took eight years. During the reign of Agrippa II (50-93 CE), a screening wall was added to the western portico of the temple to prevent him from peering into the temple from his palace in the Upper City (AJ 20.189-196).

The southern wall has two gates called the “Huldah Gates” (Mishnah, Mid. 1.3), a Double Gate to the west and a Triple Gate to the east, serving for entering and exiting the temple complex. Excavations of the Southeast Hill exposed not only the foundations of the southern wall of the temple enclosure, but the impressive Herodian public works associated with entering the temple, including wide paved streets, flights of stairs and plazas (B. Mazar 1978). Robinson’s Arch was actually revealed to be only part of a series of vaults that supported a staircase leading from the main street in al-Wad to a gate in the southwestern corner of the temple enclosure. The southern section of the temple’s outer court was a royal stoa or sheltered promenade. This rectangular hall had four rows of columns resembling a Roman basilica (AJ 15.11.5). At the southwest corner of the temple enclosure, remains of a 10 m street were found, which was a main artery for traffic in the period. It ran along al-Wad and was paved with large stone slabs and bordered with curbstones. Side streets 3 m wide ran from it to the north along the Western Wall and the other climbed eastward to the Huldah gates, and another west to the Upper City. The street along the Western Wall was supported by a series of vaults.

The construction of the temple itself began under Herod the Great in either 23 or 20 BCE, and was completed in one year and seven months. The figure of 46 years (John 2:20) may refer to the additions (AJ 20.219), which even continued until the time of the procurator Albinus (62-64 CE). The project was impressive, representing an expansion of the smaller traditional temple enclosure of 500 cubits sq. (263 m sq) mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Ezekiel 42:15-20). Of the temple itself, nothing remains. The precise location on the Herodian temple relative to the present Dome of the Rock and the foundation stone enshrined in it (even ha-shetiyyah) is also not certain. The most detailed descriptions of the temple are preserved by Josephus and the Misnah (in the tractate Middot). They describe the main elements of the temple, essentially the Portico, Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Included in their description are the Upper Chamber, Cells and a Stepped Passageway. The Talmud says it was constructed of “stones of yellow, black and white marble” (B.T. Baba Batra 4a), but Josephus says Herod plated the temple

The Western Wall is now exposed along its entire length. Wilson’s Arch springs from the Western Wall and is one of a series of arches that supported a bridge that spanned al-Wad to link the temple to the Upper City (AJ 14.58; BJ 109

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

In addition to the Antonia fortress, Herod erected three large towers in the northwest of the city (BJ 5.161-171), and named them Phasael (after Herod’s older brother), Hippicus (after his “friend” at the court and commander of the cavalry), and Mariamne (one of his wives, the granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, the Hasmonean king). The only one of these towers that survives is that known since the Middle Ages as the Tower of David. It is 20 m high and 21 x 17 m at the top. It is extremely well constructed and has been identified with either the tower of Phasael or Hippicus, but the later seems more likely (Geva 1994: 161). This means the towers of Phasael and Mariamne were located east of the Tower of David and were later incorporated into the First Wall built by Herod (see below). These towers protected the western sector and Herod’s adjacent palace.

2.344). Wilson’s Arch itself was probably constructed in the Early Islamic period as a bridge for crossing over alWad, rather than in the Herodian-Roman period, but it may have replaced an earlier bridge. The RomanByzantine street pavement above a complex of vaults extending west of Wilson’s Arch supports such an hypothesis. Near Wilson’s Arch are the remains of a hall, discovered by Warren and believed to constitute part of the “Hasmonean Wall”. But this hall was originally a large Herodian building, perhaps the “Chamber of Hewn Stones” or “Council Building” mentioned by Josephus (BJ 5.144). “Warren’s Gate” is visible about 40 m north of Wilson’s Arch. It was originally an underground staircase providing access from the street to the esplanade above. The rest of the outer face of the wall between Wilson’s Arch and the northwest corner has been exposed by means of a tunnel proceeding north beneath the buildings of the Old City, just north of the present Western Wall Plaza. That tunneling began in the 1970s by M. Ben-Dov and was continued by D. Bahat (Bahat in Geva 1994: 177-190). In the Western Wall just north of Wilson’s Arch, a gigantic stone weighing approximately 300 tons was discovered. At the northern end of the Western Wall, the Herodian quarriers were forced to cut into the rock of the hill in order to continue directly north.

The impact of Herod’s constructions on the layout of the city must have been dramatic as well, but the evidence of the street network is minimal. Avigad found one street between the Upper City and temple area that was 13 m wide leading to Robinson’s Arch (Avigad 1983: 88-94 with fig. 77 on p. 93). The fact that it is at right angles and built over an earlier Herodian house suggests that Herod laid out the Upper City on a grid pattern. This street must be added to those discovered by Mazar at the southeastern corner of the Haram.

At the northwest corner of the temple area, Herod erected a fortress that he called “Antonia” after Mark Antony, his benefactor (BJ 1.401; Tacitus, Histories 5.11). This was the first of Herod’s constructions, apparently erected after 37 BCE and before Actium in 31 BCE. It was located on the site of the earlier Seleucid and/or Hasmonean fortress of the Baris. As with the earlier fortifications, it provided protection to the northern sector of the city and the temple (AJ 15.292). This large scale structure (150 x 90 m) once proposed by Avi-Yonah to be built around a central paved square courtyard (lithostrotos) over the Struthion Pool (cf. BJ 5.467) is now believed to be a much smaller construction that excluded the Struthion Pool (Benoit 1971; cf. Cohn 1979). It was built on an elevated rocky plateau (45 x 120 m) isolated by moats on the north and west, a sharp incline on the east, and the temple to the south (BJ 5.149, 238-246; cf. De Sion 1955). Towers were located at the four corners, with Straton’s Tower at the southwest. The bathhouses, courtyards, porticoes, and large rooms of the interior described by Josephus have left no traces. The fortress was connected to the temple by stoas (BJ 2.330. 6.165) and a secret staircase that led to the inner court of the temple (AJ 15.424). This helps explain why the Antonia was used as the storehouse for priestly robes (AJ 15.204; 18.91-95). Even after Actium, the name “Antonia” was preserved (Roller 1998: 175). The nearby “Ecce Homo” arch on the Via Dolorosa now appears to be the remains of a city gate from the Herodian era, rather than a triumphal arch (Blomme 1979). Herod also created a market area that extended from the Antonia Fortress to the Hasmonean wall (BJ 5.146).

During the Herodian period, the city walls also were extended. Josephus indicates that three walls protected Jerusalem on the north (BJ 5.4.1). The internal First Wall surrounding the entire city was the oldest, dating probably to the Hasmonean era (BJ 5.4.2). It purportedly had 60 towers, suggesting it was of primary significance (BJ 5.4.3). It runs through undeveloped areas, so is the best known archaeologically of the three walls. Its line on the slopes of Mount Zion was uncovered in the nineteenth century, its existence in the Citadel area was found early in the twentieth century, and its eastern edge by Kenyon and Shiloh later. Avigad also discovered that a segment of this northern wall incorporated a tower of the Israelite period, giving some basis to Josephus’ statement that David and Solomon founded it. The wall ran south from the Hippicus tower located at the modern Citadel at the Jaffa Gate around the Upper City along the Wadi alRababah to the “Gate of the Essenes” and then east to Wadi Sitti Maryam where it joined the eastern portico of the temple. At Wilson’s Arch on the Western Wall, it then ran west back to the Citadel. At the Protestant cemetery on Mount Zion in the southwest, excavations by Bliss and Dickie in 1894-1895 exposed a section of wall with a gate that had been destroyed and rebuilt several times. Subsequent excavations beginning in 1977 have helped clarify its architectural history, revealing three superimposed sills of the gate. The upper gate is clearly Byzantine, but the lower gate appears to be of a pre-70 construction, judging from the “Herodian lamps” and “pseudo-Nabataean” sherds found in its context (Pixner, Chen and Maraglit 1989). This suggests that it was the 110

GRAF, THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

no remains of the Third Wall have been discovered along the line of the northern wall of the present Old City. The exterior wall is also constructed of stones dressed with typical Herodian margins and bosses with projecting towers to the north. The architectural effort seems to be on a large scale reflective of royal engineers. Moreover, excavations along the present Ottoman wall on the north side of the city failed to disclose anything of the Herodian period. The excavations in the 1970s of this wall revealed a continuous stretch 45 m long constructed of ashlars and fieldstones just over 4 m wide. The excavations of the Roman city gate beneath the present Damascus Gate demonstrated that the gate complex was the creation of the period of Aelia Capitolina in the second century CE. (Magen in Geva 1994: 281-286). The earlier suggestion of Hennessy and Kenyon that the gate complex was part of the Third Wall must now be rejected. The SukenikMayer Wall now seems to be correctly identified as the Third Wall. Nevertheless, subsequent excavations east and west of the line of the Sukenik-Mayer wall failed to find any continuation of their wall. It is possible that parts of the wall were dismantled for the building of Aelia Capitolina, as excavations in the early 1990s found evidence of quarrying activity (Tzaferis et al in Geva 1994: 287). Josephus assigned the foundations of the wall to Agrippa I (41-44 CE) with its completion sometime during the First Jewish Revolt (BJ 5.135-161). There is now no doubt that this is correct. This means the wall enlarged the city considerably, from 90 hectares (225 acres) to 170 hectares (425 acres), even if the settlement inside the extension was never fully developed. But this northern wall was less defensible than other areas, and it was precisely this sector that Titus breached during the Roman siege of the city.

gate destroyed by Titus in the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. BJ 6.9.4). It has also been identified with the “Essene Gate” mentioned by Josephus (Pixner 1989 and 1997). This southwestern area is also the reputed location of the Cenacle or “Upper Room” (Mark 14:15; Luke 22.12), and the early Jewish-Christian church (Eusebius, HE 4.6.4). Speculation that the cemetery found at Beit Safafa in southwestern Jerusalem some distance from the Old City was associated with the Essenes (Zissu 1999) is less compelling. Its path was the most defensible of the three walls. The location and date of the Second Wall is still debated. Since it ran entirely within the confines of the Old City, it has not been possible to conduct excavations along its possible path. Literary clues are all that exist. Josephus says it started from the Gennath gate in the First Wall to enclose the northern district of the town as far as the Antonia fortress (BJ 5.4.2), along which fourteen towers were distributed (BJ 5.4.3). Its identification with the “wall” discovered by Vincent must be rejected, as this appears to be nothing more than a mere RomanByzantine terrace wall (Schein 1981: 23). The best clue to its line seems to be Josephus’ observation that it was protected by a quarry lying in front of it that served as a defensive moat. Excavations beneath the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer seem to have revealed portions of this quarry, approximately 40 m south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Lux 1972). This find makes it clear that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre lay outside the city wall and may indeed mark the actual place of Jesus’ crucifixion (see Gibson and Taylor 1994: 51-63). But no part of this second city wall itself has been discovered. The only trace of it is perhaps Avigad’s fortification system that he called the Ginat Gate Complex at the northwest of the Jewish Quarter, which is on the hypothetical line of the Second Wall. If this is correct, the Second Wall ran north from the Citadel to near the Damascus Gate and then southeast to the Antonia Fortress. Its construction is normally assigned to the Herodian era, but it may partially or completely be of Hasmonean construction (AJ 14.476).

The water supply system for the city was clarified by A. Mazar’s survey in the 1960s (Mazar 1989). The remains of two ancient aqueduct systems were exposed. The traditional sources of water were the ‘Ayn Umm al-Daraj and Silwan (Siloam) Pool (BJ 5.140; John 9:7), but the greatly expanding population of the period required alternative sources from distant regions. The Lower Aqueduct was constructed for conveying water from Solomon’s Pools and the springs at Wadi ‘Arub some 10 km south of the city to the temple. Its winding course was actually 61 km in length. The Upper Aqueduct appears to be the creation of the Herodian period for providing water for the royal palace complex and the Upper City on the Western Hill, but some attribute it to the period of Aelia Capitolina. The Roman procurator Pontius Pilate confiscated temple funds to repair the Jerusalem aqueduct (AJ 18.60). Of course, there were also complex public and private water storage systems, including cisterns, public pools, and reservoirs. Josephus mentions five pools: the Pool of the Towers, the Sheep’s Pool, the Serpent’s Pool, and Solomon’s Pool. A pair of large pools in the Bezetha Valley on the site of the Church of Saint Anne near the Lion’s Gate may be the Sheep’s Pool and perhaps the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2-4), but excavations have

In contrast, the location and date of the Third Wall on the northern side of the city now seems settled (BJ 5.147148). Excavations in 1925-1927 (Sukenik and Mayer 1930) and later in 1972-1974 (Ben-Arieh and Netzer) just 300 m north of the Old City revealed a wall constructed during the first century CE. Kenyon suggested that this northern wall was perhaps a circumvallation rampart constructed by Titus to prevent the Jews from leaving the city during the First Revolt. Another proposal suggested it was a defensive line built by Jewish rebels to serve as a barricade against the approaching Roman army, since coins from the 50s CE were found in the wall’s foundation (Hamrick 1977: 22). Wightman considered these earlier wall remnants as part of a “barrier wall” north of the camp of the tenth legion that was stationed on the southwestern hill (Wightman 1993: 160-173). But 111

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

and Jerusalem merely a troublesome religious center administered ostensibly by the High Priest and Sanhedrin, with a Roman garrison permanently stationed in the city at the Antonia fortress near the temple area. At least, the Jewish authorities were still in charge of religious and civil affairs, an expression of at least some internal autonomy within Jerusalem and Judaea.

failed to find any traces of the five porticoes associated with the pools. The Serpent’s Pool may be near the Damascus Gate, rather than in Wadi al-Rababah as once thought (Broshi 1992). The Struthion Pool located northwest of the Haram was connected with the Antonia fortress and consisted of two vaults. To the northeast, a pool known as the Pool of Israel (Birkat Isra’il) was constructed at the same time as the Herodian temple; it was the largest reservoir in Jerusalem (38 x 110 m). In the west, outside the city, the Mamilla Pool fed the Pool of Towers, perhaps previously known as Hezekiah’s Pool (BJ 5.11.4). These hydraulic developments were invaluable for supplementing Jerusalem’s limited water supply. For the pilgrim traffic to the temple, there were thirtyfour cisterns within the temple precincts, with a total capacity of 40,000 cubic meters or 10,000,000 gallons (Gibson and Jacobson 1996: 225-233).

Between 6 and 66 CE, fourteen procurators ruled the city (see Schürer 1973: 357-398; Lifshitz 1977: 444-489; Jeremias 1969, and Wilkinson 1978 for a description of Jerusalem in this era). The well-fortified palace of Herod probably served as the residence of those Roman governors including Pontius Pilate, when in Jerusalem. According to Josephus, the policies of the Roman rulers produced tensions among the local populace and eventually precipitated the First Revolt. Pilate is accused of provoking Jewish religious sensitivities by bringing into the city standards or shields that displayed the image of Tiberius (BJ 2.9.2; AJ 18.3.1; cf. Philo, Gaium 299305). In addition, Pilate used Jewish sacred funds to construct an aqueduct (see above), provoking a violent outburst (AJ 18.3.2); the fact that the route of the aqueduct went through a Jewish cemetery may also have been involved (Patrich 1982). The trial of Jesus conducted under Pilate on the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha (a place of stone pavement) was probably in Herod’s palace (John 19:13), rather than the traditional pilgrim location of the Sisters of Zion convent along the Via Dolorosa. It is now clear that neither the traditional pavement in the basement of the convent nor the Ecce Homo arch nearby on the traditional Via Dolorosa are related to the Fortress of Antonia (Benoit 1952). After Pilate was suspended as governor in 36 CE, no Roman administrators are mentioned, and Judaea was probably annexed temporarily to Syria from 37-41 CE and later ruled by Caligula’s friend Agrippa I from 41-44 CE (Schürer 1973: 443-434). Earlier, Caligula attempted to erect his statue in the temple precincts (AJ 18.261-268; BJ 2.184-187), but Agippa intervened and the emperor’s effort was suspended (AJ 18.300-301). From 44 CE until the revolt, Roman prefects again ruled Judaea and Jerusalem (Schürer 1973: 455-483).

Herod’s other large civic contributions to Jerusalem were a theater and amphitheater (AJ 15.268, cf. 272, 279). The theater was decorated with inscriptions honoring Augustus and his military conquests, while the amphitheater was in the plain, outside the city, and was used also as a hippodrome (BJ 2.44 and AJ 17.255) at least in the 60s (Roller 1998: 178). Both were the scene for the quadrennial Kaisareia, the games and events honoring Augustus (AJ 15.268-271). Neither has been located or mentioned after Herod’s death (Segal 1995: 4 n. 6) and they probably did not survive the revolt in 66-70 CE (Roller 1998: 178). It was once thought the theater was located south of the city in Abu Tor (Givat Hananiah), a hill across from Wadi al-Rababah (Schick 1887: 161-166), but this no longer appears to be the case according to recent excavations conducted in the area by A. Kloner. There was also a bouleterion near the temple (BJ 5.144) and a xystos (BJ 2.344, 5.144) that could be the former location of the gymnasium of the Seleucid period (2 Maccabees 4:9). A memorial of Herod is mentioned just south of Mount Scopus (BJ 5.108-107), casting doubt on its identification with the so-called “Tomb of Herod’s Family” discovered near the King David Hotel west of the city (Roller 1998: 181). Its purpose remains unknown.

In spite of these difficulties, Jerusalem doubled in size during the Roman period, expanding greatly to the north and west of the traditional settlement. The area comprised about 450 acres, and involved an estimated population of 80,000 or more. But social and economic tensions increased (see Safrai 1996, D. R. Schwartz 1996; Schiffman 1996, and Collins 1998). In the 60s, 18,000 workmen who had been employed in the building of the temple were laid off, so Agrippa employed them in the reconstruction of the eastern portico (AJ 20.219-223). The project was too ambitious, and they soon found themselves unemployed again. They were then given the task of paving the streets. These events are suggestive of the mounting social and economic problems in Jerusalem. It is the Roman governor Gessius Florus in 66 CE who

Roman Period (6-66 CE) After Herod’s death, the kingdom was divided among his sons, with Archelaus inheriting Judaea and rule over Jerusalem. Archaelaus’ oppressive policies soon provoked a rebellion, leading the local Roman official Sabinus to seize control of the city, and even invade the temple precincts, looting its treasures, and setting fire to its stoas. These events forced the Roman procurator Varus to intervene. Many inhabitants were put to death as a result of the rebellion (AJ 17.250-264, 286-297; BJ 2.39-50, 6679). In the aftermath, Archaelaus was sent into exile in 6 CE, and the client kingdom transformed into a Roman province administered by procurators. Caesarea Maritima now became the administrative center of the province, 112

GRAF, THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

facade is decorated with a leafed architrave supporting a Doric frieze, and a large rock-cut courtyard (27 m sq), approached by a 9 m wide staircase from above. The monumental rock-cut tombs in Wadi Sitti Maryam – the pyramid tomb of Zechariah, the tomb of Absalom, and the tomb of the priests of the Bene Hezir family – date to the first century BCE and first century CE. In addition, the tomb of “Herod’s Family” discovered in 1892 near the King David Hotel should be mentioned.

purportedly provoked the revolt by stealing funds from the temple treasury, but Agrippa’s speech to the Jews as preserved in Josephus suggests the funds were confiscated because of Jewish taxes that were in arrears (BJ 2.345-404). Nevertheless, radical parties and the zealots soon gained control of the city and initiated antiRoman actions (BJ 2.409-410). The outbreak of the revolt in 66 CE precipitated the Roman governor Cestius Gallus to send the 12th legion and some auxiliaries, but they were slaughtered by the rebels (BJ 2.540). It was clear that more urgent and stronger action was needed. As a result, Vespasian was given the assignment of quelling the revolt, but his response was delayed somewhat by Nero’s death in 68 CE, and his eventual appointment as emperor (Schürer 1973: 384-513). Therefore, his son Titus besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE. The vulnerable north side was chosen for the assault, and a siege wall built around the city. The northern defenses collapsed first, and the temple area and Lower City were occupied by the Roman army. A month later, after fierce fighting, the Upper City was taken. The temple was set on fire, and only its platform remained (BJ 6.254-259). Josephus’ suggestion that Titus attempted to spare the temple from destruction (BJ 6.237-243) appears as only an effort to exonerate his imperial patron. The Three Towers of the Upper City erected by Herod were also left standing. But the rest of the city was now in ruins. Roman standards were set up against the eastern gate to celebrate the victory (BJ 6.316-322). Evidence for the violent conquest of the city by the Romans is evident in a large accumulation of collapsed stones from walls and buildings revealed by Mazar’s excavations along the southern and western walls of the Haram. The debris included ornamented architectural fragments and a Hebrew inscription reading “to the house of the trumpeting proclaim”. The total destruction of the luxurious structures of the Upper City is also apparent. A burnt house filled with charred remains and collapsed debris included a stone weight “belonging to the son of Kathros”, the name of the well known priestly family of the period. The Jerusalem of the Herodian and Roman periods now lay in ruins.

The burials in these tombs were placed either in sarcophagi for the wealthy or in ossuaries for the common majority. Full-sized sarcophagi are rare: only about twenty are known, normally decorated in lavish relief with architectural and floral designs, such as garlands and rosettes. These appear in the large tombs such as that of the “Tombs of the Kings” and “Tomb of Herod’s Family” (Broshi 1992). Far more common in the Herodian and Roman period are the stone ossuaries, elongated small rectangular chests with short legs, ornamented with rosettes and other symbols. The bones of the deceased were collected and re-interred in these receptacles, reflecting perhaps the belief in the corporeal resurrection of the dead (Meyers 1971 and Rahmani 1994). Many of these tombs and their containers for secondary burials are inscribed (Ilan 1991-1992). They are too numerous to be mentioned individually, but the more interesting and important should be noted. In 1902, the tomb of the sons of Nicandor of Alexandria was discovered on Mount Scopus, one of the largest in Jerusalem, with a court and porch. Their father is known to have donated one of the gates (of the temple?) in Jerusalem in the first century CE. In 1968, the tomb of Simon the Temple Builder was discovered on Givat ha-Mivtar in northern Jerusalem (V. Tzaferis in Yadin 1975: 71-72). In the same tomb, an ossuary was found with the heel bones of a man transfixed by a large nail, indicating he had been crucified (Zias and Sekeles 1985 and Broshi 1999: 14 n. 38 for the earlier and latest discussion). V. Tzaferis found another burial cave with an inscription mentioning Mattathiah son of Juda(h) that may be that of Mattathias Antigonus, the last king of the Hasmonean dynasty. Other recently discovered tombs contained ossuaries related to the family of the Jerusalem high priest Caiaphas (Greenhut and Reich in Geva 1994: 219-225) and the family of Jehohanan, the high priest after Caiphas (Baraq and Flusser 1986).

The vast ancient necropolis of Jerusalem from the Herodian and Roman periods remains prominent. More than 800 tombs of the period are known from surveys and excavations in Jerusalem, most of which are concentrated in a radius of 5 km around the Old City limits (Kloner 1980; Geva 1993: 747-757). Few of these tombs are located within the limits of the Old City, fairly consistent with the prohibition of burial within the city limits that was a standard practice in antiquity. Many of these have been discovered since 1967, mostly in the northern part of the city, hewn into the rocky banks of valleys and slopes. Most are fairly simple, but several dozen are quite elaborate. The largest and most magnificent is that of Queen Helene of Adiabene in Mesopotamia, who converted to Judaism (BJ 5.119, 147). The 27.5 m long

Between 70 and 132 Jerusalem in the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the outbreak of the Bar Kochba Revolt in 132 CE is fairly obscure both archaeologically and in literary sources (Schürer 1973: 514-534). After the revolt was quelled in 70 CE, the Tenth Legion, known as the Fretensis, remained in Jerusalem (BJ 7.1.2). The minority that had sympathized with the Romans may have remained in the city, but the more numerous rebels had their property confiscated and were sold into slavery 113

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

northwestern sector was also connected to the Upper Aqueduct that led water into the Tower’s Pool. The problem is the lack of any archaeological support for either military camp thesis, although there is some evidence of a Roman settlement in the northwest sector. Furthermore, Mazar’s excavations along the south wall of the Haram found architectural debris from the temple destruction including decorated reliefs. But the most important find was a dedicatory column inscribed with the names of Vespasian and Titus, and perhaps Lucius Flavius Silva, the commander in charge of the siege, erected by the Tenth Legion perhaps to celebrate the city’s defeat and occupation (Gichon and Isaac 1974 = Isaac 1998: 76-86). No new wall was constructed again until around the late third or early fourth century CE (Geva and Bahat 1999: 223-230). Literary evidence for the period between 70 and 115 CE offers nothing to supplement these archaeological facts.

(Isaac 1984: 44-50 = 1998: 112-121). Jerusalem was now mainly a military city. Josephus indicates the legionary camp was located inside “so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side left by Titus including the three [Herodian] towers” (7.1.1). The traditional view interpreted this to mean the Southwest Hill of Jerusalem’s Old City, presumably the First Wall. The remnants of the wall on the north and west constituted ostensibly its primary defense. To the east, a wall was presumably constructed by the legion on the periphery of the Jewish Quarter, to the south, the camp wall coincided with the present Ottoman Wall. But any archaeological support for renovation of the First Wall during the late Roman period is lacking. Nor are there any traces of Roman construction or occupation in the area of the Southwest Hill of the Old City. Roman occupation of this sector was apparently sparse. Some drainage pipes stamped with LXF (“Legio X Fretensis”) in a circular stamp, and a few broken roof tiles and bricks impressed with the square stamp of the Tenth Legion (inscribed with LEG[IO] X FRE[TENSIS] and insignia of a boar and galley) were found in the area. But such finds have been made throughout the city, including outside the north wall and Silwan, as well as in the suburbs of the city. Tenth Fretensis inscriptions have also been discovered in various places of the city (Geva 1984: 245), minimizing the significance even further of the paltry finds in the southwest sector. In fact, after 70 CE, the Southwest Hill seems to have been outside the city boundaries well into the early Byzantine period: finds of pottery, coins and other finds are sparse after 70 CE and before the foundation of Aelia Capitolina in 129/130 CE (Bar 1998: 10-11). The legionary camp was obviously located elsewhere in the city.

Only in the early second century does the literary evidence begin to mount again, and there is some suggestion that Jerusalem and Judaea were part of another wide-scale revolt. While Trajan was conducting his Parthian campaign in 115 CE, the Jews in Cyrene and Egypt decided to “rise up against their non-Jewish fellow countrymen, as if possessed by a wild spirit of mutiny” (Eusebius HE 4.2.2). The revolt soon spread to Cyprus and Mesopotamia. The leader of the revolt was a Cyrenean named Loucoua (Eusebius HE 4.2.4). Afterward, the expression anosioi Ioudaioi (“impious, mindless, wicked, godless Jews”) became a stock expression for Jews (cf. 2 Maccabees 7:34; 8:32). This expression is used in Egypt during the revolt; Fuks (1961: 103), suggests the rebellion helped create the term. The point of the expression is the iconoclastic nature of Jews – who destroy temples, shrines, and statues of the pagan gods. The Roman counter-offensive against the rebellion was disorganized at first, but Trajan soon placed Q. Marcius Turbo in charge and by his death in 117 CE the revolt was over. Repression was swift and terrible. Many Jews were killed and their property confiscated in North Africa, and entire communities of Jews disappeared in Egypt. At Apollinopolis Magna (Edfu) and Karanis their population declined dramatically: 1000 Jews were taxed before 115 and only one afterwards (Fuks 1961). In Mesopotamia, the Roman commander L. Quietus with his notorious Moorish auxiliaries is known to have severely crushed the revolt, massacring many Jews (Applebaum 1948, 1951). This “war of Quietus” became legendary among the Jews of Palestine (Midrash, Rabbah Lam. 3.5; Mishnah, Sotah 9.14). No explicit causes for the rebellion are mentioned, but there are reasons to believe that the Messianic hopes of the Jews were responsible. The martyr literature indicates that the Alexandrians mocked on the stage a “Jewish King” – King Loukas who stirred up the Jews (Acts of Thomas and Paul?). Whatever the case, this was the most serious revolt ever conducted by the Jews of the Diaspora.

Several proposals have been made in an effort to resolve the problem. The first suggests that there was never a regular organized and planned army camp for the legion, but only temporary quarters (Geva 1984). Various detachments of the Tenth Legion are known to have served throughout Palestine (cf. BJ 7.252), including Samaria and Caesarea, and in strategic areas in the environs of Jerusalem. For example, the recently discovered military factory belonging to the Tenth Legion for producing pottery, bricks and tiles at Shaykh Badr (Giv‘at Ram – the site of the new Convention Center) is located approximately 3 km west of the Old City (Arubas and Goldfus 1995). The primary function of the detachment at Jerusalem was to guard the city and monitor the entrance of any Jews into the city after 135 CE. The other view suggests that the actual location of the camp is in the northwest sector of the Old City. This assumes that Josephus was referring not to the First Wall, but to the later Third Wall in speaking about the camp. In this case, the location of the Tenth Legion was the area between the Second Wall and the Third Wall (Avi-Yonah 1968; Bar 1998). This was the commercial center through which the Tenth and Fifteenth Legions broke into the Upper City at the beginning of the siege (BJ 5.8.1). This 114

GRAF, THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

1997

What is not clear is whether the Jews of Palestine may have played any role in the rebellion, but there are some indications that they may have (Barnes 1989). In 117, Hadrian was the governor of Syria, during which time he purportedly sent armed forces to quell a revolt in Palestine (T. Jerusalem, Sukkah 5.1). It is also recorded that the nations Trajan conquered were disaffecting, including Egypt, Libya and Palestine (SH Hadrian 5.2). After the suppression of the Jews in Mesopotamia, Lucius Quietus was appointed as the legate of Judaea (Dio 68.32.5), suggesting Palestine was equally troubled at the time. There are others reasons to suggest that troubles in Palestine preceded the revolt. The raising of Judaea from praetorian status to consular status appears to have occurred at least a decade before the revolt of 115-117. This means the raising of the legions in Judaea to two occurred sometime before the revolt, not as a result of it (Eck 1984: 55-67). The new legion was the legio VI Ferrata, which was based at Caparcotnei (Legio), while the X Fretensis remained at Jerusalem. After the revolt, Hadrian created at least twelve roads in Palestine between 120 and 130. What is not clear is what role Jerusalem may have had for Jews and former Jerusalemites in Palestine as an object of their rebellion. It certainly was the object of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in 132-135 CE. If the former greatness of the city was diminished by the Romans, the Emperor Hadrian soon became the instrument to restore its civic status

1999

Jerusalem. Pp. 224-238 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E.M. Meyers, vol. 3. New York/Oxford: Oxford University. The Herodian Temple. Pp. 38-58 in The Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Bar, D. 1998 Aelia Capitolina and the Location of the Camp of the Tenth Legion. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 130: 8-19. Barag, D. and Flusser, D. 1986 The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus. Israel Exploration Quarterly 36: 39-44. Barnes, T.D. 1989 Trajan and the Jews. Journal of Jewish Studies 40: 145-162. Bellemore, J. 1999 Josephus, Pompey and the Jews. Historia 48: 94-118. Benoit, P. 1952 Prétoire, Lithostroton et Gabbatha. Revue Biblique 59: 531-550. 1971 L’Antonia d’Herode le Grand et le Forum Oriental d’Aelia Capitolina. Harvard Theological Review 64: 135-167.

Bibliography

Bickerman, E.J. 1988 The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Applebaum, S. 1950 Notes on the Jewish Revolt under Trajan. Journal of Jewish Studies 2: 26-30. 1951 The Jewish Revolt in Cyrene in 115-117, and the Subsequent Recolonisation. Journal of Jewish Studies 2: 177-186.

Bieberstein, K. and Bloedhorn, H. 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, I-III. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B 100/1-3. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H. 1995 The Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion Fretensis. Pp. 95-107 in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. J.H. Humphrey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Journal of Roman Archaeology, supplement series 14.

Blomme, Y. 1979 Faul-il revenir sur la datation de l’arc de l’“Ecce Homo”? Revue Biblique 86: 244-271. Broshi, M. 1992 The Serpent’s Pool and Herod’s Monument – A Reconsideration. Maarav 8: 213-222. 1999 The Archaeology of Palestine 63 BCE-CE 70. Pp. 1-37 in The Cambridge History of Judaism 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Avigad, N. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Nelson. Avi-Yonah, M. 1974 The Third and Second Walls of Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 18: 98-125.

Cohn, E.W. 1979 The Appendix of Antonia Rock in Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 111: 41-52.

Bahat, D. 1990 The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1995 Jerusalem Down Under: Tunneling Along Herod’s Temple Mount Wall. Biblical Archaeology Review 21.6: 30-47.

Collins. J.J. 1998 Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period. International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1. Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan University.

115

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Isaac, B. 1983 A Donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 86-92 = Isaac 1998: 21-28. 1984 Judaea after A.D. 70. Journal of Jewish Studies 35: 44-50 = Isaac 1998: 112-121. 1998 The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers. Leiden: Brill.

De Sion, M. 1956 La fortress Antonia à Jerusalem et la question du Prétoire. Jerusalem. Eck, W. 1984 Zum Konsularen Status von Iudaea im frühen 2. Jr. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 21: 55-67. Feldman, L.H. 1998 The Importance of Jerusalem as Viewed by Josephus. International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 2. Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan University.

Jeremias, J. 1969 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress. Keppie, L.J.F. 1973 The Legionary Garrison of Judaea under Hadrian. Latomus 32: 859-864.

Fuks, W.A. 1961 Aspects of the Jewish Revolt in AD 115-117. Journal of Roman Studies 51: 98-104.

King, P. 1992 Jerusalem. Pp. 747-766 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 3, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Geva, H. 1984 The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 239-254. 1993 Jerusalem: The Second Temple Period and Roman Period. Pp. 717-767 in The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/New York: Simon & Schuster. 1994 Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1997 Searching for Roman Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeology Review 23.6: 34-45, 72-73.

Kloner, A. 1980 The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Lifshitz, B. 1977 Jérusalem sous la domination romaine. Histoire de la ville depuis la conquête de Pompée jusqu’à Constantin (63 a.C-325 p.C.). Pp. 444-489 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, vol. II.8. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

Geva, H. and Bahat, D. 1998 Architectural and Chronological Aspects of the Ancient Damascus Gate Area. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 223-235.

Lux, U. 1972 Vorläufiger Bericht über die Augrabung unter der Erlöserkirche in Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem in den Jahren 1970 and 1971. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 88: 185-201.

Gibson, S. and Jacobson, D.M. 1996 Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram al-Sharif. Oxford: BAR.

Magen, Y. 1980 The Gates of the Temple Mount according to Josephus and the Mishnah. Cathedra 14: 41-55.

Gibson, S. and Taylor, J.E. 1994 Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Mazar, A. 1989 A Survey of the Aqueducts Leading to Jerusalem. Pp. 169-195 in The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine: Collected Essays, ed. D. Amit. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.

Gichon, M. and Isaac, B. 1974 A Flavian Inscription from Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 117-123 = Isaac 1998: 76-86. Hamrick, E.W. 1977 The Third Wall of Agrippa Archaeologist 40: 18-23.

I.

Mazar, B. 1978 Herodian Jerusalem in the Light of the Excavations South and South-West of the Temple Mount. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 230-237.

Biblical

Ilan, T. 1991-92 New Ossuary Inscriptions from Jerusalem. Scripta Classica Israelica 11: 149-159.

Meyers, E.M. 1971 Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

116

GRAF, THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

Schürer, E. 1973 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135), vol. 1, rev. ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar. Edinburgh: Clark.

Momigliano, A. 1979 Flavius Josephus and Alexander’s Visit to Jerusalem. Athenaeum 57: 442-448. Patrich, J. 1982 A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct. The Jerusalem Cathedra 2: 25-39.

Schwartz, D.R. 1996 Temple or City: What Did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem? Pp. 114-127 in Poorthuis and Safari 1996.

Pixner, B. 1989 The History of the “Essene Gate” Area. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 105: 96-104. 1997 Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway. Biblical Archaeology Review 23.3: 22-31, 64, 66.

Schwarz, J. 1996 Temple in Jerusalem: Birah and Baris in archaeology and literature. Pp. 29-49 in Poorthuis and Safari 1996. Segal, A. 1995 Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Leiden: Brill.

Pixner, B., Chen, D., and Margalit, S. 1989 Mount Zion: The “Gate of the Essenes” Reexcavated. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 105: 85-95.

Smallwood, E.M. 1962 Palestine c. AD 115-118. Historia 11: 500-510.

Poorthuis, M. and Safari, C. 1996 The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Kampen, The Netherlands: Pharos.

Sukenik, E. and Mayer, L.A. 1930 The Third Wall of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Purvis, J.D. 1988 Jerusalem, The Holy City: A Bibliography. Metuchen, N.J./London: American Theological Library Association.

Wightman, G.J. 1989 The Damascus Gate. Excavations by C.-M. Bennett and J. B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66. BAR International Series 519. Oxford: BAR. 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 4.

Rahmani, L.Y. 1994 A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Regev, E. 1997 How did the Temple Mount Fall to Pompey? Journal of Jewish Studies 48: 276-289.

Wilkinson, J. 1978 Jerusalem as Jesus knew it. London: Thames and Hudson. 1989 Jerusalem under Rome and Byzantium, 63 BC637 AD. Pp. 75-104 in Jerusalem in History, ed. K.J. Asali. Essex: Scorpion.

Roller, D. 1998 The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley: University of California. Safrai, Z. 1996 The Role of the Jerusalem Elite in National Leadership in the Late Second Temple Era. Pp. 65-72 in Poorthuis and Safari 1996.

Yadin, Y., ed. 1975 Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968-1974. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Schein, B.E. 1981 The Second Wall of Jerusalem. Biblical Archeologist 44: 21-26.

Zias, J. and Sekeles, E. 1985 The Crucified Man from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar, A Reappraisal. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 2227.

Schick, C. 1887 Herod’s Amphitheater: Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 161-166.

Zissu, B. 1999 “Qumran Type” Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological Evidence of an Essene Community? Dead Sea Discoveries 5: 158-171. 1999 Odd Tomb Out: Has Jerusalem’s Essene Cemetery Been Found? Biblical Archaeology Review 25.2: 50-55, 62.

Schiffman, L. 1996 Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pp. 73-87 in Poorthuis and Safrai 1996.

117

CHAPTER 14 THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD (37 BC – AD 70) Achim Lichtenberger (Translated by Keith Myrick)

The history of Jerusalem in the Herodian period begins in 37 BC with Herod’s conquest of the city and ends with the Jewish War and the destruction of the city by the Romans in AD 70. Thus a period is defined in which the city came into full bloom in the architectural as well as the religious sense, leading up to the catastrophe of the physical destruction and end of the temple cult; it starts with the conquest by a client king backed by Rome and closes with the Roman tenth legion pitching camp in Jerusalem. If one is prepared to divide history into periods, 37 BC and AD 70 could rightly be termed epochal years. The first date stands chronologically near the battle at Actium in 31 BC that historians generally consider to be the boundary between the periods of Hellenism and imperial Rome.

ceremonial vestment locked away in the Antonia fortress. From AD 41 to AD 44, the client kingdom of Herod with his grandson Agrippa I was once again restored for a short time. The king had a palace in Jerusalem, but his main residence appears to have been in Caesarea.4 That choice of a capital city also did not change after AD 44 when the kingdom was once more disbanded and annexed to the province of Syria and put under a procurator. The seat of the governor was not Jerusalem, but Caesarea. This development away from the old capital of Jerusalem to Caesarea had already been initiated by Herod the Great, who made magnificent improvements to the port town. With the harbor, he turned Caesarea into an economic center, and with the palace installations, he transformed it into an appropriate residence.5 The move from Jerusalem to Caesarea is to be explained not only by the favorable geographical situation of the port town for travel, but also by the less problematic religious situation in the predominantly pagan city. When Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I, became king in AD 50 over regions that did not belong to the core of Jewish territory and had only a small Jewish population, he nevertheless had in Jerusalem a palace as well as the overall supervision of the temple. Like Agrippa I and, after his death, Herod of Chalcis, he appointed the high priests and thus exercised influence over Jewish interests. But that influence was not enough to prevent the outbreak of the Jewish War in AD 66.

In the following, the political history and urban development of Jerusalem in the Herodian period will be outlined followed by an examination of the character of Jerusalem as a city more closely. A detailed description of building activity and archaeological finds has been dispensed with. Regarding literature, generally only ancient sources and works are cited that are not recorded in the pertinent article in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land and in the three-volume Jerusalem monograph by Bieberstein and Bloedhorn.1 Jerusalem belonged to different political structures in this period. Under Herod the Great (37 – 4 BC), the city was the king’s city of residence, as it had been under the Hasmoneans. After Herod’s death, it became the residence of the ethnarch Archelaus until AD 6. His mismanagement and/or an intrigue led to the ethnarchy, and thus Jerusalem as well, being joined to the province of Syria and being made subject to a praefect or a procurator who resided principally in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. His official residence (praetorium) in Jerusalem was presumably Herod’s old palace.2 In Jerusalem itself, there was a Roman garrison consisting of auxiliary units probably stationed in the old Herodian palace and in the Antonia fortress.3 The governor appointed the high priest in Jerusalem and kept his 1. 2. 3.

Thus after the death of Herod and the removal of Archelaus from power in AD 6, Jerusalem was no longer the political and administrative center, and until the revolt it was in various ways directly or indirectly subject to Roman rule. Yet, the city underwent extensive expansion. This was initiated by Herod, who did not enlarge the settlement area as he found it in 37 BC but instead thoroughly renovated and beautified the city’s structures. In postexilic times Jerusalem was protected by Nehemiah’s wall only in the area of the narrow strip of the City of David and the Temple, but already the Hasmoneans had extended a city wall across al-Wad (the Tyropoeon Valley) to take in the terrain from the southwest hill (the so-called Upper City) to the Wadi al-

Avigad and Geva 1993; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:394ff.; Haensch 1997, 227ff. Cf. Smallwood 1976, 145ff.; Isaac 1992, 279f.; Millar 1993a, 45.

4. 5.

118

Schwartz 1990, 130f. On Caesarea, cf. with further literature Richardson 1996, 177ff.; Roller 1998, 133ff.; Netzer 1999, 109ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, 116ff.; Alföldy 1999.

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD Rababah (Hinnom Valley). In pre-Herodian times, the city experienced a further expansion northward along alWad with the construction of the “second wall”.6 This area included the city from the time of Herod the Great. In the time prior to AD 70, it underwent yet another expansion northward, the only direction in which Jerusalem was not bounded by deep valleys.

members and a friend, i.e., Mariamme, Phasael, and Hippicus, reinforced the fortification of Jerusalem and that of the palace.12 The palace extended about 300-350 m north-south and about 130 m from west to east. Together with the Antonia on the east side, Herod’s palace held a central strategic position in the city. Herod’s most important and impressive building in Jerusalem, however, was the Temple, which he began to renovate in 20 BC.13 He had a gigantic podium built for it (ca. 485 x 470 x 315 x 280 m), which corresponds approximately to the Haram al-Sharif today. This measure practically doubled the pre-Herodian surface area, and the Temple together with the surrounding porticoes, above all the so-called Royal Portico, are described not only by Josephus but also by numerous other classical authors as being especially magnificent.14

For Herod’s public buildings, we are almost entirely dependent on the historical account by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who describes the structures extensively.7 The sparse archaeological finds, however, support his statements in almost every case where they are in a position to do so. Herod’s earliest edifice in Jerusalem was the temple fortress Antonia with its four towers completed before the battle of Actium in 31 BC. It was situated north of the Temple and was named after Herod’s Roman patron Mark Antony.8 It replaced the Hasmonean Baris and served together with the old Hasmonean palace in the Lower City as a well-fortified royal palace and at the same time kept the Temple under surveillance.

Josephus mentions the construction of a splendid monument of white stone at the Tomb of David as a further building project of Herod in Jerusalem,15 and he 12.

For as early as the year 28/27 BC Josephus describes festivals with artistic and athletic agons, for which Herod had a theater and amphitheater built in Jerusalem.9 Where those structures, which are not mentioned later, were located is unknown. They were probably erected only as temporary, wooden constructions for the occasion of the festivals and exerted no permanent influence on the cityscape and urban culture.10

13.

14.

Herod built his large, main palace on the northwest side of Jerusalem in 24 BC.11 Josephus describes it as an extremely magnificent structure fitting for a Hellenistic king. On its north side, three towers named after family 6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

On the city walls, cf. Wightman 1993, 65ff.; 111ff.; 181ff.; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:87ff.; 100ff. On Herod’s building activity, cf. generally Richardson 1996, 174ff.; Fittschen and Foerster, eds. 1996; Roller 1998; Lichtenberger 1999; Netzer 1999; Burrell and Netzer 1999. The publication of a monograph by S. Japp on Herod’s building policies has been announced for 2000. Jos. bell. Jud. 1.401; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.409; 18.92; Tac. hist. 5.11.3. See Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, s.v. “Burg Antonia”; Roller 1998, 175f.; Netzer 1999, 115ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, 35ff. Jos. ant. Jud. 15.267ff. See Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:400f.; Roller 1998, 178; Lichtenberger 1999, 74ff. Lichtenberger 1999, 78f. To the remarks in the foregoing may be added that the loanword gradus is mentioned in the Mishnah (Abodah Zarah 1.7) in the context of the discussion on theater activities. This probably referred to such wooden, and thus temporary, staging structures. Cf. Blaufuss 1916, 10. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.161ff.; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.318. See Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:87ff.; 3:394f.; Roller 1998, 176; Netzer 1999, 117ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, 93ff.

15.

119

On more recent archaeological findings, cf. Geva 1994; Sivan and Solar 1994; Broshi and Gibson 1994. Jos. bell. Jud. 1.401f.; 5.184ff.; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.380ff.; mMid 1ff. See Busink 1980; Sanders 1992, 51ff.; Patrich 1994; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:371ff.; Roller 1998, 176ff.; Freyberger 1998, 118ff.; Ådna 1999; Hengel 1999, 121ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, 131ff. Jos. ant. Jud. 15.412. On the classical authors, cf. Patrich 1994. On the Royal Portico, see now the exhaustive account in Ådna 1999, 56ff. Ådna’s interpretation of the architectural disposition of the new temple structure by Herod as taken from the Kaisareion and the Royal Portico as from Roman basilicas is, however, not convincing. It is extremely doubtful whether there was a particular Kaisareion type at all and whether the Kaisareion of Alexandria could have been a canonical pattern for the temple in Jerusalem (cf. the remarks of Tuchelt 1981, 178ff. and Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 42ff., of which Ådna appears to have no knowledge). Furthermore, the question arises as to what sense this quote would have made to Herod if there was such an architectural type that was then connected with the ruler cult. In any case, there is no indication of the ruler cult in Jerusalem. Regarding the derivation of the Royal Portico from Roman basilicas, the explanation of Busink (1980, 1219ff.) that we are dealing here with a stoa, not a basilica, remains valid. The opening into the temple court, the lack of an apse or a tribunal (which is found in the Kaisareion of Cyrene that is repeatedly brought up by Ådna for comparison), and the absence of a peristyle show that here we have not a basilica, but rather a stoa of monumental proportions. The surrounding stoas and the extensive temple precinct do not at all have to be derived from a hypothetical Kaisareion in Alexandria. Rather, they fit the architectural design of the sanctuaries of the early imperial period in the Hellenized East without difficulty, e.g., in Palmyra, Damascus, Baalbek, Petra, and elsewhere (cf. Freyberger 1998). Jos. ant. Jud. 16.182. See Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:112ff.; Schwemer 1995, 147ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, 154f.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

also mentions in connection with the Jewish War a “tomb of Herod” that stood west of the city, identified with a large extant burial structure.16 Herod himself was entombed in the Herodium near Bethlehem;17 the Jerusalem monument may have been the Herodian family tomb. In this context, reference must be made to the “opus-reticulatum building” – evidently a burial tholos – in the area of the Third Wall. A connection with Herod the Great has been proposed,18 since that construction technique has been found thus far only in the king’s building projects. However, we have too little information about the structure to be able to classify it exactly.

Josephus talks about later construction on the Temple by Agrippa II,26 and he also says that Agrippa II had some construction done on the old Hasmonean palace.27 Agrippa II is also supposed to have given employment in a road-paving project to 18,000 workers who had become unemployed with the final completion of the Herodian Temple shortly before the beginning of the Jewish War, at the time of the governor Albinus (AD 62–64) or Florus (AD 64–66).28 That note in Josephus shows that at least work on the Temple continued over a long period of time. There is evidence for other projects of such duration in the Hellenized East,29 such that the fact that few building projects were begun in Jerusalem after Herod’s death can be explained by the fact that the projects he initiated were still going on for quite some time. The literary sources point to at least three phases of construction for the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Josephus, Herod celebrated its completion after nine and a half years,30 i.e., in the year 11/10 BC, if 20/19 BC is taken as the beginning of construction.31 The Gospel of John mentions that the Temple was built in 46 years;32 thus, it would have been completed in AD 26/27. There is also another report of the completion of the Temple, as already mentioned, at the time of Agrippa.33 Since other structures in Jerusalem were not built overnight either, Herodian Jerusalem should not at all be thought of as a decked-out, golden city such as that presented in famous model at the Holy Land Hotel, but rather in large part as a construction site. The destruction of the city began with the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt and reached its conclusion in AD 70. The Roman commander Titus is supposed to have spared only the three towers of Herod’s palace.34

We know very little about public construction activity in the time following Herod and continuing up to the Jewish War. The Roman governor Pontius Pilate (AD 26–36) set in motion the construction of an aqueduct,19 and Agrippa I began the construction of the so-called Third Wall on Jerusalem’s north side. The course of that wall remains one of the most controversial questions regarding Jerusalem’s topography in the Second Temple period.20 Josephus refers to a hippodrome21 and a xystus22 in connection with public unrest after Herod’s death and the beginning of the Jewish War. He mentions both constructions only here and locates them south of the Temple. When they were built and whether they were sports facilities is unclear. The idea that they belonged to the old Hasmonean palace southwest of the Temple should be considered.23 Likewise in connection with the Jewish War, Josephus mentions a bouleuterion24 and an archeion (archive).25 Further literary or archaeological evidence is lacking for both structures, and it is not known when they were built. In any case, there were such buildings in the Herodian period, and Josephus’ mention of them makes it possible to conclude that they were located west of the present-day wall.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Aside from those structures that literary sources connect with historical personalities or events, a number of archaeological discoveries are also informative for the material culture of Jerusalem. To be named here are especially houses, streets, waterworks and tombs. The excavations led by Avigad in Jerusalem’s Upper City brought to light manorial houses that were hardly inferior to upper-class villas in the rest of the imperium Romanum in terms of architecture and furnishings.35 They had Jewish ritual baths and representation rooms with

Jos. bell. Jud. 5.108, 507. See Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:46f. Jos. bell. Jud. 1.673; Jos. ant. Jud. 17.199. On the possible location of the tomb in the Herodium, see Netzer 1999, 106ff. Also cf. Lichtenberger 1999, 111 n. 540. Broshi 1992; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:141. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.175; Jos. ant. Jud. 18.60. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.218f.; 5.146ff.; Jos. ant. Jud. 19.326f. Also cf. Tac. hist. 5.12.2. On the discussion among scholars, see Wightman 1993, 159ff.; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:111ff. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.44; Jos. ant. Jud. 17.255. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:401f. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.344; 5.144; 6.191, 325, 377. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:398f. Lichtenberger 1999, 75. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.144; 6.354. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:400. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.427; 6.354.

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

120

Jos. bell. Jud. 5.36; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.391. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.344; Jos. ant. Jud. 20.189ff. Jos. ant. 20.219ff. Cf. Freyberger 1998, 34, 63, 71f., 77, 92f., 121. Jos. ant. Jud. 15.420ff. Included in the nine and a half years are eight years for the construction of the platform and one and a half years for the actual temple building. Cf. Jos. ant. Jud. 15.380; see Lichtenberger 1999, 131 n. 647, and in the following, Mazar 1979, 106. John 2:20. Jos. ant. 20.219ff. Jos. bell. Jud. 7.2. In the following, cf. Avigad 1975; 1983; 1991; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:36ff.; 2, passim (see Index s.v. "Avigad-Grabungen").

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD mosaics and wall decorations that imitated the Second and Third Pompeian Style. One house even had a peristyle courtyard, and the pottery and furniture finds indicate a lavish lifestyle. In their décor, the buildings appear to avoid figurative representations because of the Jewish prohibition of images (Exodus 20:4f.). But they are not completely free of them; in the aristocratic homes, just as in the palaces of Herod the Great, traces of illustrations are demonstrable in individual cases.36 The buildings found in Jerusalem’s Upper City belonged to the priestly, aristocratic upper class, and they were based on Roman-Hellenistic models. The palace of Herod described by Josephus may have served as the immediate model in the Upper City. Besides the archaeologically recorded houses of the aristocracy, we know from Josephus about another palace that belonged to the high priest Ananias.37 As far as the archaeological results permit an interpretation, the Upper City in northwest Jerusalem, at the western end of which Herod’s palace also stood, seems to have been an exclusive quarter. Josephus also locates the “upper agora” in the Upper City.38

36.

37. 38.

The royal house of Adiabene must also be named among further houses of the upper class.39 The members of this family were the rulers of the Parthian client kingdom of Adiabene who became proselytes to Judaism. In addition to the palaces, they also possessed a tomb in Jerusalem directly north of the Third Wall.40 Several members of the family were educated in Jerusalem and some fought on the side of the insurgents in the Jewish War. Their palace, which Mazar believes to have discovered in some ruins,41 presumably stood south of the Temple near an area that is otherwise assumed to have been populated by simple folk. It was also the area where the famous inscription was found, in which a certain Theodotos announces the donation and construction of a synagogue with a guesthouse.42 There is no other trace of that structure, and the inscription is an early piece of archaeological evidence for synagogues.43 Further remains of housing were found in the lower alWad and on the southwest hill; however, the results are hardly enough for an extensive reconstruction of the residential development. At the places named, it appears that the area of development was very narrow and that the houses were simple buildings with rooms accessible from an inner courtyard. On the southwest hill, there was perhaps an Essene Quarter, as well.44 In any case, the development there seems to have been simple in nature.45

Regarding Jerusalem, cf. the portrayal of birds in the wall paintings of the Upper City (Broshi 1975, 58 pl. III), the stucco decoration with the animal frieze on the southeast hill (Ben-Dov 1982, 149ff.), the portrayal of a fish on a stone table from the palaces in the Upper City (Avigad 1991, 44ff.), and the birds on a stone vessel (Ben-Dov 1982, 160). The eagle on the Jerusalem temple (Jos. bell. Jud. 1.648ff.; Jos. ant. Jud. 17.151ff.) and on the coins of Herod the Great (Meshorer 1982, 29f.), as well as the report of portraits of Hasmonean members of Herodian family (Jos. bell. Jud. 1.439; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.46) may also be brought in as further examples. Found among the Herodian palaces are water fowl in the wall decoration of the upper Herodium’s thermal baths (Corbo 1989, 47 pl. 5) as well as a marble satyr head that is part of a water pool (Netzer 1999, 106 illus. 148) whose date is, however, not very certain. Also, a dove drawn in charcoal was found under the wall decoration of the apodyterium in the large thermae at the north palace in Masada (Netzer 1991, 84 illus. 136). According to Jos. bell. Jud. 5.181, there were bronze statues in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Jewish War. It is unclear whether they go back to Herod or the subsequent Roman governor. However, the full description of Herod’s palace, which presumably goes back to Nicolaus of Damascus (cf. Lichtenberger 1999, 95ff.), suggests that the statues are considered to have already been part of Herod’s furnishings. Whether the Hermes gem from the Upper City (Avigad 1975, 49) and the seal of the Olympic Zeus from the excavations in the citadel (Amiran and Eitan 1975, 54) stem from Herodian layers cannot be determined from the publications (cf. Avigad 1983, 204). A survey and evaluation of figure-like art objects in Herodian times is a research desideratum. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.426; see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:397f. Cf. John 18:13. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.305, 315, 339; 5.137; see Michel and Bauernfeind, ed. 1963, 245 n. 36.; Ådna 1999, 74.

The city had been extended considerably to the north probably since the time of Herod the Great, because the construction of the Third Wall began under Agrippa I and integrated the northern area of Bezetha as well as the “New City” (Kainopolis) in the fortification.46 There were markets in this area.47 A sheep market48 and the wood market,49 whose exact location has not been determined, were presumably directly north of the Temple. An important market was located in the area of the Hasmonean Second Wall. Wool and clothing were 39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48. 49. 121

Jos. bell. Jud. 5.253; 6.355, 567; Jos. ant. Jud. 20.17ff. On the royal house of Adiabene and the structures, see Mazar 1979, 207ff.; Schürer 1986, 3.1:163f.; Schiffman 1987; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:397. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.55; 147; Jos. ant. Jud. 20.95. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:387. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:113f., 117f.; Hengel 1996, 20, 24. Netzer now believes to have identified a Hasmonean building in Jericho as a synagogue (cf. Netzer 1999a, where there is also literature on the earlier synagogues). On the archaeological findings and a possible Essene Quarter, cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:114ff.; Riesner 1998. Cf. Ben-Dov 1982, 149ff. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.218f.; 5.146ff.; Jos. ant. Jud. 19.326f. Cf. Tac. hist. 5.12.2. On the discussion in research, see Wightman 1993, 159ff.; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:111ff. In the following, cf. Ådna 1999, 74ff. Cf. John 5:2; on this, see Margalit 1990, 37f. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.530.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

traded there, west of the Temple,50 where the stores of the coppersmiths also stood.51 Finally, the Temple, which could also serve as a market place with its halls and courts,52 should not be forgotten.

Bethesda Pools (Sheep’s Pools).64 Also known archaeologically are the Mamilla Pool,65 and the Birkat Bani Isra’il.66 These water reservoirs are large, open basins to which the population presumably had free access, located mainly along the outskirts of the city. There were also innumerable small cisterns such as those found, e.g., in the residential area of the Upper City and also underneath the Temple platform.67

Remains of streets from Herodian Jerusalem have been found in some places. These were not organized according to an orthogonal system but rather were adapted to the terrain. Only in the New City does there seem to have been a city plan, perhaps based on orthogonal city models. At least the mention in Josephus of streets running crosswise to the wall points to this.53 Otherwise, a north-south street followed the irregular course of al-Wad,54 and streets went along the south and west sides of the Temple platform.55 Another section of street was in the Upper City, and particularly attractive in terms of city development was a street that led directly from the Upper City to the Royal Portico on the Temple platform and, because of the difference in elevation, spanned al-Wad with a lavish bridge (Wilson’s Arch).56 The street south of the Temple platform led to an open area and a wide stairway, by which the Temple’s Hulda Gates were accessible.57

In the Herodian period, an aqueduct brought water to a large reservoir under the Temple platform.68 The water came from Solomon’s Pools southwest of Bethlehem, a huge water reservoir that consisted of several basins, over a 21-km-long aqueduct to Jerusalem.69 Solomon’s Pools were fed by further water lines, one of which extended over 44 km from the area of Hebron. Jerusalem’s necropolises in the Herodian period were mainly north, east, and south of the city, whereby the northeast one was of particular importance.70 The west side of the city shows few burials;71 the previously mentioned monument of Herod forms an exception72 that can perhaps be explained by the royal position of the deceased. The cemeteries were normally used over a long period of time, meaning that they can be assigned only generally to the Herodian period. Unlike in Greco-Roman cities, the graves appear usually not to be oriented toward roadways; on the contrary, they seem to have been kept a safe distance from the roads, presumably in order to prevent the passersby from becoming ritually unclean.73

Jerusalem’s water supply in the Herodian period was based on a dense network of cisterns throughout the city and an aqueduct that delivered water from the south. The exact time of the construction of this water system is uncertain, but it seems to have been started in Hasmonean times and to have been continuously expanded in the Herodian period.58 The following water reservoirs are known from literary sources: the Serpents Pool,59 the Pool of the Towers (Amygdalon),60 the Struthion Pool,61 the Pool of Solomon,62 the Pool of Siloam,63 and the 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Especially in the western Wadi Sitti Maryam (Kidron Valley), but also north of the city, a number of tombs have been found that show a lavish, architectonic exterior cut from the rock, with pyramids, Doric and Ionic architectural ornamentation, or tholos-like tops.74 From among those tombs, that of the royal house of Adiabene and the tomb of the Bene Hesir priestly family75 in the Wadi Sitti Maryam can be assigned to specific owners. Aristocratic owners are to be postulated for the remainder of those elaborate burial sites. The tomb of the royal house of Adiabene must have been very impressive, for

Jos. bell. Jud. 5.331. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.331. Mark 11:15; Matthew 21:12; Luke 19:45; John 2:14. On its function as a market, cf. most recently Freyberger 1998, 109; Ådna 1999, 72ff. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.331. Mazar 1979, 186ff.; Ben-Dov 1982, 113ff. Mazar 1929, 126; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:402f.; Bahat 1994, 188f. Ben-Dov 1982, 121ff.; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:404ff.; Bahat 1994, 177ff. Cf. Jos. bell. Jud. 6.324, 377. mMid 1.3; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.411: cf. Mazar 1979, 130ff.; Ben-Dov 1982, 105ff.; Ådna 1999, 78ff. On the water supply, cf. Avigad and Geva 1993, 746f.; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:117f., 122f., 127f.; Abells and Arbit 1995. Also cf. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.175; Jos. ant. Jud. 18.60. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.108: cf. Broshi 1992; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:65f.; Abells and Arbit 1995, 44ff. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.304, 468: cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:134f. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.467: cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:443ff.; Bahat 1994, 190. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.145: cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:112. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.140, 145, 505; 6.363, 401; John 9:7, 11. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:19ff.

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 122

3Q15XI 11-14; John 5:2. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:162ff. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:37f.; Abells and Arbit 1995, 41ff. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:161f. Cf. Gibson and Jacobson 1996. Gibson and Jacobson 1996, 33ff., 193f. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:117f.; Abells and Arbit 1995, 34ff.; Billig 1996. Cf. Avigad and Geva 1993, 748. Cf. mB.B. 2.9. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.108, 507; see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:46f. Kloner 1980, XVII. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:128ff. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:235ff.

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD the widely traveled Pausanias places the description of it beside that of the Mausoleion at Halikarnassus.76

probably at the site of the later Church of the Holy Sepulchre.93

However, most of the tombs in Jerusalem were cut into the rock and were accessible by a simple opening that could be closed with a stone. Projecting from the room into the rock were loculi for the primary burial before the bones were gathered and placed secondarily in ossuaries.77 The ossuaries embellished predominantly with geometric patterns were widespread in the Herodian period.78 In some of the tombs there were also arcosolia, but they are much less common than loculi. Some of the tombs can be associated with certain persons by means of inscriptions. Prominent among them are a Caiaphas79 who is perhaps identical with the high priest of Jesus’ time,80 a Nicanor who was probably the donor of one of the Temple gates,81and a Simeon who claims to have been involved in the construction of the Temple.82 Josephus also speaks of a fuller’s grave in the area of the Third Wall.83

The Wadi Sitti Maryam seems to have been the traditional place for priestly burials,94 presumably because of the prominent graves on the southeast hill. Nevertheless, the tombs of the Hasmonean high priests, which are mentioned in the context of the Jewish War, lay north of Jerusalem in the later New City. The tomb of Alexander Janneus95 was north of the Temple and the tomb of a John96 (Hyrcanus) was north of the later location of Herod’s palace. All in all, we are quite well informed about the topography of Jerusalem in the Herodian period despite the low number of archaeological finds. No one will doubt that this Jerusalem can be called a city. Nevertheless, to what extent Jerusalem was a city will be approached here from two angles – was Jerusalem a polis in the Greek sense and what makes Jerusalem a city in terms of settlement geography?

Finally, there is another group of older tomb structures that, like David’s tomb, were improved under Herod.84 To be named here are the hereditary tomb of the royal family on the southeast hill,85 where David’s tomb was also located, as well as the tombs of the prophetess Hulda86 and of Isaiah.87 Furthermore, the graves of the martyr Zechariah,88 the prophet Haggai,89 the prophet Zechariah,90 and the tomb of the high priest Simeon the Just were in the Wadi Sitti Maryam.91 Such tombs seem to have been the objects of popular veneration in Herodian times and were an important part of Herodian Jerusalem.92 Presumably, a grave was venerated as the burial place of Jesus of Nazareth in Herodian times, 76. 77.

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

Whether Jerusalem was a polis is controversial. Above all, Tcherikower critically investigated the material marshaled in favor of Jerusalem’s status as a polis.97 He is of the opinion that the salutation formulated in a letter from the Emperor Claudius Hierosolymiton archousi boule demo Ioudaion panti ethnei98 and the other mentions of boule, archons and demos99 in the literary sources merely appear to refer to polis institutions, for by archons, the high priest or people around him are meant and by the boule, the Sanhedrin is meant. According to Tcherikower, the Sanhedrin was a religious committee that had nothing in common with a municipal council. The designation of the demos originates from stereotyped salutation terminology; what the ancient sources called the demos of Jerusalem is not comparable to the institutional demos of a Greek polis. The demos had no control over the officials. Finally, Tcherikower contends that, according to what we know so far, Jerusalem lacked a gymnasium, which was a prerequisite for the ephebeion indispensable for a Greek polis. The stereotyped salutation in Claudius’ letter, as well as the

Paus. 8.16.4f. Cf. generally Kloner 1980; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:128ff. Also see Weksler-Bdolah 1995; Avni and Greenhut 1996 and further short reports in Excavations and Surveys in Israel as well as various articles in Geva, ed. 1994, 191ff. Rahmani 1994. Cf. Fritz and Deines 1999, 237ff. Cf. Greenhut 1994; Reich 1994. Matthew 26:3; Luke 3:2; John 11:49 and others. Also cf. Flusser 1992. However, see Horbury 1994. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:307ff.; Hengel 1996, 25. Rahmani 1994, 124, no. 200. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.147: cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:402. Jos. ant. Jud. 16.182: see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:112ff.; Schwemer 1995, 147ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, 154f. Jeremias 1958, 53ff. Schwemer 1995, 147ff. Jeremias 1958, 51ff. Jeremias 1958, 61ff.; Schwemer 1995, 146ff. Jeremias 1958, 67ff.; Schwemer 1996, 304f. Jeremias 1958, 72; Schwemer 1996, 146ff. Jeremias 1958, 73; Schwemer 1996, 172ff. Jeremias 1958, 73f.; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:281f. Cf. generally Jeremias 1958; Klauser 1960.

93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

123

Jeremias 1926, 7ff.; Taylor 1998. On the archaeological finds, cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:183; Gibson and Taylor 1994; Taylor 1998. Schwemer 1996, 147f. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.304. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 2:402f. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.259, 304, 356, 468; 6.169. Cf. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 3:403f. Tcherikower 1964. Jos. ant. Jud. 20.11. On the boule, cf.: Jos. bell. Jud. 2.331, 336; 5.144, 532; 6.354; on bouleutai: Jos. bell. Jud. 2.405; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:50; Dio Cassius 65.6.2; on the demos: Jos. bell. Jud. 2.411, 405; Jos. vita 309f.; on the ekklesia: Jos. bell. Jud. 1.550; Jos. ant. Jud. 16.62f.; on archons: Jos. bell. Jud. 2.405, 407.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

use of polis terminology elsewhere by Josephus and in the New Testament, is an interpretatio Romana of the provincial administration or an inexact Greek translation.

mountain cabins, right on a ravine. Nevertheless, they have boundaries with their neighbours, and even sent delegates to the Phocian assembly.”106 According to Pausanias, the criteria for a polis were therefore not buildings or a certain cultural level, but rather borders, i.e., a territory and a form of existence as an autonomous political body.107 Here, the tense relationship between a Roman urban and a Greek political understanding of a polis becomes apparent, which was made unclear by the fact that polis could also refer to the city as a settlement. Consequently, it is essential in the following to clarify how things stand with the political concept in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the sources are not clear about whether Jerusalem had a territory. On the one hand, Jerusalem was one of eleven toparchies in Judea; on the other hand, the city is said to have ruled over the other toparchies like a basileion.108 The area of the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction also seems to correspond to that of the eleven toparchies, and some of its members came from outside the central urban settlement of Jerusalem.109 A broad expansion of Jerusalem’s territory is suggested by the aqueduct that extended all the way to the vicinity of Hebron. Such a construction usually could be erected only on city property.110 An indication of the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin is found in Josephus, who reported that the archons and bouleutai collected taxes in the villages near Jerusalem and in the country (the chora), so it must be assumed that officials in Jerusalem were not responsible merely for the urban settlement.111 Therefore, probably all of Judea was administratively subject to Jerusalem in the Herodian period. In Greek usage, Judea would be the chora of the polis Jerusalem.112 That is also seen in the fact that again and again the rural population comes into view politically in the central settlement, Jerusalem.113

Current research usually accepts the core of this interpretation by Tcherikower as correct;100 nevertheless, it has been brought out that the authority of the Sanhedrin was not limited to religious questions but also included taxation, administration, and jurisdiction.101 The Sanhedrin was made up of religious leaders and the aristocracy of Jerusalem and the surrounding towns. We are not informed about how new members were appointed; however, the stability in its composition presumably shows that a type of census based on descent or possibly co-optation was practiced. The appointment to the Sanhedrin was probably for life. Before Herod’s takeover, he had to answer to the Sanhedrin and the high priest over it,102 thus a powerful position must be assumed for the Sanhedrin during that time.103 After Herod’s takeover, the king had his domestic opponents in the Sanhedrin killed,104 and we consequently hear nothing more about the Sanhedrin. It was probably forced into compliance. Only after Archelaus was banished did the Sanhedrin again grow in power, and Josephus reported, “After the death of these kings, the constitution became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation.”105 With the integration into the Roman provincial system, local self-government was also strengthened. That did not change again in essence until the Jewish War. Returning to the question of whether Jerusalem was a polis, it must be conceded that Tcherikower is correct regarding how it compared to the average Greek polis. However, his criteria are too narrow for what is termed a polis and are not supported by any ancient source. That a gymnasium was necessary for a polis corresponds to modern ideas; however, this cannot be verified for antiquity. Quite the contrary, it is to be understood from Pausanias’ description of the polis Panopeus in the second century AD that a gymnasium was admittedly something to be expected in connection with a polis; however, it was not a constitutive element. Thus, Pausanias says in his description of the Phocis landscape, “From Chaironeia it is twenty stades to Panopeus, a city (polis) of the Phocians, if one can give the name of city (polis) to those who possess no government offices, no gymnasium, no theatre, no market-place, no water descending to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like

What was the situation regarding the political selfgovernment of Jerusalem?114 Here one must realise that the Sanhedrin and the high priest over it exercised 106. Paus. 10.4.1. 107. On the polis, cf. the rich literature of recent years that has been published by the Copenhagen Polis Center (Hansen, ed. 1993; 1995; 1997; Hansen and Raaflaub, eds. 1995). Especially to be noted are the following articles: Millar 1993 (on the Greek polis under imperial Rome); Alcock 1995; Rubinstein 1995 (on the quote from Pausanias); Hansen 1997; 1998 (on the broad definition of the term polis in the classical period). In addition, see: Abbott and Johnson 1926, 69ff.; Kolb 1984, 58f.; Gawantka 1985; Sakellariou 1989; Owens 1991, 1f. 108. Jos. bell. Jud. 3.54. Cf. Tcherikower 1964, 70; Schürer II 1979, 190ff., 197f. 109. Cf. Tcherikower 1964, 69; Safrai 1996. 110. On legal questions regarding the construction of the aqueduct, cf. Eck 1987, 61f. 111. Jos. bell. Jud. 2.405ff.Cf. Schürer II 1979, 197. 112. Also cf. Jeremias 1962, 82f., 85; Schürer II 1979, 197. 113. E.g., Jos. ant. Jud. 16.62f. 114. On self-government, cf. in the following Smallwood 1976, 148ff.; Tcherikower 1964; Safrai 1974; Schürer II 1979, 199ff.; Goodman 1987, 33ff, 109ff.; Sartre 1991, 364f.; Grabbe 1992, 383ff.

100. Safrai 1974, 389f.; Sanders 1992, 475ff. 101. On the Sanhedrin, cf. Safrai 1974, 379ff.; Smallwood 1976, 148ff.; Schürer II 1979, 197ff.; Stemberger 1979, 54ff.; Grabbe 1992, 385ff.; Müller 1999. 102. Jos. bell. Jud. 1.208ff.; Jos. ant. Jud. 14.163ff: cf. McLaren 1991, 67ff. 103. Cf. Müller 1999, 34. 104. Jos. ant. Jud. 14.175; 15.5. 105. Jos. ant. Jud. 20.251. 124

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD domestic self-government after Archelaus was exiled. That was the usual method of Roman provincial administration, because the governors with their small staffs were not capable of taking on municipal responsibilities.115 However, in Jerusalem the high priest was appointed by the Roman governors or the Jewish client kings, thereby limiting self-government, although the high priests always came from the same respected families. However, the provincial governors also intervened in the domestic affairs of the polis at other places in the eastern part of the imperium Romanum.116 What the relationship of the Sanhedrin to the high priest was, i.e., whether decisions by the high priest could be carried out against the will of the Sanhedrin, is still debated.117

In Jerusalem, too, the Sanhedrin or the boule, i.e., the aristocratic council, must be viewed as an organ of selfgovernment. In its authority, it is comparable with other organs of self-government in the poleis of the imperium Romanum. It may be regarded as likely that this government appointed officials and formed lower courts of justice. In any case, this is hinted at by Josephus121 and in the Mishnah.122 Josephus’ mention of a bouleuterion shows – as indicated by Millar – that the institution was also structurally present in the cityscape. It is not very likely that the Sanhedrin was only an advisory council for the high priest, occasionally summoned by him into his house.123 Anyone who denies for the boule or Sanhedrin after AD 6 the function of a continuous body of selfgovernment is obligated to name another institution that was responsible for municipal matters. At any rate, that was not the Roman governor in Caesarea.124 The term of office for the high priests was usually short; in the 60 years from Archelaus until the outbreak of the Jewish War, there were at least 18 high priests.125 This indicates that the actual political power of the office during that time should not be assessed too highly and that most official functions were probably carried out by the stable boule as well as its committees. The constitution termed an aristocracy by Josephus would correspond to this.126 That the high priest nevertheless was not insignificant, is demonstrated by the fact that he was appointed by the Romans or the Jewish client kings and that some high priests were left in office for a long time.

That the composition of the Sanhedrin was perhaps not decided by means of an election at a public meeting does not speak against self-government, because membership for life in an oligarchic-aristocratic boule had actually been the rule in the poleis in the eastern part of the empire since the early imperial period.118 However, the boule was often formally legitimized by a public meeting. It is uncertain whether there was also such a procedure in Jerusalem, but it cannot be ruled out.119 Even if that was not the case, nothing speaks against seeing in Jerusalem a polis. After all, according to Josephus, the constitution (politeia) was an aristocracy, which means that the aristocrats were the political decision-makers of the polis. Millar writes about the decision-making bodies of the Greek polis in the Roman imperial period:

Therefore, if the similarities are emphasized more than the differences that arose over time between Jerusalem and the Greek poleis in the Herodian period, then one must reach the conclusion – in spite of the danger of stating the obvious127 – that Jerusalem was a polis in accordance with Pausanias’ definition. Therefore, Claudius could quite naturally employ polis terminology in his letter to Jerusalem, and even in pre-Herodian times Jerusalem could be presented as a polis by the authors of 2 Maccabees and the Aristeas Letter because of the fundamental agreement or comparability with other

The question of for how long the ekklesia of a typical polis continued to meet, and what real powers it will have exercised, would deserve further examination. What is in any case certain about the Greek, or Greco-Roman, city of the imperial period is the central place occupied by the boule. That essential role is mirrored by the vast range of archaeological evidence for city bouleuteria.120 115. Abbott and Johnson 1926, 69ff. Cf. ibid., 73: “In their long experience in provincial government the Romans had found that the city, with its dependent territorium, was the unit through which the province could be best administered and the taxes most easily collected. For this reason the emperors devoted their attention to the spread of the municipal organization in every province. As the client kingdoms were incorporated in the empire, their territory was divided among cities or added to imperial estates. The tribal units of Galatia and the prefectureships of Cappadocia were replaced by towns.” 116. Cf. Abbott and Johnson 1926, 78, 80ff.; Nörr 1966, 15ff. 117. On what possibly took place during the sessions of the Sanhedrin, cf. Schürer II 1979, 225f. 118. Abbott and Johnson 1926, 70ff., 75ff.; Jones 1940, 171, 338; Bowersock 1965, 87f.; Goodman 1987, 36; Millar 1993, 241. 119. Goodman 1987, 110f., assumes that there were no public meetings of this type. 120. Millar 1993, 241.

121. Josephus mentions a council secretary (Jos. bell. Jud. 5.532) and dekaprotoi (Jos. ant. Jud. 20.194; on this, see Schürer 1979, 2:213f.). 122. Safrai 1974, 385, 392, 403f.; Schürer 1979, 2:198 n. 54. 123. Thus Goodman 1987, 113ff.; McLaren 1991, 67ff.; Sanders 1992, 472ff. Cf. Hengel and Deines 1996, 465f. 124. Cf. Abbott and Johnson 1926, 69ff., 82. 125. Cf. Schürer 1979, 2:230ff. 126. Also cf. Jos. ant. Jud. 14.91. 127. Cf. Tcherikower 1964, 74: “Jewish Jerusalem itself, at the end of a long and natural development over many generations, had acquired a certain political form which did not differ significantly from the well-known pattern of the Greek polis. Jerusalem, like every Greek polis, ruled over the surrounding area; it had a class of high officials who ruled over the people, and a council consisting of representatives of the city’s aristocracy.” 125

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

poleis.128 This does not mean that Jerusalem’s peculiarities should be neutralized, but rather Tcherikower’s polis definition should be rejected as only conditionally useful because it is not historically verifiable.129 The question is not whether Jerusalem was a polis but rather how the polis Jerusalem differed from other poleis. In this regard, several characteristics can be mentioned.130 The polis criterion has only limited value and should be put aside from the discussion.

change, confirms the expansion of the city northward with the Third Wall, for which the area of tombs formerly outside the settlement, but now newly enclosed inside it, was purified. Only a few graves that stood out from the rest were not removed. Counted among them are the graves of the high priests John (Hyrcanus) and Alexander Janneus, the royal tombs on the southeast hill, the tombs of Hulda and Isaiah, as well as presumably the tomb of Jesus.132

After examining it as a polis, Jerusalem in the Herodian period will now be described as a city in the urban sense. Kolb’s settlement-geographical definition of “city” suits this purpose.131 It is not to be understood as a rigid definition but as a heuristic instrument, and should be applied to Jerusalem as such. Six criteria that stress the appearance, structure, and function of a settlement are included. The following characteristics must be present in order for a settlement to be spoken of as a city: 1) the settlement as a topographical and administrative unity, 2) a population of several thousand inhabitants, 3) a marked division of labor and social differentiation, 4) a variety of architecture, 5) an urban lifestyle, and 6) a function as the central town for the surrounding area. Although no one questions that we are dealing with a city in the case of Jerusalem, the criteria should nevertheless be reviewed, as they are very suitable for the examination of a city, because they illuminate the most diverse, individual aspects of such and at the same time lead to a full picture.

With respect to the population of Jerusalem in the Herodian period, the estimates fluctuate between 30,000 and 120,000 inhabitants. All these estimates are essentially based on a hypothetical number of inhabitants per cubic meter multiplied by the settlement’s surface area. However, since we have no definite statements about the population density – the New City in Jerusalem, for example, was only sparsely populated – and because it is uncertain how much space should be estimated for residential buildings, due to other structures (the Temple, palaces, workshops, and reservoirs) and free spaces (markets or the like), the ratio of inhabitants to area is just as uncertain as the total area of the city, when one considers that the course of the Third Wall is disputed.133 Therefore, we must refrain from giving an exact number and – also in view of the 18,000 unemployed persons mentioned by Josephus – carefully retreat to the position that the city in the Herodian period had several ten thousand inhabitants. Thus, it was the largest city in the region,134 and the enlargement of the circumvallated city terrain shows that Jerusalem underwent tremendous expansion in the Herodian period.

Regarding the topographical and administrative unity of the settlement, what was said above about the polis is true here for the administration. On the topography, it can be added that the city walls, as well as the surrounding valleys, yield a clear spatial restriction of the compacted settlement area. The spatial border of the settlement is further determined by the burials that, as in other cities, with only few exceptions lay outside the settlement area and formed a wide belt surrounding Jerusalem. That the border of the settlement area was a given, though it could

The third criterion for a city, the marked division of labor and social differentiation, also was present in Jerusalem. From few cities in antiquity do we have such rich literary sources – especially Josephus and the Mishnah – that mention the various professions in the city. The material was collected by Jeremias; it shows that the inhabitants did not live in a village subsistence economy.135 In the area of manufacturing tools, Jeremias was able to prove the existence of wool-processing, weavers, fullers, tailors, leather industry, smithies, potters, makers of ointment, and writers. Furthermore, there was an extensive building industry that included quarrymen, well diggers and of course carpenters, stonemasons, and craftsmen. In the food industry, there were butchers, cheese makers and water carriers, and other service providers such as doctors, barbers, and moneychangers. Jeremias mentions

128. Cf. Bickermann 1930, 294f.; Arenhoevel 1967, 126ff.; Schwartz 1996, 122ff. 129. Polis is defined in Tcherikower 1964, 66. Cf. the methodical observations by Ehrenberg regarding the investigation of the Greek polis in the Classical and Hellenistic periods: “Hier erhebt sich die Frage, wieweit es berechtigt ist, von zu sprechen. Aus einer Vielzahl von Staaten kann notwendigerweise nur ein Bild gewonnen werden, wenn man die Einheit hinter der Vielheit erkennt. Es stellt zu gewissem Grade eine Abstraktion dar, und es wird unsere Aufgabe sein, das (Max Webers ) zu beschreiben, ohne über dem Gemeinsamen das Verschiedene zu vergessen.” (Ehrenberg 1965, VIII.). Also cf. Kolb 1984, 264f. On the greatly differing municipal systems, also cf. Abbott and Johnson 1926, 74ff. 130. Cf. the remarks by Tcherikower 1964 and Hengel 1996; 1999. 131. Kolb 1984, 14. Also cf. Morgan and Coulton 1997; Lang 1999, 4f.

132. Jeremias 1926, 9. 133. On problems of method in the calculation of the population, see Zorn 1994. 134. Cf. the compilation of the settlement areas of centrally located towns in the region in the Roman-Byzantine period in Broshi 1979, 5. On the population of Jerusalem, cf. Jeremias 1962, 96; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:124; Hengel 1996, 18; 1999, 147. 135. In the following, see Jeremias 1962, 1ff. Also, cf. Hengel 1996, 69. 126

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD prostitutes only in passing.136 However, because the Rabbis viewed prostitution as a cause of the destruction of the Temple that ensued as punishment from God, and since the New Testament seems to presuppose the presence of prostitutes in Jerusalem, it can be assumed that this trade, too, was represented in Herodian Jerusalem.137 Particularly connected with the Temple cult were, in addition to the priests, showbread bakers and makers of incense as well as other workers such as sellers and moneychangers.138 With regard to trade, there is evidence for the existence of customs agents.139 In the area of agriculture, a little grain, different kinds of fruit and vegetables, and above all olive trees were grown in Jerusalem or in its immediate surroundings. The olives were pressed and processed in Jerusalem. The professions recorded in literary sources supplement the ossuary inscriptions, which mention a scribe, a teacher, a doctor, a potter, and the temple-builder Simeon mentioned above.140 These professions and activities indicate a pronounced division of labor in Jerusalem.

concept of a city. One possibility for getting closer to the idea of urban lifestyle in antiquity is offered by Pausanias’ lines about Panopeus already quoted.145 According to Pausanias, the minimum requirements for the composition of a city are official buildings, a gymnasium, a theater, a market, and water pipes; indirectly, Pausanias also appears to include lavish taste in living quarters. Looking at Herodian Jerusalem, all of this is present, with the exception of a gymnasium and a permanent theater. The absence of these structures can be explained by the city’s particular religious situation that was influenced by monotheistic Judaism.146 Herod erected – probably temporarily – a theater for festivals in Jerusalem, and the nature of the festivals led to protests from the Jewish population that suspected idolatry. A gymnasium in Jerusalem is named in connection with the Maccabean revolt 166/165 BC. Its construction seems to have been one of the reasons for the rebellion. However, the gymnasium is subsequently no longer to be found, and it must therefore be assumed with a high degree of probability that there was none in Herodian Jerusalem. Originally, xystos meant the surface for athletic exercises in a gymnasium, but this word was integrated into the terminology for villas.147 Thus the xystus named in Josephus is probably meant figuratively and is perhaps connected with the old Hasmonean palace. The gymnasium and theaters were the cultural and educational institutions of a pagan city, and their absence must be explained by the rejection of this type of education by the Jewish population. Instead of these educational institutions, there were others; only the elementary schools and synagogues are named here,148 including Greek schools.149 Education in Jerusalem was not devoted entirely to Jewish religious matters, as is made evident by the widespread use of the Greek language in the city,150 the scholars around Herod,151 and the broadly educated man from Jerusalem, Josephus.152 Today, we would interpret this broadness as an expression of an urban lifestyle.

Herod and Archelaus as king and ethnarch respectively, together with their courts, stood at the top of the social hierarchy.141 Leading in aristocratic times was above all the priestly aristocracy and the high priest, whose wealth, like that of the family of Josephus,142 was based mainly on land holdings in Judea.143 The craftsmen and tradesmen in the occupations named above, as well as lower priests, can be counted as a kind of middle class in Jerusalem. Belonging to the poor or the lower class were day laborers, beggars, and slaves.144 All in all, we have therefore clear social differentiation, which is also reflected in the different types of buildings and tombs. Concerning the fourth criterion for a city, the variety of architecture, this has already been introduced in the description of the structures in Jerusalem above. It should be clear by now that we are not dealing with a uniform settlement but with a multifarious city.

Another aspect of an urban lifestyle can be seen in the availability of trade goods from great distances. This is shown in the speech of Aelius Aristides on Rome, who in the second century AD right at the beginning of his laudation describes what an unimaginable variety of merchandise could be found in Rome.153 To him, this is a conspicuous trait of centrality, and it is applied with rhetorical exaggeration to the large city of Rome. The eighteenth chapter of Revelation also paints a similar

The urban lifestyle called for as a fifth criterion is a blurred concept. It can easily be confused with our 136. Jeremias 1962, 346. 137. Cf. the New Testament in Matthew 21:31f. (prostitutes in the teaching of Jesus in Jerusalem) and Revelation 21:8; 22:15 (prostitution will no longer have a place in the new Jerusalem); on the Rabbinic references, see Herr 1971, 1245. 138. Cf. Ådna 1999, 96ff. 139. Herrenbrück 1991. 140. Rahmani 1994, 16f. 141. On the social relationships, cf. fundamentally Jeremias 1962, 101ff. Also, see Goodman 1987 on the upper class. 142. Jos. vita 422. 143. Jeremias 1962, 106f., 110, 114, 123; Applebaum 1978, 367; Goodman 1987, 55ff.; Fiensey 1991, 24ff.; Safrai 1994, esp. 377ff.; Pastor 1997, 146ff. However, also cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1991 who argues that the participation of the urban elite in trade is, on the whole, underestimated. 144. Jeremias 1962, 124ff.

145. Paus. 10.4.1. Cf. Apuleius 2.19; Ael. Arist. 93f. On this, cf. Owens 1991, 2f. 146. In the following, cf. Lichtenberger 1999, 74ff. with further literature. 147. Cf. Förtsch 1993, 65ff. 148. Cf. Stemberger 1979, 107ff. 149. Hengel 1996, 31; 37ff. 150. Hengel 1996, 12ff.; 1999, 133ff., 146f. 151. Cf. Roller 1998, 54ff.; Hengel 1999, 140ff. 152. Schürer 1973, 1:43f.; Hengel 1996, 41ff. 153. Ael. Arist. 11ff. 127

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

picture of that city.154 Turning to Jerusalem, Jeremias has traced, mainly from literary sources, trade contacts to Greece, Cyprus, Babylon, Persia, India, Lebanon, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Egypt, though the imported goods were mainly luxury products.155 In Avigad’s excavations in the aristocratic houses of the Upper City, there were Italian wine amphorae, eastern terra sigillata, Egyptian vessels, a fragment of a marble tray, and other imported luxury items.156

center because of its political and religious significance. It had the markets mentioned earlier and seems to have been the central marketplace as well as the consumer for the agricultural products grown in Judea. This was especially true of oil and wine. A survey of Judea showed that in regard to the rural structure of settlements there were numerous small tower-farmsteads with very little land. At the same time, there were also large estates, which can probably be identified with the lands owned by aristocratic families of Jerusalem known from literary sources.164 Jerusalem was the marketplace of those farmsteads. For the situation regarding the economy and the geography of traffic, the relationship to a port must also be included. Caesarea was established by Herod as the most important harbor of his kingdom,165 and the expansion of Antipatris as an intermediate town between Jerusalem and Caesarea was intended to improve the connection between the two cities.166 Caesarea also continued to be the most important harbor of Jerusalem after the banishment of Archelaus. However, Jerusalem was now above all one city among many, one that was dependent on Caesarea for a harbor, while the harbor town Caesarea was not dependent on Jerusalem.167

Thus, the buildings and institutions listed as well as the imported goods can be taken as evidence of an urban lifestyle. An indication of an urban awareness of life should also be seen in the pride that the inhabitants of Jerusalem had in the buildings that also made a great impression on outsiders. Pliny writes about the Herodian city, “Hierosolyma, longe clarissima urbium Orientis non Iudaeae modo.”157 Josephus describes not only the impressive view of the temple at a distance158 but also raves exuberantly about the Royal Portico, “It was a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun.”159 The Mishnah records the following saying about Herod’s temple: “Anyone who has not seen the building of Herod has never seen a beautiful building.”160 Finally, mention can also be made of Josephus’ report that during the festivals organized by Herod in Jerusalem, the king surpassed all others – i.e., all other cities – with regard to the expenditure for splendor.161 Here, there is clearly an orientation toward other cities and toward an urban lifestyle that also expresses itself in festivals.

The central-location aspect that qualified everything mentioned above regarding Jerusalem’s urban character, however, is the position of Jerusalem as the central point of reference for the Jewish religion and as the location of the Temple.168 The importance of the Temple can barely be touched on in the framework of, and at the end of this article. Numerous individual studies have been devoted to this question.169 All Jews were tied to the Temple by the Temple tax that was to be paid every year,170 and tens of thousands of pilgrims came to Jerusalem for the three annual pilgrimage feasts.171 The Temple tax and pilgrims brought an enormous amount of people and money into the city. Jerusalem’s attractiveness increased considerably with the construction of the magnificent Herodian Temple.172 In this way, the city of Jerusalem became a central location in the religious sense, surrounded by Judea and the Jewish Diaspora. Thus, Jerusalem was in antiquity already an international city.173

We come to the sixth point in Kolb’s catalog of criteria, the function as the central town for the surrounding area. In the case of Jerusalem, this can be traced on three interlocking levels: political-administrative, economic, and religious. On the political-administrative level, Jerusalem was the official residence under Herod and Archelaus and thus the center of the state. Under the procurators and in the kingdom of Agrippa I, Jerusalem was Judea’s central town. Although Jerusalem was not located on an important international highway,162 it was nevertheless considered to be the “navel of the country”163 and was an economic

164. On agriculture and the structure of settlements, cf. Ron 1966; Kochavi, ed. 1972, 19ff.; Applebaum 1978, 361ff.; Safrai 1994; Anderson 1995, 451ff.; Pastor 1997, 8ff.; 98ff.; Hirschfeld 1998. Also, see Shukron and Savariego 1994 on the new discovery of a farmhouse at Jerusalem. 165. Prior to this, Acco, Ashkelon, Joppa und Gaza were harbors that were of significance for Jerusalem (cf. the Aristeas Letter 114f.). 166. Cf. Acts 23:31. On this, see Lichtenberger 1999, 156f. 167. Cf. Isaac and Roll 1982, 6f. 168. Cf. Isaac 1992, 105. 169. On its central importance, see now the anthology Poorthuis and Safrai, eds. 1996. Cf. further Hengel 1999. 170. Cf. most recently Schwartz 1996; Barclay 1996, esp. 418ff. 171. Cf. Safrai 1981; Sartre 1991, 401f. 172. Cf. Hengel 1999, 144f. Also see Freyberger 1998, 106. 173. Cf Acts 2:5ff.

154. Rev 18:9ff. Also cf. the description of Alexandria in the third century BC in Herondas, Prokyklis/Mastropos 26ff. 155. Jeremias 1962, 38ff. 156. Avigad 1983, 81ff.; 1991, 22, 39ff., 64, 71f. 157. Pliny nat. hist. 5.15.70. Also see Tac. hist. 5.2.1. On other Greek and Roman authors and their view of Jerusalem and the temple, cf. Hengel 1996, 23 n. 55; 1999, 117ff. 158. Jos. bell. Jud. 5.222f.; Jos. ant. Jud. 15.393. 159. Jos. ant. Jud. 15.412. 160. bB.B. 4a. 161. Jos. ant. Jud. 15.271. Cf. Lichtenberger 1999, 75f. 162. Cf. Dorsey 1991, 117ff., 181ff. Also, cf. Isaac 1992, 105; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994, 1:17ff.; Fischer and Isaac and Roll 1996. 163. Jos. bell. Jud. 3.52. Cf. Hengel 1996, 21 n. 45; 1999, 116 n. 5. 128

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD Bahat, D. 1994 The Western Wall Tunnels. Pp. 177-190 in Geva, ed. 1994.

Bibliography Abbott, F.F. and Johnson, A.C. 1926 Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton).

Barclay, J.M.G. 1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh).

Abells, Z. and Arbit, A. 1995 The City of David Water Systems. Plus Brief Discussions of Aqueducts, Storage Pools and the Present Day Supply of Water to Jerusalem (Jerusalem).

Ben-Dov, M. 1982 In the Shadow of the Temple. The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem (New York).

Ådna, J. 1999 Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 25; Wiesbaden).

Bickermann, E. 1930 Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29: 280-298. Bieberstein, K. and Bloedhorn, H. 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, I-III (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B 100/1-3; Wiesbaden).

Alcock, S. 1995 Pausanias and the Polis: Use and Abuse. Pp. 326344 in Hansen, ed. 1995. Alföldy, G. 1999 Pontius Pilatus und das Tiberieum von Caesarea Maritima. Scripta Classica Israelica 18: 85-108.

Billig, Y. 1996 Jerusalem, the Lower Aqueduct. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 78-79.

Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. 1975 Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel. Pp. 52-54 in Yadin, ed. 1975.

Blaufuss, H. 1916 Aboda zara. Mischna und Tosefta. Übersetzt und mit vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung der Altertümer erklärt (Nürnberg).

Anderson, J.D. 1995 The Impact of Rome on the Periphery: The Case of Palestina – Roman Period (63 BCE – 324 CE). Pp. 446-468 in T. E. Levy, The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (London and Washington).

Bowersock, G. 1965 Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford). Broshi, M. 1975 Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion. Pp. 57-60 in Yadin, ed. 1975. 1979 The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236: 1-10. 1992 The Serpents’ Pool and Herod’s Monument – A Reconsideration. Maarav 8: 213-222.

Applebaum, S. 1978 Judaea as a Roman Province; the Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor. Pp. 355-396 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.8. Arenhoevel, D. 1967 Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch (Walberberger Studien 3; Mainz).

Broshi, M. and Gibson, S. 1994 Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Pp. 147-155 in Geva, ed. 1994.

Avigad, N. 1975 Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, 1969-1971. Pp. 41-51 in Yadin, ed. 1975. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville and Camden and New York). 1991 The Herodian Quarter in Jerusalem. Wohl Archaeological Museum (Jerusalem).

Burrell, B. and Netzer, E. 1999 Herod the builder (Review of Roller 1998). Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 705-715.

Avigad, N. and Geva, H. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 717-757 s.v. Jerusalem. The Second Temple Period.

Busink, T.A. 1980 Der Tempel von Jerusalem. Von Salomo bis Herodes. Eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. II. Von Ezechiel bis Middot (Leiden).

Avni, G. and Greenhut, Z. 1996 The Akeldama Tombs. Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 1; Jerusalem).

Corbo, V. 1989 Herodion I. Gli edifici della Reggia-Fortezza (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior 20; Jerusalem).

129

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Dorsey, D.A. 1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (Baltimore and London).

Geva, H. 1994 Excavations at the Citadel of Jerusalem, 19761980. Pp. 156-167 in Geva, ed. 1994.

Eck, W. 1987 Die Wasserversorgung im römischen Reich: Sozio-politische Bedingungen, Recht und Administration. Pp. 49-101 in Die Wasserversorgung antiker Städte 2 (Mainz).

Geva, H., ed. 1994 Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem). Gibson, S. and Jacobson, D.M. 1996 Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Haram al-Sharīf (British Archaeological Reports International Series 637; Oxford).

Ehrenberg, V. 1965 Der Staat der Griechen, 2nd expanded ed. (Zürich).

Gibson, S. and Taylor, J.E. 1994 Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchure Jerusalem. The Archaeology and Early History of Traditional Golgotha (Palestine Exploration Fund Monograph Series Maior 1; London).

Fiensey, D.A. 1991 The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 20; Lewiston and Queenston and Lampeter). Fischer, M., Isaac, B. and Roll, I. 1996 Roman Roads in Judaea II. The Jaffa-Jerusalem Roads (British Archaeological Reports International Series 628; Oxford).

Goodman, M. 1987 The Ruling Class of Judaea. The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66 – 70 (Cambridge).

Fittschen, K. and Foerster, G., eds. 1996 Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Acts of a Symposium Organized by the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Archaeological Institute, Georg-AugustUniversity of Göttingen at Jerusalem November 3rd – 4th 1988 (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse, Dritte Folge 215; Göttingen).

Grabbe, L.L. 1992 Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis). Greenhut, Z. 1994 The Caiaphas Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem. Pp. 219-222 in Geva, ed. 1994. Hänlein-Schäfer, H. 1985 Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers (Archaeologica 39; Rome).

Flusser, D. 1992 Caiaphas in the New Testament. ΄Atiqot 21: 81-87.

Haensch, R. 1997 Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Kölner Forschungen 7; Mainz).

Förtsch, R. 1993 Archäologischer Kommentar zu den Villenbriefen des jüngeren Plinius (Beiträge zur Erschließung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur 13; Mainz).

Hansen, M.H. 1997 The Polis as an Urban Centre. The Literary and Epigraphical Evidence. Pp. 9-86 in Hansen, ed. 1997. 1998 Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 76; Copenhagen).

Freyberger, K.S. 1998 Die frühkaiserzeitlichen Heiligtümer der Karawanenstationen im hellenisierten Osten. Zeugnisse eines kulturellen Konflikts im Spannungsfeld zweier politischer Formationen (Damaszener Forschungen 6; Mainz).

Hansen, M.H., ed. 1993 The Ancient Greek City-State (Historiskfilosofiske Meddelelser 67; Copenhagen). 1995 Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 72; Copenhagen). 1997 The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 75; Copenhagen).

Fritz, V. and Deines, R. 1999 Catalogue of the Jewish Ossuaries in the German Protestant Institute of Archaeology. Israel Exploration Journal 49: 222-241. Gawantka, W. 1985 Die sogenannte Polis. Entstehung, Geschichte und Kritik der modernen althistorischen Grundbegriffe der griechische Staat, die griechische Staatsidee, die Polis (Stuttgart).

Hansen, M.H. and Raaflaub, K., eds. 1995 Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95; Stuttgart).

130

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD gemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften 91; Köln and Opladen), 27-38.

Hengel, M. 1996 Das Problem der „Hellenisierung“ Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus. Pp. 1-90 in M. Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 90; Tübingen). 1999 Jerusalem als jüdische und hellenistische Stadt. Pp. 115-156 in M. Hengel, Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine Schriften II (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 109; Tübingen).

Kloner, A. 1980 The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew Unviersity, Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Kochavi, M., ed. 1972 Judaea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967-1968 (Jerusalem) (Hebrew).

Hengel, M. and Deines, R. 1996 E. P. Sanders’ „Common Judaism“, Jesus und die Pharisäer. Pp. 392-479 in M. Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 90; Tübingen).

Kolb, F. 1984 Die Stadt im Altertum (München). Lang, F. 1999 Stadt und Umland – ein komplementäres System. Pp. 1-18 in E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt, eds., Stadt und Umland. Neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Bau- und Siedlungsforschung. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 7. bis 10. Mai 1997 veranstaltet vom Architektur-Referat des DAI (Diskussionen zur Archäologischen Bauforschung 7; Mainz).

Herr, M.D. 1971 Encyclopaedia Judaica 13: 1244-1245. s. v. Prostitution. In Talmud and Halakhah. Herrenbrück, F. 1990 Jesus und die Zöllner. Historische und neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchungen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 41; Tübingen).

Lichtenberger, A. 1999 Die Baupolitik Herodes des Großen (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 26; Wiesbaden).

Hirschfeld, Y. 1998 Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57:161-189.

Margalit, S. 1990 Jerusalem zur Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. Ein geschichtlicher und archäologischer Überblick, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 2:22-50.

Horbury, W. 1994 The ‘Caiaphas’ Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 126: 32-48.

Mazar, B. 1975 The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City).

Isaac, B. 1992 The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East. Revised Edition (Oxford).

McLaren, J.S. 1991 Power and Politics in Palestine. The Jews and the Governing of the Land 100 BC-AD 70 (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 63; Sheffield).

Isaac, B. and Roll, I. 1982 Roman Roads in Judaea I. The Legio-Scythopolis Road (British Archaeological Reports International Series 141; Oxford).

Meshorer, Y. 1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage II. Herod the Great through Bar Cochba (New York).

Jeremias, J. 1926 Golgotha (Aggelos 1; Leipzig). 1958 Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Mt. 23,29; Lk. 11,47). Eine Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesu (Göttingen). 1962 Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, 3., neubearbeitete Auflage (Göttingen).

Michel, O. and Bauernfeind, O., eds. 1963 Flavius Josephus. De bello Judaico. Der Jüdische Krieg. Griechisch und Deutsch. Band II,1: Buch IV-V (München). Millar, F. 1993 The Greek City in the Roman Period. Pp. 232-260 in Hansen, ed. 1993. 1993a The Roman Near East 31BC – AD337 (Cambridge and London).

Jones, A.H.M. 1940 The Greek City. From Alexander to Justinian (Oxford). Klauser, T. 1960 Christlicher Märtyrerkult, heidnischer Heroenkult und spätjüdische Heiligenverehrung (Arbeits-

131

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Rubinstein, L. 1995 Pausanias as a Source for the Classical Greek Polis. Pp. 211-219 in Hansen and Raaflaub, eds. 1995.

Morgan, C. and Coulton, J.J. 1997 The Polis as a Physical Entity. Pp. 87-144 in Hansen, ed. 1997. Müller, K. 1999 Theologische Realenzyklopädie 30: 32-42 s.v. Sanhedrin/Synhedrium.

Safrai, S. 1974 Jewish Self-government. Pp. 377-419 in S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, I (Assen). 1981 Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (Forschungen zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn).

Netzer, E. 1991 Masada III. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965. Final Reports: The Buildings: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem). 1999 Die Paläste der Hasmonäer und Herodes’ des Großen (Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie; Mainz). 1999a A Synagogue from the Hasmonaean Period Recently Exposed in the Western Plain of Jericho. Israel Exploration Journal 49: 203-221.

Safrai, Z. 1994 The Economy of Roman Palestine (London and New York). 1996 The Role of the Jerusalem Elite in National Leadership in the Late Second Temple Era. Pp. 6572 in Poorthuis and Safrai, eds. 1996.

Nörr, D. 1966 Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit (Münchner Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 50; München).

Sakellariou, M.B. 1989 The Polis-State. Definition (Meletemata 4; Athens).

Owens, E.J. 1991 The City in the Greek and Roman World (London and New York).

Origin

Sanders, E.P. 1992 Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London and Philadelphia).

Pastor, J. 1997 Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine (London and New York).

Sartre, M. 1991 L’Orient romain. Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C. – 235 après J. C.) (Paris).

Patrich, J. 1994 The Structure of the Second Temple – A New Reconstruction. Pp. 260-271 in Geva, ed. 1994. Poorthuis, M. and Safrai, C., eds. 1996 The Centrality of Jerusalem. Perspectives (Den Haag).

and

Schiffman, L.H. 1987 The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources. Pp. 293-312 in L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Leiden).

Historical

Rahmani, L.Y. 1994 A Catalogue of Ancient Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem).

Schürer, E. 1973ff. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar, I-III (Edinburgh).

Reich, R. 1994 Ossuary Inscriptions of the Caiaphas Family from Jerusalem. Pp. 223-225 in Geva, ed., 1994. Richardson, P. 1996 Herod. King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Edinburgh).

Schwartz, D. 1990 Agrippa I. The Last King of Judaea (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 49; Tübingen). 1996 Temple or City: What did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem? Pp. 114-127 in Poorthuis and Safrai, eds. 1996.

Riesner, R. 1998 Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem. Neue Funde und Quellen, 2., erweiterte Auflage (Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte 6; Gießen).

Schwemer, A.M. 1995 Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. 1. Die Viten der großen Propheten Jesaja, Jeremia, Ezechiel und Daniel. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 49; Tübingen).

Roller, D.W. 1998 The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley and Los Angeles and London). Ron, Z. 1966 Agricultural Terraces in the Judean Mountains. Israel Exploration Journal 16:33-49; 111-122.

132

LICHTENBERGER, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE HERODIAN PERIOD Tuchelt, K. 1981 Zum Problem ‚Kaisareion-Sebasteion‘. Eine Frage zu den Anfängen des römischen Kaiserkultes. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31: 173-186.

1996 Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. Band II. Die Viten der kleinen Propheten und der Propheten aus den Geschichtsbüchern. Übersetzung und Kommentar (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 50; Tübingen).

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1991 Elites and trade in the Roman town. Pp. 241-272 in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds., City and Country in the Ancient World (London and New York).

Shukron, E. and Savariego, A. 1994 Jerusalem, Pisgat Ze’ev (Villa Quarter). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12:56-58. Sivan, R. and Solar, G. 1994 Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988. Pp. 168-176 in Geva, ed. 1994.

Weksler-Bdolah, S. 1995 Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 13: 72-74.

Smallwood, E.M. 1976 The Jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity; Leiden).

Wightman, G.J. 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem. From the Canaanites to the Mamluks (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 4; Sydney).

Stemberger, G. 1979 Das klassische Judentum. Kultur und Geschichte der rabbinischen Zeit (70 n. Chr. bis 1040 n. Chr.) (München).

Yadin, Y., ed. 1975 Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974 (Jerusalem). Zorn, J.R. 1994 Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 295: 31-48.

Taylor, J.E. 1998 Golgotha: A Reconsideration of the Evidence for the Sites of Jesus’ Crucifixion and Burial. New Testament Studies 44: 180-203. Tcherikower, V.A. 1964 Was Jerusalem a ‘Polis’? Israel Exploration Journal 14: 61-78.

133

CHAPTER 15 AELIA CAPITOLINA Klaus Bieberstein Modern historians tend to define period boundaries by changes in the prevailing politics of a region, although such a detached, global perspective of history does not always do justice to the areas involved. For Jerusalem, the transition from Assyrian to Babylonian or from Achaemenid to Hellenistic rule was only of medium-term importance. Daily life continued, and new cultural influences only gradually left their mark on the city.

evident today. It was, however, the new foundation of the city by Hadrian that prepared the way for this bipolarity. In terms of city planning, the destruction by Titus and the refounding by Hadrian constitute the most important segment in the history of Jerusalem.1

More decisive for the history of Jerusalem were two whole-scale destructions of the city that did not result from any changes in rulers, but rather were the consequence of local uprisings against imperial rule. Jerusalem was first destroyed in 587 BC by Nebuchadnezzar after an attempted revolt against Babylonian control and a second time in 70 AD by Titus in the wake of a failed revolt against Rome.

The siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus at the end of the First Jewish Revolt extended over several months from the spring to the autumn of 70 AD.2 According to Flavius Josephus, the siege began only a few days before Pesach with the construction of three camps on Mount Scopus and on the Mount of Olives (Bell. V 67-70.135). The northern approach to the city was levelled (Bell. V 106-108), and Titus’ camp was moved to an area opposite the Psephinus Tower in the northwestern corner of the city (Bell. V 130-135). The hastily erected Third Wall was breached on 7 Artemisios (May 25); the Second Wall fell five days later (Bell. V 302.331). Titus constructed a circumvallatio across the two captured northern suburbs and surrounded both the Temple Mount and the Old City, which had been enclosed by the First Wall of Jerusalem (Bell. V 504509). The Antonia fortress was stormed on 6 Panemos (July 25) (Bell. VI 15-80) and razed within seven days (Bell. VI 93.149). On 17 Panemos (August 6) daily sacrifices in the temple came to an end (Bell. VI 94); on 8 Loos (August 27) the gates of the temple courtyard went up in flames; and on 10 Loos (August 29) the temple building itself was destroyed in the conflagration (Bell. VI 220-280).3 Shortly thereafter, Roman soldiers set fire

1. The Suppression of the First Jewish Revolt under Vespasian

Those two destructions, however, were not of equal significance. After the first destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, a small portion of the upper class was deported, while the majority of the population remained. Cult activity also appears to have continued on the site of the destroyed temple at least on a small scale (Jeremiah 41:5), while the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 3-6) and the city wall (Nehemiah 2-6) under Achaemenid rule closely followed the orientation of the surviving building ruins. In that way, the reconstruction of the city was largely a process of restoration. The historical aftermath of the second destruction was quite different. Although the site of the former temple was visited for a time and it seems that a small Jewish community remained at least intermittently, over the course of the next two centuries the face of the city was shaped primarily by the Roman soldiers stationed there and their cults, while the refounding of Jerusalem as Colonia Aelia Capitolina radically changed the outward appearance of the city. The earlier city walls were no longer of any importance in this new formation of the city. A new planned network of streets led to greater settlement density in the northwest, an area largely undeveloped in former periods, and the temples that were also erected in the northwestern area of Aelia Capitolina created an entirely new city center.

1.

2.

The traditional holy sites on the eastern edge of the city regained importance during the course of the Early Islamic period, whereby the city developed the bipolarity of religious centers in the northwest and east that is still

3.

134

Recent summaries of the period described here can be found in Lifshitz, ANRW II.8 (1977), 444-489; Margalit, Judaica 45 (1989), 45-56; Zangenberg, Mensch und Natur (1992), 33-52; Wagner-Lux and Brakmann, RAC 17 (1995), 659-681; additional references in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 1:142-153. On the last phase of the war and the destruction of Jerusalem, see Furneaux, Siege (1973), 133-180; Schürer, History 1 (1973), 501-508; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 316-327; Schwier, Tempel (1989), 27-40; Grabbe, Judaism (1992), 2:459-461; Price, Jerusalem (1992), 115174. According to Taan 4:6 the temple was destroyed by fire on 9 Ab, while bTaan 29a adds the additional detail that it took place on the eve of 9 Ab. Since the night of 9 Ab corresponds to the evening of 8 Loos (August 27), the rabbinic date could originally have referred to the fire

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

to the city hall, the archive, the northern part of the Southeast Hill (Bell. VI 354), as well as to the buildings located on the southern half of the Southeast Hill (Bell. VI 363). On 8 Gorpiaios (September 26), the Upper City located around the palace of Herod the Great fell to the Romans (Bell. VI 358-408.435), and the conflict – at least as far as Jerusalem was concerned – came to an end.

reign of Domitian. The obverse carries the name, title, and portrait of Vespasian as emperor, Titus as caesar and later as emperor, and in later issues also Domitian as emperor. The reverse generally shows the legend Iud(aea) cap(ta), and more rarely Iudaea devicta, Iudaea, or de Iudaeis. In addition, Judaea is depicted personified as a mourning female figure either standing or cowering on the ground under a palm tree or next to a trophaeum, sometimes together with captured Jews. Frequently, the emperor is represented in military costume wielding a lance and short sword or a victory figure is shown under a palm holding a shield. A modified version of the coin 
  
 bearing the Greek legend was  issued in Caesarea Maritima and corresponding coins were circulated even in Gallic Lugdunum in honor of the victory.7

Titus spared from the subsequent destruction of the city only the west wall of Jerusalem and three towers from the palace to serve not only as monuments to a victorious siege, but also as a defensive strongpoint for the soldiers remaining behind (Bell. VII 2-3):4 Caesar ordered the whole city and the temple to be razed to the ground, leaving only the loftiest of the towers, Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamme, and the portion of the wall enclosing the city on the west: the latter as an encampment for the garrison that was to remain, and the towers to indicate to posterity the nature of the city and of the strong defences which had yet yielded to Roman prowress. All the rest of the wall encompassing the city was so completely levelled to the ground as to leave future visitors to the spot no ground for believing that it had ever been inhabited.5

2. The Period between the First and Second Jewish Revolts After the fall of Jerusalem, isolated pockets of resistance persisted in Herod the Great’s strongholds on the edge of the Judaean desert. But before subdueing them, the Romans first undertook a political and military reorganization of Judaea. Three of the four legions involved in suppressing the revolt were sent to new military areas even before Titus left the region. The legio V Macedonica was sent to Moesia on the Danube (Bell. VII 117); the legio XII Fulminata to Melitene on the Euphrates (Bell. VII 18); and the legio XV Apollinaris to Pannonia (Bell. VII 117). Only the legio X Fretensis, which probably had been stationed in Zeugma on the Euphrates before the war, remained in the area supported by auxiliary units to take on the last groups of rebels and to control those points most important in protecting against any repeated flare-up of rebellion in Judaea.8

The survivers who had escaped the initial wave of bloodshed were executed, sent to the mines in Egypt, sold into slavery, or carried off to Rome as captives for the Triumph procession (Bell. VI 414-434). After a brief journey through Syria, Titus set out from Alexandria to Rome in early summer 71 to join Vespasian in holding the Triumph, in which John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora, and a further 700 rebels, as well as the Table of the Shewbread and the seven-branched candlestick were brought along to be displayed in the newly dedicated Temple of Peace on the eastern end of the Forum Romanum (Bell. VII 118-162).6

Before the war, Judaea had been ruled at first only by a prefect of equestrian rank and then after Claudius by a procurator who had only auxiliary units at his disposal.9 Now in conjunction with the permanent stationing of a legion, Judaea was elevated to an imperial province with a governor10 of praetorian rank, who simultaneously took over the command of the legion and resided in the provincial capital of Caesarea Maritima like the prefects

In commemoration of the victory, gold, silver, and bronze coins were struck in Rome even into the first years of the

4.

5. 6.

starting at the gates of the temple complex and later interpreted as the destruction date of the temple building itself. See also Bell. VI 413. Also according to EchaR on Lam. 1:5 § 31 the western city wall with the city gateway leading to Jaffa was preserved as a victory memorial, see Buber, Midrasch Echa Rabbati (1967), 69. Translation: Thackeray, Josephus (1928) 3:505. On the triumphal procession see Smallwood, Jews (21981), 327-330; Schwier, Tempel (1989), 317-327. On the representation of the Temple objects on the Titus arch, see Pfanner, Titusbogen (1983). Cf. Procopius (Bell. Vand. IV 9:3-9) who notes that after the objects had been the booty of Genserich, they were then transported to Constantinople from Carthage by Belisar until finally being returned to Jerusalem under Justinian, in order to be placed in churches, where however they are not attested.

7.

8. 9. 10.

135

Reifenberg, Coins (21947), 33.59-60; Meshorer, Coins (1967), 107-109, 176-178; Kindler, Coins (1974), 113123; Meshorer, Coinage 2 (1982), 190-197, 288-289; Maltiel-Gerstenfeld, 260 Years (1982), 81-83, 195-196; Maltiel-Gerstenfeld, Catalogue (1987), 121-126; Abraham Bromberg Collection (1991), 138-152; Overbeck and Meshorer, Heilige Land (1993), 117-141. On the history and prosopography of the Legio X Fretensis Ritterling, PRE 12 (1924) and Dabrowa, Legio (1993). For an overview of the changing of auxiliary troops in Judaea, see Mor, Defence (1986), 575-602. For lists of the governors and related sources, see Schürer, History 1 (1973), 514-519 and Smallwood, Jews (21981) 546-557.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

and procurators before him. At the same time, Vespasian distinguished Caesarea most likely out of recognition for its services during the war. It was not raised to a city with ius italicum, probably because it had not been inhabited by former legionaries, but it did receive as its highest privilege an exemption from paying land taxes and was nominally declared colonia prima Flavia Augusta Caesariensis (Plinius, Nat. Hist. V 14 § 69). That was a new development in the eastern part of the empire, since colonies up to that point had always been the residence of retired legionaries who helped in securing pacified lands. This was not intended, however, in the case of Caesarea.11

destruction both as a memorial to the victorious military achievement and as a defensive position for the soldiers who remained behind. Thus, it has been assumed that their camp was located southeast of the medieval citadel.18 If one accepts that the average size of a camp of one legion was 20-25 ha (50-60 acres),19 the camp would have corresponded in area to the Armenian and Jewish quarters. The archaeological remains, however, have fallen considerably short of what one might have expected to find. In the inner courtyard of the Citadel R. Amiran and A. Eitan came upon building remains, a water channel, and a repair in the city wall that they dated to the time before the Bar Kokhba Revolt.20 Also, H. Geva, in his later excavations in the southern section of the inner courtyard, recorded slight traces of walls as well as a water channel made from terracotta pipes marked with round stamps,21 characteristic, according to D. Barag, of the phase preceding the Bar Kokhba Revolt.22 However, the corner of a rectangular structure and a section of a water channel with terracotta pipes, which also carried the stamp of the legio X Fretensis, were found during the earlier excavation of C. N. Johns in the Citadel courtyard and date to the time after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.23 Finally, J. Germer-Durand dated a bath complex uncovered in the area of St. Peter in Gallicantu, whose terracotta pipes also were marked with the stamp of the legio X Fretensis, to the time after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.24

The Jewish population in the areas that participated in the Revolt had their estates confiscated and sold (Bell. VII 216).12 The obligation to forfeit the usual didrachm tax to the fiscus iudaicus from the Jahwe temple to the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter in Rome, introduced by Vespasian (Bell. VII 218; Cassius Dio, Hist. Rom. LXV 7:2) and later mitigated or even completely lifted by Nerva, was more a humiliation than a financial burden and can not be used to portray their social situation as too bleak.13 With regard to the rest of the history of the province, we are relatively well-informed by Flavius Josephus only for the first four years following the destruction of Jerusalem. Sextus Vettulenus Cerealis, who had been commander of the legio V Macedonica during the war, was installed as the first legate (Bell. III 310.314; IV 552; VI 131.237; VII 163).14 His successor, Lucius Bassus, managed to subdue the last rebels in Herodeion and on Machairos (Bell. VII 163-216.252).15 The last stronghold, Masada, fell in April 74 (Bell. VII 252-407),16 under the third legate Lucius Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus.17 Thus the legio X Fretensis established quarters at a designated site among the ruins of Jerusalem (Bell. VII 5.17), the hotbed of the crushed revolt.

Other excavations in the southern part of the city have reported tiles from unstratified contexts. M. Broshi and D. Bahat did not find any building remains in the northern section of the Armenian garden,25 and in the area directly outside the city wall only stamped tiles were observed.26 A. D. Tushingham concluded that the area of the southern Armenian garden had remained uninhabited until the middle of the sixth century, despite his discovery

2.1 The Camp of the Legio X Fretensis 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

According to Flavius Josephus, Titus spared the towers of the King’s Palace and the western wall of the city from 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16. 17.

Isaac, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981), 38-43. Applebaum, Prolegomena (1976), 9-15; idem, ANRW II.8 (1977), 385-396; Isaac, JJS 35 (1984), 44-50. On the fiscus iudaicus, see Schürer, History I (1973), 512513; Carlebach, JQR 66 (1975-1976), 57-61; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 345, 371-376; Thompson, Historia 31 (1982), 329-342; Mandell, HThR 77 (1984), 223-232; Goodman, JRS 79 (1989), 40-44; Schwier, Tempel (1989), 327-330. Form of the name cf. CIL 4862; Dabrowa, Legio (1993), 27-28. Possibly identical with Sextus Lucilius Bassus (Tacitus, Hist. II 100-101); Dabrowa, Legio (1993), 28-29; Schwier, Tempel (1989), 40-45. For the date, cf. Eck, Senatoren (1970), 98-101. Form of the name from CIL 10243; Schwier, Tempel (1989), 49-51; Dabrowa, Legio (1993), 29-31.

23. 24. 25. 26.

136

Already noted by Wilson, PEFQSt 37 (1905), 138-144. Webster, Army (31985), 184. Amiran and Eitan, IEJ 20 (1970), 15. Geva, IEJ 33 (1983), 64-67. On the typology and dating of the tiles cf. Barag, EI 8 (1967), 168-182; translation: BJb 167 (1967), 244-267. A tile workshop, where such tiles were produced, was discovered in 1949 at Shaykh Badr (Giv‘at Ram), published in only preliminary form at the time by AviYonah, BJPES 15 (1949-1950), 19-24. The follow-up excavations that became necessary in 1992 are reported in Arubas and Goldfus, HA 100 (1993), 63-67; translation: ESI 13 (1995), 74-78 and idem, Roman and Byzantine Near East (1995), 95-107. Johns, QDAP 14 (1950), 152-153; date from Amiran and Eitan, IEJ 20 (1970), 15. Germer-Durand, RB 1 (1892), 382. Bahat and Broshi, Qadmoniot 5 (1972), 103; translation: Jerusalem Revealed (1975), 56. Personal communication from Broshi, see Geva, IEJ 34 (1984), 244 n. 29.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

in the same excavation area of several imported lamps from Italy that he dated to the period between 70 and 135 AD and of tiles with the stamp of the legio X Fretensis that he placed in the period after 135 AD.27 During the course of his excavation of the Armenian House of Caiphas, located outside the Ottoman city wall, M. Broshi again recorded only tiles with the stamp of the legio X Fretensis,28 while N. Avigad reported that he only came across Byzantine finds directly above the Herodian buildings in his extensive excavations in the Jewish Quarter.29

separate settlement for veterans was established (Bell. VII 217). 2.2 Inscriptions and Cults of the Legio X Fretensis Faced with the silent literary sources and the largely nonexistent settlement remains, one can gain further insights into the history of the legionary encampment only from a number of inscriptions that have been found in Jerusalem. By their use of Latin, they attest to a strong Romanization of the city. While all inscriptions from the pre-war period were composed either in Hebrew or more rarely in Greek,35 those securely dated to the period between the First Jewish Revolt and the time of Constantine were written only in Latin, which indicates an extensive change in population.36

Clearly, the finds discovered thus far do not match expectations. H. Geva concluded that a legionary camp did not exist here in the traditional sense. More likely, there was only a vexillatio in Jerusalem, while the main fighting force of the legion was stationed at strategically important points in the countryside,30 whereas D. Bear thought that the camp should be sought at another location, namely, in the area of the Christian Quarter.31

Among that group of Latin inscriptions is a column bearing an honorary inscription or building inscription that was uncovered at the pillar foundation of an Umayyad period building southwest of the aram alShar f during the excavations of B. Mazar:37

As the literary and archaeological evidence compiled by B. Isaac demonstrate,32 one should follow H. Geva in concluding that smaller troop contingents were stationed at several strategically important positions throughout the land. Given the paucity of finds in Jerusalem, however, it is also necessary to question the excavation methods that have been used.33 For as long as archaeologists take a one-sided interest in the Biblical stratigraphy, for political reasons, a gap in the excavation material should not come as a surprise. For example, in his preliminary reports N. Avigad laconically comments that the finds discovered down to the level of the Herodian paved street “were removed by mechanical means”.34




But there was undoubtedly at least a core legionary encampment in the area of the Citadel and the Armenian Quarter, although settlement of the devastated site would have hardly extended beyond the camp perimeter. Over time, a small settlement would have arisen in the forecourt of the camp – a hybrid form of the canabae and vicus – consisting of relatives and dependents of the soldiers and merchants and artisans, among whom were perhaps, or probably, also Jews and Jewish-Christians. No colony of discharged soldiers, however, was formally established. The 800 veterans retired after the capture of Machairos were not settled in Jerusalem itself, but rather thirty stades west of Jerusalem in Emmaus, where a

1 2 3 4 5 6

Imp(eratori) Caesar(i) Vespasian[o Aug(usto) Imp(eratori) T(ito) C[aesar(i) Vesp(asiano) Aug(usti) [f(ilio) L(ucio) [[ . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore)

1 2 3 4 5 6

For Emperor Caesar Vespasian Augustus (and) Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian, Augustus son of Lucius [[… the legate of Augustus pro praetore, X Fretensis.

This honorary or building inscription undoubtedly comes from a time late in the reign of Vespasian. Although the name of the dedicator is obliterated for the most part, the preserved section of the title [leg(ato)] Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) reveals that the inscription belongs to a governor of praetorian rank. The names of both the second governor Lucius Bassus and the third governor Lucius Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus begin with “L”, but B. Mazar has connected the inscription with the third 35. 36.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Tushingham, Excavations (1985), 60-64. Personal communication from Broshi, see Geva, IEJ 34 (1984), 244 n. 31. Avigad, Discovering (1980), 207. Geva, Cathedra 25 (1982), 3-20; idem, IEJ 34 (1984), 239-254. Bear, Cathedra 69 (1993), 37-57. Isaac, Limeskongress Aalen 1983 (1986), 635-640. As suggested by Kuhnen, Palästina (1990), 160-161. Avigad, IEJ 20 (1970), 138.

37.

137

Compiled by Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 1:123 passim. Still of immense importance is the collection of Latin and Greek inscriptions from Jerusalem by Thomsen, ZDPV 43 (1920), 138-158; 44 (1921), 1-61, 90-168; 64 (1941), 203-256. For the most comprehensive collection of all inscriptions from Jerusalem, see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994). Mazar, Qadmoniot 5 (1972), 83-84; AE (1978), 825; translation: Jerusalem Revealed (1975), 33; syntactical interpretation according to Gichon and Isaac, IEJ 24 (1974), 117-123; additional references in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:397.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

governor, the one who captured Masada. The effacement of the first part of the name suggests, however, that the person was subject to damnatio memoriae, an event not attested for this particular figure. For that reason, R. Syme proposed that Lucius Antonius Satruninus was governor between 78 and 81 AD.38 His vita for those years is obscure, but as legate of Germania superior in Moguntiacum (Mainz) he did revolt against Domitian in January 89. That act, then, could explain his damnatio memoriae. But it cannot be proven that he ever visited the East, so the identity of governor “L”, who was honored and later fell into disfavor, cannot be determined with certainty.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In 1937-1938, an additional inscription illustrating the career of a centurion of the legion in some detail was discovered reused as a removable lid for a water pipeline between Damascus Gate and Herod’s Gate.39 The funerary inscription of Tiberius Claudius Fatalis Romanus was erected by his wife, a freedwoman. Tiberius Claudius Fatalis had served in seven legions during his lifetime, first in Britannia, followed later in Germania superior, and then in Syria. If the date assigned by M. Avi-Yonah is correct, he died immediately after the crushing of the Revolt in Jerusalem.40 Since he did not advance farther than to the rank of Hastatus of the Third Cohort in the course of his 23-year career, he most likely did not distinguish himself during that time: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38.

39.

40.

For Tiberius Claudius Fatalis, Son of Tiberius, from the tribus Poplilia, Romanus, Centurion of the Legio II Augusta, of Legio XX Victrix, of Legio II Augusta, of Legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis, of Legio XIV Gemina Martia, Victrix, of Legio XII Fulminata, of Legio X Fretensus, Hastatus of the Third (Cohort). He lived, 42 years, served 23 years. Claudia Ionice, freedwoman an heir, in honor of his merits. May your bones rest in peace. May the soil weight light upon you.

The degree to which the troops influenced the site is demonstrated further by two more inscriptions that also elucidate the new cults connected with the legionary encampment. Another dedicatory inscription from the first decades after the war, as P. Thomsen believes, was found broken into three fragments in 1928 during the construction of the Armenian library. This inscription, which has been largely neglected by scholars, mentions a temple of Genius Africae. The otherwise unidentified and unlocated temple perhaps goes back to a benefaction by the Ala I Thracum Mauretana stationed in Judaea in 86 AD:41

Ti(berio) Cl(audio) Ti(berii) f(ilio) Pop(lilia tribu) Fatalis Roma(no) (centurioni) leg(ionis) II Aug(ustae) leg(ionis) XX Vic(tricis) leg(ionis) II Aug(ustae) leg(ionis) XI C(laudiae) P(iae) F(idelis) leg(ionis) XIV G(eminae) M(artiae) V(ictricis) leg(ionis) XII Ful(minatae) leg(ionis) X Fr(etensis) III hast(ato) vix(it) an(nos) XLII mil(itavit) ann(os) XXIII Cl(audia) Ionice lib(erta) et heres ob merita eius o(ssa) t(ibi) b(ene) q(uiescant) t(erra) t(ibi) l(evis) s(it)

1 2 3 4 5

pro salute imperatoris templum Geniu Africe

1 2 3 4 5

For the well-being of the emperor the temple to the tutelary god of Africa (has been constructed)

Another interesting inscription was discovered in the winter of 1893-1894 when a storm damaged the eastern section of the outer gate of Zion Gate revealing behind it an inscription walled up secondarily:42 1 2 3 4 5 6

Syme, JRS 68 (1978), 12-21, Reprint: idem, Papers III (1984), 1070-1084; received with scepticism by Eck, Chiron 12 (1982), 300-304, adopted without reservation by Dabrowa, Legio (1993), 31-32 and Kuhnen, Thora (1994), 151. Avi-Yonah, QDAP 8 (1939), 54-57; Thomsen, ZDPV 64 (1941), 214-215; Lifshitz, ANRW II.8 (1977), 470-471; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:372. Birley, Roman Britain (1953), 115. Reprint: idem, Roman Army (1988), 197 supports another date beginning in the Hadrianic period. Also Dabrowa, Legio (1993), 84 is sceptical of the early date ascribed by Avi-Yonah.

41.

42.

138

I]ovi o(ptumo) m(axumo) Sarapidi pro salute et Victoria imp(eratoris) Nervae Traiani Caesaris optumi Aug(usti) Germanici Dacici Parthici et populi Romani vexill(atio) leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) fecit Abel and Barrois, RB 40 (1931), 292-294; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:127-128; stored in the Armenian Museum Inv. 303. The stationing of the Ala I Thracum Mauretana is recorded in CIL XVI, 33. Murray, PEFQSt 27 (1895), 130; Dalton, PEFQSt 28 (1896), 133-147; Bliss and Dickie, Excavations (1898), 249-253; CIL III Suppl. (1902), no. 13587; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:166-167.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

1 2 3 4 5 6

To Jupiter Optumus Maxumus Serapis. For the health and victory of the Emperor Caesar Trajan, (son of) Nerva, Optumus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus Parthicus and the Roman people. The vexillatio of the Legio III Cyrenaica has made (this).

period hardly any secondary burials are recorded that could indicate any direct continuity from the pre to postwar period.46 Rather, in the area west of the Wād alRabābah opposite the camp, urn cremation burials began, a practice unattested before the First Revolt.47 North of the city, a new cemetery was established with urn cremation burials as well as cist and shaft graves. The cemetery was initially in the area of St. Georges Cathedral and then expanded southward over the entire northern approaches to the city wall in the course of the Byzantine period.48 It appears that the ancestral Jewish and Jewish-Christian population groups played only a marginal role in the life of the legionary encampment.


The vexillatio of the legio III Cyrenaica, which was first located in Alexandria and after 106 in Bostra, was supposedly sent to Jerusalem in order to relieve the legio X Fretensis that participated in the Parthian war. This dedicatory inscription can be dated to within a few months, given that Trajan received the title Parthicus between April and August 116 and died at the beginning of August 117 AD.

3. Jews and Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem in the Period between the Two Jewish Revolts

For localizing the cult site mentioned in the inscription, it is first important to comment on the water installations and votive objects discovered north of the Haram alSharif and east of both Bethesda Pools. These finds include a fragmentarily preserved, sandal-clad marble  foot the dedicatory inscription 




 bearing     , a votive boat of limestone, a dedicatory relief of limestone depicting a reclining woman, a female marble statuette, a fragment of a once gilt limestone relief aedicula and a fragmentary relief plaque showing a snake next to two columns, all of which point to a healing cult. It is disputed, however, whether the cult site belonged to Serapis or Asclepius-Hygieia.43 Local coins minted from Antoninus Pius until the end of local coins minting under Decius speak for the identification of a Serapis cult.44 Local coinage is also attested under Herennius Etruscus and Hostilian that show a seated Hygieia.45 Thus inscriptions and coins from Trajan to Decius demonstrate the worship of Serapis in Jerusalem, but it cannot be definitely linked to the cult installations at the Bethesda Pool, which could also apply to an Asclepius-Hygieia cult.

3.1 Jews in Jerusalem How or even if Jewish life in Jerusalem continued remains obscure. The picture drawn by Flavius Josephus lacks clarity. On the one hand, he believes, as mentioned above, that Titus had all captured Jewish survivors executed, sent to the mines in Egypt, sold into slavery, or carried off for the Triumph in Rome. But in the fictitious speech that he puts in the mouth of Eleasar, the leader of the rebels in Masada in the spring of 74 shortly before the mass suicide, Josephus proceeds on the assumption that a lamentably small yet continuing Jewish presence existed among the ruins of the razed city (Bell. VII 377). Rabbinic sources mention Jews in the city, but a closer analysis of the sources shows that they refer to pilgrims or visitors rather than to resident Jews.49 It is possible that for a certain period single, private offerings were brought to the site of the destroyed Temple,50 but the official cult came to its definitive end with the destruction of the 46.

All the inscriptions that can definitely be dated to the period between the First Revolt and the time of Constantine are no longer written in Hebrew or Greek, but exclusively in Latin. That fact along with the cult for Genius Africae and Jupiter Serapis indicate a deeplyreaching change in cultural horizons. Finally, it remains to be pointed out that in the numerous rock-cut tombs of the city from the Hasmonean-Herodian 43.

44. 45.

47. 48.

Mauss, Piscine (1888), 5-7, 30; Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem II.4 (1926), 694-696; van der Vliet, Sainte Marie (1938), 193-197, 204; Duprez, BTS 86 (1966), 610; idem, Jésus (1970), 43-54; further bibliographic references in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 3:165-167. Meshorer, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 25-26, 32, 36, 52, 54. Meshorer, IMJ 1 (1982), 17-18 and idem, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 56-57 believes the site of the Hygieia cult to be located rather at Siloam Pool.

49. 50.

139

One of the rare exceptions is cited by Gat, HA 57-58 (1976), 32 and refers to a rock-cut chamber tomb northeast of the Auguste Victoria Hospital on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. This tomb, with its bench along the sides, loculi and pottery, belong to the Herodian and Roman periods (1-2 c. AD). Also Bagatti and Milik, Gli Scavi (1958), 70-109 proceed from the view that the Dominus Flevit necropolis, which they consider JewishChristian, remained in use until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The majority of the known unrobbed rock-cut tombs are unsatisfactorily published. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom (1986), English p. 15. A monograph study of the necropolis is not yet available. An initial collection of the find reports is available in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 1:178-182. Lifshitz, ANRW II 8 (1977), 471-473; Safrai, FS Schalit (1980), 376-393. On the question of a continuing cult see Clark, NTS 6 (1959-1960), 269-280; Guttmann, HUCA 38 (1967), 137148; Mayer, Papers Jerusalem 1967 (1967), 1:209-212; Schürer, History I (1973), 521-523; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 347-348.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Temple, and Jerusalem lost its practical significance as a Jewish center. In any case, the temple cult had already begun to lost its importance in the Hasmonean period, and the criticism of the temple by individual groups prepared for other forms of piety. Yet for everyone the end of the cult marked a new beginning, which took place under the leadership of prominent Pharisees around Jochanan ben Zakkai in Jamnia and in the following centuries in Uscha, Beth Shearim und Tiberias led to a new theological orientation towards the Torah, in which Jerusalem as the center of Judaism figures only as a theological maxim.51

seems to indicate the existence of two different traditions that Eusebius only imperfectly linked together.55 First, on the question of the move to Pella, according to Flavius Josephus (Ant. XX 200), the high priest Ananos allowed James, the brother of the Lord, to be condemned by the Sanhedrin for breaking the law and subsequently stoned to death. According to the second Apocalypse of James from Nag-Hammadi, he was thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple and only thereafter was stoned.56 Finally, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria reported, as Eusebius of Caesarea relates (Hist. Eccl. II 1:4-5; 23:418), that James was beaten by a fuller (cf. Mark 9:3) after he fell from the pinnacle of the Temple. His grave located at the foot of the temenos wall of the Temple courtyard was still known in Hegesippus’ own time (Hist. Eccl. II 23:18). The differences in manner of death are less significant here than the date when the events occurred. Although Hegesippus places the fall shortly before the outbreak of the Revolt, Flavius Josephus dates the event convincingly to the year 62, when the procuratorship was vacant between Festus and Albinus.

3.2 Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem The sources concerning the Christians in Jerusalem are also quite meager. These texts are suspected of being a later (re)construction of the history and, thus, should be regarded with a critical eye. In his Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius of Caesarea mentions, unfortunately without specific mention of his sources, that the community fled from the city to Pella after the death of James, the brother of the Lord, because of a revelation that the leaders of the community had received (III 5:3):

The community possibly fled the city shortly after 62 in reaction to these events. Indeed, Flavius Josephus cites a wave of emigration from Judaea under Gessius Florus (Bell. II 279; Ant. XX 256). If the emigration of the community is placed immediately prior to the destruction of the city, flight from Jerusalem in spite of the encirclement by the Roman army cannot be excluded from consideration, in light of the numerous reports of such flight by Flavius Josephus (Bell. II 538; 556; IV 353.377.397.410; V 420-423.551-552; VI 113-115.383386). But after the outbreak of the Revolt, Pella could not have been regarded as a place of refuge. The pagan city had been destroyed by Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. XII 252; Bell. I 104), freed again by Pompey (Bell. I 156), then only to be destroyed again at the beginning of the Revolt in retaliation for a Jewish pogrom in Caesarea (Bell. II 458). Thus, Pella could hardly have been favorably inclined toward Jewish war refugees.

On the other hand, the people of the church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ migrated from Jerusalem …52 According to the Demonstratio Evangelica, however, a sizeable Jewish-Christian community continued in Jerusalem until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (III 5:108): And history also assures us that there was a very important Christian Church in Jerusalem, composed of Jews, which existed until the siege of the city under Hadrian.53 Both views can be united only if one accepts an intervening return of the exiles from Pella. That return represents a gap that Eusebius does not report but allows his readers to insert on their own.54 This discrepancy

51.

52. 53. 54.

55.

For the consequences that the destruction of Jerusalem had for Jewish piety, see Schürer, History I (1973), 521528; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 344-351; Schäfer, Geschichte (1983), 145-155; Schwier, Tempel (1989), 55201; Grabbe, Judaism (1992), 2:592-595. Translation: Lake, Eusebius (1926) 1:199-201. Translation: Ferrar, Proof (1920) 1:143. Epiphanius of Salamis (Pan. XXIX 7:7-8; XXX 2:7; De mens. 15) also mentions the flight. Thus, according to Lüdemann, his testimony exists completely independent of Eusebius. Paulus II (1983), 269-270. Yet, Epiphanius goes beyond Eusebius and for the first time explicitly

56. 140

states the intention of the community to return to Jerusalem. Fundamental doubt concerning the historicity of the community’s flight to Pella and their return to Jerusalem is mentioned above all by: Brandon, Fall (1951), 168173. 263-264; Munck, NTS 6 (1959-1960), 103-104; Brandon, Jesus (1967), 208-216; Lüdemann, SelfDefinition I (1980), 161-173; Strecker, Judenchristentum (21981), 229-231, 283-286; Lüdemann, Paulus II (1983), 265-286; Verheyden, Vlucht (1988); Murphy-O’Connor, Heritage (1995), 14-17; idem, Acts IV (1995), 316-317. For arguments for its historicity, see especially: Sowers, ThZ 26 (1970), 305-320; Simon, RSR 60 (1972), 37-54; Gunther, ThZ 29 (1973), 81-94; Gray, JEH 24 (1973), 17; Pritz, Christianity (1988), 123-127; Koester, CBQ 51 (1989), 90-106; Wehnert, ZKG 102 (1991), 231-255; Balabanski, Eschatology (1997), 101-134. Funk, Apokalypse (1976), 230.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

That this attempt to (re)construct history took place not in the initial years after the war, but rather only after a longer space of time can be demonstrated from a further observation. Eusebius records a list of fifteen bishops for Jerusalem for the time up to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This list begins with James, the brother of the Lord, and continues with Simeon up to Judas, the leader of the community on the eve of the Revolt (Hist. Eccl. IV 5:1-4). This list is recorded almost intact by Epiphanius of Salamis as well (Pan. LXVI 20:1).

An emigration to Pella, if placed between 62 and 66, cannot be discounted and actually appears less plausible at a later date. The reference to Pella, however, regardless of its historicity, should certainly be counted as part of the non-fictional core underlying the tradition. The origin of this tradition should be sought in the community of Pella, which was considered to extend back to the ancient community of Jerusalem.57

The central problem, however, rests not so much in the likelihood of an emigration to Pella, but rather Bishops of Jerusalem Fellow workers of James according to in the connection of the Pella the apocryphal epistle of James to tradition with the further history Quadratus of the Jerusalem community. Eusebius Epiphanius Hegesippus main-tained that (Hist. Eccl. IV 5:3) (Pan. LXVI Armenian Version SyriacVersion James died immediately before 20:1) 
  the city was put under siege (Hist. 
  Eccl. II 23:18) and that Simeon, a      nephew of Jesus, was installed     ! " # only after the Revolt as the  ! " # successor to the brother of the $&%(')*,+ -.'/%( 012354567'98 : ') Lord and bishop of Jerusalem ; #  ; # C L K K I @(J C>KLKLK  James had been murdered already Philippus Philippus &   N  M 

   M     &N in 62 (Ant. XX 200). The Senikus Senikus  O PG,  question remains, then, what  O PG,  Justus Justus Q  @ motivated the community in Q  @ Levi Levi Jerusalem to wait a decade to RTS? U VDW #S?@ Aphre Aphre decide on a successor? Confusion DP E S DP@ surrounding the war surely cannot  ! " #  ! " # Juda be a reason, because a war was not yet in sight in 62. Although it has often been presumed that Simeon already assumed According to Hegesippus, Simeon was crucified at the office before the beginning of the war,58 it does not age of 120 when Trajan was emperor and Atticus was explain why Hegesippus placed Simeon’s election after governor (Hist. Eccl. III 32:3.6). Unfortunately, the the war. It seems rather the case that the connection governorship of Atticus cannot be dated securely.59 At between James and Simeon was only an attempt to bridge other points in his text, Eusebius dates Simeon’s death to the break in continuity caused by the first war and make a 107 (Chron., ed. Schoene II 162-163). If that date is connection with the pre-war New Testament period and correct, only 25 years remain for the succeeding 13 the Apostle James identified in Galations 1:19. Thus, the bishops. Even if one places the death of Simeon at the reception of the founding legend of the Pella community beginning of the reign of Trajan in 98, the high number of by the Jerusalem community provided those in Jerusalem 13 bishops must be compressed into a remarkably an oppor-tunity to bridge the clear break in their own compact period of 34 years. Eusebius also commented on history with the supposition of a temporary exile in Pella. the unlikely short terms of office (Hist. Eccl. IV 5:1), but adopted the list anyway. The list encompasses, then, presumably more than the names of the bishops and perhaps includes other people from the community or its 57. Lüdemann surmises as much, since a reference back to vicinity. Six of the seven last names match those listed as the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem by a the fellow workers of James in the apocryphal epistle of gentile-Christian community in Pella would seem James, the brother of the Lord, to Quadratus. unlikely, given the conflicts between Paul and the

58.

Jerusalem community, Paulus II (1983), 284-285. The origin of the Pella tradition in the Pella-based JewishChristian milieu is attested by Epiphanius of Salamis (Pan. XXIX 7:7-8; XXX 2:7). C.f. Murphy-O’Connor, Heritage (1995), 15.

59.

141

Schürer, History I (1973), 516. Smallwood, JRS 52 (1962), 131-133 attempted to fix the date to between 99/100 and 102/103, although she was unable to arrive at a definite answer.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Following that list, Simeon and Justus were possibly the only bishops of the Jewish-Christian community before the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the remaining twelve names on Eusebius’ list as well as the six names of the fellow workers in the apocryphal epistle of James were members of a presbyterium subordinate to the bishop. As is known from Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima, and Antiochia, this presbyterium consisted of twelve people.60 Securely understandable from this are only the function of this list in later times as a conglomeration of different fragments and their utilization for the (re)construction of the history of the gentile-Christian community to provide after a long time an unbroken succession of bishops back to James.

inscriptions referring to Q. Pompeius Falco as governor of Judaea and commander of the legio X Fretensis: CIL X 6321 CIL III 12117

As long as Judaea was a praetorian province and only controlled one legion, the governor also was given tacit command over the legion. When this is explicitly mentioned, a special purpose is intended that implies as a precondition the stationing of a second legion and thereby the elevation of Judaea to a proconsular province. The word consularis, then, can no longer refer to the name of a consulship, but rather to the name of the province. If that argumentation holds true, then clearly the stationing of the second legion was not primarily as a response to unattested unrest under Lusius Quietus, but rather took place several years earlier, namely, in connection with the annexation of the Nabataean kingdom into the province of Arabia, and under Lusius Quietus prevented the Jewish Revolt from spilling over into Judaea.

According to those lists, the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem existed after the destruction of the city by Titus and before the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, but it is not possible to recon-struct the history of this community beyond a few names.61 Their role in public life was very small. The character of the city was dominated by the soldiers of the legio X Fretensis. 3.3 The Jewish Revolt under Trajan and Stationing a Second Legion

Lusius Quietus was undoubtedly the first governor of the province who had been a consul before, according to Cassius Dio (Hist. Rom. LXVIII 32:15), which again suggests the stationing of a second legion. However, that is first attested on a milestone discovered in 1978 that dates to the year 120. It marks the ninth mile on the road from Acre to Sepphoris and refers to the legio II Traiana. A second milestone known for a long time carries a similar formula, but cannot be securely dated. It documents the fifth mile from Capercotna (Legio) to Sepphoris and thereby indicates that Capercotna was the base of the legion. This legion was transferred to Egypt in 127 at the latest and presumably was replaced by the legio VI Ferrata, which was transferred from Bostra to Galilaea and is first attested epigraphically under Hadrian on the aqueduct in Caesarea Maritima.65

It is neither demonstrable nor likely that the Jewish or Jewish-Christian population participated in appreciable numbers in the Jewish Revolt under Trajan that spread from Egypt and Cyrenaica to Cyprus and Mesopotamia in 115-117.62 At the most, individual outbursts of the revolt could have spilled over to the motherland, since rabbinic sources often mention a “War of Qitos”, referring to Lusius Quietus, a Mauric prince and general experienced in the Parthian War, who in 117 served as governor of Judaea and confronted potential unrest with force.63 The stationing of a second legion is frequently cited in support of the idea that the revolts spread to Judaea and is interpreted as a reaction to an unatttested wave of unrest. But W. Eck with good reason argued for the stationing of the legion already a decade before the revolt.64 Pivotal to his early dating is Q. Pompeius Falco, who around 103105 was praetorian governor of Lycia-Pamphylia and who subsequently took over the governorship of Judaea. Until that time, a one-time praetorian governorship had always been sufficient to become consul. That allows one to presume that Judaea at his time was raised to a consular province. That suggestion is substantiated by two 60.

61. 62.

63. 64.

leg. Aug. pr. pr. provinc. [Iudaeae e]t leg. X Fret. leg. Aug. leg. X Fret. et leg. pr. pr. [pr]ovinciae Iudaeae consularis

4. The Founding of the Colonia Aelia Capitolina under Hadrian and the Second Jewish Revolt 4.1 The Founding of the Colonia Aelia Capitolina and the Beginning of the Second Jewish Revolt After giving up the provinces newly acquired by Trajan, Hadrian sought to promote the calm, internal development of the border regions. This strategy found expression not only in the stationing of the second legion and the raising of Judaea to a consular province, but also

See this possibility as put forth by van den Broek, FS Klijn (1988), 62-65; further by Bauckham, Jude (1990), 70-79. On the questionable testimony of Epiphanius of Salamis (De mens. 14) see below. On the revolt under Trajan see Schürer, History I (1973), 533-534; Schäfer, Geschichte (1983), 156-157; Grabbe, Judaism (1992), 2:567-569. Smallwood, Historia 11 (1962), 500-510; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 421-427. Eck, BASP 21 (1984), 55-67.

65.

142

On the stationing of a second legion see Lifshitz, Latomus 19 (1960), 109-111; Pflaum, IEJ 19 (1969), 225-232; Avi-Yonah, IEJ 23 (1973), 209-213; Keppie, Latomus 32 (1973), 859-864; Isaac and Roll, Latomus 38 (1979), 5466; Isaac and Roll, ZPE 33 (1979), 149-156; Bowersock, Approaches II (1980), 132-134; Kennedy, HSCP 84 (1980), 283-309; Mor, Defence (1986), 575-602.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

foremost in the construction of roads that advanced from north to south and also reached the heartland of Judaea66 with the road from Beth Guvrin to Jerusalem in 130.67

brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposely made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and that they themselves might thus have the use of them; but when he went further away, they openly revolted.73

This expansion also had an impact on the cities.68 Tiberias received a Zeus temple, which is represented on coins as a tetrastylon and which can be identified with the Hadrianeion that served the imperial cult cited by Epiphanius of Salamis (Pan. XXX 12:2). Similar coins are known from Neapolis and Sepphoris. Sepphoris was renamed Diocaesarea in 130 at the latest.69 Caesarea was also provided with a Hadrianeion.70 Although all of these locations were places with a considerable Jewish population, Hadrian’s activities did not meet with resistance. It was rather the case that members of Jewish circles who allowed evidence of their circumcision to be concealed by an epispasmos were undoubtedly interested in increased Hellenization. Part of Jewish literature (especially 5 Sibyll 46-50) reveals a decidedly positive picture of the emperor,71 which perhaps even fueled hopes for the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s Temple under the new dispensation.

The name of Colonia Aelia Capitolina is derived from the gens of the emperor, which functioned as part of the name in all of the colonies he founded, as well as from Jupiter Capitolinus, the god of the planned Temple, to whose temple on the Forum Romanum the fiscus iudaicus had been brought for a long time. That the earlier name of the site was not transferred to the new name, but was passed over, may seem unusual for the founding of a colony. But usually the raising of an already existing settlement implied an honor, which would hardly have been intended looking back to the destruction of the city by Titus.

His second trip to the East in the autumn of 128 brought Hadrian to Athens, and in the spring of 129 he visited Eleusis and travelled via Ephesus and Miletus to Apameia, where his stay that summer is attested. Hadrian spent the following winter in Antiochia on the Orontes and in the spring of 130 he visited Gerasa. He travelled in the summer of 130 through Gaza to Alexandria, which he left in the early summer of 131 to return apparently by sea route along the Levantine coast via Lycia to Athens, where he spent the following winter.72

In celebration of the refounding coins were minted that carried the portrait of the emperor with the legend im(peratore) caes(are) Traiano Hadriano on the obverse and the ancient Roman founding ceremony of the sulcus primigenius with the legend col(onia) Ael(ia) Cap(itolina) cond(ita) on the reverse.74 Also from the same year are provincial coins minted in Rome that again have a portrait of Hadrian on the obverse, while on the reverse is the standing emperor in a toga, his arm raised in salute, and opposite him the personification of Judaea shown with children who carry palm branches. Between the two central figures is an altar upon which Judaea sacrifices and below is the legend Iudaea.75

Although a visit to Jerusalem is not documented, it can be considered probable given Jerusalem’s importance as the site of a legion and its new founding as a colony. It is likely that Hadrian passed through the legion’s base in the early summer of 130 en route from Gerasa to Gaza. Based on an epitome handed down by Xiphilinus, Cassius Dio relates (Hist. Rom. LXIX 12:1-3):

The motivation for the refounding has given rise to a wide range of speculations. One view maintains that it was simply the emperor’s desire to build,76 while yet another sees underlying these developments a wellintentioned policy of Hellenization and a conciliatory gesture toward the Jews,77 some of whom thoroughly welcomed these gestures.78 Another set of interpretations suggests the contrary opinion that these events signal an attempt to quel re-inflamed nationalism and to draw the military reins even tighter in the face of a fermenting

At Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one that had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

On road construction, see the summary in Isaac, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981), 45-46. Germer-Durand, RB 3 (1894), 613. For the following, see the summary in Schäfer, FS Geza Vermes (1990), 282-287. The first attestation is the milestone, Lifshitz, Latomus 19 (1960), 110-111. Germer-Durand, RB 4 (1895), 75-76. Hengel, JANES 16-17 (1984-1985), 155-160, reprint idem, Judaica (1996) 1:358-391. For the itinerary and chronology of the journey, see Halfmann, Itinera (1986), 203-208.

73. 74.

75. 76. 77. 78.

143

Translation: Cary, Dio’s Roman History (1925), 8:447. Kadman, Aelia Capitolina (1956), 53-54; Mildenberg, Coinage (1984), 99; Meshorer, City-Coins (1985), 60; Meshorer, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 21. Meshorer, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 19, 22. Schürer, History I (1973), 540. Smallwood, Jews (21981), 433. Schäfer, Bar Kokhba (1981), 45-49; idem, FS Geza Vermes (1990), 295-297; Grabbe, Judaism (1992), 2:572573.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

unrest.79 Some interpretations even go to greater extremes and point to an irrational anti-semitism of the emperor.80 Others maintain the completely untenable position that Hadrian refounded Jerusalem in light of Christian intolerance in order to extinguish the city as a Christian symbol, as the site of the death, resurrection and awaited return of Christ.81 No addition to those various interpretations that all focus primarily on Hadrian’s attitude to Judaism, Christianity, and Hellenism will be made here; rather the institutional framework into which the new founding of Jerusalem was carried out will be examined.82

margins of the camp, the seeds for a new settlement were already planted. The settlements in the Danube provinces were organized as municipia, while in Jerusalem one of the last true veteran’s colonies was established. But the legal form of the municipia was unknown in the east, and for that reason, the founding of a colony recommended itself to Hadrian. Although the founding of such a colony in direct proximity to a camp was uncommon up to that time, and the relationship between the legionary camp and the colony in Jerusalem remains unclear even today, a new model of contact between camp and civilian settlement was created that later emperors imitated and that eventually would become the rule.

The first colony in the eastern part of the empire was founded as a veteran’s colony by Augustus in Berytus, and was intended at the same time to stabilize an area that had only been pacified on the surface.83 Claudius established at Ptolemais (Acre) another veteran’s colony that Vespasian would use later as a base at the outbreak of the Jewish war. When Vespasian raised Caesarea Maritima at the end of the war to the status of a colony, it was not a gesture accompanying the founding of a colony of veterans, but signified rather an honorary distinction for the meritorious actions of the city. Thus, Caesarea became the first purely titular colony in the East.

Thus, the founding of Aelia Capitolina was not primarily a consequence of anti-Jewish or even anti-Christian resentment on the part of the emperor. His actions should rather be seen as part of an effort attested elsewhere as resitutor orbis to reorganize the structures of the provinces near the frontiers. He may even have expected approval and found it, at least in places such as Tiberias, Sepphoris, Neapolis, and Caesarea Maritima. After all, the position of colony was a sought-after status that also brought the local population exemption from taxation and Roman citizenship. Indeed, Herod Agrippa I had already made an effort to obtain a comparable status for Jerusalem, and this certainly did not stem from any antiJewish resentment (Philo, Spec. Leg. 36:287).

A. Móscy has observed that in the Danube provinces under Trajan, the number of colonies always corresponded to the number of legions in a province.84 Moreover, M. Zahrnt has pointed out that the procedure of founding a civilian settlement next to a legionary camp is attested also under Hadrian in the Danube provinces of Carnuntum, Aquincum, and Viminacium.85 These observations lead B. Isaac86 and M. Zahrnt to consider the foundation of Aelia Capitolina primarily as a later consequence of the stationing of a second legion. Vespasian transferred a legion to Judaea and raised Caesarea to a titular colony. Trajan sent a second legion and Hadrian followed through by founding a second colony, in a place where veterans were retired, where a suitable area was available and where with the canabae located on the 79.

80. 81. 82. 83.

84. 85. 86.

The ensuing Revolt must have come as a surprise for the Romans, or else they would not have permitted Jewish metal craftsmen to continue producing weapons. From the Roman perspective, the decision to found Jerusalem as Colonia Aelia Capitolina should not be seen as a provocation, much less a deliberate one. But on the Jewish side, it was perceived at least in part as an unbearable injury, although it cannot have been viewed the same throughout the entire Jewish world.87 For example, the Jews from Tiberias, Diocaesarea, and Caesarea Maritima remained peaceful, and from Caesarea a Jewish soldier is known by the name of Barsimso Callisthensis (CIL XVI 106), who apparently at the beginning of the Revolt was recruited into the Roman army.88 Therefore, as was the case with the Maccabean revolt, the rebels could only have been a group within the Jewish community that stood in opposition to the Hellenists in their own circles. From which side the revolt came is shown by the facts that the revolt erupted only in the rural, southern regions of Judaea, that the rebels used on their coins the ancient Hebrew script, the “national

Weber, Hadrianus (1907), 240-243; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 434. Also Gray, AJSL 39 (1923), 253 interpreted the founding of the colony as an attempt to obviate Jewish nationalism and dated the event as Epiphanius (De mens.14), but already in 117. Barnard, JRH 5 (1968-1969), 289. Golan, Historia 35 (1986), 226-239. On the history of Roman colonies in the East, see overview in Millar, Policy (1990), 7-58. Although Augustus appears to have established a veteran colony also in Heliopolis (Baalbek), it was first raised under Septimius Severus to a colonia Iulia Augusta Felix Heliopolis. Mócsy, Pannonia (1974), 94, 118. Zahrnt, Stuttgarter Kolloquium 1984-1987 (1991), 463485. Suggested by Isaac and Roll, Latomus 38 (1979), 66; elaborated on by Isaac, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981), 31-54.

87.

88.

144

Schäfer, FS Geza Vermes (1990), 288-297 correctly reminds us of those internal Jewish discussions between Hellenists and Chassidim in the subsequent conflict, where Antiochus IV Epiphanes only acted as a catalyst. Isaac, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981), 50. Given this evidence, it is highly questionable, as Isaac points out, to speak of an “undivided resistance to Rome under the leadership of Bar Kokhba”. See Isaac and Oppenheimer, JJS 36 (1985), 49.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

Shibbolet” of the priestly circle,89 that those coins depicted the temple, and that next to Shim‘on Bar Kosiba with Eleasar a priest stood at the head of the Revolt. Presumably, their resistance reached its flashpoint with the Roman plan for building a pagan temple, which if it were to arise on the site of the Biblical Temple would take away from them any possibility of rebuilding it.

and placed the revolt in a gradually intensified chain of uprisings that finally erupted.94 This picture, however, should be treated with caution for two reasons. First, the land dispossession that Applebaum refers to occurred sixty years prior to the revolt.95 Second, his idea of a progression of uprisings is unattested. The Jewish population had remained quiet during previous episodes of unrest. The motives for having the legions transferred and roads constructed by the military, which in Applebaum’s view pointed to previous local unrest, lay primarily outside the region. The transfer of legions resulted from Hadrian’s withdrawal from the border areas, which led to a pull back of the troops and thereby to their concentration. The establishment of new camps was connected with the construction of new roads to open up a region. For that reason, it is not possible to conclude local unrest based on troop transfers and road construction programs alone.

4.2 The Reasons for the Second Jewish Revolt and Its Course According to Cassius Dio, Hadrian’s order to build preceded the Revolt, and in his opinion was the spark that ignited the Revolt. Modern historical scholarship has for the most part adopted this view. However, there is other Late Antique evidence and recent alternate attempts to explain the revolt that deserve to be mentioned at least briefly.90

According to an alternative theory by A. Schlatter and M. D. Herr, Hadrian intended at first to rebuild the Jewish Temple as a conciliatory gesture and aroused euphoric expectations on the Jewish side. He did, however, expect some concessions in cult, and ultimately reversed his decision upon meeting with resistance. The disappointment on the part of the Jewish side, in turn, triggered the Revolt.96

The first point of contention lies in the question of chronology, whether Hadrian’s foundation decree actually preceeded the revolt, as Cassius Dio reports, or whether it followed the revolt, as Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. IV 6:4) and Jerome(in Zach. 8:19) comment. The latter view was recently advanced by H. Mantel,91 but has now been rendered obsolete by the coin hoard that Y. Meshorer discovered in the Judaean desert that included nearly 35 denarii from Trajan and Hadrian, a coin of Colonia Aelia Capitolina, as well as five denarii of the Second Revolt.92 These coins of the Revolt lost their value after the suppression of the Revolt, but their association with coins of the colony provides material proof for the sequence of the founding of the colony followed by the revolt presented by Cassius Dio.93

Indeed, a Midrash reports an initial promise, which after pressure by the Samaritans, was retracted, and thus sparked the rebellion (BerR 64:10): In the days of R. Yehoshua b. Hananya the [Roman] State ordered the temple to be rebuilt. Pappos and Lulianos set tables from Acco as far as Antioch and provided those who came up from the Exile with all their needs. Thereupon Samaritans went and warned [the Emperor]: Be it known unto the king, that, if this rebellious city be builded and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, impost or toll […] Yet what can I do, said he, seeing that I have already given the order? – Send a command to them that they must change its site, or add five cubits thereto, or lessen it by five cubits, and then they will withdraw from it of their own accord.

While that chronological question has been resolved in favor of Cassius Dio, a second question remains open, namely, whether the founding of the colony, which preceded the revolt, actually was the decisive cause for the revolt. Both Late Antique sources as well as recent publications mention other reasons, and multiple causes could have coalesced to provoke the revolt. S. Applebaum saw the revolt above all in the background of growing poverty among the rural population of Judaea 89. 90.

91. 92.

93.

Hengel, Gnomon 58 (1986), 327, Reprint idem, Judaica (1996), 1:345. The following arguments issue largely from the analyses of Schäfer, MS Heinemann (1981), 74-94 and idem, Bar Kokhba (1981). Important counter-arguments from Isaac and Oppenheim, JJS 36 (1985), 33-60 were dismissed by Schäfer, FS Geza Vermes (1990), 281-303. Mantel, JQR 58 (1967-1968), 237-242. Meshorer, Coins (1967), 93. Idem, Mountains (1970), 6768 (not seen), reports four additional hoards that are comparable. They also contained Aelia Capitolina coins that had been restruck as Bar Kokhba coins. Summarized by Schäfer, MS Heinemann (1981), 81-84 and idem, Bar Kokhba (1981), 10-28.

Now the community [of Israel] was assembled in the plain of Beth Rimmon. When the [royal] dispatches arrived, they burst out weeping, and 94. 95.

96.

145

Applebaum, Prolegomena (1976), 15-22; idem, PEQ 116 (1984), 35-37. According to Mildenberg, HSCP 84 (1980), 327 the extensive coin issues by the rebels permits one to conclude that the economy was flourishing and provided the economic basis for the revolt. Schlatter, Tage (1897), 63-64, Reprint idem, Synagoge (1966), 67-68; Herr, ScrHie 23 (1972), 91-93; idem, Zion 43 (1978), 1-11.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

wanted to revolt against the [Roman] power. Thereupon [the Sages] decided: Let a wise man go and pacify the congregation. Then let R. Yehoshua b. Hananya go, as he is a master of Scripture. So he went and harangued them:

prohibition of circumcision, but rather aims to limit circumcision to sons of Jews and thereby amounted only to a ban on the circumcision of prosyletized Jews.100 Of course, in addition to those three pieces of evidence, several rabbinic sources undoubtedly report a ban on circumcision for a time. But that ban, together with other anti-Jewish edicts,101 was first issued presumably during the course of the revolt102 and thus cannot be considered, or at least not definitely, as the reason for the rebellion.

A wild lion kept tearing away at his prey, and a bone stuck in his throat. Thereupon he proclaimed: I will reward anyone who removes it. An Egyptian heron, which has a long beak, came and pulled it out and demanded his reward. Go, [the lion] replied, you will be able to boast that you entered in the lion’s mouth in peace and came out in peace [unscathed]. Even so, let us be satisfied that we entered into dealings with this people in peace and have emerged in peace!97

Thus, the only remaining cause for the war is the decision mentioned by Cassius Dio to found Jerusalem as Colonia Aelia Capitolina and to construct a temple to Capitoline Jupiter. G.W. Bowersock does not find sufficient reason for the revolt in this decree, given the two-year interval between the decree and the revolt,103 but beyond the four questionable reasons already mentioned, which can hardly account for the revolt, the charismatic figure of Sim‘on bar Kosiba, may not be forgotten. He was perceived as a Messiah, based on his epithet Bar Kokhba derived from Numbers 24:17.104 This was believed to have reawakened latent utopian thoughts of theocracy in certain circles.105 This uneasiness was then, in turn, the catalyst for open revolt.

That presumed decision of the emperor can not be the reason behind the Revolt, because, as P. Schäfer has convincingly argued, it belongs to an account dating to the time of Trajan rather than Hadrian. The first section is based on Esra 4:13 and ends not with a revolt, but rather with the pacification of the population.98 The final reason for war cited by countless authors involves Hadrian’s apparent ban of circumcision,99 based on the following passage from the Historia Augusta (Hadr. 14:2):

The revolt, as Cassius Dio reports, broke out fully after the emperor’s departure in March 132 at the latest.106 It is not important here to describe the precise course of the rebellion, since Jerusalem itself was not touched by the conflicts. of the rebels carried the legend: 

 The 
coins  the first 
    year,  and in the second year the expression while inthe a   third  year group of undated coins bore the heading  .107

At that time the Jews also waged a war because they had been forbidden to mutilate their genitalia. It must be remembered, however, that both Domitian and Nerva had outlawed castration and Hadrian, as far as Ulpian reports (Digesta XIVIII 8:4:2) only stiffened the sanctions. A ban on circumcision, however, is not evident in the Roman sources with the exception of this suspect passage. Antoninus Pius expressly permitted the Jews to circumcise their sons, according to Modestinus (Digesta XLVIII 8:11:1). That has often been understood as a liberalizing of a previous edict under Hadrian. But to conclude that there was an unattested edict of Hadrian is not permissible. The new law, based on its wording alone, in no way points to a relaxing of an earlier absolute 97. 98.

99.

100.

101. 102

Translation: Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis (1983), 2:580. Schäfer, Bar Kokhba (1981), 29-34; idem, MS Heinemann (1981), 75-81; precisely at another passage in the Epistle of Barnabas 16:4, which also was used to substantiate the above-mentioned theory. Barnard, JRH 5 (1968-1969), 288; Schürer, History I (1973), 536-540; Applebaum, Prolegomena (1976), 7-9; Herr, Zion 43 (1978), 1-11; Bowersock, Approaches II (1980), 135-136; Mildenberg, HSCP 84 (1980), 332334; Applebaum, PEQ 116 (1984), 38; Mildenberg, Coinage (1984), 102-109; idem, INJ 8 (1984-1985), 3132; idem, Kuhnen, Palästina (1990), 365.

103. 104.

105. 106. 107. 146

Schäfer, Bar Kokhba (1981), 38-50; idem., MS Heinemann (1981), 85-92; Grabbe, Judaism (1992), 2:570-571. With caution, Smallwood, Latomus 18 (1959), 334-347; 20 (1961), 93-96; idem, Jews (21981), 428-431. For a thorough documentation of the evidence, see Schäfer, Bar Kokhba (1981), 195-235. Hengel, JANES 16-17 (1984-1985), 172-174, reprint idem, Judaica (1996), 1:381-382, presumes as much that the ban on circumcision perhaps did not constitute the beginning of the revolt, but considerably inflamed the situation. Bowersock, Approaches II (1980), 135 thus associates the cause rather with the ban on circumcision. The actual true reference by Mildenberg, HSCP 84 (1980), 313-315, that this epithet of Sim‘on bar Kosiba appears neither in contemporary documents from the Judean desert nor on coins, can hardly obscure the fact that his name was connected in certain circles with messianic expectations. Hengel, Gnomon 58 (1986), 328-331, Reprint idem, Judaica (1996), 1:346-350. On the chronology of the war, see Schäfer, Bar Kokhba (1981), 10-28. Essential on the subject, Mildenberg, Coinage (1984).

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

That sequence led for a long time to the conclusion that the rebels took over the city in a sweep at the beginning of the revolt only to lose it in the third year, whereby the third legend would then be interpreted as a call for the renewed freeing of the city.108 But that certainly did not happen. The hoards of coins of participants in the rebellion along with textual finds from the Judaean Desert only come from the area between Khirbat Qumran in the northeast, Emmaus-Nikopolis in the northwest, alZahiriyah in the southwest, and Nahal Hever to the southeast along the Dead Sea.109 Jerusalem is never mentioned in the textual finds, and the fact that only three coins of the revolt have been found there,110 speaks decisively against an even short-lived occupation of the city held by the Roman army. On similar lines, L. Mildenberg maintained the hypothesis that the Revolt was confined to Judaea in the narrow sense and did not spill over into Jerusalem, and so the coin legends from all three years are to be understood as a “war slogan”.111

Hist. Rom. LXIX 14:3). Hadrian was hailed as Imperator for a second time (CIL VI 975; 976; X 7855), although he renounced the traditional triumph and granted the general Julius Severus one of the last triumphalia ornamenta (CIL III 2830). That inscription designates the province for the last time as Judaea. A further military decree four years after the conclusion of the war uses for the first time the new name Syria Palaestina (CIL XVL 87). Although the renaming of the province, as was also the case with Colonia Aelia Capitolina, erased the memory of the Jewish past, it was not a new expression, but derived from usage of the Jewish Diaspora. It was Philo of Alexandria (De Abrahamo 133; Vita Mosis I 163; De Nobil. 221; Quod omnis 75) and Flavius Josephus (Ant. I 145; XX 259) who transferred the common name of the coastal strip to the whole province, when they felt in view of the Jewish Diaspora that a more neutral term for the territory distinct from its still remaining Jewish population was more appropriate.112

The rebel tactics of avoiding open battles and operating only in small groups from well-hidden locations, prolonged the already intense level of conflict. Nevertheless, Sextus Minucius Faustinus Julius Severus, who was called from Britain and whom Hadrian had placed in command of both legions stationed in Judaea, as well as the legio III Gallica, and the legio III Cyrenaica, succeeded in crushing the rebellion with the capture of Bether in the late summer of 135.

4.3 The Construction of Colonia Aelia Capitolina The revolt did delay the development of Colonia Aelia Capitolina, but could not prevent it,113 and so the new city arose in a practically undeveloped area north of the legionary camp enclosed by the Third and Second Walls, whose dimensions corresponded rather exactly to today’s Christian and Muslim quarters. Its area at least to the north, west and east was demarcated by freestanding gates, which were erected from the start with a view to a later construction of the city wall. That second building phase, however, was only realized years later, seemingly only under Diocletian.

The casualties on both sides were high and the consequences for Judaea were devastating (Cassius Dio,

108.

109.

110.

111.

For the coin catalogues, see Meshorer, Coins (1967), 92-101, 159-169; idem, Coinage II (1982), 132-165; Maltiel-Gerstenfeld, 260 Years (1982), 83-85, 201-227; idem, Catalogue (1987), 126-148; Overbeck and Meshorer, Hl. Land (1993), 145-173. Cf. already Gregorovius, SBAW.PPH [13] (1883), 503504 and Schürer, Geschichte I (31901), 685-686. For a more recent contribution, see Barnard, JRH 5 (19681969), 290, 297; Yadin, Bar Kokhba (1971), 18; Schürer, History I (1973), 545-546, 550-551; Lifshitz, ANRW II 8 (1977), 476-483; Smallwood, Jews (21981), 442-446, 449. For mapping of the coin hoard locations, see Barag, INJ 4 (1980), 30-33 and Mildenberg, Coinage (1984), 4957. The fourth coin found in the area of Jerusalem, according to Ariel, LA 32 (1982), 293 comes from Ramat Rachel and thus can be eliminated. Mildenberg, Schweizer Münzblätter 27 (1977), 1-6; idem, HSCP 84 (1980), 320-323, 325 (“war slogan”); idem, Coinage (1984), 29-31; idem, INJ 8 (1984-1985), 28-30; already intimated by Barag, INJ 4 (1980), 30-33. Commented on by Bowersock, Approaches II (1980), 136-137; Schäfer, Bar Kokhba (1981) 78-135; Grabbe, Judaism II (1992), 578; Meshorer, Coinage II (1982), 133-134. Besides Büchler, JQR 16 (1904), 143-205 has already accepted the limitation to Judaea based on Talmudic sources.

In three trenches on the north side of Damascus Gate excavated between 1937 and 1938, R. W. Hamilton came across a gateway whose central passageway was flanked by two side gates, and which was further flanked by two projecting towers. The plan corresponded to the later Ottoman gate, with the exception of its bent central passageway. Since the construction consisted in part of dressed blocks in secondary use, Hamilton assumed that it was erected after the destruction of the Herodian city, when such blocks were available in large, and thus at the time of Aelia Capitolina.114 When Ch. M. Bennett and J. B. Hennessy discovered a gateway in their later excavations in 1964-1966, which they dated to the time of Herod Agrippa I because of a coin found on its surface, they also interpreted the gateway as part of the

112. 113.

114. 147

Noth, ZDPV 62 (1939), 125-144. In his chronicle, Eusebius presumably refers to the twentieth year of the reign of Hadrian as the foundation date of the colony and Jerome to the twenty-first year when the construction resumed after the suppression of the revolt. Hamilton, QDAP 10 (1944), 1-26.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Third Wall.115 A single coin, however, provides only a terminus post quem. Furthermore, contrary to the preliminary report, the stratigraphical relationship between the street and the gateway remains unclear in the absence of a stratigraphic record connecting the two excavation areas. For that reason, G.J. Wightman in his final report also attributed it to the new Hadrianic building of the city, again primarily based on the architecture.116 But the period of construction of the gate can remain open. After all, an inscription pre-dating Commodus inscribed above the eastern side gate demonstrates that the gate belonged to the newly founded city of Hadrian:117 1 2

A[... Col(onia) [A]el(ia) Cap(itolina) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

1 2

A… colonia Aelia Capitolina, by order of the Decuriones.

Coüasnon, as part of his soundings along the eastern foundation on the northern side of the arch, produced the evidence that the pavement and arch were both erected at the same time, and so P. Benoit dated both features to the Hadrianic period.121 Y. Blomme, however, has argued for a Herodian date, based on comparisons with the facades of Augustan towers and has proposed interpreting the monument as a city gate of the Second Wall.122 But that interpretation can not provide a plausible explanation for the cistern east of the arch, which probably was part of the moat of the Antonia fortress. For that reason, the assertion of P. Benoit should still be prefered. A third gate, which bordered the city on the west, is recorded only in the textual sources. Thus, in his translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius (2:201), Jerome noted that above the city gate that faces Bethlehem, which lay in the area of today’s Jaffa Gate, a marble relief of a boar, the animal insignia of the legio X Fretensis, remained affixed in his day. Eutychius of Alexandria around 935 (ed. Breydy § 168) reported a tabula with the heading Aelia on the city gate next to the citadel. Since the legio X Fretensis was transferred to Aila in the time of Diocletian, and lost any significance for Jerusalem,123 one suspects that the West Gate also dates to the period before Diocletian.

A second comparable structure is preserved in the Ecce Homo arch at the beginning of the Via Dolorosa, which since early Mamluk times was associated with the sentencing of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. In 1851, north of the arch, a smaller side arch was discovered and identified along with the arch spanning the alley as part of a monumental triple-bayed arch. The two preserved arches are spanned over their flanking cornices by archivolts containing three fascia. On the west facade, a conch is set between the two arches. A short horizonal sima extends over the northern side arch, from which one can reconstruct a continuing wall division with windows or niches. The upper end of the construction, as prints of the seventeenth century show, was marked by a transverse gallery, a feature attested on other ancient arches.

Whether such a gate existed to the south, between the colony and the legionary encampment or south of the camp is not known. But the idea that after the construction of the gates the site initially remained without a city wall is well founded. Nevertheless, as the soundings of Hamilton showed at least with the construction of the north gate, short connecting sections were laid for the future construction of a wall circuit, but as soundings along the northern city wall have demonstrated,124 that was only carried out in the time of Diocletian. Until then, the gates appear only to have marked the city limits symbolically,125 while the principal of offensive defense was relied on to ensure the security of the colony.

From the time of its discovery, the monument was generally considered Roman or more precisely, since E. Pierotti, a building from the Hadrianic period, while since Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, the structure has been interpreted as a triumphal or honorary arch.118 B. Meistermann and E. Wiegand, however, dated the arch to the Herodian period, and Meistermann has reconstructed the arch as the west portal of the Antonia fortress.119 But L. H. Vincent and Marie Anne de Sion moved away from that possibility and assign only the covering of the cistern located east of the arch, as well as the pavement over the cistern, to the Herodian period and the arch erected on the pavement to the Hadrianic reworking of the area.120 Ch. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120.

That new cities or suburbs first received freestanding monumental arches that sometimes were incorporated into the circuit wall of the city in a second building phase is not without parallel.126 Indeed, freestanding monumental arches were erected in Rome first as honorary arches. This pattern was also continued in the provinces, for example, at the site of a successful battle, upon the

Hennessy, Levant 2 (1970), 22-27. Wightman, Damascus Gate (1989). Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:271275. Pierotti, Jerusalem (1864), 60, 140-141; ClermontGanneau, Researches I (1899), 76. Meistermann, Prétoire (1902), 10-11, 29, 32-55; Weigand, WienJbKg [19] NS 5 (1928), 100-101. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem II.1-2 (1914), 24-31;

121.

122. 123. 124. 125. 126.

148

Marie Aline de Sion, Antonia (1955), 36-38. Coüasnon, RB 73 (1966), 573-574; Benoit, HThR 64 (1971), 145-147, 163; idem, Qadmoniot 5 (1972), 127129; translation: Jerusalem Revealed (1975), 87-88. Blomme, RB 86 (1979), 244-271. See below. See below. Wightman, Damascus Gate (1989), 102. On the history and function of the monumental arch, see Pfanner, Titusbogen (1983), 93-97.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

founding of a colony,127 or in defining the boundary of a suburb, corresponding to its function at the entrances to public places, in place of the city gate or even in the foreground of the city. In this way, especially in the eastern half of the Empire, where honorary monuments were often located on the edge of the city, there was an amalgamation in the architectural language used for both honorary arches and city gates in so far as single or triplebayed arches were often flanked by round or polygonal towers. Indeed, in some of the monuments, wall connections clearly demonstrate from the start the intention sometime later to integrate the structure into a city wall. However, there are other monuments that were not incorporated into a city wall, in spite of wall connections being provided, as well as arches that, in spite of no wall connections, were nonetheless incorporated into a city circuit wall later.

three passages and outward projecting half-round towers, appears to have been constructed in late Severan times about 360 m west of the city wall and likewise was never integrated into the city wall.132 Probably under Hadrian, the south city wall of Gerasa received a new gate,133 while a freestanding arch similar in form with three passages was built 420 m south of the city to mark a suburb established by Hadrian.134 That the arch, despite its honorary inscription commemorating the emperor’s visit, was planned from the outset to have more than just an honorary function and was built with a view to later city wall construction is attested by the rough wall projections later hidden by corner pavillions. Nevertheless, this project was never carried out. 4.4 The Streets of Colonia Aelia Capitolina

While a series of monumental arches spanned the main access Location Number of Form of Wall Join streets of the city, the internal Passages the Towers intended built divisions of the city were deterAthens 1 — no no mined by four main streets, Scythopolis 1 — no yes which are depicted in part on Tiberias 1 round no yes the Late Antique Madaba moGadara - Tiberias Gate 1 round no no saic map. This mosaic shows Gadara - Monumental Gate 3 half-round no no an oval-shaped area located Gerasa 3 — yes no directly inside the north gate, Aelia Capitolina - Damascus Gate 3 polygonal yes yes where a column is displayed, reminiscent of the complex found in the oval-shaped Hadrian’s Gate in Athens marked the entrance to a new plaza inside the south gate of Gerasa. Two roads flanked 128 city suburb, but was never integrated into a city wall. by porticoes extended to the south. From the easternmost In the second century AD, Scythopolis (Beth Shean) of these two streets another street branches off to the east received a freestanding monumental arch without to the eastern city gate. A second similar branch street is flanking towers on its northeastern access road. That arch indicated behind the west gate. did not have any wall connections but served as a gate of a city wall ring in the early 6th century.129 Also, a gate flanked by round towers with a plain throughway on the south side of Tiberias, which according to G. Forster was constructed during the foundation of the city by Herodes Antipas, had no connecting projections for a circuit wall in its first phase, but was incorporated into the city wall in the sixth or seventh century.130 A further monument quite similar in form was revealed by Th. Weber on the west exit road from Gadara and seems to date at the earliest to the Flavian period.131 In contrast to its parallel in Tiberias, it was not incorporated into the Late Antique city wall, which ran approximately 220 m to the west. Another freestanding monumental arch, this time with 127. 128. 129.

130. 131.

This pictoral representation appears to correspond with the archaeological finds. The pavement of the oval area was re-discovered in 1887 by C. Schick and made accessible by a sub-surface passage in 1982.135 The column, which probably originally carried the emperor’s statue, was considered the center of the world in Early Islamic times (Arculf I 11), but it survives only in the Arabic name of the Gate, B b al-‘Am d.


The eastern of the two portico-lined streets deviated slightly in the Tyropoeon Valley (al-W d) on the line of the ar q al-W d, which modern literature has given the archaizing name Cardo valensis. At the fourth station of 

Cf. von Gladiss, MDAI.R 79 (1972), 17-18, 86-87, who speaks even of “Koloniegründungsbögen”. Willers, Programm (1990), 68-103. Foerster and Tsafrir, ESI 6 (1987-1988), 42-43; Mazor and Bar Natan, ESI 11 (1993), 48-49; Mazor and Bar Natan, HA 105 (1996), 24. Foerster, Qadmoniot 10 (1977), 89-91; idem, NEAEHL (1993), 4:1470-1472. Weber and Hoffmann, ADAJ 34 (1990), 325; Weber, NEA 2 (1991), 123-126. For Tiberias, Weber assumes the Flavian period to be the earliest possible date.

132.

133. 134.

135.

149




Bol, Hoffmann and Weber, AA (1990), 216-239; Weber and Hoffmann, ADAJ 34 (1990), 325-331; Hoffmann, NEA 1 (1990), 95-103; Hoffmann, Säule (1996), 190196. Detweiler, Gerasa (1938), 149-152; Seigne and Wagner, ADAJ 36 (1992), 241-254. Detweiler, Gerasa (1938), 73-83. Concerning the inscription, see Rostovtzeff, CRAI 1934 (1935), 264272 and Stinespring, JAOS 59 (1939), 361-363. Schick, PEFQSt 19 (1887), 216-217; Magen, Ariel (Hebrew) 46 (1986), 93.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

the Via Dolorosa136 as well as south of the S q alQa nin,137 parts of its pavement were uncovered,138 while additional traces of pavement have been found near the eastward crossroad that continues through the EcceHomo arch to today’s Lion Gate,139 and in ar q alMuj hidin between the intersections of the ar q B b al‘Atim and the ar q B b i ah.140

extend into the southern half, as the absence of occupational evidence in the south half of the Old City demonstrates. Instead, it appears that this area, even if it was used very little, also continued to be free from civilian settlement and was reserved for the camp of the legio X Fretensis. Only in the Byzantine period after the legion had been transferred, was a suburb called “Neapolis” established there.148



















The western of the two portico-lined streets, which modern literature identifies as Cardo maximus, ran straight south on the line of the S q Kh n al-Zayt. In-situ column base foundations from it have been discovered in the Russian Orthodox Alexander Hospice141 and in S q al-La

m n.142 The pavement of an ancient parallel street not represented on the Madaba mosaic, was also discovered in 1978 under the Christian Quarter Road west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and has been dated to the Byzantine period.143

We have little information concerning the types of buildings constructed in the colony, with the exception of accounts mentioning temples. Only the Chronikon Paschale (PG XCII 613-616) reports:










And he destroyed the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem, founded the two Demosia, the theater, the trikamaron, the tetranymphon, the dodecapylon, which had earlier been named Anabathmoi, and the Kodra and divided the city into seven districts, he appointed district magistrates and assigned a district to each magistrate, and to today each district carries the name of the magistrate. To the city, he gave his own name and called it Aelia, because he himself was named Aelius Hadrianus.149

The street that the Madaba mosaic only hints at behind the West Gate of the city has been identified in several soundings as following an orientation on line with the Suwayqat ‘Allun, the S q al-Bidar144 and the ar q B b al-Silsilah145 as well as in front of B b al-Silsilah.146 This line simultaneously marks the southern boundary of the Roman road network. While the road network north of this line has preserved a still noticeable orthogonal plan, especially in the Muslim Quarter, and dates back to the Hadrianic new plan for the city, a similar orientation cannot be detected in the southern half of the Old City.147 Apparently, the Roman civilian settlement was confined to the northern half of today’s Old City and did not


136. 137.

138.

139. 140. 141.

142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147.






None of the buildings named in the description can even remotely be localized. The two Demosia could refer to two public bath complexes situated either on the aqueduct coming from Bethlehem or near the important pools of the city, the modern Birkat amm m al-Batraq north of the citadel, the Bethesda pools in the northeast of the city, or the Silw n Pool in the lower course of al-W d. The locations of the other buildings as well as the seven districts are unknown and the attempts to locate them remain speculative. Only for the temple complexes is more precise information available.

Johns, PEQ 80 (1948), 90. Johns, QDAP 1 (1932), 97-100; Hamilton, QDAP 1 (1932), 105-110; 2 (1933), 34-40; it is indeed dated to the Herodian and Byzantine periods. Cohn, Ideas (1987), 127 has probably correctly interpreted that the street was moved 80 m west and no longer directly walked upon during the Herodian period, due to the toppled debris from the western circuit wall of the Temple court. Vincent and Steve, Jérusalem I (1954), 207-214; Marie Aline de Sion, Antonia (1955), 107-118. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 3:103. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem II.1-2 (1914), 40-88; Coüasnon, Holy Sepulchre (1974), 45; Corbo, Santo Sepolcro I (1982), 34-37, 115-117; for additional references, see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:204-205. Hanauer, PEFQSt 23 (1891), 318-319; Wilkinson, Levant 7 (1975), 118-120; Margalit, ESI 12 (1994), 114. Chen and Margalit and Sol[a]r, RB 85 (1978), 419-421; Chen and Margalit and Solar, IEJ (1979), 243-244. Johns, PEQ 80 (1948), 90. Abu Riya, HA 97 (1991), 66-67, translation: ESI 10 (1991), 134-135. Gershuny, HA 97 (1991), 67-68; translation: ESI 10 (1991), 135-136. Against Wilkinson, Levant 7 (1975), 118-136.

4.5 The Temple Complexes of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and Venus That Capitoline Jupiter was the god of the main temple of Aelia Capitolina is clearly implied in the name of the colony. Local coin issues from the time of Hadrian depict the Capitoline Triad in front of a distyle temple, and during the reign of Antoninus Pius, local coins were minted portraying Jupiter in front of a tetrastylon structure.150 According to Cassius Dio (Hist. Rom. LXIX 12:1-3), Hadrian had the temple built on the site of the Biblical Temple and thus sparked the revolt. On the other hand, Origin (Hom. in Jos. 17:1) mentions that Jews in his day came to Jerusalem to make their plaintive prayers at the altar of the Biblical Temple, while Eusebius of Caesarea (Dem. Ev. VIII 8) presumes that the former Temple area 148. 149. 150. 150

Bieberstein, ZDPV 105 (1989), 110-122. Translation: Peters, Jerusalem (1985), 129. Meshorer, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 22, 27-28 passim.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

was unbuilt, and Cyril of Jerusalem (Kath. XV 15) further notes that the wall remains of the Biblical Temple were preserved. All that speaks against Hadrian having built over the site. The Pilgrim from Bordeaux (14-16) in 333 refers, other than cisterns and lakes, only to two statues of Hadrian (statuae duae Adriani) and a “pierced stone” (lapis pertusus) to which Jews came annually:151

We do not need to be confused by Jerome having combined two different events: the attempted erection of the emperor’s statue by Pontius Pilate (Bell. II 169-174; Ant. XVIII 55-59) and the actual standing statue of Hadrian. He only uses them as examples of sacrilege to which the word of Jesus can be applied. It becomes more complicated, however, if one takes into account his Isaiah commentary of Isaiah 2:9, where he notes in the years around 408-410 a statue of Jupiter rather than that of an emperor placed next to Hadrian’s statue:

Two statues of Hadrian stand there, and, not far from them, a pierced stone which the Jews come and anoint each year.152

The statue of Hadrian and the idol of Jupiter have been placed where once there was the temple and worship of God. Many take this in the sense of the gospel text ‘When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place’ [Mark 13:14].

It is unlikely that two statues of the same emperor stood side by side. Although it is not to be disputed that the Pilgrim saw two statues, it is possible that the second image was that of Hadrian’s adopted son Antoninus Pius, whose adopted name Aelius Hadrianus could have been the source of confusion. An honorary inscription was discovered walled up in the south wall of the aram alShar f, directly east of the Double Gate. It could have come from that statue and can be read as an honorary inscription of Hadrian:153

Nevertheless in this case, a similar combination is being made between two events. This time Jerome substituted the attempted erection of the imperial statues by Pontius Pilate for a similar account passed down by Philo (Leg. 188.198-348) and Flavius Josephus (Bell. II 184-203; Ant. XVIII 261-309), which fits the situation better in that it deals with the erection of the statue of a divinity that would have represented Gaius Caligula as Jupiter. That planned installation was only prevented by the shrewd tactfulness of the governor Petronius and by the death of the emperor.154




1 2 3 4 5

Imperatori Caes(ari) Tito Ael(io) Hadriano Antonino Aug(usto) Pio p(atri) p(atriae) pontif(ici) augur(i) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

1 2 3 4 5

For Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Father of the Fatherland, Pontifex, Augur, by order of the Decuriones.

In contrast to the first citation, Jerome did not claim that the Jupiter statue still stood in the Temple compound in his day. His learned combination of different elements, accordingly, is not sufficient for locating the Jupiter temple in the former Temple area on the eastern end of the city. The testimony of the Pilgrim from Bordeaux is too unambiguous, and the statements by Eusebius and Cyril are too clear, which attest that the area was undeveloped – apart from two imperial statues.155

That at least one of the two statues was equestrian is attested by Jerome, who in March 398 in the passage in his Commentary on Matthew concerning the identity of the desolating sacrilege of Matthew 24:15, comments that in his day an equestrian statue of Hadrian stood on the site of the former temple (comm. in Mt 24:15):

As a final attempt to save Cassius Dio, one could propose perhaps that Hadrian’s temple had succumbed to some earlier event, such as iconoclasm or an earthquake. But in his writings Eusebius certainly would not have overlooked an episode of Christian iconoclasm, which would have not been possible before Constantine anyway, and surely the two columns would have been the first to topple during an earthquake. If both alternatives can be excluded, we are left with the conclusion that the

It can simply be understood of Antichrist, or of the image of Caesar, which Pilate placed in the temple, or of the equestrian statue of Hadrian, which stands in the place of the Holy of Holies to this very day. 151.

152. 153.

The following references including the passages (except Vitruvius) from the English translations are based on Murphy-O’Connor, RB 101 (1994), 407-415. His central thesis has already been put forth in the publications of: Grelle, Autonomia (1972), 227-228; Wilkinson, PEQ 108 (1976), 77-78; idem, Jerusalem (1978), 178-179; Bowersock, Approaches II (1980), 137-138. Translation: Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1981), 157. CIL III (1873), no. 116; CIL III Suppl. (1902), no. 6639; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 3:148149.

154.

155.

151

In his commentary on Matthew 24:15, Origen has already referred to the same events, and Jerome probably adopted Origin’s idea. Flusin, Bayt al-Maqdis (1992), 17-31 has cited two interesting pieces of evidence from the Early Islamic period that refer to the Haram al-Sharif as Capitolium, given its pre-Islamic past. Murphy-O’Connor, RB 101 (1994), 415, however, has convincingly argued that these examples are attempted reconstructions of the past undertaken at that time.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

temple, presumed by the name of the colony and numismatically attested – contra Cassius Dio – was built in another location. Indeed, Jerome around 396 in a letter to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 58:3) refers to another place in the western part of the city on the site of the later Church of the Holy Sepulchre:

that had not been built upon previously. The close proximity of the two cults – for the Capitolian Triad and for Venus – presented by Jerome does not present anything at all unusual. Also in Rome on the Capitol next to the Temple of Jupiter there was a temple for Venus Erycina. Thus all that remains in need of an explanation is the weighty testimony of Cassius Dio, and it is not at all difficult to come up with three possible explanations. For example, J. Murphy O’Connor recently proposed that the questionable excerpt was not passed down unaltered. Rather, Xiphilinus, whom we must thank for the evidence, projected his own perspective onto the events.158 This need not be the case, however, since
7 according to G. W. Bowersock  7 
 in Roman and Byzantine Greek can be understood to mean not only “on the place of”, but also “in place of”. It is possible then, that Hadrian from the beginning did not intend to construct his planned temple on the site of the Biblical Temple, but only wanted to replace it.159 But then the sharp reaction in Jewish circles would be difficult to understand. Perhaps the surviving text does in fact go back to Dio, and accurately reveals the imperial plan that lead to the revolt.160 After the revolt, Hadrian could have revised his own plan to the extent of giving up the unfortunate connection with the Biblical site and building the Jupiter temple on the most uncontroversial site possible. Antoninus Pius also let the matter rest by having just two statues on the Biblical site itself.161

From the time of Hadrian to the reign of Constantine – a period of about one hundred and eighty years – the spot which had witnessed the resurrection was occuoied by a figure of Jupiter; while on the rock where the cross had stood, a marble statue of Venus was set up by the heathen and became an object of worship.156 Although Eusebius overlooked the worship of Jupiter in his representation of the history of the area and only reports that of Aphrodite (Vita III 26), the worship of Jupiter cannot be doubted. Rather, this omission by Eusebius can best be explained as his overt attempt to paint a notorious picture of the Roman cult, for which aim Aphrodite was best suited. In addition, his claim that Hadrian selected the site in order to cover the holy grave forever can be viewed as a questionable polemic. From the perspective of a city builder looking beyond the Temple area, no other location was better suited for a sanctuary to the Capitoline Triad. Vitruvius, after all, recommended the following in the planning of a new city (I 7:1):

If Hadrian’s change of plan did emerge from a (growing?) sensitivity toward the religious feeling of the Jews, then one can also suppose that his new site selection was not intended as a deliberate provocation of the Christians.162 It is more likely that the location was favorable from a Vitruvian perspective of city-planning. This site, which had served a long time as a quarry and also as a necropolis until its incorporation within the city perimeter by the Third Wall, needed only to be filled by large masses of earth and stabilized by retaining walls on its south and east sides.

After apportioning the alleys and settling the main streets, the choice of sites for the convenience and common use of citizens has to be explained; for sacred buildings, the forum, and the other public places. And if the ramparts are by the sea, a site where the forum is to be put is to be chosen next the harbor; but if inland, in the middle of the town. But for sacred buildings of the gods under whose protection the city most seems to be, both for Jupiter and Juno and Minerva, the sites are to be distributed on the highest ground from which most of the ramparts is to be seen.157

The southern retaining wall runs in a straight west-east direction through the northern Muristan. Since C. Schick it has been repeatedly seen as part of the Second Wall, and was investigated under the Church of the Redeemer by U. Lux-Wagner and K. J. H. Vriezen, and assigned to

The highest point of the city lies in the northwest, and when one goes along the Cardo Maximus from the oval area in the north to the south, the terrain gradually rises, only to fall gradually again south of the later Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The highest point along the street is precisely at the location of the later Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and so from the perspective of city planning, it would not be surprising that the choice fell on that area 156.

157.

158. 159. 160.

Translation: Freemantle, Jerome (1893) 120; Paulinus of Nola transmits the reference around 401-403 in a letter to Sulpicius Severus (Ep 31:3) but omits the worship of Aphrodite and mentions only the statue of Zeus and this not on the Holy Tomb but on Golgotha. Translation: Granger, Vitruvius (1931), 1:67.

161. 162.

152

Murphy-O’Connor, RB 101 (1994), 415. Bowersock, Approaches (1980), 2:137; also Schäfer, FS Geza Vermes (1990), 289. Millar, Study (1964), 60-72 accepts that Cassius Dio in his account of the revolt relied either directly or indirectly on the Senate accounts under Hadrian. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 1:144. Cf. Hengel, JANES 16-17 (1984-1985), 161-170, Reprint idem, Judaica (1996), 1:367-378 attests to the relatively tolerant position of the emperor toward the Christians.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

the Hadrianic period.163 If one follows the excavation finds, the terrain south of the retaining wall seems to have remained uninhabited into the Roman period and did not, as often maintained, serve as a forum. Some individual wall lines of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, above all along the south wall in the area of the Crusader portal and part of the eastern propylon of the Constantinian Church, today preserved in the Russian Orthodox Alexander Hospice, as well as in the Zalatimo pastery shop, belong to the Hadrianic Temple complex. But the remains are not nearly enough to even roughly reconstruct the ground plan of the temple complex. Other than the wall remains, the only surviving trace of the Hadrianic temple complex is a single fragment of an honorary inscription to the emperor. The fragment was discovered in 1883 in the area of the Russian Orthodox Hospice and is now in the collection of the Russian archimandrite. The text can be restored based on a second inscription that begins the same way, which was found in 1906 about 350 m northwest of Damascus Gate.164 But the inscription does not offer any information beyond the highly fragmentary name of the emperor:165 1 2 3 4

Imp(eratori) C[aesari divi Traiani] Part[h(ici) filio divi Nervae nepoti] [Traiano Hadriano Augusto] [pontifici maximo]

1 2 3 4

For Emperor Caesar, of the divine Trajan Parthicus son, of the divine Nerva, grandson, Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, pontifex maximus

that in the Roman period the Silw n Pool in the lower alW d was a square basin bordered by four columned halls. The excavation, however, did not reveal any cult installations in the narrow sense.166 Rather the assumption of a cult site rests solely on the literary and numismatic evidence. Thus, Zav 1:5 and tZav 1:10 mention a “Greek Tyche” in the immediate vicinity of the pool, and numerous local coin issues since the time of Antoninus Pius show Tyche in front of a tetrastylon or hexastylon temple. Depictions in Severan times show two victories standing between the columns.167 Victories are attested on coin issues from other emperors such as Antoninus Pius, Commodus, and emperor’s sons Herennius Etruscus and Hostilian Dionysus, as well as under Marcus Aurelius. In addition, coins with the portrait of the empress Julia Domna show a statue of Nemesis, but without any trace of a temple façade, attested only for Jupiter and Tyche. So there is no reason to postulate corresponding official cult sites. 5. Jews and Christians in the Colonia Aelia Capitolina 5.1 Jews in the Colonia Aelia Capitolina The picture of Colonia Aelia Capitolina is largely dominated by the legio X Fretensis and its cults. But the question remains whether or to what extent Jews and Christians still or again played a role. Concerning the Jewish role the testimony of Christian authors like Justin the Martyr (Dial. 16; Apol. 77), Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Jud. 13), Eusebius of Caesarea who based his account on Aristo of Pella (Hist. Eccl. IV 6:3), as well as a Christian interpolation in the writings of Philo of Alexandria (Quod omnis 1) seem to block futher inquiry.168 According to them Hadrian prohibited the Jews under penalty of death from seeing Jerusalem even from a distance. But inquiry is reasonable. Since it is noteworthy that only Christian authors report the ban, while no corresponding edict can be traced in collections of Roman laws, and contemporary Jewish literature seems not to know anything about such an edict.

4.6 Further Cult Sites As far as is known, the other cult sites of the Roman period were located at the pools of the city, though also here the finds are extremely sparce. If we exclude the Asclepius-Hygieia and Serapis sanctuaries known from coins, which at least tentatively can be associated with the water installations and votive offerings found east of the Bethesda Pool, only one cult site remains that can be securely located in the approximate area of the Siloam Pool. In this case as well, only a limited amount of information is available.

Justin Martyr forwarded his Apology to the Roman Senate, and his remarks seem to imply that the Senate knew of a corresponding edict. But it is suspicious that the Christian authors who, based on the relevant words of prophesy (Is. 1:7; 33:17; Jer. 1:3), placed the edict in a theological context of prophesy and fulfillment, put more emphasis on the ban than the two directly impacted groups.

The soundings of F.J. Bliss and A.C. Dickie in 1897-1898 confirmed a report made by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (16) 163. 164.

165.

Vriezen, Erlöserkirche (1994). Clermont-Ganneau, PEFQSt 16 (1884), 194; GermerDurand, RB 1 (1892), 378-379; CIL III Suppl. (1902), no. 6640 = no. 12080 and 13587; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:208. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem II.1-2 (1914), 36 and other authors suggest a triumphal arch there, although the surviving remains do not substantiate this. Otto, Jerusalem (1980), 169 even argues that this triumphal arch was discovered in 1964, though this information is unsubstantiated.

166. 167.

168. 153

Bliss and Dickie, Excavations (1898), 154-159, 178210. Meshorer, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 24-25 passim; idem, IMJ 1 (1982), 17-18 and idem, Coinage (1989), 56-57, also localize the above-mentioned, numismatically verifiable Hygieia cult in the vicinity of the Siloah Pool. Harris, HThR 19 (1926), 199-206.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

It was probably due only to the lack of an opportunity at the end of the Revolt that the Jews avoided the newly founded colony and its immediate surroundings. Perhaps there were also local orders, but they were no longer observed by the Severan period at the latest. The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 9b; Be ah 14b; 27a; Yomah 69a; Tamid 27b; Rosh ha-Shanah
 

19b)
  repeatedly mentions a “holy community” ( whose most famous members Rabbi Shime‘on ben Menasia and Rabbi Joshe ben Hameshulam were students of Rabbi Meïr and whose doctrines also closely overlapped with that of Rabbi Meïr. Thus, it appears that a student circle of Rabbi Meïr settled in Aelia Capitolina in order to share its communal life of prayer, study of the Torah, and manual work in special strictness and purity.169

synagogue still existed into the reign of the Emperor Constantine (died 337) and “Bishop Maximona” (De mens. 14). This description, however, can only be associated with Bishop Maximus (335-348), and if it is true, provides a terminus ad quem between 335 and 337 for the existence of the structure. In 1951 J. Pinkerfeld, in his investigation of the area associated with the traditional tomb of David on the southwest hill of Jerusalem,171 determined that the north wall of the room behind the cenotaph with the conch, as well as the east and south walls, belong to the same construction phase. He discovered 12 cm below the modern floor level a floor dating to the Crusader period upon which the cenotaph rests. He found geometric mosaics 48 cm deeper, which he dated to the Roman and Early Byzantine periods. After a further 10 cm he believed to recognize another floor horizon corresponding to the lower edge of the wall. He was not able, however, to determine whether it was covered with stone or mosaic. Since the conch is situated 1.92 m above the earliest horizon (1.82 m above the mosaic floor), he compared the construction with the synagogue of Eshtemoa‘ whose conch stands at a height of 2.08 m and the synagogue of Naveh in Hauran, whose conch begins 2.20 m above floor level. On this basis, the excavator also identified the Jerusalem building as a synagogue.172

A gravestone from a member of that community has possibly even been preserved. This inscription found on a marble slab of unfortunately unknown provenience now in the Museum of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch mentions a Rabbi Samuel from Phrygia:170    * -

1 2 3 4 5 6

 


 

   8 3   ;     '&()  "!$#  ;% + 3
 ', .0/21436587:9903

 



3!0
















  







If the building remains actually did once constitute a synagogue, they most likely belonged to the synagogue on Mount Sion mentioned by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux and by Epiphanius of Salamis during the period of Constantine. Furthermore it could be the so far unlocalized synagogue of the “Holy Community” from the Severan period. Caution is to be observed, however, both with Pinkerfeld’s dating of the building and with his interpretation of the structure as a synagogue. First, Pinkerfeld has not published any plans or cross-sections, to say nothing of any pottery found on site. Second, it would only be possible to obtain a reliable date of the lowest floor level with a sub-floor level cross-section trench. Pinkerfeld was even unable to determine whether the lower floor level was covered with stone slabs or with mosaic. Therefore, we are left to conclude that the trench was of limited range, which in turn makes the finds of limited reliability, and so M. Avi-Yonah with reason called his dating into question.173

Rabbi Samuel, Leader of the Synagogue, of the Phrygians from Do… Let eternal memory to you be promised Peace to your resting place

Although the placename in line 3 can be reconstructed ;B'CEDF'G B'CEDKML$N only hypothetically as ?A@ @"HJI?A@ HPOQ ;SR F'G R FKV ?A@ @$TU @"HJI?A@ TU H , that Rabbi Samuel came from Phrygia is an interesting clue. The rabbinic sources (PesK 143, ed. Buber 164a; DeutR 2:24) know of a Rabbi Samuel Phregrita, whose identity possibly corresponds to the man buried. Both passages quote sayings of Rabbi Meïr, thus indicating that he could have belonged to his Jerusalem community. It may even be possible to localize their synagogue, since the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (16) reported during his visit in 333 that he saw a synagogue on the southwest hill of the city outside the city wall, encircled by its own enclosure wall. Epiphanius of Salamis, who was born in a village near Eleutheropolis and who ran a monastery for thirty years in his homeland before becoming Bishop of Salamis in 376, commented around 395 that this 169. 170.

Furthermore, his interpretation of the building as a synagogue can also be questioned. In this context the deviation of the conch from the exact orientation to the 171.

Safrai, ScrHie 23 (1972), 62-78. Abel, RB 34 (1925), 577-578; Safrai, ScrHie 23 (1972), 76-77; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 3:360.

172. 173.

154

Pinkerfeld, Tracing (1957), 128-130; reprint idem, BAncSyn 3 (1960), 41-43; Hirschberg, Qadmoniot 1 (1968), 56-59; translation: Jerusalem Revealed (1975), 116-117. For an alternative interpretation of the structure as a Jewish-Christian synagogue, see below. Avi-Yonah, BAncSyn 3 (1960), 43 appears instead to see the seeds of development under the Emperor Julian.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

site of the former Temple by approximately 30 degrees north174 is the least problem. The securely identified synagogues such as those from Eshtemoa‘ with 41 degrees, Caesarea Maritima with 42 degrees, Beth She‘arim with 44 degrees, Beth Yerah with 47 degrees, Na‘aran with 53 degrees and Gaza with 57 degrees, all exhibit a greater deviation from the ideal orientation towards Jerusalem.175 It is difficult, however, to list parallels from the history of synagogue construction with regard to the arrangement of the conch near the room corners, and so considering the thick north wall, the building may not have served as a private habitation, but rather as a public, secular building from the Late Roman period. The building also could have been constructed from the beginning as the diakonikon of the Hagia Sion,176 for which it undoubtedly served.

Fretensis, even though nothing is known about them or their connection to the Jewish-Christian community.178 Indeed, just as for the time from Jacob to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, so also for the period following the Bar Kokhba Revolt to the reign of Commodus, Eusebius knew only of a list of 15 bishops, which presents gentile-Christian names (Hist. Eccl. V 12).179 Eusebius’ first list, in spite of its chronological problems, is comprised of 15 bishops, spanning the time of the gentile-Christian community to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, while his second list covering the time of the gentileChristian community from the Bar Kokhba Revolt until Commodus also consists of 15 bishops and the last bishop, Narcissus, is named as the 30th bishop “in that succession that began with the Apostles”. That shows that the list was already made in his time. The list surely was not only, if at all, due to sudden archival interest. Rather, Eusebius reports that under Narcissus in the tenth year of the Emperor Commodus, conflict surrounding the date of Easter flared up and a Palestinian Synod convened with the bishops from Caesarea Maritima and Aelia Capitolina presiding. In defense of their custom of observing Easter on a Sunday, the bishops appealed to apostolic tradition (Hist. Eccl. V 22-25).180

Nonetheless, based on the literary evidence, a synagogue stood on the southwest hill of the city, perhaps already in Severan times but definitely by the reign of Constantine. This synagogue was perhaps abandoned between 335 and 337 under pressure from those Christians for whom maintaining the questionable Hadrianic edict was considered important. A synagogue is also attested in a letter of Cyril of Jerusalem dating to 363 that was found in 1972,177 but several authors from the early Byzantine period such as Eusebius of Caesarea (in Ps. 58:7-12 LXX), the Pilgrim from Bordeaux (16), Gregory of Nazianz (Orat. VI 18) and Jerome (in Zeph. 1:15), mention that the Jews were permitted to visit the town only on one day, the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, when it was the custom to lament and pray at a “lapis pertusus” next to the two Roman statues on the site of the former Temple. But Jews seem to have come again to Jerusalem in greater numbers only under the Sasanians and then in the Early Islamic period.

That recourse to their own custom and to apostolicity seems to be the reason why the history of the community was taken over the two historical gaps back to James, described as an apostle in Galatians 1:19. Although for the time between the two revolts only a fictitious list with 14 Jewish-Christian names was available, by means of the flight to Pella it was brought back to before the first Revolt and connected with James, whereby the first list composed of 15 Jewish-Christian names was produced. For the time after the second Revolt an equally long list of 15 gentile-Christian names was added, at the end of which appears Narcissus as 30th bishop in the apostolic succession. Moreover, when Eusebius comments that the “throne of James” had been faithfully preserved in Aelia Capitolina (Hist. Eccl. VII 19; 32:19), it can be regarded as an expression of a new consciousness of tradition of the community.

5.2 Christians in the Colonia Aelia Capitolina Hardly more is known about the Christians than the Jews of Aelia Capitolina. The comments of Eusebius that the Jewish-Christians had to leave the city after the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Hist. Eccl. IV 5:1-4; 6:4; V 12) sound believable, despite obvious schematizing in the text. Although an imperial edict forbidding Jews to enter the city cannot be directly substantiated, the evidence mentioned above for a Jewish presence begins again only in the Severan period. As noted, it is entirely plausible that Jews and Jewish-Christians had to avoid the colony for at least a certain period of time after the revolt.

In keeping with this newly awakened community consciousness, it makes sense that an archive was established under Alexander, the successor of Narcissus, which would have been available to Eusebius in subsequent years (Hist. Eccl. VI 20:1), due to which his sources from now on are richer. Thus, in his two wonderful stories about Narcissus he adds that when

On the other hand, individual gentile-Christians could have come to Jerusalem before the revolt with the legio X

178.

174. 175.

179.

176. 177.

Measured opposite the sacred rock (al-Sakhrah). This is evident from even a cursory examination of the mapping of the synagogues in Palestine by Reeg and Hüttenmeister, TAVO sheet B VI 16. Indeed supposed by Taylor, Christians (1993), 214-215. Brock, BSOAS 40 (1977), 275.

180. 155

Only in the Theophania IV 24, does Eusebius indicate that gentile-Christians also belonged to the JewishChristian community. Although Eusebius expressly refers to 15 bishops, the list contains only 13 names. Obviously the names Maximus and Antoninus are to be inserted between Capito and Valens from the Chronicle (ed. Helm 109:1). Kretschmar, ZDPV 87 (1971), 171.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Narcissus disappeared for a time three bishops, Dius, Garmanion, and Gordius, were instated one after another until Narcissus unexpectedly returned (Hist. Eccl. VI 910). When Narcissus, however, was no longer able to carry out his office alone due to age, the community urged Alexander to stay and to take over the direction of the community together with the aging Narcissus (Hist. Eccl. VI 11:1-3). Bishop Alexander had come from Cappadocia to Aelia Capitolina “in order to pray and to visit the sites”.181

The basic problem with that theory lies in the lack of direct evidence. Eusebius and other gentile-Christian authors are silent on the existence of this community, even though it would warrant being mentioned.183 Jewish-Christian sources that explicitly attest to the community also are lacking. Thus, the defenders of this theory support their idea from circumstantial evidence based on a countless series of indirect, archaeological, and literary arguments. Only the most important arguments can be presented and examined here.

Further information concerning the community of Aelia Capitolina from Eusebius is sparce. Alexander, upon his death during the Decian persecution, was replaced by Mazabanes (Hist. Eccl. VI 39:2-3) and Mazabanes by Hymenaeus during the reign of Gallienus (Hist. Eccl. VII 14), whom Eusebius describes as his own contemporary. After Hymenaeus, Eusebius mentions Zabdas and subsequently Hermon as the last bishop, both of whom ascended the “Throne of Jacob” under Diocletian (Hist. Eccl.VII 32:29).

The archaeological arguments that they believe suggest the presence of a Jewish-Christian community on the southwest hill are based on the finds discovered by J. Pinkerfeld on the site traditionally considered the Tomb of David and interpreted as synagogue. In the view of the theory’s supporters, those finds could not have related to a synagogue in the usual sense, but rather to a JewishChristian building. First of all, since it was forbidden for Jews to enter Aelia Capitolina, only Jewish Christians could possibly have owned the building. Second, the conch is not oriented to the former Temple, as expected in a Jewish synagogue, but instead was oriented to Golgotha. Third, graffiti that J. Pinkerfeld discovered on the conch and E. Testa published184 appear to substantiate a Jewish-Christian origin of the building.

5.3 Jewish-Christians in the Colonia Aelia Capitolina? At this point, it is fitting to describe at least briefly the theory upheld above all by E. Testa, B. Bagatti, B. Pixner, and R. Riesner, who maintain that since Apostolic times, the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem had its center on the southwest hill and there, contrary to the picture painted by Eusebius, the community continued to exist after the second revolt into the reign of Constantine.182 181.

182.

However, all three of those arguments are not beyond criticism. First, the above-mentioned sources make it clear that a Jewish community most likely existed in Aelia Capitolina at least in the Severan period. There is no reason, then, to trace the structure tentatively back to Jewish-Christians.185 Second, the deviation of the conch of about 30 degrees, as the comparison with examples from Eshtemoa‘, Caesarea Maritima, Beth She‘arim, Beth Yerah, Na‘aran and Gaza have shown, was within the range common for a synagogue and so cannot be used to support the interpretation of the building as JewishChristian as opposed to Jewish. Third, the graffiti cannot support the conclusion. Even if the masonry can be securely dated to the Pre-Constantine era, the graffiti could only have been applied at a later phase, when the walls were integrated into the church complex of the Hagia Sion. In any event, as far as can be determined the graffiti were written in Greek, not Aramaic. The first graffito, however, is so fragmentarily preserved that one cannot even determine the letters and language. The second graffito indicates on the top line only the four letters NCBI. An L can also be distinguished under a double separating line, which does not lead to a secure reading.186 If the drawing by B. Bagatti is correct,

Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. IV 26:13-14) records a letter from Melito of Sardis in which he reports having come “to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done” (Translation: Lake, Eusebius (1926) 2:393). In his letter, however, Melito was definitely not concerned with the sacred sites, but rather with investigating the question of the Canon. Thus pilgrimage in the fullest sense of the word is illustrated for the first time with Alexander. But one should not forget that it is Eusebius who is behind this formulation and possibly introduces Alexander as a pilgrim prematurely and describing him with a devoutness characteristic of later practice. On the rise of the character of pilgrim see Windisch, ZDPV 48 (1925), 145-158 and Burger, PJb 27 (1931), 84-111. This theory was first posited by Testa, Simbolismo (1962), 543-547 and accepted by Bagatti, Saint Jacques (1962), 12-21 as well as idem, Circoncision (1965), 96102. Of the numerous publications of Pixner, only idem, FS Bagatti I (1976), 245-284 and idem, Wege (1991), 180-207, 219-228, 287-371 are cited here. For a comprehensive synopsis of all arguments presented, see Riesner, ANRW II 26.2 (1995), 1775-1922. It can be left aside here that Pixner and Riesner go beyond Testa and Bagatti by retracing the presumed Jewish-Christian community back to an Essene settlement of the Herodian period, which they localize in the same lands.

183.

184. 185. 186. 156

Grego, Reazione (1973), 38-43 discusses nothing short of a deliberate “conspiracy of silence” (congiura del silenzio). Testa, Simbolismo (1962), 492; drawing on Bagatti, Circoncision (1965), 96-102. That the Roman administration distinguished between Jews and Jewish-Christians is hardly plausible.  Testa, Simbolismo (1962), 492 interprets (


BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

case, as G. Lüdemann suggested,192 that the passage presents an alternative attempt to the Pella tradition to secure the tradition of the local community over the gap of the first Revolt. The third passage [C] with the topos of the seven synagogues, which refers back to the former flourishing of Jewish life in the city, is strongly reminiscent of the observation by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux. As far as the mention of the synagogue that stood well into the Constantinian period is concerned, the report perhaps relies on the Pilgrim’s account, but more likely on the local knowledge of Epiphanius as a native of Palestine.

however, the third graffito does reveal in its fourth line the word 

 


 , a word that E. Testa connects with Psalm 110:1. But since that particular word is not mentioned in the Psalm, Testa’s observation of a word play on the Davidic tradition by the Jewish-Christian community is forced. At this point, the only additional arguments to be presented concern the report by Epiphanius of Salamis that Hadrian visited the city in 117 (De mens. 14): [A] And he went up to Jerusalem, the famous and illustrious city which Titus, the son of Vespasian, overthrew in the second year of his reign. And he found the temple of God trodden down and the whole city devastated [B] save for a few houses and the church of God, which was small, where the disciples, when they had returned after the Savior had ascended from the Mount of Olives, went to the upper room.187 For it had been built, that is, in that portion of Zion which escaped destruction, [C] together with blocks of houses in the neighborhood of Zion and the seven synagogues which alone remained standing in Zion, like solitary huts, one of which remained until the time of Maximona the bishop and Constantine the king, “like a booth in a vineyard,” as it is written.188 /189

The history of tradition of those excerpts, however, is only of secondary significance. Rather, decisive is only that Epiphanius himself clearly distinguished between the upper chamber of the Apostles [B], which in his view still stood at least until Hadrian’s visit on the eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and the synagogue [C], which following his testimony was still extant in 335-337. He placed both notices next to each other and made no connection between them.193 When examined in this light, his collected passages can no longer serve as proof of a Jewish-Christian community. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a JewishChristian community apparently was re-established, but that community most likely was eliminated during the course of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In later decades, as the sources for the “Holy Community” show, the presence of a Jewish-Christian community in Aelia Capitolina cannot be excluded entirely, but the arguments presented here are in no way capable of sustaining the necessary burden of proof.

The date of 117 for the presumed visit of the emperor does not seem to fit chronologically into the known sequence of his trips,190 which shows that the notes of the bishop cannot serve as a source for the time of Hadrian. Rather his notes must be understood as an attempt to (re)construct a past of 260 years earlier, for a variety of sources were at his disposal. Thus, he probably appropriated his first section [A] concerning the destruction of the city in the second year of Vespasian from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. III 7:3). [B] That the upper chamber of the Apostles was situated on the southwest hill corresponded to the Hieros Logos of the Hagia Sion, whose construction was nearing completion as Epiphanius wrote his lines.191 The idea that Titus had spared this part of the city from destruction could be based on the decision reported by Flavius Josephus not to demolish the city wall west of the legionary camp (Bell. VII 1:1). It could also be the

6. From Sulpicius Severus until the Eve of the Constantinian Conversion We have remarkably little information about the history of the city after its establishment in the Hadrianic period, with the exception of the occasional discovery of local coins or individual references to Jews and Christians. Archaeological material, other than graves and individual inscriptions that survived as spoilia, is largely absent. That is due above all to the fact that the center of the city lay in the area of today’s Christian and Muslim Quarters, where it has not been possible to conduct any noteworthy excavations, except for the soundings in Muristan below the Church of the Redeemer and occasional observations of ancient pavements underneath the streets of the Old City. That literary sources are also largely absent can be

(    (  
 ”Vinci o Salvatore, Pietà!”. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191.

Citing Acts 1:13. Citing Isaiah 1:8. Translation: Dean, Epiphanius’ Ttreatise (1935) 30. Halfmann, Itinera (1986), 194. Van Esbroeck, Le Muséon 86 (1973), 283-304 and idem, AB 102 (1984), 107-125 dates the consecration of the church erected under Emperor Theodosius I and Bishop John II to September 15, 394. On the early history of this church, see Bieberstein, Akten Bonn 1991 (1995), 543-551.

192. 193.

157

Lüdemann, Paulus II (1983), 279-280. Bagatti, Circoncision (1965), 96-102 relates the “Synagogue” to the ground floor and the “Church” to the upper storey of a two-storey Jewish-Christian building. This theory, however, is not validated by the text, and when Murphy-O’Connor, Acts IV (1995), 309 asserts, “Although the passage is very short, the second part duplicates the first”, he follows the precedent of Bagatti and likewise assumes what needs to be proven.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

explained from the relative unimportance of the Legion’s location, which after the quelling of the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the founding of the colony only re-gained importance with the Constantinian conversion. Thus, the nearly two hundred years of its history between those two events can only be illuminated at certain points.

name, however, did not take place under Commodus, but only under Septimius Severus, since the coins minted locally under Commodus do not use the new name. Sulpicius Severus joined the family of the Antonines only in 195 and then added the name following his visit to Colonia Aelia Capitolina. The name is not recorded on the coins issued in commemoration of his visit, but only on the coins minted since 209 and continuing until the end of local coin issues under Decius.196

6.1 Under Septimius Severus and his Sons The colony was only again honored with the visit of an emperor in 201, in commemoration of which a series of coins were issued that depict Septimius Severus with his wife Julia Domna on the reverse and his sons Caracalla and Geta on the obverse.194

A second honorary reference in that year associated not with the colony, but rather with the legio X Fretensis, is preserved on a column fragment discovered in 1885 during the construction of the Eftimius Bazaar north of the Citadel. The column bearing the inscription presumably served as a statue base and is set up today as a lantern post at the intersection of two passages:197

An honorary inscription that names the emperor, his wife Julia Domna, his son Caracalla (Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) and his wife Fulvia Plautilla was found reused in an Umayyad building during the excavations of B. Mazar directly south of the aram al-Shar f:195


1

2 3 4 5 6 1

2 3 4 5 6

Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) L(ucio) Septimio Severo Aug(usto) Arab(ico)] Adiab(enico) Parth[ico Max(imo) Pio p(atri) p(atriae)] Caes(ari) M(arco) Aur[(relio) … … Pla]utillae Aug(ustae) [… … col(onia) Ael]ia Kap(itolina) Commo[(diana) … …]i [suo] sumptu [… …] Fr(etensis) curante [… For Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Augustus Arabicus Adiabenicus Parthicus Maximus Pius Pater Patriae (and) for Caesar Marcus Aurelius … … Plautilla Augusta … … colonia Aelia Kapitolina Commodiana … … on his own costs … … Fretensis built …

M(arco) Iunio Maximo leg(ato) Augg(ustorum) leg(ionis) X Fr(etensis) Antoniniana C(aius) Dom(itius) Serg(ius) Iul(ius) Honoratus str(atores) eius

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For Marcus Iunius Maximus, the Legate of the Augusti of the Legio X Fretensis Antoniniana Caius Domitius Sergius (and) Julius Honoratus, his grooms.

Based on the word referring to both Augusti, Augg(ustorum), in the third line, the inscription can be dated in the years of joint rule either under Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla (198-208) or under Caracalla and his brother Geta (211-212). At the end of the fourth line, Antoninianae has been inserted secondarily in small letters. This additional name presumes the incorporation of the Severans into the family of the Antonines, but it was first given to the legion under Elagabalus (218-222).

This inscription must date to between April 202 and Janaury 205 since it mentions Fulvia Plautilla, whom Caracalla married in April 202 and whom he later banned in January 205 to the Liparian islands, and thus to shortly after the imperial visit. The inscription is interesting above all, because the renaming of the colony is attested here for the first time in line 4 as colonia Aelia Kapitolina Commodiana. This name refers to the new naming of Rome as colonia Commodiana, completed with the erection of a silver imperial statue under Commodus in 190 (Hist. Aug., Vita Comm. 8:6; Cassius Dio, Hist. Rom. LXXII 15:2), which in turn was adopted by Alexandria, Carthage, and Jerusalem. The adoption of the 194. 195.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Severans not only gave honorific titles, but also undertook the improvement of the water supply of the legion, as shown by building inscriptions from the “Upper Aqueduct” that led from Solomon’s Pools in a direct line along the watershed west of Bethlehem to Jerusalem.198 The first section was in part a channel cut 196. 197.

Kadman, Aelia Capitolina (1956), no. 87. Avi-Yonah, EI 9 (1969), 175-176, reprint, Mazar, Excavations 1968 (1969), 22-24; Line 6 based on Lifshitz, ANRW II 8 (1977), 485-486; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 3:398.

198.

158

Kadman, IEJ 9 (1959), 137-140. Zangemeister, ZDPV 10 (1887), 49-53; CIL III Suppl. (1902), no. 6641; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn, Jerusalem (1994), 2:95-96. Mazar, Qadmoniot 5 (1972), 124; translation: idem, Jerusalem Revealed (1975), 82-84; Mazar, LIW.M 82.5 (1984), 12-15.

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

into the natural rock and in part constructed of fieldstones and dressed in plaster, while the second part at the same elevation as the Tomb of Rachel was constructed of close to 3 km of perfectly fitted square-shaped stone pipes. This aqueduct is attested in some inscriptions of the commanders of the legio X Fretensis that allow a date in the Severan period.199 This project seems not to have been completed. The terrain in the area of the Jerusalem train station has a depression that could only have been bridged by pressure tunnels or by an aqueduct on arches. Two sections of a pressure tunnel have been discovered on the plain west of Yemin Moshe east of the train station, but they did not contain any remains of pipes, and a continuation toward Jaffa Gate is also unknown. Presumably the project was not finished. Instead the older Herodian water system, which extends along the wadi slopes in numerous switchbacks, was renovated periodically and maintained until modern times.

century. A. Kloner in 1976 was able to confirm that during his renewed excavation at the tower east of Herod’s Gate203 and in 1979 in a further investigation at the corner of the wall projection east of the New Gate,204 where under the Ottoman city wall he hit six ashlar courses of the Late Antique city wall. The further continuation of this wall, however, has not been archaeologically determined, although an undated massive, north-south oriented wall segment was discovered in 1889 during the southern expansion of the Latin Patriarchate,205 which might find its continuation in a stretch of wall found in 1885 on the eastern edge of the Eftimius Bazaar,206 and which ran to David’s Tower of the Citadel, where C. N. Johns could date a segment to that period.207 But further sections have not yet been found south of the Citadel. Presumably only the top courses of the Herodian wall were put back in place. Only the literary testimony of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (16-17) indicates that the east gate of the city lay at the modern Lion’s Gate and that the south wall of the city approximated the course of the city wall of the modern Old City.208

6.2 Under Diocletian During the reign of Diocletian, two developments took place that, although not necessarily causally related to each other, nevertheless together had an impact on the character of the city.

The circuit wall, then, was obviously larger than the settlement at the time, though that was not unusual for Roman cities of the second and third centuries. Undoubtedly, the city walls served not only as fortifications but were also signs of prestige. The still unbuilt area in the south, which had been turned over for civilian settlement once the soldiers had left, provided as Neapolis an open area into which the city in the Byzantine period with its churches and monasteries could gradually grow.209 The settlement of Neapolis emerged only at a slow pace, as the archaeological finds in the southern Armenian Garden and in the Jewish Quarter demonstrate. Even in the early fifth century, people desiring to settle there received free land to build, an offer that monks, above all, from the vicinity of the Monastery of St. Melania on the Mount of Olives made use of.

First, the legio X Fretensis left Jerusalem. The legion appears for the last time on coins minted under Herennius Etruscus (251),200 which of course must not be seen as a terminus ad quem, since also Neapolis in those years minted coins with the emblem of the legion even though it at no time was a legionary base. It is attested, however, in Aila (‘Aqabah) by Eusebius (Onom., ed. Klostermann 6:17-20). Thus, it is very likely that during the course of Diocletian’s restructuring of the army, the legion received a new home and was replaced by the equites Mauri Illyriciani (Not. dign. orient. 34:21). The Colonia Aelia Capitolina, then, lost its former character as a garrison town and the southern part of today’s Old City could have become largely free for civilian settlement.

I would especially like to thank my Tübingen colleague Dr. Hanswulf Bloedhorn for his generous bibliographic suggestions, Kirsten Gay for her translation, as well as Karen Siebert and Olaf Rölver in Bamberg and Dr. Robert Schick in Hyderabad for their proofreading. This article was finished in March 1997.

Second, the city was encircled by a wall.201 When exactly it was constructed is not certain. The anonymous Vita Petri Iberii (ed. Raabe syr. 44, german 45-46) attributes the circuit wall to Constantine the Great, but it is a relatively late source. Archaeological soundings at the foot of the northern city wall of the modern Old City appear to allow for a somewhat earlier date.

203. 204. 205. 206.

Thus R. W. Hamilton in 1937-1938, based on two soundings at both towers east and west of Herod’s Gate,202 arrived at a date in the late third or early fourth

207. 199. 200. 201. 202.

Vetrali, LA 17 (1967), 149-161. Meshorer, Aelia Capitolina (1989), 58, 114-115. For an overview of the following, see Wightman, Walls (1993), 200-206. Hamilton, QDAP 10 (1944), 26-35 (east) and 35-53 (west).

208.

209.

159

Kloner, HA 59-60 (1976), 33. Kloner, HA 69-71 (1979), 56-57. Schick, PEFQSt 21 (1889), 65-66. Schick, PEFQSt 19 (1887), 218-221; Merrill, PEFQSt 20 (1888), 62-65. Johns, QDAP 14 (1950), 153-158; Geva, IEJ 33 (1983), 67-69. Broshi’s sounding at the Zion Gate did not come across any corresponding early finds; Broshi and Tsafrir, IEJ 27 (1977), 28-37. On the history of Neapolis, see Bieberstein, ZDPV 105 (1989), 110-122.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

of Jerusalem, 1970 (Second Preliminary Report). IEJ 20: 129-140. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville, Camden, New York).

Bibliography Abel, Félix-Marie 1925 Épigraphie palestinienne. RB 34: 575-582. Abel, Félix-Marie and Barrois, A. 1931 Dédicace d’un temple à Jérusalem. RB 40:292294.

Bagatti, Bellarmino 1962 Sainte Sion. Pp. 13-21 in Saint Jacques le Mineur, premier évêque de Jérusalem (Jerusalem). 1965 L'Église de la Circoncision (SBF.CMi 2; Jerusalem).

Abraham Bromberg Collection 1991 The Abraham Bromberg Collection of Jewish Coins, vol. I (Beverly Hills and Zürich, 5 December, 1991).

Bagatti, Bellarmino and Milik, Joseph T. 1958 Gli scavi del “Dominus flevit” (Monte Oliveto Gerusalemme), I. La necropoli del periodo romano (SBF.CMa 13; Jerusalem).

Abu Riya, Rafa‘ 1991 Jerusalem. Street of the Chain (A). HA 97: 66-67 (Hebrew); translation: ESI 10: 134-135.

Bahat, Dan and Broshi, Magen 1972 Excavations in the Armenian Garden. Qadmoniot 5: 102-103 (Hebrew); translation: pp. 55-56 in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974 (Jerusalem 1975).

Amiran, Ruth and Eitan, Avi 1970 Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968-1969 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 20: 9-17. Applebaum, Shimon 1976 Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135) (BAR Supplementary Series 7; Oxford). 1977 Judaea as a Roman Province. The Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor. ANRW II 8: 355396. 1984 The Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 131-135). PEQ 166: 35-41.

Balabanski, Vicky 1997 Eschatology in the Making. Mark, Matthew and the Didache (Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 97; Cambridge). Barag, Dan 1967 Brick-Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis. EI 8: 168-182 (Hebrew); translation: BJb 167 (1967) 246-267. 1980 A Note on The Geographical Distribution of Bar Kokhba Coins. INJ 4: 30-33.

Ariel, Donald T. 1982 A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem. Until the End of Byzantine Period. LA 32: 273-326.

Barkay, Gabriel 1986 Ketef Hinnom. A Treasure Facing Jerusalem’s Walls (The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Catalogue 274; Jerusalem).

Arubas, Benny and Goldfus, Haim 1993 Jerusalem, Binyane Ha’umma. HA 100: 63-67 (Hebrew); translation: ESI 13: 74-78. 1995 The Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion Fretensis. The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Some Recent Archaeological Research (Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary Series 14; Ann Arbor), 95-107.

Barnard, Leslie W. 1968-1969 Hadrian and Judaism. Journal of Roman History 5: 285-298. Bauckham, Richard 1990 Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh).

Avi-Yonah, Michael 1939 Greek and Latin inscriptions from Jerusalem and Beis n. QDAP 8: 54-61. 1949-1950 Excavations at Sheikh Bader, Jerusalem (1949). BJPES 15: 19-24 (Hebrew; English summary p. II). 1960 Editor’s Note. BAncSyn 3: 43. 1969 A Fragment of a Latin Inscription from the Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. EI 9: 175-176 (Hebrew); translation: Benjamin Mazar, The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968 (Jerusalem, 1969), 22-24. 1973 When Did Judea Become a Consular Province? IEJ 23: 209-213.

Bear, Doron 1993 The Southern Boundary of Aelia Capitolina and the Location of the Tenth Roman Legion’s Camp. Cathedra 69: 37-56 (Hebrew). Benoit, Pierre 1971 L‘Antonia d’Hérode le Grand et le forum oriental d’Aelia Capitolina. HThR 64: 135-167. 1972 The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Antonia Fortress. Qadmoniot 5: 127-129 (Hebrew); translation: Pp. 87-89 in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 19681974 (Jerusalem 1975). Bieberstein, Klaus 1989 Porta Neapolitana, die Nea Maria und die Nea

Avigad, Nahman 1970 Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City 160

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

Sophia in der Neapolis von Jerusalem. Beobachtungen zur Baugeschichte Jerusalems in byzantinischer und früharabischer Zeit. ZDPV 105: 110122. 1995 Die Hagia Sion in Jerusalem. Zur Entwicklung ihrer Traditionen im Spiegel der Pilgerberichte. Pp. 543-551 in Josef Engemann and Ernst Dassmann, eds., Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie Bonn 22.-28. September 1991, Band I (JAC, Ergänzungsband 20; Münster).

Büchler, Adolph 1904 Die Schauplätze des Bar-Kochbakrieges und die auf diesen bezogenen jüdischen Nachrichten. JQR 16: 143-205. Burger, Ewald 1931 Die Anfänge des Pilgerwesens in Palästina. Zur Geschichte der christlichen Frömmigkeit in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten. PJb 27: 84-111. Carlebach, Alexander 1975-1976 Rabbinic References to Fiscus Judaicus. JQR 66: 57-61.

Bieberstein, Klaus and Bloedhorn, Hanswulf 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, 3 vols (TAVO Beiheft B 100,1-3; Wiesbaden).

Cary, Earnest 1925 Dio’s Roman History, vol. 8 (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge and London). Chen, Doron, Margalit, Shl. and Soler, A. [sic] 1978 Chronique archéologique. Jérusalem (Quartier Chrétien) – 1977. RB 85: 419-421.

Birley, Eric 1953 The Origins of Legionary Centurions. Pp. 104-142 in idem, Roman Britain and the Roman Army. Collected Papers (Kendal); reprint: The Roman Army. Papers 1929-1986 (Mavors Roman Army Researches 4; Amsterdam 1988), 189-205.

Chen, Doron, Margalit, Shlomo and Solar, Giora 1979 Notes and News. Jerusalem, Christian Quarter, 1977. IEJ 29: 243-244. Clark, Kenneth W. 1959-1960 Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A. D. 70. NTS 6: 269-280.

Bliss, Frederick Jones and Dickie, Archibald Campbell 1898 Excavations at Jerusalem 1894-1897 (London). Blomme, Yves 1979 Faut-il revenir sur la datation de l’arc de l’“Ecce Homo”. RB 86: 244-271.

Clermont-Ganneau, Charles 1884 Achaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land and Syria in 1883. PEFQSt 16: 187-195. 1899-1896 Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873-1874, vol. I (London 1899); vol. II (London 1896).

Bol, Peter Cornelius, Hoffmann, Adolf and Weber, Thomas 1990 Gadara in der Dekapolis. Deutsche Ausgrabungen bei Umm Qais in Nordjordanien 1986 bis 1988. Ein Vorbericht. AA: 193-266.

Cohn, Erich W. 1987 New Ideas (Jerusalem).

Bowersock, Glen W. 1980 A Roman Perspective on the Bar Kochba War. Pp. 131-141 in William Scott Green, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. II (Brown Judaic Studies 9; Chico, CA).

About

Jerusalem’s

Topography

Corbo, Virgilio C. 1982 Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme. Aspetti archeologici dalle origini al periodo crociato, 3 vols. (SBF.CMa 29; Jerusalem).

Brandon, Samuel George Frederick 1951 The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrew of A. D. 70 on Christianity (London). 1967 Jesus and the Zealots. A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester).

Coüasnon, H.-M. 1966 Jérusalem – Ecce Homo. RB 73: 573-574. Coüasnon, Charles 1974 The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1972; London).

Brock, Sebastian P. 1977 A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple. BSOAS 40: 267-286.

Dabrowa, Edward 1993 Legio X Fretensis. A Prosopographical Study of its Officers (I-III c. A. D.) (Historia Einzelschriften 66; Stuttgart).

Broshi, Magen and Tsafrir, Yoram 1977 Excavations at the Zion Gate, Jerusalem. IEJ 27: 28-37.

Dalton, C. 1896 On the Latin Inscription found by Dr. Bliss behind the Gate of Neby Daûd. PEFQSt 28: 133-147.

Buber, Salomon 1967 Midrasch Echa Rabbati. Sammlung agadischer Auslegungen der Klagelieder (Wilna 1899; reprint Hildesheim).

Dean, James Elmer 1935 Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures. The Syriac Version (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 11; Chicago). 161

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Detweiler, Albert Henry 1938a The Triumphal Arch. Pp. 73-83 in Carl H. Kraeling, ed., Gerasa. City of the Decapolis (New Haven). 1938b The South Gate. Pp. 149-152 in Carl H. Kraeling, ed., Gerasa, City of the Decapolis (New Haven).

Furneaux, Rupert 1973 The Roman Siege of Jerusalem (London). Gat, Josef 1976 Auguste Viktoria. HA 57-58: 32. (Hebrew). Germer-Durand, Joseph 1892 Aelia Capitolina. RB 1: 369-387. 1894 Épigraphie palestinienne. RB 3: 613-614. 1895 Inscriptions romaines et byzantines de Palestine. RB 4: 68-77.

Duprez, Antoine 1966 La piscine Probatique au temps du Christ. BTS 86: 5-15. 1970 Jésus et les dieux guérriseurs. À propos de Jean, V (CRB 12; Paris).

Gershuny, Lilly 1991 Jerusalem. Street of the Chain (B). HA 97: 67-68 (Hebrew); translation: ESI 10 (1991) 135-136.

Eck, Werner 1970 Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Prosopographische Untersuchungen mit Einschluß der Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter (Vestigia 13; München). 1982 Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139. Chiron 12: 281362. 1984 Zum konsularen Status von Iudaea im frühen 2. Jh. BASP 21: 55-67.

Geva, Hillel 1982 Was there a “Camp” of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem. An Archaeological Reconsideration. Cathedra 25: 3-20 (Hebrew). 1983 Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 19791980. Preliminary Report. IEJ 33: 55-71. 1984 The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem. An Archaeological Reconsideration. IEJ 34: 239-254.

Ferrar, William J. 1920 The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, 2 vol. (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Translations of Christian Literature, Series I, Greek Texts; London and New York).

Gichon, Mordechai and Isaac, Benjamin H. 1974 A Flavian Inscription from Jerusalem. IEJ 24: 117-123. Gladiss, Almut von 1972 Der “Arc du Rhône” von Arles. MDAI.R 79: 1787.

Flusin, Benard 1992 L’esplanade du Temple à l’arrivée des Arabes, d’après deux récits byzantins. Pp. 17-31 in Julian Raby and Jeremy Johns, eds., Bayt al-Maqdis. ‘Abd al-Malik's Jerusalem, vol. I (Oxford Studies in Islamic Art 9; Oxford).

Golan, David 1986 Hadrian’s Decision to Supplant “Jerusalem” by “Aelia Capitolina”. Historia 35: 226-239. Goodman, Martin 1989 The Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity. JRS 79: 40-44.

Foerster, Gideon 1977 Excavations at Tiberias. Qadmoniot 10: 87-91. (Hebrew). 1993 Tiberias. Excavations in the South of the City. Pp. 1470-1473 in Ephraim Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 4 (Jerusalem).

Grabbe, Lester L. 1992 Judaism from (Minneapolis).

Cyrus to

Hadrian,

2

vols.

Granger, Frank 1931 Vitruvius, On Architecture, vol. 1 (Loeb Clasical Library; Cambridge and London).

Foerster, Gideon and Tsafrir, Yoram 1987-1988 The Bet Shean Project. The Amphitheater and its Surroundings. ESI 6: 35-43.

Gray, Barbara C. 1973 The Movements of the Jerusalem Church During the First Jewish War. JEH 24: 1-7.

Freedman, Harry 1983 Midrash Rabbah, Genesis (London, 1939, 1st. ed., 1951, 2nd. ed., 1961, 3rd ed., 1983, 4th ed.).

Gray, William D. 1923 The Founding of Aelia Capitolina and the Chronology of the Jewish War Under Hadrian. AJSL 39: 248-256.

Fremantle, William H., 1893 St. Jerome. Letters and Select Works (A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series, volume 6; Oxford).

Grego, Igino 1973 La Reazione ai Giudeo-Cristiani nel IV secolo negli scritti patristici e nei canonici conciliari (Jerusalem).

Funk, Wolf-Peter 1976 Die zweite Apokalypse des Jakobus aus NagHammadi-Codex V, neu herausgegeben, übersetzt und erklärt (TU 119; Berlin).

Gregorovius, Ferdinand 1883 Die Gründung der römischen Colonie Aelia Capitolina. SBAW.PPH 13, 477-508. 162

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

Grelle, Francesco 1972 L’autonomia cittadina fra Traiano e Adriano. Teoria e prassi dell’ organizzazione municipale (Napoli).

190-196 in Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner, ed., Säule und Gebälk. Zu Struktur und Wandlungsprozeß griechisch-römischer Architektur. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 16. bi 18. Juni 1994 veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI (Diskussionen zur Archäologischen Bauforschung 6; Mainz).

Gunther, John J. 1973 The Fate of the Jerusalem Church. The Flight to Pella. ThZ 29: 81-94.

Isaac, Benjamin 1980-1981 Roman Colonies in Judaea. The Foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Talanta 12-13: 31-54. 1984 Judaea after AD 70. JJS 35: 44-50. 1986 The Roman Army in Jerusalem and its Vicinity. Pp. 635-640 in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms, Bd. III, 13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983 (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vorund Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 20; Stuttgart).

Guttmann, Alexander 1967 The End of the Jewish Sacrifical Cult. HUCA 38: 137-148. Halfmann, Helmut 1986 Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich (Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien 2; Stuttgart). Hamilton, Robert W. 1932-1933 Street Levels in the Tyropoeon Valley. QDAP 1 (1932), 105-110; 2 (1933), 34-40. 1944 Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937-8. QDAP 10: 1-54.

Isaac, Benjamin and Oppenheimer, Aharon 1985 The Revolt of Bar Kokhba. Ideology and Modern Scholarship. JJS 36: 33-60. Isaac, Benjamin and Roll, Israel 1979a Judaea in the Early Years of Hadrian’s Reign. Latomus 38: 54-66. 1979b Legio II Traiana in Judaea. ZPE 33: 149-156.

Hanauer, James Edward 1891 Was There a Street of Columns in Jerusalem? PEFQSt 23: 318-319.

Johns, Cedric N. 1932 Jerusalem. Ancient Street-Levels in the Tyropoeon Valley Within the Walls. QDAP 1: 97-100. 1948 Discoveries in Palestine Since 1939. PEQ 80: 81101. 1950 The Citadel, Jerusalem. A summary of work since 1934. QDAP 14: 121-190.

Harris, Rendel 1926 Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem. HThR 19: 199-206. Hengel, Martin 1984-1985 Hadrians Politik gegenüber Juden und Christen. JANES 16-17: 153-182; reprint, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I (WUNT 90; Tübingen 1996), 358-391. 1986 Review of Mildenberg, Coinage (1984). Gnomon 58: 326-331; reprint, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I (WUNT 90; Tübingen 1996), 344-350.

Kadman, Leo 1956 The Coins of Aelia Capitolina (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 1; Jerusalem). 1959 When Was Aelia Capitolina Named ”Commodiana” and by Whom? IEJ 9: 137-140.

Hennessy, John Basil 1970 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Damascus Gate Jerusalem, 1964-6. Levant 2: 22-27.

Kennedy, David L. 1980 Legio VI Ferrata. The Annexation and Early Garrison of Arabia. HSCP 84: 283-309.

Herr, Moshe David 1972 Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Day. ScrHie 23: 85-125. 1978 The Causes of the Bar-Kokhba War. Zion 43: 1-11 (Hebrew).

Keppie, Lawrence J. F. 1973 The Legionary Garrison of Judaea under Hadrian. Latomus 32: 859-864. Kienast, Dietmar 1966 Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt, 2nd ed.).

Hirschberg, Joachim W. 1968 The Remains of an Ancient Synagogue on Mount Zion. Qadmoniot 1: 56-59 (Hebrew); translation: pp. 116-117 in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 19681974 (Jerusalem 1975).

Kindler, Arie 1974 Coins of the Land of Israel. Collection of the Bank of Israel. A Catalogue (Jerusalem). Kloner, Amos 1976 Soundings at the Northern City Wall. HA 59-60: 33-34 (Hebrew). 1979 Soundings Between the Damascus Gate and the New Gate. HA 69-71: 56-57 (Hebrew).

Hoffmann, Adolf 1990 The Monumental Gate extra muros in Gadara. NEA 1: 95-103. 1996 Von der Vielfalt der Gebälke und Gesimse. Pp. 163

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Koester, Craig 1989 The Origin and Significance of the Flight to Pella Tradition. CBQ 51: 90-106.

Marie Aline de Sion 1955 La forteresse Antonia à Jérusalem et la question du prétoire (Jerusalem).

Kretschmar, Georg 1971 Festkalender und Memorialstätten Jerusalems in altkirchlicher Zeit. ZDPV 87: 167-205.

Mauss, Charles 1888 La piscine de Bethesda à Jérusalem (Paris). Mayer, Reinhold 1967 Zum Problem des Opfers unmittelbar nach der Zerstörung des Zweiten Tempels. Pp. 209-211 in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Papers, vol. II (Jerusalem).

Kuhnen, Hans-Peter 1990 Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit. Mit Beiträgen von Leo Mildenberg und Robert Wenning (Handbuch der Archäologie, Vorderasien II 2; München). 1994 Mit Thora und Todesmut. Judäa im Widerstand gegen die Römer von Herodes bis Bar-Kochba (Württembergisches Landesmuseum Stuttgart, Archäologische Sammlungen, Führer und Bestandskataloge 3; Stuttgart).

Mazar, Amihai 1972 The Ancient Aqueducts of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 5: 120-124 (Hebrew); translation: Pp. 79-84 in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974 (Jerusalem 1975). 1984 Survey of the Jerusalem Aqueducts. LIW.M 82.5.

Lake, Kirsopp 1926 Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, vol. I (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge and London).

Mazar, Benjamin 1972 Excavations near the Temple Mount. Qadmoniot 5: 74-90 (Hebrew); translation: Pp. 25-40 in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974 (Jerusalem 1975).

Lifshitz, Baruch 1960 Sur la date du transfert de la legio VI Ferrata en Palestine. Latomus 19: 109-111. 1977 Jérusalem sous la domination romaine. Histoire de la ville depuis la conqête de Pompée jusqu’à Constantin (63 a. C. - 325 p. C.). ANRW II 8: 444-489.

Mazor, Gaby and Bar-Nathan, Rachel 1993 The Bet She’an Excavation Project (1989-1991). City Center (South) and Tel Iztabba Area. ESI 11: 33-51. 1996 The Bet She’an Excavation Project 1992-1994. HA 105: 7-33 (Hebrew).

Lüdemann, Gerd 1980 The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity. A Critical Evaluation of the Pella-Tradition. Pp. 161-173 in Parish Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 1. The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (London). 1983 Paulus, der Heidenapostel, vol. II. Antipaulinismus im frühen Christentum (FRLANT 130; Göttingen).

Meistermann, Barnabé = Barnabé d'Alsace 1902 Le Prétoire de Pilate et la forteresse Antonia (Paris). Merrill, Selah 1888 Line of Second Wall. PEFQSt 20: 62-65.

Magen, Menachem 1986 Damascus Gate. Ariel (Hebrew) 46: 86-94.

Meshorer, Ya‘akov 1967 Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv). 1970 The Hebron Mountains. Collected Sources and Articles (Department of Local Studies of the Qibbutz Movement). 1982a Hygieia in Aelia Capitolina. IMJ 1: 17-18. 1982b Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. II. Herod the Great through Bar Cochba (New York). 1985 City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period (Jerusalem). 1989 The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem).

Maltiel-Gerstenfeld, Jacob 1982 260 Years of Ancient Jewish Coins. A Catalogue (Tel Aviv). 1987 New Catalogue of Ancient Jewish Coins (Tel Aviv). Mandell, Sara 1984 Who Paid the Temple Tax When the Jews Were under Roman Rule? HThR 77: 223-232. Mantel, Hugo 1967-1969 The Causes of the Bar Kokba Revolt. JQR 58 (1967-1968), 224-242, 274-296; 59 (19681969), 341-342.

Mildenberg, Leo 1977 Bar Kochba in Jerusalem? Schweizer Münzblätter 27:1-6. 1980 Bar Kokhba Coins and Documents. HSCP 84: 311-335. 1984-1985 The Bar Kokhba War in the Light of the Coins and Document Finds 1947-1982. INJ 8: 2732.

Margalit, Shlomo 1989 Aelia Capitolina. Judaica 45: 45-56. 1994 Jerusalem, The Butcher’s Bazaar. ESI 12: 114.

164

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

1984 The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War (Typos 6; Aarau, Frankfurt, Salzburg). 1990 Der Bar-Kochba-Krieg im Lichte der Münzprägungen. Pp. 357-366 in Hans-Peter Kuhnen, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit (Handbuch der Archäologie, Vorderasien II 2; München).

Overbeck, Bernhard and Meshorer, Yaakov 1993 Das Heilige Land. Antike Münzen aus einem Jahrtausend jüdischer Geschichte (München). Peters, Francis 1985 Jerusalem (Princeton). Pfanner, Michael 1983 Der Titusbogen (Beiträge zur Erschließung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur 2; Mainz).

Millar, Fergus 1964 A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford). 1990 The Roman Coloniae of the Near East. A Study of Cultural Relations. Pp. 7-58 in Heikki Solin and Mika Kajava, eds., Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History. Proceedings of a Colloquium at Tvärminne, 2-3 October 1987 (Commentationes Humanorum Litterarum 91; Helsinki).

Pflaum, Hans-Georg 1969 Remarques sur le changement de statut administratif de la province de Judée. A propos d’une inscription récémment découverte à Sidé de Pamphylie. IEJ 19: 225-233.

Mócsy, András 1974 Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire (History of the Provinces of the Roman Empire 4; London and Boston).

Pierotti, Ermete 1864 Jerusalem Explored being a Description of the Ancient and Modern City with Numerous Illustrations consisting of Views, Ground Plans, and Sections (London).

Mor, Menahem 1986 The Roman Army in Eretz-Israel in the Years AD 70-132. Pp. 575-602 in Philip Freeman and David Kennedy, eds., The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East (BAR, International Series 297; Oxford).

Pinkerfeld, Jakob 1957 “David’s Tomb”. Notes on the History of the Building. Preliminary Report. Pp. 12-130 in idem, Tracing of Jewish Art (no place) (Hebrew); reprint: BAncSyn 3 (1960), 41-43.

Munck, Johannes 1959-1960 Jewish Christianity Times. NTS 6: 103-116.

in

Pixner, Bargil 1976 An Essene Quarter on Mount Zion? Pp. 245-285 in Studia Hierosolymitana in onore del P. Bellarmino Bagatti, vol. I. Studi archeologici (SBF.CMa 22; Jerusalem). 1991 Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche. Jesus und das Urchristentum im Lichte neuer archäologischer Erkenntnisse, Rainer Riesner, ed. (Studien zur Biblischen Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte 2; Giessen and Basel).

Post-Apostolic

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 1994 The Location of the Capitol in Aelia Capitolina. RB 101: 407-415. 1995 Pre-Constantinian Christian Jerusalem. Pp. 13-21 in Anthony O’Mahony and Göran Gunnar and Kevork Hintlian, eds., The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land (London). 1995 The Cenacle. Topographical Setting for Acts 2:4445. Pp. 303-321 in Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, vol. 4. The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Settings (Grand Rapids and Carlisle).

Price, Jonathan J. 1992 Jerusalem under Siege. The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 C. E. (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 3; Leiden, New York, Köln). Pritz, Ray A. 1988 Nazarene Jewish Christianity. From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (StPB 37; Leiden).

Murray, Archibald S. 1895 Latin inscription in the Wall of Neby Daud, Jerusalem. PEFQSt 27: 130.

Reeg, Gottfried and Hüttenmeister, Frowald 1984 Israel. Synagogen, Lehrhäuser und Gerichtshöfe (1.-7. Jahrhundert). TAVO Blatt B VI 17 (Wiesbaden).

Noth, Martin 1939 Die Geschichte des Namens Palästina. ZDPV 62: 125-144. Reprint: Pp. 294-208 in Hans Walter Wolff, ed., Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Alterumskunde. Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels, Bd. I (Neukirchen 1971).

Reifenberg, Adolf 1947 Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 2nd ed.). Riesner, Rainer 1995 Das Jerusalemer Essenerviertel und die Urgemeinde. Josephus, Bellum Judaicum V 145; 1QMiqdasch 46,13-16; Apostelgeschichte 1-6 und die Archäologie. ANRW II 26.2: 1822-1824.

Otto, Eckhardt 1980 Jerusalem. Die Geschichte der Heiligen Stadt von den Anfängen bis zur Kreuzfahrerzeit (Urban Taschenbücher 308; Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln). 165

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Ritterling, Emil 1924-1925 Art. Legio. PRE 12.1 (1924), 1211-1328; 12.2 (1925), 1329-1829.

Seigne, Jacques and Wagner, Christophe 1992 Jerash: notes sur l’étude et la restauration de la porte sud. ADAJ 36: 241-259.

Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch 1934 L’inscription de l’arc de triomphe de Djerasch. CRAI 1934: 264-272.

Simon, Marcel 1972 La migration à Pella. Légende ou réalité? RSR 60: 37-54; reprint: pp. 477-494 in Le Christianisme antique et son contexte religieux. Scripta Varia, vol. II (WUNT 23.2; Tübingen 1981).

Safrai, Shmuel 1972 The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem. ScrHie 23: 62-78. 1980 Pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Pp. 376-393 in Aharon Oppenheimer, Uriel Rappaport and Menahem Stern, eds., Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume Jerusalem). (Hebrew; English summary pp. XXIXXII).

Smallwood, Edith Mary 1959-1961 The Legislation of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius against Circumcision. Latomus 18 (1959), 334-347; 20 (1961), 93-96. 1962a Palestine c. A. D. 115-118. Historia 11: 500-510. 1962b Atticus, Legate of Judaea Under Trajan. JRS 52: 131-133. 1976 The Jews Under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden, 1981, 2nd ed.).

Schäfer, Peter 1981a The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Pp. 74-94 in Jakob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer, eds., Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem). 1981b Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 1; Tübingen). 1983 Geschichte der Juden in der Antike. Die Juden Palästinas von Alexander dem Großen bis zur arabischen Eroberung (Stuttgart). 1990 Hadrian’s Policy in Judaea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. A Reassessment. Pp. 281-303 in Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT.S 100; Sheffield).

Sowers, Sidney 1970 The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight. ThZ 26: 305-320. Stinespring, William F. 1939 Hadrian in Palestine, 129/130 A. D. JAOS 59: 360-365. Strecker, Georg 1958 Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudo-klementinen (TU 70; Berlin, 1981, 2nd ed.). Syme, Ronald 1978 Antonius Saturninus. JRS 68: 12-21. Reprint: Pp. 1070-1084 in Roman Papers, Anthony R. Birley, ed., vol. 3 (Oxford 1984). Taylor, Joan E. 1993 Christians and the Holy Places. The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford).

Schick, Conrad 1887 Notes from Jerusalem. PEFQSt 19: 218-221. 1889 Recent Discoveries in Jerusalem. PEFQSt 21: 6368.

Testa, Emmanuele 1962 Il simbolismo dei giudeo-cristiani (SBF.CMa 14; Jerusalem).

Schlatter, Adolf 1897 Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians (BFChTh 1,3; Gütersloh). Reprint: Pp. 12-97 in Synagoge und Kirche bis zum Barkochba-Aufstand. Vier Studien zur Geschichte des Rabbinats und der jüdischen Christenheit in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. Mit einem Geleitwort von Joachim Jeremias (Kleine Schriften von Adolf Schlatter 3; Stuttgart 1966).

Thackeray, Henry St. J. 1928 Josephus in Nine Volumes, vol. 3, The Jewish War, Books IV-VII (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge and London). Thompson, Lloyd A. 1982 Domitian and the Jewish Tax. Historia 31: 329342.

Schürer, Emil 1901 Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Bd. I (Leipzig, 3rd ed.). 1973 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, eds., vol. I (Edinburgh).

Thomsen, Peter 1920-1921 Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung. ZDPV 43 (1920), 138-158; 44 (1921), 161, 90-168; Nachtrag: ZDPV 64 (1941), 203-256.

Schwier, Helmut 1989 Tempel und Tempelzerstörung. Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66-74 n. Chr.) (NTOA 11; Freiburg Schweiz, Göttingen).

Tushingham, Arlotte D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967, vol. I (Toronto).

166

BIEBERSTEIN, AELIA CAPITOLINA

van den Broek, Roelof 1988 Der Brief des Jakobus an Quadratus und das Problem der judenchristlichen Bischöfe von Jerusalem (Eusebius, HE IV,5,1-3). Pp. 56-65 in T. Baarda, A. Hilhorst, G. P. Luttikhuizen and A. S. van der Woude, eds., Text ad Testimony. Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (Kampen).

Weber, Thomas 1991 Gadara of the Decapolis. Tiberiade Gate, Qanawat el-Far‘oun and Bait Rusan. Achievements in excavation and restoration at Umm Qais 19891990. NEA 2: 123-133. Weber, Thomas and Hoffmann, Adolf 1990 Gadara of the Decapolis. Preliminary Report of the 1989 Season at Umm Qeis. ADAJ 34: 321-342.

van der Vliet, N. 1938 “Sainte Marie où elle est née” et la Piscine Probatique (Jerusalem and Paris).

Weber, Wilhelm 1907 Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig).

Van Esbroeck, Michael 1973 Une homélie sur l’église attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem. Le Muséon 86: 283-304. 1984 Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix. AB 102: 99-134.

Webster, Graham 1985 The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A. D. (New York, 1969, 1st ed., 1979, 2nd ed., reprinted with corrections 1981; 1985, 3rd ed., reprinted 1987).

Verheyden, Jozef 1988 De vlucht van de Christenen naar Pella. Onderzoek van het getuigenis van Eusebius en Epiphanius (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Leteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, 50, Nr. 127; Brussel).

Wehnert, Jürgen 1991 Die Auswanderung der Jerusalemer Christen nach Pella – historisches Faktum oder theologische Konstruktion? ZKG 102: 231-255. Weigand, Edmund 1928 Propylon und Bogentor in der östlichen Reichskunst, ausgehend vom Mithridatestor in Ephesus. WienJbKg (19) NS 5: 71-114.

Vetrali, Lodovico 1967 Le Iscrizioni dell’Acquedotto Romano presso Betlemme. LA 17: 149-161.

Wightman, Gregory 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 519; Oxford). 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem. From the Canaanites to the Mamluks (Mediterranean Archaeology, Supplement 4; Sydney).

Vincent, Hugues and Abel, Félix-Marie 1914 Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d'archéologie et d'histoire, vol. II. 1-2, Jérusalem nouvelle. Aelia Capitolina, le Saint-Sépulcre et le Mont des Oliviers (Paris). 1922a Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d'archéologie et d'histoire, vol. II.3. (Paris). 1922b Jérusalem nouvelle. La Sainte-Sion et les sanctuaires de second ordre (Paris). 1926 Jérusalem nouvelle. Sainte-Anne et les sanctuaires hors de la ville. Histoire monumentale de Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. II.4 (Paris 1926).

Wilkinson, John 1975 The Streets of Jerusalem. Levant 7: 118-136. 1976 Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem During the Byzantine Period. PEQ 108: 75-101. 1978 Jerusalem as Jesus knew it. Archaeology as Evidence (London). 1981 Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, revised ed. (Jerusalem and Warminster).

Vincent, Louis-Hugues and Steve, Marie-Ambroise 1954 Jérusalem de l'Ancien Testament. Recherches d' archéologie et d'histoire, vol. I. Archéologie de la ville (Paris). 1956 Jérusalem de l'Ancien Testament. Recherches d' archéologie et d'histoire, vol. II. Archéologie du Temple [et] III. Évolution historique de la ville (Paris).

Willers, Dietrich 1990 Hadrians panhellenisches Programm. Archäologische Beiträge zur Neugestaltung Athens durch Hadrian (16. Beiheft zur Halbjahresschrift Antike Kunst; Basel).

Vriezen, Karel J. 1994 Die Ausgrabungen unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan, Jerusalem (1970-1974). Mit Beiträgen von Ian A. Carradice und Eitan Tchernov (ADPV 19; Wiesbaden).

Wilson, Charles W. 1905 The Camp of the Tenth Legion at Jerusalem and the City of Aelia. PEFQSt 37: 138-144. Windisch, Hans 1925 Die ältesten christlichen Palästinapilger. ZDPV 48: 145-158.

Wagner-Lux, Ute and Brakmann, Heinzgerd 1995 Art. Jerusalem I (stadtgeschichtlich). RAC 17, Lieferung 132/133: 631-718.

Yadin, Yigal 1971 Bar Kokhba. The rediscovery of the legendary 167

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

hero of the last Jewish Revolt against Imperial Rome (London and Jerusalem).

HSCP HThR HUCA IMJ INJ JAC JANES JAOS JEH JJS JQR JRH JRS JSOT.S

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Museum Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series LA Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Liber Annuus LIW.M Leichtweiss-Institut für Wasserbau der Technischen Universität Braunschweig, Mitteilungen MDAI.R Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung NEA The Near East in Antiquity. German Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies PEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PJb Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts PRE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine RB Revue biblique SBAW.PPH Sitzungsberichte der (königlichen) Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Classe SBF.CMa Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio maior SBF.CMi Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio minor ScrHie Scripta Hierosolymitana SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity StPB Studia Post-Biblica TAVO Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift TU Texte und Untersuchungen WienJbKg Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Zahrnt, Michael 1991 Zahl, Verteilung und Charakter der hadrianischen Kolonien (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Aelia Capitolina). Pp. 463-485 in Eckart Olshausen and Holger Sonnabend, eds., Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 2,1984 und 3,1987 (Geographica Historica 5; Bonn). Zangemeister, Karl 1887 Römische Inschrift von Jerusalem. ZDPV 10: 4953. Zangenberg, Jürgen 1992 Aelia Capitolina. Aspekte der Geschichte Jerusalems in römischer Zeit (70 - ca. 320 n. Chr.). Natur und Mensch. Jahresmitteilungen der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft Nürnberg: 33-52. Bibliographical Abbreviations AA AB ADAJ

Archäologischer Anzeiger Analecta Bollandiana Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan ADPV Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins AE L'année épigraphique AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt BAncSyn Bulletin of the Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues BAR British Archaeological Series BASP Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists BFChTh Beiträge zur Förderung der christlichen Theologie BJb Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies BTS Bible et Terre Sainte CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum CRAI Comptes rendus des séances de l'académie des inscriptions et belles lettres CRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique EI Eretz-Israel ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel FRLANT Forschungen zur Literatur und Religion des Alten und Neuen Testaments HA Hadashot Arkeologiot

168

CHAPTER 16 JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD Robert Schick Wilderness of Judaea by Cyril of Scythopolis (1939; 1991); the Life of Peter the Iberian (Raabe 1895), who came to Jerusalem around 430; and the Life of Melania the Younger (Clark 1984), who between 417 and her death in 439 lived in a convent on the Mount of Olives.

Jerusalem underwent a radical change and expansion in the course of the Byzantine period from the time of Constantine in the early fourth century up to the Islamic Conquest of the 630s. The Christianization of the Roman Empire returned the city to a position of prominence that it had lost after the Jewish Revolts of 66-70 and 132-135 against the Romans. The Byzantine period is amply documented and this article can hardly attempt to summarize everything that is known about the period. Rather, this article will concentrate on selected aspects of the period, such as the impact of the Sasanian occupation from 614 and 628, the ecclesiastical and secular administration of the city, the religious and ethnic composition of the city, and the secular archaeological features of the city. A discussion of the churches is in a separate chapter by Michele Piccirillo.

A number of pilgrim accounts and itineraries are also preserved, which have been conveniently translated into English by the Palestine Pilgrims Text Society in the 1890s and by Wilkinson (1971; 1977; see Wilkinson 1976). Among the more significant general discussions of Christian pilgrimages in the Byzantine period are the studies by Küzler (1994) and Hunt (1982). The first surviving pilgrim account is by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux from 333 (Wilkinson 1971: 153-163). Egeria’s lengthy account of her pilgrimage in 381-384 (Gingras 1970; Wilkinson 1971) is especially valuable for the liturgical practices in Jerusalem. Jerome’s Letter 108 to Eustochius, written in 404, describes the pilgrimage years earlier of Jerome and Paula (1892c; Wilkinson 1977: 46-52). The Jerusalem Breviarius from the early sixth century (Wilkinson 1977: 59-61) and Theodosius’ account between 518 and 530 (Wilkinson 1977: 62-71) are guidebooks briefly listing the various holy places; Theodosius may have used a map of Jerusalem as the basis for his itineraries in the city (Tsafrir 1986). The Piacenza Pilgrim provides a particularly vivid account of his pilgrimage around 570 (Wilkinson 1977: 78-89).

Jerusalem in the Byzantine period is hardly an uninvestigated topic in modern scholarship. General summaries abound (Tsafrir 1978 is one of the better ones), along with a host of specialized studies of specific historical and archaeological topics (for comprehensive bibliography and summaries of the physical remains of the archaeological sites and monuments, see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994). The Evidence The study of the history of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period is based on the one hand on the study of written records in a variety of languages, principally Greek and Latin, and on the other hand on the results of numerous archaeological excavations and the architectural analysis of standing monuments.

The lectionaries and liturgical calendars record the feasts celebrated in the churches of Jerusalem and the neighboring villages in the course of the church year and so are particularly valuable for their attestations of church buildings. Of particular note are the surviving texts in Armenian and Georgian: the Armenian Lectionary (Renoux 1969, 1971), which reflects the order of lessons in use in Jerusalem after 417, the Georgian Lectionary (Tarchnishvili 1959), and the Georgian Calender (Garitte 1958). For the development of the Christian liturgy in Jerusalem, see the studies by Kretschmar (1971 and 1988), Baldovin (1987) and Cabrera (1996).

The bulk of the recorded history of Byzantine Jerusalem comes from a wide variety of Christian authors, who concentrate on the role of prominent individuals – emperors, bishops, monks, and pilgrims – in the development of the Christian nature of the city. No authors report secular events as the principal focus of their writings. The account of the Sasanian sack of Jerusalem in 614 (Garitte 1960, 1973) is the single most informative source, especially for the buildings in Jerusalem. Excerpts from the primary sources about the various holy sites and other places in Jerusalem, arranged according to the individual sites, have been collected by Baldi (1955) and Bagatti and Testa (1982).

The Madaba mosaic map, dating to the second half of the sixth century, or perhaps the beginning of the seventh century, is the most important visual depiction of Jerusalem from the Byzantine period. The details of the large 93 by 54 cm vignette depicting Jerusalem in the mosaic map have been discussed numerous times (e.g. AviYonah 1954; Wilkinson 1976: 97-101; Tsafrir 1978: 575587); the map was also the topic of an international conference in Amman in 1997 (Piccirillo and Alliata 1999).

The Lives of famous saints and monks are valuable, notably the collection of Lives of famous monks in the 169

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

The vignette, labeled as the “Holy City Jerusalem”, depicts a walled city with some 20 towers. St. Stephen’s Gate (Damascus Gate) is prominently visible with a large plaza and a pillar behind it. The Probatica Gate (Lion’s Gate), David’s Gate (Jaffa Gate), and Zion Gate are also shown. The cardo (Khan al-Zayt Street), flanked by colonnades, bisects the city from north to south; a less prominent colonnaded north-south cardo (al-Wad Street) runs farther to the east. The fact that al-Wad Street, not Khan al-Zayt Street, is on axis with the Damascus Gate (see Wilkinson 1975: 134, fig. 12), and that the Madaba Map shows a triumphal arch at the north end of al-Wad Street, suggests that it, not Khan al-Zayt Street, was the original principal north-south street, the cardo maximus. The mosaicist would have depicted Khan al-Zayt Street more prominently following its extension to the south by Justinian and his construction of the New Church of the Theotokos. On the map another street (the modern Via Dolorosa) runs west from Lion’s Gate, while the Decumanus Maximus (David Street) extends east from Jaffa Gate and then turns south. The vignette depicts some 40 or so buildings. The churches are distinguished by their red roofs, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of Holy Zion, the New Church of the Theotokos, the Church of Holy Wisdom and the Probatica Church are clearly identifiable. The other churches and secular buildings are more difficult to identify. The mosaic floor in the Church of Saint Stephen at Umm al-Rasas in Jordan, probably dating to 718 AD, (Piccirillo and Alliata 1994: 177-179, 217; for the date see Schick 1995: 472473) also includes a vignette of Jerusalem, depicting a stereotypical walled city with towers and a gate, with what may be the rotunda of the Anastasis in the center.

of the invaders was Jerusalem and that it was their excessive desire for gold which made them hasten to this particular city. Its walls uncared for in time of peace were accordingly put in repair” (Jerome, Letter 77 to Oceanus 8, 1892b: 161). The Huns, however, lacked the ability to lay siege to cities, and as a result Jerusalem was spared, although many villages were destroyed. Later in 405 Isaurians invaded Syria and devastated Phoenicia and as far south as Galilee. Jerome records that the defenses of Jerusalem had again to be repaired in haste: “Palestine has been panic-stricken and particularly Jerusalem; we have all been engaged in making not books, but walls. There has also been a severe winter and an almost unbearable famine” (Jerome, Letter to Theophilus 114, 1892d: 214-215).

The name of the city throughout the Byzantine period was “Aelia”, continuing the name of Colonia Aelia Capitolina given it by the Emperor Hadrian, although the name “Jerusalem” also came back into use. During the final wave of persecutions of Christians in the first years of the fourth century, Firmilianus, the Roman governor in Caesarea, did not recognize the name “Jerusalem” (Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine 11:8-14; 1890b: 352), while Eusebius, in the late third and early fourth century, used the name “Jerusalem” only when referring to biblical events, while he used “Aelia” in contemporary contexts. The name “Holy City” also occurs frequently in later Christian writings, as for example in Cyril of Scythopolis.

The seventh canon of the first ecumenical church council of Nicaea in 325 confirmed that Jerusalem, although worthy of honor, was subject to the principal whereby bishops were all subordinate to the metropolitan bishop of their province. In the case of Jerusalem that meant the metropolitan bishop of Caesarea, the capital of the province (Mansi 1757, 2: 635-1082, canon seven). Friction between the bishops of Jerusalem and their at least nominal superiors in Caesarea was to continue until Jerusalem was elevated to the status of a patriarchate at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Rubin 1982, 1996). The residence of the patriarchs, built by Eudocia in the mid fifth century, was on the north side of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Jerusalem and Palestine as a whole were peaceful throughout the Byzantine period, indeed as peaceful and prosperous as anywhere in the empire. Only in the early seventh century did any military events cause harm to the city (for which see below) and only rarely was there even any external military threat to the area. Two such cases are recorded by Jerome. An invasion of Huns in 395 into Syria led many people in Jerusalem, including Jerome, to flee to the coast, where they boarded ships offshore, ready to evacuate: “It was generally agreed that the goal

Table One: The Bishops and Patriarchs from Constantine to the Islamic Conquest

Ecclesiastical Administration The leadership of the Christians in Jerusalem was in the hands of its bishops. The complete list of bishops of Jerusalem is known, but there is some uncertainty about the precise years in a few cases. Little is known about several of the bishops beyond stray anecdotes or letters that they wrote or received, others were overshadowed by more prominent personalities, while still others were forceful leaders. The most well documented aspect of a bishop’s time in office is often his involvement in the various early Christian theological disputes, the larger significance of which is beyond this scope of this article. Brief biographies with full references to Jerusalem’s bishops can be found in the standard reference works (e.g., Fedalto 1988; Le Quien 1740; Smith and Wace 1877-1887).

Name Macarius I Maximus II Heraclius Cyril Eutychius Cyril 170

Start 314 335 350/351 348 357 359

End 333 after 348 350/351 357 359 (Arian) 360

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Irenaeus Cyril Hilarius Cyril John II Praylius Juvenal Theodosius Juvenal Anastasius Martyrius Salustius Elias I John III Peter Macharius Eustachius Macarius II John IV Amos Isaac Zacharias Modestus Sophronius Severus

360 362 before 376 378 386 417 422 451 before 454 458 478 486 494 516 524 544 552 563/564 574 594 601 609 630 633/634 590

Olives caused great excitement in Jerusalem. Cyril wrote a letter to the Emperor Constantius describing it (Bihain 1973). Cyril devoted his energies to promoting his claim that Jerusalem should have supremacy over Caesarea, which led to Acacius deposing him in 357-358. Cyril retired to Antioch and Tarsus, and his appeal of his deposition was heard at the Council of Selucia in 359. The council ended up deposing Acacius and reinstating Cyril, but another council called by the Emperor Constantius soon reversed that decision and banished Cyril anew. When Julian became emperor in 361, Cyril was reinstated as bishop of Jerusalem and continued as bishop during the attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which ended with the earthquake of May 19, 363 (see below). In 366 his opponent Acacius of Caesarea died, and Cyril promptly claimed the prerogative of appointing the bishop of Caesarea and selected his nephew Gelasius in 367. Later in 367 the Arian emperor Valens banished Cyril for a third time. Upon the death of Valens and the accession of Theodosius in early 379, Cyril returned to Jerusalem, which he found infested with schism, heresy and other crimes. He appealed to the council of Antioch in 379, and Gregory of Nyssa briefly came to Jerusalem to help (Gregory of Nyssa, On Pilgrimages, 1892: 382383; Wilkinson 1981: 21). Cyril attended the second ecumenical church council in Constantinople in 381, where Jerusalem was proclaimed the Mother of All Churches (Mansi 1759, 3: 585-588). Cyril continued as bishop until his death in 386. Thus he was bishop for 35 years, but was in exile for 18 of them. During the periods of Cyril’s banishments, Eutychius, Irenaeus (Erennius) and Hilarius were the Arian bishops.

361 (Arian) 367 378 (Arian) 386 417 418/420 451 453 (Monophysite) 458 478 486 494 516 524 544 552 563 574 593/594 601 609 628 630/634 638 635 (Monophysite)

The bishop for much of Constantine’s reign was Macarius I. He attended the first ecumenical church council of Nicaea in 325. Macarius was intimately involved with Constantine’s construction of the Golgotha and the Anastasis churches (Church of the Holy Sepulchre) as well as the Eleona church on the Mount of Olives, about which many legendary elements soon developed concerning Helena, Constantine’s mother (see Borgehammar 1991 and Drijvers 1992).

The tenure of John (Ioannes) is overshadowed by the abundantly documented rivalry between Rufinus, resident in a monastery on the Mount of Olives, and Jerome in Bethlehem over the Origenist controversy (Kelly 1975). Later John became involved in the Pelagian controversy when Pelagius came to Jerusalem in 415. John did not support Augustine’s condemnation of Pelagius and in a synod in Jerusalem referred the issue to the bishop of Rome; another synod in Lod in 415 affirmed Pelagius’ orthodoxy. John took control of relics of St. Stephen the Protomartyr when they were found in 415 at Kephar Gamala. The timing of their finding during the synod in Lod seems not to have been fortuitous. At that synod John was still listed in second place after Eulogius of Caesarea.

The next bishop was Maximus II. While a presbyter in Jerusalem he had been a confessor during the final wave of persecutions of Christians under Maximian, and he later served as Macarius’ assistant. Maximus attended the Council of Tyre in 335 and seems to have joined in the Arian condemnation of Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria. Later Maximus was on the Orthodox side at the Council of Sardica in 343 and welcomed Athanasius in Jerusalem. Maximus on his deathbed may have appointed Heraclius as his successor until Cyril deposed him. Cyril was probably born in Jerusalem around 315. He was ordained by Macarius around 335 and ordained priest by Maximus around 345, who gave him the task of instructing catechumens. Cyril’s Lenten lectures to the catechumens in the basilica of the Holy Cross around 347 are his chief literary work (1893). The circumstances of Cyril’s elevation to the bishopric are obscure, but it seems that Arians seized control in Jerusalem, and only after a time he was appointed bishop by Acacius, the semi-Arian metropolitan bishop of Caesarea. On May 7, 351 a remarkable atmospheric event in which a luminous cross was seen stretching from Golgotha to the Mount of

Praylius, the next bishop, initially accepted the orthodoxy of Pelagius, but soon reversed his position and banished Pelagius from Jerusalem. In 419 a miraculous cross of light on the Mount of Olives was seen during an earthquake (Marcellinus Comes 1861: 924). Juvenal (Iuvenalis) devoted his career to using all means both fair and foul to promoting the status of Jerusalem as a patriarchate on a par with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, and indeed ahead of Antioch. 171

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

agreed to reject the Council of Chalcedon. But Sabas was successful in convincing John to defend Chalcedonian orthodoxy, for which he imprisoned in Jerusalem for a time. John later formally rejected Monophysitism, but the Emperor Anastasius was unable to banish him before he died in 518. With the accession of the Chalcedonian Emperor Justin, John returned to imperial favor.

At the Council of Ephesus in 431 his opposition to Nestorius gained him the support of Cyril of Alexandria for his patriarchal aspirations. Juvenal also played a prominent role in the robber council of Ephesus in 449, which almost led to his deposition during the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But that Council ended with the promotion of Jerusalem to the status of a patriarchate, in control of the provinces of the three Palestines. But many of the monks in Palestine did not accept the proceedings of the council of Chalcedon, and under the leadership of Theodosius, a monk supported by the Empress Eudocia, then resident in Jerusalem, Juvenal was forced to flee from Jerusalem. Theodosius continued as bishop for 20 months, but with the support of the Emperor Marcian, Juvenal was eventually reinstated as patriarch. It seems that it was Juvenal who began celebrating Christmas and Epiphany on different days, following Western custom, rather than together on January 6 as in the Monophysite tradition, a significant theological distinction of emphasis on the manifestations of the human or divine natures of Christ (Honigmann 1950b).

During Peter’s tenure, the views of Origen spread among some of the monasteries in Palestine, causing frequent disturbances among the rival monks. Peter opposed Origenism, but was pressured by Justinian to accept his Three Chapters. A synod was held in Jerusalem on September 19, 536 to affirm the Chalcedonian council held in Constantinople earlier in the year. The appointment of Macarius II as patriarch was not confirmed by Justinian because of his Origenistic tendencies. Justinian appointed Eustochius in his place. Eustochius held a synod in Jerusalem in 553 that condemned Origenism. He also forcibly rooted out the pro-Origenist monks in the New Laura monastery in 555. Eustochius was deposed in 563 and Macarius reinstated.

Anastasius ordained the future patriarchs, Martyrius and Elias, as presbyters of the Church of the Anastasis in 473. Martyrius and Elias were both monks who came from Egypt in 457 and at first stayed with St. Euthymius in his laura in the Wilderness of Judaea. Martyrius later founded a monastery just east of Jerusalem, now in Ma‘ale Adummim (excavated in the early 1980s – Magen and Talgam 1990). Martyrius as patriarch ended the Eutychian schism, led by Gerontius, the archimandate of the monasteries of Meliana the Younger on the Mount of Olives, who earlier tried to commit outrages similar to those of Theodosius, the opponent of Juvenal after the Council of Chalcedon. The eventual reunification with the Chalcedonians was celebrated with a public festival in the squares of Jerusalem (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius, 1939: 63, 66-67; 1991: 59, 63-64; Binns 1994: 188-189).

Little is known about John (Ioannes) IV beyond the letter he received from Gregory, the bishop of Rome, about pastoral care (1849a: 468-479). Amos built a church of John the Baptist in Jerusalem. Isaac (Hesychius) wrote a letter upon his accession to Gregory the bishop of Rome. Gregory replied and urged Isaac to correct the strife and dissension in the church of Jerusalem, where simony was rife (1849c: 1164-1167). While in Jerusalem in the winter of 609-610 to suppress rioting, Bonosus deposed and killed Isaac for unclear reasons, and appointed Zacharias in his place. Zacharias was patriarch at the time of the Sasanian invasion of 614 and was taken to Persia in exile. From there he wrote a letter to the remaining Christians in Jerusalem in which he condemned their moral laxity (Garitte 1960, 1973: xxii).

Little is recorded about Salustius, other than that he ordained Sabas as a priest and later appointed Sabas head of all of the solitary monks in the patriarchate of Jerusalem and Theodosius as head of all the coenobitic monks.

Modestus became the locum tenens for the exiled Zacharias, and after Zacharias’ death, Heraclius appointed Modestus patriarch in 630. Modestus soon died by the spring of 631.

Elias I built a monastery near the episcopal residence and brought there the monks who had formerly lived in the area of the Citadel. Theologically, Elias I accepted the Henoticon of Leo, but the Monophysite Emperor Anastasius sought to banish him for his refusal to reject the Council of Chalcedon. Sabas was able to delay the sentence of banishment for a time, but Elias was banished in 513 to ‘Aqabah, where he died in 518. A synod was held in Jerusalem on August 6, 518 to affirm the synod in Constantinople earlier that year that restored Chalcedonian orthodoxy after the death of Anastasius.

After Modestus’ death, the patriarchal see remained vacant for a few years due to the Monothelitism controversy, by which the Emperor Heraclius attempted to bridge the gap between the Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian Monophysite Christians by promoting a theological formula espousing the single-energy or single-will of Christ’s human and divine nature (Winkelmann 1987; Elert 1957; Schönborn 1972). Sergius, the Monothelitic bishop of Joppa, became the locum tenens, but it seems that the local opposition by the Christians in Jerusalem to Monothelitism prevented Heraclius from appointing him patriarch (Schönborn 1972: 85-89).

John (Ioannes) III was made bishop by Olympius, the prefect of Palestine, after he banished Elias, once John 172

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

recourse to civil authorities in the fall of 395 to obtain an order to expel Jerome from Palestine, thwarted only by the invasion of Huns and the death of Rufinus, the praetorian prefect (Jones, Martindale, and Morris 1971: 778781) that year (Jerome, Against John 43; 1892f: 447).

Sophronius, a monk in Egypt was a leading opponent to Monothelitism and when he came to Jerusalem in late 633 or early 634, the priests, monks, and laity of Jerusalem made him patriarch (Eutychius 1985: 134-135; Sophronius 1865: 3149-3150). Sophronius devoted much of his energies to combating Monothelitism. He remained patriarch during the Islamic conquests of the mid-630s and seemed to have died in 638.

The governor came from Caesarea in 438 at the time of the anti-Jewish agitation of Bar Sauma (see below). A tribune named Elias (Martindale 1980: 390) was resident in Jerusalem in the household of Eudocia in the mid-fifth century (Raabe 1895: 92).

A separate line of Monophysite bishops in Jerusalem began with Severus, bishop from 590 to 635. Bishops throughout the Byzantine Empire were not solely concerned with religious affairs; they also had some secular responsibilities. In one recorded example in Jerusalem, John II used a large work force to dig ditches to find water during a drought (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939:168; 1991: 177-178). Also, as noted below, Zacharias appears to have been the leader of the city at the time of the Sasanian invasion in 614, and Sophronius surrendered the city to the Muslim Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.

Summus (Martindale 1980: 1038-1039), who had held several official appointments, served as an advisor to the Patriarch in 520 (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 168; 1991: 178). In the 530s he was the dux of Palestine, and Choricius of Gaza praised him for acquiring lands near Jerusalem and devoting the revenues to helping the poor (1929: 29-30). A few other high government officials lived in Jerusalem at some point in their lives, for example Theodotus (Martindale 1992: 1301), the praetorian prefect of the Orient in the 540s (Procopius, Secret History 9.42, 1969: 117), the consul Leontius (Martindale 1992: 776-777) at the end of the sixth century (Gregory I 1849b: 937-938), and of course the Empress Eudocia, resident from 442 to 460.

Other religious officials are mentioned incidentally in the sources, such as a cleric of the holy Anastasis, guardian of the sacred vessels, and rural bishop; lector; and unique to Jerusalem “guardian of the cross” (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius, 1939: 35; 1991: 30-31). A woman, Mary, was a cantor of the Anastasis (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Cyriacus, 1939: 233; 1991: 257) in the early to mid sixth century. A number of tombstones and other inscriptions in Greek from the Byzantine period have been found in Jerusalem that refer to ecclesiastic occupations, such as bishop, diacon, diaconess, subdeacon, hegumenos, priest, presbyter, doorman, monk, mosaicist and censor (see Thomsen 1921, 1941: passim; Meimaris 1986: passim).

In the fifth-sixth centuries tax collection in the Byzantine Empire was in the hands of the praetorian prefect. A glimpse into the tax situation in Jerusalem is given by the trip of Saint Sabas to Constantinople in 511, when he requested that the Emperor Anastasius reduce the superflua discriptio tax imposed on the Church of the Anastasis. That tax was due to indigent and bankrupt persons who could not pay their tax bill, which was then transferred to the various public institutions, such as the Church of the Anastasis, other churches, and landowners. Anastasius agreed at first to reduce the tax, until a tax official objected on the grounds that the presence of Nestorians and Jews in the city made it unworthy of special favors. A part of the tax was later remitted by Justin, and the tax in its entirety by Justinian (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 145-146; 1991: 155-157).

Civil Administration In contrast to ecclesiastical affairs, the civil administration of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period is scarcely documented in the historical sources (Di Segni 1996). The governor (archon) of the province continued to reside in the capital Caesarea, and he only came to Jerusalem on occasion. Among the few attestations of civil authorities in connection with Jerusalem, Constantine instructed the deputy of the praetorian prefects, Dracilianus (Jones, Martindale, and Morris 1971: 271), and the governor of the province of Palestine to provide Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, with whatever assistance he needed for the construction of the Holy Sepulchre (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.31-32; 1890a: 528-529). An imperial escort sent from Constantinople accompanied the bishops who adjourned the council at Tyre in 336 to attend the dedication of the Holy Sepulchre, and they organized a splendid festival to mark the occasion (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4:43-44; 1890a: 551-552). Bishop John had

Military Administration A military presence in the city is also rarely documented. The Legio X Fretensis, which had been stationed in Jerusalem since the defeat of the Jewish Revolt in 70) was transferred from Jerusalem to ‘Aqabah, most likely under Diocletian at the end of the third century. That transfer left stationed in Jerusalem only a smaller garrison of Equites Mauri Illyriciani, as recorded in the fifth century Notitia Dignitatum (1876: Or xxxiv.21). The military authority in the province of Palestine was in the hands of a dux, only rarely attested in Jerusalem (e.g. 173

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

century the Origenist monks had the upper hand in Jerusalem and assaulted their monastic opponents in the streets of Jerusalem. Some Thracian monks came to Jerusalem in support of the Orthodox and further violence broke out (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 193194; 1991: 202-203). The Patriarch Eustochius eventually had to have the dux Anastasius (Martindale 1992: 64) use force to expel the Origenists from their monastery, the New Laura, in 554 (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 199; 1991: 208).

Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10.11, 1903: 976; John Moschus 49, 1865: 2904). The use of troops in Jerusalem is attested a few times when the ecclesiastical controversies reached a level of disrupting everyday life, such as after the Council of Chalcedon, when opposition by the Christians in Jerusalem to Juvenal was so intense that it provoked rioting bordering on insurrection. Led by Theodosius, a monk supported by the Empress Eudocia, the mob burned houses, killed devout men including a deacon, let free persons convicted on capital charges, broke open the prison, closed the city’s gates, and guarded the city’s walls. Dorotheus, the comes, only deposed Theodosius after 20 months and restored Juvenal as bishop. Dorotheus also stopped the throngs of soldiers guarding Jerusalem and their horses from annoying the monks or crowding their guest-houses (Marcian 1935: 127-129; Coleman-Norton 1966: nos 483-487: 830-849).

An unusual combination of military and monastic authority is the case of Photius (Martindale 1992: 10371039). He was the stepson of Justinian’s general Belisarius, and had served with him in a number of military campaigns, and was honorary consul in 541. He was imprisoned for a time around 542-544 by Theodora, Justinian’s Monophysite wife, but he escaped and fled to Jerusalem, where he became a monk. He soon became the abbot of the New Monastery, associated with Justinian’s New Church of the Theotokos, but once Theodora died, he returned to imperial military service during the remaining years of Justinian’s reign or the reign of Justin II and crushed a Samaritan revolt prior to 572.

In 513 the Emperor Anastasius sent an imperial force to Jerusalem to enforce Monophysitism. Sabas and the other monastic leaders drove out of the city the messengers who had brought pro-Monophysite letters from the patriarch of Antioch and they then gathered all the monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and anathematized the Monophysites, “while the agentes in rebus, magistrates and soldiers sent by the emperor stood by and listened” (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 149; 1991: 158-159).

Donors The city of Jerusalem benefited from many outside donations that supported the construction of churches and monasteries, or facilities to provide for the needs of the pilgrims, who often came sick and impoverished to Jerusalem, or for the needs of the monks from the monasteries east of Jerusalem when they were in Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah (1958) has studied the economic impact of all these donations. He sees three broad periods of funding: the first period of public donations by Constantine and his successors, a second period of donations by private individuals through the time of Eudocia, and resumed public donations under Justinian. The donations had negative economic effects due to the money being invested in unproductive building of churches and being concentrated in the unproductive hands of the clergy, while at the same time the long periods of building activity provided employment and the increase in population stimulated local production. There was also extensive trade in pieces of the True Cross and relics of saints and martyrs. Evidence for relics of the True Cross start around the middle of the fourth century (Drijvers 1992: 81-93).

In 516, when the patriarch Elias refused to accept Monophysitism, the Emperor Anastasius sent Olympus of Caesarea, the dux of Palestine (Martindale 1980: 804) to oust him (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 149152; 1991: 159-162). Olympus came with a military force and banished Elias to ‘Aqabah and made John patriarch in his place, but John reneged on his promise to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon. So soon thereafter the dux Anastasius (Martindale 1980: 80-81), along with Zacharias, the governor (Martindale 1980: 1194), came to Jerusalem in 516-517 with a military force in order to compel the Patriarch John to abandon his opposition to the Monophysite policies of the Emperor Anastasius. The dux jailed John in a prison in Jerusalem, which the population of Jerusalem approved of, because he had plotted against Elias. When John was released from prison, after he had promised that he would publicly repudiate the Council of Chalcedon, he summoned in support all the monks, numbering some 10,000 to the city overnight, who gathered at the church of St. Stephen, north of the city, which was large enough to hold the multitude. With the support of Sabas and Theodosius and those thousands of monks, John anathematized the Monophysites instead, and the dux Anastasius fled back to Caesarea. Also with the dux Anastasius was Hypatius, the nephew of the emperor (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 150-152; 1991: 159-162).

The donations started with the Emperor Constantine, who constructed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and lavished it with such decorations as silver capitals and gold overlay in the ceilings (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.34-40, 1890a: 529-530). Constantine also gave Bishop Macarius a golden robe; the bishop Cyril was accused of having sold that robe (Sozomen 4.25, 1890: 321). Constantine’s sons donated costly vessels, garments and jewelry (Cyril, Lectures 14.14; 1893: 97).

Whatever military or police force was in the city was not always able to keep the peace. For a time in the sixth 174

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Other imperial donors included the Emperor Theodosius, who sent a rich donation to Praylius, the bishop of Jerusalem, for distribution to the needy as well as a golden cross studded with precious stones to be erected on Golgotha. In exchange for these gifts, Praylius dispatched relics of the right arm of Stephen the Protomartyr, in the care of Saint Passarion (Theophanes AM 5920, 1885: 8687; Vanderlinden 1946).

(although not the 3000 beds reported by the Piacenza Pilgrim – Wilkinson 1977: 84) as well as a library. Avigad excavated remains of this church in the 1970s (Avigad 1993) and found a vaulted cistern immediately to its south, with a Greek inscription identifying it as a construction of Justinian under the care of Constantine, priest and hegumen of the New Church of the Theotokos in 549/550.

The Empress Eudocia was the largest single donor during her long stay in Jerusalem (Holum 1982, Hunt 1982), although the figure quoted of 20,480 pounds of gold, enough to support hundreds of thousands of people for a year (Avi-Yonah 1958: 44), seems too high. Among her donations were a copper cross weighing 6000 pounds to the Church of the Ascension and 4000 gold pieces yearly for the choir of the Spoudaei monastery. She founded a hospice for the elderly, in which there was a chapel of the holy martyr George (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of John the Hesychast, 1939: 204; 1991: 223), the church of Saint Stephen, and the palatial residence of the patriarch. Eudocia also rebuilt the city wall. Earlier the Late Roman south wall of the city was approximately on line with the Ottoman wall of the Old City. But before 449 Eudocia had a new city wall line constructed farther to the south, which brought the Southeast Hill with the Silwan pool and the West Hill with the churches of St. Peter and the Hagia Sion within the city wall. The southern areas of the city would only have been sparsely settled in the time of Eudocia. The reason for the extension of the wall thus would not seem to have been a lack of space within the old wall line, but rather in order to protect the church and monastic foundations in the south of the city (Wightman 1993).

The Emperor Maurice built the upper church of the Tomb of Mary. After Phocas overthrew him in 602, some of his relatives came to Jerusalem; the abbess Damiana (Martindale 1992: 384) built a church commemorating the place where Saints Cosmas and Damian were born (Milik 1960: 363-364) and unspecified relatives built the Church of Saint Serapion (Milik 1960-1961: 136-137, no. 30, 186-187). Some ecclesiastical figures also donated funds to the city. Aetherius, the archbishop of Ephesus, came to Jerusalem around 509, and distributed much money to the poor and to the monasteries (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of John the Hesychast, 1939: 213; 1991: 232). Pope Gregory (590604) sent money to build a xenodochion, or hospice in Jerusalem (John the Deacon III.52, 1862:110). Passarion, the archimandrite of the anachorites in the areas surrounding Jerusalem, in 429 founded a poorhouse in front of the east gate of the city, which had a church and a small monastery (Raabe 1895: 39; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 3: 413-414). A second building, founded by Hesychius in the early fifth century, which was also in front of the east gate of the city, was still giving bread to poor people and pilgrims in the late sixth century; Helena, Constantine’s mother has started the practice, according to the Piacenca Pilgrim (Wilkinson 1977: 84; Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 3:410). Peter the Iberian and John the Eunuch followed the example of Passarion and opened a hospice for pilgrims without means in their monastery at David’s Tower, but they had to abandon it once their financial means ran out (Raabe 1895: 39).

The Emperor Justinian financed major constructions in Jerusalem, the most significant of which was the New Church of the Theotokos. In 530 in the aftermath of the Samaritan revolt Sabas went to Constantinople, and asked the emperor to found a hospital in Jerusalem for the care of sick strangers and to finish the construction of the New Church of the Theotokos started but not finished by the Patriarch Elias. Justinian ordered a hospital of 100 beds to be built in the center of the city, and assigned it a taxfree income of 1850 solidi for the first year; later he ordered the hospital to be expanded to 200 beds and added the same tax-free income. He sent an architect named Theodorus (Martindale 1992: 1249) to build the church, paid for from the treasury of Palestine. The church was built in 12 years with a large work force and dedicated in 543 (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 175-178; 1991: 184-187; Procopius, Buildings 5.6, 1961: 343-349). Procopius (Buildings 5.9 1961: 357-359) also records other building projects by Justinian in the city including a Monastery of the Iberians and a Monastery of St. Mary on the Mount of Olives.

After Elias I became patriarch in 494, he gathered together the Spoudaioi monks living in the vicinity of David’s Tower to a communal life in a monastery, which was located near the patriarchal residence at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The now empty cells in the area of the tower were purchased by Sabas and used for the establishment of a hospice for the monks of his Great Laura in the Wilderness of Judaea, He purchased another hospice for monks coming from abroad, with 170 gold pieces given by an anonymous donor (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 116; 1991: 125). Sabas also founded a hospice in Jerusalem for the Castellium monastery (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 116; 1991: 125-126). The Monasteries of Euthymius and Theoctistus for a time shared a hospice in Jerusalem, but after 485 they separated and the monastery of Euthymius purchased a hospice near David’s Tower in Jerusalem that had previously belonged to the monastery of

The New Church of the Theotokos was by far the largest basilica of the city, with a hospice and a spacious hospital 175

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Chariton (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Cyriacus, 1939: 226; 1991: 249).

at improving the situation and complained in a letter (On Pilgrimages 1892: 382-383; Wilkinson 1981: 21):

Other wealthy private individuals donated funds for the construction of churches, such as the aristocratic ladies Poemenia, who before 374 built the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives, and Melania the Elder between 374 and 401 and her granddaughter, Melania the Younger between 417 and 439, who supported the monasteries on the Mount of Olives (see the chapter by Michele Piccirillo in this volume).

If the Divine grace was more abundant about Jerusalem than elsewhere, sin would not be so much the fashion amongst those who live there; but as it is, there is no form of uncleanness that is not perpetrated – amongst them rascality, adultery, theft, idolatry, poisoning, quarrelling, murder are rife; and the last kind of evil is so excessively prevalent that nowhere in the world are people so ready to kill each other as there; where kinsmen attack each other like wild beasts, and spill each other’s blood, merely for the sake of lifeless plunder.

Every Good Friday the poor and orphans in Jerusalem received some wheat, wine, honey and a small amount of cash (John Moschus 85, 1865: 2941). Two inscriptions refer to a hospital of the Patriarchs (Thomsen 1921: 57, no. 113) and to John and Verrina of Byzantium’s foundation of a home for the elderly (Thomsen 1921: 6, no. 9).

Jerome, writing in 395, agrees that Jerusalem displays the scenes of Christ’s passion and resurrection “in a populous city with court and garrison, with prostitutes, playactors, and buffoons, and with the medley of persons usually found in such centers” (Letter 58 to Paulinus 58.4; 1892a: 120).

The appropriateness of the large-scale donations did meet with some opposition. In the early 400s, Vigilantius, a monk in Gaul who had visited Jerome briefly in 395, called for a stop to singling out Jerusalem as the place to send alms to support the Christians there. Jerome countered that we should indeed strive to help all poor people without distinction, but St. Paul had repeatedly singled out poor Christians in Jerusalem for special treatment (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 1892e: 422-423).

A few inscriptions found in Jerusalem mention secular occupations, among them: two bakers (Thomsen 1921: 108, no. 174); Eugenios, a comes, in reference to a public bath (Thomsen 1941: 210-211, no. 24a); a cubicularius (chamber-servant) (Thomsen 1921: 99, no. 143); and sedan-chair carriers (Thomsen 1921: 108-109, no. 175). The monks also kept themselves occupied. Melania the Younger and her husband Pinianus performed menial tasks while living in their monasteries on the Mount of Olives; she spun wool and he gathered and sold wood in Jerusalem (Raabe 1895: 28-29). The monks in Rufinus’ monastery on the Mount of Olives were employed copying manuscripts of Cicero for Jerome (Rufinus 1892: 464). Two monks who left their monastery quickly found work constructing the monastery of St. Abraham on the Mount of Olives (John Moschus 97, 1865: 2956).

Secular Buildings While the literary sources mention dozens of churches, monasteries, and other Christian-related buildings, only a few secular public buildings are attested, such as the praetorium (Jerome, Letter 108 to Eustocium, 9; 1892c: 198; Pixner 1979; Benoit 1984) and the prison where the Patriarch John was placed for a time (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 150; 1991: 160). Other public buildings mentioned in the Chronicon Paschale (1860: 613-614) for the time of Hadrian, such as two baths, a theater, a structure with three vaults, a nymphaeum with four fountains and a stepped structure with 12 gates, are undocumented for the Byzantine period, and their locations remain undetermined (see the article by Klaus Bieberstein in this volume). The Roman legionary fortress in the southwest area of the city was abandoned when the Legio X Fretensis withdrew under Diocletian; Passarion constructed a monastery there at the end of the fourth century (Raabe 1895: 39).

Some residents of Jerusalem were well off. Bishop John dined on silver ware, which he refused to sell to help the poor (Synaxarium aethiopicum 1907: 602-604). A nun in Jerusalem was able to keep a servant (John Moschus 60, 1865: 2911-2914). Silversmiths are also attested (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 1939: 185; 1991: 193). Population The increased importance of the city from Constantine’s time onwards, would have led to an increase in the city’s population, but it is difficult to estimate its size. Broshi (1975: 13) estimates that the population of the city in the sixth century may have been as high as 50,000 people in an area of some 1,000 dunams within the city walls, to which must be added others resident outside the walls and in the nearby villages such as Bethany. Jerusalem had plenty of open space, at least up to the mid-fifth century. As reported in the Life of Peter the Iberian (Raabe 1895: 45-46):

Every-Day Life The inhabitants of Jerusalem led their daily lives, although mundane non-ecclesiastical affairs rarely are mentioned in the sources. Several church leaders complained of the low morals of the city. Around 380 Gregory of Nyssa came to Jerusalem to assist Bishop Cyril in improving the morals of the city. He soon left in despair

176

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

the presence of a synagogue on Mount Zion (Wilkinson 1971: 158), although scholars debate whether he meant a Jewish synagogue, or a church for a congregation of Jewish Christians (see the article by Klaus Bieberstein in this volume).

The Holy City of Jerusalem, as it received its new foundation by the Christian King Constantine, was poor in inhabitants and also at first without a city wall, because the earlier wall had been destroyed by the Romans. In short, there were few houses and inhabitants. Because the priests and bishops, who were later in Jerusalem, wanted to have a large number of people live in the city and have a large number of buildings built, they gave permission to whoever wanted and was able, to take any place that he wished in the inhabited parts of the city, without purchase price, and build a dwelling there.

There were certainly Jews resident in Jerusalem during Julian’s reign. In the summer of 362 when the Emperor Julian was in Antioch, he permitted a delegation of Jews to re-erect the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The construction work began by early 363 under the leadership of a high imperial official, Alypius from Antioch (Jones, Martindale, and Morris 1971: 46-47). But the work was interrupted by the earthquake of May 19, 363, which may have occurred the night after work had begun (on the Jewish Lag ba-‘Omer holiday). After the death of the emperor shortly thereafter in July 363 the project was abandoned. The incident is recorded in a number of sources (see Adler 1893; Brock 1976, 1977; Parmentier 1996); the version of the events recorded in the letter attributed to Cyril (Brock 1976: 105; 1977: 275) explicitly mentions a synagogue in Jerusalem.

It seems that this housing expansion refers to the abandoned area of the Roman legionary fortress in the southwest part of the city and/or Mount Zion, newly brought within the city walls by Eudocia. Pagans The presence of pagans in Jerusalem would not have ended overnight after Constantine’s promotion of Christianity. The pagan population continued for some time, but they are scarcely attested. Hadrian’s temple, whether of the Capitolian Triad or of Venus west of the Cardo, was demolished for the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The pilgrim of Bordeaux (Wilkinson 1971: 157) saw two statues on the spot of the former Jewish temple. Jerome (Comm Matt. 24.15; 1969: 226) also mentioned a statue of Jupiter and a second one of Hadrian, but the statue of Jupiter at least would hardly have still been there in his day. Either the Jews who began clearance of the temple ruins in the time of Julian (see below) or the later Christian rulers would not have left the statue of Jupiter in place. Indeed in the aftermath of the earthquake of May 19, 363 the populace “tore down the idols and altars that were in the city” and “many pagans” were baptized (Brock 1977: 275). The populace also set up again the statute [of Hadrian, following Brock 1976: 106; 1977: 279, rather than of Herod as stated in the text] that the Jews had thrown down. There seems to be no reference to pagans in the city after that earthquake of 363.

Mazar reports a possible archaeological trace of this incident from his excavation near the Haram (Mazar 1975: 94). A Hebrew inscription quoting Isaiah 66:14 and so reflecting a time of Jewish national-religious revival, was cut into one of the blocks of the Western Wall. But the inscription is not closely datable, and the rebuilding attempt in the time of Julian provides only one of several plausible settings. More securely datable is the destruction of a monumental building near the southwest corner of the Haram, marked by a deposit of a thick layer of ashes. The latest associated coins date to the reign of Julian (Mazar 1975: 247), but the sketchy available information leaves it impossible to determine whether the fire was deliberately by the Jews, as Mazar suggests, or was accidental due to the earthquake, with which a fire was associated. In 438 Jews again were present in the city, at least until the monk Barsauma had his way. Barsauma was an ascetic monk from northern Syria who was famous for never sitting or lying down, and who also made a name for himself by destroying pagan temples and Jewish synagogues. He made four trips to Jerusalem, the fourth time in response to Eudocia, the wife of the emperor Theodosius II, who was on her first trip to the Holy Land and who had relaxed the ban on Jews entering the city. When Jews came to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, Barsauma and his followers came as well, and when the Jews gathered together, a number were killed by, as the Life of Barsauma has it, stones coming from heaven. Barsauma’s followers were seized and charged with the murder. They were brought before the Empress Eudocia, then staying in Bethlehem. She ordered them to be thrown into prison, but faced with the agitation of a Christian mob who assembled from the neighboring villages; she summoned the governor, who

Jews The role that Jews played in Jerusalem was slight. The Romans had barred Jews from entering the city in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and it seems that the Byzantine emperors maintained that ban (see Gil 1996: 165-167). Jerome reported that the Jews were not allowed to come to Jerusalem except to lament over the ruins of Jerusalem for a payment. On the day that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans [the ninth of Av], one could see them, the women in rags and the old, gathering for mourning (In Zachariam 1:15). But there are a few reports of Jews resident in Jerusalem in the Byzantine period. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux reports in 333 177

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

and led the Armenian Council of Dvin in 536 to prohibit pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Maraval 1985: 75). Later on, at a time when Justinian was repressing the Monophysite celebration of Christmas and Epiphany on the same day (van Esbroeck 1968), the Catholicos Yovhannes II (557574) concluded that the Armenians should remain true to their faith, even if that meant that they had to leave Jerusalem. As a result many Armenians left (Sanjian 1969: 279).

came from Caesarea. At the trial, the medical examiner reported that the Jewish victims had indeed died of divine judgment, so Barsauma and his fellow monks were released (Nau 1927; summarized in Alt 1929; Holum 1982: 217-218; Rubin 1983: 107-108; Peters 1985: 158161). There is no further record of the continued presence of Jews in the city thereafter until the aftermath of the Sasanian conquest in 614. Ethnicity

The number of recorded Armenian pilgrims increases sharply in the early seventh century, perhaps reflecting some special relationship between the Armenians and the Sasanian Persian foes of the Byzantines. For example a group came to Jerusalem during the period of the Sasanian occupation between 614 and 628, as they used to do annually, recorded in an exchange of letters between Modestus and Komitas, the Armenian catholicos (Sebeos 1904: xxv: 70-76); another group of 800 came around 630 (Anastasius the Sinaite 1902: 37:81-82; Nau 1902: 38). Other Armenian pilgrims known from the early seventh century include: Tychikos, who came to Jerusalem after he had recovered from wounds he had received as a soldier in the wars with the Persians, probably in 606-607 (Berbérian 1964: 193; Lemerle 1964: 200-201); Mxit‘ar, a hermit, and two companions who went to Jerusalem in the early 630s (Linder 1996: 158 gives the date of 656) and stayed for a year and who obtained some relics from a fellow Armenian resident in Jerusalem who may have been a Roman citizen; and Joseph who went to Jerusalem for relics three years later, but who returned empty-handed to Armenia after he noticed that all the Christians in Jerusalem were Chalcedonians (Dowsett 1961: 2.50:181-183). A list of Armenian monasteries in Jerusalem in the seventh century appears to have little reliability (Sanjian 1969).

Pilgrims came to Jerusalem from all over the Christian world, producing a unique ethnic mix in the population. Eusebius says that Christian believers were streaming to Jerusalem from every corner of the earth (Dem. Ev. 6.18.23, 1913: 278) and Jerome comments that people come to Jerusalem from all quarters of the world and the city is filled with people of every race (Letter 58 to Paulinus 1892a: 121), and also that multitudes gathered at Jerusalem for Easter (In Marci Evangelium 11.15-17; 1958: 492). Eusebius records that the bishops who attended the dedication of Constantine’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336 included representatives from Macedonia, Pannonia, Moesia, Persia, Bithynia, Thrace, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and the Thebaid (Life of Constantine, 4:43; 1890a: 551), while Egeria records that at the time of the annual eight day Encaenia commemoration of the dedication of Constantine’s Martyrium at Golgotha and the Anastasis on September 17, 335, monks and ascetics come not only from Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, and the Thebaid, but from every region and province (49.1; Wilkinson 1981: 146147). The multinational origin of the pilgrims in Jerusalem would have caused language problems. Egeria reports (47.3-5; 49.1; Wilkinson 1981: 146-147) how among the Christians from every province who gather in Jerusalem, some know both Greek and Syriac, while others know only one or the other. The bishop always speaks in Greek, while a presbyter translates the Greek into Syriac; others can translate into Latin.

The substantial presence of Armenians attested in the written sources is also demonstrated by the results of archaeological excavations, which over the years have uncovered a number of monasteries, identifiable as Armenian from inscriptions, clustered in the area to the north of the city wall (Amit and Wolff 1994), while on the Mount of Olives are an Armenian tomb chapel and church (Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 1:329-335). Another inscription mentioning a monastery of the Armenians was found on the Mount of Olives (Thomsen 1921: 98, no. 141).

The Greek and Latin speakers known to have been in Jerusalem are far too numerous to be worth listing here, but other ethnic groups are attested. Armenians Considerable numbers of pilgrims from Armenia are recorded (Stone 1986), starting with Eutactus before 361 (Stone 1985; Thomson 1994), and an Armenian scriptorum was already operating in Jerusalem by the mid-fifth century (Sanjian 1969: 287). The Armenians tended to come in large groups, such as the 400 Armenians pilgrims who visited the Laura of Euthymius, himself an Armenian, shortly after 428 (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius, 1939: 27; 1991: 22). Chalcedonian persecution of the Monophysites in Jerusalem became pronounced in the mid-sixth century

Georgians A Georgian presence in Jerusalem began around 430, when Peter the Iberian, the son of the Georgian king who had been sent to Constantinople as a hostage, fled to Jerusalem, where he became a monk. Peter, unlike most Georgians, was a Monophysite and he became a disciple of Theodosius, the Monophysite bishop of Jerusalem and rival of Juvenal, who made Peter the bishop of Maiuma (Gaza) in 453. Peter together with John the Eunuch, 178

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

racing in the hippodromes of the Roman world, but during the reign of Phocas the factions developed into riotous politicized factions. In Jerusalem one inscription is known that refers to the Blues circus faction (Thomsen 1941: 208, no. 10); a hippodrome and chariot races in Byzantine Jerusalem are otherwise undocumented.

founded the first Georgian monastery in Jerusalem (Raabe 1895: 46) a little east of David’s Tower, which for a time also had a hospice (see Flusin 1996). One archaeological trace of Georgians in Jerusalem was found west of the West Jerusalem YMCA in 1932. Iliffe uncovered there a group of some 32 rock-cut shaft graves (fifth to seventh or eighth century) and a nearby building with simple geometric and white mosaics, which he interpreted as a fifth century monastery connected with the cemetery. From the cemetery came a Greek inscription from the tomb of Samuel, Bishop of the Georgians, that reveals a connection between the cemetery and the Georgian Monastery of Peter the Iberian at the Tower of David (Iliffe 1935; Thomsen 1941: 216-217, no. 102a).

The Sasanian Siege and Sack of Jerusalem in 614 Jerusalem suffered greatly from the Sasanian siege and sack of 614 (for more detail than is included here, see Schick 1995: chapter 2). It seems that the city initially surrendered peacefully to the Sasanians, like other places in Palestine in the course of the Sasanian invasion in early 614. The Sasanians reportedly wanted to arrange a treaty with the inhabitants, as did the Patriarch Zacharias, but hotheads inside the city opposed the plan (Garitte 1960; 1973: v.7-11). After the initial surrender violence broke out in Jerusalem between the Christians and the newly arrived Jewish supporters of the Sasanians, and after a short time the Christian youths of Jerusalem rebelled. The Sasanians then collected their troops, laid siege to the city for 20 days and then captured it and spent three days sacking it (Garitte 1960; 1973: viii.3-6).

Nestorians There seems to have been no permanent presence of Nestorians in Jerusalem before the Sasanian invasion in 614 (Fiey 1969), although around the start of the seventh century, Rabban Haia of Kashkar came to Jerusalem to pray (Histoire Nestorienne 1919: xlix: 453=133); Iso‘yah Gdalaya and Babai (Histoire Nestorienne 1919: xcv:582583) and the monk Henan-Isho (Thomas, Bishop of Margâ 1893: II.11:78) were also Nestorian pilgrims around the start of the seventh century.

There are abundant details that attest to the devastating effect of the siege and sack. For this the list of victims included in the anonymous account of the capture of Jerusalem is of prime importance (Garitte 1960; 1973 for the Georgian and Arabic texts). It lists the number of people killed in a number of locations around Jerusalem, including but not restricted to churches, as recorded by Thomas, who went around and buried the bodies. The list is full of topographical details (see Milik 1960; 19601961).

The Early Seventh Century The fortunes of Jerusalem changed radically for the worse in the early seventh century, leading to the Sasanian occupation from 614 to 628. The Byzantines recovered the city only for a few years before the Islamic conquest. After widespread rioting in 608 throughout the Levant, which included Jerusalem, against the Emperor Phocas, he sent Bonosus, the comes Orientis (Martindale 1992: 239-240) to suppress the rioting (Sebeos 1904). Bonosus spent the winter of 608-609 in Jerusalem and he organized the circus factions there into a militia to control the area while he took the main military forces with him to Egypt to fight the rebellion of Heraclius (Olster 1993, especially chapter 6). The accounts of the Sasanian capture of the city describe the evil nature of Bonosus and the circus factions (Garitte 1960; 1973: II.3-4, IV.67); among other things Bonosus killed the patriarch Isaac. Bonosus may have also opened a mint in Jerusalem with which to pay his troops. Heraclius certainly minted coins in Jerusalem in late 613 or 614 (Meshorer 1996), but whether the gold solidi coins without mint mark that Grierson (1968: 232-233, 332-334) and others have attributed to Alexandria actually were minted in Jerusalem by Phocas or Heraclius between 609 and 614 has not yet been demonstrated (Hendy 1985: 415-416).

During the siege, according to Eutychius writing in the tenth century, the first thing that the Sasanian commander destroyed in Jerusalem was the churches of Gethsemane and the Eleona, which remained in ruins “to this time”, (Eutychius 1985: 88, 119; Burtin 1914), both on the Mount of Olives. Archaeology confirms the destruction of the church of Gethsemane (Schick 1995: 352-353), while for the Eleona church the Patriarch Modestus was buried there in the spring of 631, and it is also attested as late as the early ninth century (Schick 1995: 350-351). Thus it was only damaged rather than destroyed, contrary to Eutychius’ report. For the Church of the Ascension, Antiochus reports that Modestus repaired it (1865: 14271428), as an inscription found there may confirm (Thomsen 1921: 98, no. 140). The church of Saint Stephen was undoubtedly destroyed during the siege. Although the sources do not mention it in 614, it was in ruins by the time of the Muslim conquest. Its location just north of the city wall was near where the Sasanians tunneled under the wall, and so its destruction could be due to the fact that it stood in the way of the siege operations (Schick 1995: 342-343). The list of victims of the sack includes a number of places outside of the city

The role of the circus factions in Jerusalem in those last years before the Sasanian invasion of 614 is obscure (Dan 1981). They developed out of the popularity of chariot 179

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Christian captives and promptly killed them, or rather only those who had not already died of exposure, hunger, and thirst in the pool (Garitte 1960, 1973: x). A rock-cut burial cave in Mamilla used as a crypt and a small adjoining chapel date to the Byzantine period and may have been used for the victims of the 614 sack (Reich 1994: 117-118). The chapel had a mosaic floor of white tesserae and a Greek inscription that can be read as “For the redemption and salvation of those, God knows their names”. The latest coins in the burial cave date to the time of Phocas, indicating their use in the early years of the seventh century.

wall where people were killed, but oddly the churches of Saint Stephen, Gethsemane, and the Eleona are not in the list. By contrast the church of Saint Peter in Gallicantu is surprisingly absent from the list and has no traces of destruction, and it is attested later (Schick 1995: 337). Concerning the fate of the churches inside the city, many passages in the accounts of the capture state that the city and its churches were destroyed or set on fire during the sack, while the Jews later destroyed the churches that survived (Garitte 1960; 1973: viii.17-18). Other sources specifically refer to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the church of Holy Zion being burned. In the case of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Sasanians took the True Cross back to Persia; a variety of sources report not fully believable details. But the churches in the city were certainly damaged badly enough for Modestus to need to search for money to repair them (Eutychius 1985: 119).

The Years of the Sasanian Occupation (614-628) The Sasanian army soon withdrew and took their captives back to Persia. The nature of their administration in the city and in Palestine as a whole is not clearly documented. One account of martyrdom in Jerusalem after the sack is recorded. A Sasanian tried to get two children to worship fire, but under the influence of their father, who was a deacon of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, they refused and were killed, as was their father. Other people were killed for their faith, but no further details are provided (Garitte 1960; 1973: xvi). Another martyr was Anastasius, a Persian who converted to Christianity. Modestus baptized him in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and he became a monk at the monastery of Saint Anastasius, south of Jerusalem. He later actively sought martyrdom (Flusin 1992; Usener 1894).

Ben Dov (1985: 233-241) suggests that Jews had a special motivation for destroying the New Church of the Theotokos because it had been built from reused columns from the Temple. Yet either it was not heavily damaged or else it was repaired by 634, when Sophronius preached his Christmas Eve sermon there (1886). Mazar (1975: 257) claims that a section of the southern wall of the Haram was breached at the time of the siege. A large number of people were killed during the sack. Thomas describes in vivid detail the condition of the mutilated bodies cut to pieces that he found (Garitte 1960: xxiii.6-8). Perhaps significantly, he says nothing about corpses charred from fire; he also found the bodies exposed, and not already buried by rock tumble. If the churches had been destroyed at the time when the people were killed, the bodies should have been burned and covered by a thick layer of ash and debris from the collapse of the walls and roof.

The Sasanians seem to have left their Jewish allies in charge of the city for a time. Mazar (1975: 257) attributes to Jews in 614, the Jewish use, demonstrated by two menorahs on a lintel, of a two-story house previously inhabited by Christians south of the southwest corner of the Haram. But for how long the Jews were in control is poorly understood; the period of three years suggested by Avi-Yonah (1976: 267-268) is very speculative. But soon the Sasanian switched and favored the heavy Christian majority. As one source has it (Guidi 1903: 26-27), when the Jews failed to find any treasure under the tomb of Christ, the Sasanian commander expelled them from Jerusalem, and Yazdin, the minister of finance, brought their behavior to the attention of the Sasanian ruler, who ordered that their possessions be taken away and that they be crucified. The Sasanian ruler then permitted Yazdin to rebuild Jerusalem and its churches and to expel the Jews. Yazdin sent a substantial sum of money from his private fortune to Jerusalem and renovated decorations and built churches and monasteries in all areas (Fiey 1969: 121).

At the end of the three-day sack, the Sasanians announced a general guarantee of security for the survivors who were in hiding. An official then asked them their professions, and based on their answers, took several tens of thousands back to Persia while detaining the others in the pool of Mamilla. The Patriarch Zacharias was among those taken to Persia. The Sasanians also took the True Cross with them (Garitte 1960; 1973: ix.2-6). While it is not possible to estimate accurately what the size of the population of Jerusalem was in the early seventh century, a total ranging in the tens of thousands for the number of people killed or taken to Persia would have formed the bulk of the population. Such high numbers are paralleled by the Crusader sack of 1099.

That Syriac account differs from the Greek sources, which say the Modestus carried out the repairs. Modestus was the head of the monastery of S. Theodosius and became the locum tenens for the exiled Patriarch Zacharias during the years of the Sasanian occupation. He traveled in the area to raise funds with which to repair the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which was soon brought

The accounts of the capture continue by reporting that the Jews offered to the few thousand people left in the pool of Mamilla to pay their ransom to the Sasanians if they converted to Judaism, but the Christians refused. Having failed with that idea, the Jews then purchased the 180

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

After a prolonged stay in Caesarea, perhaps due to the death of Modestus, the relics of Anastasius were brought to Jerusalem, where they were displayed in the monastery of Saint George for a time, before being deposited in November 631 in the Monastery of Saint Anastasius, south of the city, where he had earlier been a monk (Flusin 1992; Usener 1894).

back into operation (Eutychius 1985: 120). Modestus rebuilt the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Zion, Ascension, and other holy places (Antiochus 1865: 14271428), and Modestus himself wrote a letter to the catholicos of Armenia in which he reports that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the church of Holy Zion, and all holy places had been rebuilt (Sebeos 1904: 71-72). In addition the Patriarch of Alexandria, John the Almsgiver, sent money and supplies as well as 1000 Egyptian workmen to help (Delehaye 1927: 23; Gelzer 1893: 112; Festugière 1974). These Greek accounts ignore Yazdin. Not everything was repaired, however; the churches of Gethsemane and Saint Stephen were left in ruins.

After just a few years of renewed Byzantine control after 628, the Muslims armies invaded Palestine. Sophronius’ Christmas sermon in 634 (1886: 506-507, 513-514) and Epiphany sermon in January 635 (1902:166-167; Schick 1995: 70) provide eyewitness comments on the nature of the Islamic Conquest. According to the traditional Islamic historical accounts he surrendered Jerusalem in 638 to the Caliph ‘Umar, although Busse (1984; 1986) argues for the earlier date of 635 for the capture.

Pilgrimage soon resumed, at least to a limited extent. In the letter that Modestus wrote to the catholicos of Armenia he expressed his gladness that a group of Armenian pilgrims had come, as they used to do annually (Sebeos 1904: xxv: 70-76).

Archaeological Remains Bieberstein and Bloedhorn (1994) record some 250 discrete archaeological sites within Jerusalem with remains from the Byzantine period. Those sites range from the major churches and monasteries to rock cut tombs, tombstones and stray finds. While a few of the archaeological sites have already been mentioned, some other sites warrant attention here. A large number of excavations in different areas of the city have taken place, especially since 1967, but in most cases the excavation results remain largely unpublished, and it is difficult to gain a comprehensive picture of the city in the Byzantine period. The study by Magness (1993) of the pottery from the Jerusalem area in the Byzantine period stands out as a comprehensive treatment of pottery and provides useful summaries of a number of the excavations.

The Byzantine Recovery (628 to the mid-630s) The Emperor Heraclius defeated the Sasanians in 628, and as a result the Byzantines regained control of Jerusalem, after the Sasanians peacefully evacuated. Heraclius himself came to Jerusalem to return the True Cross. Pantaleon, a monk in Jerusalem, wrote a homily about the restoration of the True Cross (1865: 1265-1269; Honigmann 1950a; Halkin 1986) and Sophronius, the future patriarch, wrote a poem (1957: xviii: 114-117). When Heraclius came is not clearly stated in the sources, but March 630 seems the most probable date (Flusin 1992: 294-309; Baynes 1912; Frolow 1953; Grumel 1966). This date is some six months after the Byzantine defeat of the Muslim raiders at Muta in September 629. While in Jerusalem, Heraclius appointed Modestus as the patriarch. Heraclius was pleased with Modestus’ rebuilding and gave him additional funds. As Eutychius reports, Heraclius exempted Palestine from taxes in order to use the money to rebuild the churches that the Sasanians had destroyed (1985: 129-130). Modestus did not live for long afterwards, he had died by the spring of 631 (Eutychius 1985: 130; Garitte 1960; 1973: xxiv.13). Heraclius had to deal with the Jews of Jerusalem, who had killed more Christians than the Sasanians in 614 (Eutychius 1985: 128-129). Heraclius killed some of the Jews and expelled the rest and ordered that they could not come within three miles of the city (Theophanes 1885: 328, am 6120; Turtledove 1982: 30). That Heraclius built the Golden Gate as a commemorative structure at the time of his visit is implausible; an Umayyad construction date is much more likely (see most recently, Taha 1999). The story about Heraclius’ entry into Jerusalem through the Golden Gate is first recorded in the ninth century and is explainable as a Christian fabrication to provide a Christian association with the gate.

In 1927 Crowfoot and FitzGerald (1929) uncovered on the western slope of the Southeast Hill a street aligned approximately north-south with buildings on both sides, which had mosaics and which were occupied into the Early Islamic period, according to the pottery and the small finds. But Magness (1992) rephased much of the excavated architecture to the Mamluk period.

The relics of Anastasius the Persian, martyred in Persia, also arrived in Palestine, apparently in the spring of 631.

Avigad (1983) reported Byzantine remains in almost all of his excavation areas in the Jewish Quarter. The

Among the Byzantine structures that Mazar (1975: 247254) found in the excavations south of the Haram were a dyeing plant with vats in the upper part facing the Triple Gate, two multi-story peristyle houses south of the Haram, and a building below the Triple Gate. The remains of a Byzantine monastery near the Triple Gate, may be the convent for 600 nuns below the pinnacle of the Temple, which Theodosius mentions in 530, although alternatively the convent may also have been within the subsurface vaulting known as Solomon’s Stables. In that case the building, with three stories, but only one gate, could possibly have been Eudocia’s palace, which Justinian turned into a convent.

181

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Mount of Olives designated the Tombs of the Prophets dates to the Herodian period, but Greek graffiti show that it was reused as a burial cave for Christians (Thomsen 1921: 92-94). The reuse of Hellenistic-Herodian rock-cut tombs was common in the southern slope of the Wādī alRabābah. Many of the reused burial caves there have Greek inscriptions, showing that they were used by the monasteries (Macalister 1900; Graves 7, 9, 12, 13, 23, 47, 61, 63).

remains of the southern cardo maximus were extensive, but Avigad’s contention that it was Justinian who extended the cardo to the south in conjunction with the construction of the New Church of the Theotokos remains unconfirmed in the absence of a publication of the excavation results. The excavations in the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985: 65-104) revealed poorly preserved remains from the Byzantine period belonging to three phases. The earliest Byzantine phase from the mid sixth century includes an apparent church with an apse and a simple mosaic floor, which Tushingham speculates could represent Justinian’s rebuilding of the fifth century monastery of Peter the Iberian. The second phase structure represents a courtyard and surrounding walls with no obvious religious nature dating from the reign of Maurice, while the short-lived third phase represents a rebuilding of the phase two building, ending in the early or mid seventh century.

Bibliography Adler, Michael 1893 The Emperor Julian and the Jews. Jewish Quarterly Review 5: 591-651. Alt, Albrecht 1929 Barsauma. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 52: 99-115.

Other recently published excavations that revealed Byzantine remains include the excavations below the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer between 1970 and 1974 (Vriezen 1994), the Damascus Gate excavations between 1964 and 1966 (Wightman 1989), and Area H of the City of David excavations between 1978 and 1985 (De Groot and Ariel 1992). In Silwan Christian hermits reused the Iron Age necropolis as habitations or chapels (Ussishkin 1993: 346-358). This reuse entailed slight modifications to a number of rock-cut burial caves. Often steps were cut for easier access to the burial caves and huts were erected, detectable by rows of round sockets cut into the cliff face for their roof beams. Similar sockets are found at Hacel-Dama and on the cliff face on the west slope of al-Wad (the Tyropoeon Valley) opposite the Western Wall and the Silwan Pool.

Amit, David and Samuel Wolff 1994 An Armenian Monastic Complex at Morasha, Jerusalem. Pp. 293-298 in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Anastasius the Sinaite 1902 Le texte grec des récits du moine Anastase sur les saints pères du Sinai. F. Nau, ed. Oriens Christianus 2: 58-89. Antiochus of Saint Saba 1865 Epistola ad Eustathium. Patrologia Graeca 89: 1421-1428. Avigad, Nahman 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: T. Nelson. 1993 The Nea: Justinian’s Church of St. Mary, Mother of God, Discovered in the Old City of Jerusalem. Pp. 128-135 in Yoram Tsafrir, ed., Ancient Churches Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Since the fifth century the area outside the city wall to the northwest and west of the St. Stephen Church founded by Eudocia was a district of intensive monastic settlement, along with numerous burial caves with memorial chapels. Some of them were Armenian, as mentioned above.

Avi-Yonah, Michael 1954 The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1958 The Economics of Byzantine Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 39-51. 1976 The Jews of Palestine. New York: Schocken.

Graves and Burial Caves The forms of the graves and burial caves from the Byzantine period vary (see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 1:78-82). They are widely distributed to the west, north and east of the city with smaller cemeteries on the west slope of the Mount of Olives. The largest concentration in the Byzantine period was around where the Empress Eudocia established the St. Stephen Church north of the city wall. Many of the graves and burial caves contained datable finds, such as sarcophagi or inscriptions, but these are only seldom published. Deep shaft graves and walled barrel-vaulted burial chambers were characteristic of the Byzantine period. In addition to constructing new burial caves, the Byzantines also reused many of the Hellenistic-Herodian burial caves. For example, an extensive burial cave with loculi on the

Bagatti, Bellarmino, and Emmanuele Testa 1982 Corpus Scriptorum de Ecclesia Matre IV. Gerusalemme. La redenzione secondo la tradizione biblica dei Padri. Jerusalem: Franciscan. Baldi, Donatus 1955 Enchiridion Franciscan.

Locorum

Sanctorum.

Jerusalem:

Baldovin, John 1987 The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development and Meaning of Stational 182

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Choricius Gazaeus 1929 Opera. Ed. R. Foester and E. Richtstei. Leipzig: Teubner.

Liturgy. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium. Baynes, Norman 1912 The Restoration of the Cross at Jerusalem. English Historical Review 27: 287-299.

Chronicon Paschale 1860 Patrologia Graeca 92: 69-1028. Clark, Elizabeth, ed. 1984 The Life of Melania the Younger. New York: E. Mellen.

Ben-Dov, Meir 1985 In the Shadow of the Temple. Jerusalem: Keter. Benoit, Pierre 1984 Le Prétoire de Pilate à l’époque byzantine. Revue Biblique 91: 161-177.

Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon 1899 Archaeological Researches in Palestine, 18731874. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Berbérian, H. 1964 Autobiographie d’Anania Siraka`i. Revue des Études Arméniennes 1: 189-194.

Coleman-Norton 1966 Roman State and Christian Church: A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535. London: SPCK.

Bieberstein, Klaus and Hanswulf Bloedhorn 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge de Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B Nr. 100. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Crowfoot, John and Gerald FitzGerald 1929 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Cyril 1893 Catechetical Lectures. Pp. 1-183 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume 7. New York: Christian Literature Company.

Bihain, E. 1973 L’épitre de Cyrille de Jérusalem à Constance sur la vision de la croix (BHG3 413). Byzantion 43: 264-296.

Cyril of Scythopolis. 1939 Kyrillos von Skythopolis. Edward Schwartz, ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs’. 1991 The Lives of the Monks of Palestine. R. M. Price, trans., John Binns, annot. Kalamazoo: Cistercian.

Binns, John 1994 Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ. Oxford: Clarendon. Borgehammer, Stephan 1991 How the Holy Cross Was Found. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Dan, Yaron 1981 Circus Factions (Blues and Greens) in Byzantine Palestine. The Jerusalem Cathedra 1: 105-19.

Brock, Sebastian 1976 The Rebuilding of the Temple Under Julian, a New Source. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108: 103-107. 1977 A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40: 267-286.

De Groot, Alon and Donald Ariel 1992 Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Volume 3. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Delehaye, Hippolyte 1927 Une Vie inédite de saint Jean l’Aumonier. Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927): 5-74.

Broshi, Magen 1975 La population de l’ancienne Jérusalem. Revue Biblique 82: 5-14.

Di Segni, Leah 1996 Metropolis and Provincia in Byzantine Palestine. Pp. 575-589 in Avner Raban and Kenneth Holum, eds., Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden: Brill.

Burtin, Rene 1914 Un texte d’Eutychius relatif à l’Éléona. Revue Biblique 23: 401-423. Busse, Heribert 1984 ‘Omar b. al-Óattâb in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 5: 73-119. 1986 ‘Omar’s Image as the Conquerer of Jerusalem. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8: 149-168.

Dowsett, C.J.F. 1961 The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranci. London: Oxford University. Drijvers, Jan Willem 1992 Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Cabrera, Enrique 1966 L’influsso della liturgia di Gerusalemme sulle altre chiese. Pp. 42-56 in Giovanni Bissoli, ed., Gerusalemme: Realà sogni e speranze. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

Elert, Werner 1957 Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus. 183

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Gil, Moshe 1996 The Jewish Community. Pp. 163-200 in Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, eds., The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period 638-1099. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.

Eusebius 1890a Life of Constantine. Pp. 481-559 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume One. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1890b Martyrs of Palestine. Pp. 342-356 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume One. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1913 Demonstratio Evangelium. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Jahrhunderte 23. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Gingras, George 1970 Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage. New York: Newman. Gregory I 1849a Ad Ioannem episcopum Constantinopolitanum et caeterus patriarchas. Patrologia Latina 77, Epistola 25, Liber 1, Indictione 9: 468-479. 1849b Epistola ad Leontium exconsulem. Patrologia Latina 77, Epistola 35, Liber 8, Indictione 1: 468476. 1849c Epistola ad Isacium Jerosolymitanum episcopum. Patrologia Latina 77, Epistola 46, Liber 11, Indictione 4: 1164-1167.

Eutychius 1985 Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien. Michael Breydy, ed. and trans. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Arabici 4445. Louvain: 1985. Fedalto, Giorgio 1988 Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Edizioni Messaggero.

Orientalis.

Gregory of Nyssa 1892 On Pilgrimages. Patrologia Graeca 46: 10091016.

Padova:

Grierson, Philip 1968 Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. Volume Two, Part 1. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks.

Festugière, André Jean 1974 Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Institut français d’archéologie de Beyrouth, 95. Paris. Fiey, J.M. 1969 Le pèlerinage des Nestoriens et Jacobites à Jérusalem. Cahiers de civilization médiévale 12: 113-126.

Grumel, V 1966 La Reposition de la vraie Croix à Jérusalem par Héraclius. Le Jour et l’Année. Byzantinische Forschungen 1: 139-149.

Flusin, Bernard 1992 Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècles. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. 1996 Un prince ibère á Jérusalem. La Ville sainte dans la premiére moitié du Ve siècle. Dedale: Multiple Jérusalem 3-4: 275-281.

Guidi, Ignazio, ed. 1903 Chronica Minora, I. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scr. Syri 1 Paris: L. Durbecq). Halkin, François 1986 Un discours inédit du moine Pantaléon sur l’élévation de la croix. BHG 427p. Orientalia Christiana Periodica 52: 257-270.

Frolow, A. 1953 La Vraie Croix et les expéditions d’Héraclius en Perse. Revue des études byzantines 11: 88-105.

Hendy, Michael 1985 Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c.300-1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Garitte, Gérard 1958 Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle). Subsidia Hagiographica 30. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes. 1960 La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Iberici 11-12. Louvain. 1973 Expugnationis Hierosolymae A.D. 614. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Arabici 26-29. Louvain.

Histoire Nestorienne (Chronique de Séert) 1919 Ed. and trans. by Addaï Scher and Robert Griveau. Patrologia Orientalis 13: 435-639. Holum, Kenneth 1982 Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California. Honigmann, Ernst 1950a La date de l’homélie du prêtre Pantoléon sur la fête de l’Exaltation de la Croix (VIIe siècle) et l’origine des collections homiliaires. Académie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classe des

Gelzer, Heinrich 1893 Leontios’ von Neapolis Leben des heiligen Iohannes des Barmherzigen Erzbischofs von Alexandrien. Freiburg and Leipzig: Mohr.

184

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

lettres et des sciences morales et politiques series 5, 36: 547-559. 1950b Juvenal of Jerusalem. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5: 209-279.

John of Ephesus 1956 Historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia. E.W. Brooks, ed. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalum 105-106, Scriptores Syrii 55-56. Louvain.

Hunt, E.D. 1982 Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312-460. Oxford: Clarendon.

Jones, A.H.M, J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris 1971 The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Iliffe, J.H. 1935 Cemeteries and a ‘Monastery’ at the Y.M.C.A., Jerusalem. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4: 70-80.

Kelly, J.N.D. 1975 Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth. Kretschmar, Georg 1971 Festkalender und Memorialstätten Jerusalems in altkirchlicher Zeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 87: 167-205. 1988 Festkalender und Memorialstätten Jerusalems in altkirchlicher Zeit. Pp. 29-111 in Heribert Busse and George Kretschmar, Jerusalemer Heiligtumstraditionen in altkirchlicher und frühislamischer Zeit. Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalästinaVereins. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Jerome 1968 In Zachariam. Corpus Christianorum Seria Latina 76. Brepols: Turnholt. 1969 Commentariorum in Matheum. Corpus Christianorum Seria Latina 77. Brepols: Turnholt. 1958 In Marci Evangelium. Corpus Christianorum Seria Latina 78. Brepols: Turnholt. 1892a Letter 58 To Paulinus. Pp. 119-123 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Six. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892b Letter 77 to Oceanus. Pp. 157-163 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Six. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892c Letter 108 to Eustocium. Pp. 195-212 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Six. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892d Letter 114 to Theophilus. Pp. 214-215 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Six. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892e Against Vigilantius. Pp. 417-423 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Six. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892f Against John. Pp. 424-447 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Six. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company.

Küzler, Andreas 1994 Pereginatio graeca in Terram Sanctam. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Le Quien, Michel 1740 Oriens christianus. Paris: Ex typographia regia. Lemerle, Paul 1964 Note sur les données historiques de l’autobiographie d’Anania de Shirak. Revue des études arméniennes 1: 195-202. Linder, Amnon 1996 Christian Communities in Jerusalem. Pp. 121-162 in Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, eds., The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period 638-1099. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. Macalister, R.A. Stewart 1900-1901 The Rock-Cut Tombs in Wâdy er-Rababi, Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1900): 225-248; (1901): 145-158, 215226. Magen, Y. and R. Talgam 1990 The Monastery of Martyrius at Ma‘ale Adummim (Khirbet el-Murassas) and Its Mosaics. Pp. 91-152 in G. Bottini, L Di Segni, and E. Alliata, eds., Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

John the Deacon 1862 Sancti Gregorii Magni Vita. Patrologia Latina 75: 41-462.

Magness, Jodi 1992 A Reexamination of the Archaeological Evidence for the Sasanian Persian Destruction of the Tyropoeon Valley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287: 67-74. 1993 Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200-800 CE. Sheffield: JSOT.

John Moschus 1865 Pratum Spirituale. Patrologia Graeca 87, part 3: 2851-3116. Patrologia Latina 74: 119-244.

185

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Parmentier, Martin 1996 No Stone Upon Another? Reactions of Church Fathers Against the Emperor Julian’s Attempt to Rebuild the Temple. Pp. 143-159 in M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai, eds., The Centrality of Jerusalem. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos.

Mansi, Johannes Dominicus 1757-1759 Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vols. 2 and 3. Florence: Antonius Zatta. Maraval, Pierre. 1985 Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’orient. Paris: Cerf. Marcellinus Comes 1861 Chronicon. Patrologia Latina 51: 917-948.

Peters, Francis 1985 Jerusalem. Princeton: Princeton University.

Marcian 1935 Epistola ad archimadritas aelienses. Pp. 124-129 in Eduard Schwartz, ed., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, vol. 1, part 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Piccirillo, Michele and Eugenio Alliata 1994 Umm al-Rasas – Mayfa’ah I. Gli Scavi del Complesso di Santo Stefano. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. 1999 The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997. Traveling Through the Byzantine Umayyad Period. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.

Martindale, J.R. 1980 The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1992 The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Pixner, Bargil 1979 Noch einmal das Pratorium. Versuch einer neuen Lösung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 95: 56-86.

Mazar, Benjamin 1975 The Mountain of the Lord. Garden City: Doubleday.

Procopius 1969 The Anecdota or Secret History. Ed. and trans. by H.B. Dewing. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University. 1961 Buildings. Ed. and trans. by H.B. Dewing. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Meimaris, Yiannis 1986 Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Christian Church of Palestine. Meletèmata 2. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.

Raabe, Richard 1895 Petrus der Iberer. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Meshorer, Yaakov 1996 Coins of Jerusalem under the Umayyads and the ‘Abbâsids. Pp. 413-419 in Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, eds., The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period 638-1099. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.

Reich, Rony 1994 The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem. Pp. 111-118 in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Renoux, Athanase 1969 Le Codex Arménien Jérusalem 121. Patrologia Orientalis 35.1. 1971 Le Codex Arménien Jérusalem 121. Patrologia Orientalis 36.2.

Milik, J.T. 1960 Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes. Revue Biblique 67: 354-367, 550-591. 1960-1961 La topographie de Jérusalem vers la fin de l’époque byzantine. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 37: 125-189.

Rubin, Ze’ev 1982 The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees of Jerusalem and Caesarea. The Jerusalem Cathedra 2: 79-105. 1983 Christianity in Byzantine Palestine – Missionary Activity and Religious Coercion. The Jerusalem Cathedra 3: 97-113. 1996 The See of Caesarea in Conflict with Jerusalem from Nicaea (325) to Chalcedon (451). Pp. 559574 in Avner Raban and Kenneth Holum, eds., Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia. Leiden: Brill.

Nau, François 1902 Les récits inédits du moine Anastase. Paris: Picard. 1927 Deux épisodes de l’histoire juive sous Théodose II (423 et 438), d’apres la vie de Barsaume le Syrien. Revue des Études Juives 83: 184-206. Notitia Dignitatum 1876 Ed. O. Seeck. Berlin: Weidmann. Olster, David 1993 The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert.

Rufinus 1892 Apology Against Jerome. Pp. 434-482 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume Eleven.

Pantaleon Diaconus 1865 Sermo de Exaltatione Sanctae Crucis. Patrologia Graeca 98: 1265-1270.

186

SCHICK, JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Tarchnischvili, Michel, ed. 1959 Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve-VIIIe siècle). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Iberici, 10. Louvain.

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1903 Historia ecclesiastica. ed. Th. Mommsen in Eusebius Werke II.2, Die Kirchengeschichte Rufinus Buch X-XI. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Jahrhunderte, 9.2. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Theophanes 1885 Chronographia. Ed. Karl de Boor. Leipzig: Teubner.

Sanjian, Avedis 1969 Anastas Vardapet’s List of Armenian Monasteries in Seventh-Century Jerusalem: A Critical Examination. Le Muséon 82: 265-292.

Thomas, Bishop of Margâ 1893 The Book of Governors. Ed. and trans. by E.A. Wallis Budge. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner. Thomsen, Peter 1921 Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 44: 161, 90-168. 1941 Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 64: 203-256.

Schick, Robert 1995 The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and Archaeological Study. Princeton: Darwin. Schönborn, Christoph von 1972 Sophrone de Jérusalem: Vie Monastique et Confession Dogmatique. Paris: Beauchesne. Sebeos 1904 Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évêque Sebêos. Trans Frédéric Macler. Paris: E. Leroux.

Thomson, Robert 1994 Jerusalem and the Armenians. Pp. 75-91 in Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity. Aldershot: Variorum.

Smith, William and Henry Wace 1877-1887 A Dictionary of Christian Biography. London: John Murray.

Tsafrir, Yoram 1978 Jerusalem. Pp. 525-615 in Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst. 1986 The Maps used by Theodosius: On the Pilgim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40: 129145.

Sophronius 1865 Epistola synodica. Patrologia Graeca 87.3: 31473200. 1886 Weihnachtspredigt des Sophronios. Hermann Usener, ed. Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, series 3, 41: 500-516. 1902 On Holy Baptism. Athanasios PapadopoulosKerameus, ed. Analekta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias 4: 151-68. 1957 Sophronii Anacreontica. Ed. and trans. by Marcellus Gigante. Rome: Gismondi.

Tushingham, A.D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967 Volume I. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Turtledove, Harry, trans. 1982 The Chronicle of Theophanes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Sozomen 1890 Ecclesiastical History. Chester Hartranft, trans., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2. New York: The Christian Literature Company.

Usener, Hermann, ed. 1894 Acta martyris Anastasii Persae. Bonn: Formis C. Georgi. Ussishkin, David 1993 The Village of Silwan. Exploration Society.

Stone, Michael 1985 An Armenian Pilgrim to the Holy Land in the Early Byzantine Era. Revue des Études Arméniennes 17: 173-178. 1986 Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians before the Arab Conquest. Revue Biblique 93: 93-110.

Jerusalem:

Israel

van Esbroeck, M. 1968 La lettre de l’empereur Justinien sur l’Annonciation et la Noël en 561. Analecta Bollandiana 86: 351-371; see 37 (1969): 442-444.

Synaxarium aethiopicum 1907 Patrologia Orientalis 1.

Vanderlinden, S. 1946 Revelatio Santi Stephani (BHL 7850-6). Revue des études byzantines 4: 178-217.

Ṭaha, Aḥmad 1999 Al-Bāb al-Dhahabī fī al-Fatrah al-Islamīyah. Jerusalem.

Vriezen, Karel 1994 Die Ausgrabungen unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan, Jerusalem (1970-1974). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 187

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Wilkinson, John 1971 Egeria’s Travels. London: SPCK. 1975 The Streets of Jerusalem. Levant 7: 118-136. 1976 Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem During the Byzantine Period. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 108: 75-101. 1977 Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Walker, P.W.L. 1990 Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century. Oxford: Clarendon. Wightman, G.J. 1989 The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 519. Oxford: BAR. 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem from the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Mediterraean Archaeology Supplement 4. Sydney: Meditarch.

Winkelman, Friedhelm 1987 Die Quellen zur Erforschung des monoenergetisch–monotheletischen Streites. Klio 69 (1987): 555-559.

188

CHAPTER 17 EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM Michele Piccirillo At the origin of Byzantine Jerusalem is the liturgy of the Christian community and the political-religious will of the Emperor Constantine, who began the construction of monumental Christian buildings in the city that was to reach its peak in the sixth century.

Gospel Memories According to the Gospels, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for the pilgrimages that the Jewish community used to celebrate during the principal feasts of the year, especially that of Passover. Coming from Jericho with his disciples, Jesus stopped at Bethany, the guest of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Bethany is on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives and was “two miles from the city” according to the Gospel of John. While on the Mount of Olives Jesus instructed his disciples and contemplated the Temple and wept as he foresaw the city’s imminent destruction. From Bethpage, also on the Mount of Olives, the improvised procession left that acclaimed him king and Messiah.

The Christian liturgy in Jerusalem is based on the memory of the event of salvation as presented in the Gospels and relived by the Christian faithful. The most informed witness to the Jerusalem liturgy is Egeria (Wilkinson 1971), who in the second half of the fourth century came on pilgrimage to the Holy Land from Spain. She stayed in the Near East for three years and wrote an account of her travels, the manuscript of which was discovered in a library in Arezzo Italy in 1884. In it she described in great detail the celebrations in the city, especially those of Holy Week. She described the continuous movements day and night within the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre from the Anastasis to the Martyrium and Golgotha, within the city from the Holy Sepulchre to the Basilica of Holy Sion, and outside the city from the Lazarion in Bethany to the Eleona on the Mount of Olives and to Gethsemane.

Jesus entered into discussion in the atrium of the Temple, in the royal portico on the south side or under Solomon’s portico on the other sides. Outside the Temple he passed by the Pool of Bethzatha, where he cured the paralytic. He sent the one born blind to wash his eyes in the waters of the pool of Siloam. He celebrated Passover with his disciples in the large hall offered to him by a friend. That evening he left the city and passed the night in a place called Gethsemane, where he was arrested. He was brought to the palace of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas and early in the morning he was presented to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who judged him and condemned him in the Praetorium, the Lithostraton as the Gospel of John specifies, “Gabbata in Hebrew”.

Such continuous movements were designed to commemorate an event of special sacredness at the place and time in which it happened according to the Gospel accounts. The readings “adapted to the time and place”, as Egeria reported, present the arrival of Jesus at Bethany “six days before Easter”, the Last Supper at the Cenacle, the prayer and Agony at the Garden of Gethsemane, the condemnation at the Praetorium, the crucifixion on Golgotha, and the resurrection on Easter Sunday near the venerated tomb.

Condemned to death, Jesus, carrying his own cross, went out to the place of the Skull, in Hebrew called Golgotha, where he was crucified. Friends buried him nearby in an empty tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, a sympathiser of Jesus. After his resurrection, his Ascension to the right hand of God took place on the top of the Mount of Olives.

That liturgy of stations that we find already in the second half of the fourth century in Egeria’s account lies at the origin of the sanctuaries that were built in and around the city during the three centuries of Byzantine rule. Those sanctuaries became memorial landmarks of Christian geography and topography at the center of Christian piety.

Vivid memories linked to specific sites were surely alive among the Christian community in the early fourth century when Constantine began to commemorate in a worthy manner the Resurrection in the center of the city and the Ascension on the Mount of Olives (see Walker 1990). The sacred monumental topography of Jerusalem started in 325 when Constantine decided to honor with a monument the tomb of Christ and the site of his martyrdom, the Rock of Cavalry. Historical accounts,

That liturgy, situated at the places where the Gospel events took place, is necessarily linked to the historicalgeographic memory of the movements of Jesus from one place to the next that is so well documented in the Gospels (for the sites mentioned in the Bible and references to them by later pilgrims, see especially Baldi 1955). 189

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

This new lavish Christian monument, enriched by royal gifts, was described by Eusebius, Cyril, and many pilgrims who visited it over the centuries. But the most detailed description of the Tomb itself is provided by the pilgrim Arculf (Wilkinson 1977: 95-97), who came to Jerusalem in the mid-seventh century. The Tomb was protected by a railing, a detail known to Egeria and later pilgrims. That railing was still visible during the sixth century, as shown by the pilgrims’ flasks made in Jerusalem at that time, and now preserved in Monza, Italy (Grabar 1958).

starting with St. Ambrose in 390, connect that decision with the trip to the Holy Land of Helena Augusta, Constantine’s mother in 323, followed by Eutropia, his mother-in-law (see Borgehammer 1991 and Drijvers 1992). Together with the basilica of the Anastasis, “the monument of the Savior’s victory over death”, the emperor also ordered the construction of the Nativity grotto in Bethlehem, the Eleona grotto on the Mount of Olives, and a sanctuary commemorating God’s apparition to Abraham at Mambre to the north of Hebron. Eusebius of Caesarea (1890) witnessed this building activity, which began the radical alteration of the urban structure of the Roman city as built by Hadrian.

The sanctuary suffered its first blow in 614, when the Sasanian invaders set fire to it. Arculf was the first to record the changes to the church brought about by the repairs of Modestus. One of the main features of his restoration was the construction of a chapel in the area of Calvary. When the Muslims entered the city in 638, they respected its sanctity. Eutychius (1985) records in detail the visit of the Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, who refused to pray inside the basilica itself.

The Complex of the Holy Sepulchre In the Gospel narrative, we do not have a precise identification of where Golgotha and the Tomb were located. But we do have some topographic references that specify that the place of the crucifixion was near the city and that the Tomb was nearby in a garden. It is only from the writings of Eusebius (1890) and Jerome (1892) that we know that Golgotha and the Tomb were located on the eastern slopes of the western hills onto which Jerusalem had extended in earlier centuries. Both authors wrote that the Emperor Hadrian, during the reconstruction of the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of the Jewish city of Jerusalem, ordered that a public pagan shrine be built in the area where those two sites were located.

Christian Jerusalem The construction of the complex of the Holy Sepulchre was only the beginning of Byzantine Jerusalem. Building activity in the following decades and centuries gradually transformed the urban plan of Aelia Capitolina into a Christian city, through the construction of sanctuaries, churches and chapels, monasteries and hospices for the poor of the city and for sheltering pilgrims coming from afar. To understand all this, we must look to the memoirs left by the pilgrims and contemporary literature together with the results of modern archaeological excavations carried out in the city and its immediate surroundings (for the pilgrim accounts see especially Baldi 1955; Geyer 1898; Itineraria et Alia Geographica 1965; Maraval 1985; Wilkinson 1971 and 1977).

As Jerome states, Constantine ordered the pagan shrine to be pulled down and a new monument in honor of Christ to be built. It was during that excavation that the venerated Tomb came back to light. Draclianus, the governor of the province, was provided with technicians, workers and anything else necessary for the construction of the basilica. The architects Zenobius and Eustatius did not disappoint the emperor and in ten years they produced a monumental complex worthy of Rome, where the basilica of St. Peter was also being built during the same period.

The Churches of the Fourth Century The first witness to the changes that were being carried out in the city is the anonymous pilgrim of Bordeaux (Wilkinson 1971: 153-163), who came to Jerusalem in 333, when the building sites of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and Eleona were still open. He is a reliable source for the urban plan of still Roman Aelia. He was shown some places related to the Gospel events: the place of the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Betzatha; the pinnacle of the Temple, the Temple area itself with two statues of Hadrian, the pool of Siloam surrounded by columns; the house of the High Priest Caiphas; the site of the Praetorium; Golgotha and the Tomb; the Garden of Gethsemane in the Valley of Jehosaphat; the Eleona on the Mount of Olives; and the tomb of Lazarus in Bethany.

To make way for their monument, the architects isolated the tomb from the surrounding rocky spur on the north and west sides. In that way the tomb ended up freestanding at the center of a wider empty space. Here a building in the form of a royal Roman mausoleum was erected, which became known as the Anastasis. In front of the Anastasis was a large, open-air cloister-garden. That open-air Triporticum had the bare rock of the spur of Cavalry in the southwest corner. It was later adorned with precious stones and surmounted by a golden cross at the time of the Emperor Theodosius (379-395). The Martyrium was a five-aisled basilica built for liturgical services to the east of the portico. The Martyrium had a narthex on the west side that opened on to the main northsouth street of the city.

The Pilgrim of Bordeaux is a precious witness to the Christian topography of the city prior to the construction of many monumental buildings and is well placed next to 190

PICCIRILLO, EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM

For a description of the new situation towards the end of the fifth century, we have the Life of Peter the Iberian, the bishop of Maiumas of Gaza, written by his disciple, John Rufus (Raabe 1895). The Life of Peter the Iberian mentions, in addition to the preceding churches, the basilica of St. Sophia, built on the ruins of the Praetorium of Pilate in al-Wad. The Life also mentions the basilica of Betzatha or Probatica (the church of the Paralytic) built on the porticoed pool mentioned in the Gospel of John, the basilica of the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen and the basilica of St. John the Baptist, visited every Saturday in Lent and on every feast vigil by the sister of the priest Stephen.

his contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea. In Eusebius’ Onomasticon (2003), which he probably wrote before the victory of Constantine, it seems that scholarly interest and traditions combine to preserve authentic traditions on the part of the church in Palestine to enable them to show the sites to the faithful coming from afar. Of significance is the word Eusebius uses: “deiknutai” – “is indicated”, “is shown”. That term is used for Jerusalem for the Pool of Betzatha, Golgotha, Jerusalem, Haceldama, and Bethany. Such topographic memories are also present in the sermons of Cyril (1893), the bishop of Jerusalem who died in 386, who cited them as proof of the veracity of the Gospel accounts. During those same years (381-384 are the dates most commonly accepted by scholars), the pilgrim Egeria arrived in Jerusalem; her account (Wilkinson 1971) was discussed earlier. Jerome (349419), who lived for many years near the grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem, translated the Onomasticon of Eusebius and also mentioned churches in his emotional description of the pilgrimage that his friend undertook upon her arrival in the Holy Land (1892).

John Rufus records a schematic pilgrimage to the Holy Places by Bishop Peter the Iberian, seen only in a dream by one of his disciples. From the basilica of St. Stephen outside the city walls to the north, he visited the Holy Sepulchre and Golgotha, the Praetorium in the church of Saint Sophia and the sanctuaries on the Mount of Olives to Bethany. For this period, bishop Eucherius mentioned the presence of many monks on Mount Sion (Wilkinson 1977: 53).

John Rufus (Raabe 1895) provides the information that the church of the Imbomon on the Mount of Olives and the monastic dwellings that surround it were built towards the end of the fourth century through the generosity of a rich lady from Constantinople, Pomenia, who came on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The two churches on the Mount of Olives – the Imbomon and Eleona – are also mentioned by other visitors, among them the bishop Eucherius (Wilkinson 1977: 53). In 378 Melania the Elder also came to Jerusalem and built a monastery and a hospice on the western slope of the Mount of Olives.

The Churches of the Sixth Century For the topography of Jerusalem during the first decades of the sixth century, we have the witness of the pilgrim Theodosius (Wilkinson 1977: 62-71) around 530 and of the Breviary of Jerusalem (Wilkinson 1977: 59-61). To the list of sanctuaries that we already know, the anonymous author of the Breviary adds to the House of Caiphas the church of Saint Peter and described the church on Sion, known as the mother of all the churches. The Breviary lists Holy Sion, the House of Caiphas with the church of Peter, the house of Pilate with the church of St. Sophia, the Temple, the church of Siloam, the church of St. Mary (the Probatica) and Gethsemane. Theodosius, for his part, mentions the church of St. James and monasteries in the valley of Jehosaphat. He is also the first to mention the grotto of the Betrayal in the same valley and records the distance from one sanctuary to the next. Starting from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he mentions in succession Holy Sion “mother of all the churches”, the house of Caiphas-Saint Peter, the Praetorium-Saint Sophia, Saint Stephen outside the city walls, the church of Siloam, Saint Mary at the Probatica, Saint James in front of the pinnacle of the Temple, from where the apostle was thrown, the garden of Gethsemane with the memorial of the church of Our Lady.

The Churches of the Fifth Century In the fifth century Melania the Younger’s arrival in the city contributed to renewed building activity. She established her residence on the Mount of Olives in a monastery that she founded and she also built an Apostolicon (a funerary chapel for the burial of her mother and brother) near the Eleona Church and martyrium near the Church of the Ascension (Clark 1984). The Empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosious II, also built new memorial churches (see Holum 1982 and Hunt 1982). Following a first visit, she remained in Jerusalem from 440 until her death in 460. She constructed the city wall, within which were included Mount Sion and the Eastern Hill. She also built a church at Siloam that restructured the four-porticoed Roman construction that the pilgrim of Bordeaux had mentioned. She also built the basilica of St. Stephen outside the northern gate of the city and transferred there the relics of Stephen, the first martyr. She herself was buried there in 460, the year the basilica was dedicated. Bassa, a friend of the empress, built the Martyrium of St. Mena together with a convent for virgins.

The most extensive construction in the first half of the sixth century was the basilica of the New Mary. The historian Procopius of Caesarea (1961) described the building at length in his work dedicated to the buildings that Justinian constructed throughout the empire. The pages that Procopius devoted to the Nea Theotokos provide a detailed description of that building on the east side of the Cardo. We can imagine a building similar to 191

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

prison, Strategios described the arrival of the Persians, the capture and looting of the city, the capture of the True Cross and the Patriarch Zacharias and his deportation to Persia, ending with a list of those killed. This work so much impressed historians and archaeologists that it has led them to date to 614 any church ruin found in Palestine.

the Holy Sepulchre made up of a basilica, a columned atrium that opened onto a propylea with exedras on the sides and enclosed in a colonnade that led onto the Cardo, which Justinian had extended up to the church. John Moschus (1865) also provided details of this church in his Pratum Spirituale. The Piacenza Pilgrim around 570

Strategios recorded the number of corpses gathered from the streets and buildings of the city and its immediate surroundings by a group of grave-diggers led by Thomas and his wife, the “new Nicodemus and Mary Magdalene”. In this list we find the names of 35 churches, streets and gates giving us a precise description of the city just a few years before the surrender of the city to the Muslim invaders in 638. The grave-diggers started outside the walls to the west of the church of Saint George, which had a monastery annexed to it, about two miles from the city, to the palace of the princes up to the gate of Holy Sion. Then the dead bodies were collected from the churches of the Nea, of Saint Sophia and of the Anargiri (Saints Cosmas and Damian). Next was the area around the Holy Sepulchre: in the monastery of the Holy Anastasis (or monastery of the Spudeoi), in the forum (agora), in the quarters of the church of the Samaritan woman, between the agora and Holy Sion. Then was the valley to the south outside the city walls (Wadi alRababah – Gehenna, known also as the stream of Saint Ciriacus). Other bodies were collected from the Probatica area, the torrent of Saint James in the Wadi Sitti Maryam, the slaughterhouse, the reservoirs, in Saint Passarion up to the pool of Silwan and the church there, then west to the great pool of Mamilla, where thousands of Christians had been heaped up. Other bodies were collected from the patriarchal hospital and the golden city and the Mount of Olives to the monastery of St. John on high. They returned to the city to free the royal hospital (probably next to the Nea), then the Matroneum of the Anastasis, in the small and large road, in Saint Serapion, in front of Golgotha, in the grottos, cisterns and gardens, in the Tower of David, on the city walls and in the area of the breach of the city wall.

The typical circuit followed by a pilgrim in now Christian Jerusalem has been preserved for us (Wilkinson 1977: 78-89). Around 570 an anonymous pilgrim left Piacenza on a voyage to the Near East. He placed his pilgrimage under the protection of Saint Antoninus, the protector of his town, whom he thanks on his return home alive. The pilgrim arrived in Jerusalem from Jericho. Thus his first stop was at Bethany at the Lazarion. On the slopes of the Mount of Olives he noted the colony of monasteries with monks and nuns. On top of the mount he visited the Imbomon or the site of the Ascension. Coming down from the mount on the western side, he arrived at the Garden of Gethsemane at the site of the Betrayal. From there he went down to the basilica of the Tomb of the Virgin. He entered the city from the eastern gate (St. Stephen’s Gate), near the Beautiful Gate of the Temple. He went directly to the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre where he noted with great detail the disposition and decorations of the tomb and of the rock of Golgotha. In the basilica he visited the site where the Holy Cross had been found, which he venerated and kissed. He also saw the instruments of the Passion: the reed, the sponge and the onyx chalice of the Last Supper. Coming out of the basilica, the pilgrim went west to the Tower of David and then to the basilica of Holy Sion, where the Flagellation column was venerated together with the crown of thorns and the lance. From there he went down to the basilica of Saint Mary, the Nea Theotokos. He prayed at the church of Saint Sophia built on the site of the Praetorium in front of the ruins of Solomon’s temple. He went out of the city towards Silwan, where a basilica was built on vaults with two pools, one for men and the other for women (now inside the city wall, thanks to the wall built by Eudocia to whom we also owe the basilica of Saint Stephen). He exited the city to visit the Haceldama or Field of Blood. He is the first to mention that sanctuary after Eusebius in the fourth century. After visiting the Probatica at Betzatha he went out of the main gate to go to Bethlehem.

The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Mosaic Map An anonymous mosaicist from Madaba left us a map of the city of the sixth century that completes the information we have from the Anonymous Pilgrim of Piacenza and the monk Strategios (Piccirillo and Alliata 1999). The mosaicist grasped visually the central role in Christian imagination that the holy city of Jerusalem had reached during this period, thus creating a place rich with theological and topographic content. The map of the city must be read and understood globally and conceptually in the light of three centuries of Christian occupation without insisting on topographic details, even if they are numerous and important.

The Gates, Streets, and Churches of Jerusalem in 614 Another important source for the topography of Christian Jerusalem is the writing of Strategios, a monk of Saint Saba, in his account of the taking of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 (Garitte 1960; 1973; see Milik 19601961). After surviving the carnage and escaping from 192

PICCIRILLO, EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM

Sepulchre in 1961 is the plan of the Constantinian complex drawn by Virgilio Corbo (1981-1982). It is only a sketch plan based on the results of recent excavations, soundings and casual findings in the area of the basilica. The new ecclesiastical complex was built in an area previously used as a quarry. On the west the rocky slope of the mountain was cut back to isolate the tomb of Jesus surrounded by the large exedra with three apses of the Anastasis. In front of the rocky block of the tomb, a foundation was located that Corbo identified as the stylobate of the rails described by Egeria. The façade and part of the originals of two groups of four doors described by Arculf have been identified in part, as well as some bases of the columns of the triporticus with the rock of Calvary in the southeast corner. The main discovery has been the central apse of the Martyrium under the present Catholikon, and the foundation walls of the basilica oriented to the west. In the narthex with the colonnaded propylaeum on the cordo was found the southeast corner of the pagan enclosure of the Roman temple built earlier by the Emperor Hadrian in the area. To the north of the Anastasis Corbo located the residence of the bishop with an inner open courtyard.

The Holy City – as one can read in the legend above – is surrounded by walls with gates. Clearly designated are the northern and eastern gates. Inside the north gate is a square from which rises a column. From there departs a columned and porticoed street that crosses the whole length of the city from north to south. Three churches appear on this street: the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre at the center of the street to the north, and the other two on both sides of the eastern extremity of the street, identified with Holy Sion to the north and the Nea Theotokos to the south. Inside the eastern gate one can identify the structures of the Probatica. Outside the walls the mosaicist placed Gethsemane higher up (to the east) and the Haceldama lower (to the west), the field of blood transformed into a burial place for pilgrims bought by the thirty pieces of silver of the betrayal of Judas. The Monasteries and Xenodochia for Pilgrims Egeria mentioned the monks and nuns who took part in the liturgical celebrations of the Holy Week at the Holy Sepulcre and at other sanctuaries. Peter the Iberian lived with his confreres in the monastery near the Tower of David. Melania the Elder and Melania the Younger built monasteries atop the Mount of Olives. Eucherius mentioned a colony of monks at Mount Sion. Theodosius mentioned a convent of virgins at Gethsemane in the Valley of Josaphat. The pilgrim of Piacenza mentioned many monasteries atop the Mount of Olives. On the other hand, Procopius of Caesarea (Wilkinson 1977: 75), in describing the new church envisaged by the Emperor Justinian, had already underlined the charitable character of the work entrusted to the monks.

The Nea Theotokos Church The basilica was found during the excavations of the Jewish Quarter by Avigad in 1977 (1983: 229-246). The eastern wall of the basilica 6.5 m thick, a part of the central nave with its southern apse of 5 m diameter and a part of the north wall together with traces of the possible west wall survived in an area 85 m long and 62 m wide. The complex was flanked and in part supported to the south by a large underground cistern made up of six vaulted units 33 m by 9.5 m and 17 m high. An inscription on the northern wall records the name of the Emperor Justinian and the Abbot Constantine.

This is not the only case where we find xenodocia and hospitals mentioned, where monks cared for the poor, sick and extended hospitality to pilgrims. Usually a pilgrim stayed overnight in private inns or in the xenodocia built by the monasteries or private individuals. The xenodocium of the Nea Theotokos church could house 200 beds. Saint Saba showed interest in monastic life within the city and bought some rooms near the Tower of David that he designated for that purpose (Cyril of Scythopolis 1991, Vita Saba).

The Basilica of Holy Sion Only meager remains of this church were uncovered during the excavations in the area, which today comprises the Dormition basilica and the Cenacle, together with the old and new Franciscan friary today occupied by a Jewish yeshiva (Vincent and Abel 1914: 431-478, 451-459, 477478). A reconstruction of the sanctuary has as its starting point the west wall identified with the spur of the northsouth wall found at the foundation level when the modern Dormition basilica was built. The only other sources available are the descriptions of the pilgrims, the drawing of Arculf, who places the Cenacle and the Dormitio Virginis within a rectangle, and the measurements provided by the Armenian description of the seventhtenth centuries (58.80 m x 38.36 m) and the Commemoratorium de casis Dei of the eighth century (57.91 x 38.61 m) (Wilkinson 1977: 137-138). Keeping in mind the walls coming from the east perpendicular to the west wall in which the stylobates were discovered, the building can be imagined to have consisted of a three-

Archaeological Research Archaeological excavations have brought to light various churches and chapels that complete the monumental topography of the city during the Byzantine period. (Full bibliographic references to the archaeological remains of the Byzantine churches in Jerusalem can be found in Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994; only the most basic references are cited here.) The Constantinian complex of the Holy Sepulchre Archaeologically the most important result of the restoration works that started in the basilica of the Holy 193

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

on the sides and Corinthian-style capitals decorated with finely elaborated acanthus leaves. To the north are remains of a mosaic of a service room with traces of an altar.

apsed basilica 55 m long and 28 m wide, with a portico in the west wall. The Cenacle, situated in the upper floor at the southeast corner formed part of this basilica. The Eleona

The Basilica of Saint Stephen This sanctuary was one of the first three monuments built by order of Constantine. Pilgrims mention it as the church to the south of the Imbomon on the Mount of Olives. It has been identified with the remains of a sacred building discovered in the area of the current monastery of the Carmelite Sisters (the Pater Noster church) (Vincent and Abel 1914: 337-360, 396-397). It seems that the sanctuary consisted of a basilica with a narthex and a columned atrium on the west wall with its axis shifted towards the southeast, built over an apsed crypt in a cemetery area. Of the three-naved basilica we know the lateral walls and some column bases together with some geometrical floor mosaics, a basket shaped capital in stone, and elements of the chancel screen. Outside the southern wall a mosaiced room with its plastered walls contained a small basin at the center. This has been interpreted as a baptistery (Vincent and Abel 1914, plate 38).

It was built outside the northern gate of the city by Empress Eudocia to preserve in it the relics of the first martyr and deacon Saint Stephen. The remains of the basilica were unearthed during the excavations carried out after 1882 by the Dominicans (Vincent and Abel 1914: 743-804). At the time of the excavations there were sufficient elements to determine the plan of a three-nave church paved with mosaics. It had only a central polygonal apse partially dug into the rock. It measured 38 m by 19 m and had a columned atrium on the west side and a diaconicon chapel to the north. The mosaic floor was decorated with geometric motifs. The capitals were of the Corinithian basket type. A funerary area formed part of the complex. It consisted of two family tombs paved with floor mosaics with a floral geometric motif to the east and with a lamb in a crown to the west. The Lazarion in Bethany

The Church of the Ascension (Imbomon) The sanctuary of the Lazarion in Bethany was brought to light by the Franciscan excavations directed by S. Saller that started in 1949 (Saller 1957). It was shown to be an ecclesiastical complex made up of the tomb of Lazarus to the west on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives and the atrium at the center, which opened up into a singleapsed, three-nave basilica on the east. This had columns and two service rooms on the sides of the apse built on an artificial platform. The capitals of the church were of the Corinthian style. The mosaic floor of the basilica, which was mostly preserved, was decorated with geometric motifs. During the Byzantine period the basilica was enlarged towards the east, the columns were substituted by pillars and the mosaic was redone with a less careful technique. Only the atrium and the area of the tomb of Lazarus to the west were not altered.

A notable part of the rotunda of the Byzantine sanctuary was discovered in 1959 by Corbo under the octagonal Crusader church (Corbo 1965: 93-162). His excavation was carried out towards the southeast in the adjoining area. The walls were made up of squared blocks of nary stone 1.56 m thick. That formed part of a buttress covered by arches that supported the foundation of the floor of the sanctuary 8 m from the bedrock. These buttresses created a platform around the sanctuary. Corbo identified also the apse found to the south of the medieval octagon as belonging to a funerary room in the “small martyrium” that annexed the monastery built by Melania the Younger adjacent to the Ascension church. The Probatica Church The basilica was built at the site that commemorated the healing of the paralytic. It was dedicated to the Theotokos, due to a tradition that at the site the birth of the Virgin was venerated. Excavations were carried out at different times (Vincent and Abel 1914: 569-742). Its eastern side was erected on the rock, while the western part was suspended. In fact the basilica, or only the part in front of the narthex, rested on a system of arches of over 13 m in height that rose from the depths of the two large water reservoirs of a preceding period up to the level of the central water tank 6 m wide that divided the two adjacent basins into a northern and a southern one. The basilica measured 45 m in length and 18 m in width. It had three apses and an atrium on the west side. The remains that have survived are the foundation arches and wall remains, the column plinths decorated with crosses

The Basilica at Gethsemane The basilica that the pilgrim Egeria described as elegant was rediscovered in 1920 under the remains of the Crusader church of St. Savior (Orfali 1924; Vincent and Abel 1914: 301-337). It had its axis shifted in a northeast direction. The three-apsed basilica was inserted on the east into the rocky slope of the Mount of Olives. On the western side it was built on an artificial platform where the narthex and a columned atrium stood over an underlying cistern. The capitals are of the Corinthian style. In the rock on the north apse three pit tombs were dug. Glass tesserae from the wall mosaic were collected during the excavation. In the floor were traces of a very fine mosaic datable to the second half of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth. 194

PICCIRILLO, EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM

discovered by Bliss in 1896 (Vincent and Abel 1914: 855-864). The three-naved church measured 32 m in length and 18 in width. It had four pillars that supported its roof. The southern nave was built on top of the northern portico of the Roman pool. The atrium and the narthex stood to the north of the church to which one went through a flight of 16 steps descending from the north. Another stairway that continued the first flight of steps joined the church to the pool.

The Grotto of the Betrayal at Gethsemane The excavation of the rock-cut sanctuary in the garden of Gethsemane was carried out by Corbo in 1956 after a great flood that winter (Corbo 1965: 3-21). Traces of the first mosaic of the Byzantine period were found near the presbytery step, which was oriented normally and obtained from a hollow of the grotto, along the north wall and near the entrance to the northwest with the remains of a funerary inscription. At this point the mosaic covered an underlying tomb formed from a pre-existing cistern. A transformation can be dated to the fourth-fifth century. Traces of the mosaic were also found in the corners of the presbytery area.

Haceldama The pilgrims who visited the site in the Wadi al-Rababah agree that the Field of Blood was used as a cemetery for the poor and pilgrims. Taking for granted what Arculf recounts, and he usually is a reliable source, the spectacle was not an assuring one. The cemetery is to be placed in relation to the hospitals and the xenodocia kept by the monks of the city. We know that a church or chapel is mentioned up to the 12th century (Vincent and Abel 1926: 864-866). In the area today is the Greek Orthodox monastery of Saint Onuphrius.

The Tomb of the Virgin Mary A new study of the monument, of which only the lower church is preserved, was made possible after the floods of 1972 (Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodrome 1975). The archaeoogists led by Bagatti propose to include with the Byzantine sanctuary, visited and mentioned by pilgrims, also the eastern apsed wing of the crypt of the preserved medieval complex. The whole set up of the sanctuary would go back to the Byzantine period, having the rockcut tomb isolated at the centre of the apsed wing. This wing had its lower part cut into the rock while the upper part was completed with cut stones. In the pre-medieval period the external walls of the edicule were covered with glass tesserae.

The House of Caiaphas and the Church of St. Peter The house of Caiaphas was shown to the pilgrim of Bordeaux coming up to Sion. Theodosius is the first pilgrim to note the construction of a church dedicated to Saint Peter on the site that was more or less 50 paces away from the church of Holy Sion. A mosaic floor to the north of an apse discovered in the area of the current Armenian church of Saint Savior, immediately outside Zion Gate is, according to Vincent, the Byzantine sanctuary made up of a church measuring 30-35 m in length and some 20 m in width (Vincent and Abel 1914: 482-500).

The Chapel of Saint James The death of St. James the Righteous “brother of the Lord” and head of the community of Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus, Egesippus and Clement of Alexandria. The apostle was thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple and his life terminated by stick blows. St. Jerome is the first witness to the sanctuary. He laments that, against the ancient tradition, some Christians of his time were showing the tomb of the apostle on the other side of the valley, in the Hellenistic cemetery of Bene Hezir, whose halls had only been used by Christian monks. The sanctuary of St. James was built by Paul, a nobleman from Eleutheropolis at the request of the monk Epiphanius. The sanctuary, mentioned and visited for centuries, is identified with the tomb of the Beni Hezir. Corbo (1962) believed that he could recognize the remains of the church of St. James in an excavation carried out in 1960. The rock-cut crypt and an apsed grotto towards the east would have formed part of this destroyed sanctuary together with the column drums scattered in front of the tomb of the Beni Hezir.

Other Archaeological Discoveries The churches, whose remains we have just mentioned briefly, are not all the churches and chapels mentioned in the contemporary sources. Moreover there are other buildings, sacred or not, from the Byzantine period that have been brought to light by the excavations. We will start from the area in front of Damascus Gate, which was the most densely inhabited area during the Byzantine period. From there we go up the slopes of the Mount of Olives where the discoveries complete the literary sources. We then return to the city adding other monuments of the period. The Cemetery Area to the West of the Basilica of Saint Stephen

The Church at the Silwan Pool

Outside Damascus Gate, over the past century a number of monastic complexes have been identified lying to the west of Eudocia’s basilica dedicated to the Protomartyr St. Stephen.

The church of the illuminating savior built by the Empress Eudocia on the pre-existing porticoed pool and the entrance of the ancient tunnel of Silwan was 195

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Olives (Vincent and Abel 1914: 391). Most probably the mosaics and tombs formed part of the monastery of St. John inhabited by the Armenian monks mentioned in the Commemoratorium de casis Dei (Wilkinson 1977: 137138).

A funerary chapel with an Armenian inscription in the floor mosaic was discovered in 1895 in the Musrara quarter (Bliss 1898: 253-259). The chapel is oriented normally, having a small apse in the west wall. Also its architectural context is missing. The hall (6.30 x 3.90 m) is decorated by three vine scrolls coming out of an amphora placed between two peacocks in a tuft of acanthus at the centre of the western side inside a border. The nine scrolls of the five overlaying layers are decorated with birds (one of which is in a cage) and in the centre ones with baskets. In the Armenian dedicatory inscription is written: “For the memory and salvation of all the Armenians, whose names the Lord knows.” During the excavation a marble box with an Armenian inscription was also discovered.

The first high quality mosaic, discovered in 1872, is 6.7 x 7 m and seems to have been part of a chapel. The central carpet enclosed in a guilloche is decorated by a composition of knotted circles with fish, birds, fruit and an isolated lamb. A second mosaic, discovered in 1893, decorated the modern chapel of the head of Saint John the Baptist. The composition is divided into two panels with a geometric interlace. The central panel is enclosed within a border and is divided into circles and squares decorated with fruit, birds, animals and a fish on a plate. Other mosaics in additional tombs record further Armenian names; one mosaic inscription reads, “Having as intercessors with God, the Holy Isaiah and the blessed fathers, I, Varhan, have made the monument for the pardon of sins.”

To the south of the Chapel of St. Polyeuctos, about ten m from the walls, another chapel, decorated with the mosaic of Orpheus was discovered (Schick and Dickson 1901). That mosaic floor is divided into two panels. The upper one is surrounded by an acanthus band animated by birds, animals, and fruit, with foliate heads in the corners of the scrolls. Orpheus is enthroned in the central emblem, wearing a long tunic with a Phrygian hat on his head and playing the lyre. He is surrounded by a satyr, a centaur, birds, animals and a serpent.

Church to the North of the Russian Tower A three-naved church measuring 23.60 x 15.45 m was discovered to the north of the Russian tower and to the east of the Carmelite convent (Vincent and Abel 1914: 390). It had a mosaic floor in the naves and marble slabs in opus sectile in the presbytery. The small columns of the altar and an alabaster chandelier were discovered during the excavation. In the mosaic of the room adjacent to the apse was a Greek inscription. Vincent proposes to identify the ruins with the church of Bethphage mentioned by Theodosius.

Construction of a major highway nearby clarified the area archaeologically further with the discovery of at least four monasteries with chapels, two hostels for pilgrims, a large cemetery area with mosaics and Greek and Armenian inscriptions (Amit and Wolff 1994). The Chapel of Mamilla

The Mosaic in the Compound of the Carmelite Convent

During other construction, another chapel was discovered outside the north section of the city walls in the area of Mamilla (Reich 1994). The chapel presented visible traces of wall frescoes. In a space here numerous human remains were found. These probably were the victims of the massacre carried out by the Sasanian army in 614. South of the same area Byzantine shops with plain white mosaic floors have been excavated.

A mosaic inscription quoting Psalm 117:20 and 120:8 was discovered within the convent of the Carmelite sisters to the south of the Ascension church (Vincent and Abel 1914: 389). It clearly is to be put in relation to one of the oratories mentioned in the sources. A funerary stone was found in the vicinity. It could be a clue to the location of the monastery of the Virgins built by Melania the Younger.

The Church of Ras ed-Dabbus (Ketef Hinnom) The exploration of the eastern slopes of the Wadi alRababah (Hinnom Valley) unearthed a Byzantine church in a cemetery area (Barkay 1994). The apsed building may measure 45 m by 25 m with a crypt underneath. Tombs decorated with crosses on the walls extended under the narthex floor. Parts of the building had a floor in opus sectile. The church may be the ecclesiastical complex of Saint George outside the city walls mentioned by Strategios.

Byzantine Remains in the Convent of the Benedictine Sisters A square chapel with a mosaic and small apse to the east on top of a tomb containing the remains of some thirty skeletons was found in the compound of the Benedictine Sisters (Vincent and Abel 1914: 389). To the north of the chapel was a well constructed with a mosaiced basin decorated with a cross and the name of Christ.

Armenian Chapels on the Mount of Olives Christian Tombs

A group of mosaics with Armenian inscriptions were discovered in a funerary setting inside the property of the Russian monastery of the Ascension on the Mount of

A number of Christian tombs were found grouped around a mosaic floor in a chapel with an inscription in the 196

PICCIRILLO, EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM

the foundation walls with the central apse and side small apses were found. Bagatti thinks that they formed part of a Byzantine chapel.

compound called Viri Galilaei on the Mount of Olives (Vincent and Abel 1926: 919-920). The Monastery at Dominus Flevit

The Chapel of the Spasm at the Third Station on the Via Dolorosa

This typical example of the numerous monastic buildings that, according to the pilgrims, were built on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, was explored by Bagatti in the 1950s (Bagatti and Milik 1958). The monastery was located in a funerary area of the city used since preIsraelite times in the 15-14th centuries BC and subsequently during the Hellenistic-Roman and ByzantineUmayyad periods.

Clermont-Ganneau in 1874 discovered a fragment of a Byzantine mosaic containing a pair of sandals (Vincent and Abel 1914: 598-604). It is difficult to decide whether it belonged to a church or to a private mansion. Excavations South of the Haram In the Israeli excavations south and southwest of the Haram, traces of Byzantine occupation were uncovered (Ben-Dov 1985). A house had been built in the area that was occupied by Robinson’s Arch during the Herodian period. The house that has been mainly preserved outside the Triple Gate had a more complex plan and contained some mosaiced rooms.

The monastery was built halfway along the western slope of the mount in front of Jerusalem in a space obtained by cutting off the hill to the east and by building a platform supported by sustaining walls to the west. The rooms open onto a central porticoed and paved courtyard that contained cisterns and a wine-press on the west side. The southeast angle is occupied by the apsed chapel with an annexed diaconicon to the north. Both are oriented to the east. Both these intercommunicating areas were paved with mosaics. Their monastic character is underlined by an inscription in the diaconicon.

Conclusion The monumental origins of the new Jerusalem born through an imperial decision with the building of the Holy Sepulchre complex have been described and handed down by Eusebius of Caesarea. The literary sources of the fourth to seventh centuries, particularly the accounts of the pilgrims who visited the city, make it possible to follow the development of the holy Christian topography of Jerusalem. The archaeological discoveries started during the 19th century and are still continuing. They have enriched and concretised the schemes attempted earlier. The fusion of literary information and the results of modern archaeological research give us a much more realistic plan of the Byzantine city. This is because the Byzantine city is inserted within the urban structure of today’s Jerusalem, which has substantially preserved its infrastructure.

The Rock-Cut Chapel of the Prophet Isaiah The rock-cut tombs dug in the western slopes of the Wadi Sitti Maryam were used as cells by monks (Vincent and Abel 1926: 855-860, 872-874). One of the tombs was arranged as a chapel by cutting the apse in the western slope. At the centre it had a small edicule, probably to hold the relics. In the apse an invocation in Greek was engraved in which the name of the prophet Isaiah can be read clearly. The Church of Saint John Strategios, in his account of the capture of Jerusalem in 614, mentions the monastery of St. John. In the Georgian liturgical calendar the commemoration of the beheading of St. John is placed on August 29 at the oratory of the Patriarch John (Garitte 1958: 315-316). The Church of Saint John within the medieval hospital in front of the Holy Sepulchre may be identified with the oratory of the Byzantine period (Vincent and Abel 1914: 642-651, 652668). This is today recognisable in the three-conched crypt of the Greek Orthodox church of Saint John the Forerunner along Christian Street. The acanthus leaf capitals present in the monastery are also from the oratory.

In this context the account left to us by al-Muqaddasi, a Muslim resident of the tenth century (Le Strange 1892), testifies to the impression that the Christian city left on the faithful of Islam. An echo of the impression that the Christian monuments of the Holy City had on the Christian pilgrims are the depictions of Jerusalem that we find in the churches of Rome, such as the mosaic of Santa Pudenziana. In this context we can not forget the significance that the Holy City had reached in the Christian imagination, of which pilgrimage was the cause and at the same time the effect. As Jerome explained while inviting his friends to undertake the voyage to the Holy Land, pilgrims came to see and pray, to get to know the places of redemption, to be edified in their faith ritualising through contact the redemptive and salvific presence of Christ. Reading the contemporary literature we see a gradual intensification

The Church of the Condemnation along the Via Dolorosa It was discovered by the Franciscans in the excavations they carried out in the chapel of the Flagellation along the Via Dolorosa (Vincent and Abel 1922: 596-598). Only 197

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

The most representative such objects are the metal or terra-cotta cruets preserved in the museums of Monza and Bobbio in Italy and in some other museums (Grabar 1958). They are eulogies that contained the oil taken from the lamps in the Holy Places as can be deduced from a Greek inscription that accompanied the depicted scene: “Oil of the wood of life from the Holy Places of Christ (or) of the Holy Places”. The cruets are a precious witness to the veneration towards the Holy Places during those times as well as a document for the sanctuaries that were depicted, such as the edicule of the Holy Sepulchre and Calvary.

of popular piety. Initially there was a historic-geographic interest in getting to know the places where the episodes in the life of Jesus took place and which had been taken as a salvific symbol of God. But gradually that initial interest gave way to a rather naïve devotion. And unscrupulous guides were ready to meet the pilgrim’s wishes by creating and showing the pilgrim’s pious wishful object. There were also those in the first centuries who criticized the enthusiasm of pilgrims like Egeria who wish to see all and Jerome, who in his first years in the Holy Land wrote that pilgrimage forms part of faith. That is because the phenomenon had contaminated all. Even Jerome after his initial enthusiastic propaganda for the Holy Sites, in a letter to Paulinus (1892) moderated his enthusiasm and wrote, “It is not the having been in Jerusalem, but the having lived well in Jerusalem which merits praise … even the site of the Cross and the Resurrection are useful only to those who, every day, carry their cross and rise in Christ.”

Similar eulogies were sent from Jerusalem to Pope Gregory by Anastasius, the hegumenous of the Nea Church. The Pope appreciated the homage “because it is right that from a holy site holy things are transmitted.” Bibliography Amit, David and Samuel Wolff 1994 An Armenian Monastic Complex at Morasha, Jerusalem. Pp. 293-298 in Hellel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem

Notwithstanding this, Jerusalem and the Holy Sites lost neither their meaning nor their charm for Christians. During the eighth century, John of Damascus, who had preferred a cave in the desert of Judah to the palaces of Damascus, expressed himself in strong terms: (1980 Oratio III:34).

Avigad, Nahman 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Bagatti, Bellarmino and J.T. Milik 1958 Gli scavi del Dominus Flevit, Parte I. La necropolis del Periodo Romano. Jerusalem.

We venerate things through which and in which God redeemed us, both before the coming of the Lord and during the period of his incarnation, like Mount Sinai and the city of Nazareth, the manger and the grotto of Bethlehem, the holy Golgotha, the wood of the cross, the nails, the sponge, the reed, the holy and salvific lance, the tunic, the cape, the sheets, the bandages, the holy Sepulchre, rather the source of our resurrection, the stone of the tomb, the holy Mount Sion, and also the Mount of Olives, the Probatica pool and the holy field of Gethsemane. I honor and venerate these and similar things … not for their nature, but because they are receptacles of divine power and through them and in them God deemed it fit to operate our salvation.

Bagatti, Bellarmino, Michele Piccirillo and A. Prodrome 1975 New Discoveries at the Tomb of Virgin Mary in Gethsemane. Jerusalem. Baldi, Donatus 1955 Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum. Documenta S. Evangelii Loca Respicientia. Jerusalem. Barkay, Gabriel 1994 Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem. Pp. 85-106 in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem. Ben-Dov, Meir 1985 In the Shadow of the Temple. Jerusalem. Bieberstein, Klaus and Bloedhorn, Hanswulf 1994 Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, 3 vols. TAVO Beiheft B 100, 1-3; Wiesbaden.

In memory of their visit, the pilgrims took eulogies with them, which could have been some soil or a piece of stone from Calvary or another sanctuary. It could also have been a devotional object in pottery or metal, normally a cruet filled with oil taken from the lamps on the tomb of Christ or on the Rock of Calvary. The needs of these pilgrims were met by a sacred specialized craft that created simple disks of terracotta, metal rings, bracelets or pendants that depicted the edicule of the Holy Sepulchre, Calvary or scenes from the episode whose memory was celebrated in the sanctuary. Those objects kept alive in the memory of Jerusalem and of its sanctuaries in the Christian world.

Bliss, Frederick 1898 Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-1897. London. Borgehammer, Stephan 1991 How the Holy Cross Was Found. Stockholm. Clark, Elizabeth, ed. 1984 The Life of Melania the Elder. New York.

198

PICCIRILLO, EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM

Jerome 1892 Letter 58 to Paulinus. Pp. 119-123 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume 6, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. New York.

Corbo, Virgilio 1962 La morte e la sepolture di S. Giacomo. Pp. 60-77 in S. Giacomo il Minore primo vescovo di Gerusalemme. Jerusalem. 1965 Ricerche archeologiche al Monte degli Ulivi. Jerusalem. 1981-1982 Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme: aspetti archeologici dalle origini al periodo crociato. Jerusalem.

John of Damascus 1980 On the Divine Images. Crestwood, New York. Le Strange, Guy 1892 Description of Syria, Including Palestine. Palestine Pilgrims Text Society 3. London.

Cyril 1893 Catechetical Lectures. Pp. 1-183 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume 7. New York.

Maraval, Pierre 1985 Lieux Saints et pèlerinage de’Orient. Historie et géographie. Des origines à la conquête arabe. Paris.

Cyril of Scythopolis 1991 The Lives of the Monks of Palestine. Kalamazoo.

Milik, J.T. 1960-1961 La Topographie de Jérusalem vers la fin de l’époque byzantine. Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 37: 127-189.

Drijvers, Jan Willem 1992 Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden.

Orfali, Gaudence 1924 Gethsemani. Paris.

Eusebius 1890 Life of Constantine. Pp. 481-559 in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume One. New York. 2003 The Onomasticon. Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Jerusalem.

Reich, Rony 1994 The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem. Pp. 111-118 in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem. Saller, Sylvester 1957 Excavations at Bethany (1949-1953). Jerusalem.

Eutychius 1985 Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien, ed. and trans. Michael Breydy. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalum 471-472, Scr. Arabici 44-45. Leuven.

Schick, Conrad and J. Dickson 1901 A Recently-Discovered Mosaic at Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 234. Vincent, Hugues and Felix-Marie Abel 1914 Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’historie II. Jérusalem Nouvelle, 1-2. Paris. 1922 Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’historie II. Jérusalem Nouvelle, 3. Paris. 1926 Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’historie II. Jérusalem Nouvelle, 4. Paris.

Garitte, Gérard 1958 Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siécle). Brussels. Geyer, P., ed. 1898 Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi IIII-VIII. CSEL 39. Leipzig. Grabar, André 1958 Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza-Bobbio). Paris. Holum, Kenneth 1982 Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California.

Walker, Peter W.L. 1990 Holy Cities, Holy Places. Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century. Oxford.

Hunt, E.D. 1982 Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire. A.D. 312-460. Oxford.

Wilkinson, John 1971 Egeria’s Travels. London: SPCK. 1977 Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Warminster.

Itineraria et Alia Geographica 1965 Itineraria Hierosolymitana CCSL 175. Turnholt.

199

Crusades.

CHAPTER 18 THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM: CHOCOLATE-ONWHITE WARE AND CHRONOLOGY Peter M. Fischer report was entrusted to Saller because of Lemaire’s ill health.

Introduction The aim of this study is to consider the possible presence of Chocolate-on-White Ware in a tomb from the “Jebusite” Burial Place at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem, which was in use from the later part of the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age II, according to Saller (1964:1 197). Other objectives are to relate the possible Chocolate-on-White Ware vessels to the recently established typology and chronology of this ware from the Transjordanian site of Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley (Fischer 1999) and to discuss the period of time represented by the tomb in relative and absolute terms. A brief contribution to the present debate concerning Jerusalem’s status during the Late Bronze Age is presented.2

Albright suggested in a letter to Lemaire (January 23, 1956) the following time-span for the use of the tomb: “…It is very interesting to find a tomb of the outgoing Middle Bronze and the early Late Bronze in this situation. The tomb must have been used intermittently over a considerable interval of time, as you have already indicated. A number of the alabastra and two of the scarabs point to a beginning date no later than the 16th century. The same is true of a few of the vases, such as p. 273: 1, 10, 11, 12 and p. 274: 2, etc. (Lemaire 1954-5: 261-299; present author’s note); I am inclined to think that you have one or more burials in the 16th century, and others in the Late Bronze. In any case the pieces you have presented cover a period from 1600 to about 1300 B.C. …” (Saller: 3).

The “Jebusite” Burial Place The basis of this study is Saller’s account of the large amount of finds from a burial place at Dominus Flevit on the western slope of the Mount of Olives in eastern Jerusalem. Dominus Flevit is the name given to a narrow strip of land acquired by the Franciscans of the Custody of the Holy Land in 1889 and to the later built chapel. ”Dominus Flevit” was chosen to commemorate the fact that during his triumphal entry into Jerusalem Jesus wept over the city (Luke 19: 39-44). The name “Jebusite” was given to the burial place “… since our tomb also contains objects of a period when the Hyksos were no longer in Palestine, but the local inhabitants of Jebus, as the city was known at that time, were still there …” (Saller: 8).

Chocolate-on-White Ware: History, the Evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Classification Problems The History and Distribution of Chocolate-on-White Ware3 Chocolate-on-White is nowadays a generally used term; although never strictly defined, it is applied to a ware which is usually decorated and of an excellent quality. The name given to this ware was helpfully descriptive.4 The term “Chocolate-on-White Ware” has its origin in Petrie’s accounts of his excavations at Tell el-‘Ajjul (Gaza) in the 1930s. He first reported this ware under the heading “Gaza. Painted Pottery. Finest Ware” (Petrie 1931: Plate XXXII, 55-62) and described it as a “… remarkable class of ware; the surface creamy white and glossy … the colouring chocolate … the finest ancient fabric known.” (Petrie 1931: 10). It was later also described by him as “chocolate and white pottery …” with “… a bright white face well polished” (Petrie 1932: 11), “cream and chocolate” (Petrie 1933: 12) and “chocolate brown on white” decorated (Petrie 1934: 13). Among other sites where the ware was found are Jericho (e.g. Garstang 1933, Plate XXXI: 2, and 1934: passim;

The bilobate or kidney-shaped tomb (Saller: 7) that is dealt with in this study was discovered during building activities in 1954 and excavated during the same year. A preliminary report was published in 1955 (Lemaire 19545: 261-299). The total number of objects grew to “ … well over 2000 …” (Saller: 6) during the course of the excavations. They included “… about 1000 bowls … about 342 lamps … about 250 dippers … about 83 juglets … about 80 jars … about 60 jugs … about 50 Base-ring ware etc. …” (Saller: 6). Non-clay objects were about 164 in number. In 1956, the completion of the 1.

2.

3. 4.

Henceforth abbreviated Saller. Saller does not use the now established term Chocolate-on-White Ware, although Petrie described the ware as “cream and chocolate” as early as 1932 (Petrie 1932:11) and Tufnell later used the term “Chocolate on White” (1940: 80). Cf. Steiner 1998, Na’aman 1998 and Cahill 1998. 200

Cf. Fischer 1999. A descriptive name for a ware is in the author’s opinion much better than a name marking the site of its “first” appearance (cf. the misnomer “Abydos Ware”, e.g. Prausnitz 1954, which is identical with Metallic Burnished Ware, a southern Levantine product; Fischer and Toivonen 1995; Fischer 2000).

FISCHER, THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM

Kenyon and Holland 1982: Figures 103:6, 118:2; Kenyon and Holland 1983: Figures 168:15; 169:6; 170:1; 210:9) and Megiddo (Guy 1938: e.g. Plates 36:14; 44:3; 48:1; 51:6; Loud 1948: Plate 54:11, 18). The corresponding pottery from the Fosse Temple at Lachish was referred to by Tufnell as “Chocolate on White” (Tufnell et al. 1940: 80), a term that is still in general use. The ware was also reported from Tell el-Far‘ah (e.g. de Vaux 1951: Figure 9:12), Amman (Harding and Isserlin 1953: Figures 7:46; 8:89; Bennett and Northedge 1977-1978: 286, Plate CI:25), Jerusalem (Saller in this study) and from other sites elsewhere in Palestine.

those examples as Chocolate-on-White Ware is nevertheless doubtful: neither the decoration and its position on the neck in the former nor the shapes in the latter reference are characteristic of Chocolate-on-White vessels (see below). Reports of the appearance of the ware from other areas are scarce: sherds of Chocolate-on-White Ware were reported from, for example, Tell el Ghassil (DoumetSerhal 1995/96: 41-42, Plate III: 7-9) and Tell Kamid elLoz in Lebanon (Weippert 1998: 19). A related ware was also reported from Tell Hadidi in Syria (Dornemann 1981: 42). During 1997, the author has investigated sherds of possible Chocolate-on-White Ware from Egypt, from the Hyksos capital Tell el-Dab‘a in the Nile Delta, but no single example of this ware has been confirmed in the pre-1997 material.9 However, the first ascertained find of Chocolate-on-White Ware from Egypt came in 2003. The author classified a jug from late Hyksos or early 18th Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a as a representative of Chocolate-on-White Ware (Fischer in press 2).

Almost four decades after the ware was mentioned for the first time, Amiran (1970: 158-160) presented “The ‘Chocolate-on-White’ Ware” as a separate chapter in her publication: Chocolate-on-White Ware was described in general terms and placed within the chronological framework of her basic diachronic study of Palestinian pottery. Other authors have mentioned this ware from Trans- and Cisjordanian sites in their excavation reports or have discussed it in studies of style and possible provenance (selected references): Beth Shan (Oren 1973: 68-85); Pella (Smith 1973: Tomb 1 passim; Hennessy 1985: 100-113; Knapp 1987: 1-30; Knapp et al.1988: 57113; Smith and Potts 1992: 35-81; Bourke 1994: 105, 107); Shechem (Clamer 1977: 48); Tell Kittan (Eisenberg 1977: Plate D); Irbid (Kafafi 1977: 435); Tell Deir ‘Alla (Franken and Ibrahim 1977-1978: 228, Plate XLII: 1;6 Franken 1992: 151-152); Kataret es-Samra (Leonard 1981: 191-193; 1986: 166-167); Baq‘ah (McGovern 1986: 64-99 passim); Tel Kabri (Kempinski 1988: Tomb 902); Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 1991: 86-87, 96-97; 1993: 292-294; 1994: 130; 1995: 108-113; 1996: 105; 1997a); Tell el-Fukhar (Strange 1997: 402; McGovern 1997: 421-425), Tell ‘Ain ‘Abda7 (Fischer forthcoming), Tell el-‘Ajjul (Fischer and Sadeq 2000; 2002), Tell elHammeh8 (p.c. E. van der Steen), and again Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir ‘Alla (Bourke, Fischer and van der Kooij, in Fischer in press 1; Fischer 2003).

The Evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Pella The ten seasons of excavations (1989-1998) within the settlement of Tell Abu al-Kharaz produced a total of 347 stratified vessels which fulfill the criteria below. Since the study on the typology, chronology and provenance of Chocolate-on-White Wares from the settlement of Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley was published (Fischer 1999), the author has had the opportunity to investigate related wares from Pella’s Tomb 62 visually at first hand (Fischer 2003). The studied vessels, which are a part of the assemblage from Tomb 62 and the majority of which were virtually or completely intact, are stored in the Pella Room and in the Nicholson Museum, both at the University of Sydney, Australia.10 The criteria for assigning pottery to Chocolate-on-White Ware are: - the vessels are as a rule wheel-made - relatively thick slip covers the entire surface (open shapes) or extends to the point where it can be reached by the potter’s brush (closed shapes) - the slip is most often “white”, although it may range from pink through yellowish-white to light grey (see below) - the slip is burnished on a wheel, or at least a turntable; early examples may be hand-burnished, usually vertically - the vessels are in general decorated (all shapes) but there are exceptions of groups of vessels which are plain-burnished:

The ware was also discussed in connection with its appearance outside Palestine, in Cyprus at PhlamoudhiVounari (Al-Radi 1983: 48, 61, Plate. XXXVI: 2) and Enkomi (Bergoffen 1990: 51-54). The identification of 5. 6.

7. 8.

Bennett and Northedge (1977-1978: 178) described it as “ … a late Middle Bronze Age/early Late Bronze Age jug painted in red on white with a snake handle …”. This vessel is described in the report as a Middle Bronze Age carinated bowl. It is Chocolate-on-White Ware according to G. van der Kooij (p.c.). It is very likely a representative of Chocolate-on-White Ware I (author’s opinion). Additional Chocolate-on-White Ware sherds including a similar carinated bowl were discovered during rescue excavation at Tell Deir ‘Alla in spring 1998 (van der Kooij in Fischer in press 1). Tell ‘Ain ‘Abda is situated approx. 13 km northeast of Irbid. In 1995 the author conducted a survey and rescue excavations in the area. Tell el-Hammeh is situated approx. 2 km east of Tell Deir ‘Alla.

9.

10. 201

The jug (Cairo Egyptian Museum inventory no. TD-7843 [136]) from Tell el-Dab‘a is described as a possible representative of Chocolate-on-White (Hein 1994: 247, no. 320; see also Hein 1993: 40, Figure 12b). The context is 18th Dynasty (p.c. I. Hein). Their identification as possible Chocolate-on-White Ware is doubtful. The remaining assemblage is stored at the Department of Antiquities of Irbid.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

1) Eggshell Ware (ES) which includes carinated bowls and small jars of a thin and fine ware; 2) a few large kraters, which in shape resemble the contemporary cooking-pots but also show some traits of the biconical jars;11 3) a few jugs and juglets12 - the decoration is always matt and applied on the burnished slip - closed vessels in general show decoration (exceptions see above), which is most often confined to the upper part of the vessel - the decoration of open vessels is applied on the exterior only,13 the interior only,14 or quite often on both sides15 - the decoration is frequently dark reddish-brown (chocolate-brown), but it covers a colour spectrum from light red to “black” (very dark brown) - vessels may be bichrome-decorated, most frequently “red” and “black” - the “perfect” finish alone is not taken as a criterion (contra Amiran 1970: 158-159; see also Hennessy 1985: 112);16 however, the majority of the vessels are carefully wheel-finished and, when decorated, most often excellently executed except for representatives from the end of the life span of the Chocolate-onWhite Ware - the clay is usually hard-fired in oxidizing and/or reducing conditions; the fired clay’s hardness ranges between 4 and 6, the majority around 5, according to Mohs’ index (1-10), i.e. the surface can be scratched by window glass (around 4.5) or stainless steel (around 6) - the inclusions vary considerably from very fine to very coarse (Wentworth 1922: 377-392; 1933: 633634).

references with Cyprus, shows that the wares were produced from the late Middle Bronze Age II17 (or Albright’s late MB IIB) until the beginning of the Late Bronze Age IB. This time-span falls within the suggested dating of the tomb from Jerusalem. Classification Problems Saller’s comprehensive study, which was published approximately a decade after the tomb’s discovery, is commendable. However, the description of the surface treatment, i.e. the slip, decoration and burnish, which is essential to our study, is sometimes incomplete (e.g. Saller: 35, nos. 14-16; or 51, no. 5 and elsewhere). In addition, nothing was said about the hardness of the fired clay. This leaves room for various and incorrect interpretations, when this material is studied visually at second hand. Another problem is presented by possible hybrids, i.e. “common” decorated ware with some of the traits of Chocolate-on-White Ware, and vessels belonging to the beginning and the end of the life-span of the Chocolateon-White Ware: the production and development of a certain prototype may have been a process that took decades and involved an amalgamation of different contemporary wares, innovations and demands. The reverse situation should be anticipated as regards the termination of production at the end of the life cycle of a certain ware. This problem was clearly demonstrated in the Tell Abu al-Kharaz material, and it is likely to occur in the present material as well. In addition, one should be aware of the various possible interpretations, when published material is studied visually at second hand as has been done in the present investigation. Vessels studied at second hand could, for example:

Consequently, non-burnished vessels of matching shapes, also those with a white slip but very thin or applied as a white wash, or without slip, although decorated in the “Chocolate-on-White Ware style” with monochrome or bichrome paint, were not included within the Chocolateon-White group (contra Hennessy 1985: 103-106).

1. 2.

Six sub-groups of Chocolate-on-White Ware were found within the material from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Phases IV/1 and 2, V and VI, namely (from Fischer 1999): ProtoChocolate-on-White Bichrome Ware, Chocolate-onWhite Bichrome Ware, Eggshell Ware, and Chocolateon-White I, II and III. The chronological framework, which is supported by radiocarbon dates and cross11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

3.

This type occurs at Tell Abu al-Kharaz. These belong to the Pella Tomb 62 material. An example where the decoration is only on the exterior is, for example, a carinated bowl from Pella Tomb 105 (Bourke 1994: 111, Fig. 18: 6, and 116). Examples, where the decoration is only on the interior come from, for example, Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 1999: 10, Fig. 5: 1−2). E.g. Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 1999: 9, Fig. 4). The surface treatment is in general superior to the quality of the clay.

17. 18.

202

represent Chocolate-on-White satisfying a prestated, subjectively created range of criteria (see the author’s definition above). represent a bichrome variant of Chocolate-on-White, which differs from the locally produced or imported bichrome wares, burnished or not, of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. be monochrome-decorated vessels from the later part of the Middle Bronze Age and the first part of Late Bronze Age, whose shapes and/or decorations correspond to those of Chocolate-on-White, but which lack the most crucial criteria of that ware, e.g. have no applied burnish and/or just a thin white slip or wash.18 The Middle Bronze Age terminology here used refers to the MB I−III system where MB I = MB IIA, MB II = MB IIB and MB III = MB IIC. This problem is demonstrated by Hennessy’s references (1985: 108) to Saller (50, Figure 16: 4, 53; and 51, Figures 17: 1, 52). Hennessy attributes these bowls to his Chocolate-on-White Group 1. Saller describes the former

FISCHER, THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM

4.

be a “harbinger” of Chocolate-on-White from the Middle Bronze Age, but not the actual ware itself.

“Related Middle Bronze Age Wares” by Hennessy (1985: 107, Figure 3: 3, and 110). 3. Carinated bowls with (concave) disk bases20

Possible Chocolate-on-White Ware from the Tomb

Three vessels which show some traits in common with Chocolate-on-White Ware were among the carinated bowls with more or less concave disk bases or “semiring” bases (see Note 11): no. 48 (Saller: 39, Figure 10: 3, 43), no. 51 (Saller: 40, Figure 11: 5, 43), and no. 34 (Saller: 42, no illustration). The overall shape of no. 48 seems to exclude it from the Chocolate-on-White Ware group: it is obviously a post-Chocolate-on-White Ware product. The shape of no. 51 despite the somewhat unusual base, seems to be a product of the later part of the Middle Bronze Age. It may possibly be a hybrid (see above) and may be ascribed to Hennessy’s “Related Middle Bronze Age Wares” (see similar vessels with ring bases (!) from Pella in Hennessy 1985: 107, Figure 3: 2, 4 and 110, there called jars). As is the case with the latter, there are no parallels from Tell Abu al-Kharaz.

I. Carinated Bowls The most likely representatives of the Chocolate-onWhite Ware, sub-group Eggshell Ware, are to be found among Saller’s group “Carinated bowls with trumpet bases” (Saller: 33-38). The shapes of these vessels are identical with the Eggshell Ware from Tell Abu alKharaz and other sites (Fischer 1999, Figure 6: 1-3, and text including further references).19 1. Carinated bowls with medium or high ring bases (Figures 1: 3, 1: 5-7) Saller’s “carinated bowls with trumpet bases” belong to this group of vessels. The following vessels may represent Chocolate-on-White Ware, Eggshell Ware (according to Fischer’s typology; Fischer 1999). Although he did not refer to the presence of a burnish, he mentions a white slip: no. 1 (Saller: 33, 34, Figure 7: 1; see Figure 1: 3 in the present article; cf. Tell Abu alKharaz in Fischer 1999: Figure 6: 1-3 and Figure 1: 5-7 in the present article), no. 2 (Saller: 33, 35, Figure 8: 1), no. 12 (Saller: 33, 34, Figure 7: 11), no. 21 (Saller: 36, no illustration) and no. 36 (Saller: 36, no illustration).

II. Rounded Bowls with medium or high ring bases Saller (49) calls this group of vessels “bowls with plain straight or curved sides; sub-group: trumpet-shaped bases”. Some vessels of this group have a white slip; however, Saller did not mention the presence of a burnish. Amongst these are (none is illustrated): no. 2 (Saller: 49), nos. 16, 21, 30, 38 and 52 (Saller: 52-54). These vessels may be Chocolate-on-White Ware, but could also be representatives of the “common” whiteslipped ware of the end of the Middle and the Late Bronze Ages.

The description of the decorated “carinated bowls with trumpet bases” does not indicate Chocolate-on-White Ware (Saller: 35, Figure 8 and text). 2.

Carinated bowl with low ring base (Figure 1: 2)

Other possible representatives of Chocolate-on-White Ware may be found among incomplete bowls with a white slip, where only the trumpet bases are preserved: nos. 3 and 8 (Saller: 67, no illustrations).

One vessel of this group (Saller’s “carinated bowls with ring bases”, Saller: 44) fulfils the requirements for inclusion in the Chocolate-on-White Ware group as regards the surface treatment: white slipped and burnished (no. 1, Saller: 44, Figure 13: 1; see Figure 1: 2 in the present article). The shape has no close Chocolateon-White Ware parallels at Tell Abu al-Kharaz. It may represent a hybrid between a shape belonging to an earlier Middle Bronze Age tradition and Chocolate-onWhite Ware. It can possibly attributed to a group named

19.

III. Jugs (Figures 1: 4, 1: 8) Three jugs have three-strand-handles, one of which has a “whitish slip which is polished” (no. 1, Saller: 74, 75, Figure 23, Plate 19: 1). The second has a thick white slip, but no mention is made of a burnish (no. 2, Saller: 74 and 87, Figure 29: 9). The surface treatment of the third jug is described as a “yellowish white slip ... looks like a thick coat of paint or a glaze” (no. 3, Saller: 75 and 87, Figure 29: 8). The same surface treatment was found among jugs with two-strand-handles with a third strand superimposed (nos. 4-9, Saller: 75, one on Plate 19: 11). The shapes of these vessels do not belong to the common repertoire of Chocolate-on-White Ware. However, the surface treatment of the majority of them fulfils the criteria for Chocolate-on-White Ware. These vessels represent very likely hybrids of late Middle Bronze Age II wares and early Chocolate-on-White Ware.

as a bowl with a “curved side and trumpet base”. He further mentions a greenish-white slip, but no burnish. The latter belongs to the same vessel shape: nothing is mentioned about the colour of the slip or a burnish in Saller’s publication. This thin and hard-fired ware found at Tell Abu alKharaz shows no decoration but has a highly wheelburnished thick white slip, which is one of the main criteria for inclusion in the Chocolate-on-White Ware group of vessels. However, there are occasionally vessels of identical overall form from other sites, which show monochrome matt reddish-brown decoration, e.g. Beth Shan, Oren 1973: 190, Figure 28 passim or the “Indianred” decorated vessels from Pella, Hennessy 1985: 102, or bichrome, matt black and brown/red, decoration, e.g. Pella Tomb 62, Knapp 1987: 20, Figure 9: 1.

20.

203

“The most pronounced concavities … would probably be classed as semi-ring bases at Lachish”, Saller: 43 and references.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

One jug of Saller’s group “with handle from rim or neck to shoulder and flat bottom” (no. 6, Saller: 86, and 83, Figure 27: 5, Plate 20: 7) has a white slip and a vertical burnish. There are no parallels from Tell Abu al-Kharaz.

VII. Painted Sherds A fragment of the wide mouth of a white-slipped biconical jug shows bichrome decoration in red and black (no. 2, Saller: 155, Figure 59: 13; 161; no burnish is mentioned; see “Classification problems” above). Biconical jugs are among the Chocolate-on-White-Bichrome Ware from Tell Abu al-Kharaz. It is possible that this vessel belongs to the Chocolate-on-White Ware family.

One jug with a ring base has “a white slip and polished surface” (no. 3, Saller: 87, Figure 29: 11, 89). The shape of the angular body and the base is almost identical with that of representatives of Chocolate-on-White I Ware from Tell Abu al-Kharaz (e.g. Fischer 1999: Figures 5: 5 and 6; see also Figure 1: 4 and the counterpart from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Figure 1: 8 here).

Conclusions and Discussion Twenty-eight of the over 1800 ceramic vessels from the Jerusalem tomb may represent Chocolate-on-White Ware, or hybrids of an earlier tradition and Chocolate-onWhite Ware: five carinated bowls with medium or high ring bases, one carinated bowl with a low ring base and one with a concave disk base, eight rounded bowls with medium or high ring bases, five jugs, three dipper juglets, four goblets and one chalice. No statistics about the percentage of the Chocolate-on-White Ware vessels in relation to the remaining, contemporaneous ceramic assemblage of the entire tomb are possible, because Saller treated the assemblage as a whole: it was only classified by vessel shapes and not chronologically in his publication, although he discussed chronological implications in general terms after the description of each pottery group. An attempt is made to separate some of the possible Chocolate-on-White Ware vessels from the Jerusalem tomb chronologically in Table 1.

IV. Cylindrical and Related Juglets Some of Saller’s “cylindrical and related juglets” (Saller: 90-107) show white slip and traces of a burnish (Saller: 90). Amongst these are partly preserved undecorated juglets (no. 10, Saller: 93, 92, Figure 30: 10, Plate 22: 16; no. 24, Saller: 95-96, Figure 32: 3, Plate 23: 11). However, their shapes are untypical of the common Chocolate-on-White Ware repertoire. They are certainly representatives of an earlier Middle Bronze Age, very likely Middle Bronze Age II, tradition. V. Dipper Juglets A few of the dipper juglets are described as having white slip and usually vertical burnish (no. 60, Saller: 114, 115, Figure 41: 9; no. 85, Saller: 117, 116, Figure 42: 19; no. 88, Saller: 117, 118, Figure 43: 2). This type of vessel is not represented among those from Tell Abu al-Kharaz which are classified as Chocolate-on-White Ware. However, some representatives from Pella of this shape with a similar surface treatment are described as a subgroup of Chocolate-on-White Ware (Hennessy 1985: 105 and Figure 2: 3).

Middle Bronze Age Hybrids (Figures 1: 1, 2) The carinated bowls with the low ring bases and the one with an untypical base seem to belong to the hybrid group, i.e. to be products of the later part of the Middle Bronze Age. The same can be said of the four goblets, which have no parallels at Tell Abu al-Kharaz.

VI. Goblets and Chalices (Figure 1: 1)

Three jugs with three-strand handles out of a total of 60 and a chalice may also represent hybrids of Middle Bronze Age III shapes and early Chocolate-on-White Ware. The shapes of these vessels are unlike the common repertoire of Chocolate-on-White Ware from Tell Abu alKharaz, but closely resemble representatives of a somewhat earlier ceramic tradition (see e.g. a similar jug type with burnished white slip from a tomb in the Amman Citadel in Najjar 1991:22 127, Figure 16: 3, 4). However, the surface treatment of the above-mentioned bowls, goblets, jugs and chalice resemble that of Chocolate-on-White Ware, although the painted decoration is missing.

Four goblets with a white slip and burnish are presented (nos. 4-6, Saller: 139, Figures 52: 2, 4, 5; together with a fragmentary vessel no. 8, Saller: 139, no illustration). These goblets have no parallels at Tell Abu al-Kharaz. They may represent hybrids between an earlier Middle Bronze Age tradition and Chocolate-on-White Ware. They may be connected with “Related Middle Bronze Age Wares” as described by Hennessy (1985: 107, Figure 3: 2, 4). A chalice has the same surface treatment (no. 5, Saller: 141, 154, Figure 58: 6;21 see Figure 1: 1 in the present article). This vessel may very well be considered as a hybrid of a Middle Bronze Age II shape and early Chocolate-on-White Ware.

Chocolate-on-White-Bichrome Ware (?) A fragment of a biconical jug with a wide mouth shows bichrome decoration in red and black. There is a possibility that this vessel belongs to the Chocolate-on-

21.

Saller mentions that “…This burnished white slip distinguishes this goblet (with high pedestal) from all the preceding ones.

22. 204

Najjar equates his tomb with Megiddo XI (Najjar 1991: 128).

FISCHER, THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM

White-Bichrome Ware, which is well documented at Tell Abu al-Kharaz: the vessel’s shape and its decoration have parallels at Tell Abu al-Kharaz in Phase IV/1-2. This phase is dated within late Middle Bronze Age II to Middle Bronze Age III. Chocolate-on-White-Bichrome Ware may have also been in use during the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

Chocolate-on-White III Ware The problem in ascribing vessels from the Jerusalem tomb to this sub-group lies in the definition of Chocolateon-White III Ware itself: “The vessel shapes are roughly unchanged compared with Chocolate-on-White II. The decoration becomes in general even more stereotyped and in some cases almost slovenly. Slips become even thinner, and it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between Chocolate-on-White Ware and the common, thin-slipped and decorated pottery of the Late Bronze Age: the latter is often decorated on a self-slip or a very thin slip or wash” (from Fischer 1999).

Eggshell Ware (Figure 1: 3) Saller (48, 49) compared the 110 carinated bowls from the tomb, 39 of which have a medium or high ring base, with material from Lachish, Megiddo and Jericho and dated those with a sharply angular carination to the late Middle Bronze Age II (“... for our earliest group.” Saller: 49). Saller’s tentative dating is in agreement with the evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, where the Eggshell Ware (some of Saller’s carinated bowls with trumpet bases) is dated within the late Middle Bronze Age II to III period with a continuation into the beginning of the Late Bronze Age I.

We can certainly agree that Chocolate-on-White Ware, Chocolate-on-White III excluded, is an outstanding product of a highly developed ceramic industry (see also Amiran 1970: 158; Hennessy 1986: 135; Franken 1992: 151-152). Chocolate-on-White Ware was produced in the Central Jordan Valley and in southern Lebanon, according to the material from Tell Abu al-Kharaz recently investigated petrographically (Fischer 1999). The target market for this table-ware was mainly Cis- and Transjordan.

As it is pointed out above, the shape of the carinated bowl with a low ring base has no close Chocolate-onWhite Ware parallels at Tell Abu al-Kharaz. Our carinated bowl is a typical product of the Middle Bronze Age II−III and may represent a hybrid between the “common” ware of that period and Eggshell Ware (see above).

A list of some key sites where Chocolate-on-White Ware occurs includes (for references see above): the Transjordanian sites of Tell Abu al-Kharaz from where so far the largest number of Chocolate-on-White vessels from one settlement derives, and Pella with the largest number of such vessels from tombs; in addition, Tell ‘Ain ‘Abda, Tell el-Fukhar, Tell Deir ‘Alla, Irbid, Amman, Kataret es-Samra and Baq‘ah; and the Cisjordanian sites of Tel Kabri, Megiddo, Tell Kittan, Beth Shan, Tell el-Far‘ah North, Shechem, Jerusalem, Jericho and Tell el-‘Ajjul. Finds from outside the southern Levant come from, for example, Kamid el-Loz and Tell Ghassil in Lebanon, from Tell Hadidi in Syria, and Tell el-Dab‘a in Egypt.

Chocolate-on-White I Ware (Figure 1: 4) One partly preserved, undecorated (?) jug with an angular body and a surface treatment which fulfils the criteria for inclusion as Chocolate-on-White Ware has a close parallel at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, i.e. amongst representatives of the Chocolate-on-White I Ware. The examples from Tell Abu al-Kharaz are all decorated. Chocolate-on-White I Ware is dated to the later part of the Middle Bronze Age.

A minor part of the ceramic assemblage from the Jerusalem tomb, the low number of which underlines the exclusivity of the Chocolate-on-White Ware, seems to be of this ware. These vessels were imported from either the Transjordanian part of the Central Jordan Valley or/and southern Lebanon.

Chocolate-on-White I or II Ware Amongst the 64 rounded bowls with medium or high ring bases are eight which, as far as their shapes are concerned, are identical with bowls of Chocolate-onWhite Ware I (Fischer 1999: Figure 5: 1) and Chocolateon-White Ware II (Fischer 1999: Figure 9: 1-2). Saller observed correctly that early types of the bowls, which correspond approximately to the shapes of our collection, come from Middle Bronze Age contexts, for example, from Megiddo and Hazor (see references in Saller: 54). In the Late Bronze Age, however, parallels are closer and more numerous: Megiddo, Hazor, Lachish (see references in Saller: 55), Pella (e.g. Bourke 1994: 111, Figure 18: 7) and Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 1991: 87, Figure 9: 1) provide close parallels. Chocolate-on-White II Ware was produced during the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

Other finds from our tomb derive from Egypt or are locally produced (Saller: 166 and references), for example, at least 18 alabaster23 and five faience vases (Saller: 163-168). A bifacial steatite plaque and seven scarabs are either imports from Egypt or Canaanite work (cf. the discussion of the origin of the scarabs discovered in Palestine in Keel 1995: 13, 29-35, and references). The steatite plaque (Lemaire 1954-55: 295, Figure 21: 1; Saller: 187, Figure 64: 1, Plate 38: 1) is typical of the 15th Dynasty according to Keel (1995: 84, § 205). All of the scarabs with one exception are also from the Hyksos 23. 205

In addition, Saller mentions four fragments of alabaster vases; Saller: 163.

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

period according to Saller (186-193 with references to Lemaire 1954-5; five of the Hyksos scarabs are mentioned in Niccacci 1980: nos. 86, 104, 129, 133 and 266 in Preface): the exception is a white steatite scarab, which bears the name of Tuthmosis III (Saller: 187, Figure 64: 7, Plate 38: 7, 190-191; see also Jeager 1982: 57, Figure 77).

same period (Amiran 1961: 37; see above as regards the Base-ring Ware). Albright and Saller stated that the period of time represented by the tomb was approximately 300 years, i.e. 1600-1300 BC. The suggested dates of the Middle Bronze Age ceramic hybrids of common white slipped and burnished wares and early Chocolate-on-White Ware point to a longer period of use of the tomb than suggested by Saller. The terminus ad quem for the use of the tomb is outlined by the Cypriote and Mycenaean imports.26 The Mycenaean pottery from the Late Helladic IIIA1 or IIIA2 period does not contradict Albright’s and Saller’s 1300 BC date for the final use of the tomb, but Base-ring II has a life-span beyond 1300 BC. A slightly revised date of between approximately the 17th and the 13th century BC is therefore offered.

Discussion A detailed discussion of the Post-Chocolate-on-White pottery lies beyond the scope of this study, but some general observations and a refined chronology may support Saller’s conclusion about the terminus ad quem of the tomb. The pottery which is later than Chocolateon-White Ware, Chocolate-on-White III excluded, dominates the ceramic assemblage of the Jerusalem tomb. Saller’s “small painted and unpainted jars”, which would be better named two-handled jugs/juglets (Saller: 20, Figure 5; 21, Figure 6), for example, belong mainly to the Late Bronze Age IB-C tradition (cf. the Type II A-C vessels from Sahem, Fischer 1997: 38-43; 141, Figure 38; 154, Plate 13; 155, Plate 14). The same chronological distribution is suggested for the majority of the carinated and rounded bowls, which is by far the largest group of vessels from the tomb (Saller: 32-73).

Can our tomb material or that from a tomb at Nahlat Ahim in another part of the Jerusalem area contribute to the discussion of whether during the Middle27 and Late28 Bronze Ages Jerusalem was an important city, a town, a small settlement, a region, a tribe or just a small estate? Saller (197) himself states “… that the city of the 14th century was not limited to the Ophel Hill in the neighbourhood of the spring, but had suburbs extending quite far to the north-west.”

Imports from Cyprus are represented by at least 17 jugs of Base-ring I (Saller: 128, Figure 48: 9, 11; cf. Åström 1972: Figure XLIX: 10) including Saller’s “mug” which is in fact a jug (Saller: 131, Figure 49: 12; cf. Åström 1972: Figure L, passim) and Base-ring II Ware (e.g. Saller: 128, Figure 48: 1, 2; cf. Åström 1972: Figure LIII: 2, 3). Approximately 30 juglets and four bowls are also Base-ring Ware. Base-ring I Ware is dated within Late Cypriote IA2- IIA2, which corresponds to approximately Late Bronze Age IA-B. The period of production of Base-ring II lies within Late Cypriote IIA1-IIC2 (cf. Åström 1972: 700, 762), i.e. roughly Late Bronze Age IB-transitional Late Bronze Age II/Iron Age I. There are also locally produced imitations of Base-ring Ware amongst the finds. A thorough study of the imported Base-ring II vessels from our tomb could possibly throw further light on the terminus ad quem for the use of the tomb.24 Another large group of Cypriote imported Basering vessels, together with other vessels, some of which have parallels in our material, was discovered in a rockcut tomb in the northwest part of Jerusalem at Nahlat Ahim. The tomb material is assigned to the 14th century (Amiran 1961: 25-37).

Steiner (1998: 33) argues that there was a town built on the south-eastern hill (the City of David) only during the first half of the Middle Bronze Age (about 1800 BC according to Steiner). She continues that the town ceased to exist during the second half of the Middle Bronze Age (1700-1550 BC according to Steiner), and that only tombs testify to the presence of settlers in the region during the Late Bronze Age. The Urusalim of the Amarna letters might have been just a small estate somewhere near the Gihon spring, over which ruled Abdi-Heba, whose duty was perhaps that of a steward of the royal Egyptian domains in the area (Steiner 1998: 28). The delivery of slaves to the pharaoh and the protection of the route to Beth Shan might have been among his obligations (Steiner 1998: 28, 33). Steiner hinted at a search for Abdi-Heba’s house in the vicinity of our tomb, which may have been connected with AbdiHeba’s family (Steiner 1998: 28). The scarcity of archaeological remains from a Late Bronze Age settlement within the Jerusalem area seems to support her theory that there was no “town” of any importance during this period.

Mycenaean pottery is represented by two small piriform jars, one of which at least is from Late Helladic IIIA1 or, more likely, IIIA2 (i.e. within the 14th century; one is illustrated in Saller: 154, Figure 58: 4).25 Mycenaean vessels also come from another Jerusalem burial from the 24. 25.

26. 27.

28.

Åström (p.c.) states that there is no “late Base-ring II” in the tomb. The shape of the illustrated piriform jar is FS 44 or FS 45; cf. Mountjoy 1986: 56, Figure 62 and 72, Figure 45. 206

There may be some locally produced vessels of a later date. The Egyptian execration texts from the Middle Bronze Age mention Urushalimun/Rushalimmu together with the rulers of the city or territory; cf. Weippert 1988: 232 and references. Six of the Amarna letters were written in Akkadian cuneiform by the scribe of Abdi-Heba, the “mayor” (hazzanu) of “Urusalim”; see Moran 1992; cf. also Moran 1975.

FISCHER, THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM

A moderately diverging opinion is put forward by, for example, Na’aman (1997: 43-46, 67; 1998: 42-44 and further references), who admits that Late Bronze Age Jerusalem was “ …no metropolis. It was the seat of a local ruler who effectively governed only a limited territory to the north and south of his town, not all the hill country of what was later to become Judah … The kingdom of Jerusalem was simply a small hill-country kingdom. This is the picture that emerges when we carefully consider the archaeological and textual materials in tandem” (Na’aman 1998: 43-44).

revealing a high standard of art. The tomb material reflects merely a rural society which cannot be compared with the contemporaneous, prosperous and cosmopolitan Cisjordanian societies of, for example, Tell el-Ajjul, Megiddo and Beth Shan, and in many respects also the Transjordanian societies of, for example, Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir ‘Alla in the Jordan Valley, and Sahem in northern Gilead. The imported material, however, proves that the people to which our tomb is connected had commercial contacts with Cyprus, Mycenae, Transjordan/Lebanon and Egypt, either directly or via middlemen, during the later part of the Middle Bronze Age II until at least the Late Bronze Age IIA period.

Cahill (1998: 34-41) argues strongly against Steiner’s view that there was no town during the Late Bronze Age: “... For these reasons,29 we are not able to describe many physical features of the city’s Late Bronze Age occupation. This inability does not mean, as Steiner concludes, that there was no town in Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age occupation” (Cahill 1998: 36). She claims that architecture, pottery and artefacts throughout the City of David indicate that Jerusalem was a town.

Can we draw any conclusions from our tomb as regards whether Jerusalem was a city, a town, a number of estates or just a single estate during the Late Bronze Age? We cannot answer that question with any certainty as long as we do not have any established criteria for the different terms. And even if we all agreed on a list of criteria which would then create an equivalent between a certain term and the size of an occupied area, we are not today in a position to answer that question definitely because of the sparse and only fragmentarily preserved remains within the Jerusalem area of the Late Bronze Age. The present writer is inclined to suggest that there must have been more than just an estate in the area, because of the great quantity of objects from our tomb. The pottery and other finds show that the tomb was in use from the 17th until the 13th century. It may have been used intermittently, as Albright suggested, but then only with short interruptions according to the ceramic evidence. If there was a break between 1700-1550 as Steiner suggested, how can we explain that there is pottery from the suggested break in the tomb, the same which may have been used by Abdi-Heba of the Amarna letters and his family (cf. Steiner 1998: 28)? Moreover, it seems unlikely that the family of Abdi-Heba would have reopened an existing tomb of unknown families in order to bury their kin. It is more likely that this tomb was in fact a family tomb by tradition, which was in use during the suggested time-span. It is in addition unlikely that the family of Abdi-Heba or he himself, whose position as hazannu may have been anything from a mayor, a title given to the local rulers in Canaan or governors of Egyptian towns which does not imply dynastic succession (Na’aman 1998: 42), to a simple steward who administrated royal Egyptian domains in the area (Steiner 1998: 28), would have been buried in that tomb with only a few Egyptian objects. One would expect more objects of Egyptian origin and also more valuable items, ergo, his tomb is probably located elsewhere. One should maybe investigate the area north of the Old City, where the remains of a possible Late Bronze Age Egyptian temple were found (Barkay 1996: 23-43).

Let us return to the question whether the material from our tomb can contribute to the discussion. The archaeological value of the excavation of tombs is a matter of recurrent discussion (cf. the discussion in connection with the Sahem tomb in Gilead, Fischer 1997: 89-90). Generally speaking, by far the largest amount of information regarding a certain population’s standard of living, its architecture and foreign contacts, for example, is obtained by the excavation of its settlement. Additional information may be gained from the investigation of its cemeteries. The picture of a society reflected by tombs alone is incomplete since it represents only a limited part of a society, being only a snapshot of an event or a number of snapshots interspersed with gaps. There are some parallels between the material from the Sahem tomb, which was processed by the present writer, and our Jerusalem tomb. In the case of the Sahem tomb it is very likely that the tomb is part of a Late Bronze Age cemetery, which is probably to be found in the southern part of the modern village of the same name. The contemporaneous settlement has not yet been discovered. However, it may be expected not to be far away from the tomb and is very likely within the boundaries of the modern village, out of reach of any excavations. Can our tomb material be considered “rich”? Yes, as regards the number of objects (more than 2000), and no as regards their overall exclusivity with a few exceptions. Admittedly, the few imports of Chocolate-on-White Wares, and Cypriote and Mycenaean vessels, together with some of the scarabs reflect a high level of craftsmanship and may be considered exotic within the bulk of ordinary products from the tomb. There are, for example, no objects of gold or silver, or other objects 29.

It is the author’s opinion that the continued discussion of the size and the importance of Jerusalem between the later part of the Middle Bronze Age II and the Late

These reasons according to Cahill (1998: 36) are: the use of older constructions as a quarry during Roman times; modern buildings covering the summit of the city; and the destruction of the city by the Babylonians in 586 BC. 207

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Bronze Age should rest until more evidence is excavated or published. Until then we can call the Late Bronze Age Jerusalem a rural settlement30 with some international contacts.

1981 The Late Bronze Age Pottery Tradition at Tell Hadidi, Syria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 29-47. Doumet-Serhal, C. 1995-1996 Le Bronze Moyen II B/C et le Bronze Récent I au Liban: L’evidence de Tell Ghassil. Berytus 42: 37-70.

Bibliography Al-Radi, S.S.A. 1983 Phlamoudhi-Vounari: A Sanctuary Site in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 65. Göteborg: Paul Åström.

Eisenberg, E. 1977 The Temples at Tell Kittan. The Biblical Archaeologist 40.2: 77-81.

Amiran, R. 1961 A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 6: 25-37 (Hebrew; English summary, 27*). 1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. New York: Rutgers University.

Fischer, P.M. 1991 Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1989. First Season Preliminary Report from Trial Soundings. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 35: 67-104. 1993 Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1991. Second Season Preliminary Excavation Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37: 279-306. 1994 Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1992. Third Season Preliminary Excavation Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38: 127-145. 1995 Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1993. Fourth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 93-119. 1996 Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1994. Fifth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40: 101-110. 1997a Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1995 and 1996. Sixth and Seventh Seasons Preliminary Excavation Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41: 129-144. 1997b A Late Bronze to Early Iron Age Tomb at Sahem, Jordan. Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1999 Chocolate-on-White Ware: Typology, Chronology and Provenance. The Evidence from Tell Abu alKharaz, Jordan Valley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313: 1-29. 2000 The Early Bronze Age at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley: A Study of Pottery Typology and Provenance, Radiocarbon Dates, and Synchronism of Palestine and Egypt During Dynasty 0−2. Pp. 201-232 in G. Philip and D. Baird, eds., Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 2003 Chocolate-on-White Ware: Further Observations and Radiocarbon Dates. Egypt and the Levant 13: 51−68. in press 1 The Chronology of the Jordan Valley During the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir ‘Alla. Contributions by S. Bourke, P.M. Fischer and G. van der Kooij. P.M. Fischer, ed. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Åström, P. 1972 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV: 1D. Lund: Berlingska. Barkay, G. 1996 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 46: 23-43. Bennett, C.-M., and Northedge, A.E. 1977-1978 Excavations at the Citadel, Amman, 1976. Second Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 22: 172-179. Bergoffen, C.G. 1990 Two “Chocolate-on-White” Vessels from Enkomi. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 1990: 51-54. Bourke, S.J. 1994 Excavations in Area IIIN/S: The Late Bronze Age Palatial Residence. In Bourke, S. J., Sparks, R. T., Sowada, K. N., and Mairs, L. D., Preliminary Report of the University of Sydney’s Fourteenth Season of Excavation at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) in 1992. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38: 81-126. Cahill, J. 1998 The Archaeological Evidence Proves It. Biblical Archaeological Review 24.4: 34-41, 63. Clamer, C. 1977 A Burial Cave Near Nablus (Tell Balata). Israel Exploration Journal 27: 48. De Vaux, R. 1951 La Troisième Campagne de Fouilles à Tel elFar‘ah près Naplouse. Revue Biblique 58: 391430. Dornemann, R.H. 30.

“… Settlement: a region in which settlers live, esp. that small part of it in which they have their homes; a small isolated hamlet or village …” (New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, ed. 1992). 208

FISCHER, THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM

Ausstellungskataloge der Universität Tübingen 20. Tübingen: Attempto.

in press 2 Chocolate-on-White Ware from Tell elDab‘a, Egypt. Festschrift in Honour of M. Bietak. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. in press 3 The Late Middle and the Late Bronze Ages in the Levant: Problems of Terminology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Paris. forthcoming Tell ‘Ain ‘Abda. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1995. The Preliminary Results from the Survey and Excavations.

Jaeger, B. 1982 Essai de classification et datation des scarabées Menkhéperre. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 10. Series Archaeologica. Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Kafafi, Z. 1977 Late Bronze Age Pottery in Jordan (East Bank) 1575-1200 B.C. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Amman: University of Jordan.

Fischer, P.M. and Sadeq, M. 2000 Tell el-‘Ajjul 1999. A Joint Palestinian-Swedish Field project: First Season Preliminary Report. Egypt and the Levant 10: 211-226. 2002 Tell el-‘Ajjul 2000. Second Season Preliminary Report. Egypt and the Levant 12: 109−153.

Keel, O. 1995 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Einleitung. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 10. Series Archaeologica. Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Fischer, P.M., and Toivonen-Skage, E. 1995 Metallic Burnished Early Bronze Age Ware from Tall Abu al-Kharaz. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 587-596.

Kempinski, A. 1988 Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Franken, H.J. 1992 Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla. The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Louvain: Peeters.

Kenyon, K.M., and Holland, T.A. 1982 Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1983 Excavations at Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Franken, H.J., and Ibrahim, M.M. 1977-1978 Two Seasons of Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 22: 57-80. Garstang, J. 1933 Jericho. City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20: 3-42. 1934 Jericho. City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21: 99-136.

Knapp, A.B. 1987 Pots, PIXE, and Data Processing. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 266: 1-30.

Guy, P.L.O. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Oriental Institute Publications of the University of Chicago 33. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Knapp, A.B., Duerden, P., Wright, R.V.S., and Grave, P. 1988 Ceramic production and Social Change: Archaeometric Analysis of Bronze Age Pottery from Jordan. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1/2: 57-113.

Harding, G.L., and Isserlin, B.S.J. 1953 Four Tomb Groups from Jordan: A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Amman. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 6: 14-26.

Lemaire, P. 1954-1955 Tombe du Récent Bronze au Mont des Oliviers. Liber Annuus 5: 261-299. Leonard, A. Jr. 1981 Kataret es-Samra: A Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Transjordan? Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 25: 179-195. 1986 Kattarat as-Samra 1985. Archiv für Orientforschung 33: 166-167.

Hein, I. 1993 Erste Beobachtungen zur Keramik aus ‘Ezbet Helmi. Egypt and the Levant 4: 39-43. 1994 P. 247 in: Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel. Catalogue No. 320. Ausstellungs-katalog, September 1994, Vienna: Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-1939. Oriental Institute Publications of the University of Chicago 62. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hennessy, J.B. 1985 Chocolate-on-White Ware at Pella. Pp. 110-113 in J.N. Tubb, ed., Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: Institute of Archaeology. 1986 Pella. P. 135 in D. Homès-Fredericq, and H.J. Franken, eds., Pottery and Potters – Past and Presence. 7000 Years of Ceramic Art in Jordan.

McGovern, P.E. 1986 The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baq‘ah Valley Project, 19771981. University Museum Monograph 65. Philadelphia: University Museum. 209

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Prausnitz, M.W. 1954 Abydos and Combed Ware. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 86: 91-96.

1997 A Ceramic Sequence for Northern Jordan: An Archaeological and Chemical Perspective. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6: 421425. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Saller, S.J. 1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit, II. The Jebusite Burial Place. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

Moran, W.L. 1975 The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. Pp. 146-166 in H. Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts, eds., Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion in the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Smith, R.H. 1973 Pella of the Decapolis. Wooster: College of Wooster. Smith, R.H., and Potts, T. 1992 The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Pp. 35-81 in Nicoll, A.W., Edwards, P.C., Hanbury-Tenison, J., Hennessy, J.B., Potts, T.F., Smith, R.H., Walmsley, A., and Watson, P., Pella in Jordan 2. Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 2. Sydney.

Mountjoy, P.A. 1986 Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 73. Göteborg: Paul Åström. Na’aman, N. 1997 Cow Town or Royal Capital? Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeological Review 23 (4): 43-47, 67. 1998 Ancient Texts Prove It. Biblical Archaeological Review 24 (4): 42-44.

Steiner, M. 1998 Archaeology Proves a Negative. Biblical Archaeological Review 24 (4): 26-33, 62-63. Strange, J. 1997 Tall al-Fukhar 1990-1991. A Preliminary Report. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6: 399-406. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Najjar, M. 1991 A New Middle Bronze Age Tomb at the Citadel of Amman. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 35: 105-134.

Tufnell, O., Inge, C.H., and Harding, G.L. 1940 Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University for the Trustees of the late Sir Henry Wellcome.

Niccacci, A. 1980 Hyksos Scarabs. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Museum 2. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

Weinstein, J.M. 1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: a Reassessment. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 241: 1-28.

Oren, E.D. 1973 The Northern Cemetery at Beth Shan. Museum Monograph of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Weippert, H. 1988 Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Vorderasien II, 1. München: C. H. Beck. 1998 Kumidi. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1963 bis 1981. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 114.1: 1-38.

Petrie, F. 1931 Ancient Gaza I. Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and B. Quaritch. 1932 Ancient Gaza II. Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and B. Quaritch. 1933 Ancient Gaza III. Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and B. Quaritch. 1934 Ancient Gaza IV. Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and B. Quaritch.

Wentworth, C.K. 1922 A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. Journal of Geology 30: 377-392. 1933 Fundamental Limits to the Sizes of Clastic Grains. Science 77: 633-634.

210

FISCHER, THE “JEBUSITE” BURIAL PLACE IN JERUSALEM

Figure 1: 1, 2. Middle Bronze Age hybrids. Figure 1: 3. Eggshell Ware. Figure 1: 4. Chocolate-on-White I. Figure 1: 5-8. Corresponding Chocolate-on-White Ware from Tell Abu al-Kharaz. Table 1. Tell Abu al-Kharaz: Phases, associated Chocolate-on-White and synchronism with Egypt31 Phases

Associated CW

Palestine

Egypt/Tell el-Dab‘a

IV/1-2

PCWB, CWB, CW I, ES

MB II late MB III

Hyksos/D3/3-D2

V

CWB, ES CW II

LB IA

18th Dynasty, first half

VI

CW III in early Part of Phase VI

LB IB

18th Dynasty, mid

VII

None

LB IB/C32

18th Dynasty, mid-later

PCWB = Proto-Chocolate-on-White Bichrome Ware CWB = Chocolate-on-White Bichrome Ware CW I-III = Chocolate-on-White I-III Ware ES = Eggshell Ware

31. 32.

This tentative dating system is based on Egyptian synchronism, since the history of Palestine is tied to Egypt’s own history during the periods under discussion (see e.g. Weinstein 1981: 1-28; see also the chronological discussion in Fischer 1997b: 1721, and references). The revised Late Bronze Age terminology, viz. LB IA−C (approx. 18th Dynasty) and II (approximately 19th Dynasty and early 20th Dynasty), refers to Fischer in press 3. 211

CHAPTER 19 SYNTHESIS: JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM Zeidan A. Kafafi (ca. 2250-2000 BC). This may indicate that Early Bronze Jerusalem was a very small settlement compared to other sites like et-Tell (‘Ai) in the region. The archaeological excavations conducted by K. Kenyon in Jerusalem revealed a fortified town related to the Middle Bronze Age II (18th century BC) (Kenyon 1974), the period in which the Egyptian Execration Texts mention Jerusalem for the first time.

The city of Jerusalem holds special meaning to Muslims, Christians and Jews all over the world. Indeed, peace in the Middle East is largely dependent on the ability of the various parties in the area to agree on the final disposition of the city. The name Jerusalem is derived from Cannanite, meaning “the god Salem is its founder”. The earliest appearances of the place name Jerusalem occur in the Egyptian sources including the following: Urshalimum in the Egyptian Execration Texts from the 19th and 18th centuries BC and Ursalim in the Amarna Letters from the 14th century BC (see the articles by van der Kooij and Kitchen in this volume). Archaeological explorations and excavations conducted in Jerusalem revealed that the site has been continuously occupied from the late fourth millennium BC till modern times.

The nature of settlement in Jerusalem from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (17th century BC) to the 10th century is still a controversial issue among scholars (cf. below). M. Steiner, A. Knauf and others argue that the history of Jerusalem in the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Ages has been based traditionally on literary sources of various kinds. Also, the results of the archaeological excavations conducted at the city do not support what the written evidence records. Although we are not going to confirm or reject what has been stated by the colleagues, we would like to stress the facts presented below concerning this period.

Countless publications dealing with Jerusalem have been printed in all languages and all over the world, but many were biased and published to advocate certain political agendas. But this book on Jerusalem Before Islam is being published with the aim of presenting scholarly information to the reader. Both literary sources and archaeological data are used and discussed, and the results are presented in an unbiased and scientific manner.

Archaeological remains dated to the Late Bronze Age I and II come from burial caves on the western slopes of the Mount of Olives, across the Wadi Sitti Mariam (Kidron Valley), and in Nahal Ahim, north of the Old City, as well as from a cistern on the grounds of the Government House, south of the city.

The limits or borders of the city of Jerusalem must first be identified and defined. The city is located around 40 km east of the Mediterranean coast at an average height of 740 m above sea level. But the city has never had exact geographic borders. The literary sources and the excavated archaeological remains show that it has differed in area and size from one period to another.

Among the archaeological objects found in the Jebusite Burial Place (see Fischer’s article) there are many items imported from the Aegean, Cyprus, and Egypt. This provides a clue that the area was settled during the last phase of the Middle Bronze Age and continued to be occupied through the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. This is based on the parallel study done for the Mycenaean pottery vessels.

However, the earliest evidence of human presence found in the vicinity of Jerusalem came from the al-Baq‘a (Rephaim Valley) (Stekelis 1948) and dated to around 50,000 years before the present. A small number of pottery sherds dating to ca. 4300-3300 BC were excavated in natural pits dug into the bedrock on the slopes of the Southeast Hill – Silwan, which may represent the nucleus of the later city (Bahat 1997). These pits contained pottery sherds and debris dated to the Early Bronze Age I (third millennium). In addition a house from the same period built on top of the bedrock was excavated by Shiloh between 1984 and 1992. Moreover, tombs related to the end of the third millennium and the beginning of the second millennium BC were excavated

K. Prag suggests that it is difficult to relate the history of Jerusalem to the wider historical and archaeological background given our current stage of knowledge. She discusses the supposed gap of occupation from the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the earlier phase of the Iron Age and tries to prove that such a gap is unacceptable. Prag attributes the decline of settlement at Late Bronze Jerusalem to the fact that the southern part of Bilad alSham was ruled from abroad. The richness of the archaeological material uncovered inside the above mentioned tomb, and the continuous use 212

KAFAFI, SYNTHESIS: JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

belonged to the ethnic group living in Bilad al-Sham known as the Cannanites.

of it (from the MBIII through the Iron Age I) may lead one to conclude that it may have belonged to a settlement serving as a major administrative center for the surrounding areas. Also, the idea that Jerusalem was nothing more than an isolated house belonging to a chief should be reconsidered.

The archaeological remains from the period from the 17th to the 9th centuries BC were poor and scanty. Knauf, in his article in this volume, argues that neither David nor Solomon, nor even Jerusalem appear in any piece of evidence, especially in anything from the 10th century. He states, “archaeologically, we have nearly nothing from 10th century Jerusalem”. Others have argued that a city wall of the casemate type, which is typical of 10th century BC fortifications was excavated in Area H of K. Kenyon's excavation (Bahat 1997:226).

Lipinski states that the name ‘Abdi-Hiba mentioned in the Amarna Letters as the ruler of Ursalim is of Hurrian origin. He adds that “the presence of a Hurrian ruler and of a Syrian scribe in Jerusalem certainly implies settling of some exogenous families, but nothing indicates so far that the bulk of the Jerusalem population of some 1,000 individuals had changed ethnically or linguistically in the Late Bronze Age”.

Jerusalem flourished during the 8th–7th centuries BC, the stepped structure was used as an artificial hill on top of which some of the city’s best-preserved private houses were built. Cult object such as figurines was also found (Shiloh 1984:17). Water installations (Warren’s Shaft and Hezekiah’s Tunnel) are some of the important features of Jerusalem from this period.

The narrative of 2 Samuel 5:6-9 describes Jerusalem as a Jebusite city until its capture by David in the first half of the 10th century BC. We agree completely with Hübner, in his article in this volume, that the Jebusites are mentioned only in the Bible, and that archaeologists have not found any remains pointing to the existence of the Jebusites and to the seizure of their city by David. But we may disagree that only archaeological material can confirm or proof the existence or nonexistence of a people or an ethnic group. The appearance of the above mentioned Jebusite Burial Place may support our claim that Jerusalem was inhabited at that time. Knauf, in his article in this volume, mentions that archaeologically speaking we may conclude that Late Bronze and Iron Age I Jerusalem did not exist in the location where it is supposed to have existed, viz. on the southeastern side of the area of the Haram al-Sharif. Although he suggests that the center of Jerusalem may be sought in the Haram area, but elsewhere in his article (note 142) he states that Iron Age material may not be found in this area.

The city of Jerusalem was subjugated to two destructions, the first by the Assyrians (ca. 701 BC) and the second by the Babylonian (586 BC). During the Persian Period in the fifth century BC, some reconstruction was undertaken. However, the archaeological remains from this period are very poor and scanty. It seems that the city shrank during the Persian Period and the borders of the city did not exceed the southeastern hill, the so-called the City of David. It perhaps was only after 164 BC that the city expanded and once again became a prominent urban settlement. During the Roman Period, Jerusalem expanded greatly and many civil and ritual buildings were constructed. The city reached its climax during the reign of Herod the Great during the first century BC. After the city was destroyed as a result to the Jewish Revolt against the Romans in AD 66-70, it was only in connection with Hadrian’s visit in AD 129 that the decision was made to reconstruct Jerusalem.

It may also be suggested that perhaps the areas of modern Jerusalem investigated so far are not extensive enough to reveal the complete settlement sequence of Jerusalem, and the archaeologists have been looking in the wrong places. Another factor to take into consideration, as other scholars have mentioned, is that the inhabitants lived in ancient Jerusalem used to demolish and clear away the remains left by earlier inhabitants. Thus, the excavators did not find major structures or finds attributed to some periods.

Jerusalem during the Byzantine period (AD 324-638) is amply documented. The study of the city during this period is based on written records in a variety of languages, the standing architectural remains and the results of numerous archaeological excavations. R. Schick, in his article in this volume, refers to an estimate for the population of Jerusalem during the sixth century A.D. of approximately 50,000 inhabitants in an area of 1000 dunams with the city walls. M. Piccirillo, provides us with a full record and description of the churches in Jerusalem. The large number of churches shows that the city lived in prosperity and freedom. Jerusalem served not only as an administrative center during the Byzantine period, but it was also a religious place visited by the

To conclude, we may suggest that the dating evidence derived from the literary sources and the archaeological material shows that Jerusalem was continuously occupied from the end of the fourth millennium till modern times. Also, there was no gap of occupation from the end of the 17th century to the 10th century BC. The settled or inhabited area may have differed in size and place from one period to the next. Also the inhabitants of the ancient city of Jerusalem, identified either as Jebusites or Jerusalemites (see Hübner’s article in this volume)

213

JERUSALEM BEFORE ISLAM

Christians belonged to the several sects in the world and was a central city in the Byzantine Empire. However, the city suffered during this period from the Sasanian occupation in AD 614. This lasted only for some years till the Roman emperor defeated the Sasanians in AD 628, and as a result the Byzantine regained control of Jerusalem. In AD 638 Sophronius peacefully surrendered Jerusalem to the Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, ushering a new period of Jerusalem's history. Bibliography Bahat, D. 1997 Jerusalem. Pp. 224-238 in E.M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, volume 3. New York / Oxford: Oxford University. Kenyon, K. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London and Tonbridge: Ernst Benn. Shiloh, Y. 1984 Excavations at the City of David I (Qedem 19). Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Stekelis, M. 1948 Rephaim-Ba‘ca: A Palaeolithic Station in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 21:80-97.

214