The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea (Jerusalem): Geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics: A comparative study and dating [1 ed.] 9783666573118, 9783525573112
157 67 18MB
English Pages [309] Year 2019
Polecaj historie
![The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea (Jerusalem): Geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics: A comparative study and dating [1 ed.]
9783666573118, 9783525573112](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/the-saint-etienne-compound-hypogea-jerusalem-geological-architectural-and-archaeological-characteristics-a-comparative-study-and-dating-1nbsped-9783666573118-9783525573112.jpg)
Citation preview
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM ET ORBIS ANTIQUUS Series Archaeologica 7
RICCARDO LUFRANI
The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea (Jerusalem) Geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics: A comparative study and dating
VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GÖTTINGEN 2014
Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Series Archaeologica 7 In collaboration with the foundation “Bibel und Orient” of the University of Fribourg/Switzerland edited by Martin Ebner (Bonn), Max Küchler (Fribourg), Peter Lampe (Heidelberg), Stefan Schreiber (Augsburg) and Jürgen Zangenberg (Leiden)
Riccardo Lufrani
The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea (Jerusalem) Geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics: A comparative study and dating
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
With 217 mainly colored figures Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by Massimiliano Dominici
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2566-7254 ISBN 978-3-666-57311-8
to my mothers Assunta and Eugenia
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Presentation of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Chap. 1 History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
1.1 The SEC Hypogea and their adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts: general presentation 17 1.2 First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery . .
20
1.2.1
Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
1.2.2
Hypogeum 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
1.3 Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
1.3.1
The Barkay-Kloner survey in 1974-1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
1.3.2
Kloner’s “Cave of the Kings”hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
1.3.3
Anthropological study of the bones in Repository 4 - Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
1.4.1
The adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . .
53
1.4.2
The first descriptions of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
1.4.3
The recent studies on the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Chap. 2 Methodology
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
2.1 Methodology of the outline of the topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea 57 2.2 Methodology of the geological and the measurement surveys, and 3D modeling . . . . . . . .
59
2.3 Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
2.3.1
The criteria for the selection of the burial caves compared with the SEC Hypogea . . . .
63
2.3.2
The burial caves considered and selected for the comparison with the SEC Hypogea . .
63
2.3.3
The database of the burial caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.1 The layouts of the database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.2 The calculations of the units of measurement: long or short cubits? . . . . . . .
67 67 69
8
Contents
Chap. 3 Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
3.1 Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
3.1.1
The Bronze Age (3500-1200 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
3.1.2
The Iron Age (1200-586 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
3.1.3
The Babylonian and the Persian Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
3.1.4
The Hellenistic Period (332-37 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
3.1.5
The Roman and Byzantine Periods (37 BC-638 AD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88
3.1.6
From the Early Islamic to the Ottoman Period (638-1917 AD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
3.2 The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods . . . . . . . . . .
94
3.2.1
The Iron Age – Neo-Babylonian necropolises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
3.2.2
The Hellenistic and Early Roman necropolises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
3.2.3
The Late Roman – Byzantine necropolises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
3.3 Use of the bench in burial caves in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions from the Iron Age II to the Early Roman periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
106
Chap. 4 Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
109
4.1 Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
109
4.1.1
321a: A number of Byzantine Cist Tombs and four Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
109
4.1.2
321b: Five Byzantine Cist Tombs, a Monolith and a Burial Cave . . . . . . . . . . . . .
112
4.1.3
321c: Fifteen Pit Tombs and a Vaulted Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113
4.1.4
321d: Schmidt Institut Hypogeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
4.1.5
321e: Tomb found in 1875 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
115
4.1.6
321f: Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
4.1.7
321g: A Rock-hewn Burial Cave transformed into a Cistern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120
4.2 Area [102] 322 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
4.2.1
322a: Herodian Mausoleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
4.2.2
322b: Byzantine – Early Islamic remains near the Bus Station, Nablus Road . . . . . . .
124
4.3 Area [102] 323 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
125
4.3.1
323a: Damascus Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
125
4.3.2
323b: Two cist tombs and a Cooking-Pot burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
4.4 Area [102] 324 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
4.4.1
324a: Garden Tomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
4.4.2
324b: Roman Agricultural Installation and Caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
130
4.4.3
324c: El Heidhemiyeh Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
130
4.4.4
324d: Northern Moat of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
131
4.4.5
324e: Jeremiah’s Grotto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
131
4.4.6
324f: Zedekiah’s Cave / Solomon’s Quarries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
4.5 Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
Contents
9
4.5.1
325a: SEC Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
135
4.5.2
325b: SEC Hypogeum 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
135
4.5.3
325c: Saint Stephen Basilica, Byzantine tombs, cisterns, mediaeval church, the ‘Asnerie’ and other remains under Nablous Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
135
4.5.4
325d: Late Bronze Age Egyptian Sanctuary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
138
4.5.5
325e: Roman Vault, Roman Inscriptions, Mosaic Floor and Byzantine Tomb near Sa’ad and Sa’id Mosque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
149
4.6 Area [102] 326 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
152
4.6.1
326a: Rock-hewn Tomb 1, Tomb 1a and a Cave in the White Sisters’ Monastery Garden
152
4.7 Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
156
4.7.1
330a: The Sukenik/Mayer Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
156
4.7.2
330b: Four (?) Byzantine Monastic Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
164
4.8 Areas [102] 336, [102] 337 and [102] 338 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . .
167
4.8.1
336: White Mosaic Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
167
4.8.2
337a: “Birds” Mosaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
169
4.8.3
337b: “Orpheus” Mosaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
169
4.8.4
338: Leger’s Pool (Lacus Legerii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
169
4.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
170
Chap. 5 The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
. . . . . . . . . . . .
173
5.1 Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
173
5.1.1
General description of the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
173
5.1.2
Geological aspects of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
174
5.1.3
Hewing of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
186
5.2 Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
187
5.2.1
Architectural features of Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
187
5.2.2
Architectural features of Hypogeum 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
237
5.3 The material culture discovered in Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
260
5.3.1
The Metal Box found in the Main Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
260
5.3.2
Two fragments of lead coffin found in Chamber 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
261
5.3.3
A Late Roman coin found in the Main Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
261
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
264
5.4.1
The geological features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
264
5.4.2
The architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
264
5.4.3
The material culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
265
5.4.4
General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
265
10
Contents
Chap. 6 The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
. . . . . . . . . . . .
267
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
267
6.2 The comparison of the architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
272
6.1 The tombs selected for the comparison
6.2.1
Dimensions, proportions and units of measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
272
6.2.2
Access to the burial complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
274
6.2.3
Benches and parapets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
275
6.2.4
Headrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
276
6.2.5
Right-angled cornices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
277
6.2.6
Rock-cut “sarcophagi” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
278
6.2.7
Openings in the ceilings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
280
6.2.8
Parietal decorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
282
6.3 Summary and concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
284
Chap. 7 The social setting of Jerusalem at the Early Hellenistic period and the dating of the SEC Hypogea
. .
287
7.1 Jerusalem and its necropolises in the Early Hellenistic period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
287
7.2 The dating of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
290
7.3 Who was buried in the SEC Hypogea ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
291
7.4 Future researches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
292
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
295
Introduction Acknowledgments The present dissertation was the occasion for exchange with a great number of people, and I do apologise if I won’t be able to remember all. My thanks and my gratitude to Prof. Max Küchler for having encouraged me to write this dissertation and for having guided me with wise and valuable advice to its achievement; to the sadly missed br. Jerry Murphy O’Connor op, who was an enthusiastic reader of the first chapters of this dissertation; to the former director and the present vice-director of the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem (EBAF), br. Hervé Ponsot op and br. Olivier-Thomas Venard op, for the warm support to my work; to Ruth Anne Henderson op for the patience, the speed and the accuracy with which she spotted the smallest mistake in this dissertation and watched over the Britishness of my English (if there is any mistake left, it is definitely my responsibility); to Jean-Sylvain Caillou, Rosemary Le Bohec, Maura Sala, and François Larché, expert archaeologists, whose advice helped me to better assess and organise my work; to Emmanuel Moisan who, during his period under my direction at the EBAF in 2012-2013, realised the 3D models of a number of tombs that we surveyed together; to Gérard Massonat, for the geological survey of the tombs that he kindly carried out for the completeness of this dissertation; to Mohammad Abo Zainah who assiduously and valuably assisted me in a number of surveys of tombs and in several archaeological sites in the region; to Abed Farraj for assisting me in the survey of the southern and eastern necropolises of Jerusalem; to Lionel Mochamps and Michele Bommezzadri for the reconstructions of the access to Hypogeum 1; to sr. Sabina Rojek f.m.m., of the White Sisters’ Monastery of Jerusalem, for giving me the possibility to carry out the surveys on their burial cave; to Bernd Mussinghoff, director of the Jerusalem office of the Deutscher Verein vom heiligem Lande, for granting me the access to the Schmidt Institut undergrounds to survey the Hypogeum, and to a cistern under the Paulushaus; to Yuval Baruch, chief archaeologist of the IAA for the Jerusalem area, who was always ready to provide me with the information I may have needed on the excavations in Jerusalem and for the survey of Hypogeum 1 carried out with the metal detector in July 2013; to Alegre Savariego curator of the Rockefeller Museum,
Jerusalem, for her help in the research in the archives and the storerooms of the museum; to Rina Avner and Roie Greenwald for generously sharing their in- formation on the excavations in Nablus Road in 2013-2014; to Eli Shukrun for the drawings of and information about his excavations between Nablus Road and Route one, in Jerusalem; to Jacqueline Dentzer-Feydymore for her valuable expertise on the Hellenistico-Roman decorations in the tombs; to br. Jean-Michel de Tarragon op and br. Jean-Baptiste Humbert op for the first photographic session of the hypogea; to the archaeologists of reference for the Hypogea, Elisabeth Bloch-Smith, Amos Kloner, and Gabriel Barkay, for sharing with me their expertise on several subjects related to the Iron Age II tombs; to the brethren of the Dominican Priory of Saint-Hyacinth, in Fribourg, Switzerland, where I was always cordially welcomed during several study sessions; to Bernadette Schwarzen Küchler for the warm hospitality she granted to me every time I meet Prof. Küchler at their home. For the financing of the activities linked to this dissertation I thank the EBAF, the Dominican Priory of Saint Albert the Great, in Fribourg, the Dominican Roman Province of Saint Catherine of Siena, and the Department of Biblical Study of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
List of abbreviations AJR AB AWE ADAJ AntOr AOF AnatSt BA BAIAS BASOR
Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Israel Exploration Society, 1994 Analecta Bollandiana Ancient West & East Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Antiguo Oriente Altorientalische Forschungen Anatolian Studies Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
12
Introduction
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CIIP Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae-Palaestinae CollLat Collection Latomus EtrStud Etruscan Studies, Journal of the Etruscan Foundation HA Hadashot Arkheologiyot HA-ESI Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel HThR Harvard Theological Review IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IHC Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JESHO Journal of the Economics and Social History of the Orient JFA Journal of Field Archaeology JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSP Judea and Samaria Publications (Series) MNDPV Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Palaestina-vereins NEA Near Eastern Archaeology NEAEHL New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations Holy Land Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly StatePEFQ ment (1869-1936) PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PJB Palästinajahrbuch RB Revue Biblique Report of the Department of Antiquities RDAC Cyprus QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Studies in the Archaeology and History of the SAHL Levant StEtr Studi Etruschi TA Tel Aviv ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Presentation of the study
BCH BZAW
O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go to the pit. (Psalm 30:3 KJV)
“Mother-city” of many,¹ Jerusalem, with its long history and unique place in the imagination of the people, is a crucial and complex object for the biblical studies, in which the archaeology, together with the epigraphy, the ancient languages and the geography, plays a major role.² In an ancient city like Jerusalem, where the numerous series of constructions, destructions and reconstructions often obliterated most of the remains of the buildings of previous periods³, the tombs, especially the burial caves, which are better preserved from the disruptions of the historical vicissitudes, may disclose information otherwise inaccessible.⁴ In 1885, a large hypogeum⁵ was discovered at the SaintÉtienne Compound,⁶ the domain acquired only two and a half years before by the Dominicans on the western slope of El Heidhemiyeh hill, about 250 m north of the 1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
“Erst wenn die Kinder dieser Stadt, die Juden, die Christen und die Muslims, den Reichtum ihrer Traditionen teilen und sich mit ihrem gemeinsamen kanaanäisch-israelitischen Erbe versöhnen, kann Jerusalem eine reife Metropolis, eine »Mutterstadt« sein, deren Faszination auch Charme hat, deren Verehrer auch Liebhaber sind und deren Vergangenheit nicht ohne Zukunft ist”, M. Küchler, Jerusalem. Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zur Heiligen Stadt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), vii. “[Le Père Lagrange] avait pour projet d’éclairer l’étude de la Bible par une connaissance scientifique du milieu humain où elle a été vécue, parlée, écrite. S’il y a une histoire du salut, il y a aussi une géographie du salut. La Bible a en Palestine un “Sitz im Leben” qui éclaire singulièrement son message. Dieu a parlé aux hommes d’un certain pays, avec les langues de leur temps, selon la culture de leur temps. Il s’agissait donc d’étudier la géographie de la Terre sainte, l’histoire ancienne du Proche-Orient, les langues orientales, l’archéologie, l’épigraphie”, P. Benoit, “Activités archéologiques de L’École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem depuis 1890”, (unpublished). For example the energetic building program of Herod the Great, which wiped out most of the remains of the Hellenistic period (cf. O. Lipschits, “Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations”, JHS 9 (2009) 2-30, on p. 5). “The importance ascribed to the handling of the dead in Jerusalem and the care taken to bury them in caves are an advantage for archaeological research. Most of the graves had been covered overs and disappeared over the centuries; only the extensive development activities which took place in Jerusalem in the last century uncovered them - mostly accidentally - and made it possible for us to study them”, A. Kloner/B. Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Hereafter “Hypogeum 1”, abbreviated in “H1”. Hereafter abbreviated in “SEC”.
Presentation of the study
Jerusalem Ottoman wall.⁷ Among the researchers who reconnoitred Jerusalem from the second half of C19 in search of archaeological vestiges connected to the biblical history, this discovery aroused enthusiastic interest, which resulted in the first descriptions and drawings of H1.⁸ After the unearthing of a second large hypogeum⁹ at only fifty metres north of H1, in their monumental work on the history of Jerusalem, the two eminent Dominican scholars Louis-Hugues Vincent and Felix-Marie Abel proposed to date the two burial complexes of the SEC to the Hellenistic or Roman period.¹⁰ This dating remained unchallenged until the survey of 1974-75, carried out by the reputed Israeli archaeologists Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner.¹¹ Since the first publications of the results of their studies,¹² the two hypogea are often cited in the academic literature as the largest magnificent burial caves in the region dating to the end of the Judahite kingdom.¹³ In the sustained debate on the archaeology and the history of the Iron Age period in the region,¹⁴ no serious catalogue, typology or chronology of tombs can ignore these two burial complexes of Jerusalem.¹⁵ Developing an embryonic hypothesis which circulated in the archaeological milieu in Jerusalem,¹⁶ in an article published in 1986 Amos Kloner ventured to guess who was buried in these lavish burial complexes: the Judahite king Manasseh and his successors.¹⁷ Teaching the Topography of Jerusalem and the Southern Levant since 2008 at the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem,¹⁸ located in the SEC, the present writer was naturally solicited to engage in 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
13. 14.
15. 16. 17. 18.
Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Etienne et son Sanctuaire à Jérusalem (Paris: Gabalda, 1894), 106. For the list of the publications concerning the discovery of H1 see § 1.2.1. From now “Hypogeum 2”, abbreviated in “H2”. Cf. L.-H. Vincent/F.-M., Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, vol. ii, iv (Paris: Gabalda, 1926), 784, 786 Cf. G. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?”, BAR 12 (1986) 40-57, on p. 50. Cf. Cf. G. Barkay/A. Mazar/A. Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery of Jerusalem in First Temple Times” Qadmoniot 8 (1975), (Hebrew), 71-6, and cf. G. Barkay/A. Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple”, BAR 12 (1986), 22-39. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 22 For an updated bibliography on the debate on the chronology of the Iron Age in the Levant see M.B. Toffolo, “Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-resolution Radiocarbon Dating”, Radiocarbon 56 (2014), 221-44. The long list of publications which include the SEC Hypogea in catalogues, typologies and/or chronologies is presented in note 373 of Chapter 3. Cf. L.Y. Rahmani, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs: Part Two”, BA 44 (1981) 229-235, on p. 233. Cf. A. Kloner, “The ’Third Wall’ in Jerusalem and the ’Cave of the Kings’ (Josephus War V 147)”, Levant 18 (1986), 121-9. Hereafter abbreviated in “EBAF”.
13
a research on the hypogea. The first results of his research challenged Kloner’s hypothesis, and were presented at the international conference held at the EBAF in November 2010,¹⁹ followed by the publication of an article on the Scholar’s Study Section of the Biblical Archaeology Review in 2011.²⁰ Since then, the present writer carried out several surveys of the SEC Hypogea, achieved in 2014. The academic community largely integrated the SEC Hypogea into the Iron Age II C period, even though, as for most of the burial caves in the region, their dating is based essentially on the presence of burial benches, and they “are not regular burial caves as found at the end of the Iron Age”.²¹ If it is attested that in the Judean region this form of burial became the standard pattern during the Iron Age II period,²² this constitutes only the terminus post quem for the hewing of the SEC Hypogea. The sustained archaeological activity in Jerusalem and the region during the forty years that have passed since the survey of Barkay and Kloner brings valuable new evidence for the study of the SEC Hypogea and the history of Jerusalem in general. In the frame of the improved knowledge of the broad and adjacent archaeological contexts, the new surveys of the SEC Hypogea, coupled with the systematic study of the comparison with other burial caves, provide new and better-founded results for the dating of these and other similar burial caves in the region. The outcome of the present writer’s study and the proposal of a dating of the SEC Hypogea constitute the object of this dissertation, organised in a text volume (Volume 1) and an illustrations volume (Volume 2) as follows:²³ The history of the research on the SEC Hypogea since the discovery of H1 in 1885 is presented in Chapter 1; the first descriptions and drawings of the tombs provide valuable information on the state of the two SEC Hypogea at their discovery (§ 1.2), while the recent studies on H1 and H2 (§ 1.3), since the survey of Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner, proposed the dating to the Iron Age II C period, and confirmed the reutilisation of the two burial caves 19. Cf. R. Lufrani, “A quelques pas du tombeau des rois de Judée? Une surinterprétation sous examen”, communication at the international conference “Monuments et Documents: interprétation et surinterpreétation”, organised by EBAF and CFRJ, Jerusalem, 17th November 2010. 20. Cf. R. Lufrani, “Have the Tombs of the Kings of Judah Been Found?: A Response. An Answer to Hershel Shanks’s Question”, BAR online Scholar’s Study section, available from 21.09.2011, retrieved form http://www.biblicalarchaeology. org / daily / biblical-sites-places / biblical-archaeology-sites / an-answer-to-hershel-shankss-question/ 21. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129. 22. Cf. J.F. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah”, JNES 70 (2011) 35-53, on p. 35. 23. The “illustrations” volume presents the plans, sections, maps, tables and photos to which reference is made in the text volume.
14
Introduction
during the Byzantine times, as the anthropological study of Susan Guise Sheridan demonstrates. The summary presented in § 1.4 concludes the Chapter. The methodology used in this dissertation is described in Chapter 2. Referring to the updated literature on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem and the Archaeological Survey of Israel,²⁴ the Jerusalem area, its outskirts, and the adjacent context of the SEC Hypogea are defined, and the methodology introduced of the surveys of several sites carried out by the present writer in Jerusalem (§ 2.1), of the geological survey of H1 and H2 realised by the geologist Gérard Massonat in 2011, and of the measurements and the photogrammetric survey of the SEC Hypogea carried out by the present writer and the topographer-engineer Emanuel Moisan in 2012-2013 (§ 2.2). The methodology of the comparison of the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea (§ 2.3) is introduced by the definition of the criteria for the selection of the tombs to compare (§ 2.3.1), followed by the population of tombs considered for the selection, for the regions stretching form the Levant to the Central Mediterranean, and the period comprised between the Iron Age II and the Byzantine period, and the list of the twenty-two burial caves selected according the chosen criteria (§ 2.3.2). The successive Section (§ 2.3.3) presents the methodology used to constitute the database of the twenty-four tombs compared (the two SEC Hypogea plus the twenty-two tombs selected), of the calculations of the comparison, and of the estimations of the units of measurements (long or short cubits) used in the hewing of the tombs. The object of Chapter 3 is the study of the broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area, which constitutes the first step of the necessary contextualisation of the SEC Hypogea. The evolution of the urban area of Jerusalem is analysed, with particular attention to the layout of the city and the size of its population, from the Bronze Age period to the end of the Ottoman rule (§ 3.1). For the Early Hellenistic period (C4-2 BC), this analysis spots a major incongruence between the extent of the scant archaeological remains of building, and the large number of stamped handles of Rhodian jars found in the south-eastern hill, consistent with the literary sources which portray Jerusalem as ruled by a High Priest and an affluent gerousia, well integrated in the international landscape; furthermore, at the dawn of the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty, the city wall encompassed the same size as that of the city of the Iron Age II C period, implying that there was a large city to protect with fortifications (§ 3.1.4). The study of the necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II period to the Byzantine period completes the analysis of the broad topographical and archaeological 24. Cf. http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx. Hereafter abbreviated “ASI”.
framework (§ 3.2). If the evolution and reutilisation of the necropolises of Jerusalem can be easily drawn from the Iron Age II period until the Byzantine period, a major blind spot is observed for the Early Hellenistic period, characterised by the absolute lack of remains, either of tombs, or of material culture, even in the burial caves dated to the Iron Age II period and reused in the NeoBabylonian, Persian and Late Hellenistic periods, where no findings dated to the Early Hellenistic period were retrieved (§ 3.2.1 and § 3.2.2). Moreover, this analysis points out the surprisingly large distance from the northern line of the city wall of the northern necropolis dated by the mainstream scholars to the Iron Age II (600 m), and of the Late Hellenistic northern necropolises (1000 m). Finally, the analysis of the evolution of the use of the burial bench in the region shows that tombs with this architectural feature, typical of the Iron Age II burial practice in the Judea region, continued to be hewn in the Jerusalem area at least until as late as the Early Roman period (§ 3.3). The investigation of the context of the SEC Hypogea moves its focus then from the broad to the adjacent topographical and archaeological context, which is the object of Chapter 4. Delimited according to the topographical and archaeological criteria,²⁵ and organised in ten areas,²⁶ the zone of about 20 ha around the SEC Hypogea is thoroughly analysed, and its archaeological remains, still visible or definitively lost, are presented. This Chapter also reports the results of new research carried out under the direction of the present writer: three surveys respectively at the Schmidt Institut, the Garden Tomb and the White Sisters’s Monastery, completed by the excavations at the SEC in 2013.²⁷ Finally, the unpublished preliminary reports of two large excavations directed by Rina Avner and Roie Greenwald in 2013-2014 in the area of Nablus Road are also presented, completing the detailed and up-to-date picture of the remains in the area.²⁸ These analyses allow us to draw a precise outline of the evolution of the area where the SEC Hypogea were carved: if an Iron Age II necropolis was hewn in this area, no other tomb was realised and no building activity was carried out until the Byzantine period, with the exception of the Early Roman construction with opus reticolatum in area [102] 322,²⁹ since the planned northern suburb encompassed by the unfinished Third Wall was never realised;³⁰ similarly, no remains of a road, paved or 25. Cf. § 2.1. 26. Numbered according to the ASI: [102] 321, [102] 322, [102] 323, [102] 324, [102] 325, [102] 326, [102] 330, [102] 336, [102] 337, and [102] 338, presented in § 4.1 to § 4.8. 27. Presented respectively in § 4.1.4, § 4.4.1, § 4.6.1 and § 4.5.3. 28. Cf. § 4.5.5. 29. Cf. § 4.2.1. 30. Cf. § 4.9.
Presentation of the study
not, was found during the excavations of 2013 in Nablus Road, implying either that the urban layout of Ælia Capitolina proposed by Magness 2000³¹ and supported by Avni 2005³² was never completed, or that the cardo was placed in a different location. Finally, according to the mainstream dating of the burial caves in Jerusalem, from the Iron Age II period until the Late Roman period, i.e. during seven centuries, from C6 BC to C3 AD, no burials were realised in the area north of the Damascus Gate. The Chapter is completed with the summary presented in § 3.4. The detailed description of the SEC Hypogea is reported in Chapter 5. After the general description of the geological material in § 5.1.1, the results of the geological survey of the SEC Hypogea are presented in § 5.1.2. The survey shows that H1 and H2 were carved in the meleke limestone of the exposed Turonian layer of the eastern Jerusalem area, following the main orientations of the local fracturing, and exploiting some of the features of the rock to delineate several architectural elements, such as lintels, doorjambs, and corners of the burial chambers. The analysis of the hewing of these burial caves, presented in § 5.1.3, highlights the use of the iron pick, followed by the smoothing of practically all the surfaces of the tombs, and the sequence of the operations of carving, which implies a complex and difficoult technique, starting form the bottom and hewing upward. Thanks to the continued presence at the site during the surveys carried out from 2011 to 2013, and to the 3D models of the tombs, which provide full information on the burial caves and make it possible to reach parts which are impossible or disruptive to access, while producing virtual views which disclose information otherwise impossible to attain, the very detailed descriptions of H1 and H2 was drawn, and are presented in § 5.2.1 and § 5.2.2. The thorough study of the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea, coupled with the information deduced from the first descriptions and drawings analysed in Chapter 1, provides a number of important results, the most important for the dating of the tombs being the possible reconstruction of a vestibule in H1, and possibly also in H2, since no vestibules are attested in the burial caves of the Iron Age II period.³³ As for the material culture retrieved in H1, the Metal Box which disappeared in 1885 soon after its discovery, together with the two fragments of lead coffin and a bronze coin found during the survey of July 2013, confirm the reutilisation of this hypogeum during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, as reported 31. Cf. J. Magness, “The North Wall of Aelia Capitolina”, in L.E. Stager/J.A. Greene/M. D. Coogan (ed.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, SAHL1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 328-39. 32. Cf. G. Avni, “The urban limits of Roman and Byzantine Jerusalem: a view from the necropoleis”, JAR 18 (2005), 373-96. 33. Cf. § 6.2.2.
15
in § 5.3. The summary of the chapter is presented in § 5.4. The comparison of the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea and of twenty-two other selected burial caves, listed and synthetically presented in § 6.1, is the object of Chapter 6. While the dimensions, proportions and the units of measurement of the twenty-four tombs compared show no indications for the dating, as presented in § 6.2.1, the study of the accesses to the burial caves, as pointed out above, indicates a dating to a period subsequent to the Iron Age II (§ 6.2.2), while the others architectural features, namely the benches and parapets (§ 6.2.3), the headrests (§ 6.2.4), the right-angled cornices (§ 6.2.5), the rock-cut “sarcophagi” (§ 6.2.6), and the openings in the ceilings (§ 6.2.7) specify at most the terminus post quem starting from the Iron Age II period. Together with the presence of a vestibule, the only other feature which can provide an indication for the dating of the SEC Hypogea is the pattern of the parietal decorations in the Main Chamber of H1. In fact, the “zone system” of the parietal decorations of the Hellenistic tombs in Alexandria, recognised by Adriani,³⁴ may be applied to the decorations of the Main Chamber of H1, shifting the accepted dating of the SEC Hypogea to two or three centuries earlier, namely to C3-2 BC (§ 6.2.8). The Chapter is completed by the summary in § 6.3. Chapter 7 concludes the dissertation with the outline of the social setting of Jerusalem in the Early Hellenistic period, based on the textual and archaeological evidence in § 7.1, showing how an affluent and internationally engaged Jerusalemite elite ruled a repopulated Jerusalem, which continued to develop during a long period of peace and integration in the commercial and political net of the Hellenistic word,³⁵ until the Maccabean Revolt, which sparked in 167 BC.³⁶ As suggested for their “oikos” plan, typical of the Hellenistic hypogea,³⁷ and for the parietal decorations found 34. Cf. A. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, Alexandrie, Annuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain (1933-34 - 1934-35) (Alexandria: Whitehead Morris Limited, 1936), 113. 35. The Judahites “enjoyed a long peaceful period through much of the third and the beginning of the second century. There may have been some military campaigns in Palestine even after the treaty resulting from Ipsus in 301 BCE. But the area seems to have been free from major conflict for many decades until the time of the Fourth Syrian War, around 220 BCE. A further interruption came a couple of decades later with the Seleucid conquest of Syro-Palestine in 200 BCE. Jerusalem was definitely affected by fighting at this time. But then things calmed once more for a quarter of a century”, L.L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE), Volume 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008), 335. 36. Cf. L.I. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 78-82. 37. Cf. R. Pagenstecher, Nekropolis. Untersuchungen über Gestalt und Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer Malereien (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devirent, 1919), 97-167.
16
Introduction
in H1, similarly attributable to the Hellenistic period,³⁸ the SEC Hypogea may be dated to the Early Hellenistic period with a certain degree of assuredness, as demonstrated in § 7.2. This dating of H1 and H2 and other similar burial complexes of the Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem, i.e. the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum, Tombs 1 and 2 at the White Sisters’ Monastery, and Cave 2 at Sultan Suleiman Street, elucidates the puzzling absence in Jerusalem of any remains of burials - tombs or material culture - dating to the Early Hellenistic period, and at the same time it explains why this area was not used for burials during the Late Hellenistic period, when the loculi practice was introduced, since the family owners of the tombs may have used their hypogea in later periods too, while the carving of loculi in these burial caves was not always possible because of their plans.³⁹ The “Blickkontakt” hypothesis proposed by Bieberstein suggests that the sacerdotal families would have preferred to be buried in tombs with a “sight-contact” with the Temple Mount, while, for the aristocratic families, a location along a major route to Jerusalem, possibly in their agricultural domain, would have better satisfied the display of their prestige.⁴⁰ This consideration leads to conjecture on who may have been buried in the SEC Hypogea, and to the drawing of the portrait of a family of the elite of Jerusalem during the Early Hellenistic period, which had close con38. See above in the text. 39. Cf. § 7.2. 40. Cf. K. Bieberstein, “Blickkontakt mit den Toten”, Archäologie in Deutschland 2 (1997), 12-7.
tacts with the fashionable capital of the Ptolemaic empire, Alexandria, from where they may have borrowed the style of the decorations of their houses and their tombs: indeed the Tobiads correspond to this portrait, as hypothesised in § 7.3. Finally, the review of the possible future research on the SEC Hypogea completes this study, listing the scientific excavations and surveys which can be carried out in the SEC, while encouraging the development of a more systematic methodology, merely sketched in this dissertation, which combines the social setting with the archaeological evidence, as proposed in § 7.4. The dating of the SEC Hypogea and of other similar tombs in the region to the Early Hellenistic period, in matching the social setting of Jerusalem outlined by the literary sources and by the material culture retrieved in the south-eastern hill, brings new elements both for the understanding of the evolution of Jerusalem in that period and for the dating of the bench-type burial caves in the region, which by this time demands a general reconsideration. Furthermore, the renewal of the research on the influences of Ptolemaic Egypt on the biblical redaction may profit from the elements brought into the discussion by the new dating.⁴¹ 41. Cf. E. Nodet, “Editing the Bible: Alexandria or Babylon?”, in T.L. Thompson/P. Wajdenbaum (ed.s), The Bible and Hellenism. Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Duram: Acumen, 2014), 36-55 and N.P. Lemche, “Is the Old Testament still a Hellenistic book?”, in I. Hjelm/T.L. Thompson, Biblical Interpretation beyond historicity. Changing perspective 7 (New York: Routledge, 2016), 61-75.
Chapter 1 History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea A few months after the 6th or 7th of May 1885, date of the discovery of the “Great Hypogeum” of the SaintEtienne Compound,¹ the American clergyman, diplomat and archaeologist Selah Merrill² published its first description and plans.³ In the following years, other articles on the newly discovered burial cave were published, reporting valuable information on the state of the hypogeum, H1, at the time of the unearthing. A second hypogeum, H2, similar in plan and size to H1, was discovered in an unknown date, but anyway before 1926, when, for the first time, Louis-Hughes Vincent and FelixMarie Abel described.⁴ Since then, no archaeological investigation of the SEC Hypogea was carried out, until the study by Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner in 1974-1975,⁵ followed by the anthropological study of the human remains in the Repository 4 of H1, conducted by Susan Guise Sheridan between 1995 and 1997.⁶ In this Chapter are presented the adjacent topographical⁷ and archaeological contexts of the burial caves (§ 1.1),⁸ the presentation of the researches carried out on the SEC Hypogea, in chronological order, from the 1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
6. 7.
8.
Cf. L. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles entreprises par les R.P. Dominicains dans leur domaine de Saint-Etienne, près de la porte de Damas à Jérusalem”, RA 12 (1888 B) 32-60, on p. 33. Cf. “Merril, Selah”, The New International Encyclopaedia, vol. XIII 1911, 349. Merrill claims to have visited the tomb before the renovation and construction had begun, immediately after the work of clearing was completed, on 1st July 1885. Cf. S. Merrill, “New Discoveries in Jerusalem”, PEFQ 17 (1885) 222-229, on p. 227. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784-6. The authors give three different pieces of information about their survey in the SEC: their survey started in November 1974 (cf. G. Barkay/A. Kloner, “Burial Caves North of Damascus Gate, Jerusalem”, IEJ 26 (1976) 55-57, on p. 56; in 1973 they visited for the first time the SEC Hypogea (cf. G. Barkay, “How We Happened to Re-Explore the Caves at St. Étienne”, BAR 12 (1986) 29; the survey was carried out in 1974-1975 (cf. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb”, 50). Cf. § 1.3.3 In this dissertation the term “topography” is used in its broader and traditional sense, namely the study of the details of a site, including its geomorphology, its natural and artificial features, as well as the history and the culture related to it. The detailed presentation of the topographical framework of the burial caves is the object of Chapter 4.
discovery of H1 in 1885 to the descriptions of both hypogea in 1926, period of transition to the “modern archaeology” (§ 1.2),⁹ and from the Barkay-Kloner survey in 1974-5¹⁰ to the anthropological study of Gergoricka and Sheridan,¹¹ which is the more recent publication on the SEC Hypogea (§ 1.3), followed by the summary of Chapter 1 (§ 1.4) and the conclusion (§ 1.5).
1.1 The SEC Hypogea and their adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts: general presentation The two SEC Hypogea are hewn in the Turonian meleke limestone¹² in the western cliff of El Heidhemiyeh hill, about 300 meters north of Damascus Gate, at the beginning of the Jerusalem Central Valley (the Tyropoeon Valley), along the main road linking Jerusalem to the north, nowadays called Nablus Road.¹³ Since at least the Iron Age II C, the area comprised between to the south the Ottoman northern section of the Jerusalem Wall, to the east the El Heidhemiyeh hill, to the west the small hill on the western side of the Central Valley, and to the North the northern section of the “Sukenik-Mayer Wall”¹⁴ has been exploited for quarry9.
10. 11.
12. 13. 14.
The modern scientific approach in archaeology appeared between the two World Wars, and this passage constitutes the criteria of the split into two sections, namely § 0.1.2 and § 0.1.3, of the review of the literature on the SEC Hypogea. For a presentation of the passage to modern archaeology, see W.H. Stiebing, Uncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 250-1. Cf. note 5. L.A. Gregoricka/S.G. Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent? Byzantine diet at the monastic community of St. Stephen’s, Jerusalem from stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes”, J ANTHROPOL ARCHAEOL 32 (2013) 63-73. Cf. M. Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions on the Development of Jerusalem”, BASOR 181 (1966) 24-31, on p. 27. Cf. L.-H. Vincent, Jérusalem antique, vol. i (Paris: Gabalda, 1912), 45. The “Sukenik-Mayer Wall”, in the recent Israeli literature, is known as “The Third Wall”, from Flavius Josephus’ War 5,147-159. Since there are two different interpretations of the
18
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
ing activities, burials and orchards,¹⁵ the first residential constructions dating only to the middle of C5 AD, when the Empress Eudoxia built an impressive Basilica and the annexed monastery complex on the supposed site of the stoning of Saint Stephen.¹⁶ After the Sassanid destructions of 614, a small church and several constructions related to the hosting of pilgrims were built on the site of the Eudocian Basilica and Monastery.¹⁷ This small church was destroyed by the Christians in 1187, fearing that Saladin could use it as a high point to attack the Walls of Jerusalem.¹⁸ The site continued to be used for hosting the pilgrims, but progressively the connection with the martyrdom of Saint Stephen was lost and in C15 replaced with the eastern tradition, connected to the Greek Church in the Cedron Valley.¹⁹ Only in the second half of C19, with the new expansion of Jerusalem towards the North and the easing by the Sublime Porte of the property laws, did new construction
15. 16.
17.
18. 19.
remains of this Wall, namely the Flavius Josephus “Third Wall” and a Wall built by the insurgents of the First Jewish Revolt before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, we prefer to use the neutral denomination “Sukenik-Mayer Wall”, from the names of the first archaeologists that excavated the remains between 1925-1927 and in 1940 (cf. S. Ben-Arieh/E. Netzer, “Excavations along the ’Third Wall’ of Jerusalem, 1972-1974”, IEJ 24 (1974) 97-107, on p. 97). For a detailed status quaestionis on the matter, refer to Küchler, Jerusalem, 978-83. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 944. For the location of the Eudocian Basilica, see Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle 743-765. Murphy-O’Connor 2005 suggests that probably the traditional location of the stoning of Saint Stephen was dictated more by the topography – a large and flat surface suitable for the construction of a great Basilica – than by the supposed oral tradition on the stoning (cf. J. MurphyO’Connor, “Le cult d’Étienne à Jérusalem: l’église Saint-Étienne de l’École Biblique”, Biblia 38 (2005) 27. Küchler 2007 does not agree with Lagrange and Vincent/Abel 1926 on which tradition on the site of the stoning of Saint Stephen is the most ancient, claiming that the eastern one is the oldest (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 971), but still he considers the Saint-Etienne compound the site of the Eudocian Basilica (cf. ibid. 970). Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 973-4. Lagrange notes that accounts of the Sassanid destruction neither mentions on the ruins of Saint Stephen Basilica have been found in the literary sources (cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 81-3). The Sassanid destruction was not as systematic as currently assumed and it is possible that some of the building of the Saint Stephen’s complex survived to the 614 AD conquest (cf. G. Avni, “The Persian conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.): an archaeological assessment”, BASOR 357 (2010) 35-48; in this sense, it is interesting to note that the neighbouring monastery, excavated in 1990-1992, continued to be in use until C9 AD, cf. V. Tzaferis/ N. Feig/A. Onn/E. Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall, North of the Jerusalem Old City”, in AJR 1994, 290). The site is mentioned for the burial of the ten martyrs beheaded by the Arabs in 638 and buried in the new oratory built for the occasion by the Jerusalem’s Patriarch, the burial of saint Tarachus, Probus and Andonic, and the presence in 808 in the modest oratory of two presbyters and 15 lepers (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 753-6, 763-4). Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 757. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 759-60.
activities grow in the area,²⁰ along with the discoveries of archaeological remains.²¹ The adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of SEC Hypogea are schematically presented in figure 1²² where the sites are numbered according to the system of the Archaeological Survey of Israel, used in Kloner 2001.²³ Only part of the archaeological sites of the area considered are located in the map.²⁴ Hereafter the most relevant archaeological remains in the area classed by major periods: • Iron Age II²⁵ (321): two Iron Age II burial caves in Sultan Suleiman Street; monumental Iron Age II (?) burial complex under Schimdt School, Nablus Road; Solomon’s Quarries; (324): Garden Tomb rock-hewn burial initially cut in Iron Age II (?); (325): SEC Hypogea Iron Age II (?) (326): White Sisters’ rock-hewn tomb Iron Age II (?); • Roman²⁶ (321): Late Roman cist tombs on the slope on Sultan Suleiman Street; Solomon’s Quarries; (322): Herodian mausoleum, with opus reticulatum, between Nablus Road and Ha-Nevi’im Street; (323): fortifications of Damascus Gate; (330): Sukenik/Mayer wall on Naomi Kiss Street; • Byzantine²⁷ (321): Byzantine cists tombs on the slope on Sultan Suleiman Street; 100 North-East of Damascus Gate five Byzantine cists tombs; Solomon’s Quarries; (323): Damascus Gate fortifications; (324): Garden Tomb reused in Byzantine times; 20. Cf. D. Rochelle, “Ottoman Jerusalem: The Growth of the City outside the Walls”, in S. Tamari (ed.), Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and Their Fate in the War (Jerusalem: The Institute of Jerusalem Studies/Bethlehem: Badil Resource Center, 2002), 11-3, 18. 21. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 953-78. 22. For the criteria of the delimitation of the zone as the adjacent framework of SEC Hypogea see § 2.1, while for the detailed list of the archaeological remains of the zone refer to Chapter 4. 23. The number between brackets are the survey numbers of the site map [102] of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (cf. A. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authoritiy Publications, 2001), 102*-10*). 24. The sites are differentiated according their historical periods and identified by different colours of the spots, while the kind of remains (tombs, fortificatons, etc...) are marked with abbreviations explained in the legenda annexed to figure 1. 25. Blue dots in figure 1. 26. Red dots; Early Roman brown dots in figure 1. 27. Orange dots in figure 1.
The SEC Hypogea and their adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts: general presentation
fig. 1
Adjacent archaeological context of the SEC Hypogea, cf. Kloner 2001
19
20
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
(325): SEC Eudocian Basilica and monastery complex with tombs; (330): Saint Stephen’s Monastery complex; Armenian monastery; mosaic floor; (336): White mosaic floor, Bus station; (337): Orpheus and Birds mosaic floors; • Early Islamic²⁸ (330): At the junction of Nablus Road and ‘Amr Ibn el ‘As Street, disparate remains; • Crusader²⁹ (323): Damascus Gate; (325): Church of Saint Stephen and Asnerie in SEC; (338): Leger’s Pool (?); • Ottoman³⁰ (323): Damascus Gate. The nomenclature of the Saint-Étienne Hypogea used throughout this dissertation, as marked on figure 2 and figure 3, is the following: • Chamber: burial chamber with benches; • Corridor: partially explored corridor leading southwest form the Southern Extension of H1; • Hidden Grave: Byzantine grave hidden by masonry under the southern bench of Chamber 2 of H2; • Main Chamber: large chamber where are carved the doorways which access to the Chambers; • Modern Chapel: in H1, chapel for celebrations, and cemetery of the Saint Etienne Monastery; • Modern Entrance: of H2; • Modern Stair: stair built in 1885 to access to the Modern Chapel of H1; • Northern Extension: extension of the burial facilities in H1 realised north of the Vestibule (?), during the Byzantine period; • Preparation Chamber: large chamber without benches in H2, possibly used for the preparation of the bodies before the inhumation in the burial chambers; • Repository: room carved under some benches in the chambers for the ossilegium; • Southern Extension: extension of the burial facilities in H1 realised south of the Vestibule (?), during the Byzantine period; • Vestibule(?): proposed covered room before the Main Chambers in H1 and H2. 28. Green dots in figure 1. 29. Olive green dots in figure 1. 30. Violet dots in figure 1.
1.2 First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery Before the unearthing of H1 in 1885, the SEC Hypogea seem to have been unknown to the ancient literary sources concerning the northern outskirt of the Old City of Jerusalem.³¹ Their discovery is inscribed in the history of the sustained archaeological researches conducted in this area during the second half of C19.³² Parallel to the researches of scholars and explorers, the owners of parcels of land in the proximity of the Old City frequently carried out excavations in their properties, hoping to exhume ancient ruins that could increase the economic value of their belongings. The Ottoman land reforms of 1839 and 1856 opened the doors to foreign buyers, and a real estate fever seized Jerusalem. The construction projects of the Christian communities, Zionist organizations and others were added to those of the local residents, very active at this time, and as a result, the value of the land on the outskirts of Jerusalem skyrocketed.³³ In the second half of the C19, after the excavations made in 1863 by Félicien de Saulcy in Nablus Road,³⁴ the zone north of the Damascus Gate was thoroughly explored by scholars and archaeologists,³⁵ as well as by 31. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 761-5; cf. K.C Bautch/R. Bautch/G. Barkay/S.G. Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter shall be broken’: The Material Culture from a Burial Cave at St. Étienne’s Monastery, Jerusalem”, RB 107 (2000) 562-3, note 3. The most ancient description of the northern area of Jerusalem is presented by Flavius Josephus in War 5, 147; when he delineates the route of the Third Wall of Jerusalem, there is no mentions of the SEC Hypogea. 32. For the listing of the excavations in Jerusalem see H. Geva, “History of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem”, NEAEHL 2, 1993, 801-4. See also R. Greenberg/A. Keinan, Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967-2007 (Jerusalem: Ostracon, 2009) 8-10, and J. Seligman, “The Department of Antiquities and the Israel antiquities Authority (1918-2006): The Jerusalem Experience”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 125-46. 33. Cf. Rochelle, “Ottoman Jerusalem”, 11-3, 18. 34. Cf. F. De Saucly, Voyage en Terre sainte, vol. ii (Paris: Didier et Cie, 1865), 18-22. De Saulcy interpreted the ruins he discovered at that time, as the theatre built in Jerusalem by Herod the Great. Caillou notes that the location of these first excavations made by De Saulcy was not, as reported by all the scholars citing them, the “Herodian Mausoleum” in the west side of Nablus Road (for an example, see E. Netzer, “Searching for Herod’s Tomb”, BAR 9 (1983) 30-59), but the site of the Medieval chapel of Saint Stephen (cf. J.-S. Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux de Judée dans l’antiquité. De David à Hérode Agrippa II (Paris: Geuthner, 2008), 269, note 996). 35. In 1878, Schick dug in the area of the de Saulcy excavations at the “Herodian Mausoleum” (cf. C. Schick, “Neue Funde im Norden von Jerusalem”, ZDPV 2 (1879) 103). In 1887 Schick also excavated in the newly acquired property of the Dominicans a small channel cut in the rock which runs beside the northern nave and the northern side of the atrium of the Byzantine
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
fig. 2
Plan with nomenclature of H1
21
22
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 3
Plan with nomenclature of H2
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
several of the landlords of the groves and gardens located in that area.³⁶ In 1881, the owner of a parcel of land along the Nablus Road, at about 320 m north of the Damascus Gate, digging in his grove, discovered the remains of a small medieval church, whose plan was published as early as April 1882.³⁷ This discovery was immediately associated with the location of the stoning of Saint Stephen and the Eudocian Basilica, according to the interpretation of literary sources.³⁸ The 28th of December 1882, the Dominican Order finalized the purchase of the parcel³⁹ and, in the following years, other adjacent parcels were acquired by the Dominicans. In 1883 the archaeological survey of the land began.⁴⁰ 1.2.1 Hypogeum 1 Only four months later of the discovery of H1, the first description was published by Selah Merrill,⁴¹ followed by the studies of Schick in 1886, De Vaux in 1886 and 1888, Lagrange in 1894 and Vincent and Abel in 1926.⁴² - Selah Merrill⁴³ dates his article in Jerusalem, 18th August 1885, published the same year in the Palestinian Exploration Fund Quarterly.⁴⁴ He states that he visited
36.
37. 38.
39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
Basilica of Saint Stephen (cf. Anonymous, “Discoveries North of Damascus Gate”, PEFQ 21 (1889) 116). Conder 1877 reports the findings of the excavations made in 1873 by the owner of a terrain, north of El Heidhemiyeh hill, where a Christian double tomb, a cistern and remains of masonry interpreted as the Asnerie cited in “La Citez de Jherusalem” (T. Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII. IX. XII. et XV (Helsingfors: J. C. Hinrischs’sche Buchhandlung, 1874) 454) were found (cf. C.R. Conder, “The Asnerie”, PEFQ 9 (1877) 143-4; for the same findings, see T. Chaplin, “Discovery at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 8 (1876) 9). According to Schick, in 1878 the owner of a parcel, in the area excavated in 1863 by de Saulcy, dug in a cave of his ground to transform it into a room or storage space, and discovered several fine hewn stones and architectural elements (Schick, “Neue Funde”, 103). Cf. C.R. Conder/A.M. Mantell, “Jerusalem: Newly Discovered Church”, PEFQ 14 (1882) 116. Lagrange 1894 reports of the letter written on 22ⁿd August 1882 by Father Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne to Father Matthieu Lecomte, to inform the latter of his approaches for the purchase of the parcel of land where the medieval church was found in 1881. He writes “J’ai retardé ma réponse, pour être à même de vous renseigner plus pertinemment sur les points essentiels concernant les ruines de saint-Étienne”, (Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 91). For other early hypothesis on the location of the Saint Stephen Eudocian Basilica in the area north of Damascus Gate see Chaplin, “Discovery”, 9; Conder, “The Asnerie”, 143-4; C. Schick, “New discoveries in the North of Jerusalem”, PEFQ 11 (1879) 199; J.E. Hanauer, “The Place of Stoning”, PEFQ 13 (1881) 317-9. Cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 94-6. Cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 106 Cf. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 223-7. These studies are presented below in the text. The drawings of the article are presented in figure 4. Cf. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 227.
23
and surveyed the site before the beginning of the new constructions made by the Dominicans, which started as soon as the clearing of the burial complex was completed, on 1st July 1885.⁴⁵ Merrill affirms that the space before the entrance of the burial cave was the bed of a quarry, whose general level was the same as that of the vaulted ceiling of the Southern Extension, with an accentuation of the slope to the south-west direction.⁴⁶ He gives no detail about the findings during the clearing of H1, and asserts that the great quantities of bones found in H1 were “carefully preserved in boxes”.⁴⁷ Concerning the interpretation of H1, the Crosses found in the Southern Extension and the vicinity to the Basilica of Saint Stephen led Merrill to suppose that the burial complex was a Christian one.⁴⁸ His description and drawings of H1 are respectively imprecise and sketchy and the measurements given are very approximate. - Conrad Schick⁴⁹ completed his article on H1 on 30th September 1885, about forty days after Merrill’s note, and published it in the Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins in 1886.⁵⁰ He gives no information about the date of his survey. Several interesting architectural features, no longer visible nowadays, are presented in his plan and sections. In Section C’-D’ (figure 6), where the flooring of the Modern Chapel is not equally levelled, the bedrock west of the Northern Extension is approximately at the same level as the top of the trough graves and slightly rises toward 45. “Since 1st July of the present year the work of clearing away the rubbish has ceased, and forty or fifty workmen have been busily employed in erecting some sort of chapel or church over the entire space marked in the plan”, Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 227. 46. “The large space on the west, N, N, N, N, appears like the bed of a quarry, the general level of which being the same as that of the roof over the vault. This bed slopes considerably, however, towards the south-west”, Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 225. 47. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 226. In the Chronicles of SaintÉtienne Priory, it is related that the bones found were placed in a cavity of the burial complex: “Le P. Matthieu fit aussi rebâtir en bon appareil la paroi sud-ouest du Main Chamber des tombeaux juifs détériorés par l’action du temps ou des tremblements de terre, et il réunit dans une même cavité tous les ossements épars dans cette demeure mortuaire”, Chroniques des premières années du couvent Saint-Étienne de Jérusalem, 9, unpublished. From this passage, nor it is clear if the bones were those found in all the Hypogeum, or only those found in the ancient part of the complex, neither if the cavity was one of the repository or a trough grave in the Southern Extension. 48. “These newly discovered tombs appear to be Christian and not Jewish”, Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 227. 49. The drawings in the article are presented in figures 5, 6 and 7. 50. Cf. C. Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber neben der Jeremiasgrotte bei Jerusalem”, ZDPV 9 (1886) 74-8. He published a translation in English of the same article, without the drawings: C. Schick, “The Newly Discovered Rock-Cut Tombs Close to the Jeremiah Grotto near Jerusalem”, PEFQ 18 (1886) 155-7.
24
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 4
Plan of H1 and isometry of burial chamber, Merril 1885, 224
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
25
the west. In the north-west corner of the Modern Chapel, Schick draws (figure 7) a three-level irregular surface of the bedrock, which, as compared with Section C’-D’, seems to rise from south to north. It is also interesting to note that the boundary wall of the SEC, in both section C’-D’ and E-F (figure 6), lies directly on the bedrock. Schick draws the opening hewn in the ceiling in the north-west corner of the Main Chamber, but not the one in Chamber 4 (number 6 in Schick’s drawings), and the lid with the “Euthymius Inscription”⁵¹ found in the trough grave marked “L” in his plan (figure 5). He describes the architectural features of the complex and reports the fragments of a stone sarcophagus still in situ in the Southern Extension, in the trough grave numbered “10” in his plan (figure 5), where a “+” sign indicates a Cross hewn in the rock⁵². Schick states he was told of the Metal Box⁵³ found in the recess of the floor of the Main Chamber, which it was possible to open only forcibly. In the box, according to Schick were found bones, some of them being bird bones.⁵⁴ He affirms that the bones found in the burial complex were collected and reburied in an appropriate place.⁵⁵ In his interpretation of H1, Schick assumes the Jewish origin and, after a possible partial destruction, its reutilization in Christian time.⁵⁶ His plan and sections, although imprecise, show interesting details on the bedrock of the Modern Chapel before the levelling and the new constructions,⁵⁷ including the
building which covered the Modern Stairs, dismantled in 1888.⁵⁸ Unfortunately, regarding the sections, it is not clear whether he draws the exact cross sections, or the elevation sections, where what is in the background from the point of view of the sections is visible.⁵⁹ The measurements given by Schick are somewhat approximate. - Ludovic De Vaux⁶⁰ published in the Revue Archéologique two articles on H1, the first in 1886⁶¹ and in 1888 the second and more detailed one, completed in Paris in April 1888.⁶² No information about the date of his visit to the site is given. In his 1886 article, De Vaux suggests the probable existence of a mosaic in front of the burial complex⁶³ and, in 1888, presenting the Modern Stairs and the Modern Chapel built by the Dominicans, he specifies that, in the north-western corner of the space in front of the H1, leading to the North, the mosaic floor, one meter wide, seemed to be a sort of gangway that led to it.⁶⁴ He proposes that the entrance to the complex must have been in the form of a shaft, because no trace of stairs was found,⁶⁵ contradicting Merrill’s and Schick’s plans which show a stair descending to the Vestibule.⁶⁶ He reports of the six trough graves hewn in the rock in the Northern Extension, the one numbered 6 in his plan (figure 8) being divided in two, and of the dry stone wall in the southern side and part of the western side of the Main Chamber. This wall repaired the broken rock, and it was this wall
51. 52. 53. 54.
58. “C’est vers cette époque [the end of September 1888] que nous faisons démolir une construction fort disgracieuse et inopportune que Abou Jallil, comprenant mal le P. Matthieu, avait fait construire sur l’entrée des tombeaux dont il a été parlé plus haut. Cette construction en forme de cage rectangulaire, dépense inutile, très lourde de forme, disproportionnée, interceptant une partie de notre point de vue sur le couchant, fut rasée et remplacée par l’entrée et l’escalier actuels”, Chroniques des premières années, 42-3. 59. The interpretation of Schick’s drawings cannot be certain, because of their imprecision and the lack of any information about the way he drew the sections; nevertheless, from the observation of the bedrock still visible after the levelling for the Modern Chapel it is clear that the original bedrock was sloping towards the South. 60. The drawing of the 1888 article is presented in figure 8. 61. Cf. L. De Vaux, “Découvertes récentes à Jérusalem”, RA 7 (1886 A), 371-4. 62. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 32-60. 63. “Devant ce tombeau devait régner une mosaïque, à en juger par les débris sans nombre qu’on trouve en cet endroit”, De Vaux, “Découvertes récentes”, 374). 64. “A l’angle nord-ouest de cette cour d’entrée, on a mis au jour une bande de mosaïque blanche, large d’un mètre, et paraissant se diriger vers le nord. Il serait intéressant de savoir jusqu’où elle allait, et si elle faisait comme une sorte d’allée aboutissant à l’hypogée qui nous occupe en ce moment”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34, note 1. 65. “Jadis, on devait entrer de plain-pied dans ce vaste séjour de la mort: nulle part on n’a trouvé trace d’escalier”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34. 66. In his plan of H1, De Vaux doesn’t mark the stair.
For the presentation of the inscription, see § 5.2.1. In the trough grave numbered 11 in his plan (cf. figure 5). For the description of the Metal Box, see further in the text. “In einer Vertiefung des Bodens (Nr. 19) entdeckte man, wie mir gesagt wurde, ein metallenes Kästchen, das nur gewaltsam geöffnet werden konnte. Es soll mit verschiedenen Knochen, auch von Tieren, namentlich von Vögeln an gefüllt gewesen sein. Ich habe es selbst nicht gesehen”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 78. 55. “Die Gräber wurden zunächst ausgeräumt, die Gebeine sorgfältig gesammelt und an einem passenden Orte wieder beigesetzt”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 74. 56. “Bei näherer Prüfung erkennt man leicht, dass ihre erste Anlage aus der jüdischen Zeit stammt und sich in nichts von den jüdischen Felsengräbern unterschieden hat, die man in Palästina und besonders in der Umgebung von Jerusalem so häufig findet. Nachdem sie teilweise zerstört und wahrscheinlich ganz entweiht waren, sind sie dann von Christen als Begräbnissplatz benützt und nicht unbedeutend erweitert worden”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 75. 57. “Der Platz selbst ist dann mit einem schützenden Neubau überdeckt worden”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 74. The Priory’s Chronicles give a brief description of the construction and restoration works carried out by the Dominicans: “Le P. Matthieu Lecomte fit recouvrir de voûtes le grand espace qu’occupait la cour d’entrée de cet hypogée. C’est aujourd’hui une chapelle des morts à laquelle on arrive par un escalier extérieur. Le P. Matthieu fit aussi rebâtir en bon appareil la paroi sud-ouest du Main Chamber des tombeaux juifs détériorés par l’action du temps ou des tremblements de terre”, Chroniques des premières années du couvent Saint-Étienne de Jérusalem (unpublished) EBAF Archives, 9).
26
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 5
Plan of H1, Schick, 1886a, Tafel I
fig. 6
Sections C-D, C’-D’, E-F, G-H, Schick 1886a, Tafel I
fig. 7
Section A-B, Schick 1886a, Tafel II
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
that collapsed during the digging of the boundary wall foundations in 1885; afterwards, it was replaced with a modern one by the Dominicans.⁶⁷ De Vaux also mentions the decorations of the walls of the Main Chamber as simple slightly protruding bands.⁶⁸ De Vaux describes the Metal Box found in the recess of the flooring of the Main Chamber: “couverte d’enguirlandements, au milieu desquels se distinguent aisément trois enfants nus, se tenant par la main. Le travail en paraît de style gréco-judaïque, et, dans ce cas, serait sans doute de l’époque des Hérodes”.⁶⁹ In his 1888 article, he offers a slightly different description of the Metal Box,⁷⁰ and reproduces in a drawing the Greek ‘Euthymius Inscription’, found on trough grave number 2 of his plan of the Northern Section,⁷¹ giving a first translation.⁷² De Vaux states that the Southern Extension of the complex was covered by a great quantity of bones, adding that, on the fragment of sarcophagus found in one of the trough graves of the lower level, there was a great Cross.⁷³ He offers the first report of the findings of lamps, described as of the type used by the first Christians, but without any localization reference.⁷⁴ 67. De Vaux states that the dry stone wall was replacing only the western and not also the southern side of the Main Chamber, and correctly describes the architectural elements of the restored part, which corresponds to the southern wall of the Main Chamber: “La paroi ouest de cette salle, toute taillée dans le rocher, s’était jadis brisée sous l’action du temps ou des tremblements de terre, et on l’avait reconstruite en pierres sèches. C’est ce même mur qui, cédant à son tour, livra subitement passage aux terrassiers en train de creuser des fondations en cet endroit. Le P. Mathieu Lecomte l’a fait rétablir en bon appareil, en respectant son alignement primitif et en y figurant les deux portes qui s’y trouvaient autrefois”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34. 68. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34, note 2. 69. De Vaux, “Découvertes récentes”, 374. 70. “Dans le grand atrium, au point C, et à 0m,50 de profondeur audessous du sol, on a mis au jour une sorte de coffret en cuivre, tout corrodé par le temps et les cendres qui l’entouraient. Sa longueur ne dépasse pas 0m,50 et c’est peut-être un sarcophage d’enfant. Sur ses côtés finement travaillés, on peut reconnaître des couronnes dans des guirlandes de feuillage artistement enlacées et deux figures paraissant tenir une urne. Le style de ce curieux coffret semble gréco-romain, ou peut-être grécojudaïque”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 36. 71. “A gauche de la porte d’entrée, une chambre (chapelle des Mourants) [the Northern Extension] renfermait six tombes creusées à 1 mètre de profondeur dans le rocher. Le n° 6 était divisé en deux compartiments, et sur le n° 2 se lisait une inscription grecque dont nous parlerons plus loin”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34. 72. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 38-9. For the presentation of the inscription refer to § 5.2.1. 73. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 37. The big Byzantine Cross is hewn in the western side of the central arcosolia of the southern side of the Southern Extension. The lower part is covered by a modern burial. 74. “Il paraît qu’on y a trouvé quelques lampes en terre, pareilles à celles dont se servaient les premiers chrétiens; nous n’avons pu parvenir à nous en assurer”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 37.
27
Regarding the interpretation of H1, in 1886, De Vaux suggests that it might have been the tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene,⁷⁵ but in his 1888 article he presents four major interpretations given at that time,⁷⁶ rejecting all four. He notes the similarities with the Hellenistic hypogea in Alexandria and proposes a Jewish origin of the tomb of a rich, “quasi-royal” family, dating to C1 BC - C1 AD, and later transformed into a Christian monument.⁷⁷ If the plan of De Vaux 1888b article is extremely sketchy, his descriptions of several architectural details and of the Metal Box are very interesting, as is the information he gives on the date of the discovery of H1.⁷⁸ His measurements are approximate. - Marie-Joseph Lagrange⁷⁹ arrived at the SaintÉtienne Priory in 1890,⁸⁰ five years after the discovery and the modern renovations of H1. In his monograph on the SEC, published in 1894, after the description of H1 given by De Vaux 1888b, he adds only a few details on the arcosolia of the Southern Extension.⁸¹ Lagrange presents detailed, though not perfect, plan and sections of H1, apparently showing the burial complex before the complete cleaning, since the courtyard is still covered.⁸² 75. Cf. De Vaux, “Découvertes récentes”, 347. 76. Herodian family tombs, noble or priestly Hasmonean burials, the tomb of Alexander Janneus or of the High priest John, fifth High priest after the return from the Exile (cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 44). 77. “Il se pourrait que ce fût un ancien sépulcre juif de l’époque, ou à peu près, du Christ, qu’on a utilisé ensuite. En tout cas, ce serait alors la sépulture d’une famille quasi royale car on ne saurait admettre que jamais un simple particulier ait pu faire creuser pour lui et les siens un tombeau aussi vaste”, De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 45. 78. Both Lagrange 1894 and Vincent/Abel 1926 seem to appreciate De Vaux’s articles, since Lagrange uses his description of H1 in toto (cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 112-6), and Vincent/Abel write explicitly: “Peu après la découverte, l’hypogée fut dessiné et décrit — inscriptions comprises! — dans un mémoire excellent de M. le baron Ludovic de Vaux et parut dans la Revue archéologique, 1886, I, 372 ss. et 1888 11 32 ss”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781, note 2. 79. The drawings in the article are presented in figures 9 to 11, while the originals from which they were realised as engravings for the publication are stored in the EBAF Archaeological Department and presented in figures 12 to 15. 80. Cf. B. Montagnes, Marie-Joseph Lagrange: Une biographie critique (Paris: Cerfs, 2004), 63. 81. “J’ajouterai seulement à cette description si soignée que dans la partie qui est en contre-bas de l’hypogée se trouvent des arcosolia, et dans le fond, du côté de l’ouest, une croix est gravée dans le roc”, Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 116. 82. A comparison with the actual state of H1 shows that the trough graves in the Northern Extension, the recess where was found the Metal Box, the threshold step at the entrance to the Main Chamber, the bases of the doors and of the openings of the repositories of the burial chambers are absent from Lagrange’s 1894 drawings. Some of these features are present in the drawings made by Merrill, Schick and De Vaux, this suggesting either that Lagrange’s 1894 drawing are the oldest ones and present the state of H1 before the complete clearing, or that these drawings
28
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 8
Plan of H1, De Vaux 1888b, 35
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
fig. 9
Plan of H1, Lagrange 1894, 111
29
30
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 10
Section A-B of H1, Lagrange 1894, 113
fig. 11
Section C-D of H1, Lagrange 1894, 114
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
fig. 12
Plan of H1, Archaeological Dep. EBAF
31
32
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 13
Plan of H1, Archaeological Dep. EBAF
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
fig. 14
Section A-B of H1, Archaeological Dep. EBAF
fig. 15
Section C-D of H1, Archaeological Dep. EBAF
33
34
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
In figures 12 and 14, the northern wall of the Vestibule shows masonry completing the broken rock,⁸³ seemingly of the same standard as the masonry of the Corridor, today inaccessible, in the southern side of the complex, as shown in figure 15. Both the opening in the ceiling of Chamber 4 and the opening in the north-western corner of the Main Chamber are outlined in figure 14; nevertheless the latter with a dotted line.⁸⁴ The colouring of figures 14 and 15 offers some clues on the outline of the hill before the excavation.⁸⁵ Finally, the fragment of the sarcophagus in the Southern Extension of the complex is drawn in situ in figure 12. Regarding the interpretation of H1, Lagrange proposes the same evolution given by Schick,⁸⁶ namely of an ancient Jewish burial complex, later transformed by the Christians wanting to be buried near the Martyrium of Saint Stephen.⁸⁷ His presentation of H1 being quoted from De Vaux 1888b, the main interest of Lagrange’s contribution to our research lies in the plan and sections, which may be the oldest known.
83.
84.
85.
86. 87.
focus on the most important details of the burial complex, neglecting the details missing in the drawings. It is worth noting that Lagrange’s 1894 drawings are consistent with each other. On comparison with the actual state of the northern sidewall of the Vestibule, it proves that the Dominicans heavily adjusted the original profile of the rock in an ordered shape, to fit the modern wall and to give an almost symmetric aspect to the entrance to the Main Chamber. This detail suggests that this opening was added in a second time, hypothesis which seems to be reinforced by the fact that the opening is not marked in Lagrange’s 1894 section A-B; nevertheless, Schick 1886 states that: “in the rock covering of the principal chamber [Main Chamber] there is an opening which was no doubt originally intended to let in light and air, but appears at a later period to have been used for conveying the corpses through; at any rate, exactly underneath, a large number of bones are to be found”, Schick, “The Newly Discovered”, 157. The measurements of H1 presented in § 5.2.1 suggest that the drawings are consistent with the actual state of the bedrock, implying that all or part of the surface above H1 was explored during the construction of the Modern Chapel and the Stairs. Cf. Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 75. Cf. note 56. “Quelle était l’origine de cet hypogée et sa destination? Dans la partie haute où se trouvent les couchettes et les auges, on n’a découvert aucune trace de profession chrétienne. La situation du rocher en dehors de la ville convenait bien à des tombeaux juifs. L’hypogée a donc vraisemblablement une origine juive; la forme des chambres sépulcrales avec des lits au lieu de fours à cercueils n’indique pas à elle seule une origine récente, car on a trouvé ce genre de sépultures dans de très anciens tombeaux phéniciens et chypriotes. Cependant la présence d’une auge évidée dans l’une de ces banquettes, et le bourrelet taillé dans le rocher pour soutenir la tête ne marquent pas une haute antiquité: on peut songer au temps d’Hérode. Plus tard, lorsque la basilique fut construite, les chrétiens, qui aimaient à reposer auprès des martyrs, durent désirer particulièrement avoir leurs tombes non loin de celle de saint Etienne. L’antique hypogée fut continué, mais cette fois avec des arcosolia ou de petites auges, avec des croix et des inscriptions qui ne laissent aucun doute sur le caractère chrétien de ces tombeaux”, Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 117.
- The study of the Hypogea of the SEC made by LouisHugues Vincent and Félix-Marie Abel is included in their monumental work on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem.⁸⁸ The authors arrived in Jerusalem respectively in 1891 and 1897 and did not see H1 at its discovery.⁸⁹ They present the immediate context of H1, namely the western cliff of El Heidhemiyeh hill fringed with tombs and quarries mutually intertwined, and report that, between H1 and the Basilica, 1.800 m2 of the SEC have been explored by the Dominicans.⁹⁰ In that area, uninterrupted signs of quarries and a few great annexes have been found, the latter in such bad condition as to make it impossible to understand their nature and plan, but nevertheless with some good alignments of foundations.⁹¹ Vincent/Abel also report that, next to the southern side of the Basilica, numerous tombs stretched over 20 to 25 meters of width.⁹² As in De Vaux 1888b, Vincent/Abel report of a white or little-decorated mosaic pavement on the backfill of the rock, in the west and north of the Modern Chapel, manifestly removed by the Dominicans to even the floor of the Chapel.⁹³ They affirm that the empty space at the entrance of the ancient complex was none other than the bottom of a quarry with no sign of a façade.⁹⁴ In Chamber 5, they note that the original order with three mortuary beds has been transformed with the levelling of the beds, still visible in their original proportions. An hypothetical Chamber 6, according to the authors, can be reconstituted from tenuous evidence on its entrance and the ceiling.⁹⁵ 88. The relative plan and sections are presented in figures 16 to 19. 89. While Vincent/Abel did not see H1 in 1885 when it was discovered and before the beginning of the construction works, nevertheless they lived beside and learned from the first generation of Dominicans, who may have passed to them details on the original state of H1 (cf. J.-M. De Tarragon, “Cheikh Antoun et son compagnon: deux dominicains de Jérusalem en expédition”, Biblia 32 (2004) 40-3). 90. The area of the survey, unfortunately unreported, seems to be between H1 and the southern side of the Eudocian Basilica. “La description complète des vestiges artificiels examinés sur plus de 1.800 mètres carrés, dans la zone méridionale de SaintÉtienne, serait fastidieuse”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781. 91. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 780. 92. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785. Paul-Marie Séjourné, in an article published in 1892, reports on the same tombs: “Poursuivant les fouilles dans la direction du nord [from the Lamb Chapel], nous avons découvert une galerie de tombeaux qui s’en allait rejoindre la basilique Eudoxienne. La plupart, taillés dans le roc en tout ou en partie, sont assez simples et ne méritent aucune mention spéciale; mais le premier est vraiment remarquable”, P.-M. Séjourné, “Chroniques bibliques”, RB 1 (1892) 257-74, on p. 258. 93. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781-2, note 3. 94. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781. 95. From the text, it is not clear whether they were thinking of a chamber with mortuary beds or of a Preparation Chamber, like the one still preserved in H2. “La seconde [Chamber 6] ne pourrait même pas être soupçonnée sans les indices ténus mais indubitables de son entrée primitive et de son plafond de roc: il
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
35
They note that the Chamber 5 window looking west is clearly a later transformation. The Corridor, in part hewn in the rock and in part built in the same good masonry as its door, they note, was probably associated with the Garden Tomb complex, but was not a direct connection between the two Hypogea, and was not explored because it was too far beyond the boundaries of the SEC.⁹⁶ They report that the Cross on the sarcophagus in the Southern Extension has branches of the same length and that another Cross is engraved in the north-west corner of the Southern Extension (figure 16), where have been found a few Christian lamps of the simplest type and the remains of a Greek epitaph on a fragment of a slab.⁹⁷ On the debris of the looting of the Southern Extension, a great quantity of bones were piled in disorderly fashion, covered by the simultaneous collapse of the vault, part of the rock ceiling and almost all the western sidewall of the Main Chamber, poorly rebuilt earlier with rubble stones.⁹⁸ Concerning the Metal Box found in the Main Chamber recess, Vincent/Abel reproduce the description of De Vaux,⁹⁹ adding that the Metal Box has been stolen from the small collection of Saint-Étienne, which at that time was too liberally open to all comers.¹⁰⁰ In the Northern Extension were found some fragments of the lids of the trough graves and, on one of them, the “Euthymius Inscription”.¹⁰¹ Incidentally, Vincent/Abel 1926 hint at lamps with Jewish symbols and other vessels, without specifying in which repository they were found.¹⁰² Except for the objects described above and the bones found in the repositories, Vincent/Abel 1926 declare that H1 was completely empty when it was discovered.¹⁰³ They complete the presentation of H1 by giving the interpretation of the archaeological remains in two major
stages: 1. a quarry transformed into an ancient Judahite tomb with Hellenistic architectural features, hewn probably during the reign of Herod the Great;¹⁰⁴ 2. the Christian transformation from the middle of C5 AD, when the great Eudocian complex was established, throughout the C6 AD.¹⁰⁵ The drawings of H1 made by Vincent in 1924¹⁰⁶ offer a precise picture of the state of the burial cave at that time, adding significant details to the text. In figure 16, the original western sidewall of the Vestibule is added in dotted lines, seemingly delineating a door in correspondence of the three steps stairs, as visible also in the drawings in figures 9, 12 and 13. Possibly, this was the original entrance to the ancient burial complex, which, the authors say, had not a proper façade, when it was discovered. In section a-b (figure 17), Vincent draws a restitution of the Metal Box in its recess. In the same section a-b, the enlargement of the top of the original door connecting the Vestibule to the Main Chamber is evident, and explicitly marked with the letter “n” in section e-f (figure 19).¹⁰⁷ Section e-f, free of all modern masonry, also presents the restitution of the sarcophagus portion fitted in its trough grave in the Southern Extension. Finally, section c-d (figure 18) shows the door and the beginning of the Corridor, whose access is nowadays closed by the modern masonry, half of an arch and what the authors interpret as Byzantine masonry of the unexplored Corridor. On the contrary, some details do not correspond to what is visible today: both figures 18 and 19 present the eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension with the part under the window drawn as bedrock,¹⁰⁸ and not in modern masonry as it is now, while figure 15 presents correctly the preserved bedrock of the same sidewall.
est manifeste qu’elle fut sacrifiée à l’installation de la pièce plus spacieuse et de tout autre plan qui dilate son étage inférieur dans la direction de la cour”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 782-3. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784, note 1. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. “Après la violation des tombes de la crypte [the Southern Extension] on y avait entassé pêle-mêle un prodigieux monceau d’ossements sur lesquels la voûte intermédiaire s’était, par la suite, effondrée en même temps qu’une partie du plafond rocheux de l’étage supérieur et presque toute la paroi méridionale de l’ancien Main Chamber B, rétablie tant bien que mal au moyen d’un très pauvre blocage en moellons”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. See also De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 36. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 36. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781, note 2. “Private tomb of Deacon Euthymius Pindarus”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784, note 2. For the detailed presentation of the inscription refer to § 5.2.1. “Si l’on y ajoute les indices accessoires que fournissent quelques lampes à symboles juifs associées à de menus vases parmi les restes humains entassés dans les ossuaires, il est difficile de ne pas admettre la détermination chronologique suggérée naguère par le P. Lagrange”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784.
104. “Le sépulcre monumental qui prit possession de la carrière abandonnée pour y développer la belle ordonnance de ses chambres est creusé sur un type juif usuel depuis de longs siècles avant notre ère. C’est néanmoins sous l’influence prépondérante de l’hellénisme que prévalurent les principes de rythme et de régularité dans les proportions qu’on voit appliquées ici”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. 105. “Moindre encore sera l’hésitation sur l’époque de la transformation chrétienne. La quantité notable de sépultures soignées, quoique très humbles, se conçoit en ce voisinage immédiat d’une église et d’une agglomération monastique dûment attestées ici depuis le milieu du v siècle. Ce même siècle et le suivant sont la plus vraisemblable période où situer les lambeaux épigraphiques recouvrés, et en particulier l’épitaphe du diacre Euthymios”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785. 106. Figures 16 to 19. For his article consecrated to the Garden Tomb, adjacent to H1, Vincent draw another plan of H1, simplifying some details of the burial complex, but outlining the Corridor and the location of the Garden Tomb (cf. figure 20; L.-H. Vincent, “Chronique: Garden Tomb, historie d’un mythe”, RB 34 (1925) 407, figure 4). 107. Perhaps already noticed by Schick: “Auch sind an einigen Stellen die Thüren nachträglich grösser, namentlich höher gemacht worden”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 75. 108. N in figure 18.
96. 97. 98.
99. 100. 101. 102.
103.
36
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 16
Plan of H1, Vincent/Abel 1926, 781
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
fig. 17
Section a-b of H1, Vincent/Abel 1926, 782
fig. 18
Section c-dd’ of H1, Vincent/Abel 1926, 783
fig. 19
Section e-f of H1, Vincent/Abel 1926, 783
37
38
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 20
Plan of H1, Vincent 1925, 407
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
1.2.2 Hypogeum 2 Vincent/Abel Jérusalem Nouvelle is the first publication presenting H2. We have no information about the date and the conditions of its discovery, either in publications or in the Priory Chronicles.¹⁰⁹ H2 presents the same distribution schema and architectural features as H1, with the exception of its orientation,¹¹⁰ the Preparation Chamber,¹¹¹ and the absence of decorations on the walls. The original ceiling of H2 was preserved only in Chambers 2 and 3; where it collapsed, according to Vincent/Abel 1926, it showed clear signs of a regular, systematic and respectful levelling at the summits of the walls. The two scholars add that, when H2 was discovered, the benches were under a late flow of debris, the repositories were filled with bones and no sign of disorder or of intention of profanation were noted.¹¹² Chamber 1 presents major transformations, its northern bench being reconstructed with large red bricks. It connects with the southern bench of Chamber 2, where a trough grave hidden by the reconstruction was found.¹¹³ Vincent/Abel 1926 explain how, after a first check revealing that the bricks filled an ancient repository, the brick reconstruction was removed to expose its original rock sides and four great parallel slabs, carefully sealed and supported by iron rods, were discovered. These slabs covered a trough grave hewn in the floor of the repository with such a pronounced deviation from the longitudinal axis of the repository as to imply some reason for this de109. The drawing of H2 are presented in figures 21 and 22. In the article of Séjourné on the survey in the SEC and the discovery of the Lamb Chapel, no mention is made of H2 (cf. Séjourné, “Chronique bibliques”, 257-74). This is very surprising, considering the vicinity of H2 to the southern part of the Basilica apse, whose complete clearing was carried out at the end of 1888. (cf. Chroniques des premières années, 44). The picture of the spot of the Modern Entrance to H2, taken after the construction of the Ecole building, which started in 1891, and before the construction of the modern Basilica, which started in 1896 (cf. Chroniques conventuelles 1896 (unpublished), EBAF Archives, 3) show a dry wall instead of the entrance (cf. figure 23). Even in the maps of the sector presenting the remains of SEC, where H1 is included, there are no signs of H2 (for example, PEF 1900; Kümmel 1904; later maps, do not even show H1). Finally, in 1925, Vincent, in presenting H1 and the tombs associated to the burial area in SEC and Garden Tomb, does not mention H2 and, in the map at page 402, where H1 is clearly drawn as well as the Nonnus Onesimus tomb in the Atrium of the Basilica, does not draw H2 (cf. Vincent, “Chronique: Garden Tomb”, 402, fig. 1). In all the Revue Biblique from 1926 back to the first issue of 1892, H2 is never mentioned. 110. The H1 is oriented east-west, while H2 is oriented north-east / south-west. According to Vincent/Abel 1926, this different orientation must be ascribed to the pattern of the quarry (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785). 111. A Preparation Chamber may have been in the place of the Southern Extension of H1 (cf. §. 5.2.1). 112. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785. 113. The transformations are presented in details in § 5.2.2.
39
viation. In the thick layer of wet ashes on the floor of this grave were collected the following items: some heavily oxidized metal bands, a certain quantity of debris of large bones, a small number of vertebrae, a few teeth, a metal clip, two small iridescent glass vials, rests of a wooden coffin, and, almost intact, grouped at the eastern end of the grave, two terra-cotta lamps adorned with a Cross, and several smaller pottery fragments.¹¹⁴ The interpretation given by Vincent/Abel 1926 of the evolution of H2 is similar to that of H1: at the beginning of our era an abandoned quarry was transformed into a Jewish burial complex which hosted the remains of several generations of a Jewish family; during the Byzantine time, a vault replaced the collapsed ceiling, a door and several windows were added respectively in Chambers 1 and 2, and the hidden trough grave was hewn in Chamber 2.¹¹⁵ 114. Vincent/Abel narrate the finding of the hidden trough grave (from now the “Hidden Grave”) in Chamber 2 with details that suggest they were there when the grave was discovered: “dans la salle 2, où reparaissent, transposées, des modifications analogues: au Nord, couchette funéraire usuelle; au S., banc massif vêtu du même crépissage en ciment; à l’O., lit transversal privé de ses coussinets aux deux bouts, et paroi perforée dans l’angle supérieur par une sorte de fenêtre, o; une fenêtre à peu près semblable, n, au-dessus du lit septentrional, donne vue sur la chambre 3. Le crépissage énigmatique des banquettes attaqué discrètement laissa voir, au point attendu, face au couloir central de la chambre 1, l’orifice normal de l’ossuaire bloqué par un bâti de briques. Cette même structure remplaçait, dans la chambre 2, la banquette adjacente éventrée. Un sondage dans l’étrange massif ayant fait constater qu’il comblait un ossuaire antique, tout ce briquetage fut arraché pour remettre à nu les parois rocheuses. Le fond rendait sous le choc une sonorité qui fit découvrir quatre grosses dalles parallèles scellées avec précaution. Soutenues en dessous par des tringles de fer, elles couvraient une tombe (i) creusée avec une déviation assez accentuée sur l’axe longitudinal de l’ossuaire pour qu’on la puisse croire voulue. Dans l’épaisse couche de cendre humide furent recueillis: les ferrures très oxydées et quelques bribes d’un cercueil en bois, plusieurs débris de grands ossements, un petit nombre de vertèbres, des dents, une agrafe métallique, et enfin, groupées à l’extrémité orientale de la fosse, deux petites fioles en verre irisé presque intactes et deux lampes en terre cuite ornées d’une croix, parmi les fragments de plusieurs autres plus banales. Pauvres restes, à coup sûr! Ils offrent néanmoins l’intérêt de caractériser comme une sépulture chrétienne cette tombe si jalousement dissimulée dans sa mystérieuse cachette”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786. 115. “L’histoire de l’hypogée parait dès lors calquée sur celle du groupe funéraire précédemment discuté. Installé sur un type spécifique juif, au début de notre ère, dans une carrière abandonnée, le monument abrita, durant une série de générations, les restes de quelque famille juive. Tombé en déshérence, après une longue période d’oubli, le vieil hypogée fut l’objet d’une sauvegarde respectueuse dans l’installation monastique byzantine réalisée en ces parages. Au plafond séculaire, compromis peut-être par quelque accident, ou ne répondant pas à ce que requérait la nouvelle ambiance architecturale, une voûte fut substituée: le secret d’un antique ossuaire parut un asile approprié pour une sépulture qu’on souhaitait particulièrement inviolable et de modiques baies laissèrent filtrer un peu de jour en ce sanctuaire de la mort sans en troubler le recueillement”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786. Unfortunately,
40
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
fig. 21
Plan of H2, Vincent/Abel 1926, 785
fig. 22
Sections a-b, c-d and e-f of H2, Vincent/Abel 1926, 785
First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery
fig. 23
Excavations of the Basilica of Eudoxia, SEC, looking south-east; the location of the Modern Entrance of H2 is framed by the red frame. Photo EBAF Archives, processing Riccardo Lufrani
41
42
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
The analysis of the drawings of H2 allows the following considerations, unfortunately paralleled with no information in the text: the Vestibule is only partially reconstructed in H2 plan (cf. figure 21); section e-f (figure 22) shows an arched opening in Chamber 1, as it was before the modern concrete covering of H2; section a-b (figure 22) shows the careful levelling of the bedrock of H2.¹¹⁶
1.3 Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea In 1973, almost fifty years after the last presentation of the SEC Hypogea by Vincent/Abel 1926, two Israeli archaeologists, Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner, visited the burial complexes.¹¹⁷ They decided to study the two tombs and to challenge the dating at the Hellenistic-Roman period, proposing to dating them back to the the Iron Age II.¹¹⁸ This section introduces the more recent publications on the SEC Hypogea, starting from the presentation of Barkay/Kloner survey in section § 1.3.1, followed by section § 1.3.2, dedicated to the interpretation of H1 as the burial cave of the latest kings of Judah, the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis, proposed to the scientific community in a formal way by Amos Kloner in 1986¹¹⁹ and challenged in 2011 by the present writer.¹²⁰ From 1995 to 1997, the American anthropologist Susan Guise Sheridan exhumed 15,000 skeletal remains from Repository 4 of H1. In section § 1.3.3 four articles are analysed, the first one where Sheridan presents the first results of the anthropological study,¹²¹ the second by the same author together with Kelley and Richard Bautch and Gabriel Barkay,¹²² on the material culture from the repos-
116. 117. 118.
119. 120. 121. 122.
the two authors give nor the details, neither the localization of the evidence of the vault remains. In general, all three sections in figure 22 give a clear picture of the respectful and systematic levelling of the top of the walls, mentioned above. Cf. note 5. “For me, the first sight of the St. Étienne tombs was especially meaningful. I had recently spent several years with Professor David Ussishkin exploring First Temple burial caves in the Silwan village opposite the City of David, about one mile from where I now stood. The tooling marks, the architectural elements and the burial customs of the First Temple period were as familiar to me as if I had lived in those times. And now, standing in the St. Étienne caves for the first time, I was struck by the clear appearance of many of these First Temple period features. We knew immediately that the elegant central room leading to seven separate burial chambers must have been hewn in the First Temple period—not in the Roman period, as scholars had thought”, Barkay, “How We Happened to Re-Explore”, 29). Cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 121-9. Cf. Lufrani, “Have the Tombs of the Kings”, Internet Site. Cf. S.G. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’: The Relationship between Human Remains and the Cultural Record for Byzantine St. Stephen’s”, RB 106 (1999) 574-611. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 561-90.
itory,¹²³ the third by Sheridan with Lesley Gregoricka is a study on the subadult bones and a last article by Sheridan and Gregoricka on the diet of the adult individuals’ bones.¹²⁴ 1.3.1 The Barkay-Kloner survey in 1974-1975 Since the SEC Hypogea were completely cleared at the time of their discovery,¹²⁵ with the exception of part of the bones in the repositories, it is not surprising that the survey carried out by Barkay and Kloner in 1974-5 did not yield new archaeological findings. The main interest in their research is the association with the Iron Age tombs in Jerusalem and in the Judah region, in the light of five decades of the new archaeological discoveries and studies carried out since the last examination of the SEC Hypogea, dating back to 1926. In this paragraph are presented, in a chronological order, several new comments on the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea and the interpretation of the SEC Hypogea published in the studies based on the BarkayKloner survey, from 1975 onwards. The results of this survey were published for the first time in Hebrew by Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner together with Amihai Mazar in Qadmoniot in 1975¹²⁶ and republished in an English translation in 1994.¹²⁷ In these articles, the authors describe the architectural elements of the SEC Hypogea and of the two Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs,¹²⁸ and outline the characteristics of other two tombs in the Northern Sector of Jerusalem, namely the Garden Tomb and Tomb 1 in the courtyard of the White Sisters’ Monastery,¹²⁹ stating that these burial complexes constitute the Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II period.¹³⁰ 123. Cf. L.A. Gregoricka/S.G. Sheridan, “Food for Thought. Isotopic Evidence for Dietary and Weaning Practices in a Byzantine Urban Monastery in Jerusalem” in M.A. Perry (ed.), Bioarchaeology and Behavior: The People of the Ancient Near East (Gainesville: University of Florida, 2012) 138-64. 124. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 63-73. 125. Cf. § 1.2.1 and § 1.2.2. 126. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery Northern Cemetery of Jerusalem in First Temple Times”, Qadmoniot 8 (1975), (Hebrew) 71-6. 127. Cf. G. Barkay/A. Kloner/A. Mazar, “The Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem during the First Temple Period” in AJR 1994, 119-27. 128. For a presentation of the Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs see A. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves North of the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem”, IEJ 26 (1976) 1-8, analysed in § 4.1.6. 129. The White Sisters is the denomination currently used in Jerusalem to identify the Sœurs Franciscaines Missionnaires de Marie. The authors give some information on two other tombs in the vicinity (cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 126). 130. “The area north of the Old City served as a necropolis of which eight burial caves are known today, together with the remains of about seven other such caves that have suffered more extensive damage”, Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 126. Note that in the map of the Northern Necropolis at page 119
Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea
Compared to the older studies presented in § 1.2, the only new comments on the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea made by the authors are, for H1, that the step at the entrance to the Main Chamber is “of a typical Assyrian form known from many Assyrian palaces”¹³¹ and, for H2, that the headrests of the mortuary beds recall “the hairstyle or the wig of the Egyptian goddess Hathor”.¹³² Their major contribution in these two articles consists of the dating of the SEC Hypogea to the Iron Age II period, C8-7 BC, which, due to the absence of any archaeological study of the stratigraphy and the material culture, depends mainly on the architectural features in common with other burial caves of this period, whose dating are supposed by the authors to be based on other criteria than the common features among them.¹³³ The authors note that benches, repositories, headrests and cornices in H1 and H2 are typical of Iron Age II Jerusalemite and Judean tombs.¹³⁴ The presence of all these four architectural features, and the absence of loculi, typical of the HellenisticRoman period in the SEC Hypogea,¹³⁵ let them date these burial complexes to the “time of the kingdom of Judah”.¹³⁶ Nevertheless, they reckon that the SEC Hypogea, when compared with burial complexes dated to Iron Age II C, are quite exceptional in their size, their “sophisticated layout and meticulous stone-dressing”¹³⁷ and in the presence of architectural features elsewhere absent in Iron Age II tombs, such as “recessed wall-panels, rock-hewn sarcophagi, and headrests shaped like Hathor’s hairstyle”.¹³⁸ Since this first publication of the results of the BarkayKloner survey of the SEC Hypogea, a number of articles have been published by the same archaeologists or other scholars, who accept the dating hypothesis formulated in Barkay, Kloner and Mazar’s articles. Hereafter the major contributions to this hypothesis are analysed.
131. 132. 133.
134. 135. 136. 137. 138.
of the quoted article, only seven tombs are marked and the outlined burial caves are only six, the two SEC Hypogea, the two burial caves on Sultan Suleiman Street, the Garden Tomb and the burial cave in the courtyard of the White Sisters. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 120. No references are given for this assertion. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 123. For the presentation of the headrests in the SEC Hypogea see § 5.2.1 and § 5.2.2. For the comparison with other headrests see § 6.2.4. Concerning the two other burial complexes taken into consideration in the article, the dating of the Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs is based only on the pictures of the pottery found at the moment of the discovery in Tomb 1, the material findings being unavailable (cf. § 4.1.6), and the dating of the Garden Tomb to the Iron Age II depends on the hypothesis that the original ancient tomb was transformed in Byzantine times and on the presence in the small archaeological collection of Iron Age findings, whose origin is unknown (cf. § 4.4.1). Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 126-7. Cf. § 3.2.2. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 127. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 127. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 127.
43
The C8-7 BC dating proposal is reiterated by Amihai Mazar in an article issued in the Israel Exploration Journal in 1976,¹³⁹ the first extensive publication on the Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs discovered in 1937 and excavated by S.A.S. Husseini.¹⁴⁰ Mazar suggests that the plan of the Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs, typical of Iron Age II burial caves, could be “a schematization of the four-roomed house, the dominant private house type in Judah and Israel during this period”.¹⁴¹ This comment is applied by Mazar to the SEC Hypogea, referring to a short note in English by Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner,¹⁴² published in the same number of the Israel Exploration Journal, where the authors communicate a summary of the results of their survey previously published in Hebrew.¹⁴³ In this short note, they add that the SEC Hypogea lack not only the loculi, but also the arcosolia, both architectural features typical of the tombs during Hellenistic-Roman period in the region. Finally, in order to illustrate the kind of burial with sarcophagi in Chamber 4 bis of H1, they introduce the connection to the biblical verse 2 Chronicles 16: 14.¹⁴⁴ In his doctoral dissertation dated April 1980, Amos Kloner proposes the hypothesis that the tomb of king Uzziah may have been one of the SEC Hypogea.¹⁴⁵ He refers to the “King Uzziah Plaque” as possibly related to the SEC Hypogea and the aforementioned hypothesis of a royal burial, but he does not further develop the possible connection between them.¹⁴⁶ 139. Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”. 140. “The caves are mentioned in QDAP 7 (1938), p. 58. They were discovered during work on the Jerusalem Main Drainage, along the Northern Wall of the Old City, between the Damascus Gate and the Kidron Valley. According to the reports, the caves were discovered near the ’Government Offices’, today Schmidt’s Girls’ College. This means that the tombs are just north of the Damascus Gate. The caves were excavated by S.A.S. Husseini, who also wrote the short reports. The photographs were found in file No. 106 in the Archives of the Department of Antiquities, while the plans and written descriptions were unfiled. The finds were registered in 1944 under the number R 1066; however, we were unable to locate them in the Rockefeller Museum storerooms”, Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 1, note 1. For the presentation of these burial caves refer to § 4.1.6. 141. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 4, note 9. For a presentation of the decoration possibly associated to this hypothesis see § 6.2. 142. Barkay/Kloner, “Burial Caves North”, 55-7. 143. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”. 144. “It appears that the burials in the innermost chamber were the most respected ones, to judge from the difference in the arrangements there; compare the laying of King Asa’s body in a “bed” inside a sepulcher (2 Chronicles 16:14)”, Barkay/Kloner, “Burial Caves North”, 56. In fact, the term used in the biblical verse is “bed, couch” “mishkav”, translated in the LXX into “kliné”. 145. Cf. A. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second temple Period, PhD dissertation submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, April 1980, (Hebrew), 148. 146. Cf. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 148. For further details on the “Uzziah inscription” see note 190.
44
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
In his 1981 article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Levi Yitzhak Rahmani¹⁴⁷ reproduces the dating hypothesis and the reasoning of Barkay, Kloner and Mazar 1975, hinting at the suggestion that the SEC Hypogea may have been the burial caves of the last kings of Judah.¹⁴⁸ In 1986, in the Biblical Archaeology Review, Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner¹⁴⁹ published an expanded version of their previous articles on the SEC Hypogea,¹⁵⁰ with several new comments and developments reinforcing the argumentation of the dating to the C8-7 BC of the burial complexes. Regarding the step at the entrance to the Main Chamber of H1 the similarity with several Iron Age II structures is pointed out.¹⁵¹ The decoration of the wall of H1’s Main Chamber is compared with the wooden panels of Iron Age Judean palaces,¹⁵² but correctly the two scholars acknowledge that no archaeological evidence of such wooden decoration has been found and base their remarks only on Biblical texts, namely the description of the Solomon’s Temple in 1 King 6:9, and the reference to a house or a palace paneled with cedar in Jeremiah 147. Cf. Rahmani, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs, 2”, 233. 148. “A number of scholars believe that these are late royal tombs, thus locating the Garden of Uzzah in this vicinity”, Rahmani, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs, 2”, 234. For the presentation of the literature on this hypothesis, cf. § 1.3.2. 149. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 22-39. 150. The drawings presented in the 1986 article are the same as in Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 71-6. 151. “Steps like this one, with similar sockets, are known from various Iron Age II (eighth to seventh century B.C.) structures. They are usually found at palace throne room entrances—for example, at Arslan-Tash, at Zincirli (ancient Samal) and Tell Halaf in northern Syria; at Nimrud (Biblical Calah) (Genesis 10:11-12), and Nineveh in Assyria, and at Megiddo and Gezer in Israel”, Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 27. In fact, only the Arslan-Tash palace and the admnistrative palace of Nimrud present such a a step with sockets: for the parallels of the thresholds with the sockets see respectively G. Turner, “The Palace and Bâtiment Aux Ivoires at Arslan Tash: A Reappraisal”, Iraq 30 (1968) 62-8, on p. 62, pl. XVII, and G. Turner, “The State Apartments of Late Assyrian Palaces”, Iraq 32 (1970) 177-213, on p. 184; for Zincirli palace see F.C.H. Von Luschan/R. Koldewey, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, vol. 2: Ausgrabungsbericht und Architektur (Berlin: Spemann, 1898); for Tell Halaf palace see M. Von Oppeneimer/F. Langeregger/K. Müller/R. Naumann, Tell Halaf 2: Die Bauwerke von Felix Langenegger, Karl Müller, Rudolf Naumann; bearbeitet und ergänzt von Rudolf Naumann (Berlin: W. de Grutyer, 1960) plan 4; for Megiddo see G. Lehmann/A. Killebrew, “Palace 6000 at Megiddo in Context: Iron Age Central Hall Tetra-Partite Residencies and the ’BitHilani’ Building Tradition in the Levant”, BASOR 359 (2010) 13-33; for a presentation of Beit Hilani palaces see R. Arav/M. Bernett, “The bīt hilāni at Bethsaida: Its Place in Aramaean/NeoHittite and Israelite Palace Architecture in the Iron Age II”, IEJ 50 (2000) 47-81, for Tel Gezer see W.G. Dever, “Solomonic and Assyrian Period ’Palaces’ at Gezer”, IEJ 35 (1985) 217-30. 152. “These rectangular panels are probably stone copies of wooden panels that typically covered the walls of Judean palaces during the Israelite period. Until this discovery, archaeologists had not seen any Israelite or Judean palace (or other building) of this period with a preserved superstructure of walls”, Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 27.
22:13-15; in fact, both verses describe different architectural features, namely the boxed ceiling of the temple,¹⁵³ and the frame of the windows of a house or palace.¹⁵⁴ The other architectural feature pointed out as being typical of the Iron Age II period is the “double cornice” in H1’s Main Chamber and Chambers 4 and 4bis, paralleled to similar ones found in Iron Age II burial caves.¹⁵⁵ According to the authors the fine dressing and the absence of any tool mark on H1’s walls reinforce their proposed dating and are signs of a royal architecture,¹⁵⁶ but finely smoothed surfaces in tombs are found also in other periods in Jerusalem, for example in Akeldama Burial Cave 3.¹⁵⁷ The authors pursue their argumentation remarking that the plan of the SEC Hypogea is very similar to that of Iron Age II tombs in the Judea region and of the royal tombs of Urartu, at Van, where there is a similar cornice decoration.¹⁵⁸ Finally, Barkay and Kloner state that the repositories of the SEC Hypogea are supposed to “explain the Biblical phrases in which the deceased are ’gathered unto their fathers’ (Judges 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20), ’buried with their fathers’ (2 Kings 8:24) or ’slept with their fathers’ (2 Kings 13:13)”.¹⁵⁹ Unfortunately, the scholars take into no consideration the complexity of the history of the text concerning the stereotyped expression “buried with their fathers”, which is widely used only in the Deuteronomistic history and the Chronicles, this indicating a late preexilic or exilic use, which in fact evokes “interment with generations of ancestors in contrast to the reality of the Iron-II tombs”.¹⁶⁰ 153. Cf. G. Hentschel, 1 Könige (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 4. 154. Cf. G. Fischer, Jeremia 1-25 (HThKAT, 2005), 660-1. 155. The Tomb of the Royal Steward, in Silwan and the Ketef Hinnom Valley Tombs, both in Jerusalem and a tomb in Khirbet Beit Lei, near Amatziah, (cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 28). For the detailed presentation of the so called “right-angled cornice” see § 5.2.1, § 5.2.2 and § 6.2.5. 156. “Indeed, carefully dressed, smooth surfaces, especially on ashlar masonry, are typical of royal architecture in both the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah during the Iron Age”, Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 28. 157. “The northwest wall of Chamber A was carefully hewn and smoothed, creating a flat rock face”, G. Avni/Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs. Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1996), 25. 158. “This plan—a central entrance chamber with burial chambers around it—is found in several First Temple period burial caves in the kingdom of Judah. The Amatziah burial cave already mentioned was hewn on this plan. So was a burial cave at Khirbet el Kom, west of Hebron, where Hebrew inscriptions scratched on the wall enabled the excavator, William G. Dever, to date it unequivocally […]this same plan, and the same style of cornice we previously described, appears in the royal burial caves of the kingdom of Urartu (Biblical Ararat) at Van in Turkish Armenia”, Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 29. For a synthetic presentation of the “Great Cave” of Van refer to § 6.1. 159. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 36-7. 160. L. Bloch-Smith, “Death and Burial, Bronze and Iron Age”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology, 2013, 254-62, on p. 260. For an extensive analysis of the stereotype formula, see Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 105-17.
Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea
In the sidebar accompanying the article, Barkay and Kloner calculate the dimensions of the SEC Hypogea in royal Egyptian cubits and in short cubits for H1 and H2 respectively, adding that in H2 “the use of the sixcubit reed is clearly present in Cave Complex 2 [H2] at St. Étienne”.¹⁶¹ While the comments and suggestions given by Barkay and Kloner in this article bring additional support to their dating hypothesis, it is worth to point out the weaknesses of the argumentation based on the Biblical texts, and the lack of any systematic approach in the comparison of the different architectural elements of the SEC Hypogea with Iron Age II buildings and burial caves. Since this article appeared, the dating of the SEC Hypogea to the Iron Age II has been widely accepted and no major additions to the argumentations of Barkay and Kloner neither critical analysis of this hypothesis have been published until the present work.¹⁶² 1.3.2 Kloner’s “Cave of the Kings”hypothesis In 1986, Amos Kloner published an article in Levant on the Third Wall of Jerusalem,¹⁶³ where he reiterates the Iron Age II dating of the SEC Hypogea and proposes what we may call with its author the “Cave of the kings” 161. “The distances between the center of each burial chamber doorway to the centers of those doorways adjacent to it on the same wall are in every case six cubits, or one reed. Measuring from each corner of the chamber to the center of the nearest burial chamber doorway we find a distance of two cubits (one-third of a reed). The reed of Cave Complex 2 is 2.7 meters long (45 centimeters multiplied by 6) because the measurements in Cave Complex 2 are based on the short cubit. 21 The six-cubit measurement and its multiples, 12, 18, 30, 60 and 300 appear in the Bible 31 times. (Seven cubits and its multiples appear only three times). The frequent Biblical references to six cubits and its multiples, plus the on-site evidence of six-cubit units in Cave Complex 2 at St. Étienne, enable us to understand the length of the Biblical reed”, Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 37. For the presentation of the measures of the SEC Hypogea see § 5.2. 162. In two articles, respectively on Jerusalem’s Iron Age II cemeteries (cf. G. Barkay, “Jerusalem’s cemeteries in the First Temple Period”, in D. Amit/R. Goren (ed.s), Jerusalem during the First Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi - The Israel Exploration Society, 1990), (Hebrew) 102-23) and on tombs and burial practices in Israel and Palestinian Territories in ancient times (cf. G. Barkay, “Tombs and Burial Practices in Judea during the Biblical Period”, in I. Singer (ed.), Graves and burial practices in Israel in the ancient period (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi - The Israel Exploration Society, 1994), (Hebrew) 96-164), Gabriel Barkay, in reporting on SEC Hypogea, presents the same information and suggestions which he had already introduced in his previous articles on these burial caves, adding only few minor details, which will be presented in section § 5.2. 163. Cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 121-9. In this article, Kloner reproduces the plan of H1 from Lagrange 1894 (figure 9) and the plan and sections of H2 from Vincent/Abel 1926 (figures 21 and 22). The article presents also two pictures of H1 and two of H2.
45
hypothesis, previously considered¹⁶⁴ and rejected by several scholars such as Vincent 1947,¹⁶⁵ Avi-Yonah 1968¹⁶⁶ and Benoit 1976.¹⁶⁷ Kloner presented again his hypothesis in 2003,¹⁶⁸ and together with Boaz Zissu in 2007,¹⁶⁹ while other scholars such as Wightman 1993¹⁷⁰, Küchler 2007¹⁷¹ and Caillou 2008¹⁷² expressed their perplexities. Finally, the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis was throughly analysed and rejected by the present writer in an article published in the Biblical Archaeology Review on line Scholar’s Study Section in 2011.¹⁷³ In the first part of his 1986 article,¹⁷⁴ Kloner presents the argumentations which led him to prefer the Sukenik/Mayer wall hypothesis to that of the northern Ottoman wall-line, as the original route of the uncompleted Third Wall of Jerusalem¹⁷⁵ described by Flavius Josephus¹⁷⁶ , while, in the second part of the article Kloner formulates the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis, proposing the SEC Hypogea as the tombs of the last kings of Judah and their families.¹⁷⁷ The sequence of Kloner’s reasoning starts with the assumption that the SEC Hypogea are C8-7 BC burial caves, because of several architectural similarities to other tombs in the region dated to this period.¹⁷⁸ At the same time, the author points out that the SEC Hypogea “are 164. The interpretation of the “σπηλαιων βασιλικων” as burial caves dates back to the end of C19, as pointed out by Caillou 2008: “[...] F. de Saulcy considérait, comme la plupart de ses contradicteurs d’ailleurs, que les “cavernes” royales évoquées par Flavius Josèphe désignaient des tombeaux souterrains”, Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 64. 165. Cf. L.-H. Vincent, “Encore la troisième enceinte de Jérusalem”, RB 54 (1947) 117. 166. Cf. M. Avi-Yonah, “The Third and Second Walls of Jerusalem”, IEJ 18 (1968) 121. 167. Cf. P. Benoit, “Où en est la question du ‘troisième mur’?” in M. Piccirillo/I. Mancini/E. Testa/B. Bagatti/G.C. Bottini (ed.s), Studia Hierosolymitana, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Print Press, 1976) 114. 168. Cf. A. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2003), 27*. 169. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 467. 170. Cf. G. J. Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluk, (London: Meditarch, 1993), 161-2. 171. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 981. 172. Cf. Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 102. 173. Cf. Lufrani, “Have the Tombs of the Kings”, Internet Site. 174. Cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 121-6. 175. For a presentation of the two hypotheses on the route of the “Third Wall” see Küchler, Jerusalem, 979-82, and § 4.7. 176. Cf. Flavius Josephus, War. 5, 147-159. Josephus gives two different reasons for the halting of the construction of the “Third Wall”: in War. 2, 218-219 Agrippa’s I death while in Ant. 19, 326-327 Agrippa I stopped the construction because the Roman governor Marcus denounced him to the emperor Claudius, who feared a rebellion and ordered Agrippa to desist from pursuing the construction. Agrippa obeyed. 177. Cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 126-9. 178. Namely, the plan, size and fine stone cutting (cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 128-9).
46
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
not regular burial caves as found at the end of the Iron Age”,¹⁷⁹ if compared to Iron Age II tombs in Jerusalem.¹⁸⁰ Kloner interprets this marked difference proposing that “it should therefore be deduced that they were used originally for the burial of high-ranking personages, probably including kings”.¹⁸¹ The author then refers to the biblical texts that relate the burial of the kings Manasseh and Amon in “The Garden of Uzza”¹⁸² and of Uzziah who was inhumed “in the field of the burial of the kings”.¹⁸³ The subsequent step in Kloner’s reasoning is the supposition that “one of the later areas of burial of the kings of Judea was in the area between the Second Wall and the Third Wall”,¹⁸⁴ which Kloner considers to be the Sukenik/Mayer wall, as mentioned above. The author concludes his reasoning stating that “it seems very feasible that the caves on Derech Shechem (Nablus Road) in Jerusalem are the caves of the Kings to which Josephus referred when he wrote “σπηλαίων βασιλικῶν”. Their location there is logical from the topographical aspects and in keeping with the description of the same historian”.¹⁸⁵ Concerning the location of the tomb of the last king of Judah, in a note Kloner¹⁸⁶ reports of the different hypothesis formulated by Barkay 1977, who suggests that “The Garden of Uzza” and the tombs of the last kings of Judah are located on the south-western hill of Jerusalem or its slopes.¹⁸⁷ In their publication in 2007, Kloner and Zissu state: There is reason to believe that King Uzziah’s tomb was originally in one of these ornate burial complexes [the SEC Hypogea]. The present authors assume that these are royal tombs that served the last members of the Davidic dynasty and their families. This site can be also identified with the biblical 179. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129. 180. The burial caves considered by Kloner are presented in Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 1-8; A. Kloner/D. Davis, “A Burial Cave of the Late First Temple Period on the Slope of Mount Zion”, Qadmoniot 41 (1978) (Hebrew), 16-19 republished in English in AJR in 1994; M. Broshi/G. Barkai/S. Gibson, “Two Iron Age Tombs Below the Western City Wall, Jerusalem and the Talmudic Law of Purity”, Cathedra 29 (1983) (Hebrew), 17-32. 181. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129. 182. Cf. 2 Kings 21: 18. 183. Cf. 2 Chron 26, 23. In fact, the terms “sadeh” and “πεδίον”, used respectively in the MT and the LXX, imply the idea of a large and open space, available only north of the today Damascus Gate. 184. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129. 185. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129. 186. Cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129, note 43. 187. Cf. G. Barkay, “On the Location of the Tombs of the later Kings of the House of David”, in M. Broshi (ed.), Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon Binyaminovitz, Studies in History, Archaeology and Geography of Eretz Israel (Jerusalem: Private publication, 1977) (Hebrew), 75-92. Barkay reiterates this statement in his 1990 article (cf. Barkay, “Jerusalem’s cemeteries”, 115).
garden of ’Uzza - the burial place of the last kings of the House of David.¹⁸⁸ In a note,¹⁸⁹ the authors introduce the funerary inscription of king Uzziah,¹⁹⁰ called the “Uzziah Plaque”, as another argument in favour of the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis. The authors state that, accepting the dating of the Uzziah plaque to the time of Herod-Agrippa, as suggested by Albright -¹⁹¹ period consistent with the construction of the Third Wall which must have requested to replace ancient graves from the area - even if it is possible to envisage that the Uzziah inscription may have been found in this area, and may be related to the SEC Hypogea, the fact that this reasoning is a sequence of four hypotheses, none of them based on any archaeological evidence, and that most probably the plaque was found on the Mount of Olives,¹⁹² the significance of the “Uzziah Plaque” as an argumentation in favour of the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis is voided of any significance.¹⁹³ 188. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 467. 189. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 467, note 16. 190. The Aramaic Uzziah Plaque reads “Here I brought (?) the bones of Uzziah King of Judah; and not to open!” CIIP n° 602. 191. For the dating of the inscription, it has been stated that “most of the scholars accept it as a genuine text from the 1 c. BCE-1 c. CE, placed over a tomb to which were transferred bones found in the site traditionally ascribed to the biblical king Uzziah; the transfer was perhaps necessitated by the expansion of the city. Dating is based on palaeography: letter-forms, medial mem in final position, broad tet all point to the Herodian period or slightly later” CIIP n° 602. Sukenik dated the plaque to the Hasmonean period (cf. E. Sukenik, “An Epitaph of Uzziahu King of Judah”, Tabriz 2/3 (1931), (Hebrew), 217-21, on p. 219), while Albright dated it to the Herodian period, C1 AD (cf. W.F. Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus”, JBL 56 (1937) 145-76, on pp. 157-60). 192. This plaque was found by Sukenik in 1931 in the small museum of the Russian Orthodox Convent of Saint Mary Magdalene on the Mount of Olives (cf. E. Sukenik, “Funerary Tablet of Uzziah, King of Judah”, PEFQ 63 (1931) 217-21, on p. 217.). Unfortunately no documentation on the location of its discovery was available, because the catalogue of the collection disappeared during World War I (cf. W.F. Albright, “The Discovery of an Aramaic Inscription Relating to King Uzziah”, BASOR 44, (1931) 8-10, on p. 8). Ben-Eliahu notes that the Madrich Yerushalaim (C10 AD) tells of the tomb of Uzziah on the Mont of Olives (cf. E. Ben-Eliahu, “Origin of Uzziah plaque”, Cathedra 98, (2000), (Hebrew) 158). Significantly, in a letter written in 1818 and relating a visit of Jerusalem, the redactor lists “the Monument of Manasseh in the Garden of Uzza”, together with other monuments (cf. Anonymous, “Letter from Africa, by Signor Travidendi the Traveller, to Canova the Sculptor, Palmyra, Dec. 17, 1818”, Atheneum, or, Spirit of the English Magazines, 9 (1821) 144). 193. Furthermore, as noted by Caillou 2008, some scholars (also Kloner 1986) associate the name Uzza with the name of the king Uzziah: “Cependant, il n’existe aucune preuve permettant d’établir une relation formelle entre Uzza et Ozias. Le nom d’Uzza est mentionné auparavant dans la Bible, mais dans un contexte différent qui rend l’assimilation aléatoire […] La correspondance avec le jardin d’Uzza reste difficile à établir et la similitude des deux toponymes pourrait simplement être une coïncidence. En définitive, les textes ne permettent pas
Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea
Regarding the main line of reasoning in favour of the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis proposed by Kloner, namely the identification of the SEC Hypogea as the “royal caverns” in Flavius Josephus War 5, 147, the present writer, in his 2011 article, argued that Kloner’s translation of “σπηλαίων βασιλικῶν” into “burial caves of the kings” is not correct. Indeed, the word “σπήλαιον”, as translated in the Liddell and Scott dictionary, means “grotto” or “cavern” and the grammatical form of “βασιλικῶν” is an adjective and not a noun in a complement of specification form. More importantly is that the Liddell and Scott dictionary connects the word “σπήλαιον” to a grave only when it is associated to another word designating a tomb,¹⁹⁴ such as “μνημεῖον” and “ταφή”, to specify the kind of grave, unambiguously an underground one. The dictionary gives three examples of this specification role of “σπήλαιον”,¹⁹⁵ misused in Kloner’s article, since the author translates “σπήλαιον” alone as “burial cave”, not considering the absence, in Flavius Josephus’ text, of any word implying a tomb. Actually, in all the monumental work of Flavius Josephus, the word “σπήλαιον” occurs 41 other times, and in all these occurrences the meaning is without ambiguity “grotto” or “cavern”.¹⁹⁶ Moreover, Josephus refers to sepulchres in his texts with the words “τάφος”, which in Flavius Jospephus works means “tomb” or “grave”, “μνημεῖον” or “μνήμα”, which mean “monument”, and “θήκη”, “case” or “chest”, the latter used for the de localiser la tombe de Manassé, même s’ils attestent que le cimetière dynastique a changé et que le jardin d’Uzza fut utilisé pour la première fois comme nécropole royale”, Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 146. In the same sense see F. Stavrakopoulou, “Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship”, Biblica 87 (2006) 1-23, on pp. 4-5. 194. “σπηλαιον” in H.G. Liddell/R. Scott/H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., revised supplement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). 195. “In fact, this dictionary translates spelaion as ’grotto’ or ’cavern’ and adds ’grave’ for only three examples: two inscriptions from the first and second centuries A.D. of tombs in Palmyra, and the Gospel of John 11:38. In the last example, following the interpretation of Brown (note 11: Cf. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John. Anchor Bible 29, vol. 1 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), p. 426) and Moloney, (note 12: Cf. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John: Text and Context (Leiden: Brill, 2005), p. 341) spelaion has to be translated as ’cave,’ as in the NET: ’Jesus, intensely moved again, came to the tomb. (Now it was a cave, and a stone was placed across it.)’ (John 11:38). Similarly, in both inscriptions from Palmyra (note 13: Cf. Supp. Epigr.7.160 (Palmyra, i A.D.), 166 (ibid., ii A.D.)) spelaion is accompanied by words related to the concept of tomb, namely mnemeion and tapheios (note 14: Cf. LSJ articles: μνημειον and ταφηιον). This means that, in all three examples given by Kloner as supporting his translation of Josephus’s text, the word spelaion is never used alone to denote a burial site. When spelaion is associated with another word that implies a burial place, it simply gives the type of tomb, specifically a grotto or cavern. Spelaion alone, as in Josephus’ text, never means ’burial cave’ ”, Lufrani, “Have the Tombs of the Kings”, Internet Site. 196. “σπηλαιον” in K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
47
tombs of the kings of Judah.¹⁹⁷ Furthermore, in War 5, 147, Josephus refers to two other tombs using the words “μνημεῖον” and “μνήμα”,¹⁹⁸ and it seems curious that he did not use the same words for such an important burial site as the tomb of the kings of Judah would have been.¹⁹⁹ Concerning the location of the “royal caverns”, we must remember that the description of the route of the Third Wall given by Flavius Josephus is inconsistent to the point that two different hypotheses are currently accepted,²⁰⁰ and that Solomon’s quarry, also called Zedekiah’s cave, may be the ‘royal caverns’ of Josephus text, as suggested by several scholars.²⁰¹ Finally, the same biblical texts, used in Kloner’s article, report that the King Manasseh, his son Amon²⁰² and probably his grandson Josiah²⁰³ were inhumed in the garden of the palace of Manasseh.²⁰⁴ In this regard, the present writer’s article points out that “in the whole area north of the Damascus Gate no Iron Age II buildings have been found. In fact, according to Kloner himself, this area was a burial area until the time of Agrippa I, between 41 and 44 A.D”.²⁰⁵ Furthermore, the biblical texts indicate the location of “The Garden of Uzza” and the burials of the last king of Judah rather in the southern part of Jerusalem, as pointed out by Barkay,²⁰⁶ and it would in any case be very peculiar to have an Iron Age II C royal palace in the northern part of Jerusalem, because at that time it was a quarry and maybe a burial zone, in an unprotected region, and far from the Temple and the City of David.²⁰⁷ 197. Flavius Josephus, Ant. 8. 264, 285; 9. 104, 166, 172, 243; 10. 77; 14. 124; 15. 61; 16. 181. 198. “μνήμα”, “μνημεῖον” and “θήκη” in Rengstorf (ed.), A Complete Concordance. 199. The two sepulchres are the supposed tomb of the Queen Helen of Adiabene, currently located at the Tomb of the Kings site, and the Fuller tomb, whose location is until now unknown. It is worth to note that the tomb of the Queen Helen of Adiabene is an underground burial complex as the SEC Hypogea. 200. Cf. note 175. It is worth to note that in the Slavonic translation of War 5, 147, where “σπηλαίων” is translated into “cavern”, the route of the “Third Wall” is significantly different from the Greek version (cf. H. Leeming, Josephus’ Jewish War and its Slavonic Version (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 480). 201. Cf. Benoit, “Où en est la question”, 114; cf. Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem, 161-2; cf. J. Murphy-O’Connor, The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 162. Caillou notes that this interpretation has been accepted by most of the scholars already at the end of C19 (cf. Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 71). 202. Cf. 2 Kings 21:26. 203. Cf. 2 Chron 35:24. 204. Cf. 2 Kings 21:18 and parallel 2 Chron 33:20. 205. Lufrani, “Have the Tombs of the Kings”, Internet Site. 206. On the south-western hill of Jerusalem or on its slopes, as Barkay affirms (cf. Barkay, “On the Location of the Tombs”, 75-92, and Barkay, “Jerusalem’s cemeteries”, 122), or outside the wall of the City of David, as proposed by Na’aman (cf. N. Na’aman, “Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of David”, Biblica 85 (2004) 249-53). 207. In this sense, it is worth noting the importance in Jerusalem of the location during the different periods, for the “Blickkontakt”
48
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
Since none of the arguments proposed by Kloner is based on archaeological or textual evidence, it is impossible not to discard the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis. 1.3.3 Anthropological study of the bones in Repository 4 Hypogeum 1 During three 5-6 week seasons, between 1995 and 1997,²⁰⁸ Susan Guise Sheridan directed the exhumation of the human remains in Repository 4 of H1,²⁰⁹ to study the biocultural model of the Byzantine Saint Stephen’s Monastery in Jerusalem.²¹⁰ Since this survey, four articles have been published between 1999 and 2013. In the article printed in the Revue biblique in 1999,²¹¹ Susan Guise Sheridan presents the first results of the examination of over 15,000 bones and fragments exhumed from the Repository 4 of H1. The state of conservation of the bones and the presence of “large number of small, friable bone elements found in situ” show that the repository was the primary place of burial of the corpses,²¹² implying that “the remains were only moved from the burial bench above to the repository below”.²¹³ This information, combined with the fluoride and radiocarbon analysis of a subsample of bones dating the remains between mid C5 through early C7 AD,²¹⁴ and the fact that the vast majority of the artefacts found in the repository
208.
209. 210. 211. 212.
213.
214.
(cf. Bieberstein, “Blickkontakt”, 12-7), from the Iron Age II with the Silwan Necropolis placed in front of the south-eastern hill and looking to the Temple Mount, the priestly Late Hellenistic and Early Roman tombs in the Cedron Valley, facing the same Mount, the Herodian Tomb west of the Royal Palace, and the tomb of the Virgin Mary, in the Cedron Valley in the line of the Saint Anne Church, the traditional birthplace of Mary (cf. M. Küchler, “Meine Augen haben ihr Heil gesehen (fast Lk 2,30): Das Mariengrab im Kedrontal als Ausdruck des christlichen Paradoxes vom Glauben aus dem Sehen des Abwesenden”, in D. Böhler/I. Imbaza/P. Hugo, L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker, OBO 214 (Göttingen: Fribourg Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) 160-82, on p. 164). “In June 1995 levels 1-3 were exhumed; in July 1996, levels 4-8, and in the final season (May-August 1997), levels 9-29”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 565. Numbered Repository 6 in the articles based on this survey. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 574, note 11, 577. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 574-611. “Very delicate fragments were exhumed, including the hyoid and sesimoid bones, distal phalanges, calcified thyroid cartilage, and even ear ossicles. If these bones had subsequently been transported to the repository for secondary burial, such delicate items would quite likely have been lost or destroyed in transport”, Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 585. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 586. This suggests that, during the clearing of H1 in 1885, not all the bones had been taken away and placed elsewhere, as Merril and Schick affirm (cf. § 1.2.1) or in a cavity of H1, as stated in the Chronicles of the Saint-Etienne Priory (cf. note 47). Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 588. No details on the results of the dating analysis are given in the article.
dates to the Byzantine time,²¹⁵ proves the hypothesis that H1 had been in use as a burial place during the existence of Saint Stephen’s Monastery. The determinations of age²¹⁶ and sex,²¹⁷ the reconstruction of stature²¹⁸ and the relative regional comparisons²¹⁹ “demonstrate a community of healthy, robust men living into their 40s and beyond”,²²⁰ characterised by an arthritic response especially at the attachments of muscle, ligament and tendon “associated with flexion of the knee”, evidently related to the practice of praying.²²¹ In her anthropological study on the Repository 4 of H1, Sheridan confirms the utilisation of H1 as the burial place of a male monastic community during C5 / C7 AD, and raises the question whether particularly “senior fa215. “Numerous artifacts (n=254) were uncovered in the repository mixed with the skeletal remains. Found among the bones were many fragments of oil lamps, tesserae, a small metal cross, an iron nail, half a glass bracelet, several glass fragments, and many broken vessel sherds. A preliminary survey has dated the material to the late Roman through early Islamic period, with the vast majority of the artifacts falling within the Byzantine period”, Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 588. 216. “The two aging methods utilized in this analysis did not produce statistically significant differences in age profiles. Both demonstrate a median age for the collection of 30-39 years with peaks in the later age groups. The pubic symphysis method showed a high percentage of individuals at 50+ years, while the auricular surface method peaked at 40-49 years”, Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 593. Bones of children were also found in the repository studied. The author suggests that this could be related to the devotional custom of burying children next to venerated monks (cf. ibid. 604), and concludes her article asking whether these children could have been “apprentice monks, orphans, patients in a hospital on the ground?”, ibid. 611. 217. “The average percentage of males using all features discussed above was 87%. […] the vast majority of individuals represented in the Byzantine St. Stephen’s collection are male. This is a pattern consistent with the copious historical literature indicating a male monastic community at the site during the Byzantine period”, Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 600-1. In note 77, at page 601, Sheridan reports that the presence of women’s bones should be considered an exception to the normal rule in Byzantine times to bar women even in burials (cf. J. Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995), 35), an exception being mentioned for the Choziba monastery (cf. H. Goldfus/B. Arubas/E. Alliata, “The Monastery of St. Theoctistus (Deir Muqallik)”, Liber Annus 45 (1995) 247-92). 218. “The average reconstructed height for this collection was 166.5 ± 6.6 cm. Several individuals demonstrated great robusticity, either in size of their long bones (such as the 3 tibias approaching 192 cm reconstructed height), pronounced muscle marking, or overall bone breadth”, Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 603. 219. The best matching comparison is with the collection of bones of the St. Euthymius Monastery (Khan el-Ahmar), where there were primary burials of a comparable number of male individuals, with a similar age distribution, robusticity and stature (cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 607-8). 220. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 609. 221. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 610.
Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea
thers”²²² were inhumed in this part of the complex. She conceives this hypothesis from the relation between the stature of these individuals²²³ and their status in the community,²²⁴ and proposes that, “by utilizing the historical and archaeological records as collateral evidence, it is quite possible that these remains represent the elite segment of the Byzantine St. Stephen’s community”²²⁵ that supposedly received a special treatment in their burial, being inhumed in “the far older burial chambers”²²⁶ of H1 and not in the numerous other tombs at SEC. While the results presented by Sheridan in her 1999 article offer a picture of those individuals whose remains have been studied, consistent with the recorded history of Saint Stephen’s Monastery, the generalization of these results to the whole monastic community and several considerations proposed by the author fall short of solid foundations. When Sheridan postulates that the bones of Repository 4 were the mortal remains of the élite of the community, she attributes to the whole Byzantine community of Saint Stephen’s Monastery the affluent diet reserved to those allegedly special individuals.²²⁷ Furthermore, the argument seems to be inconsistent with the fact that in the same repository the bones of less robust individuals were found, and, even if the proportion of these latter is not relevant, no information on the other repositories’ bones, and on other burials in the SEC is available for a comparison. In suggesting the hypothesis that the élite of the monastic community were buried in the “far older burial chambers” as a mark of a special treatment reserved to these individuals, the author does not take into consideration the fact that separate burials, such as that of the deacon Euthymius in the Northern Extension,²²⁸ and that of the deacon of Nonnus Onesimus in the Atrium of the Eudocian Basilica,²²⁹ were far more prestigious than the repositories where the bones of several individuals rested in a “lesser” peace than in an special trough grave, like the Euthymius one, or in a sealed arcosolium such as the Nonnus Onesimus tomb, with their personal inscriptions on it²³⁰. The author seems also to overlook that the most important burial of the SEC was the relics of Saint Stephen and that, according to the well-established practice of
222. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 604. 223. The indicators of stature, pronounced muscle marking and overall bone breadth (cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 604, note 174) of the bones found in the repository denote an ‘adequate-to-abundant caloric intake’, (ibid. 603), possible only in an affluent community (cf. ibid.). 224. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 609. 225. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 604. 226. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 604. 227. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 609. 228. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. 229. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 778. 230. Cf. § 1.2.1
49
the depositio ad sanctos,²³¹ the nearer the burial was to Saint Stephen’s relics, the more important was the person buried.²³² Finally, it is worth noting that, the number of bones currently present in all the tombs of SEC is far beyond the quantity of bones that should have been accumulating in the burial spaces of one of the biggest monastic compounds in Jerusalem, which flourished between mid C5 and early C7.²³³ The collection of bones studied by Guise Sheridan, together with all the bones currently known to be present in the burials of SEC, represents too small a sample to allow any generalization.²³⁴ In the second article based on the aforementioned anthropological survey and published in the Revue biblique in 2000, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Richard Bautch, Gabriel Barkay and Susan Guise Sheridan²³⁵ analyse a significant part of the material culture collected from the Repository 4 of H1²³⁶ and present in details, drawings and photos of nine pottery shards,²³⁷ 13 oil 231. Cf. A. Samellas, Death in the Eastern Mediterranean (50-600 A. D.: The Christianization of the East: an Interpretation) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 221-2. 232. In this sense, the attribution to Empress Eudocia and her granddaughter of the same name of the double arcosolia tomb (cf. N. Lenski, “Empresses in the Holy Land: The Creation of a Christian Utopia in Late Antique Palestine”, in L. Ellis/F.L. Kinder (ed.s), Travel, Communication, and Geography in Late Antiquity: Sacred and Profane (London: Ashgate, 2004), 118) is based on the position of the tomb, i.e. under the Atrium of the Basilica, in correspondence to the main portal on the central axis of the central nave, the most prestigious place in the whole SEC (cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 129-30). 233. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 584. 234. As reported in § 1.2.1, a huge quantity of bones covered the Southern Extension at the moment of the discovery of H1. This fact coupled with the observation made by Sheridan that the burials in Repository 4, which, among the repositories of H1 and H2, is the one with the greatest amount of bones among the others, were primary inhumations, presupposes that the bones found in the Southern Extension had been stored in another “respectful place” (cf. Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 74) or a “cavity” (cf. Chroniques des premières années, 9), unfortunately unknown to us, maybe one of the trough graves in the Southern Extension itself. 235. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 561-90. In this article is presented a schematic plan of H1. 236. “A majority of the 251 material culture were retrieved from the repository 6 [Repository 4 in this dissertation] during the 1996-7 seasons. Three items, included in this report as #2, #93 and #219, come from just outside the repository, from a probe in a depression in the entrance hall near the chamber 6 (indicated on fig.1). All of the items have been enumerated according to type (i.e. pottery: # 1-8; oil lamps: # 212-229a), but within each category, the enumeration is random”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 570-1. 237. Of the 83 pottery shards, mostly body shards, only 13 have identifiable shapes: two rims, five bases and three handles. They are small and show fresh breaks. In the article are presented two Iron Age fragments, one Hellenistic, one Early Roman, one Late Roman-Byzantine, one Byzantine, one Byzantine-Early Arab, one Umayyad and one uncertain (cf.
50
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
lamp fragments,²³⁸ nine glass fragments²³⁹ and miscellaneous material.²⁴⁰ The focus of the article is on the verification of the “temporal correspondence of the finds to the bones”²⁴¹ aiming at the bio-cultural reconstruction of the life of the community in the St. Stephen’s Monastery.²⁴² The authors give the approximate dimensions of the repository²⁴³ and interesting details on the survey,²⁴⁴ stressing that their work is the first study of the material culture of H1, since the pre 1926 presentations do not offer any detailed description of the findings.²⁴⁵ Regarding the stratigraphy, the authors report that it was compromised by the small size of most of the items which let them drift down toward the bottom of the repository, by the dislocation of bones and items when a new skeleton and burial goods were added in the repository, by tampering,²⁴⁶ by probable looting, rough handling and
238.
239.
240.
241. 242. 243.
244.
245.
246.
Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 572-4). “The collection itself has a random appearance due to the pottery’s broad temporal range, the decided lack of diagnostic pieces, and the fact that the collection offers only a single sherd for most vessels”, ibid. 571. Of the 15 oil lamp fragments uncovered, the article presents two Late Roman fragments, two Early Byzantine, three Late Byzantine, one Late Byzantine-Umayyad, one Umayyad, two Abbasid and two uncertain (cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 575-9). Of the 39 glass fragments uncovered, the article presents the two Late Roman fragments, two Late Roman-Early Byzantine, four Early Byzantine to Late Byzantine, one Byzantine to Ottoman (cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 580-3). The authors also report also 54 limestone tesserae from the Byzantine to the Early Arab periods, one small Cross in an undefined material, one small marble fragment, three iron nails, one lead plug, four pieces of carbonized wood and a fragment of Pre-modern wood (cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 583-5). Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 589. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 589. The repository refilled with the bones, it is not possible to verify the measurements of the authors. “The approximate dimensions of the repository, which is not hewn as a perfect rectangle or square, are as follows: width, 2.03 m; length, 1.74 m; depth, 1.75 m”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 565. “Very fine soil was found in the repository in addition to the bones, however, since the primary task of the project was the timely exhumation and examination of osteological remains, the small amount of sifted dirt was not reordered. The nonosteological finds were discovered primarily in the 1996 and 1997 seasons (levels 4-29), especially towards the bottom of the repository”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 565. Cf. § 1.2.1. As stressed in the same section, Vincent/Abel 1926 report only succinctly of fragments of minor pots and oil lamps with Jewish symbols. They do not write about “fine glasses”, as stated by the authors of the article (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784 and Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 567). “Third, fresh breaks in the pottery and the uneven collection of sherds [sic] suggest tampering with the repository’s contents
by the removal of objects during the clearing of H1 in 1885.²⁴⁷ Modern intrusions constitute another significant contributory cause of the lack of any stratigraphy of the remains in Repository 4.²⁴⁸ The scant datable material culture found in the Repository 4, while it does not constitute a significant collection,²⁴⁹ is nonetheless consistent with the history of the Saint Stephen’s Monastery, flourishing from mid C5 to early C7 AD, since a majority of objects date from the Early Byzantine to the Late Byzantine periods, whereas only a small number of Early Arab items were found, in accordance with the Sassanid destructions in 614 AD and the consequent disruption of the monastic community.²⁵⁰ The authors point out that the significant proportion of Late Roman items in the collection raises questions on the site’s occupation during C3 / C4 AD, while the presence in the repository of items dated to the Iron Age II, the Hellenistic period, the Ottoman period and modern times originate from random intrusions.²⁵¹ The oil lamp fragments, most of them being nozzles, constitute a more homogenous collection, dating from the Late Roman to the Early Islamic period.²⁵² Only one of the reservoir fragments shows a Christian sign, i.e. a iota-chi monogram, and no other religious characterising signs are present on the fragments.²⁵³ Similarly, the glass
247. 248.
249.
250. 251. 252. 253.
over time”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 569). The broken state of the bones in the repository was also caused by tampering, according to the authors (cf. ibid. 570). Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 568-9. “Finally, stratigraphy has been compromised by modern intrusions in the repository, including non-human animal bones, the burial of an infant in the last quarter of the 20th century, and a variety of modern, non-osteological objects. There were 158 non-human animal bones found in repository 6 [Repository 4 in the present dissertation], indicative of a wide range of domestic animals. None of the bones showed evidence of butchering, though some represented commonly consumed species including sheep, goat, cattle, pig, chicken, and partridge-like fowl. Non-food animals remains were more abundant, such as camel, horse, donkey, dog, cat, and rodent. The bones show minimal exposure to the elements, thus indicating their interment after only a year or two in the open”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 570. “The miscellaneous items do not constitute a distinct collection, but they merit evaluation as they shed light on the Byzantine burial context”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 587. The authors also remark that the vast majority of the items are non-diagnostic ones, hindering their dating of the items themselves, (cf. ibid. 586). Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 586. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 586. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 586-7. The authors note that the collection had probably been heavily affected by looting and by “the large scale removal of oil lamps, especially those well preserved with Christian motifs”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”,
Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea
fragments found in the Repository 4 date from the Late Roman to the Byzantine period.²⁵⁴ Regarding the miscellaneous material, the iron nails, remark the authors, might have been used in Late Roman and Byzantine wooden coffins, the lead plug for reparation of damaged pottery in use in the Byzantine period, the tesserae may date from the Byzantine to the Early Islamic period,²⁵⁵ and the Cross, if not a modern intrusion, might date to the Early Byzantine period.²⁵⁶ Finally, they raise the question of the presence of cooking pot shards²⁵⁷ and the possibility that the absence of any intact vessel could be related to a symbolic role of defective or broken pottery, existing in the Early Roman period.²⁵⁸ Few observations can be made regarding the items found in the Repository 4. First of all, as stressed by the authors themselves, the two Iron Age II shards, like the Hellenistic ones, because of their poor diagnostic quality and scant quantity are not significant indicators to be used in an argumentation for the dating of the burial complex at those periods.²⁵⁹ Furthermore, the identification of #72 and #66 as Iron Age II shards is not certain.²⁶⁰ Secondly,
254. 255.
256. 257.
258. 259. 260.
587 note 38. As remarked by the authors, seven oil lamps, five of them dated to the Late Roman and one to the Byzantine period, were acquired in 1940 for the Schloessinger collection from the Jerusalem Dominican Monastery collection (cf. R. Rosenthal/R. Sivan, Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection, Qedem 8 (1978) 102:412; 106:428, 431 and 432; 109:442; 114:460 and 468) suggesting that a number of items, also coming from the Repository 4, may have been acquired by private collectors (cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 568, note 27). Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 587. The authors do not point out the presence of a former mosaic floor in the north-western part of the Modern Chapel of H1 (cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34 note 1, and Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781-2, note 3), which could be related to the presence of tesserae in the repository; instead, they link it to the Southern Extension, referring to Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 783-4, where no allusion to a mosaic floor or tesserae is made (cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 588). The authors remark that tesselated burial caves have been found in Byzantine churches and Judean monasteries (cf. ibid. 588, note 40). Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 587. “Of course, the random pottery sherds may have been brought by later visitors. It is possible, however, that the sherds [sic], and notably those from cooking pots, were among the burial goods”, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 588. In note 42, the authors refer to other excavations of burial caves where was discovered pottery normally used in sedentary deposits, whose presence in the burial may be explicable in the event of a connection with the deceased (cf. ibid. 588, note 42). Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 589. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 586. The dating to the Iron Age II of two shards of the collection (#72 and #66) has been contested, since the paste of the pot-
51
the relatively high percentage of Late Roman items can be better explained in the next topographical context of the SEC Hypogea in the light of the latest excavations in the area.²⁶¹ Thirdly, the numerous disturbances that the content of the Repository 4 has been enduring from the 614 AD Sassanid destruction to today significantly enfeeble the importance of the deposit. Two recent articles, based on the anthropological survey conducted by Sheridan in 1995-1997, the first published by Lesley Gregoricka and Susan Guise Sheridan in 2012,²⁶² and the second by the same authors published in 2013 in the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,²⁶³ focus on the diet of the St. Stephen community during the period of the monastic occupation, from mid C5 to early C7 AD. In the 2012, Gregoricka and Sheridan’s contribution studies the diet of the infants and children under 16, whose bones were found in a relatively high proportion in the Repository 4.²⁶⁴ The presence of children’s bones in the burial at Saint Stephen’s Monastery is not explained by the textual sources on this monastery, but may be explained since at that time religious communities served as social welfare institutions and often they admitted neglected children and raised them.²⁶⁵ While monasteries may have admitted children as oblates, or future monks, as in Byzantine time children entered the monasteries as young as ten years old, the majority of subadults of the collection of bones from Repository 4 were under the age of three.²⁶⁶ The authors propose two other explanations for the presence of children’s bones in H1, namely an orphanage and/or a school, or a sacred burial site where individuals not belonging to the monastic community may have been buried near or with monks famous for their sanctity, in accordance with the practice of the depositio ad sanctos.²⁶⁷ Both alternatives are supported by textual evidence for the Byzantine time in the region.²⁶⁸
261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268.
tery and other characteristics seem not to be consistent with the pottery of this period. Several specialists (Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Rahel Bar Nathan, Rosemary Le Bohec and Maura Sala), to whose expertise these two fragments were submitted, agreed in excluding the Iron Age II period, and suggesting a much later dating (from the Late Roman to the Early Islamic period). Furthermore, the drawing of #72 is rather imprecise and the parallels to both #72 and #66 cited by the authors do not match the drawings of the two shards and much less the items themselves. Cf. § 4 Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 138-64. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 63-73. About one third of all the bones exhumed (cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 140). Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 143. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 143. Cf. note 231 For the orphanage/school hypothesis the authors refer to T.S. Miller, The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003) and for the depositio ad sanctos hypothesis to P.R.L.
52
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
Focusing on the childhood health and diet in the Byzantine Jerusalem, the authors demonstrate that the subadult individuals from Repository 4 had a similar diet to that of adults and that “the children of St. Stephen’s do not fit a simplistic model of orphans fed a rigid diet, but it is evident that their caregivers did follow culturally determined ideas about appropriate infant feeding practices”.²⁶⁹ This connection between the monastic community’s rich diet and that of the children, supports the hypothesis that those children were living at the monastery and consequently reduces the importance of the depositio ad sanctos as one of the reasons for this common burial for monks and children in H1. In the 2013 article, Gregoricka and Sheridan²⁷⁰ push their research on the human remains of Repository 4 of H1 further, focusing on the diet of the adult individuals. They compare the ascetic prescriptions of monastic life in Byzantine Palestine in the idealised model²⁷¹ and in
Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Gregoricka and Sheridan add “Byzantine children held a unique status as innocents and were regarded as innately holy, permitting their interment in a monastery” referring to B. Leyerle, “Children and Disease in a Sixth Century Monastery”, in L.V. Rutgers (ed.), What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 349-72, (cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 143-4). 269. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 157-8. 270. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 63-73. 271. “Numerous Byzantine typika, or books of instruction for monastic life, prescribed varying degrees of dietary asceticism, depending on the ecclesiastical season as well as the location and preference of the monastery itself (Kisingler, E., Christians of the east: rules and realities of the Byzantine diet. In: Sonnenfeld, A. (Ed.), Food: a Culinary History from Antiquity to the Present. Columbia University Press, New York, 1999, p. 194-206; Talbot, A.-M., ‘Mealtime in monasteries: the culture of Byzantine refectory’. In: Brubaker, L., Linardou, K. (Eds.), Eat, Drink, and Be Merry (Luke 12:19): Food and Wine in Byzantium: Papers Delivered at a 37th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies Under the Auspices of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, in Honour of Professor A.A.M. Bryer, at the University of Birmingham, 29-31 March 2003. Ashgate, Aldershot, England, 2007, p. 109-125). Byzantine typika generally recommended two daily meals, each of which included a modest amount of bread, legumes such as chickpeas and lentils, vegetables, olive oil, and wine or water (Patrich, J., Op. cit. 1995; Rautman, M., Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 2006; Talbot, A.-M., Op. cit., 2007). Additionally, a monastery’s economic status could dictate the types and quality of foods consumed (Rautman, M., Op. cit, 2006). Meat held a unique status in both monastic and everyday life. As the population in Byzantine Palestine continued to expand at a rapid pace, pasturelands became increasingly scarce, causing the price of meat to rise dramatically (Dauphin, C., ‘Plenty or just enough? The diet of the rural and urban masses of Byzantine Palestine’, Bull. AngloIsrael Archaeol. Soc. 17, 39-65.1999)”, Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 66.
practice,²⁷² to the luxury diet of the Saint Stephen’s monastic community.²⁷³ The results of the stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses “may point to social stratification between individuals at the monastery, with those of higher status having access to more desirable foodstuffs, including animal protein”.²⁷⁴ The authors link the presence of these supposedly higher rank monks in the Repository 4 of H1, to Kloner’s “Cave of the kings” hypothesis²⁷⁵, speculating that “the bones of these monks were placed in a crypt complex with a long and rich oral tradition in the region linked to the final resting place of the last Davidic kings (Barkay and Kloner, 1986), speaking to the importance of at least some of the individuals chosen from interment here and the power they may have wielded, both within the monastery as well as within the larger community”.²⁷⁶ The authors also take into consideration the possibility that a special diet for ill monks, as was commonly in use in monasteries, may have been behind the luxury diet of some individuals, but they dismiss this hypothesis because the results show too long a period of the special diet to justify the illness hypothesis.²⁷⁷ They point to six individuals in the collection of the Repository 4, analysis of whose bones shows significant differences in their diet, suggesting their probable foreign provenance, supported by textual evidence.²⁷⁸ According to the authors, the results of the study confirm the previous assessments on the Saint Stephen’s monastic community, which can be portrayed as “a robust, well-fed, and generally healthy group of individuals
272. “These rules may have served to augment the reputation and status of a monastery (Patrich, J., Op. cit., 1995). Hirschfeld (“Monasteries and churches in the Judean desert in the Byzantine Period”, in: Tsafrir, Y. (Ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1992, p. 149-154.) speculated that poor monasteries could not afford the high costs of animal protein, and that this, rather than specific regulations against its consumption, accounted for its absence in monastic diets, particularly in the Judean desert. Consequently, while dietary rules pervaded monastic life according to historical texts, they more likely represent an idealized model of dietary intake rather than the reality of day-to-day consumption”, Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 67. 273. The authors note that after the Council of Chalcedon, wealth was seen as a sign of God’s approval, and that some monasteries in Syria and Constantinople were extremely wealthy. They assume that this may have been the case of the vast Saint Stephen’s Monastery in Jerusalem (cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 66-7). 274. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 71. 275. Cf. § 1.3.2 276. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 71. 277. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 71. 278. “Thus, variation in dietary intake noted for six individuals with elevated d13C and d15N ratios may be the result of the arrival of non-locals at St. Stephen’s, immigrants who may have consumed a different array of foods”, Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 71.
Summary
(Sheridan, 1999)”.²⁷⁹ From the comparison made with similar analyses on bones of several other communities in the Near East and Mediterranean regions in the Roman and Byzantine times,²⁸⁰ it is possible to deduce that, as to animal protein consumption, the Saint Stephen’s Monastery is in the average of the sampled sites.²⁸¹ The authors conclude that, although in contrast with the ideal ascetic requirements of monastic life, the rich diet of Saint Stephen’s Monastery community is in line with its urban location and ecclesiastical importance, if compared to monasteries of the Judean desert, whose poorer diets may be explained by a poorer monastic endowment and by the distance from the richer environment of the cities.²⁸² Several statements made by the authors are worthy of comment. First of all, as in the previous Sheridan’s article in 1999, they do not take into consideration that the bones in Repository 4 of H1 are only a small sample of the human remains that accumulated in Saint Stephen’s Monastery between mid C5 and early C7 AD and that any generalisation to the whole community is inappropriate²⁸³. At the same time they link the luxury diet of a portion of the human remains analysed to the wealth and the urban character of the monastery, not explaining why there are other individuals that do not show the same wealthy diet in the Repository 4, as pointed out above by the present writer in the presentation of Guise Sherdian 1999 article. Furthermore, to suggest that the special burial granted to some high ranking monks was possibly linked to the holiness of H1 because the oral tradition remembered that H1 was the tomb of the last kings of Judah – despite the fact this supposed oral tradition should have lasted as long as 13 centuries, but is completely absent from any written source – is in clear contrast with the presence of bones with no signs of a luxury diet and the practice of prestigious burial next to the holiest remains of a sanctuary, as already stressed.²⁸⁴ Finally, the authors 279. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 71. 280. “Eleutherna and Sourtara (Bourbou et al., 2011), Kellis 2 (Dupras, 1999), Leptiminus (Keenleyside et al., 2009), Naftieh (AlBashaireh et al., 2010), Sa’ad, Ya’amun, and Yasileh (King, 2001), St. Callixtus (Rutgers et al., 2009), and Wadi Halfa (White and Armelagos, 1997)”, Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 72. 281. The authors do not explicitly draw the conclusion, but from the data presented in the article, it is possible to deduce what is stated above (cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 71-2). 282. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 72. A recent article of the same researchers presentes the results of further analysis of the bones coming from Repository 4 of H1, refining the composition of the diet of the individuals buried in H1, (cf. L.A. Gregoricka/S.G. Sheridan/M. Schirtzinger, “Reconstructing life histories using multi-tissue isotope analysis of commingled remains from st Stephen’s monastery in Jerusalem: limitations and potential”, Archaeometry 59 (2017) 148-63). 283. Cf. note 234 284. Moreover, the reference to the Barkay and Kloner 1986 article is incorrect, since the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis is absent from this article.
53
seem to ignore the presence of hermits in Saint Stephen’s Monastery, whose more ascetic lifestyle may explain the poorer diet detected in some of the human remains in the Repository 4.²⁸⁵
1.4 Summary The results of the analysis of the history of the research on the SEC Hypogea are summarised as follows: in § 1.4.1 is presented the adjacent topographical context of the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea, followed by the most important information on the state of the SEC Hypogea at the moment of their discovery given in the first descriptions in § 1.4.2, while the critical review of the recent studies on SEC Hypogea is presented in § 1.4.3. 1.4.1 The adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea Concerning the adjacent topographical context presented in § 1.1, two major issues may be considered at this stage of the research: the supposed existence of an Iron Age II C Northern Necropolis, and the apparent absence in the area of any remains dating from the Persian to the Early Roman periods. According to Barkay, Kloner and Mazar the Iron Age II Northern Necropolis is constituted by the two Sultan Suleiman Street burial caves, the Schimdt Institute hypogeum, the burial cave in the White Sisters’ Monastery courtyard, the Garden Tomb, the two SEC Hypogea, and several other burial caves reported by C19 scholars and no longer visible.²⁸⁶ The dating of all these burial caves does depends in any case not on archaeological evidence such as stratigraphic and material culture studies,²⁸⁷ but on the common architectural features with other tombs, which are dated by the material culture, such as the Silwan Necropolis, the Ketef Hinnom Necropolis and other burial caves in Jerusalem and in the Judean region, whose comparison of which the SEC Hypogea is the object of Chapter 6. 285. A natural grotto 3.5 m deep with a Byzantine Cross engraved on a wall and a dressed stone as an altar, seem to have been used by hermits from mid C5 to early C7 (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786). In 1989, during the restoration of the Archaeological Department of the EBAF, was found a quarry, and, in a natural shaft what might be another hermit shelter, due to the presence of two small niches hewn in the walls, perhaps for icons and candles. For the detailed description of the quarry and the findings refer to § 4.5.3. 286. Cf. Barkay/Kloner/Mazar, “The Northern Necropolis”, 119-27. 287. With the exception of the Sultan Suleiman Street tombs, if we consider that the pottery present in these tombs at the moment of their discovery and lost in the Rockefeller Museum storerooms, can be dated solely by the study of the pictures taken by the excavator.
54
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
The survey of the north-eastern sector shows that the northern part of Jerusalem seems to have been exploited for quarrying and burials from the Iron Age II C onwards with a gap in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, to become a burial area again from the Late Roman period,²⁸⁸ and continue along with the cultic and residential constructions of Saint Stephen’s Basilica and Monastery.²⁸⁹ 1.4.2 The first descriptions of the SEC Hypogea In § 1.2 the presentation of the first descriptions of H1 and H2 given by the various articles integrated by the Chronicles of the Saint-Étienne Priory permits a reconstitution of some details of the burial caves now no longer visible, because of the obliterations of the modern transformations or the erection of modern masonries. Regarding H1, which was discovered on 6th or 7th May 1885,²⁹⁰ the flattening of the ground of the Modern Chapel eliminated the differences in the levels of the quarried rock in the northern half of the Chapel²⁹¹ and of the original slope towards the South by means of slabs flooring.²⁹² The levelling in the north-western corner of the Modern Chapel obliterated the white-tessera Mosaic Floor, one metre wide, a sort of path leading to H1 from the north.²⁹³ An ancient three-step stairway, leading to the Vestibule, wiped out together with the western wall of the Vestibule by the modern transformations, is drawn in several plans and sections.²⁹⁴ No sign of a proper façade of H1 has been reported.²⁹⁵ Great quantity of bones were recovered from H1, but unfortunately, no details are given on the definitive resting place of these human remains.²⁹⁶ Considering the relatively small number of the bones in H1 compared to the descriptions given by the authors of the various articles, it may be to supposed that the cavity in which the bones found in the Southern Extension have been buried is one of the trough graves of the same extension, which was used as a modern burial by the Dominicans 288. Or the Early Roman period, if is accepted the hypothesis that the remains of the Early Roman building in opus reticolatum are those of a burial monument (cf. § 4.2.1). 289. For the a more detailed analysis of the adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea refer to Chapter 4, and for the questions still open on the subject to § 4.9. 290. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 33. 291. The level of the original bedrock is still visible on the northern and western walls and on one of the bases of the pillars of the Modern Chapel. 292. Cf. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 225. 293. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34, note 1 and cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781-2, note 3. 294. Cf. Figures 5 and 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14, 16 and 17. 295. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781. 296. Cf. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 226; cf. Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 74; cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 37; cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784; cf. Chroniques des premières années, 9.
from the death of the Dominican Matthieu Lecomte in 1887 and during early C20 for the burial of several other Dominican brothers.²⁹⁷ Concerning the modern constructions, which started soon after the clearing of H1,²⁹⁸ the various articles report a building which covered the Modern Stairs and was dismantled in 1888,²⁹⁹ the modern walls replacing the ancient dry walls which filled the collapsed rock-walls of the Main Chamber and the sealing off with modern masonry of the door leading to the Corridor.³⁰⁰ The report on the material culture findings in H1 is very poor in the first publications. The most significant item unearthed during the clearing of H1 in 1888 was the Metal Box found in the recess of the Main Chamber, and stolen soon after its discovery.³⁰¹ Other findings are a fragment of a stone sarcophagus, reported to be in situ in one of the trough graves of the Southern Extension and drawn in several plans and sections,³⁰² the Euthymius inscription on a fragment of a lid was found in one of the trough graves in the Northern Extension,³⁰³ some oil lamps with Christian symbols in the Southern Extension³⁰⁴ and other oil lamps with Jewish symbols together with other shards in one of the repositories.³⁰⁵ The date of the discovery of H2 is unknown, and its presentation was made for the first time by Vincent/Abel in 1926. The modern ceiling in reinforced concrete, whose first use in Jerusalem’s constructions dates back to the end of the 20s; the absence of any notice on H2 in the Revue biblique, and the detailed narrative of the discovery of the hidden trough grave in Repository 1 given by the authors suggest a date of the discovery close to 1926.³⁰⁶ The authors report clear signs of a respectful restoration and significant transformations of H2 in Byzantine time.³⁰⁷ At the discovery of H2, the benches were covered with debris and the repositories overflowed with bones,³⁰⁸ rais297. 298. 299. 300.
301. 302. 303. 304.
305. 306. 307. 308.
Cf. Chroniques des premières années, 21. Cf. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 227. Cf. Chroniques des premières années, 42-3. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34. Furtheremore, tenuous signs of the entrance to chamber 6 (another Mortuary Chamber or a Preparation Chamber as in H2, it is not specified) were visible on the ground and the ceiling in correspondence of the southern wall of the Main Chamber (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 782). Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 781, note 2. Cf. Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 76-7; cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784; figures 5, 8 and 9, 12 and 13, and 16 (with a Cross on the lid); Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34; cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784, note 2. Cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 37 and, specifying the location, i.e. the north-western corner of the Southern Extension, also in Vincent/Abel 1926 (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784). Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. Cf. note 109 . Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785.
Summary
ing the question of their final destination, given the scant quantity of bones still present in the repositories. The findings reported concern only the Hidden Grave, and consisted of metal bands, a metal clip, two glass vials, and two oil lamps with a Cross, other minor shards and some bones, a few vertebrae and teeth.³⁰⁹ The first interpretations of the SEC Hypogea agree on the Jewish origin of the complexes and their reutilisation in the Byzantine period.³¹⁰ Concerning the dating of the original state of SEC Hypogea, from the Metal Box features and the architectural characteristics of the complexes the authors propose the period of the reign of Herod the Great.³¹¹ The information on the original state of the SEC Hypogea offered by their first descriptions, integrated by the observations of the present state of the burial complexes and by the comparison with other burial caves in Jerusalem and the Judean and East Mediterranean worlds, is indispensable to build the 3D restitution of their original state, and to enhance the analysis of these burial caves.³¹² 1.4.3 The recent studies on the SEC Hypogea The survey conducted in 1974-1975 by Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner³¹³ marks the renewed interest in the SEC Hypogea, inscribed in the great development of the Israeli archaeological researches in East Jerusalem since its conquest in 1967.³¹⁴ The major contribution of the publications based on the aforementioned survey to the study of the SEC Hypogea is the dating to the Iron Age II C, whose main argumentation relies on the architectural features common to other burial caves dated to this period.³¹⁵ The strength of this argumentation depends on the validity of the dating to the Iron Age II C of the burial caves paralleled to the SEC Hypogea and the verified similarity of the abovementioned architectural features. The other argumentation for the dating to Iron Age II C of the SEC Hypogea presented by Barkay and Kloner consists in the problematic interpretation of several biblical expressions relating to burials.³¹⁶ 309. Unfortunately, the material culture of the Hidden Grave is not available. 310. Cf. Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 75; cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 45; cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 117; cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785 (for H1) and 786 (for H2). Merrill is the exception suggesting a Christian origin of H1 (cf. Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 227). 311. Cf. Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 117; cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 785 (for H1) and 786 (for H2). 312. Cf. § 5.2. 313. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 71-6; cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 29. 314. Cf. Greenberg/Keinan, Israeli Archaeological Activity, 8-10. 315. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 36. 316. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 36-7.
55
A development of the study conducted on the SEC Hypogea by Barkay and Kloner is the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis, proposed in 1986 by Kloner, who assumes that the SEC Hypogea are the tombs of the last kings of Judah.³¹⁷ Since no valid argumentation support the “Cave of the kings” hypothesis, it must be dismissed. While the survey of Barkay and Kloner and the publications which followed contributed in renewing the interest on the SEC Hypogea, the lack of any significant archaeological evidence supporting the dating of these burial complexes frustrates the legitimate expectations of establishing the dating of H1 and H2 on solid foundations. In this sense, although the target of the study was the biocultural model of the Byzantine Saint Stephen’s Monastery, a hope of finding these convincing arguments for a dating of the SEC Hypogea was offered by the archaeological and anthropological survey conducted by Susan Guise Sheridan between 1995 and 1997.³¹⁸ The fluoride and radiocarbon analyses carried out on a sample of the 15,000 bones and fragments exhumed from Repository 4 of H1 date the collection between mid C5 and early C7 AD, proving the reutilisation of the burial complex in the Byzantine period, without offering any elements useful for a dating of the SEC Hypogea.³¹⁹ The scant material culture discovered in a completely disrupted stratigraphy in the repository, while it is consistent with the reported history of Saint Stephen’s Monastery, does not represent a significant collection for an effective dating.³²⁰ Conversely, the anthropological results shed some light on the practices of burial in Byzantine time, in particular demonstrating the existence of primary burials in the repository studied.³²¹ The presence of a relatively small proportion of female and of subadult bones raises questions about the practice of depositio ad sanctos and the possible existence of an orphanage or a school in the Monastery compound.³²² Finally, the authors’ generalisations of the results regarding the diet of the individuals whose bones have been studied to all the monastic community seems inappropriate, because of the relatively poor quantity of bones in proportion to the burials that must have been practised in Saint Stephen’s Monastery during about 150 years of existence.³²³
317. Cf. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 121-9. 318. The results of the survey are published in Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 574-611, Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 561-90, Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 138-64, and Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent?”, 63-73. 319. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 588. 320. Cf. Bautch/Bautch/Barkay/Sheridan, “ ‘The Vessels of the Potter’ ”, 561-90. 321. Cf. Sheridan, “ ‘New life the Dead receive’ ”, 585. 322. Cf. Gregoricka/Sheridan, “Food for Thought”, 157-8. 323. Cf. § 1.3.3
56
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
1.5 Conclusion The researches carried out until the present study produced the following major results: • The sole scientific evidence is the dating of the bones of Repository 4 in H1, which demonstrates that the burial complex was reused during the Byzantine period for burial of men, probably monks of the Eudocian monastery, but also of women and children. • No stratigraphic analysis of the findings of the SEC Hypogea or of the tombs considered as their parallels is available.³²⁴ • The dating of SEC Hypogea to the Iron Age II C proposed by Barkay, Kloner and Mazar 1975,³²⁵ and widely accepted by the academic community since the article of Barkay/Kloner published in the Biblical Archaeology Review in 1986,³²⁶ is based only on the presence of several architectural features common to other tombs dated to the Iron Age II; nevertheless in these studies, the lack of any systematic approach and the circular reasoning of dating the tombs to the Iron Age by paralleling them with other tombs previously dated by the same comparison makes the dating questionable. • Several valuable items of information on the original state of the SEC Hypogea were acquired by the analysis of their first descriptions.³²⁷ 324. The stratigraphy of the excavations of Repository 25 of Cave 24 in Ketef Hinnom, considered in their comparisons by Barkay/Kloner 1986 (cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 28), have not yet been published (cf. § 6.1). 325. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 76. 326. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 36. 327. Namely, the published studies and the chronicles of SaintÉtienne Priory.
• The existence of an Iron Age II C northern necropolis³²⁸ so distant form the city walls of that time is surprising.³²⁹ If these results constitute no consistent evidence for a dating of the SEC Hypogea, and no new archaeological excavations can for now support a scientific dating of H1 and H2,³³⁰ an accurate analysis of the general and adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea, coupled with a systematic comparison of H1 and H2 with other tombs selected according to precise criteria, can produce stronger argumentations for a proposal of dating. For these reasons, in this dissertation, following the presentation in Chapter 2 of the methodology used, are analysed respectively the broad (Chapter 3) and adjacent (Chapter 4) topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea, which provide the information necessary to reconstruct the Umwelt of these tombs. In Chapter 5, H1 and H2 are described in detail, matching the information of the first descriptions with the observable features and the virtual views of the 3D models. Twenty-two burial caves are selected among a great number of tombs dating from the Iron Age II period to the Roman period and for a large geographical region stretching for the Levant to the Italian peninsula; the comparison of their architectural features with those of the SEC Hypogea, presented in Chapter 6, founds the dating of H1 and H2 and of other similar burial complexes, proposed in Chapter 7.
328. Cf. Barkay/Mazar/Kloner, “The Northern Cemetery”, 76. 329. In this sense refer to note 207. 330. Even if the archaeological framework of the SEC Hypogea has been deeply disturbed in ancient and modern times, excavations could be carried out to search for more information (cf. § 7.4).
Chapter 2 Methodology In Chapter 1, we saw that the study of the available literature on the SEC Hypogea shows that the question of the dating of the two burial complexes, and of other similar tombs, remains open. Because of the lack of any material evidence, the dating proposed by Barkay and Kloner 1986 and widely accepted by the scholars is necessarily founded on the comparison with the burial caves which present similar architectural characteristics to those of SEC Hypogea. Unfortunately, most of the the burial caves compared were looted and very few of them were discovered with the material culture still sealed. Of these, none was the object of a publication where a rigorous stratigraphic analysis of the findings is presented. This scarcity of data silently induces any researcher into a circular reasoning, where the architectural features of a tomb let it be dated to a certain period because other burial caves present similar architectural features and were previously dated because of these common features. Furthermore, the comparisons conducted by these most reputed archaeologists and scholars lack the systematic approach which provides and organises all the elements available in an orderly analysis, necessary to base any dating proposal. In fact, as pointed out by Baughan 2013: One of the most difficult issues in the study of rock-cut tombs is that of chronology, since it is usually impossible to date scientifically the time at which a rock face was carved. We must therefore rely on stylistic assessment, which can be quite subjective, especially for the plainer tombs with little specific ornamentation, and on associated finds, which are rarely found undisturbed and which can reflect multiple period of use. Accompanying inscriptions can sometimes help, but these, too, do not necessarily correlate with the first use of the tomb. Association with occupation phases of known settlements is another method of suggesting general dates for rockcut tombs, but this can be speculative and imprecise.¹ 1.
E.P. Baughan, Couched in Death: Klinai and Identity in Anatolia and Beyond (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2013), 132.
In the following sections are presented the methodology used for the analysis of the topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea (§ 2.1), for the measurements and the 3D modeling (§ 2.2), and for the comparison of the architectural features of H1 and H2 with selected tombs in the regions adjacent to Jerusalem (§ 2.3).
2.1 Methodology of the outline of the topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea The broad context of SEC Hypogea is the city of Jerusalem, itself inserted in the larger context of this city, namely the Southern Levant, part of the general framework of cultural and economic exchanges among the regions stretching from Egypt and the Levant and reaching Italy and the central Mediterranean, especially from the Iron Age II period, which is the first period of interest for the purpose of this dissertation.² The general topographical and archaeological contexts of the Jerusalem area are the object of Chapter 3. Focusing in particular on the size of the urban areas of the city, in § 3.1, the evolution of Jerusalem is presented from the Bronze Age period, when Jerusalem was founded and its first outline as a city was marked by huge fortifications also used in later periods,³ until the Ottoman period, in order to acknowledge the major modifications and/or disruptions that may have occurred to the urban layout. The distribution of the necropolises of Jerusalem is analysed in § 3.2, beginning from the Iron Age II period, when the use of the bench burial is attested in the region,⁴ and until the Byzantine period, when the SEC Hypogea were still in use, as demonstrated by the researches on the bones of Repository 4 of H1.⁵ 2.
3. 4. 5.
For example of these exchanges and reciprocal influences among the abovementioned regions see A. Gunter, “Orientalism and Orientalization in the Iron Age Mediterranean”, in B.A. Brown/M.H. Feldman, Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 2013) 79-108. Cf. § 3.1.1 and § 3.1.2. Cf. § 3.2.1 and § 3.3. Cf. § 1.3.3.
58
Methodology
The Jerusalem area is defined by the historical city, delimited by the city walls (the “Third Wall” to the north, the Byzantine wall encompassing the south-western and south-eastern hills, and the walls along the Hinnom Valley and the Cedron Valley to the west and east respectively), and its outskirts, comprised in a circle of 3 km from the Ottoman city walls, the settlement and the necropolises outside this circle being considered to belong to villages and rural settlements.⁶ The updated literature on the history of Jerusalem integrated with the archaeological reports published, and the visits to several sites coupled with periodic private communications with the scholars and the archaeologists working in the Jerusalem area are the sources used for the redaction of § 3.1 and § 3.2. Presented in Chapter 4, the area of the detailed adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea is selected considering the relative homogeneity of the topographical, geological and archaeological features respectively: for the eastern limits, of the western cliff of El Heidhemiyeh Hill, exploited in ancient times by quarrying activities and used for burial caves, for the western limits Route One, which is a flat area at the foot of the hills rising to the west; for the northern limits, the “Third Wall” line, which constitutes a clear urban feature, significant since the end of the Early Roman period, while the southern limits given by the Old City Ottoman wall, began to be an important urban feature only at the end of the Late Roman period and the beginning of the Byzantine period, these two latter limits having a clear impact on the settlements in the selected area (cf. fig. 65). The detailed adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts (Chapter 4) are based substantially on Kloner’s 2001 survey of north-eastern Jerusalem,⁷ part of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (ASI)⁸, cross-checked with Bieberstein and Bloedhorn’s 1994 remarkable inventory of the archaeological sites in Jerusalem;⁹ however, in Kloner’s survey several archaeological sites are grouped under the same area number and coordinates, sometimes comprised in an area as vast as 120 m in diameter (for example area 321).¹⁰ In order to offer a more precise loca6. 7.
Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 27. Cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector. The introduction at the Survey conducted under the direction of Kloner is presented in Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The Northwestern Sector. 8. The ASI is organised in sectors which correspond to 10 km × 10 km maps, numbered from 1 to 248, each map presenting the sites areas, numbered starting form 1. For the north-eastern sector of Jerusalem (map number [102]), 627 sites areas are presented (cf. http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx). 9. Cf. K. Bieberstein/H. Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Grundzüge des Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, Vol. 1-3 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1994). 10. Cf. § 4.1. Cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 102*-3*.
tion and comprehension of the remains, where possible, they are renamed using Kloner’s numbering and adding a letter to it. In the cases where Kloner’s 2001 survey does not present a site studied before the publication of his survey, and for the excavations conducted after 2001, the number plus letter takes into consideration their connection with other already numbered sites, in order to offer a picture of the topographical and archaeological contexts that is as systematic and clear as possible¹¹. Kloner’s 2001 coordinates of the sites (expressed in ICS and UTM)¹² identify the broader area where several remains are located. To offer a more precise location of the sites, the coordinates of each remains grouped in one site in the ASI system is determined using Google Earth and expressed both in ICS and WGS84.¹³ For every sub-section of § 4, realised with Google Earth and processed adding the sites with place-marks, a map of the locations of the sites is presented in the correspondent ‘illustrations’ Volume annexed to this dissertation. Since several remains are no longer visible and their location is not certain, their coordinates are estimated crossing all the available information given in the publications. The present writer, together with the topographic engineer Emmanuel Moisan and the assistant Mohammad Abo Zainah, carried out several surveys at the SEC Hypogea and at four sites in the area of the detailed adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts: White Sisters’ Monastery Tombs 1 and 2, the Garden Tomb and the Schmidt Institut Hypogea.¹⁴ The order of presentation of the sites follows the ascending numbers of the areas in Kloner’s 2001 Survey.¹⁵ For each numbered area, the sites are presented in alphabetical order of the letters added to the sites’ areas, when the area presents more than one site. 11. For example, the site of the excavations carried out by Rina Avner and Roie Greenwald in 2014, which are located in the middle of the site numbered 330 by Kloner’s 2001 survey, are regrouped together with the 325e site in the present dissertation, because Kloner 2001 ascribes the site where the Roman inscription was found in 1904 to the number 325, the most significant discovery of the Avner-Greenwald excavations being the second half of the same Roman inscription (cf. § 4.5). 12. ICS: Israeli Cassini Soldner (for the presentation of this system of coordinates optimised for Israel see B. Parry/C. Perkins, World Mapping Today (Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 479-81; UTM: Universal Transvers Mercator (cf. P.A. Longley, Geographic Information Science and Systems (Hoboken; John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, 2015) 92-3). 13. Today, the use of Google Earth in the academic literature and governmental institution is widespread: for example see the use of Google Earth in the internet site of the IAA, the Archaeological Survey of Israel (cf. note 8). 14. For the methods used in these surveys see § 2.2 15. The map of the ASI is the [102]. To simplify the presentation, all the areas considered in this dissertation are numbered with only the site numebr, the [102] map’s denomination being in common to all the sites: 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 330, 336, 337 and 338.
Methodology of the geological and the measurement surveys, and 3D modeling
Finally, when is identified an error in the information given in Kloner’s 2001 Survey, it is reported and rectified.
2.2 Methodology of the geological and the measurement surveys, and 3D modeling As related in Chapter 1, Barkay and Kloner carried out a survey in 1974-1975 at the SEC Hypogea. Since then, no other study has been realised on H1 and H2 (cf. § 1.3.1). In order to acquire further information on the Hypogea and produce a more precise documentation new surveys were carried out from 2011 to 2014. The geological survey of the SEC Hypogea was carried out by the geologist Gérard Massonnat, in November 2011, who kindly drew up the following synthesis of the methodology he used in the survey: Les calcaires dans lesquels sont creusés les hypogées se caractérisent, ainsi que toute roche sédimentaire, par des discontinuités présentes dans la roche: - les joints de stratification, qui séparent les strates qui composent la série sédimentaire, - les fractures, qui sont des discontinuités générées dans les roches en réponse à des états de contraintes subis par le milieu. La caractérisation de ces plans géologiques a été réalisée à l’aide de mesures de direction et de pendage, à l’aide d’une boussole spécifique au géologue. Cet instrument se compose à la fois d’une boussole et d’un clinomètre. La direction correspond à l’orientation d’une droite contenue dans un plan vertical; elle est fournie par l’angle, inférieur à 180°, que forme, dans un plan horizontal, ce plan vertical avec le plan vertical qui contient la direction du Nord Géographique. Le pendage coïncide avec le plongement d’une droite perpendiculaire à la précédente: le clinomètre fournit la mesure de l’angle de cette droite avec le plan horizontal dans le plan vertical qui la contient. Joints de stratification et fractures constituent des plans de faiblesse au sein du massif rocheux, et sont susceptibles de contrôler le débit de la roche en carrière ou à l’affleurement. Quand ces discontinuités sont légèrement ouvertes, elles sont naturellement plus perméables que le milieu qui les contient. Ce sont donc des cheminements préférentiels pour l’infiltration et la circulation des eaux souterraines, qui les agressent, dissolvent le calcaire qui les compose, et fabriquent une architecture karstique avec des vides le long des plans de circulations. La méthode poursuivie dans les hypogées a consisté à mesurer ces divers plans puis en vérifier la cohérence de l’organisation avec les conditions géologiques locales. After the cleaning from the dust of the Hypogea, a first photographic session with Jean-Baptiste Humbert and
59
Jean-Michel de Tarragon of the EBAF was realised in 2012. The measuring and the first photogrammetric surveys were carried out by the present writer in 2012, with the assistance of Mohammad Abo Zainah, using the professional tape meter, the Bosch DLE 150 laser meter, and a Nikon D 600 camera with 28 mm and 24-120 mm Nikkor optics. In 2013, Emanuel Moisan carried out the photogrammetric survey of H1, while H2 was surveyed by the present writer.¹⁶ The photogrammetry was chosen for the survey because, compared with the laser scanning technique, it assures a preferable balance among precision, versatility and low costs when applied to complex volumes such as those of the burial caves surveyed.¹⁷ The process of the photogrammetric survey is carried out in seven steps:¹⁸ 1. Optical data acquisition: the technique used to acquire the set of images necessitates that the images, taken with different orientations, overlap at least for 50% of their dimensions on the adjacent images, to make possible the calculation of the homologous points, which are the same points in different images;¹⁹ 2. Orientation of the images: it calculates the internal (of the camera) and external (the orientation and position of the camera) parameters of each image, a process which produces the geometrical information in a relative coordinates system; the program used for this process is Photosynth, developed by Microsoft and freely available online,²⁰ which produces the point cloud used to create the 3D model (cf. figures 24 and 25); 3. Dense matching: the point cloud produced with Photosynth being not sufficiently detailed for the meshing of the 3D model, a toolkit developed by Henri Astre is used to densify the point cloud;²¹ 4. Mesh generation: the topological information of the point cloud allow the creation of the surface of the object, connecting the points with triangles; for this step is used the 3DReshaper program;²² 5. Scale computation: because the burial caves are very complex objects, the previous phases are realised for 16. The surveys and 3D models were realised also for White Sisters’s Monastery Tombs 1 and 2, and the Garden Tomb. 17. Cf. R. Kadobayashi/N. Kochi/H. Otani/D. Furukawa, “Comparison and evaluation of laser scanning and photogrammetry and their combined use for digital recording of cultural heritage”, International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 35.5 (2004) 401-6. 18. All the 3D models were processed by Emmanuel Moisan. 19. Cf. J. Albertz/M. Wiggenhagen, Taschenbuch zur Photogrammetrie und Fernerkundung (Heidelberg: Wichmann, 2009) 132-44. 20. https://photosynth.net/. 21. http://files.neonascent.net/photosynth-toolkit-guide.pdf. 22. http://www.3dreshaper.com/.
60
Methodology
fig. 24
Point cloud of Main Chamber, Preparation Chamber and Chamber 1 of H2, overhead view, Photosynth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 25
Point cloud of Main Chamber, of H2, looking west, Photosynth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features
a number of parts of each tomb, in order to provide a more precise model; in this step all the single parts constituting the 3D model are scaled to the metric scale, using the Excel program;²³ 6. Registration: in the registration process, the different parts are connected in a single mesh, after the scaling of the single part;²⁴ for this step the 3DReshaper program was used (figure 26); 7. Texture mapping: the final stage of the process is the texturing of the model by the orthogonal projection of the images of the object on the model surfaces; for this step the 3DReshaper program and several scripts realised by Emmanuel Moisan are used (figure 27).²⁵ 23. “Nous avons choisi de mesurer 10 distances d’éléments facilement identifiables sur le modèle et que nous avons mesuré sur le terrain avec un distance-mètre laser. Grâce à une feuille de calcul informatique nous avons pu calculer le facteur d’échelles. Nous avons choisi de valider le calcul quant la différence entre la distance mesurée et la mesure obtenue grâce au modèle et au facteur d’échelle d’au moins 8 distance est inférieur à 1cm”, preliminary report on the survey’s methodology by Emmanuel Moisan (unpublished). 24. “La seconde étape est la consolidation [Registration] à proprement dire. Ils existent aussi pour cette étape plusieurs méthodes, comme l’utilisation de cibles, mais cette méthode ne peut pas être utilisé dans notre cas, mais on utilise plutôt les surfaces communes entre les différentes parties. Nous avons utilisé une méthode semi-automatique, qui permet de trouver la meilleure position entre deux modèles. Cet algorithme est appelé ICP (Iterative Closest Point) et a été introduit par Best en 1992. Les étapes de calcul sont les suivantes : 1- l’algorithme associe à chaque point un ’plus proche voisin’; 2- ensuite sont calculés les paramètres de transformation permettant de réduire la distance entre les deux modèles. Ces paramètres sont trois translations et trois rotations; 3- les nouvelles positions sont ensuite appliquées; 4- le calcul est réitérer jusqu’à ce que la distance entre les deux modèles converges, c’est à dire que les transformations calculées deviennent négligeables. Cette étape de consolidation est possible avec les nuages de points et donc avant la réalisation du maillage. De plus, cette étape de reconstruction de la surface permet de supprimer les données erronées ainsi que le ’bruit”’, preliminary report on the survey’s methodology by Emmanuel Moisan (unpublished). 25. “La dernière étape consiste à ’texturer’ le modèle final. Pour cela on réutilise les photographies pour les projeter sur le modèle. On réalise l’inverse de la prise de photographie. Nous connaissons la position à partir de laquelle a été pris chaque cliché ainsi que les paramètres internes de l’appareil photo utilisé. Ces informations nous suffisent pour projeter les images sur le modèle virtuel. La difficulté est d’une part que les parties de modèles ont changé de système et donc il est nécessaire de recalculer les positions des caméras dans le nouveau système de coordonnées, d’autre part, vue la quantité de photographies, nous devons automatiser la procédure. Pour cela nous avons développé un programme informatique permettant de faire la passerelle entre le logiciel de photogrammetrie d’où sont issus les paramètres de localisation des clichés et le logiciel de modélisation. Ce programme a été construit sous R. Il fonctionne donc sur les trois plateformes (windows, mac et linux) et il est gratuit. Les conditions de prises de photos entraîne d’importante erreurs de colorimétrie principalement dû aux différences d’éclairage entre les prises de vue. Nous avons créé un processus qui permet d’exporter une orthophotographie. Il s’agit d’une
61
From the 3D models produced trough this process the plans and sections of the burial caves are outlined, corresponding more precisely to the real dimensions of the tombs.²⁶ The 3D models also give the possibility to measures and study the burial complexes in general, providing the information for parts where the access would be difficult, impossible or disruptive,²⁷ and allows us to observe the tombs from the outside, and from viewpoints impossible in reality, which enhances the possibility of the knowledge and the documentation of the burial caves.²⁸ Finally, 3D models can be used to visualise modified versions of the object, such as the reconstitution of the façade of H1.²⁹
2.3 Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features As pointed out above, the comparison of the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea is the analysis which may shed some light on their problematic dating and on the dating of other burial caves in the Jerusalem area. In this section are presented respectively: the criteria of selection of the burial caves to compare with the SEC Hypogea (§ 2.3.1), the tombs considered for the selection (§ 2.3.2), and the database of the selected tombs (§ 2.3.3).
26.
27. 28.
29.
photographie virtuelle, et différemment à la photographie classique dont la projection sur le support 2D est une projection centrale, la projection est cette fois-ci orthogonale. L’orthophotographie est normalement utilisé pour présenter un document sur lequel il est possible de prendre des mesures, contrairement à une photographie classique. Nous avons utilisé ce support pour corriger la texture ainsi que de diminuer la taille des données associées au modèle. Nous avons réaliser les corrections avec Photoshop, puis projeté à nouveau l’orthophotographie à partir d’un fichier exporté par le logiciel, qui permet de localiser le document. La principale difficulté est que le logiciel ne permet que de projeter des photographies avec une projection centrale. Nous avons contourné le problème en approximant la projection orthogonale par une projection centrale proche de l’infini”, preliminary report on the survey’s methodology by Emmanuel Moisan (unpublished). For example, the figures 80, 81, 112, 113 and 184. In the 3D models used in the present dissertation, the error of the measures is being greater than 0.03 m. Several verifications of the precision of the 3D models of the SEC Hypogea were carried out by the present writer in 2013. For example in the repositories, where the bones and the stratigraphy would be damaged. For example, zenithal views such as in figures 151, 170 and 173, or the views in reality impossible for the presence of some elements, such as the elevations views in figures 147, 164 and 165, or the virtual external views such as in figures 138, 177 and 182. For example figures 114 and 115 and also figures 149 and 150, where is presented the hypotesis of an additional Chamber (Chamber 6).
62
Methodology
fig. 26
3D model of H1, virtual view looking north-east, 3Dreshaper, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 27
Textured 3D model of H1, virtual view looking south- east, 3Dreshaper, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features
2.3.1 The criteria for the selection of the burial caves compared with the SEC Hypogea The main goal of the comparison being the collection of information which can be useful for the dating of the SEC Hypogea,³⁰ the following criteria have been chosen for the selection of the burial caves to be compared: a. Bench-type burial caves. The bench is the distinctive architectural feature which characterises the SEC Hypogea and which is associated to the secondary burial practice presented in § 3.3; a second distinctive characteristic of the SEC Hypogea is the three-benched system in their burial chambers. Other burial practices and their relative architectural features, such as field burial, cist and pit graves, loculi, etc…, are not relevant for the comparison. b. Plan. The multi-chambered plan³¹ is the second distinctive characteristic of the SEC Hypogea; nevertheless, because of the rarity of this feature, also threechambered,³² two-chambered³³ and one-chambered burial caves present a major interest for the comparison, since the more complex plan of SEC Hypogea may be related to the social status of their owners, and not to the dating, while three-chambered, twochambered and one-chambered burial caves may be contemporary simpler tombs of less affluent owners. c. The architectural features of the bench-type burial caves. The other architectural features of the SEC Hypogea which may characterise a style associated with a specific period are the access through a vestibule, the benches (their dimensions and features, such as the holes connecting with the repository underneath), the parapets and the headrests on the benches, the right-angled cornices, the rock-cut “sarcophagi”, the openings in the ceiling, and the decorations on the sidewalls. 2.3.2 The burial caves considered and selected for the comparison with the SEC Hypogea The range of time which is considered for the dating of the original hewing of the SEC Hypogea, as stated before, stretches from the Iron Age II to the Roman periods; since the cultural and artistic influences among the regions of 30. The Northern and Southern Extensions of H1, dating to the Late Roman or Byzantine periods, are not considered for the criteria chosen for the selection of the burial caves to compare to H1 and H2. 31. A multi-chambered burial cave is defined as having a Main Chamber and at least two Burial Chambers (cf. I. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II-III Judahite Rock -cut Tombs”, IEJ 63 (2013) 50-77, on p. 58). 32. A burial cave where an Entrance Chamber with benches opens to two burial chambers, such as Lachish T.106 (cf. § 6.1). 33. One behind the other or one adjacent to the other (cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 56-7).
63
the central and eastern Mediterranean are attested since the Iron Age II, this vast region is considered in the search for burial caves to compare to the SEC Hypogea.³⁴ A large portion of the academic literature consecrated to the study of the necropolises of this vast region are considered in the search of parallels to the SEC Hypogea. Starting from Jerusalem and the Southern Levant, the following necropolises were scrutinised: • Jerusalem and its outskirts: 852 tombs presented in the inventory of Kloner/Zissu 2007;³⁵ four tombs in the Old City of Jerusalem;³⁶ the tombs presented in § 4; several tombs more recently discovered in the Jerusalem area.³⁷ 34. Cf. Baughan, Couched in Death, 132. 35. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem. 36. The tombs of “Joseph and Nicodemus” in the Holy Sepulcher; the tomb under the Coptic Patriarchate; several tombs near the Holy Sepulcher are reported by Schick 1892 (cf. C. Schick, “Letters from Baurath Schick”, PEFQ 24 (1892) 9-25, on pp. 17-8) and Clermont-Ganneau 1899 (cf. C. Clermont-Ganneau/S. Aubrey, Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873-1874. Volume I (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1899) 49-77); the tomb in the “Orthodox Praetorium”, in the Via Dolorosa (cf. ibid. 49-55); a burial cave in the Jewish Quarter (N. Avigad, “Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem”, IEJ 22 (1972) 193-200, on p. 197). 37. Byzantine Burial cave at Giv’at Gonem (cf. G. Solimany, “Jerusalem, Giv’at Gonem”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial complex on the Mount of Olives (cf. A. Re’em/R. Abu Raya, “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial complex at ‘Issawiya (cf. Z. ‘Adawi/R. Abu Raya, “Jerusalem, ‘Issawiya’ ”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave in Nahal Ha-Egoz (cf. R. Abu Raya/Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, Nahal Ha-Egoz”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a Late-Hellenistic / Early Roman burial cave at Jebel Mukabbir (cf. R. Abu Raya/Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, Jebel Mukabbir”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a Byzantine tomb on the Mount of Olives (cf. R. Abu Raya/Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); three Late-Hellenistic / Early Roman burial caves in the Karm al-Sheikh area (cf. I. Zilberbod, “Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); several Byzantine burial caves in Nahal Qidron (cf. H. Barbé/Y. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, Nahal Qidron”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); two Byzantine burial cave on the Mount of Olives (cf. Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave at Arnona (cf. Y. Billig, “A Burial Cave of the Second Temple Period in the Arnona Quarter, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006) 154-6); two Early Roman burial caves at the Knesset Residence (cf. I. Zilberbod, “Jerusalem, Knesset Residence”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site); three Early Roman and a Byzantine burial caves on the Mount of Olives (cf. A. Re’em/Z. ‘Adawi/T. Ilan, “Burial Caves from the Second Temple and Byzantine Periods on the Western Slope of Mount of Olives, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006), (Hebrew with English summary) 158-60); a LateRoman / Byzantine burial cave at Nahalat Ahim (cf. E. KoganZehavi, “A Burial Cave of the Byzantine Period in the Nahalat Ahim Quarter, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006), (Hebrew with English summary) 160-1); a Byzantine / Early Islamic burial cave at Horbat Gores (cf. G. Solimany/T. Winter/A. De Vincenz, “A Burial Cave from the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in Horbat Gores, The Gonen Quarter, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot
64
Methodology
• Judean Hills, Judean Desert, Shefela, Southern Coastal Plain, and the Negev: several Iron Age tombs 54 (2006), (Hebrew with English summary) 161-3); a LateHellenistic / Early Roman burial cave in Silwan (cf. B. Zissu, “Jerusalem, ‘Ein el-Lauza”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site); two Iron Age II burial caves and an Early Roman burial cave at ‘Ein el-Luza, (cf. Z. Greenhut/Z. ‘Adawi, “Caves from the Iron Age and the Early Roman Period at ‘Ein el-Luza, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 59 (2008), (Hebrew with English summary) 21*, 197); a Late-Hellenistic / Early Roman burial cave at ‘Issawiya (cf. A. Re’em/R. Abu Raya, “Jerusalem, ‘Issawiya”, HA-ESI 119 (2007), Internet Site); a Byzantine burial complex at Tell el-Ful (cf. Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, Tell el-Ful”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave at Khirbat ‘Adadasa (cf. Y. Baruch/A. Ganor, “Jerusalem, Khirbat ‘Addasa”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site); Early Roman and Late Roman / Byzantine burial caves at Binyane Ha-Umma (cf. A. Nagar, “Jerusalem, Binyane Ha-Umma”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site); seven Late-Hellenistic / Early Roman burial complexes at Talpiyot (cf. Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, East Talpiyot”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave at ‘Ir Gannim (cf. A. Nagar, “Jerusalem, ‘Ir Gannim”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site); two Roman burial caves at Har Homa (cf. Y. Dagan/L. Barda, “Jerusalem, har Homa”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave and a Byzantine burial cave at ‘Issawiya (cf. Z. ‘Adawi, “Jerusalem, ‘Isssawiya”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site); a C1 AD burial complex at Qiryat Shemuel (cf. Y. Baruch/D. Levi, “Jerusalem, Qiryat Shemuel”, HAESI 122 (2010), Internet Site); a Byzantine tomb at Silwan (cf. A. Ganor/R. Kahati/S. Ganor, “Jerusalem, Silwan”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site); two Early Roman burial caves at Binyane Ha-Umma (cf. D. Levi, “Jerusalem, Binyane Ha-Umma (Southeast)”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site); eight Late-Hellenistic / Early Roman burial caves on the Mount Scopus (cf. A. Eirikh, “Jerusalem, the Slopes of Mount Scopus, Survey”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site); a Byzantine burial cave at Khirbat Sabiha (cf. A. Golani, “Jerusalem, Khirbat Sabiha (West)”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site); a large Early Roman burial complex at Sur Bahir (cf. A. Ganor/A. Klein, “Jerusalem, Sur Bahir”, HAESI 123 (2011), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave at Nahal Azal (cf. Z. ‘Adawi/Y. Baruch, “Jerusalem, Nahal Azal”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site); a Early Roman burial cave on Diskin Street (cf. G. Solimany/R. Reich, “A Burial Cave from the Early Roman Period on Diskin Street, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 65 (2011), (Hebrew with English summary) 93-103, 71*-2*); Late-Hellenistic / Early Roman burial cave at Sheikh Jarrah (cf. E.D. Kagan, “Jerusalem, Sheikh Jarrah”, HA-ESI 124 (2012), Internet Site); a large Late Roman burial complex at Mar Elias (cf. Y. Baruch/A. Ganor, “Jerusalem, Mar Elias”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site); a Early Roman burial cave at Tell el-Ful, (cf. A. Wiegmann, “Jerusalem, Tell el-Ful”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site); two Byzantine burial complexes on Mount of Olives (cf. E. Klein/N. Sapir, “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site); three Hellenistic burial caves at Ramat Polin (cf. A. Wiegmann/D. Tanami, “Jerusalem, Ramat Polin”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site); several Hellenistic tombs at Qalandiya (cf. Y. Magen, “Qalandiya - A Second Temple-period Viticulture and Wine-manufacturing Agricultural Settlement”, in Y. Magen/D. T. Ariel/G. Bijovsky/Y. Tzionit/O. Sirkis, The Land of Benjamin (Jerusalem: Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria IAA, JSP 3, 2004) [29]-[144]); a large Early Roman burial complex at Sanhedriya (cf. Y. Baruch/A. Eirikh-Rose, “Jerusalem, Sanhedriya”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site); several cist caves in Nabuls Road (visit to the excavations of Avner and Greenwald, 2014); three burial caves dated to the Late Hellenistic period in Sheikh Jarrah (cf. B. Storchan, “Jerusalem. Sheikh Jarrah”, HA-ESI 128 (2016), Internet Site)
tombs in Tel Gezer,³⁸ Tel Bet Shemesh,³⁹ and Lachish;⁴⁰ the Necropolis of Maresha / Beit Guvrim;⁴¹ several burial caves dating from the Late Hellenistic to the Early Islamic period, discovered more recently in the Judean Desert, the Southern Judean Shefela and the Southern Coastal Plain.⁴² 38. Cf. A.M. Maeir, Bronze and Iron Age tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: finds from Raymond-Charles Weill’s excavations in 1914 and 1921 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004). 39. Cf. D. Mackenzie, “The Tombs of Beth-Shemesh”, PEFQ Annual 2 (1913) 40-92. 40. Cf. O. Tufnell, Lachish (Tell ed Duweir). III, The Iron Age (London: Oxford University Press, 1953). 41. Cf. G. Avni/U. Dahari/A. Kloner, The necropolis of Bet GuvrinEleutheropolis (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008); cf. A.N. Berlin, “Power and its Afterlife. Tombs in Hellenistic Palestine”, Near Eastern Archaeology 65 (2002) 138-48. 42. A Late Roman - Byzantine burial cave at Modi’in (cf. E. Haddad, “Modi’in. Final Report”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site); a burial cave of the Late Roman or Byzantine periods at Khirbat Harsis (cf. Z. Greenhut, “Khirbat Harsis”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site); a Late Hellenistic- Early Roman burial cave at Beit ‘Ur elTahta (cf. Y. Peleg, “Beit ‘Ur el-Tahta”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave at Khirbet el-‘Ein (cf. B. Zissu, “A Burial Cave with a Greek Inscription and Graffiti at Khirbet el-‘Ein, Judean Shefela”, ‘Atiqot 53 (2006) 27-36); an Iron Age II burial cave at Tel ‘Etun (cf. S. Ganor/A. Ganor/R. Kehati, “An Iron Age II Burial Cave in the Southern Burial Ground at Tel ‘Etun”, ‘Atiqot 73 (2013), (Hebrew with English summary) 1*-9*, 135); a Late-Roman burial cave at Tell Qasile (cf. E. Ayalon/S. Harpazi-Ofer, “A Late Roman Period Burial Cave and Dump at Tell Qasile”, ‘Atiqot 55 (2007), (Hebrew with English summary) 29-36, 54-5); a C1-2- AD burial cave at Horbat Zikhrin (cf. E. Haddad, “A Burial Cave from the First–Second Centuries CE and Double-Arcosolia Tombs from the Fourth–Fifth Centuries CE on the Fringes of Horbat Zikhrin”, ‘Atiqot 56 (2007), (Hebrew with English summary) 45-57, 74*-5*); a C2- AD burial cave at Horbat ‘Eitayim (cf. H. Abu ‘Uqsa, “A Burial Cave at Horbat ‘Eitayim”, ‘Atiqot 57 (2007), (Hebrew with English summary) 65-79, 76*-8*); an Iron Age II and Early Roman burial cave north of Tel Hadid (cf. E. Yannai, “A Burial Cave from Iron Age II and the Early Roman Period North of Tel Hadid”, ‘Atiqot 70 (2012), (Hebrew with English summary) 1-20, 79*); a Byzantine - Early Islamic tomb in Ramat Razi’el (cf. Z. Greenhut/B. Zissu, “Ramat Razi’el”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial cave at Wadi Fukin (cf. S. Batz, “Wadi Fukin”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a Late Hellenistic - Early Roman burial cave at Horbat Gader (cf. Z. Greenhut/B. Zissu, “Horbat Gader”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a Byzantine burial cave at Khirbat elKhamis (cf. A. Re’em/R. Kahati, “Khirbat el-Khamis”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a Byzantine - Early Islamic burial cave at En Lavan (cf. G. Solimany, “En Lavan”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site); three burial complexes at Khirbat Umm el-‘Umdan (cf. A. Onn/S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Khirbat Umm el-‘Umdan”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site); a burial cave at Mevasseret Zion (cf. H. Stark, “Mevasseret Zion”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site); a Byzantine burial cave at Barqa (North) (cf. F. Volynsky, “Barqa (North)”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site); an Early Roman burial complex at Horbat Kelah (cf. A. Re’em, “Horbat Kelah”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site); a Byzantine burial cave at Deir Abu ‘Ali (cf. S. Ganor/A. Ganor, “Deir Abu ‘Ali”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site); a Late Hellenistic - Early Roman burial cave Ein Sarig (cf. P. Betzer, “Ein Sarig”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site); two burial caves at Khirbet Deir Sallam dated to the Byzantine period (cf. E. Klein, “Khirbat Deir Sallam (East)”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site); a large burial complex dated to the Roman
Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features
• Samaria Hills, Sharon, Galilee and the Northern Coastal Plains: several burial cave dated from the Late Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods.⁴³ • Levant: an Iron Age II burial cave at Tell Dhiban,⁴⁴ two Iron Age II burial caves at Amman;⁴⁵ an Iron Age II burial cave at Um Udaina, Amman;⁴⁶ a Persian benchtype tomb at Maqabelein, Jordan;⁴⁷ the major necropolises in Lebanon.⁴⁸
43.
44. 45. 46. 47.
48.
and Byzantine periods (cf. Y. Elisha, “Khirbat el-Bira”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site); an Early-Roman burial cave in the Modi’in area (cf. R. Toueg, “Modi’in”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site); a Late Hellenistic - Early Roman elaborate underground complex of tombs in Horbat Ezra, in the Soutehrn Judean Shefela (cf. E. Klein/A. Ganor, “Horbat Ezra”, HA-ESI 128 (2016), Internet Site). A burial cave dated to the Late Roman - Byzantine periods at Netanya, Pardes Ha-Gedud (cf. A. Nagorsky, “Netanya, Pardes Ha-Gedud”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a large Roman burial complex at Jatt (cf. A. Masarwa, “Jatt. Final Report”, HAESI 116 (2004), Internet Site); a Late Roman burial cave at Kafr Qari (cf. A. Masarwa/D. Barshad, “Kafr Qari. Final Report”, HAESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a Roman burial cave at Ar’ara (cf. A. Masarwa, “Ar’ara. Final Report”, HA-ESI 119 (2007), Internet Site); astandig pit burial cave with Late Roman material culture at Salim (cf. M. Cohen/M. Haiman, “Salim. Final Report”, HAESI 120 (2008), Internet Site); a Roman burial cave at Kafr Kanna (East) (cf. S. Ganor/A. Ganor, “Kafr Kanna (East). Final Report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site); a Late Roman burial complex in Sebastya (visit to the excavations during summer 2013, directed by Hani Noureddin and Jean-Sylvain Caillou); buirla caves complex near I’billin, Lower Galilee dated to the Late Roman period (cf. N. Feig/S. Hadad, “Roman Burial Caves at B’billin”, ‘Atiqot 83 (2015) 93-123); a Late Roman burial cave in El Bi’na, in the Beit Keren Valley (cf. E. Klein/N. Distelfeld, “ElBi’na (east)”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site); an Hellenistic burial cave near ’En Gedi (cf. A. Ganor/S. Ganor, “A Burial Cave frome the Second-First Centuries BCE near ’En Gedi”, ‘Atiqot 84 (2016), (Hebrew with English summary) 65*-78*, 126-7). Cf. F. Winnett/W. Reed, The Excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) in Moab, AASOR 36-37 (1964). Cf. G.L. Harding, “Two Iron Age Tombs in Amman”, ADAJ 1 (1951) 37-40. Cf. A. Hadidi, “An Ammonite Tomb at Amman”, Levant 19 (1987) 101-20. “The Meqabelein bench tomb has been variously dated by the excavator G.L. Harding to the second half of the seventh century BCE, by E. Stern to the middle of the sixth century BCE (Stern 1982: 79-80), and by J. Sauer to the ’Iron IIC Persian horizon in Jordan’ following 605 BCE (Sauer 1979: 72). The detailed tomb was one of many Iron Age-Persian and Roman period tombs noted in the area. A shaft cut away by later quarrying led down into a 3 m square chamber with benches around three sides and ’a shallow gangway in the center’. The tomb contained a rich assemblage of goods. Bowls predominated among the Assyrian and local pottery forms, accompanied by jars, bottles, a decanter, a store jar, a juglet, a tripod cup and a lamp. Objects of bronze, silver and iron included a mirror, fibulae, kohl sticks, bracelets, rings, earrings, an arrowhead and knives. In addition there was a black and white opaque glass kohl pot, beads including eye beads, an eight-sided chalcedony seal mounted on a fibula identical to a seal found in the Amman Adoni- Nur tomb, a second seal and two model horse and rider figurines with riders sporting pointed caps (Harding 1950)”, Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 240-1. Cf. H. Sader, “Nécropoles et Tombes Phéniciennes du Liban”, Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea 1 (1995) 15-30.
65
• Anatolia: necropolises in Caria;⁴⁹ necropolises in Lycia;⁵⁰ necropolises in Urartu;⁵¹ necropolises in Phrygia;⁵² necropolises in Lydia;⁵³ royal tombs in Ponto.⁵⁴ • Alexandria, Egypt:⁵⁵ the necropolis of Mustafa Pasha;⁵⁶ the necropolises at Kom El Shuqafa;⁵⁷ the necropolises at the Pharos Island, of Anfoushy, of Hadra, and Kom el Nougous;⁵⁸ the necropolis of Gabbari.⁵⁹ • Cyrene, North Africa: northern, southern and western Hellenistic and Roman necropolises.⁶⁰ 49. Cf. O. Henry, Tombes de Carie: Architecture funéraire et culture Carienne VIe–IIe siécle av. J.-C. (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008); cf. P. Roos, Survey of Rock-Cut ChamberTombs in Caria: South-Eastern Caria and the Lyco-Carian Borderline. Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 72 (Göteborg: P. Åströms förlag, 2006). 50. Cf. N. Çevik, “New Rock-Cut Tombs at Etenna and the RockCut Tomb Tradition in Southern Anatolia”, Anatolian Studies 53 (2003) 97-116; cf. J. Zahle, “Lycian tombs and Lycian cities”, in Actes du colloque sur la Lycie antique, Bibliothèque de l’Institut français d’études anatolienne d’Istanbul 27 (1980) 37-49; cf. T.R. Bryce, “Lycian Tomb families and their social implication”, Journal of the Economics and Social History of the Orient 22 (1979) 295-313; cf. T.R. Bryce, “Burial Practices in Lycia”, Mankind Quarterly 21 (1980) 165-78; cf. K.A. Gay/T. Corsten, “Lycian Tombs in the Kibyratis and the Extent of Lycian Culture”, Anatolian Studies 56 (2006) 47-60; cf. Z. Kuban, Die Nekropolen von Lymra: Bauhistorische Studien zur klassischen Epoche (Wien: Phoibos Verlag, 2012). 51. Cf. D. Ussishkin, “The Rock-Cut Tombs at Van and Monumental Tombs in the Near East”, Monograph British Institute of Arhcaeology at Ankara 16 (1994) 253-64; cf. B. Ögün, “Die urartaischen Gräber in der Gegend von Adilcevaz und Patnos”, in E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology 1 (Ankara-Izmir: Ekrem Akurgal, 1978) 61-7; cf. R.D. Barnett, “The Urartian cemetery at Igdyr”, AnatSt 13 (1963) 153-98; cf. C. Burney, “Urartian Funerary Customs”, in S. Campbell/A. Green (ed.s), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monographs in Archaeology 51 (1995) 205-8. 52. Cf. U. Kelp, “Grave monuments and local identities in Roman Phrygia”, in P. Thonemann (ed.), Roman Phrygia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 70-94; cf. C.H.E. Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia: Sites and Monuments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971). 53. Cf. Baughan, Couched in Death, 147-52. 54. Cf. R. Fleischer, “The Rock-tombs of the Pontic Kings in Amaseia (Amasya)”, in J.M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Oakville CT: Aarhus University Press, 2009) 109-20. 55. A general study of the necropolises in Alexandria is presented in M.S. Venit, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 56. Cf. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha. 57. Cf. J.Y. Empereur, A Short Guide to the Catacombs at Kom el Shuqafa Alexandria (Alexandria: Harpocrates Pub., 2003); Cf. M. Seif El-Din/A.M. Guimier-Sorbets, “Les deux tombeaux de Perséphone dans la nécropole de Kom el-Chougafa à Alexandrie”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 121 (1997) 355-410. 58. Cf. A. Adriani, Nécropoles de l’Île de Phaos. I. Section de Ras el Tine. Annuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain 3 (1940-1950) (Alexandria: Sociétè de Publications Egyptiennes, 1952). 59. Cf. J.Y. Empereur/M.D. Nenna (ed.s), Nécropolis I. Etudes alexandrines 5 (Cairo: IFAO, 2001). 60. Cf. J.C. Thorn, The necropolis of Cyrene: two hundred years of
66
Methodology
• Cyprus: the royal necropolis of Salamis; the necropolises in Paphos.⁶¹ • Greece: the necropolis at Vergina.⁶² • Italy: the Etruscan necropolises in Etruria.⁶³ Several general studies on tombs in the regions considered were also consulted.⁶⁴ The analysis of this large population of burial caves has as its main purpose the identification of the similarities in burial caves which may help in the dating of the SEC Hypogea. Beyond the attested parallels with several Anatolian and Etruscan burial caves which present benches, parapets and headrests, no decorations were found matching as a parallel the adornment of H1. Furthermore, the analysis of the common architectural features among the population of tombs considered shows that, beside the common features, the style of the tombs is characterised by local particularities; in fact, the main indication produced by the analysis is the documentation of the use of the rock-cut chambers with benches, from the Near East to the Italian peninsula, and from Iron Age II to the Roman period, as widely authenticated by the academic literature.⁶⁵ exploration (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2005). 61. Cf. V. Karageorghis, Paleopaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypren 3 (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1983); cf. D. Michaelides/J. Mlynarczyk, “Tombs PM 2520 an PM 2737 from the Eastern Necropolis of Nea Paphos”, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus (1988) 149–70. 62. Cf. O. Palagia/E.N. Bozra, “The Chronology of the Macedonian Royal Tombs at Vergina”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 122 (2007) 81-125. 63. Cf. P. Brocato “Sull’origine e lo sviluppo delle prime tombe a dado etrusche. Diffusione di un tipo architettonico da Cerveteri a San Giuliano”, Studi Etruschi 61 (1996) 57-93; cf. J. Magness, “A Near Eastern Ethnic Element Among the Etruscan Elite?”, Etruscan Studies, Journal of the Etruscan Foundation 8 (2001) 79-118; cf. S. Steingraber, “New Discoveries and Research in Southern Etruscan Rock Tombs”, Etruscan Studies, Journal of the Etruscan Foundation 3 (1996) 75-104. 64. Cf. Ussishkin, “The Rock-Cut Tombs at Van”, 253-64; cf. Baughan, Couched in Death; cf. K. Köroğlu, “New Observations on the Origin of the Single-Roomed Rock-Cut Tombs of Eastern Anatolia”, in M. Alparslan/M. Doğan-Alparslan/H. Peker (ed.s), Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan, VITA, Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol (İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2007) 445-56; cf. V. Karageorghis, “The Relations between the Tomb Architecture of Anatolia and Cyprus in the Archaic Period”, in E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1978) 361-8; Cf. A. Greve, Sepulkrale Hofarchitekturen im Hellenismus: Alexandria - Nea Paphos - Kyrene, Contextualizing the sacred, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2014); O. Tal, The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine: between Tradition and Renewal (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2006), (Hebrew). For the Assyrian Iron Age II burial customs see T. Hodos, Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean (New York: Routledge, 2006), 51-5. 65. Cf. Baughan, Couched in Death, 182-3.
Because of the regional and local characterisations of the styles of the burial caves, and the lack of parallels with the decorations of H1, a greater significance for the comparison of the SEC Hypogea is expected with tombs of the Jerusalem area and its adjacent regions. Among these tombs, twenty-one were selected in accordance with the criteria presented in § 2.3.1. Below is the list of these tombs with their respective rank numbers,⁶⁶ the characteristics which determined their selection,⁶⁷ their current dating and the presence of material culture in the tomb:⁶⁸ 3. Schmidt Institut Hypogeum: proximity, multichambered plan, raised headrests; Iron Age II. 4. White Sisters Tomb 1: proximity, multi-chambered plan, possible vestibule; Iron Age II. 5. Sultan Suleiman Street Cave 1: proximity, multichambered plan; Iron Age II; material culture. 6. Sultan Suleiman Street Cave 2: proximity, twochambered plan, raised headrests; Iron Age II. 7. Western City Wall Tomb 1: sunken headrests; Iron Age II. 8. Western City Wall Tomb 1: sunken headrests; Iron Age II. 9. Ketef Hinnom Cave 20: multi-chambered plan, right-angled cornice, possible vestibule; Iron Age IINeo-Babylonian. 10. Ketef Hinnom Cave 24: multi-chambered plan, repositories, sunken headrests; Iron Age II - NeoBabylonian; material culture. 11. Mount Zion Burial Cave: two-chambered plan; Iron Age II; material culture. 12. Silwan Tomb 2: one-chambered, right-angled cornice; Iron Age II. 13. An-Nabi Danyal Cave 6: two-chambered plan, possible vestibule; Iron Age II. 66. In the database, the rank number 1 and 2 are reserved respectively to H1 and H2. 67. The burial cave in the Ecce Homo compound in Jerusalem, which presents a multi-chambered plan and doorways similar to those of the SEC Hypogea, is not considered in this comparison because of the absence of information on the material culture, and its deep transformation occurred during the centuries (cf. Clermont-Ganneau/Aubrey, Archaeological Researches, 49-77), while the “Great Cave” at Van, Anatolia, paralleled to H1 by Kloner/Barkay 1986 and Ussishskin 1994 (cf. Ussishkin, “The Rock-Cut Tombs at Van”, 255) because of its multi-chambered plan and the right-angled cornice in its Main Chamber, is not considered in our comparison because does not present three-benched burial chambers and because its dimensions are far larger than the other burial caves of the database, fact which would hinder the statistical significance of the comparison. 68. The denominations “tomb” or “cave” are used according to the use in the publications related to each burial cave.
Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features
14. Burial Cave between Beit Hanina and Nabi Samwil: one-chambered plan, sunken headrests; Iron Age II; material culture. 15. Suba Burial Cave: two-chambered plan, raised headrests, hole on bench; Iron Age II; material culture. 16. Khirbet Bei Lei Burial Cave: multi-chambered plan, right-angled cornice; Iron Age II-Neo-Babylonian; material culture. 17. Lachish Tomb 106: three-chambered plan, material culture; Iron Age II, material culture. 18. Tel Goded Burial Cave: multi-chambered plan; Iron Age II; material culture. 19. Khirbet Kabar Cave 1: one-chambered plan; Persian; material culture. 20. Khirbet Kabar Cave 2: one-chambered plan; Persian; material culture. 21. Qalandiya Tomb 2: one-chambered plan, sunken headrests; Hellenistic. 22. Burial Cave near Gilo: one-chambered; Late Hellenistic; material culture. 23. Ramat Polin Burial Cave: one-chambered plan; Late Hellenistic; material culture. It is worth noting that, all the multi-chambered benchtype burial caves known in the regions considered are inserted in the selection. Other burial caves presenting a multi-chambered plan, but with niched-benches are not considered because they present a different style proper to the southern part of the Judean region, as stated by Yezerski 2013.⁶⁹ 2.3.3 The database of the burial caves The database named SEC HYPOGEA COMPARE is constituted with the program FileMaker Pro 12, in order to facilitate the comparison of SEC Hypogea with the twenty-two burial caves selected. The three layouts realised and the methodology of the calculations carried out through the database are presented respectively in § 2.3.3.1 and § 2.3.3.2. 2.3.3.1 The layouts of the database The dimensions, plans and photos of H1, H2 and of the twenty-two burial caves are inserted in the database using three layouts: a. Main, b. Comparative analysis and c. Figures. a. Main: - general guidelines: • Each tomb of the database has a “rank” number, from 1 to 24, shown in the all three layouts. 69. Cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 61-6.
67
• The fields are grouped in twelve clusters: “Denomination”, “Main chamber”, “Entrance chamber”, “Burial chamber/s”, “Entrance opening”, “Doorway openings”, “Benches”, “Parapets”, “Headrests”, “Unit of measurement”, “General remarks”, and “Bibliographic references”, while five thumbnail images show the plan, sections and photos of the tomb. • The Main chamber is defined as the chamber to which one or more burial chambers are connected and where no burial benches are hewn, while the Entrance chamber is defined as a chamber to which one or more burial chambers are connected and where there is one or more burial benches.⁷⁰ • The fields of the dimensions are all calculated in averages, since no burial cave presents perfectly symmetrical dimensions. • For the Benches, all the dimensions are calculated in averages of all the measurable benches on the side of the burial chamber, from the entrance sidewall to the intersection with the transversal bench. • Only the Openings of closed repositories are considered, not the pit repositories. The repositories themselves presenting dimensions that are too disparate and irregular to constitute a significant term of comparison, and often difficult to measure, their dimensions are not inserted in the database.⁷¹ • Beside all the fields of all the dimensions inserted in the database, a field “estimation” states if the measurement was taken directly by the redactor of this dissertation or given in the publication relative to the tomb (no), or if it is estimated in the publication or from the plans and sections presented in the publication (yes). • A “note” field under the each cluster of dimensions fields, specify if the estimations are from the plan only, from the section only, from the plan and the section/s or if the estimation are of the original status of the features measured made by the excavator, or by the redactor, or from the drawings, or other relevant information. • All the measurement are expressed in metres. - key fields:⁷² • Denomination: the name currently used to designate the tomb in the academic literature. • Location: the name of the location of the tomb. 70. This distinction is made because of the different use of the Main chamber (a hall without benches) and the Entrance chamber (a burial chamber directly accessed from the exterior and connected to other burial chambers). 71. In the Iron Age II burial caves, the repositories present a large variety of morphology: cubical, parallelepiped, elliptical, ovoid, circular, cylindrical, circular (Cf. H. Nutkowicz, L’homme face à la mort au royaume de Juda: Rites, pratiques et representations (Cerfs: Paris, 2006) 100-11). 72. Cf. figure 28.
68
Methodology
• Sector: geographical region of the location. • Type: the entries are “bench-type”, “standing pit”, and “trough”. • Plan: the entries are “multi-chambered”, “threechambered”, “two-chambered”, and “one-chambered”. • Courtyard: presence of a courtyard at the entrance of the tomb; the entries are “yes”, “no”, “?”. • Entrance: the type of entrance to the burial complex; the entries are “framed”, “direct”, “vestibule”, “vestibule?”, and “?”. • Dating: the dating of the hewing, accepted by the majority of the scholars. • Material culture: If material culture was retrieved and documented “yes”; if no material culture was retrieved “no”; if material culture was retrieved but is not documented and/or was lost “?”. • Material culture note: brief information on the material culture retrieved. • Dimensions of the Main chamber: organised in three fields, namely “length”, “width”, and “height”. • Dimensions of the Entrance chamber: organised in three fields, namely “length”, “width”, and “height”. • Dimensions of the Burial chambers: organised in three fields, namely “length average”, “width average”, and “height average”. • Dimension Entrance opening: organised in three fields, namely “width”, “height”, and “depth”. • Dimensions of the benches: organised in three fields, namely “length average”, “width average”, and “height average”. • Dimensions of the Parapets: organised in three fields, namely “average width”, and “average height”. • Type of headrests: the entries are “raised” and “sunken”. • Dimensions of the Headrests: organised in three fields, namely “average length”, “average width”, and “average height”. • Dimensions of Repository openings: organised in three fields, namely “average width”, “average height”, and “average depth”. • Unit of measurement: the entries are “long cubit”, “short cubit”, and “?”. • General remarks: further significant information concerning the tomb. • Bibliographic references: references of major publications about the tomb. b. Comparative analysis⁷³ - general guidelines: 73. This layout presents the processed figures which are significant for the comparison among the burial caves.
• The fields are organised in four clusters: “Proportions”, “Unit of measurement”, “Measures and general averages”, and “Coefficient of variation and Standard deviations”. • For the conversion of the dimensions of the burial caves in the database, the long cubit of 0.525 m and the short cubit of 0.45 m are used, in accordance with the major scholars.⁷⁴ • The averages are calculated from the totality of the tombs of the database; however, by sorting the records of the tombs according to other categories, other averages can be calculated.⁷⁵ • The standard deviation (sd) measures the dispersion of a population of data and is calculated with the formula r P
N (xi –x¯)2
i=1 σx = , where N is the number of units N considered, x the value for a unit and x¯ is the average.⁷⁶ • The coefficient of variation (cv) is the standard deviation in percentage, namely sd/average.⁷⁷
- key fields:⁷⁸ • in the “Proportions” cluster, the proportions “width/length” and “height/length” are calculated for the Main chamber, the Entrance chamber the Burial chamber/s and the Benches, while for the Entrance openings and the Repositories openings the proportions “width/height” are calculated; • in the “Unit of measurement” cluster the following are converted into long and short cubits: the “length”, the “width” and the “height” for the Main chamber, the Entrance chamber, the Burial chamber/s, the Benches, and the “width” and the “depth” for the Entrance openings and the Repositories openings; • the “Measures and general averages” cluster present the “length”, “width”, and “height” of the Main chamber, the Entrance chamber, the Burial chambers, the Benches, and the “width”, “height” and “depth” of the Entrance opening and the Repositories’ openings, and 74. Cf. G. Barkay, “The Cubit of the Old Standard: An Archaeological Consideration of a Problem in Biblical Metrology”, Sixth Archaeological Conference in Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1979), (Hebrrew) 35; cf. G. Barkay, “Caves North of Damascus Gate and the Date of Jerusalem’s Northern Moat”, Cathedra 83 (1997), (Hebrew) 7-26; cf. A. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves in Jerusalem and Its Vicinity”, Bulletin of the AngloIsrael Archaeological Society 19-20 (2001) 95-108, on p. 104-8; cf. Tufnell, Lachish III, 179-87. 75. For example, by sorting the records of the tombs dated to the same period, the layout shows the averages of the dimensions of the sorted records. 76. Cf. T.L. Van Pool/R.D. Leonard, Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology (Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) 51-2. 77. Cf. Van Pool/Leonard, Quantitative Analysis, 139-41. 78. Cf. figure 29. In this layout, the denomination and the dating of the tomb are also reported. The figures in the cluster “Measures and general averages” are in meters.
Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features
the averages of these same fields calculated on all the records sorted;⁷⁹ • the “Coefficients of variation (cv) and Standard deviations (sd)” cluster shows the calculations of the coefficients of variation and the standard deviations of “length”, “width” and “height” of the Main Chamber, the Entrance Chamber, the Burial Chamber and the Benches, and the “width”, “height” and “depth” of the Entrance Opening and the Repository Opening.⁸⁰ c. Figures.⁸¹
2.3.3.2 The calculations of the units of measurement: long or short cubits? The academic literature offers no exhaustive study on the use of the different units of measurements in the Levant,⁸² and the carving of the burial caves is often too imprecise to allow a reliable detection of the unit of measurement;⁸³ moreover, in ancient times the length of the long and short cubits was not standardised.⁸⁴ 79. Sorting the records according to their dating, the averages shown are calculated from the figures of the sorted burial caves, thus allowing comparison of the figures for different periods. 80. To facilitate the comparison among the burial caves sorted according to a specific criterion, the same fields are presented in a fixed configuration where the calculation for all the burial caves of the database is shown. 81. Cf. figure 30. In this layout, as a reminder, only part of the plans, sections, and photos of the selected tombs, is presented. 82. To our knowledge, the only study on the unit of measurement of Jerusalem’s tombs is the short article published in 1892 by Petrie (cf. F. Petrie, “The Tomb Cutter’s Cubit at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 24 (1892) 28-35). 83. As Ussishkin 1993 pointed out, in determining the unit of measurement used by stone-masons, it must be assumed that “not all the measurements in the tombs would fit this units. For various reasons deviations of a few centimeters can be expected in every measurement. Accurate stone-cutting is an arduous task and it was not always possible to execute the lines exactly as planned. For instance, a mistake in cutting a wall could be corrected by adding a few centimeters to the chamber, thus producing a tomb which was slightly larger than planned. On the other hand, an error in preparing a burial bench could be rectified by making it a few centimeters smaller than planned. It is also possible that a mason cut a straight line which satisfied his needs and decided not to continue it merely in order to complete the measuring unit according to the plan. Presumably the stone-mason sometimes cut freehand and it is likely that elements were hewn which did not correspond to the basic unit”, D. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan. The Necropolis form the Period of the Judean Kingdom (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993) 285. 84. The use of the cubit, long and short, is attested in several Late Iron Age II tombs in the Jerusalem area and in the neighboring regions, for example in the Silwan Necropolis (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 284-9), a tomb in the Gibeon Iron Age II Necropolis (cf. H. Eshel, “The Late Iron Age Cemetery of Gibeon”, IEJ 37 (1987) 1-17). Concerning the relative chronology in the use of the long and short cubits, based on archaeological evidences, some scholars would maintain that the short cubit was used before the long cubit (cf. ibid.). In contrast, Petit 2000 shows how the calcu-
69
In this dissertation the dimensions of the main chambers, the entrance chambers, the burial chambers, the benches, the entrance openings and the repository openings are calculated in long and short cubits, measuring respectively 0.525 m and 0.45 m, as stated in the previous Section.⁸⁵ The long and the short cubits were divided in fractions called “span” (half cubit), “palm” (a sixth of a cubit), and “finger” (a fourth of a palm).⁸⁶ Since cubits and fraction of cubits may have been used for the hewing of the tombs, for each dimensions considered (main chambers, entrance chambers, burial chambers, benches, entrance openings and repository openings) the conversions in long and short cubits are structured in twelve Excel panels where the figures are expressed in cubits and their fractions.⁸⁷ Since the dimensions of the tombs are not precise and in some cases the figures inserted in the database are averages of several dimensions (for the “burial chambers”, the “benches”, the “entrance openings” and the “repository openings”), a range of +/- 0.03 m is considered acceptable to fit the cubit unit of measurement. lations of the long and short cubit in Palestine are based more on the texts than on the archaeological evidence, with the exception of the inscription of the Siloe’s tunnel, which is however only a celebrative text that cannot be reliably matched with the topography of the tunnel itself (cf. T. Petit, “Usage de la coudée dans l’architecture palatiale de Chypre au premier millénaire”, Ktema: Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome Antiques, 25 (2000) 179-83). According to Petit 2000: “De tous ces développements, il subsiste la possibilité qu’il ait existé en Israël une coudée «courte», celle qui semble en usage à Siloé, proche de la valeur relevée sur les bâtiments cypriotes. Rien de plus ne peut être conclu avec assurance des données hébraïques; la moisson est donc plus maigre qu’espéré”, ibid. 183. More recently, Lightbody 2008 states that the reform which realised the passage from the Royal cubit of 7 palms, used during the Old and Middle Kingdoms in Egypt, to the Royal cubit of 6 palms, 0.532-0.533 m long, in the New Kingdom, though the new cubit seems to be used since the New Kingdom, occurred officially only during the 26th Dynasty, around 600 BC, and that there is enough evidence to affirm that the Late Egyptian cubit was used in the architecture of major buildings in Cyprus during the Iron Age (cf. D.I. Lightbody, “The Cubit in Iron Age Cypriot Architecture”, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, vol. 2008 (2008) 291-306, on pp. 298, 302). 85. The test of other ancient units of measurement showed that these units do not match better to the dimensions of the burial caves of the database than the long and short cubits. The following units of measurement were considered: 1. the paleo-Babylonian, neoBabylonian cubit 0.5 m; 2. the ‘Chyprus’ cubit 0.46 m (cf. Petit, “Usage de la coudée”, 179-85.) ; 3. the neo-Assyrian cubit 0.395 m (cf. D.J. Wieseman, “A Babylonian Architect ?”, Anatolian Studies 22 (1972) 141-7, on p. 143). Also Greek units of measurement (the Doric foot = 0.3284 m, the Salamis foot = 0.307 m, and the Salamis cubit = 0.4915 m) were tested without positive results (cf. J.M. Wilson, “Doric Measure and Architectural Design 1: The Evidence of the Relief from Salamis”, American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000) 73-94. and R.R. Stieglitz, “Classical Greek Measures and the Builder’s Instruments from the Ma’agan Mikhael Shipwreck”, American Journal of Archaeology 110 (2006) 195-203). 86. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 35. The authors also consider the “reed”, which was six cubits long. 87. Cf. figure 29.
70
Methodology
fig. 28
fig. 29
Layout “Main” of the SEC COMPARE DATABASE
Layout “Comparative analysis” of the SEC COMPARE DATABASE
Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features
fig. 30
Layout “Figures” of the SEC COMPARE DATABASE
71
Chapter 3 Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area As part of the broader context of the Near East, and with its long and troubled history, Jerusalem constitutes an intricate and fascinating object for topographical and archaeological studies. Most of its archaeological sites are the result of centuries of stratification of human activities, characterised by the superposition and the reutilisation in different periods of the same location. A rich documentation of literary sources,¹ which begins as early as C19-C18 BC with the Egyptian execration texts,² offers a huge amount of information on its history and monuments, at least as much as it is offered by the exceptionally numerous excavations carried out lately in the Jerusalem region.³ The topographical⁴ contextualisation of the SEC Hypogea demands, from one side, the analysis of the evolution of the urban area of Jerusalem and its outskirts (§ 3.1), from the other, the analysis of the distribution of the necropolises in Jerusalem (§ 3.2); the study of the use of the main characteristic feature of the SEC Hypogea, namely the burial bench, is presented in § 3.3, followed by the summary of this Chapter in § 3.4.
divisible capital’ of the State of Israel,⁶ about 6500 years of history are stratified in the Jerusalem area (cf. figure 31). The impossibility of finding a shared criterion for the establishment of an Ancient chronology in the Southern Levant, as for any other area, naturally produces a number of different chronologies, the systematic comparison of which is outside the present work’s scope. The chronology chosen here is based on that presented in the fourth volume of the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, which constitutes a common reference for the archaeological researches in the Southern Levant (cf. figure 32).⁷
6.
3.1 Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area From the scant remains left on the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem by the Chalcolithic settlement near the Gihon spring, in the bottom of the Cedron Valley,⁵ until today‘s frenetic building activity of the unilaterally-declared ‘in1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
The most exhaustive list of texts related to Jerusalem is presented in Küchler, Jerusalem, 1166-70. Cf. O. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 50-2. Cf. Geva, “History of Archaeological Research”, 801-4; cf. Greenberg/Keinan, Israeli Archaeological Activity, 8-10; cf. Seligman, “The Department of Antiquities”, 125-46. For the use of the term “topography” in this dissertation refer to note 7, Chapter 1. Cf. A.M. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem: From the Late Proto-Historic Periods (ca. 5th Millennium) to the
7.
End of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200 B.C.E.)” in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, 2011) 170-87. The name “Gihon” comes from giha, namely a “gushing forth”, a charstic spring (cf. J. Murphy O’Connor, “Jerusalem”, in The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3 (Nashville, TN: Abingdom Press, 2008)), which is in reality a natural syphon (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 57). “In 2009, the areas in Jerusalem where construction was initiated (residential and non-residential) increased significantly, measuring 537,000 square meters (floor space), compared to 371,000 square meters in 2008 and 463,000 square meters in 2007. Areas of new construction in Jerusalem constituted 6% of the total area in Israel where new construction was initiated. In Tel Aviv this figure was approximately 5% and in Haifa, approximately 0.4%”, M. Choshen/M. Korach, Jerusalem: Facts and Trends 2011 (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2011) 47-8. NEAEHL 4, 1993, 1529. In this sense: “the general chronological framework used by the contributors in dealing with the periods spanning the Early Bronze Age through to the British conquest of Palestine in 1917 CE, is presented in Figure 3. Following the Chalcolithic period, the importance of radiocarbon dating diminishes and relative chronologies become more important. These are based primarily on typological studies of pottery sequences obtained through careful regional studies of stratified assemblages. When these regional sequences are compared, it is possible to build a general temporal framework for the entire Holy Land. From the Early Bronze Age onwards, ca. 3000 BCE, the historical chronology of the Holy Land is based primarily on that of Egypt (cf. Stager 1992). As Mazar (1990: 28) points out, Egyptian artifacts found in the Holy Land - including royal inscriptions, scarab seals, and other finds - and
74
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
In this Section an outline of the topographical evolution of the Jerusalem area is presented, from the Bronze Age to the end of the Ottoman period. Considering the limited scope of this Section, the archaeological remains presented for each period are selected according to their relevance for the estimations of the size, border and population of Jerusalem, when available. Specifically, from the Bronze Age (§ 3.1.1), through the Iron Age (§ 3.1.2), the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (§ 3.1.3), to the end of the Hellenistic period (§ 3.1.4), a more detailed presentation of the relatively meagre archaeological vestiges is possible, while for the period starting with the reign of Herod the Great (§ 3.1.5) and until the end of the Ottoman period (§ 3.1.6), widely documented by a large quantity of archaeological remains, a general presentation is adequate for the purpose of this Section. 3.1.1 The Bronze Age (3500-1200 BC) While in the central hill country a number of small settlements of the Early Bronze I period⁸ progressively developed into relatively large and fortified cities, such as Ai, Tell el-Nasbeh, and Tell el-Far’ah [North],⁹ the scarce
8.
9.
artifacts exported from the Holy Land to Egypt and discovered in dated contexts provide the basis for our historical chronological framework. This is due to the close role that Egypt played in the history of our region from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age and later periods”. The periodization proposed in NEAEHL 1993 presents however few imprecisions, defining as “Early Arab period”, from 638 AD to 1099 AD, the Umayyad and Abbasid periods, while ascribing to the Fatimid rule the beginning of the Late Arab period, starting in 1291 AD, when the Fatimid Caliphs reigned in Jerusalem in 970-1073 AD and 1098-1099 AD (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1125-6). An imprecision can be considered also the ethnic-cultural definition of “Arab” to the periods where Jerusalem was ruled by non-Arab dynasties, namely the Fatimid dynasty (Berber), the Ayyubid dynasty (Kurdish) the Seljuk and Ottoman dynasties (Turkish), the Mamluk rulers being of different non-Arab origins. In this sense, the “Early Islamic period” and “Late Islamic period” are more appropriate and are used in the present work. In the present book, the periodization of the Bronze Age is the following: Early Bronze Age IA-B (3500-3000 BC), Early Bronze Age II (3000-2700 BC), Early Bronze Age III (2700-2200 BC), Middle Bronze Age Iron Age (EB IV – Intermediate Bronze)(2200-2000 BC), Middle Bronze Age IIA (2000-1750 BC), Middle Bronze Age IIB (1750-1550 BC), Late Bronze Age I (1550-1400 BC), Late Bronze Age IIA (1400-1300 BC), and Late Bronze Age IIB (1300-1200 BC), cf. figure 32. “A livello insediamentale, il passaggio dalla società di villaggio del Bronzo Antico I al sistema dei centri fortificati del Bronzo Antico II-III appare segnato in primis da un diffuso abbandono degli insediamenti rurali del Bronzo Antico IB a favore di una progressiva concentrazione della popolazione in alcuni centri maggiori; in secondo luogo, da un cambiamento nell’organizzazione stessa degli insediamenti, dove all’abitato sparso dei villaggi aperti subentrano un insediamento via via più fitto e una crescente pianificazione urbana (Nigro 2005: 35-36, 200-202), specchio della progressiva integrazione sociale e dell’emergere di un’autorità centrale”, M. Sala, L’architettura sacra della Palestina nell’età del Bronzo Antico I-II. Contesto archeologico,
remains and findings dated to the Early Bronze I-Early Bronze II unearthed in the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem suggest that the small settlement remained a minor agricultural site, which developed into a fortified city only during the second millennium BC.¹⁰ The Intermediate Bronze Age period (Early Bronze IV / Middle Bronze I) is represented in the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem by only a few finds, which provide no evidence of a settlement in this period.¹¹ Only the presence of about 20 tombs on the Mount of Olives, others in Bethany, in the Silwan village and perhaps on the site of the Augusta Victoria Hospital, hints at a human presence in the area in this period. The lack of any evidence of settlement and the presence of several tombs in the Jerusalem area may be explained supposing that a society of nomads, who buried their members in the area, did not settle permanently, or by the fact that permanent settlements have not been found yet, because of the relatively small scale of the excavations in the mountainous areas near Jerusalem.¹² During the Middle Bronze IIB, around 1700 BC, in the wake of the major developments, common to the settlements in the Southern Levant,¹³ rušlm(m)¹⁴ became a city among the Canaanite city-states, which flourished in the region from the Middle Bronze II to the Late Bronze.¹⁵ Segments of imposing fortifications dating to the Middle Bronze IIB, and in use apparently until the Iron Age II period,¹⁶ were uncovered by the excavations of Kenyon in the northern part of the hill,¹⁷ and along the eastern slope, especially by the Gihon spring, unearthed in the excavations of Reich and Shukrun.¹⁸ Several tombs dated
10. 11. 12. 13.
14.
15. 16.
17. 18.
analisi, architettura e sviluppo storico (Roma: CMA, Università la Sapienza, 2007) 116-7. Cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 174. In Kloner’s survey 15 sites are reported for this period (cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem: The North-western sector, 20*). Cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 174-5. Cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 82. As in the central hills, no major remains of MB IIA were found in the southeastern hill of Jerusalem, but only one tomb and a scarab dating to the 12th dynasty (cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 176-7.) The hieroglyph naming the city in the Execrations Texts (ca. 1820-1760 BC), accompanied by the determinative “Foreign Country” - “Mountainous Country” cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 51. Cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 176. Cf. J. Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence”, in A.G. Vaughn/A.E. Killebrew (ed.s), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003) 13-80, on p. 22. More recently, Ussishkin questioned the dating to MB II, suggesting that the massive walls in question could be dated to the 8th-7th BC (cf. D. Ussishkin, “Was Jerusalem a fortified stronghold in the Middle Bronze Age? — an alternative view”, Levant 48 (2016) 135-51). Cf. K. Kenyon, “Excavation in Jerusalem. 1967”, PEQ 100 (1968) 97-111. Cf. R. Reich/E. Shukrun, “The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem”, Levant 36 (2004) 211-23.
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
fig. 31
Map of Jerusalem, Vincent, 1911, EBAF
75
76
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
fig. 32
Chronological table, NEAEHL 4 1529 (modified)
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
to this period were discovered on the Mount of Olives, the Silwan village and near the At-Tor village.¹⁹ Surrounded by rural villages, such as the ones found in Pisgat Ze’ev and the Rephaim Valley,²⁰ the city continued to expand during C17 BC and C16 BC,²¹ bringing its size to no more than 4 ha,²² which is a relatively small city for the region at that period.²³ More than by the scant archaeological remains found on the south-eastern hill, the continuity of the settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age is revealed primarily by the continued utilisation of the necropolises, especially the one near the “Dominus Flevit”, on the Mount of Olives. Unexpectedly, although it was the case for most of the fortified cities of the region in that period, no signs of violent destruction have been found until now.²⁴ During the Late Bronze Age, the settlements in the region were smaller in size and number, than in the Middle Bronze Age, and they were unfortified or protected only by the old MB walls.²⁵ Consistently, the excavations on the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem produced no stratified evidence which may be ascribed to the first part of the Late Bronze Age (C16-C15 BC), only pottery found in later fills and the tombs found in the surroundings suggesting the continuation of the settlement in that period.²⁶ In the second part of the Late Bronze Age (C14-C13 BC), the scant stratified remains uncovered in the south-eastern hill,²⁷ 19. Cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 177. 20. Cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 178. 21. “These building activities continued into the Middle Bronze IIB (the 17th and 16th centuries B.C.E.), however, with only limited remains for this later stage. The city did continued to exist and was characterized by a rich material culture, as can be seen from the evidence uncovered in the burial caves in and around the immediate vicinity of the city”, Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 178. 22. Cf. E. Mazar, “The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Second Millennium BCE in Light of the New Excavations in the City of David”, in E. Baruch/A. Faust (ed.s), New Studies on Jerusalem, vol 12 (Ramat-Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 2006), (Hebrew with English abstracts) 21-28, 8*-9*. 23. “It appears that the nearly 400 known Middle Bronze Age sites in Palestine can be grouped into three categories, arranged in a three-tiered hierarchy: large urban sites, about 20 to 175 acres [= 8 to 70 ha], comprising some 5 percent of the total; mediumsized towns, about 7 to 20 acres [= 2.8 to 8 ha], accounting for about 10 percent; and villages and hamlets of about 1 to 7 acres [= 0.4 to 2.8 ha], making up about 85 percent”, W.G. Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era”, The Biblical Archaeologist 50 (1987) 148-177, on p. 153. 24. Cf. Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy”, 26. 25. Cf. R. Gonen, “Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Age Period”, BASOR 253 (1984) 61-74, on p. 62. 26. Cf. Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy”, 27. 27. The stone terraces found in Kenyon’s excavations Area A and Shiloh’s Area G on the ridge of the south-eastern hill, at first dated to the Late Bronze II, have more recently been dated up to the last phase of Late Bronze or even the beginning of the Iron Age period. The only Late Bronze findings in the south-eastern
77
coupled with the discoveries in the nearby hills,²⁸ give the picture of a small and perhaps fortified settlement,²⁹ populated by no more than a few hundreds inhabitants.³⁰ The six Amarna letters (EA 285-290),³¹ dating to the second half of C14 BC,³² and sent by Abdi-Heba,³³ king of Úrusalim,³⁴ to Pharaoh, give a different picture of the city and of its hinterland. Consistently with the regional framework of the other city-states of the region, in that period, in Úrusalim there should have been “a palace and a court, with attendants and servants; a temple in which the ’king’ held a central role; and an ideology that established his position as head of state; a scribe (although some remote courts shared a single scribe), who was in charge of the diplomatic correspondence with the Egyptian authorities”.³⁵ The incongruence between the textual and the archaeological pictures may be explained by the fact that the successive cities built on the terraces of the south-eastern hill generally levelled the previous constructions to the bedrock,
28.
29.
30.
31. 32. 33.
34. 35.
hill are, so far, a few pottery shards in Shiloh’s Area E1 and a few others found by Macalister and Duncan; finally, a tomb was found in the western part of Jerusalem, published by Amiran in 1960 (cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 179-80). Several tombs near the “Dominus Flevit” on the Mount of Olives, in Bethany, and to the South the pottery found in a cistern with stairs at Armon Hanatziv (cf. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 180). Cf. Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy”, 32. For a bibliography on the absence of any settlement or the existence of a small and fortified capital of a “baronial state” on the south-eastern hill see ibid. note 65. Cf. I. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age: Archaeology and Text; Reality and Myth”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 189-201, on p. 190. Cf. W. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) 325-34. Cf. N. Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B. C. E.”, BASOR 304 (1996) 17-27, on p. 19. “The Amarna letters indicate that Shechem and Jerusalem were the seats of local dynasties. Canaanite rulers were considered by the Egyptian administration as mayors (azannu), like the governors of Egyptian towns (h3ty-C), and were obliged to take the oath in the king’s name (Helck 1971: 246-47; Redford 1990: 28-29; 1992: 198-99). Their title reflects the Egyptian ideology, according to which only the ’Sun-God’ was a king and his subjects were called by a lesser title; moreover, it emphasized the fact that their position depended on the approval of their overlord and that they were royal appointees (Liverani 1990: 144-49, 180-86, 230-39). In non-Egyptian correspondence they were called ’kings’ (Qarru). This is indicated in letters written by ’Great Kings’ (i.e., the kings of Babylonia [EA 8: 25] and Mitanni [EA 30: 1]), and by local rulers (for a list of references, see Na’aman 1988: 182-83, n. 18). Also, in a tablet recently discovered at Beth-shean, Tagu, ruler of Ginti-kirmil, addresses Lab’ayu, ruler of Shechem, by the title ”king” (Horowitz 1995)”, Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters”, 20. “Úrusalim” is the name of the city in the Amarna letters (cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 52-3). Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters”, 21.
78
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
leaving scant remains of the earlier periods;³⁶ an alternative and purely hypothetical explanation³⁷ was first proposed by Knauf 2000³⁸ and further developed by Ussishkin 2009³⁹ and Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits 2011,⁴⁰ namely that, from the Late Bronze II to the Iron Age IIA, Jerusalem may have been located on the “Mound of the Mount”, recovered in C1 BC by Herod’s the Great temenos.⁴¹ More probably, from the findings and the textual evidence, the location and size of Úrusalim may be estimated being the same of the city at the Middle Bronze period, making of Jerusalem a small city with a little economic and strength relevance, nevertheless “playing the role of a political center of some importance on the local Canaanite scene”.⁴² 3.1.2 The Iron Age (1200-586 BC) Between the end of C13 BC and the beginning of C11 BC,⁴³ the invasion by the Sea People in the Levant contributed to the decline of the City-Culture in the region, while, from the southern coastal region, the expansive politics of the Philistines drove the fragmented Israelite settlements of the hill country to unite.⁴⁴ Probably because it was located in a remote corner of the Levant, and was economically and strategically uninteresting, Jerusalem seems to have experienced no destruction in this troubled period.⁴⁵ 36. 37. 38. 39.
40. 41.
42. 43.
44. 45.
Cf. Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters”, 19. Since no archaeological evidence may found this hypothesis, the area being out of reaches to any excavation. Cf. E.A. Knauf, “Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal”, Tel Aviv 27 (2000) 75-97. Cf. D. Ussishkin, “The Temple Mount in Jerusalem During the First Temple Period: An Archaeologist’s View”, in D. Schloen, (ed.), Exploring the Longue Duree—Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 473–83. Cf. I. Finkelstein/I. Koch/O. Lipschits, “The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the ’Problem with Jerusalem”’, JHS 11 (2011) 2-24. A feeble clue for the hypothesis presented in the text might be the cuneiform tablet dated to the Late Bronze age, which was discovered during the sieving of the excavations at the Ophel carried out between November 2009 and February 2010 by Eilat Mazar (cf. E. Mazar/W. Horowitz/T. Oshima/Y. Goren, “A Cuneiform Tablet from the Ophel in Jerusalem”, IEJ 60 (2010) 4-21, and cf. C.A. Rollston, “A fragmentary cuneiform tablet from the Ophel (Jerusalem): methodological musings about the proposed genre and Sitz im Leben”, Antiguo Oriente 8 (2010) 11-21); for the supposed existence of a Canaanite sanctuary on the Temple Mount see K. Rupprecht, “Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebuseitisches Erbe?”, BZAW 144 (1977) 5-15. Maier, “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem”, 181. See also Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 129, and Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 190. In the present book, the periodization of the Iron Age is the following: Iron Age IA (1200-1150 BC), Iron Age IB (1150-1000 BC), Iron Age IIA (1000-925 BC), Iron Age IIB (925-720 BC) and Iron Age IIC (720-586 BC), cf. figure 32. Cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 133. Cf. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 189.
The interpretation of the archaeological evidence of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem and the periodization of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant are the object of an endless debate, deeply related to the Biblical studies,⁴⁶ and to the quest of the historical beginnings of the Israelite and Judean states, with a strong ideological and political connotation in the background.⁴⁷ In particular, the dating of the so-called ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ and its supposed connections with the newly discovered ‘Large Stone Structure’,⁴⁸ in the northern part of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem, constitute the major archaeological issue in the dispute on the “Davidic Jerusalem”, the Iron Age II A period. The “Stepped Stone Structure”, excavated several times from the 1920’s Macalister and Duncan digs, until the 1984 Shiloh excavations,⁴⁹ is the support system for the 46. The conquest of Jerusalem by David, related in 2 Sam 5:6-9 and 1 Chr 11:4-8 “abounds in problems, and no certitude is to be had regarding details. The name of the town as Jebus, and the identity of the Jebusites is still debated. The sinnor, which was the key to victory, and the millo have not been convincingly identified. The event is dated to the beginning of the 10th cent. BC”, J. Murphy-O’Connor, Key to Jerusalem: Collected Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 6. For historical-critical remarks to 2 Sam 5:6-10 and 1 Chr 11:4-9 see Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 169-75. More recently, Finkelstein offered a summary of the main questions related to the periodisation of the history of ancient Israel, proposing a sort of “via media” between the maximalism and the minimalism which polarise the heated debate on the historicity of the biblical texts (cf. I. Finkelstein, “History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015”, RivB 63 (2015) 371-92). 47. For a short presentation of the debate on the periodization of the Iron Age period, see A. Mazar, “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. Its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution”, in T.E. Levy/T. Higham (ed.s), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox, 2005) 15-30. For the most recent development of this debate see I. Finkelstein/E. Piasetzky, “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?”, NEA 74 (2011) 50-4, A. Mazar, “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint”, NEA 74 (2011) 105-11, and Z. Thomas, “Debating the United Monarchy: Let’s See How Far We’ve Come”, Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 46.2 (2016) 59-69. For an introduction to the ideological implications of the researches on David’s and Solomon’s Jerusalem see N.A. Silberman, “Archaeology, Ideology, and the Search for David and Solomon”, in in A.G. Vaughn/A.E. Killebrew, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003) 395-405. 48. Cf. A. Faust, “Did Eilat Mazar find David’s Palace?”, BAR 38 (2012) 47-52, on pp. 49-51. 49. “[The ’Stepped Stone Structure’] is located on the crest of the City of David ridge, directly to the west of Shiloh’s Area G. This field (and the adjoining eastern slope of the ridge) has been explored extensively. It falls within the northern side of Macalister and Duncan’s Field No. 5 (Macalister and Duncan 1926: map in back pocket). Macalister and Duncan exposed most of the area down to bedrock, including several cisterns and a rock-cut ’olive press”’ (ibid.: Pl. I, cf. also the photograph ibid.: Fig. 20 with E. Mazar 2007: photograph on p. 31). They also un-
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
platforms and the constructions which were built on the north-eastern part of the hill.⁵⁰ This structure “existed continuously from at least the 2nd millennium B.C.E. until the Hellenistic period, if not later”.⁵¹ Its terraces, are dated to the end of the LA period by Kenyon 1974 and Shiloh 1984, and to the Iron Age I by Steiner 2001 and Cahill 2003,⁵² while the “Stepped Stone Mantle”, which covers the system of terraces and was in use for a long covered the ‘Jebusite Ramp’ along the upper edge of the eastern slope (Macalister and Duncan 1926: Pl. V), commonly known today as the ’Stepped Stone Structure’, as well as the two towers adjacent to the ramp—the southern, ’Great Tower’, which they attributed to the ’Early Hebrew period’, and the northern ’Maccabean Tower’ (ibid.: map in back pocket). This fortification system has been widely identified as part of the late Hellenistic, Hasmonaean First Wall of Jerusalem (e.g., Geva 2003: 529−534; Wightman 1993: 88−94). In the 1960s the area was explored by Kenyon (for the final report see Steiner 2001). On the eastern slope (in her Area A, with Sub-areas A/I−A/XVIII) Kenyon exposed parts of the ’Stepped Stone Structure’ with domestic units built over it, and investigated the set of the underlying terraces. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Shiloh continued the exploration of the eastern slope (his Area G—Shiloh 1984; for additional data on Shiloh’s excavations see Cahill 2003), studying, in the main, the same structures dealt with by Kenyon and their extensions”, I. Finkelstein/Z. Herzog/L. Singer-Avitz/D. Ussishkin, “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?”, Tel Aviv 34 (2007) 142-64, on p. 143. 50. “This is a large structure, about 40–48 m long and c. 20 m high. It includes several components, the most prominent being the ’mantle wall’, a term used by Cahill to describe the outer sloping stepped structure, which in her view was founded on a massive substructure denoted by Kenyon and Shiloh as ’terraces’. The latter are explained as a constructional feature, creating stone ’boxes’ filled with stones and intended to support the ’mantle wall’ on the steep slope of the hill. In certain places, there are earth layers between the stone ’terraces’ and the “mantle wall”, but this is not consistent and in other places the ’mantle wall’ was constructed right on top of the stone substructure or, in fact, is bonded to it”, A. Mazar, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy”, in R.G. Kratz/H. Spieckermann (ed.s), One God – One Cult – One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, BZAW 405 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010) 29-58, on p. 35. 51. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 192. 52. “Die Ausgräber rechneten zuerst mit einer Entstehung des Terrassensystems und damit der Festung in der SBZ: K. KENYON dachte - wohl wegen der Erwähnung Jerusalems in der AmarnaKorrespondenz - an die Mitte des 14.Jh.a (Digging 95-97), doch fehlt jegliche für jene Zeit typische Keramik. Shiloh rechnete die Terrassen seinem Stratum 16 zu und zögerte zwischen dem 14. Und dem 13.Jh.a (ECD 116). Die Bearbeiter der KenyonGrabung neigen eher zu einem Ansatz in der EZ I (12./11.Jh.a): M.L. STEINER vertritt eine Datierung in die EZ I, weil ein unter der 3. Terrasse liegender, versiegelter Fußboden mit Keramik aus dem späten 13./12.Jh.a den terminus post quem darstelle. Material der EZ I sei auch unter der 6. und 7. Terrasse gefunden worden, und die in der Füllung der Terrassen zahlreich vorhandene Keramik bestätige die Datierung des Systems ins 12.Jh.a. Dabei ist nach Steiner das Terrassierungssystem unabhängig vom getreppten Steinmantel entstanden, der nicht überall auf den Terrassierungen aufliegt; wo dies der Fall sei, handle es sich nicht immer um Terrassierungen der frühesten Phase (IEJ 44, 1994, 13-20; EKJ III 29, 26f). J. CAHILL UND D. TARLER, die den Endbericht der Shiloh-Grabung in Areal G vorbereiten, nehmen eine Entstehung ebenfalls am Ende des 13.Jh.a oder
79
period, according to the common view, was built as a single construction, before the Iron Age II A,⁵³ interpretation challenged by Finkelstein et al. 2007, who noted marked structural differences between the upper and the lower part of the “Stepped Stone Mantle”.⁵⁴ He proposed a dating for the lower part between the end of the Iron Age II A and the beginning of the Iron Age II B, which in both the “low chronology” and the “modified conventional chronology” is attested at the 9th-8th centuries BC,⁵⁵ while the upper part, being incorporated into the Hasmonean city-wall, may have been built in this later period.⁵⁶ The latter interpretation constitutes one of the argumentations opposed by Finkelstein 2011 to the identification made by Eilat Mazar of the “Large Stone Structure” as the foundations of David’s Palace.⁵⁷
53. 54.
55. 56.
57.
im frühen 12.Jh.a an, wobei die Terrassen gleichzeitig mit dem getreppten Steinmantel und - was unwahrscheinlich ist - nur als Substruktur für diesen Steinmantel geplant gewesen seien. Sie rechnen ebenfalls mit einer Reihe von Reparaturarbeiten und erklären auf diese Weise, warum die Terrassenfüllungen nicht alle einem einzigen keramischen Horizont zugewiesen werden können (BAT 1990, 625f; ABD II 55; BAR 24/4, 1998, 34-41)”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 25. Cf. Finkelstein/Herzog/Singer-Avitz/Ussishkin, “Has King David’s Palace”, 151. Differences in the size of the blocks, larger in the upper part and smaller in the lower part, as well as in the orientation, the lower course being oriented South-North, while the upper course being oriented North-West (cf. Finkelstein/Herzog/Singer-Avitz/Ussishkin, “Has King David’s Palace”, 151). Cf. Finkelstein/Herzog/Singer-Avitz/Ussishkin, “Has King David’s Palace”, 151-3. “Regarding the upper part of the ’Stepped Stone Mantle’, it seems that its upper courses are incorporated into the late Hellenistic, Hasmonaean city-wall. In other words, it must have been constructed — or at least rebuilt — in the late Hellenistic period. This date was originally suggested by Kenyon (1974: 192−194). Shiloh also observed the association of the upper part of the ’Stepped Stone Mantle’ with the Hellenistic fortification system: “the line of the ‘First Wall’ and its towers integrated the top of the stepped stone structure…” (Shiloh 1984: 30). Most likely the upper part of the ‘Stepped Stone Mantle’ was built (or rebuilt) in order to stabilize the slope and support the city-wall; the entire slope was then covered by a thick earthen glacis (ibid.: 20−21, Figs. 17, 28)”, Finkelstein/Herzog/SingerAvitz/Ussishkin, “Has King David’s Palace”, 154. “The only architectural connection that exists on the ground is between the upper part of the SSS [’Stepped Stone Structure’] – probably Hellenistic in date – and the Hellenistic city-wall”, I. Finkelstein, “The ’Large Stone Structure’ in Jerusalem. Reality versus Yearning”, ZDPV 127 (2011) 1-10, on p. 7. This position has been criticised by Amihai Mazar: “In light of the above, the archaeological arguments presented by Finkelstein et al. are unacceptable. The ’Stepped Structure’ and ’Large Stone Structure’ should be seen as one large and substantial architectural complex”, Mazar, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative”, 45. A reply to Amihai Mazar’s argumentations is presented by Finkelstein in 2011, concluding in four points that: “1. There is no single LSS [’Large Stone Structure’]. There is no physical connection between half Room E, which may date to the Iron Age I or to the Iron Age IIA, and the massive walls associated by E. MAZAR, A. MAZAR and FAUST with the LSS. 2. There is no connection today between massive walls possibly dating to the Iron Age on the ridge (E. MAZAR’s LSS) and the Iron Age part of the SSS.
80
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
Recently, Eilat Mazar excavated the fortifications at the eastern side of the Ophel,⁵⁸ dating their first construction phase to “Solomon’s period”.⁵⁹ Eilat Mazar’s digs at the Ophel resumed on 22nd April 2013; no scientific report of the excavations has been so far published.⁶⁰ Because, in the present situation, excavations on the Haram al-Sharif are impossible,⁶¹ the search for Iron Ages II A evidence is concentrated around Herod the Great’s temple temenos, namely the abovementioned Ophel excavations, the Western Wall Plaza excavations,⁶² the West-
58. 59.
60.
61.
62.
The only physical connection is between the Hellenistic part of the SSS and the Late Hellenistic fortification. 3. Some of the massive wall stabs unearthed by E. MAZAR may date to the Iron Age IIA in the 9th century B.C.E.; others may date to the Hellenistic period. 4. Based on solid archaeological arguments alone, that is, without relying on the biblical text, no seasoned archaeologist would have associated the remains in question with monumental architecture of the 10th century B.C.E.”, Finkelstein, “The ’Large Stone Structure’ in Jerusalem”, 9. Cf. E. Mazar, Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem. A Remarkable Archaeological Adventure (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011). “Il est possible d’affirmer à présent, sans trop se risquer, que l’hypothèse de Kenyon était vraisemblable, et que, dans les marges de la crête de l’Ophel, une muraille en cages reliait un grand édifice en pierres, que nous identifions au palais de David, à la ligne de fortification de l’Ophel, identifiée à la muraille de Salomon”, E. Mazar, “Les fortifications de Jérusalem à l’époque de la royauté de David et de Salomon”, Pardès 50 (2011) 69-77, on p. 74. Eilat Mazar published in 2013 a book on the discovery of a Byzantine treasure in gold and silver, of thirty-six gold coins and a golden medallion 10 cm of diameter with a menorah chiseled on it (cf. E. Mazar, The Discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the Foot of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013). “Archäologisch ist vom ersten Tempel schlechthin nichts mehr vorhanden (BBJer III 369f), sodass wir völlig auf die literarischen Quellen angewiesen sind. Diese können aber nur sachgemäß ausgewertet werden, wenn stets berücksichtigt wird, was die historisch-kritische Forschung an Texten und Steinen an seriösen Resultaten erarbeitet hat. Selbst das einzige kleine Relikt, das möglicherweise aus dem 1. Tempel stammt, der Granatapfel aus Elfenbein (72,c) mit der althebr. Inschrift »Für dass Hau[s JHW]Hs Heilige den Priestern« unterliegt bis heute dem wissenschaftlichen Zweifel (IEJ 55, 2005, 3-20)”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 131. It is worth noting that, in a more recent examination of the inscribed pomegranate, the scholars remains with their previous interpretations on the authenticity of the inscription, namely Ahituv, S., Demsky, A., and Goren, Y., consider the inscription a modern forgery, while for Lemaire, A. it is an authentic C8 BC inscription (cf. S. Ahituv/A. Demsky/Y. Goren/A. Lemaire, “The Inscribed Pomegranate from the Israel Museum Examined Again”, IEJ 57 (2007) 87-95, on pp. 92 and 94 respectively). Cf. S. Kisilevitz/A. Onn/B. Ouahnouna/S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Layers of Ancient Jerusalem”, BAR 38 (2012) 36-47, 69-70; cf. S. Kisilevitz/A. Onn/B. Ouahnouna/S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Jerusalem, The Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005-2009”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site ; cf. Y. Baruch/D. Weiss, “Jerusalem, The Western Wall Plaza”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site ; cf. A. Onn/S. Weksler-Bdolah/R. Bar-Nathan, “The Old City, Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site.
ern Wall Tunnel’s excavations,⁶³ and the Project of the sifting of the debris produced by the construction of a monumental step to access to the Marwani Mosque, also called “Solomon’s Stables”,⁶⁴ located in the south-eastern corner of the Haram al-Sharif.⁶⁵ Despite all these excavations, no major Iron Age II A evidence, nor signs of a violent destruction related to the Sheshonq I campaign in 925 or 920 BC,⁶⁶ have been discovered so far.⁶⁷ 63. From 1968 to 2007 Dan Bahat directed the excavations in the Western Wall Tunnel: cf. D. Bahat, “The Western Wall Tunnels”, Qadmoniot 101-102 (1994), (Hebrew) 38-48; cf. D. Bahat/A. Solomon, “Innovations in the Excavations of the Western Wall Tunnels”, Judea and Samaria Research Studies 11 (2002), (Hebrew) 175–86; cf. D. Bahat, Touching the stones of our heritage: the Western Wall tunnels (Jerusalem: Western Wall Heritatage Foundation, 2002); cf. D. Bahat, “Innovations in the Research of the Western Wall Tunnels”, Qadmoniot 133 (2007), (Hebrew) 41-7. Since 2007, Alexander Onn is excavating the site, on behalf of the IAA: cf. Onn/Weksler-Bdolah/Bar-Nathan, “The Old City, Wilson’s Arch”. 64. “Vom Südostturm bis zum Dreiertor erstreckt sich im Innern der Harammauern eine gewaltige Pfeilerhalle, die seit omaijadischer Zeit – an der Stelle der herodischen Substrukturen – das Gefälle des Nordosthügels gegen Süden hin ausgleicht. Weil Salomo als Erbauer galt, entstand in der Kreuzfahrerzeit der Name »Pferdeställe« oder »Kamelställe Salomos«, was gleichzeitig so etwas wie ein bildlicher Superlativ ist, der auch anderswo für monumentale Werke eingesetzt wird (Steinbrüche Salomos, Teiche Salomos). Der neue arabische Name al-Musalla al-Marwani bezeichnet den Ort als einen »Gebetsplatz« zu Ehren des dritten omaijadischen Kalifen Marwan, dessen Sohn Abd al-Malik den Felsendom bauen ließ”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 156. 65. Three preliminary reports on the findings have been published thus far by Gabriel Barkay and Yitzhak Zweig (Hebrew). For the first report, published in 2005, see http://www.echad.info/ sifting/reports/first_pri_report.pdf; for the second report, published in 2007, see http://www.echad.info/sifting/reports/ second _ pri _ report . pdf; for the third report, published in 2011, by Gabriel Barkay and Yitzhak Shimon Dvira see http: //www.echad.info/sifting/reports/third_pri_report.pdf. 66. Finkelstein 2011 supposes that Sheshonq I had no interest in Jerusalem: “there was nothing in 10th-century Jerusalem to attract an Egyptian pharaoh; had it been an important city, Sheshonq 1 would not have hesitated to conquer it and boast about his exploits; the campaign is directed against the territory to the north of Jerusalem; and finally, no Judahite town neither in the highlands nor in the Shephelah-is mentioned in the Sheshonq I list. There are only two possible explanations for all this: either Jerusalem was so unimportant and underdeveloped that the Egyptian king did not find it worth attacking; or, the formative, dimorphic entity of Jerusalem actually cooperated with the pharaoh, possibly against the early northern Israelite entity that was located in the area of Gibeon”, Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 192. Conversely, Amihai Mazar explains the absence of Jerusalem in the Karnak Temple list with the surrender of the city or with the corruption of the bas-relief (cf. A. Mazar, “The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE”, in H.G.M. Williamson (ed.), Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (London: Oxford University Press, 2007) 143-71, on p. 150). 67. Kitchen 2000 dates the campaign to 925 BC (cf. K.A. Kitchen, “The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment”, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C., OAW (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000) 39-52,
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
According to Finkelstein 2011, there are two major elements of archaeological evidence for C9 BC Jerusalem, the “Stepped Mantle Structure” (see above) together with “the ridge immediately above and to the north of the ’Stepped Stone Mantle”’,⁶⁸ and a large group of bullae found near the Gihon spring,⁶⁹ both suggesting that Jerusalem became the capital of a Judean state during the course of C9 BC, while Broshi 2001, following the High Chronology, states that the city could not expand to the East or the West, because of the steepness of the valleys, and West of the Temple Mount was a burial area in that period, concluding that “it is unlikely that there was any major expansion of the city during the reigns of Solomon’s successors in the ninth and eighth centuries”.⁷⁰ The size and population of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II A period is estimated by Broshi 2001 respectively at 4.8 ha and about 2000 persons for the Jebusite-Davidic Jerusalem, and for Solomon’s period at 13 ha, with between 4500 and 5000 of population.⁷¹ The Neo-Assyrian hegemony on the Near East started with Tiglath-Pileser’s III reign (745-727 BC), and was replaced in the Levant at the beginning of the third decade of C7 BC by the Egyptian rule. Egypt’s control over the region ended with the rise of the Neo-Babylonians, which, after the complete collapse of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 609 BC, consolidated in 605/604 BC, when the Egyptians were pushed out of their positions in Asia.⁷²
68. 69.
70.
71.
72.
on pp. 40-1), while Shortland 2005 it should be dated to 920 BC (cf. A. Shortland, “Shishak, King of Egypt: the Challenges of Egyptian Calendrical Chronology”, in T. Levy/T. Higham (ed.s), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox Publishing, 2005) 43-56). Cf. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 193. Cf. R. Reich/E. Shukrun, “The Excavation of the ’Rock-cut Pool’ near the Gihon Spring, Jerusalem” in E. Baruch/Z. Greenhut/A. Faust (ed.s), New Studies on Jerusalem II (Ramat Gan: Bar-Han University, 2006) 17-21. M. Broshi, “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem”, in M. Broshi, Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 113. It is worth noting that, in C9 BC, in Areas XXI, XXII, XXV, XXVI and XXVII of Kenyon’s excavations, a small residential settlement was built, outside the city walls (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 42-6), and that several proto-Aeolic capitals were found in the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem, similar to those found in Samaria, Ramat Rahel, Hazor and Megiddo, dating to C10-C9 BC in the High Chronology, and to C9-C8 BC in the Low Chronology (cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 357. In 2012, a protoAeolic capital, still attached to its column, was found in a cave south of Jerusalem by the archaeologist Binyamin Troppe (see http : / / www . biblicalarchaeology . org / daily / news / proto-aeolic-capital-kept-quiet%E2%80%94but-why/). Cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 112-3. It is worth noting that the size of Solomon’s Jerusalem includes the temple, the area of which might be considered not populated. Amihai Mazar estimation of the size of Iron Age IIA Jerusalem are 4 ha for the beginning of the period and 12 ha for the Solomonic Jerusalem (cf. Mazar, “The Spade and the Text”, 154). Cf. O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 1-35.
81
During this politically troubled period, and starting from the second half of C8 BC, Jerusalem experienced a large and sudden expansion, consistent with the major developments observed in the Judahite region.⁷³ This spectacular growth is documented by a substantial quantity of archaeological evidence:⁷⁴ Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter unearthed settlements and what is called the “Broad Wall”, proving that, at the end of C8 BC, Jerusalem extended on the western hill as a fortified city;⁷⁵ in the south-eastern hill 1961-1967 Kenyon’s excavations uncovered in Trench I a stretch of over 30 m of a late C8 BC city-wall, constituted by a main wall, a forewall and a 2-4 m wide street in between them, continued to the South in Area E of Shiloh’s excavation;⁷⁶ in Shiloh’s Area G several houses built over the “Stepped Stone Structure” starting from the second half of C8 BC,⁷⁷ were located outside the city wall, until the construction of the abovementioned wall system with the street at the end of C8 BC, which included the area in the fortified city;⁷⁸ in Shiloh’s Area E1 several houses, dating from C8 BC to C6 BC, were unearthed, partly abutting the Late Bronze-Iron Age II city wall;⁷⁹ the C8 BC houses discovered in Area J of Reich and Shukrun excavations, between 100 and 120 m South of the Gihon spring, protected by a fortification built in the same period;⁸⁰ in this period the water system was greatly enhanced, by the digging to a deeper level of the Warren tunnel, the discovery of a natural shaft (the Warren Shaft) and the excavation of the 538 m long tunnel (the Siloam Tunnel),⁸¹ from the Gi73. “The same picture emerges from the Judahite countryside, where the number of settlements grew spectacularly and the settlement system became more complex; towns were fortified and public architecture became common; olive-oil production centers appeared; and, most important, signs of widespread writing and bureaucracy emerged for the first time”, Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 194. 74. Cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 405. 75. Cf. N. Avigad/H. Geva, “Iron Age II, Strata 9-7”, in H. Geva et Al., Jewish Quarter Excavations I (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000) 44-82. 76. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 40. 77. In one of these houses, were found 51 bullae with “names common in the Hebrew onomasticon, but two combinations stand out as identifiable with figures mentioned in the Bible, namely Gemariah ben Shaphan (Jer 36:9-12, 25-26) and Azariah ben Hilkiah (1 Chr 5:40; 9:10). The type of material found with the bullae suggests a trader’s house rather than a municipal archive”, Murphy-O’Connor, Key to Jerusalem, 9. 78. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 41. 79. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 90. 80. Cf. R. Reich/E. Shukrun, “The Urban Development of Jerusalem in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.”, in A.G. Vaughn/A.E. Killebrew, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003) 212. 81. “The official responsible for this remarkable engineering feat commemorated his achievement with an inscription, ’Behold the tunnel. This is the story of its cutting. While the miners swung their picks, one towards the other, and when there remained only 3 cubits to cut, the voices of one calling his fellow was heard - for there was a resonance in the rock coming from
82
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
hon spring to the Siloam Pool;⁸² Broshi discovered finds dating to Iron Age II C in the court of the Armenian Church on Mont Zion, where Hamilton (at the Bishop Gobat School) and Bliss and Dickie uncovered late Iron Age II C remains too;⁸³ recent excavations at the Plaza of the Western Wall discovered several buildings, constructed on the quarried bedrock, whose walls, in some part, were preserved to a height of 5 m, dating to the late Iron Age II C period;⁸⁴ finally, the burial areas in Silwan,⁸⁵ Mamilla⁸⁶ and Ketef Hinnom,⁸⁷ as the three tombs under the Ottoman Wall South of the Citadel⁸⁸ (cf. § 3.2) complete the picture of a city, where lived an estimated total population of 25.000,⁸⁹ with a sophisticated water system
82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.
89.
both north and south. So the day they broke through the miners struck, one against the other, pick against pick, and the water flowed from the spring towards the pool, 1200 cubits. The height of the rock above the head of the miners was 100 cubits’ (trans. E. Puech). A straight line linking the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam is only 323 m. The actual tunnel is in the shape of a hugh ’S’, and measures 538 m with a drop of just 32 cm. The sinuous course, and the entire absence of tool marks on the roof where it is more than 2 m high, suggests that the workmen were following a natural dissolution channel carrying water to Gihon. This alone explains, not only how the two teams working from opposite ends met, but how they were able to breathe despite the oxygen-eating oil lamps at the work face”, Murphy-O’Connor, Key to Jerusalem, 10. It is worth noting that, in a recent article, Reich and Shukron dated back the carving of the Siloam Tunnel to the late C9 BC or the early C8 BC (cf. R. Reich/E. Shukron, “The date of the Siloam Tunnel reconsidered”, Tel Aviv 38 (2011) 147-57), proposal challenged by Finkelstein, who mantains the traditional dating to the last decades of C8 BC (cf. I. Finkelstein, “The finds from the RockCut Pool in Jerusalem and the date of the Siloam Tunnel: an alternative interpretation”, Semitica et Classica 6 (2013) 279-84). Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 46. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 176. Cf. S. Weksler-Bdolah/A. Onn/B. Ouahnouna/S. Kisilevitz, “Jerusalem, the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005-2009. Preliminary report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan. Cf. R. Reich, “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem”, in AJR 1994, 111-8. Cf. G. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom: A Treasure Facing Jerusalem’s Walls (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1986). Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 118-9. In this sense, the tombs discovered in the south-western corner of the Temple Mount are dated to C8 BC and show that the area was inhabited until the end of C8 BC, because “It is quite improbable that any cemetery, except the royal cemetery (located in the City of David), was included within the city limits”, M. Broshi, “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh”, in M. Broshi, Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 174-80, on p. 175. Cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 115. Considering the paucity of the remains of the Iron Age II B-C city wall, several theories on its location have been proposed. In this sense, about the city walls during the Iron Age IIB-C: “Umfasste sie den ganzen SW-Hügel (= maximalistische Sicht: z.B. Avigad) oder nur einen ö Teil (minimalistische Sicht: z.B. Kenyon)? Die ö der —»Zitadelle (in der Kischle), im —Carmen. Viertel und beim Essenertor gefundenen Mauerfragmente haben bei den Archäologen bis heute jene »conclusive evidence« nicht zu schaffen vermocht, für welche sich Chen/Margalit/Pixner
and protected by massive city walls, enclosing an area of about 60 ha,⁹⁰ and two major suburbs on the West and on the South-East of the city.⁹¹ According to several scholars, along with the western and the south-eastern suburbs, also the area North of the city wall was settled during the Iron Age II C. This hypothesis is based on the Iron Age II C findings unearthed in several sites North of the Iron Age II city wall, the limit of the northern suburb constituted by the Iron Age II northern moat and the presence of an Iron Age II necropolis in the area North of the Damascus Gate, more than 500 m far from the Iron Age II C city wall,⁹² coupled with two biblical texts, in which newly settled areas are reported at the end of the Judean kingdom.⁹³ Indeed, Iron Age II findings were retrieved in most of the excavations carried out, North of the Iron Age II C city wall, in Kenyon Area C in the courtyard of the Lutheran school,⁹⁴ in Wagner-Lux’s excavations at the Redeemer
90. 91.
92. 93.
94.
(AJR 81) und A. Re’em (Ha’arez, 3. Nov. 2001) stark machen. Neulich hat G. Barkai aufgrund früher (von Ch. Warren, Ch. Clermont-Ganneau u.a.) gemachter Kleinfunde sogar eine »super-maximalistische Theorie« vertreten, die das bewohnte Stadtgebiet auch gegen N erweitert und zu einer Gesamtfläche von 90000 m2 (= 90 ha) führt. Dafür gibt es jedoch keine einzige archäol. Spur einer Stadtmauer, sodass man höchstens eine ungeschützte Bewohnung im n Umfeld der ummauerten Stadt annehmen kann”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 95-7. New excavations at the Kishle building, south of the Citadel, uncovered a segment of a wall which is dated to C8 BC, during the Hezekiah’s reign, and which support the maximalistic hypothesis (cf. fig. 49) on the size of the Iron Age II C Jerusalem (cf. A. Re’em, “First Temple Period Fortifications and Herod’s Palace in the Kishle Compound”, Qadmoniot 43 (2010), (Hebrew) 96-101). Cf. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 194. “Jerusalem at about 700 B.C. had mushroomed, historically speaking, overnight. The new wall apparently surrounded only part of the city; when estimating its total area, one should take into account the unwalled suburbs to the west and probably to the north as well”, Broshi, “The Expansion of Jerusalem”, 23. Cf. G. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves north of Damascus Gate and the date of Jerusalem’s northern moat”, Cathedra 83 (1997), (Hebrew) 25-6. Jer 31:38-39: “See, the days are coming - oracle of the LORD when the city shall be rebuilt as the LORD’s, from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate; A measuring line shall be stretched from there straight to the hill Gareb and then turn to Goah” (NBA revised 2011); and Zeph 1:10: “On that day - oracle of the LORD - A cry will be heard from the Fish Gate, a wail from the Second Quarter, loud crashing from the hills” (NAB revised 2011). Concerning the Tower of Hananel, the location proposed by several scholars is the northern line of the Temple Mount, at the north-eastern corner (cf. N. Na’aman, “Five Notes on Jerusalem in the First and Second Temple Periods”, Tel Aviv 39 (2012) 93-103, on p. 99), or at the north-western corner (cf. D. Edelman, “The Location and Function of the Towers of Hanan’el and the Hundred in Persian-Era Jerusalem”, ZDPV 127 (2011) 49-70, on p. 70). “The fill contained enormous quantities of seventh century BC and first century AD pottery. It was itself 8.25 metres deep and its base was 12 meters from the surface of the intact levels. Then there was a sudden change, and the underlying fill was pure Iron Age, of the seventh century BC. This continued down to
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
church,⁹⁵ in the “Vartan Chapel”,⁹⁶ and several other sites; nevertheless, no remains of residential quarter, even of squatters, was found in these sites, the Iron Age II finding discovered there being associated mostly to quarrying activities. The presence of an Iron Age II necropolis north of today’s Damascus Gate represents only an indirect clue of the existence and the extent of a northern Iron Age II C suburb, while the paucity of Iron Age II burial caves in the Muslim and Christian quarters⁹⁷ may be explained by the transformations which occurred with the expansion to the north of Jerusalem in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.⁹⁸ Furthermore, there is no consensus on the topographical interpretation of the biblical texts of Jer 31:38-39 and Zeph 1:10,⁹⁹ associated to the information on the city wall during the Persian period,¹⁰⁰ the “New city” (mishneh) referring most probably to the walled area of the “Upper City” newly settled in C7 BC.¹⁰¹ In fact, no excavations in the area of the Old City north of the Iron Age II northern wall has unearthed significant remains of Iron Age II buildings which can prove the existence of a suburb in this area.¹⁰²
95.
96.
97. 98. 99. 100.
101. 102.
bedrock, which was cut in a series of steps and ledges. It is in fact a quarry”, K. Kenyon, Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History (London: Thames and Hudson, 1967) 152. “Bei den Füllschichten handelt es sich offensichtlich um eine Zuschüttung eines von West nach Ost ziehenden Tales (s. Abb. 2). Die in der Füllung vorgefundene Keramik zeigt von der Felssohle bis zur Unterkante der großen Mauer ein einheitliches Bild. Abgesehen von einer Scherbe aus der Bronzezeit setzen die Funde im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. ein und reichen bis in das 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.”, U. Wagner-Lux, “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabung unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem in den Jahren 1970 und 1971”, ZDPV 88 (1972) 185-201, on p. 191. “The floor was laid on a fill of earth and stones to a depth ranging from a few centimeters to 1.3. m. All sherds found in the fill, including an ostracon on which a few letters were inscribed, date to the end of the Iron Age (8th-7th centuries B.C.E.). Almost every spot in the Holy Sepulcher where the excavators reached bedrock showed signs of quarrying and contained Iron Age potsherds. This site is the only one featuring a floor as well, indicating that the area was inhabited at the time by squatters”, M. Broshi, “Iron Age Remains in the Chapel of St. Vartan in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre”, in AJR, 1994, 82-4, on p. 83. Cf. § 3.2.1. Cf. § 3.1.4 and § 3.1.5. Cf. note 93. In this sense, see also W.L.A. Holladay, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-32 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 199 and H. Irsigler, Zefanja (Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder Verlag, 2002) 149-50, and cf. § 3.1.3. Cf. Irsigler, Zefanja, 150. The excavations at the today’s Damascus Gate, as pointed out in § 4.3, produced only a scant quantity of Iron Age II findings, associated by the excavators, to the passage of the main road leading to the north, and not to a settlement. More recent excavations in the Old City’s Christian and Muslim quarters showed a widespread presence of Iron Age II C findings associated to quarrying activities, but no signs of settlements.;
83
The integration of the Judahite state in the Assyrian global economy during C8 BC, and the consequent increase of its economic wealth could not by themselves produce the growth of the population of Jerusalem and Judah observed in C8 BC. Probably, this spectacular growth was mainly caused by the influx of refugees from the northern kingdom of Israel, already since the first irruption of the Assyrian in 733 BC, but especially after the fall of Samaria in 722/721 BC, and perhaps with a fresh wave of refugees during the attack to the western part of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BC.¹⁰³ Evidence of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC¹⁰⁴ has been discovered in several sites: in Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter, the sign of a fierce fire on the “Broad Wall”, and particularly close to the tower connected to this wall, where iron arrowheads and bronze “Scythian arrowheads” were found;¹⁰⁵ in Kenyon’s excavations on the eastern slope of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem, evidence was found of the destruction of the houses and the wall at the end of the Iron Age;¹⁰⁶ in Area G of Shiloh’s excavations in the south-eastern hill evidence was unearthed of the 586 BC destruction, especially in the so called “Achiel’s house”, the “Bullae House” and the “Burnt Room”.¹⁰⁷ Further evidence was found in Shiloh’s excava-
103. 104. 105. 106.
107.
in this sense see S. Wekselr-Bdolah, “Jerusalem, The Old City, Mish’ol Qorov”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site; in the Austrian Hospice compound see D. Tawfik, “Jerusalem, the Old City. Final Report”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site; R. Avner, “Jerusalem, the New Gate. Final Report”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site; J.B. Humbert, “Excavation at Saint John Prodromos, Jerusalem”, in D. Amit/G.D. Stiebel/O. Peleg-Barkat (ed.s), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, vol. 5, (Jerusalem: IAA-HUJ, 2011) 22*-47*, on p. 38*. Iron Age II finds were neither reported in the renewed excavation at the Rockefeller Museum, even where the bedrock was reached (cf. D. Tawfik, “Jerusalem, the Rockefeller Museum. Final Report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site). Cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 409-10; cf. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Iron Age”, 195; cf. Broshi, “The Expansion of Jerusalem”, 174-5. 586 BC, according to the NEAEHL chronology. For the dating of the fall of Jerusalem, see Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 760-1. Cf. N. Avigad/H. Geva, “Area W – Stratigraphy and Architecture”, in H., Geva et al., Jewish Quarter Excavations I (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000) 131-97, on pp. 131-59. Cf. K. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem (London/Tonbridge: Ernest Benn Limited, 1974), 238; cf. G.J. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem: Excavations by C.-M. Benett and J.B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66 (Oxford: BAR International Series 519, 1989), 170-1; cf. H.J. Franken/M.L. Steiner, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Volume II, The Iron Age extramural quarter on the south-east hill (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 57; cf. M.L. Steiner, Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Vol. 3 (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001), 80, 106. Cf. Y. Shiloh, “Excavations at the City of David. Vol.I, 1978-1982, interim report of the first five seasons”, Qedem 19 (1984), 17-20. See also Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 210 and Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 757-60.
84
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
tions, in Area G and Area E, particularly in the so called “Ashlar House”.¹⁰⁸ Finally, other signs of the destruction were found by Eilat Mazar in the Ophel excavations.¹⁰⁹ Although the evidence from the excavations of Cave 24 in Ketef Hinnom and that of the Iron Age II C tombs in Mamilla¹¹⁰ suggest that part of the elite of the Judean Kingdom may have lived in Jerusalem after 586 BC, according to Lipschits 2005, Jerusalem was completely destroyed, while for Kenyon and later for Barkay, the city was only partially damaged.¹¹¹ Lipschits 2005 argues that, the peak size of Jerusalem at the Persian period having been no more than the 6 ha of the south-eastern hill, Jerusalem must have been substantially ravaged by the Neo-Babylonian conquest.¹¹² 3.1.3 The Babylonian and the Persian Periods (586-332 BC) If in Jerusalem the archaeological remains of the Neo-Babylonian period¹¹³ are limited to the tombs in Ketef Hinnom and Mamilla,¹¹⁴ evidence, though scant, shows a major change in the settlement of Judah, with a subsistence-level economy replacing the flourishing settlements which characterised the Iron Age II C period, nevertheless excluding the hypothesis that the NeoBabylonians practised a “scorched-earth” policy in the Judean country.¹¹⁵ 108. Cf. Shiloh, “Excavations at the City of David”, 14. 109. Cf. Mazar, “Les fortifications de Jérusalem”, 73. Furthermore, Lipschits affirms that “additional evidence of the destruction at the end of the Iron Age has now been found in every part of the city”, Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 211. 110. Cf. § 3.1.3 and § 3.2.1. 111. Cf. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 210-1. Lipschits explains the presence of these rich tombs at this period suggesting that the owners may have fled from Jerusalem and settled in the near countryside, continuing to use their family burials in Jerusalem also after 586 BC (cf. ibid. 211, note 106). Barstad 2003 argues that “to demolish a big fortified city would have been an enormous task in antiquity and also unnecessary. It is more likely that the wooden gates were burned, and breaches made in the walls. Obviously, his would not make the whole city uninhabitable, and it would have been possible for some of those who escaped Nebuchadnezzar’s armies and fled into the countryside, to return, at least to some extent, to Jerusalem at a later point. Apparently, the reference to those “who are living in these ruins” in Ezek 33:24 is a reflection of this situation”, H.M. Barstad, “After the ’Myth of the Empty Land’: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah”, in O. Lipschits (ed.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 3-20, on p. 8. Finally, it is worth noting tha the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem is inscribed in a series of similar destructions of the temples of conquered cities in the region, which happened during C7 BC (cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 765-6). 112. Cf. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 211-2. 113. 586-539 BC for the Neo-Babylonian period and 539-332 BC for the Persian period (cf. NEAEHL 4, 1993, 1529). 114. Cf. § 3.2.1. 115. Cf. C.E. Carter, “Ideology and Archaeology in the NeoBabylonian Period: Excavating Text and Tell”, in O. Lipschits
As pointed out by Lipschits 2005, between the “classical” pottery assemblage of the late Iron Age IIC and the “classical” assemblage of the Persian period there is a span of 150 years, because the population, which sharply dropped in Judah, continued to produce the same material culture.¹¹⁶ This makes the dating of the archaeological remains particularly difficult. Only scant evidence dating to the Persian period was found in Jerusalem:¹¹⁷ Kenyon identified as Persian a segment of wall on the northern part of the “Stepped Stone Structure”;¹¹⁸ in Shiloh’s Area G, just outside the wall, were found pottery fragments and small object dating to the Persian period. Eilat Mazar affirmed that she discovered a section of the Nehemiah wall in Shiloh’s Area G, namely the northern tower previously excavated by Macalister and Duncan.¹¹⁹ Mazar dates the tower to the Persian period according to the two dog burials discovered below the lower course of the tower and covered by a 1.5 m thick layer, where a large quantity of shards dating between the late C6 BC and the first half of C5 BC was found.¹²⁰ This interpretation was challenged by Finkelstein 2010, who noted that, if the dog burials are from the Persian period, this gives only the terminus post quem for the building of the tower, which is most assuredly dated to the Hasmonean period.¹²¹ The description of the reconstruction of the city wall in the book of Nehemiah¹²² is at the base of the debate on the size and the borders of Jerusalem in the Persian period, between the “minimalist” position, stating that Nehemiah’s wall surrounded only the south-eastern hill, and the “maximalist” position, which also includes the south-western hill.¹²³ After reviewing Crawfoot’s excavations in the western side of the south-eastern hill and the Central Valley, where no evidence dating to the Persian period was found, Ussishkin 2006, arguing that ten city gates, as reported in Nehemiah, are too many for a wall surrounding only the
116. 117. 118. 119. 120.
121. 122. 123.
(ed.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 301-22, on pp. 310-1. Cf. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 192-206. Kloner 2003 reports 15 sites ascribed to the Persian period (cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector, 28*). Cf. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, 183. Cf. E. Mazar, “The Wall that Nehemiah Built”, BAR 35 (2009) 24-33, on p. 27. Cf. E. Mazar, The Palace of King David. Excavations at the Summit of the City of David. Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2009), 74-6. Cf. I. Finkelstein, “Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: A Rejoinder”, JHS 9 (2010) 2-13, on p. 6. Cf. Nehemiah 3. Cf. D. Ussishkin, “The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem in the Persian Period”, in O. Lipschits/M. Oeming, Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 147-66, on p. 147.
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
south-eastern hill, states that the city walls described by Nehemiah are those of the Iron Age II C Jerusalem, the south-eastern hill being at that time the only settled area of a larger fortified city, in great part unpopulated.¹²⁴ For the “minimalistic” views, Broshi 2001 estimates the size of Jerusalem during the Persian period at 12 ha and its population at about 4500 people,¹²⁵ Lipschits 2009 at 5 ha and a population between 1000 and 1250 persons,¹²⁶ while Finkelstein 2010 is even more “minimalist”, stating that the city measured between 2 and 2.5 ha and its population was no larger than a few hundred people.¹²⁷ Despite its small size, Jerusalem played a major role as capital of the Persian province of Yehud,¹²⁸ profiting from the coexistence of different cultures actively encouraged in the Persian empire,¹²⁹ and possibly a Judahite elite, constituted by the priests, the scribe-sages, and the aristocracy, ruled Jerusalem both politically and religiously.¹³⁰ From the complex analysis of the biblical text referring to this period¹³¹ and the other sources it is clear that the leaders of Jerusalem during C6 BC were concentrating on the rebuilding of the Temple, while in C5 BC they were focused on the reconstruction of the city and of the religious life of the Judahite community.¹³² At the end of C5 BC or the beginning of C4 BC, greater Greek influence reached Jerusalem from the coastal region, as attested by the increase in foreign pottery and foreign pottery forms in the local production,¹³³ and the minting of small coins in silver, in some cases with representations of animal and even human images, and some of them with the name of the governor inscribed.¹³⁴ 124. Cf. Ussishkin, “The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem”, 147-64. 125. Cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 115. 126. Cf. Lipschits, “Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem”, 20. 127. Cf. Finkelstein, “Persian Period Jerusalem”, 2. Zwickel’s 2008 “ultraminimalistic” position estimates the population of Jerusalem at this period at 200 people, and between 400 and 600 after the exile (cf. W. Zwickel, “Jerusalem und Samaria zur Zeit Nehemias. Ein Vergleich”, Biblische Zeitschrift 52 (2008) 201-22, on pp. 216-7). 128. “Yehud was ’ruled’ from a small Temple village in Jerusalem, which had a limited population of a few hundred people. Still, its status as the capital of the province is clear from its mention in the Bagohi papyrus from Elephantine and seemingly also from the high level of silver in the Yehud coins, which seems to be related to their role in the Temple economy”, I. Finkelstein, “The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods”, RB 117 (2010) 39-54, on p, 44. 129. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 40. 130. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 42. 131. Nehemiah, Ezra, 2 Chronicles, Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc… 132. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 42-4. 133. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 40. 134. “Some coins bore figures and the inscriptions: ’Yehizqiah the governor’ and ’Yohanan the priest’, the latter being in all probability a high priest. The name ’Yehudah’ appears on another coin, although no known high priest bore that name”, Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 38.
85
3.1.4 The Hellenistic Period (332-37 BC) In 332 BC,¹³⁵ with the conquest by the armies of Alexander the Great heading to Egypt,¹³⁶ in southern Levant the Hellenistic period formally began,¹³⁷ characterised by a progressive and relatively quiet process of Hellenization.¹³⁸ In the early phase of this period, which after a twentyyear war between Alexander’s successors brought the Ptolemaic Pharaohs control over the region from 301 BC to 198 BC,¹³⁹ and until the forced Hellenization carried out by the Seleucid Kings starting in 175 BC, the Judean hills, and Jerusalem in particular,¹⁴⁰ were largely 135. The Early Hellenistic period (332-167 BC) and the Late Hellenistic period (167-37 BC) (cf. figure 32). Taking into account the political events of Judea in more detail, Levine 2002 differentiates the periodization as follow: the Hellenistic Era (332-141 BC), when Judea was controlled directly by the Ptolemaic (301-198 BC) and Seleucid empires (198-141 BC), the Hasmonean Era (141-63 BC) when Judea was politically independent, considering the period between Pompey’s conquest in 63 BC and the rise of Herod the Great in 37 BC as already Herodian (cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 46-7, 158.) 136. Flavius Josephus (Ant. 11, 321-345) reports of a visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem, most probably a legend created to suggest that even he, in paying homage to the God of Israel, acknowledged his omnipotence (cf. J. Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land. From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 67). 137. Commercial exchanges between the Greek World and the Levant are attested since the Iron Age II period (cf. J.C. Waldbaum, “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B. C.: The Eastern Perspective”, BASOR 293 (1994) 53-66, on p. 54). 138. “Hellenization is usually understood as the process through which post-classical Greek civilization promoted itself and assimilated peoples with an eye toward the unification of the known world into a single nation sharing a common culture”, R. Harrison, “Hellenization in Syria-Palestine: The Case of Judea in the Third Century BCE”, The Biblical Archaeologist 57 (1994) 98-108, on p. 98. “In archaeological terms, Hellenization consists of Greek influence which is demonstrable in (1) records of the official (coins) and popular (inscriptions, bilingual texts, etc.) uses of language; (2) monumental remains and civil engineering; (3) artistic works; (4) the detritus of everyday life (pottery, weights, etc.). Where Hellenism has made inroads in material culture, Hellenistic influence in social and intellectual life can be assumed as a logical corollary if anything, the physical accoutrements of Hellenistic life generally preceded its advance in the world of ideas”, ibid. 107, note 2. Levine 2002 wisely points out that, more than a cultural conquest and imposition of the West on the East, the “very essence of the complex phenomenon of the Hellenization was a mutual interaction, which resulted in a combination, an amalgamation, and a synthesis, where ‘the East left its mark as well, be it of the Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian, Babylonian, Phoenician, or Jewish variety”, Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 46. 139. Cf. Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land, 66. 140. “Die Ptolemäer und zu Beginn auch die Seleukiden erlaubten Jerusalem, unter Anerkennung ihrer Oberherrschaft nach den »Gesetzen der Väter« zu leben, sodass Jerusalem - besonders unter dem Hohepriester Schime’on ha-Zadik - eine Blütezeit erlebte, die die Entwicklung der Wassersysteme und des Tempel-
86
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
unaffected in their cultural identity.¹⁴¹ Only sparse remains ascribed to the Early Hellenistic period were unearthed, probably because a sustained construction activity in the following periods destroyed the remains the Early Hellenistic layers,¹⁴² therefore, during C4-3 BC, the settlement of Jerusalem seems to extend on the same areas as in the Persian period. Recently, during the excavations at the Givati Parking Lot, the relics of a tower and a glacis dated to C2 BC have been discovered. The excavators consider these rests as part of a massive fortification system built on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem in the Early Hellenistic period, which may be the Seleucid Akra, ¹⁴³ the fortress built to control the temple enclosure during the Early Hellenistic period, previously located by the researchers under elAqsa mosque.¹⁴⁴ Only a few other sites present Early Hellenistic remains: a pit grave was discovered in Area F of Avigad’s excava-
141.
142. 143.
144.
betriebes und einen Ausbau der Stadtmauern mit sich brachte (Sir 50)”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 1106. In Judah, the Hellenistic influence is attested only in the sites which represented clear economic and military interests for the Egyptians, and later, Seleucid rulers (cf. Harrison, “Hellenization in Syria-Palestine”, 104). Cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector, 30*. See also Grabbe, A History of the Jews, 35-6. “The new archaeological information from the Givati Parking Lot for the first time facilitates a reconstruction of the city’s layout on the eve of the Hasmonean revolt. An impressive fortification system was built at the top of the City of David hill including a solid wall incorporating strong towers. The fortifications were built on a high cliff, right before the point where it plunges toward steep slopes. An elaborate glacis was constructed on all sides of the fortification line, which impeded any attempt to approach its foundations. All of these together created a towering, strongly fortified citadel at the top of the hill – the Seleucid Acra, which controlled access to the Temple Mount”, D. Ben-Ami/Y. Tchekhanovets, “’Then they built up the City of David with a high, strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel’ (I Maccabees 1:33)”, in E. Meiron (ed.), City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 11 (2016) 19*-29*, on p. 28*. “Ein monumentales, vermutlich öffentliches Gebäude, dessen Grundmauern B. Mazar etwa 50 m südlich des aram as-Šarif freigelegt und M.Ben-Dov als Relikte des Akra angesehen hatten, wurde ebenfalls bereits im Zusammenhang der Frage nach der Lokalisierung des Gymnasiums erwähnt, ohne daß sich eine sichere Verbindung zwischen beiden herstellen läßt. Ein weiteres Gebäude mit einer reichen Keramikkollektion der fraglichen Zeit, dessen östlicher Teil allerdings abgerutscht war, wurde von Y. Shiloh in Areal E-1 an der östlichen Handkante des Südost-Hügels nachgewiesen”, Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Vol. 1, 97. See also Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 2, 1158, referring to D.T. Ariel/Y. Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David. Vol.II, Imported stamped amphora handles, coins, worked bone and ivory, and glass (Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Qedem 30, 1990), 24. More generally, the construction of the Akra is attributed to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and dated to 168/167 BC (cf. N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1983), (Hebrew), 63, and Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land, 72).
tions in the Jewish Quarter,¹⁴⁵ several columbaria and a winepress were also unearthed, and perhaps the Bethesda pool and a segment of the eastern wall of the Temple temenos were discovered.¹⁴⁶ If only scant remains of buildings are ascribed to the Early Hellenistic period, the numismatic evidence and the more than one thousand jar handles from Rhodes found in Jerusalem suggest a certain degree of integration into the Hellenistic world, after its relative isolation as capital of the Persian province of Yehud.¹⁴⁷ The picture of Jerusalem given by the literary sources is of a city plunged in the “vortex of political and military affairs of the Hellenistic world”,¹⁴⁸ ruled by an elite of priests and a gerousia of aristocrats, to a certain extent influenced by these political and economic relations.¹⁴⁹ As a reaction to the forced Hellenization implemented by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), the 167 BC saw the beginning of the Maccabean revolt,¹⁵⁰ which, in 143/142 BC, led Shimon, fifth son of Maccabeus, to establish an independent rule in Jerusalem, and to start a policy of expansion, thereby originating the Hasmonean dynasty.¹⁵¹ 145. Cf. N. Avigad, “Chronique archéologique: Jérusalem; Quartier Juif ”, RB 80, (1973) 576-9, on p. 578. 146. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Vol. 1, 98. Biberstein/Bloedhorn 1994 also report the interpretation of Crawfoot’s excavations in the eastern slope of the south-eastern hill, as a Persian-Early Hellenistic city wall and gate, while Ussishkin 2006 considers the remains as the substructures of a lost building, whose character is difficult to determine (cf. Ussishkin, “The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem”, 158-9). 147. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 54-7. Stamped Jar handles with paleo-Hebrew letters and a five-pointed star, “imprinted in or for the city”, are other indications of the integration of Jerusalem into the Hellenistic world during the Early Hellenistic period (ibid. 59). In this sense, fifty-nine stamped jar handles ascribed to C4-3 BC were found in the norther part of the ridge of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem, while eightyseven date to C2 BC, marking the administrative continuation from the Perisan, through the Ptolemaic to the Seleucid rule (cf. O. Lipschits, “Between archaeology and the text: a reevaluation of the development process of Jerusalem in the Persian period”, in M. Nissinen, Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 145-65, on p. 158). 148. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 47. For a more detailed analysis of the literary sources on Early Hellenistic Jerusalem see § 7.1. 149. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 53. A concrete example of the importance of aristocratic Jewish families is offered by “the surprising rise of the Tobiad Joseph at the time of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222), in becoming the chief tax-farmer of ’Syria and Phoenicia”’, M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Volume I, Text (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 56. 150. For the various hypotheses on the reasons for the forced Hellenization realised by Antiochus IV, namely the hypothesis of the “Cultural uniformity”, the hypothesis of the “Cultural War”, the hypothesis of the “Primary Internal Jewish Process”, and the hypothesis of the “Personal Initiative of Antiochus” see Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 2, 1186-219. 151. Cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 2, 1242-5.
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
The greatest building project of the Late Hellenistic period, from the reign of Judas (167-161 BC) to the reign of Hyrcanus I (135/4-104 BC), was the construction of the city wall, called by Flavius Josephus the “First Wall”,¹⁵² whose description in War 5 seems to be consistent with the archaeological findings discovered on the supposed course of the wall.¹⁵³ Residential areas of the Late Hellenistic period were found in the south-eastern hill, in the Central Valley, and the Jewish Quarter,¹⁵⁴ although, during Herod the Great’s reign, the massive constructions in the Upper City obliterated most of the Late Hellenistic buildings,¹⁵⁵ while the excavations carried out since 2007 by Doron Ben Ami in the Givati Parking Lot, East of the northern edge of the south-eastern hill, uncovered remains of an Hellenistic building.¹⁵⁶ To satisfy the increased need for water of the growing city, and particularly for the sacrificial activity in the Temple in the Late Hellenistic period, the Low-level aqueduct was built; this brought water to the Temple Mount from Solomon’s Pools¹⁵⁷ . The pools Hammam el Batraq and the Birket el Hamra/Siloam¹⁵⁸ may also have been realised in this period, while a transformation of the Iron 152. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 97, 1108-9. 153. For the detailed list of the sites where the Late Hellenistic wall remains have been unearthed, see Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem, 102-8. For the western part of the “First Wall” see M. Broshi/S. Gibson, “Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem”, in AJR, 1994, 1477-55 on p. 150-1. For the Citadel see also R. Sivan/G. Solar, “Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988”, in AJR, 1994, 168-76, and Küchler, Jerusalem, 495-6. 154. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 495-6. Recent excavations near the “Burnt House” unearthed remains of the settlement, dating back from the Late Hellenistic period (cf. Y. Billig, “Jerusalem, The Jewish Quarter. Final Report”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site). 155. Cf. D. Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta Jerusalem, 1996), 38. 156. In the recent excavations carried out in the area named the Givati Parking, at the north-western corner of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem, twenty-eight stamped amphora handles were unearthed, dating from the beginning of C3 BC to the second half of C2 BC. This material culture, together with the coins found, are associated tot he floor of a building firstly dated to C3-2 BC (cf. D. Ben-Ami/Y. Tchekhanovetz, “Jerusalem, Giv’ati Parking Lot”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site), but in his study of the stratigraphic sequence of the handles, Donald T. Ariel proposed as terminus post quem for the floor and the building the mid C2 BC (cf. D.T. Ariel, “The Stamped Amphora Handles”, in D. Ben-Ami/D.T., Ariel (ed.s), Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot), Vol I, IAA Reports 52, 2013, 327-37, on p. 328). 157. Cf. A. Mazar, “A survey of aqueducts in Jerusalem”, in D. Amit/J. Patrich/Y. Hirschfeld, The Aqueducts of Israel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 46 (2002), 210-44, on pp. 236-8. The first Aqueduct in Southern Levant is the AcrePtolemais aqueduct, which dates to C4-3 BC (cf. ibid. p. 16). 158. For the Birket el Batraq see Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, 246; for the Birket el Hamra/Siloam Pool see Küchler, Jerusalem, 64-7, 73-5. A stepped pool unearthed in the southern edge of the Ophel, near the Iron Age II city gate, dating to the Hel-
87
Age water system of the Bethesda Pool, at the Saint Anne compound, occurred in the Hellenistic period, probably during the reign of Simon II, around 200 BC.¹⁵⁹ Finally, in the Wall Plaza excavation, a segment of the Low-level aqueduct was discovered,¹⁶⁰ and more recently, in the Talpyot/Arnona neighbourhood, a previously exposed section of the Low-level aqueduct was excavated and six construction phases were detected, starting from the Late Hellenistic period, to the late Ottoman period.¹⁶¹ According to Flavius Josephus, Hyrcanus I built the fortress called Baris, in the northern side of the temenos of the Temple,¹⁶² destroyed by Pompey in 63 BC and replaced between 37 and 31 BC by the fortress Antonia, built by Herod the Great.¹⁶³ The only vestige of the Baris is a water system, which started north of the Damascus Gate, where it collected the rainwaters coming from the western slope of El Heidhemiyeh Hill.¹⁶⁴ The eastern side of the wall of the temenos, ascribed to the Hellenistic period, is visible where it is not covered by the Islamic cemetery,¹⁶⁵ and some remains of the connection of the city to the Temple temenos on its western side were found at the Wilson Arch and, further to the south, at a staircase parallel to the Robison Arch.¹⁶⁶ Recent excavations at the Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway
159.
160. 161. 162. 163.
164. 165.
166.
lenistic period, although its shape is not consistent with the standard for the ritual baths, may have been used by the large number of pilgrims, as the last possibility for cleaning before entering the sacred precinct (cf. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, 304). Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 318. Gibson proposes that both pools at Bethesda were carved out at the same time during the Early Roman period (cf. S. Gibson, “The Excavations at the Bethesda Pool in Jerusalem. Preliminary Report on a Project of Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis (1999–2009)”, Proche-Orient Chrétien 61 (2011), 17-44). Cf. Weksler-Bdolah/Onn/Ouahnouna/Kisilevitz, “Jerusalem, the Western Plaza”, Internet Site. Cf. I. Zilberbod, “The Lower Aqueduct”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Cf. Flavius Josephus Ant. 15, 403; 18, 91-92 and War 1, 118. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 351-4. Ritmeyer 1992 places the Baris between the “Tomb of Strabo” and northern wall of the preHerodian temenos (cf. L. Ritmeyer, “Locating the Original Temple Mount”, BAR 18 (1992), 24-45, 64-5, on pp. 30-1). Ritmeyer 1992 restitution of the size and location of the Temple during the Late Hellenistic period, though suggestive “kann [...] nur noch mit großer Vorsicht übernommen werden”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 132. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 383-5. “In seleukidisch-hasmonäischer Zeit wurde offensichtlich jene Mauer errichtet, von der zwischen der Mauerfuge (F) und dem Schutt (93,2) und an zwei weiteren Stellen gegen N, zwischen den Zinnen 60-66 und im Bereich des Goldenen Tors, Stücke sichtbar sind (s.u.). Die hell. Mauertechnik dieses Abschnitts legt nahe, dass hier einer jener Mauerbauten vorliegt, die unter dem Hohepriester Simon dem Gerechten (Sir 50,lf) oder unter einem der hasmon. Herrscher des 2Jh.a belegt sind. Das heute sichtbare Mauerwerk erlaubt keine Aussagen, wo und ob überhaupt das seleuk.-hasmon. Mauerwerk älteres, pers. oder israelit. Mauerwerk abgelöst hat”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 183. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 160.
88
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
discovered the early phase of construction, ascribed to the end of the Late Hellenistic period.¹⁶⁷ From the second half of C2 BC, until the beginning of Herod’s the Great reign in 37 BC, Jerusalem grew to the large size of 60 ha,¹⁶⁸ the population attaining c. 32.000 people.¹⁶⁹ 3.1.5 The Roman and Byzantine Periods (37 BC-638 AD) In 63 BC,¹⁷⁰ Pompey restored Hyrcanus II (76-40 BC) as High Priest in Jerusalem, inaugurating the control of Rome over the Hasmonean kingdom.¹⁷¹ In 37 BC, three years after his appointment as “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate, Herod the Great (37-4 BC) won possession of his kingdom,¹⁷² beginning the transformation of Jerusalem into a “jüd. Metropole und gleichzeitig zu einer hell-röm Königsstadt”.¹⁷³ Netzer 2006 summarises the impressive “Herod’s Building Program”, carried out successfully by the Roman client king during his reign:¹⁷⁴ in the first phase (from 37 to c. 30 BC), in Jerusalem, Herod built the fortress Antonia,¹⁷⁵ at the north-western edge of the temenos of the Temple, the scant archaeological remains of which offer no definitive argumentation as to its size and shape,¹⁷⁶ the 167. “The remains from the Second Temple period are ascribed to two main construction phases. The early phase occurred prior to the expansion of the Temple Mount by Herod, probably in the first century BCE, in the Late Hasmonean period or the beginning of Herod’s reign. The late phase is connected to the construction that took place next to the western wall of the Temple Mount, when the latter was enlarged during Herod’s reign (c. 20 BCE), until 70 CE. The buildings of the early phase were adapted to the natural topography, particularly to the channels of the Transverse and the Tyropoeon Valleys, and their main axes corresponded to the ordinal directions of the compass. Unlike the early phase, the buildings of the late phase were usually aligned to correspond with the western wall of the Temple Mount, and they were perpendicular or parallel to its general north–south orientation”, Onn/Weksler-Bdolah/BarNathan, “The Old City, Wilson’s Arch”, Internet site. 168. Cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector, 30*. 169. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 97. Broshi 2001 proposes a size of 66 ha and a population between 30.000 and 35.000 people (cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 116). 170. These periods are subdivided as follows: the Early Roman period (37 BC – 132 AD), and within it the Herodian period (37 BC – 70 AD); Late Roman period (132-324 AD); Byzantine period (324-638 AD), cf. NEAEHL 4, 1993, p. 1529. 171. Cf. E.M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: a Study in Political Relations (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 21-30. 172. Cf. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, 55-9. 173. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1110. 174. Cf. E. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Backer Academic, 2006), 302-6. 175. Cf. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 302. In this first phase, outside Jerusalem, Herod rebuilt and restructured the desert fortresses of the Late Hellenistic period, and probably also the “First Palace” at Jericho (cf. ibid.). 176. The two main interpretations of the archaeological remains related to the Antonia are the “Great Antonia” hypothesis pro-
theatre and a stadium-hippodrome, which have not yet been discovered,¹⁷⁷ and the three multi-storeyed towers a the site called today the Citadel,¹⁷⁸ perhaps before the construction of his palace further south;¹⁷⁹ during the second phase (from c. 30 to c. 20 BC), Herod carried out the large scale project of Sebaste, the construction of the fortress Cypros, and the major palaces in Jericho, Massada and Herodion, and these once completed, between c. 20 and c. 15 BC, he concentrated to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, with the extension of the temenos,¹⁸⁰ contemporaneously with the other large project of the foundation of Caesarea.¹⁸¹ In Jerusalem, Herod also restored the Hellenistic city wall (the “First Wall”), and built an extension of this wall to the North, namely the “Second Wall” mentioned by Flavius Josephus in War 5, 146.¹⁸² Because of the inconsistent description given by Josephus and the scant archaeological evidence, three different hypotheses are proposed for the course of the “Second Wall”.¹⁸³ The water needs of Jerusalem, increased by the growth of the population and the service of the Temple, were satisfied by the restoration of the existent water systems, and the construction of new ones, such as the Birket Bani Israil, built probably between 20 and 10 BC and located at the north-eastern side of the northern wall of the temenos,¹⁸⁴ while the High-level aqueduct, previously dated to C2 AD, has been recently attributed to Herod.¹⁸⁵
177. 178.
179. 180.
181. 182.
183. 184. 185.
posed by Vincent/Steve 1954 (cf. L.H. Vincent/A.M. Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. Recherches d’archéologie et d’Histoire, vol. I (Paris: Gabalda, 1954), 195-219) and the “Small Antonia” hypothesis made by Benoit 1971 (cf. P. Benoit, “L’Antonia d’Herode le Grand et le forum oriental d’Aelia Capitolina”, Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971) 135-167). See also Küchler, Jerusalem, 353-4. Cf. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 303. For a detailed presentation of the archaeological remains related to Herod’s palace and the three towers called according to Flavius Josephus Miriamme, Phasaelis and Hyppicos, see Küchler, Jerusalem, 497-503. Cf. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 303. The archaeological remains of the Temple built by Herod are too many to be presented in detail in this brief account on the topographical evolution of Jerusalem. For a detailed presentation see Küchler, Jerusalem, 151-207, and L. Ritmeyer/K. Ritmeyer, Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount (Washington (D.C.): Biblical archaeology society, 2006). Cf. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 303-4. “The urban implications of Jerusalem’s status as capital of a sovereign state were far reaching. Physically, the city developed rapidly in a westerly direction and more than quadruples its area to 150 to 160 acres. By the first century B.C.E., this expanded area had already become inadequate, necessitating the construction of a second wall to the north that incorporated an additional 60 to 70 acres”, Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 106. See also Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, 41. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 99. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 312. “Just north of Herod’s palace is a great pool known since the Middle Ages as the ’Pool of the Patriarch’s Bath’. Josephus calls it amygdalon ’almond tree’ (BJ 5.486), which is probably a corrup-
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
89
The remarkable building activity of Herod continued until his death, occurred in 4 BC in Jericho,¹⁸⁶ bringing the walled area of Jerusalem to 93 ha, of which 14 ha were occupied by the enlarged temenos,¹⁸⁷ with a population of around 38,500 people.¹⁸⁸ The Romans took over the direct control of Judea in 6 AD, integrating it into the Roman provincial system, and transferring the capital to Caesarea Maritima. This implied the transfer from Jerusalem of the judicial, administrative and military structures; nevertheless, although it is not possible to measure the impact in detail, Jerusalem continued to be the main city of Judea, still central in the life of the Jewish population of the region.¹⁸⁹ The development of the city experienced another boost during the reign of Agrippa I (41-44 AD) with the construction of a residential area along the main road of Jerusalem stretching over the Tyropoeon Valley,¹⁹⁰ until the Siloam Pools, and the planned expansion to the North, within the limit of the unfinished “Third Wall”.¹⁹¹
After the death of Agrippa I, the Romans again took over the direct control of Judea, while the building activity of the city continued, with the completion of the construction of the Temple at the beginning of the 60s AD,¹⁹² until the destruction of the city and the Temple by the armies of Titus in 70 AD,¹⁹³ as final outcome of the First Jewish Revolt.¹⁹⁴ The extension of the city, formally defined inside the city wall, with the uncompleted “Third Wall”, expanded to 180 ha.¹⁹⁵ The archaeological researches in the northern part included in the “Third Wall” course show that this area continued to be unpopulated and reserved for small agricultural settlement and quarrying activities,¹⁹⁶ making completely unrealistic the estimation proposed by Broshi 2001 of 80,000 persons living in Jerusalem on the eve of the 70 AD destruction.¹⁹⁷ The situation of Jerusalem after the destruction and before the elevation to the rank of Colonia Romana during Hadrian’s reign is poorly known.¹⁹⁸
tion of migdal ’tower’, the point of reference being Herod’s three great towers. This pool was fed by an aqueduct coming from the Mamilla Pool in Independence Park. It has been argued that to supply this pool Herod constructed the first phase of the ’high-level aqueduct’ from Solomon’s Pools. The objection to this view has always been the 31 inscriptions of centuriae of the Tenth Legion (dated to the end of the 2nd cent. AD) on sections of the stone pipe that created a syphon in the 2 km long depression south of Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem. It is now known, however, that this bowl was originally traversed by an arcade resting on a series of piers, which are still visible”, Murphy O’Connor, Jerusalem, 11. See also D. Amit., “New data for dating the High-level aqueduct, the Wadi el Biyar aqueduct, and the Herodion aqueduct”, in D. Amit/J. Patrich/Y. Hirschfeld, The Aqueducts of Israel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 46 (2002) 253-66. Cf. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 304-5. Cf. Broshi, Estimating the Population, 118. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 97. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 285. The area between the Temple and the Royal Palace started to be developed as rich residential area already during the reign of Herod: “The great palace in the Upper City inevitably attracted others who wished to be close to the seat of power. In a gesture typical of Herod the Great simple houses of the Hasmonean period were evacuated and torn down to make space for greatly superior mansions. A 13 m wide paved street ran from the palace to the Tyropoeon valley. The quality of construction and decoration of the buildings excavated on Mount Zion is remarkable, but even they are surpassed by a series of Herodian period buildings now preserved as the Wohl Archaeological Museum in the Jewish Quarter. Each mansion was built around a central courtyard, and was two, if not three, storyes high. A characteristic feature is the number of baths, ritual and otherwise. It is plausibly suggested that these housed the wealthy priestly families from which high priests were chosen”, Murphy O’Connor, Jerusalem, 10. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1110. For a detailed presentation of the “Third Wall” see § 4.7. For a recent presentation of the finds related to the Early Roman period see also H. Geva, “On the ’New City’ of Second Temple Period Jerusalem: The Archaeological Evidence”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 298-312.
192. In 64 AD, according to Levine 2002 (cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 309). For a presentation of the archaeological remains of the Herodian period refer to Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem Vol. 1, 113-141. 193. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1110. According to Flavius Josephus (War 7, 1-2), the Romans preserved only the three towers Phasaelis, Miriamme and Hippicus, in order to protect the camp of the Tenth Legion Fretentis (cf. Murphy O’Connor, Jerusalem, 13), and as a monument to the greatness of the defensive system of the city which was overcome by the Roman armies (War 6, 413). Because the paucity of archaeological remains associated to the permanent camp of the Tenth Legio Fretentis in Jerusalem, its location is discussed (cf. H. Geva, “The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration”, IEJ 34 (1984) 239-54; J. Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review of Some Current Debates about Hadrianic Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 313-24). 194. A number of reasons caused the discontent which started the revolt, Levine 2002 excluding any political reason because of the lack of strong political leaders who might have deliberately channelled the discontent into an organised revolt (cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 401-4). 195. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 314; cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 119. 196. Cf. § 4. 197. Cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 119. In Broshi 2001 the figures for the population of Jerusalem just before the First Jewish Revolt are calculated with a density per acre of 177 persons, implying that all the area comprised in the “Third Wall” course and the area of the Temple temenos was as densely populated as the rest of the city. A more realistic figure, if the calculation criterion of Broshi is accepted, namely160-200 persons per acre, (cf. ibid., p. 110-111), considering the populated area to be at most 100 ha (240 acres) without the Temple temenos, would be of 42.500 persons. Levine 2002 considers the northern area newly included in the city as partially settled, and proposes a figure of 60.000 people (cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 342). 198. Possibly, the “veterans inevitably began to agitate for the privileges of a Roman colony for the little city that grew up north of the legion camp. The emperor Hadrian (117-138) responded
186. 187. 188. 189. 190.
191.
90
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
If only a few finding dating to this period were discovered,¹⁹⁹ on the base of numismatic findings, the foundation of Ælia Capitolina by Hadrian may have preceded the outbreak of the Second Jewish Revolt (The Bar Kochba Revolt) in 132 AD,²⁰⁰ the cause of the revolt being precisely the Roman colonisation of Jerusalem.²⁰¹ Since Avigad’s 1968-1978 excavations in the Jewish Quarter, Ælia Capitolina has been considered by most scholars an unwalled city,²⁰² approximately the size of today’s Old City, settled in the northern part, the southern area being occupied by the camp of the Tenth Legio, but more recently a renewed debate focuses on the size and limits of the city, the possible existence of a city wall,
199. 200.
201.
202.
favourably, probably on his visit to the east in AD 130-31”, Murphy O’Connor, Jerusalem, 13. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Vol. 1, 142-3. “Den Tempelplatz schmückten nur kaiserliche Reiterstandbilder, während im Westen, im Winkel der zwei großen Zugangsstraßen vom Westen und vom Norden, das Forum mit den Staatsheiligtümern lag. Ein römisches Straßennetz gestaltete das Stadtbild so, wie es bis heute besteht: Zwei Hauptstraßen gingen vom N-Tor aus gegen Süden und wurden zweimal von Querstraßen geschnitten. Südlich an diese Zivilstadt grenzte das Standlager der röm. Legion an, das insgesamt über 200 Jahre bestand”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 1110. For the archaeological remains of the Late Roman period see H. Geva, “The Roman Period”, in NEAEHL 2, 1993, 758-67. “Perhaps the Jews revolted because of the Roman attempt to build a new city called Aelia Capitolina, with a temple of Jupiter on the site of the former Jewish Temple. The desecration of the Temple area could have prompted the Jewish uprising. Another issue contributing to the revolt can be seen in the Roman law against circumcision; from the Roman perspective, this practice was the equivalent of castration, the perpetrators of which should be subject to capital punishment. Furthermore, animosities against the Romans’ policy of hellenization had been seething for some time, and were ripe to break out in violence. Most probably a combination of factors was responsible for the Jewish upheaval”, B. Zissu/E. Gass., “The identification of biblical Achzib at Khirbet ‘Ēn elKizbe in the Judean Shephelah, and the origins of Shimon Bar Kokhba”, in A.M. Maeir/J. Magness/L.H. Schiffman, ’Go out and study the land’ (Judges 18,2): archaeological, historical and textual studies in honor of Hanan Eshel (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2012), 412. See also Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review”, 313. More recently Leah Di Segni stated: “As the excavators observed in the Eastern Cardo, the pavement of the cardo was laid at a later stage, though also under Hadrian. When the emperor arrived in 130, one can suppose that there was something to show him so that he could cut the ribbon and inaugurate the new city, giving it his own name”, L. Di Segni, “Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia Capitolina”, Liber Annus 64 (2014) 441-51, on p. 449. “Most scholars believe that Ælia Capitolina had no major fortifications. It seems that the line of the destroyed 1st-c. wall simply demarcated the city’s limits during the 2nd-3rd c. and did not constitute an actual fortification. However, B. Isaac notes that there are no parallels for the existence of a Roman colony without a city wall. Although the excavations by K. Kenyon and B. Mazar south of the Temple Mount uncovered massive wall remains which they ascribe to the wall of the legion’s camp or that of Ælia Capitolina, the remains do not continue uninterrupted and have not been found elsewhere along the southern line”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 392.
and the location of the camp of the Tenth Legio Fretentis.²⁰³ In this sense, Avni 2005, studying the distribution of the Early and Late Roman necropolises, joined Magness 2000²⁰⁴ in her hypothesis that Ælia Capitolina northern limits were marked by the “Third Wall” line, and that the plan of the city had as its centre a free-standing arch, at the today’s Damascus Gate,²⁰⁵ while the location of the legionary camp is a debated matter, mostly because of the difficulty of distinguishing the development in the pottery of the period between the two revolts and the end of C3 AD.²⁰⁶ Moreover, a recent discovery in the Giv’ati Parking excavations on spur of the south-eastern hill uncovered a large building dating to the end of C3 AD, which extended the known urban limit of Ælia Capitolina further south, at least at the end of the Late Roman period.²⁰⁷ Considering the uneven occupation of Ælia Capitolina, which was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants,²⁰⁸ any estimation of the population would be arbitrary, even knowing the size of the city.²⁰⁹ 203. Cf. Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review”, 313-4. 204. Cf. Magness, “The North Wall”, 328-39. 205. “It seems that the Roman town-planners were confronted with using the lines of the partially destroyed Early Roman walls - the “First Wall” in the south and the ’Third Wall’ in the north - as a basis for the boundaries of the new city. On this reconstruction, Aelia Capitolina was a typical Roman city with a fairly square outline, and the Damascus Gate was situated at the centre, rather than denoting the N city boundary; the gate probably stood in the middle of a square marking the centre, and may have stood at the intersection of main thoroughfares, as is seen in other Roman foundations of the 1st and 2nd c.”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 390. 206. Eilat Mazar proposes the Citadel as the first location of the camp of the Tenth Legio, until 135 AD, when it was moved to the Temple Mount and its south-western edge; Stiebel suggests that the camp was moved at the end of the 70’s AD from the Citadel to the Tyropoeon Valley (cf. Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review”, 320). 207. “The building was planned as a peristyle structure (Fig. 8). A large open courtyard (c. 240 sq m) in its center is flanked by a series of rooms. The bases and parts of the monolithic stone column shafts that stood on the stylobate were found scattered throughout the courtyard. Covered stoae were located between the rows of columns and the rooms that bordered the courtyard. [...] It was determined that the building was constructed at the end of the third century CE. The later coins discovered beneath the original floor levels were dated to the first century CE; however, the coins that were found inside its walls established the date of its construction to the Late Roman period”, D. Ben-Ami/Y. Tchekhanovetz, “Jerusalem, Giv‘ati Parking Lot Preliminary Report”, HA-ESI 122 (2010) Internet Site. 208. “After the failure of the Second Revolt Jews were forbidden to reside in Jerusalem or in the surrounding countryside (Eusebius, History of the Church, 4.6.3). There is no evidence that this edict was ever rescinded. To add insult to injury Jews were permitted to return to Jerusalem one day a year to lament for what they had lost. The evidence for a continuing Jewish presence in the city is problematic in the extreme”, Murphy O’Connor, Jerusalem, 14. 209. Cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 119.
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
During the Byzantine period, Jerusalem, the official name of which continued to be Ælia without the pagan designation of Capitolina, experienced a major development as a Christian city.²¹⁰ As Küchler 2007 pointed out, the building programme of the Christian Emperors followed the theological development of the major ecumenical councils: Nach dem Konzil von Nicäa (325) entstanden als erstes die Basiliken der »Auferstehung« (an der Stelle der röm. Staatstempel) und der Himmelfahrt (auf dem Ölberg), wodurch die beiden neuen religiösen Topoi im W und im 0 des weiterhin verwüstet da liegenden Tempelplatzes bestimmt waren. Im Gefolge des Konzils von Konstantinopel (381) mit dem Thema »Heiliger Geist« entstand ein drittes Zentrum auf dem SW-Hügel: Der christliche Sion als »Mutter aller Kirchen« mit dem ersten Bischofssitz und der Pfingsttradition als Hauptinhalten und zahlreichen ntl. Erinnerungen. Im 5. und 6.Jh., von den Kaisern Theodosius II. bis zu Iustinianus I., kam die byz. Stadt als Patriarchatsstadt zu ihrer höchsten Blütezeit. Die neue Stadtmauer der Kaiserin Eudokia umfasste nun den ganzen S-Teil der Stadt. Die Stätten des Marienlebens und des Wirkens und Leidens Jesu in Jerusalem bekamen im Umfeld der Konzilien von Ephesus (431) und von Kalzedon (451) mit ihrer Betonung der Menschlichkeit Jesu viele eigene Heiligtümer am Ölberg (Grab Marias, Getsemani), auf dem Sion (St. Petrus in Gallicantu), bei den Stadtteichen (Schafteich und Siloa) und im lnnern der Stadt, wo erstmals eine Via Dolorosa entstand.²¹¹ Shaped by the streets and the walls, the urban layout of the city is archaeologically well documented, and generally confirmed in the remarkably precise indications of the Madaba Map.²¹² In the Byzantine period, the general plan of Ælia Capitolina was expanded from the decumanus toward the South, with the two mains cardo reaching respectively the top of Mount Zion, to the gate at the south-western edge of the city wall, and the south-eastern hill, in the Tyropoeon Valley to the Siloam Pool.²¹³ The course of the Byzantine city wall, which follows the line of the walls built between the end of C3 AD and the beginning of C4 AD, is known from the large 210. For the list of the major Byzantine site, refer to M. Avi-Yonah, “The Byzantine Period”, in NEAEHL 2, 1993, 768-85. 211. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1118. 212. Cf. Y. Tzafrir, “The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map”, in M. Piccirillo, The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997, (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1999) 155-64. 213. Cf. O. Gutfeld, “The Urban Layout of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 327-50. In this article, other minor streets of the Byzantine period are also presented.
91
number of excavations carried out since the end of C19 AD.²¹⁴ In C5 AD, Empress Eudoxia rebuilt the wall, incorporating the southern part of the city,²¹⁵ and at the end of the Byzantine period, several segments of the city wall were restored,²¹⁶ while the northern, north-western and north-eastern sections of the Late Roman-Byzantine city wall were located inside the line of the today’s city wall.²¹⁷ From C5 AD, the influx of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem considerably increased, and foreigners – Syrians, Armenians, Anatolian Greeks – established communities in the Holy City,²¹⁸ while large monastic complexes were built on the northern outskirt of the city.²¹⁹ In 614 AD, the Sassanid armies of Chosroes II conquered Jerusalem, and a systematic destruction of the Christian sites began.²²⁰ Fourteen years later, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius reconquered the city, beginning the reconstruction of several holy sites in and around Jerusalem,²²¹ interrupted by the Arab conquest 214. “The refortification of Jerusalem at this time may be related to the evacuation of the Tenth Legion form its camp in the southern part of the city, at the end of the third century (probably in the Diocletian’s reign), which left the city largely undefended. It was, however, manly motivated by Jerusalem’s growing religious significance from the time of Constantine, in the early forth century. It would seem, therefore, that Jerusalem, the unwalled Roman colony of Ælia Capitolina, was surrounded by a wall at the very beginning of the Byzantine period, perhaps already under Constantine the Great”, Avi-Yonah, “The Byzantine Period”, 770-2. 215. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1118. 216. “Large, coarsely hewn stones were characteristically used, such as those found on the eastern Ophel, in the fosse of the Citadel, and perhaps also in the northern part of the city. Some scholars, however, prefer a later date for these repair operation – the Early Arab period”, Avi-Yonah, “The Byzantine Period”, 772. 217. Cf. S. Wekselr-Bdolah, “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls of Jerusalem in Light of New Discoveries”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 442-3. 218. Cf. Avi-Yonah, “The Byzantine Period”, 768. 219. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Vol. 1, 163. For the archaeological surveys and excavations in this area and the Byzantine period remains see § 4. 220. A reconsideration of the scale of the Persian destruction of 614 AD is presented in Avni, “The Persian conquest of Jerusalem”, 35-48. In this sense, see also G. Avni, “From Hagia Polis to Al-Quds: The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 392-3. However, other scholars reaffirm the devastating effect of the Persian destruction of Jerusalem (see for example D. Whitcomb, “Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 399-400. 221. “The excavations at the foot of the Temple Mount […] have revealed, besides the renovation work, evidence that the Temple Mount in particular had been the scene of large-scale, deliberate destruction. Perhaps, Jewish involvement in the Persian occupation of Jerusalem and the ensuing destruction of churches inspired the Byzantine forces to wreak revenge by razing the
92
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
which ended the Byzantine rule of Jerusalem in 638 AD.²²² The size of Jerusalem’s walled area,²²³ after the constructions ordered by Empress Eudoxia, was about 120 ha,²²⁴ while the population, at the end of the Byzantine period to the beginning of the Early Arab period was of about 55,000-60,000 people.²²⁵ 3.1.6 From the Early Islamic to the Ottoman Period (638-1917 AD) The Arab conquest caused no major destructions,²²⁶ and, in the years following the new rule, the urban fabric of Jerusalem remained generally unchanged, with the notable exception of the temenos of the Temple, which, with the construction of the Dome of the Rock and alAqsa Mosque by the Umayyad caliphs, became al-Haram al-Sharif. The area South and South-West of the al-Haram al-Sharif was also radically reshaped, by the impressive
222. 223.
224. 225.
226.
already ruinous shrines on the Temple Mount. Lengthy sections of the walls of the enclosure were dismantled, their stone scattered in all directions. The excavators discovered many of the original, Herodian stones from the Temple Mount wall where they fell, on the ruins of private houses dated to the sixth century CE. The southern wall was particularly affected”, M. Ben-Dov, “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, NEAEHL 2, 1993, 786. Cf. Ben-Dov, “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, 786. “Surrounding the city walls were neighborhoods or concentrations of dwellings, and scores of monasteries and churches; building complexes encircled the entire city, in a strip roughly 1-1.5 kilometers wide. The density of churches and monasteries (and their properties) in this strip was high, and it is likely that the boundary of one bordered that of its neighbour (for example, Sites [102] 321, 325, 330 [four structures], 337 [“Floor of the Birds” and “Orpheus’ Floor”], 391, 400, 404, 465, 469, 473, 478, 482). About 40 monasteries, eight of them nunneries, were built within Jerusalem’s walls and in the surroundings area during the Byzantine period”, Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector, p. 50*. For a recent presentation of the development of the outskirt of Jerusalem during the Byzantine period see J. Seligman, “The Hinterland of Jerusalem during the Byzantine Period”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 361-83. Cf. Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 119. “In this period, more than any other before or after-until the twentieth century-a sizable part of the population lived outside the walls, but we have no means of assessing the number of extramural population. My rather high estimate is corroborated by the lists of the Christians that were killed or taken prisoner during the Persian invasion in 614 CE. Unfortunately, those lists, preserved in several languages and several versions, suffer from copyists’ and translators’ errors and cannot provide definite numbers. Cf. J.T. Milik, « La topographie de Jerusalem vers la fin de l’epoque Byzantine », Melanges de l’Universite St Joseph 37 (1961), pp. 127-81 (133)”, Broshi, “Estimating the Population”, 119, note 18, 120. The sub-periodization used in the present work is the following: Early Islamic period (638-1099 AD); Crusader and Ayyubid periods (1099-1260 AD); Late Islamic period (1260-1917 AD), subdivided in Mamluk period (1260-1516 AD) and Ottoman period (1516-1917), cf. figure 32.
buildings which were established during the Umayyad period (660/1-750 AD).²²⁷ Along with the Islamic developments of the urban layout of Jerusalem, the Christian institutions continued to exist and in some cases even develop until C9-10 AD,²²⁸ while the city wall remained substantially unchanged, seemingly until C10-11 AD.²²⁹ The passage to the Abbasid (750-970 AD) rule brought no major changes in the urban fabric of Jerusalem, until the internal dynastic unrests of 809 AD, when several churches were destroyed and a number of monastic complexes attacked.²³⁰ Under the rule of the Fatimid (970-1079 AD), the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre was carried out in 1009 AD,²³¹ while, from the beginning and throughout all the Early Islamic period, several violent quakes caused serious damage to the shrines on al-Haram al-Sharif, the worst being the 1033 AD one,²³² which changed the appearance of Jerusalem and damaged the city wall; this was repaired between 1034 AD and 1064 AD,²³³ following the line of the city wall visible today.²³⁴ The Seljuk armies besieged Jerusalem in 1073 AD and 1078 AD, and conquered the city in 1079 AD, only to lose it again to the Fatimid Caliphate in 1098 AD,²³⁵ followed by the Crusaders’ conquest in 1099 AD, which caused no major damages to the sacred buildings, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque being transformed respectively into the churches Templum Domini and Templum Salomonis.²³⁶ 227. Cf. Avni, “From Hagia Polis”, 387. Jodi Magness presented a reassessment of the archaeological interpretations of these constructions: J. Magness, “Early Islamic Urbanism and Building Activity in Jerusalem and at Hammath Gader”, in J. Haldon (ed.), Money, Exchange and the Economy in the First Century of Islam: An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Debates (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010) 147-63. 228. Cf. Avni, “From Hagia Polis”, 390. 229. Cf. Wekselr-Bdolah, “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls”, 421. 230. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Vol. 1, 190. 231. Cf. Avni, “From Hagia Polis”, 393. 232. in 658 AD, 747 AD or 749 AD, 765 AD, and 1016 AD (cf. Wekselr-Bdolah, “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls”, 443). 233. At the end of the Early Islamic period a complex system of fortification was developed in the northern section of the city wall, consisting of a forewall erected above the external edge of the moat, and a main wall, on the line of the Roman-Byzantine wall (cf. Wekselr-Bdolah, “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls”, 443-5). 234. Cf. D. Bahat, “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, NEAEHL 2, 1993, 786. 235. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1126. 236. The Crusader period lasted respectively, in Jerusalem from 1099 AD to 1187, and for the Crusader Kingdom in the North until 1291 AD (cf. M. Hawari, “Ayyubid Jerusalem: New Architectural and Archaeological Discoveries”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 453-73, on p. 453). In 1229, during the Ayyubid period, in Jerusalem, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Freder-
Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area
With the reconstruction of a number of churches and Christian institutions, the urban fabric of Jerusalem was again reshaped as a Christian city, however without major modifications of the urban layout: Die zahlreichen Kirchen lassen sich zu folgenden organisatorischen Einheiten gruppieren: Die vier Hauptkirchen über den wichtigsten Pilgerstätten, die Grabeskirche, das Templum Domini, St. Maria in Monte Sion und die Himmelfahrts-Rotunde gehörten zu Chorherrenstiften. Der Benediktinerorden hatte fünf (oder sechs) Konvente: St. Anna, St. Maria Latina, St. Maria parva, St. Maria Maior, St. Maria in Valle Josaphat und vielleicht St. Maria Magdalena. Der Templerorden residierte im Templum Salomonis. Der Johanniterorden hatte seine Kirchen, Klöster und Hospize im heutigen Muristanquartier und das »Deutsche Haus« hatte sein Hospiz und Spital w oberhalb des Stadttales (s. BBJer I 202-216). Im W beherrschte der neue Königspalast in der Zitadelle die Stadt, in welcher viele weitere Kirchen, soziale Einrichtungen, Markthallen, Ställe und Friedhöfe angelegt wurden. Große christl. Pilgerscharen kamen an, wie sehr zahlreiche Pilgerschriften belegen.²³⁷ A new wall, integrating massive square towers, to be attributed probably to the Ayyubid dynasty for its major constructions, was erected in the northern section of the city in the late C12 AD or early of C13 AD, including the north-western and the north-eastern corner of the Old City of today.²³⁸ ick II Hohenstaufen concluded an agreement with al-Malik al Kamil, which gave the control of Jerusalem to the Christians, with the exception of al-Haram al-Sharif. The Emperor also obtained the authorisation to rebuild the fortifications of Jerusalem destroyed by al-Malik al Mua’zzam ‘Isa in 1219 AD, 1220 AD and 1227 AD (see below in the text), but nothing is known about the reconstruction of the city wall. In 1230 AD, in response to a Crusader attack in the North, al- Malik Nasir Daoud conquered Jerusalem after a three week siege, and destroyed the Citadel, probably restored by Frederick II. In 1240 AD, the English King Richard of Cornwall obtained a corridor which connected the Crusader Kingdom in the North to Jerusalem, and also the control of the al-Haram al-Sharif, where Christian services resumed. Jerusalem was definitively lost to the Crusaders in 1244 AD when the Khawarizmians conquered the city for the Egyptian Ayyubid prince (cf. Bahat, “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, 789). 237. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1126. 238. “Thus, around 1200, Jerusalem’s northern parts were enclosed once again within a double line of fortifications (fig. 21). The external line of fortifications consisted of the Early Islamic forewall outlined by the hewn moat, whereas the inner line consisted of the old Roman-Byzantine wall in the center and the Crusader/Ayyubid towers, which were integrated in a wall along the northwestern and possibly also the northeastern corners. [...] Historically, it is difficult to identify the builders of the late 12th-early 13th-century line of fortifications. Following the Crusaders conquest of the city in 1099, the historical sources
93
Saladin started a re-islamisation of the Christian Jerusalem, reinstalling the Islamic cult on al-Haram alSharif and converting churches and Christian institutions to mosques and teaching centres, as happened, for example, to the Church of Saint Anne, which became the residence of a group of Derwish and a madrasa for the teaching of the religion.²³⁹ His successors continued the architectural programme, which introduced no major changes in the urban layout of Jerusalem,²⁴⁰ until the destruction of the medieval fortifications, ordered by alMalik al-Mu’azzam ‘Isa in 1219 AD and 1220 AD,²⁴¹ to avoid leaving a fortified city in the event of a Crusader conquest of Jerusalem. This made Jerusalem an unwalled city until the second quarter of C16 AD, when Suleiman the Magnificent built the city wall visible today,²⁴² however more for aesthetic and administrative reasons, than as an effective defensive fortification. The Mamluk rule in Jerusalem began in 1260 AD and ended in 1516 AD, while the Mamluk control of the Levant was assured only after the fall of the Crusader Kingdom in 1291 AD. The Ottomans ruled Jerusalem from 1516 AD, until 1917, when began the British Mandate over Palestine.²⁴³ The Late Islamic period has been only partially studied, the researches being concentrated on the major monuments of this period, and no estimations of the population are available;²⁴⁴ however, regarding the urban fabric of
239. 240.
241. 242. 243. 244.
note the deteriorated condition of the city walls and state the intention to renovate them but do not go into specific details with regard to the construction or renovations of walls (Bahat 1991: 71-78). However, after the conquest of the city in 1187, the historical sources report the construction of a wall, towers and a moat during the rule of the Ayyubid sultans Saladin, his brother al Malik al-‘Adil and his son al Malik al-Mu’azzam ‘Isa (Bahat 1991: 121-27; Wightman 1993: 273-79). These sources, together with the building inscription of the Ayyubid sultan al-Malik al Mu’azzam ‘Isa found among the ruins of the southern towers (above, Broshi 1987), allows the major construction of the fortifications to be attributed to the Ayyubid dynasty”, Wekselr-Bdolah, “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls”, 446. Cf. Bahat, “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, 789. Only four new mosques and six madrasa were built, along with the double gate of Bab el Silsila, Bab el Sakina, the Qubbat Sulayman, the Qubba al-Nahawiyya were built (cf. Hawari, “Ayyubid Jerusalem”, 453-73). Bahat 1993 also adds a destruction in 1227 AD (cf. Bahat, “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, 789). Cf. Wekselr-Bdolah, “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls”, 447. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 1132-4. “The focus has been on the large public monuments, such as the Mamluk madrasahs alomg Bab al- Silsilah Street, The Citadel, and the Tekkiye Khasseki Sultan, along with just a handful of other buildings, such as the bathhouse studied by Dow (1996). This leaved the vast bulk of the buildings in the Old City unpublished”, R. Schick, “Mamluk and Ottoman Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 475-90, on p. 477. For a survey of the Mamluk architecture in Jerusalem see B.M. Hamilton, Mamluk Jerusalem
94
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
Jerusalem, until the end of C19 AD, when the outskirts of Jerusalem began to be settled by residential quarters and new Christian and Jewish institutions, no major changes occurred during this long period.
3.2 The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods The first systematic study²⁴⁵ of the topographical distribution of Jerusalem’s ancient necropolises - 500 tombs for all periods, in a time span of 1500 years - was published by Galling in 1936.²⁴⁶ Since then, hundreds of tombs have been discovered in Jerusalem and its outskirts, and probably a great number of burial sites were destroyed without any archaeological documentation in the last decades, while others more are still undiscovered.²⁴⁷ Even though the documented tombs are only a fraction of the actual figures in ancient times, it is possible to offer a picture of the topographical distribution of the burial areas in Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine period.²⁴⁸
Barkay 2000 presents a table of the distribution of the tombs of these periods, mainly concentrated in four cemeteries, the Silwan Necropolis, the Northern Necropolis²⁵¹ and the Western²⁵² and South-western Necropolises at the Hinnom Valley:²⁵³ In the Silwan Necropolis, which was thoroughly studied by Ussishkin, three groups of burial caves can be identified, classified according to their shared architectural features: 1. tombs with gabled ceiling; 2. tombs with flat ceiling; 3. monolithic above-ground tombs.²⁵⁴ The tombs of the first group are similar one to another, presenting the same architectural features, except for few details, certain uniformity in the measurements of several of these features, and the same high standard of accuracy and craftsmanship.²⁵⁵ Hewn in a row in the upper part of the lower cliff, which makes the access to them generally difficult, most of the tombs of this group present a square entrance. According to Ussishkin 1993, their common plan consists
3.2.1 The Iron Age – Neo-Babylonian necropolises In a detailed article published in 2000, Gabriel Barkay states that 127 burial caves dating from the Iron Age II to the Neo-Babylonian periods are known in the Jerusalem area.²⁴⁹ Since this publication, a few other installations have been discovered, which might have been burial caves dated to these periods.²⁵⁰
245.
246. 247. 248.
249.
250.
(Jerusalem: The World of Islam Festival Trust - British School of Archaeology, 1987). In the second half of C19, the researchers were aware of the small proportion known of the ancient necropolises of Jerusalem. In this sense: “this was Clermont-Ganneau’s hypothesis based on his impression that the northern slope Armon HaNatziv ridge (the southern slope of Nahal Azyl, Zone 11) contains hundreds of burial caves, only five of which he listed (Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 422). Other researchers, such as the team of the Survey of Western Palestine (SWP) and C. Schick, noted the existence of hundreds of burial caves, but they presented general summaries without itemizing the data (Vincent and Steve 1954: 313)”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 12. Cf. K. Galling, “Die Nekropole von Jerusalem”, PJB 32 (1936), 73-101. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 12. Since the SEC Hypogea have been dated to the Iron Age II period and were reused during the Byzantine period, the presentation of the necropolises of Jerusalem in the Bronze Age period and after the Byzantine period is outside of the scope of the present research. Cf. G. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem in the First Temple period”, in S. Ahituv/A. Mazar (ed.s), The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2000), (Hebrew) 233-70, on p. 233. Two burial chambers dated to the Iron Age II C were found in the soundings excavated near the city walls, in the Citadel
251. 252. 253.
254.
255.
area (cf. E. Braun, “Jerusalem, the Citadel. Archive ReportFinal Report”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a square, rockhewn installation, whose purpose is unknown, was discovered in the Hurva synagogue excavations (cf. H. Geva/O. Gutfeld, “Jerusalem, the Old City – the Jewish Quarter, the Hurva Synagogue”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site); a round repository of a burial cave, damaged by a later quarry, was discovered in the Ketef Hinnom excavations carried out in 1999 (cf. R. Avner/Y. Zelinger, “Ketef Hinnom”, HA-ESI 113 (2001) 82*-4*, on p. 82* and R. Avner/Y. Zelinger, “A Cemetery, a Quarry and Remains of a Church at Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 80 (2015), (Hebrew) 23*-53*, 141-2, on p. 141); during the 1997-1998 excavations, an Iron Age II cemetery was discovered in the south-eastern slope of Tell el-Ful (cf. Y. Baruch, “Tell el-Ful”, HA-ESI 111 (2000) 62*-4*, on p. 64*). North of the Damascus Gate. At Hinnom Valley, high and low. Kloner 2003 gives slightly different figures: 128 Iron Age II burial caves, dividing them as follow: 49 in the Silwan Necropolis, 50 along the Hinnom Valley, 16 in the Northern Necropolis, 12 in the farmsteads surrounding Jerusalem and North of the Old City, and an additional eight burial caves in the outer ring of settlements, which, added to the abovementioned 128 tombs, bring the total Iron Age II burial caves in the Jerusalem area to 136 (cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector, 27*). The table presented below gives the figures of Barkay 2000, which makes the distinction among the Hinnom Valley necropolises, with the addition of four burial caves referred in note 250. It is worth noting that Barkay 2000 degnigates the South-western Necropolesis according to their location in front of the southern part of the Western Hill of Jerusalem, instead of simply “Southern Necropolises” (cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 244); in order to keep the terminology as homogenous as possibile, in this book the designation “South-western Necropolesis” is mantained. A number of tombs do not match this tripartite classification, combining the architectural features of two groups, being constituted by tombs 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 19, to which four unfinished tombs 4, 5, 8 and 32, should be added. Tombs 1, 2, 11, 15 and perhaps 7 present characteristics common to different groups, according to the classification proposed by Ussishkin 1993 (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 267-268). Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 257.
The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods
Area
Number of tombs
percentage
Silwan Necropolis Northern Necropolis Western Necropolis South-western Necropolis Tombs at the Muslim and Christian quarters Tombs scattered in the villages and farms around the city
50 16 31 21 4 9
38.3 12.3 23.7 16.1 3.2 6.4
Total
131
100
in an entrance 1 long cubit high and 1 long cubit wide, while the depth of the entrance and the distance between the frames, when present, is less uniform.²⁵⁶ In the inner side of the entrance too there are carved frames, but again with no clear uniformity in their form and measurements. Finally, in all the tombs of this group, and only there, the trough burials were covered with a lid, and, as Ussishkin 1993 conjectures, the entrance to the tombs were seemingly closed with a square stone.²⁵⁷ Concentrated at the southern end of the lower cliff, the second group of the Silwan Necropolis has the largest number of tombs.²⁵⁸ The entrance to these tombs is rectangular - high between 1.45 m and 1.90 m - generally presenting a large outer frame, and closed either by a sealing stone matching the doorway, or with a slab, larger than the entrance, leaning against the entrance and held in place by other stones. Several tombs of this group present an opening between the chambers, which are different in number and size among the tombs. All the ceilings of this group are flat and most of them also present a rightangled cornice.²⁵⁹ Finally, not all the chambers present a resting place carved in the bedrock, supposing the use of stone ’sarcophagi, and perhaps wooden coffins.²⁶⁰ The third group is composed of four tombs, the “Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter” (n. 3), the “Tomb of the Royal Steward” (n. 35), and tombs n.s 28 and 34, all of them constituted by a cube of rock carved out of the cliff on all four or on three sides. A cornice in Egyptian style is carved 256. 1 cubit = 0.525 m (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 285). For a more detailed discussion on the cubit see § 2.3.3.2 257. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 257-62. 258. Tombs 12, 20-27, 29-30, 33, 36-44 and 49. Tombs 17-18, 31, 45-48 and 50 may also be included in this group (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 262-3). 259. Tombs 20, 22, 24, 26 29 and 33 have no cornice, others have it only in one chamber (tombs 23, 38, 41 and 49); “in the chambers that have a cornice, the desire for straight lines and uniformity on all sides is evident, but sometimes the cornice is curved or slopes slightly in accordance with the shape of the ceiling. In some chambers the cornice varies in size on each wall, or even at both its ends on the same wall”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 266. 260. A fragment of a sarcophagus lid was found in the necropolis survey (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 266).
95
on the outer sides of the “Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter” and of tomb 34, and possibly a funerary monument, a pyramid, was placed above the tombs.²⁶¹ The three groups are located in different parts of the cliff, while a tendency to carve single tombs near similar tombs has been noticed by Ussishkin 1993.²⁶² Several kinds of burials were used in the necropolis: niches with trough graves with or without lids,²⁶³ niches with benches, simple benches, a “sarcophagus”,²⁶⁴ a trough grave,²⁶⁵ and headrests were carved in a number of resting-places.²⁶⁶ The tombs were hewn only in the meleke stratum of the cliff,²⁶⁷ and most of them were carved according to a plan,²⁶⁸ with an exact dressing,²⁶⁹ the standard unit of measure used in some tombs being the long cubit.²⁷⁰ The burial caves of the Silwan Necropolis were probably 261. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 266-7. For the existence of a pyramid above the “Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter” see also G. Barkay, “Who Was Buried in the Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter?”, BAR 39 (2013) 41-51, on p. 43. For the discussion on the pyramid as a nefesh refer to § 170. 262. “All the tombs with a gabled ceiling are hewn in a row in the middle part of the lower cliff. […] The tombs of hybrid type are also concentrated in the lower cliff. The tombs with a flat ceiling are scattered along the entire length of the upper cliff and at the southern end of the lower cliff. The monolithic above-ground tombs are located in both cliffs, but they are all concentrated at the northern end of the necropolis”, cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 280. 263. The lids might have been monolithic or constituted of several slabs (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 271). 264. The bath-hub “sarcophagus” in Tomb 2, (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 279-80). For the use of the term “sarcophagus” in the academic literature see § 6.2.6. 265. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 268. 266. The headrests are well preserved in tombs 6, 10 and 16, while only remains have been found in tombs 9, 13 and 14, and probably there was also a headrest in tomb 19 (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 269). 267. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 283. 268. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 289. 269. “Five kinds of stone-dressing can be distinguished in the Silwan tombs: primary rough dressing with a chisel having a narrow point; secondary, accurate dressing with a chisel having a narrow point; dressing with a broad chisel; incision dressing; dressing with a toothed chisel”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 289. 270. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 285.
96
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
owned by important officials of the Judean Kingdom²⁷¹ and, following seven major criteria, both epigraphic and architectural, they can be dated to the late C8 BC.²⁷² Four funerary inscriptions were found on the facades of three monolithic tombs and a panel set for the fourth monolithic tomb was probably prepared to receive another funerary inscription.²⁷³ During the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, while probably the necropolis was already been looted, the tombs were still visible, possibly influencing the style 271. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 328-31. 272. “The first datum for establishing the date is the longer inscription from Tomb No. 35. The funerary inscription of ’…yahu’ indicates that he was a ’royal steward’, a title borne by highranking functionaries in Israel and Judah, which is mentioned several times in the Old Testament. This title was no longer used after the Babylonian conquest of the Judean kingdom, so that the owner of the tomb must have functioned as a royal steward before this event. The second item of evidence is the style of the script of the four funerary inscriptions. These are all written in the ancient Hebrew script which was in use in the period before the destruction of the First Temple. [...] The third point is the difference in architectural style between the ’Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter’ and the ’Tomb of Zechariah’ as well as the nearby funerary monuments. Although there is a fundamental similarity between the two abovementioned tombs, it is outweighed by the differences resulting from the development of the architectural style over a fairly long period. [...] The fourth evidential component is the style of the stone-dressing in the necropolis, which was discussed in Chapter Nine. There we noted that the accurate and handsome dressing of the stone in the tombs indicated the masons’ high standard of workmanship. They did not use a toothed chisel. [...] Employment of the toothed chisel in stone-working was introduced into the Near East from Greece only in the Persian (Achaemenian) period, according to the generally accepted view. Extensive use was indeed made of such a chisel in the ‘Tomb of Zechariah’ and the adjacent tombs. It follows that the necropolis was hewn into the rock before the toothed chisel came into use in the Land of Israel, that is before the Persian period. [...] The fifth datum is the architectural style of the tombs and their parallels. The comparable tombs which we listed in Chapter Eleven show that both in the Land of Israel and elsewhere there were many tombs featuring the architectural elements characteristic of the Silwan necropolis. These tombs are from the 9th-6th centuries B.C.E., and can be considered indicative of the date of the tombs in the necropolis. The sixth indicator is the ‘stratigraphy’ of Tomb No. 28. In a later period, this tomb was remodelled into a complex of loculi (kokhim) in the style characteristic of Jewish tombs of the Second Temple period in Jerusalem. The original tomb must, therefore, be earlier than the Second Temple period. The seventh point is the monumental character of the necropolis, an undertaking which could have been executed only at a time when Jerusalem flourished and was under Jewish rule, on the evidence of the inscriptions. Since detailed information available concerning the funerary architecture and burial customs in the Second Temple period, and since they are completely different from those distinguishing the Silwan tombs, obviously the necropolis cannot date from the Second Temple period. The data listed above prove conclusively that the necropolis dates from the First Temple period, before the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Only the palaeographic evidence suggests a more definite date, in the last part of the 8th century B.C.E.”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 326-7. 273. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 251-4.
of the Jerusalemite tombs of the abovementioned periods, as proposed by Ussishskin.²⁷⁴ When Ælia Capitolina was founded, the cliff of Silwan, as well as the Aceldama and the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem were exploited for quarrying; an earthquake, perhaps the 363 AD one, damaged the cliff,²⁷⁵ which began to be inhabited by hermit monks from C4 AD, until C12 AD, producing several transformations inside the tombs.²⁷⁶ Since C15 AD Moslem migrants began to settle in the necropolis, forming the embryo of today’s Silwan Village, with the consequent transformation of most of the burial chambers, which are today integrated in several houses built in the necropolis.²⁷⁷ The Western Necropolis, at the Hinnom Valley, was first discovered in 1927 in the Mamilla area, when Ruth Amiran unearthed two Iron Age II tombs,²⁷⁸ and further excavated between 1989 and 1992 by Ronny Reich, who discovered at least ten Iron Age II tombs, most of them damaged by Roman and Byzantine quarries.²⁷⁹ Only tombs 5 and 7 were found undisturbed, offering interesting collections of material culture from C8 BC through the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, until the Hellenistic period.²⁸⁰ On the other side of the Hinnom Valley, under the City Wall, three Iron Age II tombs were found, two carved in the rock, which is today under the segment of the City Wall between the first and the second towers South of the Citadel, while the third one is blocked under the northern corner of the second tower. These tombs, because of their findings and their similarities with other tombs in the Ketef Hinnom necropolis, have been dated to C8 BC.²⁸¹ 274. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 335-8. Tomb 28 was transformed in these periods, with the carving of six loculi (cf. ibid. 337-8). 275. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 339-45. 276. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 346-9. 277. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 359-62. 278. Cf. R. Amiran, “The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Time of the Monarchy”, in Judah and Jerusalem: The Twelth Archaeological Convention (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1957), (Hebrew) 65-72. 279. Cf. Reich, “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla”, 111-3. 280. “These and other indications point to Tomb 5 having been used in the 8th century B.C.E. and abandoned during the early part of the 7th century B.C.E. Tomb 7, on the other hand, began to be used contemporaneously with the final occupancy of Tomb 5, and was mainly in use during the 7th and the early 6th centuries B.C.E., until the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 B.C.E. [...] unlike Tomb 7, Tomb 5 was reused in the Babylonian - Early Persian period (the latter part of the 6th century B.C.E.). [...] Tomb 5 was ultimately used in the Hasmonean period, in the second half of the 2nd and probably the early part of the 1st century B.C.E. This is attested by the pottery and several coins which date no later than Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.)”, Reich, “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla”, 115-7. 281. For the two tombs under the City Wall see Broshi/Gibson, “Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls”, 147-59; for the tomb under the corner of the second tower, see Küchler, Jerusalem, 118. For further details see § 6.1
The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods
A tomb was described by Schick 1892, located East of the Sultan’s Pool,²⁸² and in 1975, during the dismantlement of a retaining wall on the western slope of the Mount Zion, other tombs were discovered on the same site. One of these tombs was untouched, with an interesting collection of material culture dating the use of the burial from the late C8 BC to C7 BC,²⁸³ five skeletons and other numerous bones of 43 individuals,²⁸⁴ which were removed carefully from the benches and placed on the ground of the tomb.²⁸⁵ Another concentration of tombs is situated along the ancient road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, on a rocky knoll, Ras ed-Dabbus, renamed ‘Ketef Hinnom’ by Gabriel Barkay,²⁸⁶ who excavated the site in the course of five seasons, from 1975 to 1989.²⁸⁷ During these excavations, remains from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods were found,²⁸⁸ and seven burial caves dated to the Iron Age II C period were unearthed on the rocky scarp where the Scottish Church of Saint Andrew is located.²⁸⁹ All the Iron Age II C burial caves were damaged by quarrying activities and by the explosion which occurred in Cave 20, used as a storeroom of explosives during the Ottoman period, leaving most of them deprived of their ceilings; nevertheless they present the architectural characteristics typical of the Iron Age II burial caves, with square chambers, benches, headrests, 282. “Higher up, north of Bishop Gobat’s School, also some diggings took place, by which a rock-cut cave was found, measuring 8 by 10 feet and 7 ½ feet high, with an opening towards the west. The chief entrance to the cave was from the top on the east side”, Schick, “Letters from Baurath Schick”, 16. 283. Cf. A. Kloner/D. Davis, “A Burial Cave of the Late First Temple Period on the Slope of Mount Zion”, in AJR 1994, 107-10. 284. Cf. Kloner/Davis, “A Burial Cave”, 110. 285. “In addition to these five skeletons, the cave contained many others that already in ancient times had been removed from their original resting places and carefully arranged on the floor. The skulls were concentrated at the base of the shelf, while the other skeletal parts were placed on the floor nearby. The bones covered the entire floor surface, except for the step at the entrance”, Kloner/Davis, “A Burial Cave”, 108. 286. Cf. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom, 10. 287. Cf. G. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem”, in AJR 1994, 85-106, on p. 85. The necropolis was only partly known before Barkay’s excavations, from the survey of Galling and a salvage excavation carried out by Husseini in 1940 (cf. ibid. 88). 288. In the northern area of Ketef Hinnom, a group of tombs was discovered dated between the end of the Early Roman period and C2 AD, from which jewellery of the ‘Second Temple Period’ was abundantly retrieved; the Iron Age II C tombs 34 and 51 were clearly in use during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods; the Late Roman period is represented by cooking-pots burials and several shaft tombs; the remains of a large tri-apsidal Byzantine church (45 x 24 m) were unearthed, perhaps the church of Saint George outside the walls (cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 89-93). For further information refer to § 6.1. 289. Cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 93. Kloner/Zissu 2007 report ten Iron Age II burial caves in the Ketef Hinnom necropolis (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 140).
97
and, in some cases, cornices and repositories; in some of the tombs the unit of measurement was probably the long cubit, and also the reed (= 6 cubits) seems to have been employed, with the exception of Cave 20, where the short cubit (0.45 m) seems to have been used.²⁹⁰ The excavators found the repository of chamber 25 of Tomb 24 sealed by the collapsed ceiling of the tomb; a large and outstanding collection of over a thousand objects and the remains of at least 95 individuals were then disclosed. The 263 complete pottery vessels retrieved from the repository are equally distributed between the end of the Iron Age II C and the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods, with only eight shards dating to C1 BC,²⁹¹ while the most notable finding are two amulets inscribed with a priestly benediction in Paleo-Hebrew.²⁹² In 1999, renewed excavations in the Ketef Hinnom area unearthed two Iron Age II burial caves, destroyed by quarrying activities, along to a Late-Roman cemetery and cremated burials.²⁹³ The South-western Necropolis, located on the southern bank of the lower Hinnom Valley, near the Saint Onuphrius monastery and the Akeldama, represents the largest concentration of complete tombs near the Old City.²⁹⁴ Surveyed in the second half of C19 AD, more extensively between 1978 and 1979, and looted in 1999-2000 and subsequently explored by Zissu and Gibson, the necropolis was in use from the Iron Age II C period²⁹⁵ to the mediaeval period.²⁹⁶ Several tombs of this necropolis present some of the architectural features typical of the Iron Age II tombs, such as tomb X in Macalister’s list,²⁹⁷ which is a onechambered burial cave, with a raised bench along two sidewall and three bench-niched benches with sunken headrests, similar to the tombs under the Western City Wall;²⁹⁸ other burial caves, which may have been hewn in the Iron Age II period, are located respectively, one, on the slope below the houses of the Deir Abu Tor neighbourhood, a second, whose plan and architectural features are similar, in the Karaite cemetery.²⁹⁹ 290. Cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 93-5. For a detailed presentation of the cubits refer to § 2.3.3.2. 291. Cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 95-101. 292. Since the discovery of the amulets, a lively debate has developed among the paleo-epigraphists and the archaeologists, in particular about the dating of the items, ranging between the end of Iron Age II C, until the Hellenistic period. For further details on Cave 24 and the debate associated to the amulets see § 6.1. 293. Cf. Avner/Zelinger, “A Cemetery, a Quarry and Remains”, 141. 294. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 294. 295. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 295. 296. The Carnarium of the Crusaders was located in the area of Akeldama (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 771-6). 297. Cf. R.A.S. Macalister, “The Rock-Cut Tombs in Wady er-Rababi, Jerusalem”, PEFQ 33 (1901) 145-58, 215-26, on p. 145. 298. Cf. § 6.1. Macalister’s Tomb X is not inserted in the database for the comparison in § 6.1, because of its insufficient documentation. 299. Cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 234.
98
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
The Iron Age II Northern Necropolis, according to the table presented above, counts 16 burial caves,³⁰⁰ the dating of most of them being based on their architectural features, and in some cases on unverifiable hypotheses, because completely obliterated and only approximately described. In the Paulushaus compound, a Monolith surrounded by Byzantine graves is considered by Barkay 1997 a parallel to Silwan’s two monolithic tombs, and consequently dated to the Iron Age II C; two undocumented burial caves, badly damaged by later quarrying activities, are counted by Barkay 1997 as Iron Age II C tombs; the hypogeum under the Schmidt Institut, an exact parallel of H1 of the SEC, is dated by Barkay 1997 to the Iron Age II C period because of its architectural features; an arcosolium tomb typical of the Late Roman period is considered by Barkay 1997 as an Iron Age II C burial cave transformed in the Late Roman period; a burial cave transformed into a cistern is dated by Barkay 1997 to the Iron Age II C period by the presence of a cornice which Schick described as exactly the same as the cornice in the “Tomb of the Kings”, supposing that Schick misjudged the cornice, which Barkay supposes being the right-angled cornice typical of Iron Age II C burial caves.³⁰¹ Of the two tombs under Sultan Suleiman Street, only one presented Iron Age II C pottery, the other burial cave being dated to the Iron Age II C period because of its architectural elements.³⁰² The burial cave with three trough graves at the Garden Tomb is considered by Barkay 1997 as a former Iron Age II C tomb transformed in the Byzantine period.³⁰³ The two SEC Hypogea are dated by Barkay/Kloner 1984 to the Iron Age II C because of several architectural features typical of that period.³⁰⁴ In the “White Sisters” compound, a burial cave is dated to the Iron Age II C period in view of its architectural characteristics, and an adjacent burial cave, possibly of the same period, is also counted in the Iron Age II C northern necropolis, while another and unpublished burial cave might be dated to the Iron Age II C period for the presence of a right-angled cornice and an unfinished burial chamber with benches.³⁰⁵ 300. In Barkay 1997 there are 17 burial caves dating to the Iron Age II C period (cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 25), while in Barkay 1994 there are 15 (cf. Barkay/Kloner/Mazar, “The Northern Necropolis”, 126). In 2000 Barkay proposed other figures for the Iron Age II tombs in the Jerusalem area: 50 in Silwan, 15 in the northern necropolis, 38 in the Ketef Hinnom necropolis, two in the Old City and ten in the villages and farms around Jerusalem (cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 244). 301. For the detailed presentation of the site see § 4.1. 302. For the detailed presentation of the site see § 4.1.6. 303. For the detailed presentation of the site see § 4.4.1. 304. For the detailed presentation of the site see § 5.2. 305. For the detailed presentation of the site see § 4.6.1.
Barkay 2000 considers the cisterns hewn in the eastern side of the knoll near the today’s Bus station in Nablus road to be two other Iron Age II C burial caves.³⁰⁶ According to the considerations above, the burial caves which may be dated to the Iron Age II C period in the northern area are no more than seven in number, namely two under Sultan Suleiman Street, the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum, the two SEC hypogea, and two burial caves in the “White Sisters” compound; for the others, dated by Barkay and Kloner to the Iron Age II C, the documentation of the existence of the architectural features typical of that period is lacking. Other tombs are scattered in Jerusalem Old City: two Iron Age II C burial caves are known in the Old City: one in the Coptic Patriarchate, described in 1885 and 1887 by Schick,³⁰⁷ who visited the site in 1885, when the Coptic community dug a cistern under their compound, and which was dated to the Iron Age II by Broshi 1994;³⁰⁸ the other tomb is in the area of the Greek Orthodox “Praetorium” on the via Dolorosa, described by Warren/Conder 1884 and Clermont-Ganneau 1899, reshaped in a later period and traditionally considered the prison cell where Jesus was held.³⁰⁹ According to Kloner/Zissu 2007, another Iron Age II – Neo-Babylonian burial cave might be the burial cave found in Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter.³¹⁰ To the abovementioned burial caves, dated to the Iron Age II period because of some architectural features (shape, straight walls, etc …) and by the absence of loculi and/or arcosolia,³¹¹ six burial chambers found on the western slope of the Tyropoeon Valley, South of the Haram alSharif, should be added, as they were dated by B. Mazar to the Iron Age II B.³¹² Finally, located in the Outer Circle of Jerusalem, the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem, few other burial caves dated to the Iron Age II period are reported, for the most part simply one-room tombs with benches and repositories.³¹³ The number of known Iron Age II burials is particularly small, compared to the population of Jerusalem during the 400 years of the Judean Kings’ rule, estimated to be 200,000 people during the whole period. Even assuming that much of the population was buried in simple graves in the ground, which left little or no trace, the estimated proportion of the wealthy population who could afford an expensive burial cave was about 2000 persons, accord306. Cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 244. 307. Cf. C. Schick, “Neu endtdeckte Felsengräber bei der Grabeskirche in Jerusalem”, ZDPV 8 (1885) 171-3, and C. Schick, “Notes from Jerusalem”, PEFQ 19 (1887) 154-5. 308. Cf. Broshi, “Iron Age Remains in the Chapel of St. Vartan”, 82-4. 309. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 464. 310. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 465. 311. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 466. 312. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Vol. 2, 385. 313. Cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 270.
The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods
ing to Barkay 2000; this means that the known burial caves dated to the Iron Age II period cover the inhumation needs of only 6.5 % of the notable families members which lived in the capital of the Judean Kingdom.³¹⁴ 3.2.2 The Hellenistic and Early Roman necropolises In 2007, Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu published a comprehensive study of the Hellenistic to Early Roman necropolises of Jerusalem,³¹⁵ constituted by about 900 burials known as of summer 2002 and organised in 32 areas, which cover the Jerusalem region on overall 48 square km, distinguishing four concentric rings around the Old City.³¹⁶ The authors presents the spatial distribution of 793 Hellenistic to Early Roman tombs in the Jerusalem area, namely, 309 tombs in the Northern Sector (38%), 124 tombs in the Eastern Sector (16%), 237 tombs in the Southern Sector (30%), and 123 tombs in the Western Sector (16%).³¹⁷ These figures show no correlation between the geological formation and the geographical distribution of the necropolises of the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, except for the western necropolis, where the paucity of burial caves may be explained by the poor quality of the rock, mainly mize ahmar and alluvium.³¹⁸ Furthermore, no specific pattern of distribution of the tombs around Jerusalem along roads and hillsides can be detected,³¹⁹ suggesting that the clusters of tombs were 314. Cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 245. In this sense, in 2 Kings 23: 6 and Jeremiah 26:23 is related of the existence of a communal burial ground, not yet located (cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 27-8). 315. “The study is based on four main sources of information: a. Archaeological material published in journals, books, and reports. b. Unpublished information from archives, especially the archives of the Antiquities Department under the British Mandate, the Antiquities Department of the State of Israel (subsequently renamed the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums [1948-1990]), and the Israel Antiquities Authority (since 1990). c. Excavations of burial caves carried on by E.L.Sukenik and N.Avigad during the years 1924-1948 (hereunder: Sukenik List). d. Surveys and excavations undertaken by the authors”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 6-7. 316. “A. An inner strip about 300-400 meters wide (the closest to the city walls) containing concentrated burial in Zones 6, 10, 8 (+14), and 31. b. An intermediate strip (adjacent to the inner one) containing Zones 1, 3, 5, and 9. c. An intermediate-outer strip containing Zones 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27. d. An outer strip containing Zones 13, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 7-8. 317. Kloner/Zissu 2007 divide in four major sectors the Jerusalem area (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 30). 318. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 15, 30-1. 319. Some tombs were hewn along main roads, such as the Tomb of the Kings, Magharat Umm el ‘Amed, the Shemuel Ha-Navi group, Sanahadryya, and the Cedron Valley. Nevertheless, according to Kloner/Zissu 2007, “the pattern of the necropolis enables us to assume there was an initial tendency to keep tombs away from roads, so as to provide a measure of safety to prevent impurity. Except in a few isolated cases, there are no
99
concentrated in areas with a suitable rock formation available for burial, with no planning by a central authority, but rather handled by families,³²⁰ and located at a certain distance from the city walls for religious reasons related to the purity laws.³²¹ Many of the Late Hellenistic-Early Roman burial caves are located in peripheral areas, in a ring of 3 km of diameter around the city wall, while clustered in a 4 km ring were the necropolises of the villages around Jerusalem³²². In Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, five major areas were used for burial: 1. The Mamilla area, where Iron Age II tombs continued to be in use during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and C2 BC field tombs covered with stone slabs, shaft tombs with loculi and kokh caves with no ossuaries have been found. 2. The Ketef Hinnom necropolis, where Iron Age II tombs were discovered with Hasmonean, Herodian and Late Roman material culture, showing their use in these periods, along with field graves dated between C1 BC and C2 AD. 3. The western slope of Mount Zion, where material culture of C2 BC was found in three of the five Iron cave façades or monuments along roadsides. It seems that until the Herodian period and the first century CE, tombs were hewn in the vicinity of other tombs and away from the main roads, but as the population grew and the city expanded, there was less open space for new tombs. The tombs near the roads are among the later ones in the necropolis, mostly from the first century CE. [...] In the Greek and Roman worlds, unlike in Jerusalem, rows and avenues of tombs and monuments were common along main roads, near the exit of the city”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 24-5. 320. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 31-3. The agricultural estates of the family were used also as burial sites; nevertheless, most of the urban families did not owe land, and they rather purchased a plot of land for the family burial from the owner of a burial sites, this explaining the large concentration of tombs in areas such as the Hinnom Valley, the western slope of the Mount of Olives, the Mount Scopus, Nahal Azal and Giv’at Shappira (cf. ibid. 32). 321. “Most of the burial caves from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods are not adjacent to Jerusalem’s walls from these periods. Concentrations of burial caves were hewn into the far banks of the Qidron and Ben Hinnom Valleys, and not on the slopes close to the city; see for example, the monuments in Nahal Qidron, opposite the Temple Mount (Zone 6) and the numerous monumental caves on the west and south banks of Ben Hinnom Valley (Zones 10, 14). As a rule, tombs were intentionally situated at a distance from the city, up to several hundred meters from the walls, in order not to risk defilement by contact with the dead”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 28-9. The 29th April 2015, in a private communication, Max Küchler remarked that the importance, typical of former periods, to be buried in area where there was a “Blickkontakt” with the Temple (cf. Bieberstein, “Blickkontakt”, 12-7), diminished in concomitance with the increased importance of the purity laws, and was replaced with the relevance of the visibility of the burial monuments, such as the Sanhedria tombs, located along the main northern route to Jerusalem. 322. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 29.
100
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
Age II tombs discovered, along with remains of burials dated to C1 AD and located above the Iron Age II burial caves. 4. The Cedron Valley, where the Silwan necropolis was used until the Hellenistic period and, further north, the Bene Hezir tomb was carved in the last third of C2 BC.³²³ 5. The Dominus Flevit area, where a number of Late Hellenistic and Early Roman tombs were retrieved.³²⁴ A few Hellenistic and Early Roman tombs were found in today’s Old City, namely the tombs in the Holy Sepulchre³²⁵ and at 250 m to the west of it;³²⁶ other installations within today’s Old City, have been interpreted as tombs, respectively in the area of the Greek Orthodox “Praetorium”, in the Convent of the Sisters of Zion, and in the Jewish Quarter, but their dating is not certain.³²⁷ No tombs of the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods have been found in the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem,³²⁸ while in Zone 31 of Kloner/Zissu 2007, the region north of the Damascus Gate, apparently the only funeral installation dating to the Early Roman period is the “Herodian Mausoleum”, if the remains of building in opus reticolatum found in the knoll beside the Bus station in Nablus Road and the White Sister’s Monastery are really those of a monumental tomb.³²⁹ Indeed, “little is known about tombs in Jerusalem from the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods”,³³⁰ when some 323. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 139-41. 324. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 836-7. 325. The original shape of the Tomb of Christ and the dating of the period of its digging may only be hypothesised (cf. J. Murphy O’Connor, “The Argument for the Holy Sepulchre”, RB 117 (2010) 83-85); nevertheless, the nearby loculi, traditionally known as the ‘Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea’, proof the existence of an Hellenistic-Early Roman burial area just outside the city wall of the time of Herod the Great (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 462). 326. “Clermont-Ganneau reported on the presence of tombs about 250 m west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, inside the Old City (Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 49-77) Ossuaries and lacrimatoria were found in them. We have no confirmation of ClermontGanneau’s report. Schick reported on a tomb in the same area, near the northwestern corner of the city, in the vicinity of the New Gate and the Anglican school, but he did not describe its contents (Schick 1892: 17-18, fig. 18). Perhaps Schick’s report was the source of Clermont-Ganneau’s information”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 464. 327. Cf. § 3.2.1. 328. Some fragments of ossuaries found in the debris on the southeastern hill may be ascribed to a stone industry, and not to a burial (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 467). 329. For a detailed presentation of the remains of the building in opus reticolatum see § 4.2.1. 330. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 139. In the same sense: “while excavations of hundreds of tombs (Kloner 1980) helped establish the knowledge on the shape of tombs, the typology, and the manner of burial in the Second Temple period- the end of the second century BCE until the first century CE, the timespan covering the Persian and Hellenistic periods is problematic
ancient tombs were reused, possibly also for ideological reasons, linked to the rebuilding and renewal of the Judahite culture, religion and national consciousness,³³¹ while only few tombs can be ascribed to the Late Hellenistic period.³³² The distinctive characteristic of Jerusalem’s Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period burial caves are the loculi (kokhim)³³³ and the arcolsolia,³³⁴ however other architectural elements such as niches, collection kokhim,³³⁵ burial troughs and benches are present in many tombs.³³⁶ When the rock was friable, “the walls were reinforced with plaster, mortar, mortar with small stones, or even ashlars”.³³⁷ Kloner/Zissu 2007 present no systematic typology of the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods’ tombs;³³⁸ how-
331. 332. 333.
334.
335.
336. 337. 338.
not only in the region of Benjamin, but also in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria. It is worth mentioning that no cemetery has so far been discovered in the Samaritan city on Mount Gerizim which existed in the Persian and Hellenistic periods and housed thousands of inhabitants”, Magen, “Qalandiya”, (82). Cf. Berlin, “Power and its Afterlife”, 141. Cf. Berlin, “Power and its Afterlife”, 141. “Ordinary kokhim were cut deep into the rock, usually perpendicular to the walls of the burial chambers. In few cases kokhim were hewn in the walls of the courtyards. The most common type of kokh is a long, narrow depression intended to hold a single corpse; it opens on one of its narrow ends into the interior of the chamber”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 61. “An arcosolium is an open depression cut parallel to the wall of the chamber. The bottom is a horizontal shelf used as a burial surface or an ossuary storage area; its rear wall is vertical and its ceiling is arched. The arcosolium was usually cut in the upper half of the wall. [...] Apparently this type of tomb began to be used only in the last twenty years of the Second Temple period and was common in various forms thereafter”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 81, 85-6. “Collection kokhim are depressions hewn in the cave wall whose length is less than 1.2 meters. [...] These kokhim, which are much shorter than the average man, were intended to hold collected bones and not an intact skeleton”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 68. “The kokh method was adopted in Jerusalem in the second century BCE. Kokh caves hewn in the second and first centuries BCE, which were used for a long time afterwards, were not usually planned with collection kokhim and places for storing ossuaries. These functions were added in the late first century BCE at the earliest, hence the common practice of filling kokhim with collected bones and ossuaries, for want of a special place for them. Presumably, the collection of bones in kokhim represents the stage of use of the late Hellenistic period. Afterwards, beginning in the first century CE, ossuaries were placed in kokhim”, ibid. 71. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 39. In some cases, earlier cisterns and miqva’ot were integrated and converted in vestibules (cf. ibid.). Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 39. With the exception of the typology of the façades, distinguishing nine types: 1. Plain façade with simple entrance; 2. Vestibule façade with simple entrance; 3. Vestibule façade with ornamented entrance; 4. Vestibule façade with a ‘distylos in antis’ design; 5. Vestibule façade with a ‘monostylos in antis’ design; 6. Three openeings façade; 7. An entrance framed by arches molded in low relief; 8. A monumental façade made or faced with stone; 9. Façades crowned by sepulchral monuments – ‘Neshfaot’ (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 45-51).
The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods
ever, they offer synthetic and detailed information on the outer and internal architectural characteristics, their use and evolution.³³⁹ In East Taplyot, in Beit Safafa,³⁴⁰ on the slope of Mount Zion, in the Dominus Flevit necropolis, in the Mamilla cemetery and North of the Damascus Gate, field burials and dug graves were found.³⁴¹ The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD marked a clear end to the use of most of the tombs in the necropolis of the city,³⁴² with a few exceptions, while the little or no development in the vessels type used for funeral rites between the two Jewish Revolts, makes it particularly difficult to date to this period the utilisation of pre-existing tombs or the hewing of new tombs.³⁴³
caves;³⁴⁷ composite caves with several chambers;³⁴⁸ hall caves and catacombs;³⁴⁹ cremation burials;³⁵⁰ mass burials of the Byzantine period.³⁵¹
347.
3.2.3 The Late Roman – Byzantine necropolises As Avni 2005 points out, the Late Roman – Byzantine necropolises of Jerusalem have been studied far less than the cemeteries of the previous periods.³⁴⁴ Avni 2005 distinguishes several types of tombs for the Late Roman – Byzantine burial areas in Jerusalem: simple cist graves;³⁴⁵ caves with a single chamber with burial troughs;³⁴⁶ arcosolia in burial 339. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 39-94. 340. In East Talpyot and Beit Safafa, the graves are individual burials, an exception for the Jerusalem area in the Hellenistic and Early Roman period, and resemble to the shaft grave in Qumran and ‘En el-Ghuweir (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 96-7). 341. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 95-6. 342. In some cases, the hewing process seems to have been stopped by the war (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 145-6). 343. “Few indicative artifacts may serve as chronological parameters for dating the reuse of the caves during the period following 70 CE. These include “discus” lamps, candlestick-type glass bottles, Judean oil lamps, rare glass bowls, clay ossuaries and coins”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 145. 344. “Tombs and burial caves are among the most common finds in Roman and Byzantine Jerusalem. However, most of the ancient cemeteries have not been explored systematically and are mainly known from occasional discoveries of tombs in the course of modern construction”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 373. 345. “Cist graves are rectangular recesses dug in the ground or hewn in the rock (on average, 0.50-0.60 x 1.70-2.00 m and thus intended for a single corpse). More than 700 cist graves from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods have been recorded, most being randomly scattered in the cemeteries north and east of the city”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 377. 346. “This group includes a number of subtypes. The common denominator is the existence of burial troughs (usually 2-7) carved into the floor of the burial chamber. This type is prevalent in Jerusalem and found extensively in the N and E necropoleis; in the Byzantine period, burial structures of this type were incorporated in monasteries built in the vicinity of Jerusalem. A typical rock-hewn cave contains a single burial chamber reached by a rectangular shaft cut vertically through bedrock into the roof. The entrance through the roof seems to have been cumbersome when the deceased were being lowered into the troughs. Another version has a stepped entrance leading to an opening set in one of the burial chamber’s walls; this type
101
348.
349.
350.
351.
afforded more convenient access during interment”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 377. “Caves of this type were hewn according to the standard plan of a sepulchral chamber with arcosolia in the walls. Arcosolia were oblong niches having an arched ceiling and trough-shaped burial recesses in the floor. The simplest arcosolium cave has one chamber with 3 narrow arcosolia, each containing a single trough. Sometimes the arcosolia are wider, each having two or more troughs. The most common subtype, which affords the greatest utilization of space and was also convenient for disposing of the dead, is a cave consisting of a single room, in the walls of which are wide arcosolia, each provided with three troughs along its sides. In the course of the cave’s usage, further troughs were sometimes added, either in the rear or lateral walls of existing arcosolia or in the floor of the chamber. Other variations include rock-hewn caves with a single burial chamber in whose walls are 1-3 wide arcosolia containing troughs; 2-3 parallel troughs arranged lengthwise in the arcosolium; 2-3 troughs arranged breadthwise, one after the other; or 3 burial troughs along the sides of the arcosolium. A striking feature is the recurrence of regular dimensions (especially 2.10-2.20 × 2.10-2.20 m) for the burial chamber: it seems that the main reason was functional - this being the minimum allowing for convenient interment. Arcosolium burial caves are the prevailing type of family sepulchre in Jerusalem’s necropoleis. This was the most common type of burial cave in Palestine, found both in the urban cemeteries of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods and within the precincts of churches and monasteries”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 377. “This type of cave has a more complex and elaborate design consisting of several burial chambers with arcosolia and troughs. In some cases the cave was clearly designed this way, while others develop from simple arcosolium caves over the course of prolonged use. Two basic architectural plans can be distinguished: caves featuring a front vestibule from where a passageway leads to one or more burial chambers; and caves which developed from a single chamber with the addition over time of one or more chambers, prompted by crowding or lack of space. Several such caves are known in Jerusalem. Elsewhere in Palestine this type is rare, being known mainly at the Beth She’arim necropolis and some other sites”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 377. “Few large and elaborate burial complexes containing rectangular halls in whose walls or floors are deep arcosolia are known in the necropoleis; most of the sepulchres of this type are connected to churches and monasteries”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 379. “Late Roman cremation burials were found at 8 sites around Jerusalem, either inside older burial caves or as simple burials dug in the ground. The cremated remains were placed inside a container, usually an ordinary cooking pot”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 379. “A number of large underground caves containing mass burials were found on the outskirts of the Old City. Hundreds of skeletons were found in each cave. The archaeological evidence points towards a hasty and unplanned burial of many individuals within a short period. One of the sepulchres, located in the Mamilla area west of the Jaffa Gate, was excavated recently. It included a rock-hewn cave in which the bones of more than one thousand individuals were found. The ceramic and numismatic finds point to a short period of use at the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th c. In front of the entrance to this cave was built a small chapel with mosaic floors containing a Greek inscription: ’for the redemption and salvation of those, God
102
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
The two areas of major concentration of the Late Roman – Byzantine tombs in Jerusalem are located respectively North of today’s Damascus Gate and to the East, on the western slope of the Mount of Olives and along the Cedron Valley.³⁵² During the Late Roman period, the northern area was available for burial and a large number of tombs, cist graves, burial caves and shaft tombs were constructed or dug. The largest clusters of Late Roman tombs were found in the northern area of Jerusalem: at the Karm esh-Sheikh area, today occupied by the Rockefeller museum, where 68 tombs were unearthed in the 1930’s,³⁵³ to which recent excavations added five tombs,³⁵⁴ and in Salah ed-Din street, north and south of the Israeli Ministry of Justice building, where a total of 83 cist graves and three burial caves dated to the Late Roman period were discovered in 1962, during the construction of the building, and during the 1998-1999 excavations.³⁵⁵ A number of other Late Roman tombs have been found North of today’s city walls, in the Saint George Anglican Cathedral area,³⁵⁶ the “Tomb of the Kings” area, and sparsely along the line of the “Third Wall”.³⁵⁷ In the Byzantine period, with the construction of several large monastic compounds in the area North of the Damascus Gate, ancient tombs were reused and new burial caves and crypts were carved out of the rock, wholly or partly, the upper part built in several cases with vaulted masonry, and often integrated with the buildings above.³⁵⁸ The eastern cemetery, which developed on the western slope of the Mount of Olive and in the Cedron Valley, was constituted manly of open-air burial areas, such as the Dominus Flevit necropolis, a former Late Bronze Age cemetery, the area was widely exploited for burial during the Early Roman period, and abandoned after 70 AD, to become subsequently the largest Byzantine period necropolis. Mostly constituted of simple cist grave and arcosolium tombs, in the monastic compounds which were built between C5 and C8 AD and where the existing Late Roman tombs were integrated, were found more elabo-
352. 353. 354. 355.
356. 357. 358.
knows their name’. Four more mass-burial sites were identified west and south of the walls of the Old City (fig. 2), occupying existing cisterns or rock-hewn caves”, Avni, “The urban limits”, 381. To those, the mass burial found in the Paulushaus compound should be added (cf. § 4.1.2). Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 381-3. Cf. D.C. Baramki, “Note on a Cemetery at Karm esh-Shaikh, Jerusalem”, QDAP 1 (1932) 3-9, on p. 3. Cf. Zilberbod, “Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum”, Internet Site. Cf. G. Avni/Z. Adawy, “Jerusalem, Sallah ed-Din Street”, HAESI 113 (2001) 75*-76*. Final report: G. Avni/Z. Adawy, “Excavations on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem, and the Northern Cemetery of Aelia Capitolina”, ‘Atiqot 80 (2015) 45-71. Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 383. A total of 12 tombs were found on the foundations or near the “Third Wall”, during the Sukenik/Mayer excavations (cf. § 4.7). Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 383.
rate burials.³⁵⁹ At least two large catacombs, the Tombs of the Prophets and the Viri Galilei Catacomb were hewn in the area after the beginning of C4 AD.³⁶⁰ A large concentration of simple Late Roman and Byzantine tombs was found also on the Cedron Valley and on the eastern slope of the Temple Mount, covered by a thick layer of debris and by the Muslim and mediaeval cemeteries.³⁶¹ Other minor clusters of Late Roman and Byzantine tombs were unearthed on the slope of the southern part of the Cedron and Hinnom Valleys, in the same area as the Iron Age II and Early Roman cemeteries,³⁶² and West of the Old City, where a small number of simple cist graves and burial caves have been found.³⁶³
3.3 Use of the bench in burial caves in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions from the Iron Age II to the Early Roman periods The distinctive architectural feature which characterises the SEC Hypogea is the bench, to which is associated the widespread phenomenon of secondary mortuary practice common to different cultures and different periods:³⁶⁴ after complete decarnation, the practice of primary burial on the benches, with the dead body laid out supine and extended, was followed by the secondary burial of the bones in piles or in repositories,³⁶⁵ probably together with offerings and accompanying gifts.³⁶⁶ Similarities in the architectural features of bench-type burial caves have been pointed out by scholars in a broad geographical region, which stretches from the Levant westward through the Mediterranean reaching Italy, in the Etruscan necropolises;³⁶⁷ furthermore, these similarities are common in burial caves dated to the Iron Age II, but can also be found in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.³⁶⁸ 359. During the excavations carried out by the EBAF in 2011 in the garden of the White Fathers on the top of the Mount of Olives, adjacent to the “Pater Noster” Church, a burial covered by a fine mosaic was discovered with the remains of at least 11 individuals (cf. unpublished preliminary report). 360. Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 383. 361. Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 384. 362. See § 3.2.1 and § 3.2.2. 363. Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 385. 364. Cf. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice”, 38-9. 365. Cf. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice”, 41. 366. Cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 48. 367. The common architectural features among the burial caves in Urartu, Phrygia, Lydia, Cyprus and Etruria, according to Ussishskin, “[...] appear to have reached Etruria from Asia Minor, together with the other cultural influences brought from there. Karageorghis assumes that Cyprus, too, was subjected to influences from Asia Minor. The main source of inspiration - though not the only one was undoubtedly Egypt”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 317. 368. In Cyprus, bench type one-chambered burial caves dated to the Hellenistic-Early Roman periods (325-150 BC) can be found, for
Use of the bench in burial caves in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions from the Iron Age II to the Early Roman periods 103
In this Section is presented the use of the bench in burial caves in the Jerusalem and its adjacent regions, in the periods during which the burial on benches is attested. In Southern Levant, the bench, or shelf, appeared in the burials of the coastal region as early as the Late Bronze Age.³⁶⁹ Benches are found in Early Iron Age burial caves, at least in the highlands south of the Jezreel Valley and north of Jerusalem,³⁷⁰ while the continuity in the use of this architectural feature through Iron Age II A and until Iron Age II B is still debated.³⁷¹
This Section ascertains the continuity of the practice of burial on benches in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions, from the period of Iron Age II B to the end of the Early Roman period, when seemingly no new bench-type tomb were hewn in the Jerusalem area.³⁷² The main typologies and chronologies of Iron Age burials in Southern Levant so far proposed are:³⁷³ Loffreda’s typology and chronology of Iron Age burial caves,³⁷⁴ Abercrombie’s³⁷⁵
example the Tombs in Magara Tepesi (cf. M.K. Toumazou/R.W. Yerkes/P.N. Kardulias, “Athienou arcaheological project: Investigations in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, 1990-1995”, Journal of Field Archaeology 25 (1998) 163-82, on pp. 173-4.). Similarly in Caria the bench was used, as for the C2 BC burial cave T.02 in Bargasa - Hydere (cf. O. Henry, Tombes de Carie, 209-10). Roman tombs with benches were found in Etenna (cf. Çevik, “New Rock-Cut Tombs at Etenna”, 97-116). 369. “The origin of the bench tomb is still debated (Waldbaum 1966; Steibing 1970; Gonen 1992: 23-24). Research suggests a complex evolution rather than direct borrowing from a distant locale. Waldbaum (1966) compared the Tell el-Far’ah (S) bench tombs to examples in cemeteries in and near Mycenae (Wace 1932: 99). However, the Aegean dromoi descended gradually into the burial cave, while short, stepped passages, more like a shaft than a dromos, provided access into the Far’ah (S) tombs. The cemetery at Mycenae produced the only examples of tombs with benches. Tomb 529, one of the two or three such tombs, was fashioned with a single bench along one wall. Gonen, following Stiebing, proposed that Cyprus provided closer parallels. Beginning in the Middle Cypriot period, tombs were cut with stepped dromoi, benches or niches, and a buttress protruding from the rear wall (Ayios Iakovos, Paleoskoutella; Sjöquist 1940: 34-35, fig. 4; Astrom 1957: 6-10), all features found in Lachish Tomb 4010, cut in MB II, and subsequent Tell el-Far’ah (S) tombs in the Cemeteries 500 and 900. The closest parallels to the bench tomb eventually adopted in Judah first appeared at the Cypriot sites of Enkomi (Tomb 18, Tomb 10 of French expedition) and Lapithos (Tomb 501) in the Late Cypriot IIC period (ca. 1275-1200 BCE). A pit-shaped dromos, a rectilinear rather than oval chamber, benches around a central depression, and a probable repository all feature in these Late Cypriot tombs (Sjöquist 1940: 23-24, fig. 4). This tomb plan, adopted in eleventh-century BCE Acco, the tenth century BCE Shephelah sites of Halif, Lachish, and Gezer, and later at Tell en-Nasbeh and Ramot in the Jerusalem area, became the overwhelming preference for eighth-seventh century BCE Judahite burials. The Akhzib, Silwan, and perhaps Tel Mevorakh and Tyropoeon Valley tombs may constitute a distinctive type. Stone masons constructed these chamber tombs with ashlar blocks or hewed out square chambers with flat or gabled ceilings. Egyptian features such as the pyramid-shaped roof and distinctively shaped cornice plus gabled ceilings imitating wooden-beamed ceilings, which are attested in ancient Anatolia and Cyprus, suggest Phoenician inspiration and perhaps construction”, E. Bloch-Smith, “Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead”, Near Eastern Archaeology 65 (2002) 120-30, on p. 127. 370. Conversely, no relevant data are available for the Judean region: “the relative paucity of excavated burials south of Jerusalem precludes a meaningful analysis for that region”, E. Bloch-Smith, “Resurrecting the Iron I Dead”, IEJ 54 (2004) 77-91, on p. 79. 371. “Connecting the emergence of family burial customs in Judah around the mid-eighth century BCE with the appearance of hewn tombs in southern Philistia in the early Iron Age (Waldbaum 1966) is problematic, since there is a long chronological
372.
373.
374.
375.
gap between these two groups of burial caves”, Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 52. Benches were used also in Late Roman and Byzantine burial caves, but only associated with arcosolia (cf. 3.2.3), this limiting the scope of the period span considered in tis Section to the Early Roman period. The first typology of burial caves of different periods was proposed by Conder in 1876 (cf. C.R. Conder, “Early Christian Topography in Palestine, Rock-Cut Tombs, Kalamon, and the Synagogues of Umm el Amud”, PEQ 8 (1876) 17-20). Less interesting for the different architectural features compared to those of SEC Hypogea, other typologies and/or chronologies are available: cf. H.C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife”, Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973) 1-54; cf. J.W. Ribar, Death Cult Practices in Ancient Palestine, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973, (unpublished); K. Spronk, Beatific afterlife in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 219 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1986); Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 257-82; cf. Barkay, “Tombs and Burial Practices”, 96-164; S. Burkes, Death in Koheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 170, 1999); cf. R.E. Friedman/S.D. Overton, “Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence”, in A.J. Avery-Peck/J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity IV (Leiden: Handbook of Oriental Studies 49, 2000) 35-59; cf. E. Schmitt, “Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded ’Death after Death”’ in A.J. Avery-Peck/J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity IV (Leiden: Handbook of Oriental Studies 49, 2000) 87-100; cf. R. Wenning, “’Medien’ in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Juda?”, in C., Frevel (ed.), Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 109–50; cf. J. Kamlah, “Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/Juda. Materielle Befunde, Jenseitsvorstellungen und die Frage des Totenkultes”, in A. Berlejung/A. Krüger/B. Janowski/J. Dietrich (ed.s), Tod und Jenseits im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 257-97. Cf. S. Loffreda, “Typological Sequence of Iron Age Rock-Cut Tombs in Palestine”, Liber Annuus 18 (1968) 244-87. In his article, Loffreda considers the tombs published at that date - 1968 -, both in Palestine and Transjordan, from Iron Age I to Iron Age II. He defines five types of Iron Age burial caves, classified according to the “general shape of the burial chamber, which can be trapezoidal (type “T”), circular (type “C”), rectangular (type “R”), squarish (type “S”) or mixed (type “M”)”, (ibid. 265), and three subtypes (“TT”, “CC” and “RR”). Based on this typology, he proposes a chronology of the development of the shapes of the burial caves (cf. ibid. 278-87). Abercrombie produced a study of 700 Iron Age I-II burials in Southern Levant. He starts by redefining the system of description of the burial caves, according to the method of interment, the burial context, the pottery pattern, and other artifacts. Using primarily the criteria of the method of interment and the pottery pattern, and for only 240 of the 700 burials catalogued, Abercrombie defines five major types of burials, named 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and a mixed-type (cf. J.R. Abercrombie, Palestinian Burial Practices from 1200 to 600 BCE, Philadelphia, Ph.D. diss.,University of Pennsylvania, 1979,
104
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
and Bloch-Smith’s³⁷⁶ typologies and chronology of burials, and the up-to-date typology and chronology of Iron Age II burial caves in the Judea region proposed by Yezerski in 2013.³⁷⁷ Even if none of these typologies and chronologies can be fully satisfying, for the burial caves are too disparate to fit perfectly in a typology³⁷⁸ and a well-attested chronology,³⁷⁹ at least broad categories can be defined for the Judean region during the Iron Age II. Yezerski 2013 distinguishes the bench tombs, which are found in whole Judean region, from the benchedniche tombs, attested only in its southern part.³⁸⁰ From this main division, Yezerski differentiates three subtypes for each group: one-chambered tombs, two-chambered tombs (with the two chambers being adjacent or one behind the other), and multi-chambered tombs, the latter subdivided in two sub-groups (central hall leading to adjacent burial chambers; central courtyard leading to separate burial units).³⁸¹ For the benched-niche tombs type, Yezerski 2013 simply considers the different necropolises as typological groups: the Tel ‘Etun, the Khirbet Za’ak and the Tel Halif groups.³⁸²
376.
377. 378. 379.
380. 381. 382.
(unpublished), p. 170-3. Abercrombie also proposes a chronology of the burials: “Type One, for instance, is common to Iron I (twelfthtenth centuries B. C.E.), but uncommon in Iron II (late tenthseventh centuries B. C.E.), Types Two, Three, and Four have few examples in Iron II most classified tombs date to Iron II. Type Five occurs both in Iron I and Iron II; however, most urn burial s date either to late Iron I (tenth century B.C.E.) or early Iron II (late tenth-early eighth century B.C.E.). The various mixed practices also show an uneven distribution throughout the Iron Age. Mixed Types One - Two and One-Three are more common to Iron I than Iron II. Type One-Five dates to the end of Iron II (seventh century B.C.E.). Type One - Four may occur in either Iron I or Iron II, yet most date to late Iron I or early Iron II”, ibid. 178-81. From the analysis of 870 Iron Age burials in Southern Levant, Bloch-Smith defines eight different burial types, where “body treatment, grave goods and the receptacle holding the body or - in the absence of a receptacle - the tomb plan are the primary determinants”, (Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 25): (1) simple, (2) cist, (3) jar, (4) anthropoid coffin, (5) bathtub coffin, (6) cave, (7) bench tomb burial, and (8) cremation burial (ibid. 133). She proposed a schema of the chronology of the development of the forms of burials (cf. ibid. fig. 10, 249) and the distribution patterns of the different types in the Lowland and in the Highland area (cf. ibid. 142-5, summarised in Bloch-Smith’s text in fig. 10, 249). Yezerski’s chronology IA-II-III corresponds to the Iron Age IIA, IIB, and IIC chronology used in this dissertation (cf. § 3.1.2, cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 50-77. In this sense: “Each cemetery displays tombs of various plans and sizes; in fact, there are no two similar tombs on a single burial ground”, Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 72. No development of the different types can be reconstructed, since: “the earliest Iron II-III tombs [...], distributed throughout Judah, include all the tomb types described above”, Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 68. The niche present an arched ceiling above the bench, similar to what is named for later periods arcosolia. In her study Yezerski considered more than 300 known burial caves (cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 50). Cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 61-6.
In this typology, the SEC Hypogea are classified in the sub-group “central hall leading to adjacent burial chamber” of the “multi-chambered type of the bench-type tombs”, together with the following burial caves: Schmitt Institut Hypogeum, an-Nabi Danyal Cave 10, Khirbet Beit Lei burial cave and Lachish cave 106.³⁸³ To these tombs, four other multi-chambered burial caves should be added: Sultan Suleiman Street burial cave 1; White Sisters tombs 1 and 2, and Ketef Hinnom caves 20 and 24, this last not being considered by Yezerski, because she ranges Cave 24 with the post-exilic period burial caves.³⁸⁴ The short Neo-Babylonian rule in Southern Levant (586-538 BC) produced no major changes in the burial practices, as the scant evidence so far found suggests.³⁸⁵ The typology of C6-4 BC burials, proposed by Stern 1982, lists the following tombs of the Neo-Babylonian period: “tomb 2 at Carmel, two of the tombs in the northern cemetery at ’Atlit, one of the tombs at Azor, tomb 14 at Beth-Shemesh, the tomb from Abu-Ghosh, tombs from Tell el-Ful and the tomb at Meqabelein in Transjordan”.³⁸⁶ Among these burial caves several common features can be identified, namely, “a straight entrance, an irregularshaped burial chamber with a pit in the centre and benches along the walls”.³⁸⁷ These tombs constitute the link of the bench-type tombs with the burial caves of the following periods.³⁸⁸ So far, not a single tomb dated to the Persian period has been found in Jerusalem,³⁸⁹ and most of the tombs dated to the Persian period in the region are simple cist and pit graves;³⁹⁰ nevertheless two burial caves presenting burial benches and dating to the Achaemenid period (C5-4 BC) were found about 7 Km South-West of Jerusalem, at Khirbat Kabar.³⁹¹ These tombs validate the continuation of the use of the bench in the burials during the Persian period, as stated by Baruch 2006: “This type of tomb is well known from Iron Age Judea, but it is known to continue in the Persian period”.³⁹² 383. 384. 385. 386.
387. 388.
389. 390. 391. 392.
Cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 58. Cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 70. Cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 70. E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. (Jerusalem: Warminster Teddington House, Aris & Phillips, Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 80. Yezerski 2013 adds to these tombs also Mamilla tomb 5 (cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 70), while Zissu/Kloner 2007, as reported in § 3.2.1, consider the possibility that the burial cave found in the Jewish Quarter excavations by Avigad may have been hewn after the Babylonian Exile. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible, 80. “In many respects these are transitional types between tombs from the end of the Iron Age and the earliest tombs of the Persian period”, Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible, 80. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 88. For a typology of Persian tombs see Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible, 80-92. Cf. § 6.1. Y. Baruch, “Buildings of the Persian, Hellenistic and Early Ro-
Use of the bench in burial caves in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions from the Iron Age II to the Early Roman periods 105
Most probably, the Judahite population continued to use this burial practice after the conquest of Alexander the Great,³⁹³ however there is no clear evidence of the continuity in the use of the burial benches during the Early Hellenistic period (332-167 BC).³⁹⁴ In Jerusalem, according to the mainstream scholars, not a single tomb dating to the Early Hellenistic period was found. The reasons given by the scientific community for this lack of evidence are connected one to the other: the depopulation which followed the destructions and the deportations in C6 BC, the small scale of the city until the Hasmonean period, the use of burial in fields and of cist tombs,³⁹⁵ and the reuse of existing Iron Age II burial caves, such as Ketef Hinnom Cave 24, Mamilla Tomb 5 and several burial caves on the eastern slope of Mount Zion.³⁹⁶ This situation persisted until the second half of C2 BC, representing about three centuries without a single burial cave being hewn in Jerusalem, and instead the burial complexes hewn during the Late Iron Age II period, were reused by the elite still living in Jerusalem through the Persian and Hellenistic periods.³⁹⁷ In fact, in these Iron
393.
394.
395. 396. 397.
man Periods at Khirbat Kabar, in the Northern Hebron Hills”, ‘Atiqot 52 (2006), (Hebrew) 49*-71*, 205-7, on p. 207. In the same sense: “In the Neo-Babylonian (586–539 B.C.E.) and Persian (539–332 B.C.E.) periods, the few rock-cut bench tombs were concentrated in the Jerusalem and Amman vicinities as well as in the highlands just north of Jerusalem. These Persianperiod examples demonstrate continuity with their Iron-Age predecessors in their reuse of Iron-Age tombs, adoption of the Iron-Age bench-tomb, use of the pottery types common at the end of the Iron-Age, and location in late Iron-Age cemeteries. Other Persian-period burial types reflect foreign presence or influence. Pit and cist graves followed Persian custom, while shaft or built tombs employed along the coast and through the Shephelah conformed to Phoenician practice”, Bloch-Smith, “Death and Burial”, 256. “Sowohl im Bergland als auch in den Küstenregionen blieben die älteren, in persischer Zeit oder früher entstandenen Grabtypen zunächst weiter in Benützung. Zum einen waren dies schlichte Felskammergräber von annähernd quadratischem Grundriß mit einer auf drei Innenseiten umlaufenden Felsbank, zum andern ebenfalls in den Fels gehauene Senkgräber, die von oben her über einen rechteckigen Schacht zugänglich waren und gesonderte Grablegen in den Seitenwänden oder dem Boden des Schachtes aufwiesen”, H.P. Kuhnen, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit (München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1990), 69-70. Concerning the burial caves dated to the Hellenistic period, Tal 2006 affirms that most of the tombs were disrupted and many have not yet been published, making it difficult to retrace a uniform burial practice; nevertheless, adds the scholar, some burial caves on the Highlands continue to present the architectural features typical of the Iron Age burial caves (notably those in Nablous, which the material culture retrieved dates to C2 BC) (cf. Tal, The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine, 255, 260). Cf. B. Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. New Discoveries, MA Thesis, Jerusalem, Hebrew University, 1995, (Hebrew), (unpublished), 170-2. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 139-41. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 139; cf. Tal, The
Age II burial caves reused in later times, the material culture found dates to the Late Iron Age, the Persian and the Late Hellenistic periods, but never to the Early Hellenistic period, raising further questions about the burial practices of the Judahite elite during this period.³⁹⁸ Similarly, in the burial field in Qalandiya in the northern outskirt of Jerusalem, associated to a farm dated to the Hellenistic period, tombs with loculi were hewn along burial caves which present burial troughs and benches, some with sunken headrests, and others with troughs or repositories. Unfortunately all these tombs have been looted and only a few fragments of pottery vessels, possibly of the Hellenistic period, were found near the entrance of one of the tombs (T-2).³⁹⁹ Nevertheless, according to the excavator, these tombs may “constitute the missing link in Jewish burial customs in the region of Benjamin and Jerusalem during the Second Temple period. Burial in the Hellenistic period took the same form as during the Monarchy: tombs with shelves, repositories for the bones, troughs and headrests”.⁴⁰⁰ Furthermore, during the Late Hellenistic period (167-37 BC), when the new form of burial in loculi (kokhim in Hebrew) appeared in Jerusalem,⁴⁰¹ the burial
398.
399. 400. 401.
Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine, 233; cf. Berlin, “Power and its Afterlife”, 139. For Cave 24 in Ketef Hinnom, the excavator states: “A total of 263 complete pottery vessels, and sherds of many more, were found in the repository of Chamber 25. We distinguished three groups of pottery. The first comprises pottery of the end of the Iron Age-the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.E. These items are similar to the pottery found in Level II at Lachish and in sites that were devastated at the time of the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/6 B.C.E”, Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 98; for the undisturbed Mamilla Tomb 5: “The entrance of the cave, that was found closed by a blocking stone, opens into the burial room. A standing pit, surrounded by ledges, was quarried in the center of the room. A round deep collection pit was cut in the eastern wall of the room. This pit contained bones, pottery and a glass vessel (dated to the late Iron Age, the Babylonian, Persian and Hasmonean periods), and a coin of the Hasmonean period”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 360-1; for the burial caves on the eastern slope of Mount Zion: “Five rock-cut burial caves from the Iron Age II were found in 1975 parallel to Hativat Yerushalaiym Street, east of Sultan’s Pool. Each cave included a standing pit surrounded by ledges. Bone collection pits were found in the corners of two caves. Three caves contained secondary burials from the Hasmonean period (the second half of the second century BCE, and the first half of the first century BCE), as indicated by typical finds such as folded wheel-made lamps, juglets and jars”, ibid. 284. Cf. Magen, “Qalandiya”, [77]. Magen, “Qalandiya”, [83]. Cf. § 3.2.2. According to Kloner/Zelinger 2007, the first loculi may have been hewn in burial caves of the standing-pit type, during C2 BC (cf. A. Kloner/Y. Zelinger, “The Evolution of Tombs from the Iron Age Through the Second Temple Period”, in C. White/A. Sidnie (ed.s), Up to the gates of Ekron (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007) 219. For a typology and general presentation of the loculi in the Jerusalem necropolises see Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 61-81.
106
Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area
benches were still used, this burial practice continuing throughout C1 BC and until C1 AD.⁴⁰² In fact, the similarities of these Late Hellenistic tombs with Iron Age II bench tombs are so significant that “sometimes the precise dating could be established only with the aid of found artifacts”.⁴⁰³ During the Early Roman period (37 BC - 70 AD) another form of burial appeared: the bench with arcosolium.⁴⁰⁴ Most of the time the benches associated to arcosolia were used as “surfaces for the placement of ossuaries, which were introduced in Jerusalem during the last third of C1 BC”.⁴⁰⁵ In several burial caves, sunken headrests were carved on benches, trough-benches or rock-cut sarcophagi,⁴⁰⁶ which may be associated to the burial practice of laying the dead on the bench until decarnation and a subsequent burial of the bones in an ossuary or in a repository after the decarnation, but not all the scholars agree on the possibility of a use of the benches similar to what was common during the Iron Age II and possibly also in Hellenistic period, suggesting that the headrests carved on the Early Roman arcosolia benches had a merely decorative purpose, and were purely “a continuation of an architectural tradition from the Iron Age”.⁴⁰⁷ The composite landscape of the burial practices in Jerusalem, shaped during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, did not change immediately after the destruction of 70 AD: there is no evidence of new burial
caves being hewn, while some existing tombs continued to be used during the period which separates the two Jewish Revolts (70-135 AD).⁴⁰⁸ With the foundation of the new city of Colonia Ælia Capitolina,⁴⁰⁹ and the consequent change in the population, in Jerusalem new forms of burial were introduced, which do not contemplate the use of the benches.⁴¹⁰ In conclusion to this Section, it can be affirmed that the use of the bench-type burial in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions continued from Iron Age II until the end of the Early Roman period. Though scant, there is some evidence of the use of this burial practice during the Persian period, while in the Early Hellenistic period it may only be inferred considering that there is no evidence of a change in the burial practice of the Judahite population of Jerusalem, and that in several Iron Age II tombs material culture dating to the Neo-Babylonian, Persian and Late Hellenistic periods was found, suggesting a continuation of this practice during the Early Hellenistic period. More significant evidence is available for the Late Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods, since several benchtype tombs have been discovered with the relative material culture, and in at least two cases the burial caves were still sealed when they were excavated.⁴¹¹
402. For example: one-chambered burial cave on the northern slope of Mount Scopus, no dating proposed (Tomb 2-40 in Kloner/Zissu 2007, plan and section p. 584); one-chambered burial cave found in 1996 on Ein Rogel Street dated from the material culture retrieved to C 2-1- BC (Tomb 9-16 in Zissu/Kloner 2007 inventory, p. 290-291, plan and setion p. 668), a one-chambered burial cave discovered near Gilo in 1981, sealed with its blocking stone, with pottery dating to C2 BC trough C1 AD (Tomb 13-37 in Zissu/Kloner 2007 inventory, p. 353, plan and sections p. 527); a single-chamber burial cave found in 1935 in Nahalt Ahim, with finds dating from the end of C2 BC to the first half of C1 BC (Tomb 21-15 in Zissu/Kloner 2007 inventory, p. 382, plan and sections p. 739); a single-chamber burial cave discovered in 1970 on Giv’at Ha-Mivtar, with finds from C1 BC to the beginning of C1 AD (Tomb 28-6 in Zissu/Kloner 2007 inventory, p. 438-439, plan and sections p. 798; a burial cave at Ramat Polin, discovered in 2012 sealed with material culture dated from the second half of C2 BC to C1 BC (cf. Wiegmann/Tanami, “Jerusalem, Ramat Polin”, Internet Site). 403. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem,87. Moreover, in 1980, in his PhD dissertation, Kloner affirms that it may well be that burial caves dated to the Iron Age II period were hewn in later periods (cf. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 239-40). 404. Cf. 3.2.2. For a typology and general presentation of the arcosolia in Jerusalem see Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 81-6. 405. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 108. 406. Such as in tombs 3-27, 5-4, 7-39, 7-78, 11-27, while in 25-10 the headrests are a sort of cushion (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, inventory). 407. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 83.
The intensive archaeological activity in the Jerusalem area, especially after the Israeli conquest in 1967, offers a mass of information from which it is possible to draw a picture of the expansions and retractions of the size and population of Jerusalem and the location and features of its necropolis during its long and troubled history.
3.4 Summary
408. “The vast majority of the tombs in the necropolis ceased to be used following the destruction of the city and the decimation of its population. Kloner’s survey detected several tombs located in Zone 6 (Qidron Valley), 10 (Hinnom Valley), and 25 (Sanhedriya), whose hewing process was stopped in the middle, perhaps due to the war and its consequences. However, burial continued in a few of the existing caves”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 144-5. 409. Cf. § 3.1.5. 410. For the presentation of the Late Roman and Byzantine necropolises of Jerusalem see § 3.2.3. Avni 2005 offers a typology of the tombs used in Jerusalem in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods (cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 373-95). 411. If most of the bench-type burial caves dated to the Late Hellenistic period were looted before their discovery and the material culture retrieved inside was disrupted, at least two tombs were found sealed, one near Gilo and one at Ramat Polin, with material culture starting from C2 BC. It is possible that these tombs were hewn before C2 BC and, after a thorough and meticulous clearing, they were reused in C2 BC and stayed sealed until the discovery in 1981 and 2012 respectively; nevertheless the excavators date the hewing of these two burial caves to the Late Hellenistic period (cf. § 6.1).
Summary
From the small settlement on the south-eastern hill, Jerusalem became a sizable city only during the Iron Age II C period, after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC.⁴¹² Following the destructions of 586 BC, Jerusalem recovered progressively through the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, to become again a large city under the Hasmonean dynasty.⁴¹³ Major transformations occurred under the energetic building program of Herod the Great, with the construction of the largest temenos of its times, second only to the sacred precinct of Karnak, in Upper Egypt. Under Agrippa I, the urban planning of Jerusalem contemplated the development of the area north to the today Damascus Gate, project that was not realised, as the archaeological evidence demonstrates. With the foundation of Colonia Ælia Capitolina, this part of Jerusalem was possibly reserved for a renewed urban build-up, but again the area was left to the quarries, the orchards and the burial caves, which characterised it in the previous periods. In the Byzantine period Jerusalem reached its largest extension in ancient times. In this period, Empress Eudocia changed the layout of city with the reconstruction of the city wall and the project of the large Basilica of the Protomartyr Saint Stephen, built along the largest monastic complex of that time and dedicated in 460 AD. Since then, other monastic facilities and a great number of burials populated this area, possibly until C10 AD, while after the Crusader period, it was progressively abandoned.⁴¹⁴ The subsequent periods experienced no major changes in the layout of the city, until the modern development of the outskirts of Jerusalem which started at the end of C19 AD.⁴¹⁵ Concerning the distribution of the Necropolis in Jerusalem from the Iron Age II period to the Byzantine period, the major features are the following:
107
- Not a single tomb dating to the Neo-Babylonian, Persian or Early Hellenistic periods has so far been found in the Jerusalem area, while some Iron Age II tombs - at Ketef Hinnom, Mamilla and Mount Zion - were reused throughout the ages and until the Late Hellenistic period, with the surprising exception of the Early Hellenistic period, for which no evidence at all of burials has been retrieved.⁴¹⁷ - During the second half of C2 BC a new burial practice is attested in Jerusalem, namely the loculi, which was followed from the end of C1 BC by the burial in ossuaries and, during the last 20 years of the Early Roman period by the arcosolia; between the destruction of 70 AD and the foundation of the new city of Ælia Capitolina, the use of the ossuaries was probably abandoned, while the loculi and arcosolia form of inhumation continued in the few burial which can be ascribed to this intermediate period;⁴¹⁸ in the areas where are located the Iron Age II necropolises, where realised new tombs during the Late Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods, with the exception of the Northern Necropolis; to these areas, new necropolis were added: in the Cedron Valley, the Sanhadriya, c. 1 km north of the Damascus Gate, the Dominus Flevit site on the Mount of Olives, and the East Talpiot area.⁴¹⁹ - In the Late Roman and Byzantine periods other forms of interment were used along with the arcosolia: simple cist graves caves with a single chamber, with burial troughs, composite caves with several chambers, hall caves and catacombs, cremation burials, and mass burials in the Byzantine period; two major areas were exploited in these periods for burials, the western slope of the Mount of Olives and along the Cedron Valley to the east, and the north of the Damascus Gate.⁴²⁰ - Finally, the analysis of the use of the bench in the burial caves in Jerusalem and the adjacent regions demonstrate the continue use of this form of burial, well attested in the Judea region since the Iron Age II, until the Early Roman period.⁴²¹
- The Iron Age II necropolis are concentrated in three major zones adjacent to the city, namely the Silwan Necropolis, in front of the eastern side of the southeastern hill, the Necropolises of Mamilla and Ketef hinnom, on the western ridge of the Hinnom Valley, and the Necropolis south of the south-western hill, near the Akeldama monastery; a fourth necropolis is considered by the scholars to have been realised during the Iron Age II period north of the today Damascus Gate, where the SEC Hypogea are located and represent the larger and lavisher burial complexes of that period.⁴¹⁶
In the next Chapter the analysis of the adjacent topographical and archaeological context of the SEC Hypogea will provide additional information on the northern area of Jerusalem.
412. 413. 414. 415. 416.
417. 418. 419. 420. 421.
Cf. § 3.1.2 Cf. § 3.1.3 and § 3.1.4. Cf. § 3.1.5. Cf. § 3.1.6. Cf. § 3.2.1.
Cf. § 3.2.2. Cf. § 3.2.2. Cf. § 3.2.2. Cf. § 3.2.3. Cf. § 3.3.
Chapter 4 Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea The SEC Hypogea are located on the western rocky cliff of El Heidhemiyeh Hill, along the main road, today Nablus Road, which from ancient times linked the City to the North and the coast of the region (cf. figure 33).¹ In this Chapter is presented the detailed adjacent topographical framework of the SEC Hypogea, an area of about 20 ha delimitated, to the north, by the “Third Wall”, to the south, by the Ottoman Wall of the Old City, to the east by the El Heidhemiyeh Hill, and to the west, by today’s Route One.² Each of the following Sections presents the areas, as numbered in the Archaeological Survey of Israel (Kloner 2001), which is in the region selected as adjacent topographical framework of the SEC Hypogea, with the exception of § 4.8, where three areas are regrouped,³ because they are geographically adjoining and only a few remains are documented in them.
4.1 Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel This area is characterised by the presence of the remains of a large burial complex currently dated to the Iron Age II C period (the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum), by two burial caves also dated to the Iron Age II C period (Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs), and by a number of Late Roman and Byzantine tombs, personal and collective, most of them obliterated by the sustained construction activity of the C20, especially in the Paulushaus and 1. 2.
3.
Cf. Vincent, Jérusalem antique, vol. i, 45. For the network of the routes linking Jerusalem in ancient times see Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 34-40. With the exception of areas 330a and 330b, where the excavations unearthed remains going beyond the limits defined in the text. For the methods of the research and the criteria used for the definition of the area of the detailed adjacent topographical context refer to § 2.1. Areas [102] 336, [102] 337 and [102] 338.
Schmidt Insitut Compound; several cisterns and other undocumented tombs are also reported for this area.⁴ 4.1.1 321a: A number of Byzantine Cist Tombs and four Channels (321 in Kloner 2001): 171860.28 132158.31 / 31°46055.6800N 35°13047.3900E⁵ In 1914, the construction of a new building in area 321a (in front of the Paulushaus) started with a shaft sunk for the foundations, which was visited by Beaumont, as reported by Crace. Beaumont, as quoted by Crace, noted that at that time two channels and several cist tombs were discovered.⁶ From a first examination of the findings, a few glass tear-bottles, he suggested dating the tombs to the Roman period.⁷ Vincent reports of several cist tombs coated with simple rubble stone masonry and covered by some flat stones,⁸ adding that it was not possible to examine the tombs at the time of their discovery and that the only information on the findings was given by the workers, who showed Vincent the crumbled bones, a few coins, and some iridescent glass vials. If these findings came from those tombs, notes Vincent, they might have been dated as old as the end of C4 AD (from a coin of Theodosius), but the ensemble gave him the impression of a more recent Byzantine period, consistent with the dating of the 4. 5.
6. 7. 8.
For the map of area 321 see figure 34. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17190 13222 / UTM 71111 351847. For the assessment of the coordinates given in the present work, refer to § 2.1. In Kloner’s 2001 Survey the reference to the article written by Schick in 1897 (C. Schick, “Newly Discovered Rock Block with Tombs”, PEFQ 29 (1897) 105-7) is incorrect (this article concerns area 321b instead), while in Kloner 1980 (cf. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 283), the references related to area 321a, which corresponds to the site 4 B-3 in the numbering system used there, are F.S.A. Crace, “The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem”, PEFQ 46 (1914) 29-33, and L.-H. Vincent, “Canalisation byzantine et arabe au nord de la ville”, RB 23 (1914) 426-9. Cf. Crace, “The Damascus Gate”, 31. Cf. Crace, “The Damascus Gate”, 31. Cf. Vincent, “Canalisation byzantine”, 426.
110
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 33
Area of the detailed adjacent topographical context of the SEC Hypogea, H1 and H2 location; in organge the Old City Walls, in white and yellow the remains of the “Third Wall”, the arrow points to the Damascus Gate; Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 34
Sites of Area 321, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
111
112
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
tombs found in 1902 in the Paulushaus area, on the other side of Nablus Road (cf. area 321b).⁹ To the Late Roman dating proposed by Crace,¹⁰ Vincent prefers a Late Byzantine dating, arguing that the tombs of the Late Roman Necropolis near the Tomb of the Kings¹¹ are significantly different from those unearthed in area 321a, nevertheless maintaining the estimation of the existence of a vast Late Roman-Byzantine Necropolis extending form the Ottoman northern walls towards the north.¹² Finally, of the four channels discovered in the area, according to Vincent, only the one marked D might be ancient, namely a section of a Late Roman or Byzantine sewer.¹³ Kloner 1980, Kloner 2001 and Kloner/Zissu 2007 consider the tombs date to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods.¹⁴ 4.1.2 321b: Five Byzantine Cist Tombs, a Monolith and a Burial Cave (321 in Kloner 2001): 171929.19 132258.43 / 31°46058.9300N 35°13050.0100E¹⁵ Area 321b was described for the first time by Schick in his article published in 1897.¹⁶ Subsequently the German Association of the Holy Land acquired the parcel to build the guesthouse Paulushaus for the German pilgrims,¹⁷ and in 1902 started the works of levelling the ground, as reported by Dunkel.¹⁸ From Schick 1897 plan and sections¹⁹ and Schoenecke 1897 isometric view,²⁰ it may be deduced that, in 1897, 9. 10. 11. 12.
13. 14. 15.
16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Cf. Vincent, “Canalisation byzantine”, 426-7. Cf. Crace, “The Damascus Gate”, 31. In area 320 in ASI. “Le plus sérieux indice à faire valoir contre la date basse du IVe siècle proposée par analogie serait l’absence d’emblèmes chrétiens, de lampes en particulier, dans les sépultures en cause: indice négatif, résultant tout bonnement peut-être de la connaissance imparfaite de ces humbles mobiliers funéraires. Au bout du compte, on conclura que le second siècle de notre ère est, à coup sûr, la plus haute date possible pour les tombes qui viennent d’être signalées; mais leur date la plus vraisemblable est le Ve ou le VIe siècle”, Vincent, “Canalisation byzantine”, 427-8. Cf. Vincent, “Canalisation byzantine”, 428-9. Respectively cf. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 148, cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 102* and cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 468. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17190 13222 / UTM 71111 351847. In Kloner’s 2001 Survey only the reference to Kloner 1980 4 B-4 site is given. There, the references related to the area 321b are Schick, “Newly Discovered Rock Block”, 105-17, and A. Dunkel/J.E. Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 403-405. Cf. Schick, “Newly Discovered Rock Block,” 105-7. Cf. Official site of the German Association of the Holy Land, accessed on 18th March 2013, http://www.heilig-land-verein. de/engl/html/paulushaus.html Cf. Dunkel/Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, 403. Cf. Schick, “Newly Discovered Rock Block”, 106. Cf. L. Schoenecke, “Ein Felsblock mit Gräbern bei Jerusalem”, MNDPV 3 (1897) 37.
only the ground above and around the Monolith was cleared. Schick describes the Monolith, a huge rock block, and five cist tombs associated to it. His drawings and measurements are not precise; nevertheless they show the organisation of the cist tombs with the Monolith. The findings in the grave under the Monolith (N° 1 in his drawings) reported in Schick’s article are: four crooks of copper or brass of a wooden coffin, four brass rings still hanging in their fastenings, decorated with rosettes, each one fastened with six nails with high ball-like heads in the wood, between 1.3-2 cm thick. A bronze ring fitting a large finger was also found in tomb N° 1.²¹ Dunkel’s 1902 presentation adds some interesting information about the Monolith and the cist tombs, namely the presence of oil lamps and tear-jugs in the graves surrounding the Monolith, and the height (0.35 m) of the steps of the stairs rising to the Monolith and partially preserved on the northern, southern and eastern sides.²² His measurement are imprecise, as stated by Vincent/Steve 1954, who give the dimensions of the Monolith and more precise plan and isometric view.²³ They also report of some Arabic epitaphs in kufic and in naskhi, apparently found in connection to the complex, dating it between C6 and C10 AD.²⁴ The Monolith was a rock block 3.4 × 1.8 m and 1 m high, roughly squared, laid on blocking brackets high 0.5 m with underneath a cavity 3 × 1.5 m, closed by the blocking on the eastern and the long sides, and completely empty. In a large pit on the western side, at the front of the Monolith were found, together with the remains of a skeleton, the objects mentioned above. Probably the surrounding graves were bone repositories, where the disaggregated bones of several individuals were found. A paving covered the repositories and a partially preserved stair climbed on the Monolith. According to Vincent/Steve, the Monolith and the five cist tombs were located on the western side of a vaulted building (cf. area 321c), constituting a vast charnel together with fifteen pit tombs (cf. area 321c). They interpret the remains as a polyandrion, at the centre of which was the Monolith, as a pedestal of a disappeared monument placed above a special grave.²⁵ In an article published in 1997,²⁶ Barkay proposes dating the Monolith to the Iron Age II, affirming that Dunkel 21. Cf. Schick, “Newly Discovered Rock Block”, 106-7. 22. Cf. Dunkel/Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, 404. Dunkel also assumes that the stairs were the most ancient part (cf. ibid.). 23. Cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 37. 24. Vincent/Steve 1954 date the vaulted building to C6 – C7 AD (cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 37.). For the most important of the two epitaphs, namely “n° 19 ‘épitaphe de deux chrétiens (?)’, dating to C10 AD”, see Van Berchem, Corpus Inscri. Arab., II, 1, 47-48. 25. Cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 37. 26. Cf. G. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves North of Damascus Gate and the Date of Jerusalem’s Northern Moat”, Cathedra 83 (1997), (Hebrew) 7-26.
Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
reports different stages or different periods of the site, in particular considering the Monolith and its stairs as more ancient.²⁷ Actually, Dunkel simply states that “the height of the steps is 35 cm, and the large, well-worked stones are joined and fitted together without mortar. They are partially preserved on the north and south sides, and quite preserved on the eastern: this is probably the most ancient part”,²⁸ which could refer to the eastern steps, as well as to all the stairs. From this statement, Barkay builds his argumentation on the dating of the Monolith, excluding the Hellenistic and Roman periods because there are no burial monuments of this periods in the area, with the exception of the “Herodian Mausoleum” (cf. area 322), and because the Hellenistic and Roman Necropolis are located North of the Sukenik-Mayer Wall (cf. area 330a), considered by Barkay as Agrippa I Third Wall. Then he develops his reasoning stating that a dating of the Monolith to the Iron Age II period is more probable, given the location and geography of the Northern Necropolis, as well as its vicinity to the Sultan Suleiman Street tombs (cf. area 321f), to the Schmitt Institut Hypogeum (cf. area 321d) and to the SEC Hypogea (cf. area 325a), all dated by Barkay to the Iron Age II. Finally, Barkay proposes, as parallel of the Monolith, the Pharaoh’s Daughter and the Royal Stewart tombs, both located in Silwan and dated by Ussishkin²⁹ to the Iron Age II.³⁰ In fact, from the drawings of the Monolith it is clear that the Pharaoh’s Daughter and the Royal Stewart tombs are not a parallel for the Monolith, whose dating is more probably the same of its adjacent archaeological remains, namely Byzantine. Vincent/Steve 1954 also report of a burial cave (blue spot marked “bc1” in figure 34), possibly Jewish and certainly not Roman or Byzantine, discovered in 1903 in the 27. 28. 29. 30.
Cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 18. Dunkel/Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, 404. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 40-62. Cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 19-20. This interpretation is accepted also in Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 102* and Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 469. Nevertheless, the dating of the “Pharaoh’s Daughter Tomb” is disputed: as reported by Küchler 2007, Loffreda 1973 argued that this burial cave is more probably dated to the Late Hellenistic period (134-37 BC), because this kind of free-standing monuments are unknown in the Levant before C6 BC, the first monuments of this kind which can be soundly dated appeared in Syria in C4 BC, and it is only at the end of the Hellenistic period and more clearly in the Early Roman period that occurred a rapid change in the burial architecture and a significant number of funeral monument of this kind started to be used in the Levant, and all the other monument in Palestine date to the end of the Hellenistic period and the beginning of the Roman period, both the textual references to this kind of monuments (1 Maccabean 13:27-30, Flavius Josephus, Mishnah) and the archaeology support a late emergence of these monuments, and finally, because the monolith of Silwan T. 2 is similar to the other pyramidal monuments of Jerusalem (cf. S. Loffreda, “The Late Chronology of some Rock-cut Tombs of the Selwan Necropolis, Jerusalem”, LA 23 (1973) 7-36).
113
southern side of the German property, almost along the roadside of Sultan Suleiman Street, badly damaged by ancient quarrying activity, and another, transformed into a cistern.³¹ 4.1.3 321c: Fifteen Pit Tombs and a Vaulted Building (321 in Kloner 2001): 171936.30 132261.20 / 31°46059.0200N 35°13050.2800E³² To the East, adjoining the Monolith and the cist graves, fifteen pit graves, in part covered by a building vaulted in semi-circular arches, were discovered during the clearing of the Paulushaus ground.³³ Dunkel notes that, in the North-East corner of the Paulushaus ground, a round arch was perfectly preserved and that the elements of other arches were distinguishable. The pit tombs, each 0.5 m wide and 2 m long,³⁴ were hewn under a flagstone pavement. The remains of between eight to ten bodies were found in each tomb, carefully arranged with the heads oriented to the West. Dunkel schematises the stratigraphy of the findings as follows: in the highest stratum, composed of earth and bones, coins of the “Saracens” have been found,³⁵ in the middle stratum Crusader’s coins and on the pavement coins of Justinian.³⁶ 31. Cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 37. For the latter cave, Vincent/Steve 1954, in note 3, refer to A. Dunkel, Das heilige Land, 46 (1902) 91, where no indication to locate the tomb can be found. 32. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17190 13222 / UTM 71111 351847. 33. Vincent/Steve 1954, report the connection between the pit graves and the vaulted building, whose dimensions were 23 × 15.50 m, estimating the dating to the C6 – C7 AD, (cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 37); Dunkel reports the number of the pit graves (cf. Dunkel/Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, 404). 34. Hanauer, who translaed Dunkel’s article, corrects the dimensions of the pit graves given by Dunkel, from 2.75 m to 2 (cf. Dunkel/Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, note 2, 404). 35. Probably Ayyubid. 36. Dunkel lists the findings: “(a) two coins of Maurice (582-602), some of the Emperors Justinian, Justinus, and Justinianus (518-527-565). (b) Many small lamps, jars, and broken tearbottles. (c) Various crosses, among them a handsome pectoral cross, 9 cm. long and 5.5 cm. broad. The cross-arms (Kreuzbalken) tend to become smaller towards the centre. On one side is a figure of Christ on the cross. The head is furnished with a nimbus, the body clothed to the feet. The arms are bare, and under the outstretched arms there is a scarcely decipherable Greek inscription (this is your son, this is your mother). On the crossbeam (Querbalken) there are two figures. On the other side there is a raised figure with a nimbus and uplifted hands (Ecclesia orans?). On the four ends of the arms of the cross are medallions containing figures of the four Evangelists, as is shown by the letters, MAIM, marked respectively close to the medallions. This cross may belong to the seventh century, there being a similar one in the Vatican Museum. Another cross of like shape, but simpler in execution, formed the lid of a reliquary cross, 6.5 cm. long and 4.5 cm. broad. In the centre of the cross, as well as in the four crossbeams, are hol-
114
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 35
The floor hatches in the classroom of the Schmidt School, looking south-east, photo Riccardo Lufrani.
No scholar ventures a clear dating of the remains in area 321c, in particular for the vaulted building, the pit tombs being considered most probably Byzantine. 4.1.4 321d: Schmidt Institut Hypogeum (321 in Kloner 2001): 171900.51 132269.20 / 31°46059.2800N 35°13048.9200E³⁷ The remains of the Schmidt School Hypogeum were studied by Barkay at the end of 1994 and his findings published in 1997.³⁸ In the 1960’s, the hypogeum was discovered during the construction of the school, to which it was integrated, preserving the remains of the lower part of two burial chambers and part of the main chamber of the hypogeum. The complex, finely hewn in a good Turonian limestone, is accessible through four framed hatches on the floor of a classroom located in the basement of the building (cf. figure 35), which is 1.5 m below the level of the school courtyard. The similarities with the SEC Hypogea are evident, allowing a reliable restitution of the plan and sections, as presented in Barkay’s article. lows (Vertiefungen). Some are still closed with glass. A third cross cut out of a metal plate is ornamented at the end of the crossbeams with two corner discs to each. A fragment of chain is still suspended therefrom”, Dunkel/Hanauer, “Excavations at Jerusalem”, 404-5. 37. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17192 13220. 38. Cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 7-26.
Barkay’s measures, drawings and descriptions are not always precise, tending to give figures which can be exactly converted in cubits:³⁹ the concrete floor of the classroom cuts the Hypogeum at 1.5 m above its floor; the north-south side of the Main Chamber measures 5.25 m, namely 10 long cubits; a step, 0.22 m high (cf. figures 36 and 37) was certainly in the middle of the east-west side of the Main Chamber. To have an estimated width of 4.2 m or 8 long cubits, the same dimensions as those of H1’s Main Chamber, as proposed by Barkay 1997, the step should have been 1 m long, while in H1 and H2 the length of their steps is respectively 1.43 m and 1.40 m.⁴⁰ If the proportions of H1 in length, width and height - 10:8:7 - were respected in the Schmidt School Hypogeum, its height may have been 3.675 m;⁴¹ nevertheless, the proportions of H1 Main Chamber are not exactly 10:8:7, but 10:7.6:6.6.⁴² The dimensions of the chambers are 2.70 × 2.53 m,⁴³ while the benches rise to an average height of 1.09 m above the floor of the central aisle of the chambers. They present a fine parapet of 0.08-0.10 m of width and 0.09 m in height on the sides facing the central aisle. Under the 39. The present author surveyed the hypogeum to measure and take pictures of the remains, the 15th February 2013, and can confirm their precision. 40. Cf. § 5.2.1 and § 5.2.2. 41. Barkay notes that the proportions 7:8:10 are well known in the architecture of periods later than the Iron Age II C, which he considers to be the dating of the Schmidt School and SEC Hypogea (cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 11, note 5). 42. Cf. § 5.2.1. 43. Barkay 1997 gives other figures: 2.36 m 2.36 m, namely or 4.5 × 4.5 long cubits (cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 11).
Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
northern bench of chamber 2 is hewn a 0.67 m high and 0.47 wide opening to the repository,⁴⁴ communicating through a hole with the southern bench of chamber 3, seemingly enlarged at a later time, if compared with the similar holes in H1. The dimensions of the rhomboid repository are a maximum width of 1.75 m and a height, at the centre, of 1.4 m. The repository floor is flat and lies at a depth of about 0.45 m below the opening, which is of 19 cm above the floor of the centre aisle. The repository wall dressing is less fine than the complex walls, showing the short vertical slit marks of a sharp axe. On a wall of the repository a chunk of iron has been found stuck in the rock, possibly a fragment of an axe. In the central aisle of chamber 2, there is one step abutting the eastern bench, while in chamber 3 the steps are two.⁴⁵ The best preserved headrest is the one on the southern bench in chamber 3 (cf. figure 38). It is hewn in a salient piece of rock measuring 0.38 × 0.38 m and a maximum height of 0.18 m, sloping gently to the surface of the bench and reaching 0.10 m at the place of the neck.⁴⁶ The preserved height of the complex is between 0.8 m and 1.5 m. Probably part of the destruction was caused by the building of the Schmidt School, but a previous damage cannot be ruled out, as the walls of the Main Chamber are badly damaged in several parts (cf. figures 36, 39 and 40). Concerning the dating of the Hypogeum, Barkay reinforces the argumentation based on the clear similarities with the SEC Hypogea, previously dated to the Iron Age II,⁴⁷ adding that in the small archaeological collection of the Paulushaus there are few Iron Age II items unearthed in the compound during the construction, according to what was reported by Father Charles, present during the excavation, and interviewed on the subject by Barkay.⁴⁸ Certainly, the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum and SEC Hypogea were hewn in the same period; their common dating is proposed in the conclusion of the present dissertation in § 7.2.
lowing year.⁵⁰ He locates the tomb 150 yards (138 m) North of the Damascus Gate, on the West side of Nablus road (cf. figure 41). He gives the dimensions of the large monolithic sarcophagus found in the tomb, with some human bones inside: 7 ft. 7 in. in length, 2 ft. 8 in. in breadth, and 3 ft. 2 in. in height, i.e. 2.35 × 0.85 × 0.97 m.⁵¹ Its rim was cut to receive a lid, the broken pieces of which were found near to it. Chaplin notes that the sarcophagus was not an ordinary one, being too large for a body, supposing that a wooden or leaden coffin had been placed there before being removed.⁵² Also Warren/Conder 1884 give approximate dimension of the sarcophagus,⁵³ while presenting in details the architecture of the tomb. The complex may have been composed originally of two separate tombs, one to the north and the other to the south.⁵⁴ The northern part had an anti-chamber to the east with a trough grave in its southern side. The main chamber had on its three sides trough graves under arcosolia⁵⁵ and was connected
50. 51. 52. 53. 54.
4.1.5 321e: Tomb found in 1875 (321 in Kloner 2001): 171833.17 132198.03 / 31°46056.9700N 35°13046.3600E⁴⁹ The first report of the discovery of the tomb was made in 1875 by Chaplin, who published a short note the fol44. Barkay 1997 presents the opening of the repository as a square of 0.66 m of side (cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 12). 45. Cf.Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 10-4. 46. Cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 14. 47. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 22-39. 48. Cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 17. 49. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17190 13222 / UTM 71111 351847. The only available information on the location formulated as its distance to the north
115
55.
of the Damascus Gate are given by Chaplin 1876 (150 yards; cf. Chaplin, “Discovery at Jerusalem”, 9) and Warren/Conder 1884 (120 yards; cf. C. Warren/C.R. Conder, Survey of Western Palestine (London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884), 384). The mean of 135 yards corresponds to 123.7 m, which is the distance north-west to the Damascus Gate chosen in the present work for the location of the Tomb discovered in 1875. Kloner’s 2001 Survey does not give any information on the location of the tomb, simply placing it in area 321, while Bieberstein/Bloedhorn 1994 give the approximate coordinates 1718 / 1322, locating the burial complex 135 m north-west of the Damascus Gate, which is a mean between 150 and 120, but confusing metres with yards (cf. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem, Vol. 2, 219). Cf. Chaplin, “Discovery at Jerusalem”, 9. Avni notes that the regular dimensions of the burial chambers of Late Roman and Byzantine periods was 2.10-2.20 × 2.10 × 2.20 m. (cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 377). Cf. Chaplin, “Discovery at Jerusalem”, 9. Length 8 feet (2.45 m) and height 3 feet (0.92 m) (cf. Warren/Conder, Survey of Western Palestine, 384). “The sepulchre consists of two chambers, which seem to have been originally distinct tombs with doors to the east. The north chamber, containing the sarcophagus, has an antechamber on the east containing a loculus on the south side: the chamber itself has three loculi under arcosolia. The southern chamber, reached by a hole in the back of the loculi on the south side of the former tomb, has also three loculi. The north loculus in the southern chamber has slabs at the bottom, which when raised disclosed a sunken chamber with three parallel loculi. On the south of the southern chamber is a rude cave like a cistern. The rock is at this place covered with about twelve feet of soil and rubbish. The hole in the roof of the northern chamber was carefully closed with masonry, as were the doors of the chambers. The southern chamber was the first discovered, and was entered through its roof, where were two holes covered by stone slabs”, Warren/Conder, Survey of Western Palestine, 384. For examples of tombs with trough graves under arcosolia see Kloner/Zissu 2007 Tomb 25-7 (410), 10-8 (p. 296-297), 10-12 and 10-13 (298), 24-12 dated to the middle of C1 AD (402-404), 5-5 (235-236), 25-23 dated between the third decade of C1 BC to 70 AD (420-421), 26-9 dated to C1 AD (428), 26-12 dated to the middle C1 AD (429-430), and 29-19 with Herodian
116
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 36
Entrance to Burial Chamber 3, Schmidt School Hypogeum, looking south- east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 37
The step at the entrance to the Vestibule, Schmidt School Hypogeum, looking south, photo Emmanuel Moisan
117
118
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 38
The headrest of the southern bench in Chamber 3, Schmidt School Hypogeum, looking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 39
The northern doorjamb of Chamber 2, Schmidt School Hypogeum, looking north, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 40
Entrance to Chamber 2, Schmidt School Hypogeum, looking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 41
Map of the Northern Area of Jerusalem. The Tomb found in 1875 is here marked Tomb B, PEFQ 17 (1885), 75
with the southern chamber, which also presented three trough graves. Section C-D shows this shaft tomb with three trough graves covered by slabs, typical of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods.⁵⁶ The sarcophagus was in the main chamber, evidently let down through an opening in the ceiling of the room, and then closed by masonry, which also closed the entrance doors of the tomb. To Warren/Conder 1884 the burial complex seemed to belong to the “later Jewish period”, but they add that it also has characteristics found in Christian graves and finally they opt for the Byzantine times.⁵⁷ Bieberstein/Bloedhorn 1994 suggest a dating to the Roman period.⁵⁸ Kloner affirms that the lack of any details and illustrations precludes the possibility of dating the complex; nevertheless, he asserts that the tomb was an Iron Age II tomb transformed in later periods, without giving any argumentation but the fact that, allegedly, it happened to other Iron Age II burial caves in the vicinity.⁵⁹
56. 57. 58. 59.
119
pottery vessels (454-455) (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem). Cf. P.M. Bagatti/J.T. Milik, Gli scavi del “Dominus Flevit” (Gerusalemme: Tipografia dei PP. Francescani, 1958), 27. Cf. Warren/Conder, Survey of Western Palestine, 384. Cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn, Jerusalem, Vol. 2, 219. Cf. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 149 and in Kloner 2001: “In the nineteenth century a rock-hewn burial cave of the Iron Age II was found to the W of Shekhem Road. One of the burial
In fact, the conformation of the tomb is typical of the Late Roman period,⁶⁰ which is consistent with the archaeological context of this area,⁶¹ and no evidence of a transformation from an Iron Age II burial cave can deduced form the drawings of Warren/Conder 1884. 4.1.6 321f: Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs (321 in Kloner 2001): 171950.00 132200.00 / 31°46057.0900N 35°13050.7300E⁶² In 1937, two burial caves were discovered, during the excavation of a drainage ditch in Sultan Suleiman Street. The tombs were excavated by S.A.S. Husseini, who published a short report the following year.⁶³ Since then, the burial caves have been inaccessible, buried under the roadway of Sultan Suleiman Street. Amihay Mazar was able to study the reports kept in the Archives of the Department of Antiquities, but without the possibility of
60. 61. 62. 63.
chambers had shelves along three of the walls. A sarcophagus, indicating reuse at a later period, was also found”, Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 103*. This dating is reiterated in Kloner/Zissu 2007 (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 469). Cf. § 3.2.3. Cf. § 4.9. The coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are precise: ICS 17195 13220. Cf. S.A.S. Husseini, QDAP 7 (1938) 58.
120
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
seeing the findings, because unfortunately they were mislaid in the Rockefeller storerooms. In 1976, he published an article presenting Husseini’s reports and his interpretation of the two tombs.⁶⁴ The two burial caves are substantially different one from the other, Cave 1 presenting a very irregularly shaped main chamber “C”, opening into four burial chambers (G, F, E, B) and a repository “D”. The burial chambers are very irregular in shape and different in size, presenting a sort of central depression varying between 0.22 × 0.80 m in chamber “E” to 0.38 × 1.40 m in chamber “F”, shaping three rough benches in each chamber.⁶⁵ The chambers contained a few human bones and a jug in both chamber “E” and entrance “L”, and maybe two juglets in pit “H”. Only the repository “D” was filled with shards, from which Mazar recognises Iron Age II vessels, namely a decanter, a dipper juglet, a juglet and oil lamps.⁶⁶ Mazar also reports the fact that Cave 1 was probably penetrated in the Hellenistic period, attributing to this period the plaster found in the northern side of repository “D” and chamber “E” and the entrance to chamber ‘G’. The excavator, adds Mazar, reported of a partial destruction of Cave 1 by quarrying activities, during the Roman period.⁶⁷ Cave 2 presents a finer rock-cutting and a much more regular plan consisting in an entrance “D”, a step in the burial chamber “A”, a burial chamber “B” with three benches and a repository “C”. The benches in chamber “B” have each a headrest and a narrow parapet on the internal side, similar to those in SEC and Schmidt Institut Hypogea. The closest parallel to Cave 2 given by Mazar are a burial cave found in Moa and dated to C7-C6 BC and four tombs in Lachish (T.105, T.106, T.109, and T.114), dated to C7-6 BC.⁶⁸ Concerning the plan of burial chamber “B”, this is found in Iron Age II tombs, as stated by Mazar, but also in several Hellenistic-Roman burial caves in the Jerusalem area.⁶⁹ 64. Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 1-9. 65. Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 3. 66. For these vessels, Mazar gives the parallel from Amiran 1969 (cf. R. Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From its Beginnings tin the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1969), correctly noting that the dating of the oil lamps to the Iron Age II C is not possible, because the shape of the base, determining the dating for this periods, is not visible in the photo (cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 4, note 11). 67. Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 4, note 11 68. Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 7. For Moa Tomb cf. O. Negbi, “The Necropolis of Biblical Moa”, in S. Abramsky (ed.), The S. Yeivin Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: Qiryat Sefer, 1970) (Hebrew) 358-70, figure 2; for Lachish Tomb cf. Tufnell, Lachish III, 179-80 and 189-90, figures 21 and 22. Another parallel is the Iron Age II C tomb discovered in 1975 on the western slope of Mount Zion, Jerusalem (see photo, plan and section in Kloner/Davis, “A Burial Cave”, 108). 69. For example, see in Kloner/Zissu 2007 Tomb 21-15, dated between C2 BC and the first half of C1 AD, on p. 382; 12-5, dated to C1 AD, on p. 335; 9-16, dated between C2 and C1 BC, on
Finally, the findings of Cave 2, according to the excavator, are “fragments of bowls, jars, jugs, a holemouth jar and a saucer lamp with round base, all of reddish thick ware, [...] found in room ‘A’ and an alabaster bottle and a jug in Room ‘B”’,⁷⁰ this description being too scanty to date the pottery, consistent with an Iron Age II and Hellenistic-Roman dating. Considering all the data available on these two burial caves, if the dating of Cave 1 to the Iron Age II may be accepted, because of the material culture retrieved, no indications other than the architectural features can be considered for the dating of Cave 2. 4.1.7 321g: A Rock-hewn Burial Cave transformed into a Cistern (321 in Kloner 2001): 171927.08 132276.29 / 31°46059.5100N 35°13049.9300E⁷¹ Schick reports of two cisterns in his 1890 article, marked as Cistern 1 and Cistern 2 in the Ordnance Survey Plan of Jerusalem (cf. figure 42).⁷² While he presents the drawing of Cistern 1, he only describes Cistern 2, noting that, before being transformed into a water reservoir, it was a Jewish tomb. Schick adds some details, which may help to date the tomb, namely the existence, in the rock ceiling, of a “square, 13 feet by 13 feet [4 × 4 m], very nicely worked, with a kind of cornice round it, exactly as in the Tomb of the Kings”,⁷³ which, in fact, presents no corniches at all, and the only one being part of the decoration of its facade. Barkay 1997, while acknowledging the existence of such a cornice in the Tomb of the Kings - Queen Helen of Adiabene monumental tomb dated to first half of C1 AD⁷⁴ - and in several other Hellenistic-Roman tombs in the Jerusalem area, argues that these cornices are different from Iron Age II C ones, and apodictically affirms that Schick, being particularly impressed by the fine work on the rock of the cave integrated into Cistern 2, which reminded him of the fine work of the Tomb of the Kings, wrongly recognised the parallelism between the two cornices. Barkay pursues his hypothetical restitution of the Jewish tomb adding that Schick notes that the ceiling has sunken squares, surrounded by the right-angled cornice
70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
pp. 290-291; 2-40, not dated, on p. 193; 19-6, plan typical of Iron Age II, reused in the Herodian period, on p. 373; 13-37 with a blocking-stone in situ, in use between C2 BC and C1 AD, on p. 353 (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem). Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 7. This generic description does not give any characteristic of the pottery which may specifically hint to a particular period. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17196 13229. Cf. C. Schick, “Two cisterns near Jeremiah’s Grotto”, PEFQ 22 (1890) 256-257. Schick, “Two cisterns”, 257. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 234.
Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 42
Detail of the Map of the northern part of Jerusalem, PEFQ 27 (1895), 30, processing Riccardo Lufrani
121
122
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 43
Location of the sites of Area 322, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Area [102] 322 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
preserved under the surface of the dressed ceiling, and concludes his reasoning stating that the cornice reported by Schick was a typical Iron Age II one.⁷⁵ Barkay admits that, when he surveyed the Paulushaus compound, he was not able to visit the four cisterns still in use, because they were full of water; nevertheless he claims that Schick mistakenly made a parallel between Cistern’s 2 cornice and the one at the Tomb of the Kings, even though Schick writes explicitly that the cornice of Cistern 2 was “exactly as in the Tomb of the Kings”, as above reported.⁷⁶
4.2 Area [102] 322 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel The main sites of area [102] 322 are the remains of an Early Roman building which presents an opus reticolatum, a unique architectural feature in Jerusalem, and which has been interpreted as a “Herodian mausoleum”.⁷⁷ 4.2.1 322a: Herodian Mausoleum (322 in Kloner 2001): 171753.70 132297.50 / 31°4700.2000N 35°13043.3400E⁷⁸ The first excavations of the site were carried out by Félicien de Saulcy, who published its interpretation of the site as an Herodian theatre in 1882.⁷⁹ In 1879, Schick published an article on the remains found during the construction of a house, on the western side of the rocky knoll located 250 m north-west of the Damascus Gate,⁸⁰ and in 1893 a second article, on the results of his soundings in the foundations of another house, which was being constructed at that time, also on the western side of the knoll (cf. figure 44).⁸¹ He interpreted the findings as a round building, with opus reticulatum walls, perhaps an amphitheatre or an arena or a playground.⁸² 75. Cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 21, main text and note 33. 76. Cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 21. 77. For the map of area 322 see figure 43. 78. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17175 13225 / UTM 71096 351849. 79. Cf. F. De Saulcy, Jérusalem (Paris: Morel & Cie Editeurs, 1882), 167-9. 80. Cf. Schick, “Neue Funde”, 102-4. 81. Cf. C. Schick, “Excavations on the Rocky-Knoll North of Jerusalem”, PEFQ 25 (1893) 298-9. 82. Cf. Schick, “Excavations on the Rocky-Knoll”, 299. As reported by Bonato-Baccari 2002, other researchers gave their interpretation of the monumental remains, from the ‘Women Tower’ by Conder, to the foundations of the Psephina Tower by GermerDurand (cf. S. Bonato-Baccari, “Le mausolée en ’opus reticulatum’ de Jérusalem: tombeau d’Hérode ou simple témoin d’un modèle romain?”, Latomus 61 (2002), on p. 70, note 6).
123
The first to propose that the ruins in question were of a Roman mausoleum was Lagrange 1893,⁸³ followed by Vincent 1925.⁸⁴ No researches were carried out on the knoll,⁸⁵ until 1977 Ehud Netzer and Sara Ben-Arieh excavations, published in 1983.⁸⁶ From the plan of the foundations and the findings unearthed during the 1977 excavations and those published by Schick 1879,⁸⁷ the authors deduce that the building might be a circular mausoleum, built during Herod the Great’s reign,⁸⁸ whose outer wall had a diameter of 33 m, perhaps covered between the inner and outer wall by a barrel vaulted ceiling, and higher in the central part, similar to contemporary Roman mausolea, such as the tomb of Augustus in Rome.⁸⁹ These remains may be those of “Herod’s monument” cited twice by Flavius Josephus,⁹⁰ as suggested by Netzer and Ben-Arieh 1983,⁹¹, Broshi 1992,⁹² Bonato-Baccari 2002,⁹³ Netzer 2006⁹⁴ and Kloner/Zissu 2007,⁹⁵ while Caillou 2008 remarks on the more suitable location of “Herod’s monument” to the west of Jerusalem, according to Flavius Josephus’ texts, and on the uncertain dating of the site, reopening the interpretation of the remains on the knoll.⁹⁶ Netzer and Ben-Arieh 1983 report the existence of signs of the earliest stage of destruction of the monument, associated to the lower layer on the bedrock, and of later systematic robbing at the level where opus reticulatum stones have been found;⁹⁷ nevertheless no dating is given 83. Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, “Chronique. Lettre de Jérusalem”, RB 2 (1893) 631-4, on p. 633. 84. Cf. Vincent, “Chronique: Garden Tomb”, 402, fig. 1. 85. Cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 30. 86. Cf. E. Netzer/S. Ben-Arieh, “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum Building in Jerusalem”, IEJ 33 (1983) 163-75. 87. Cf. Schick, “Neue Funde”, Pl. III. 88. The utilisation of the opus reticulatum technique for the foundations of the building hints to Herod’s the Great construction activities, because this technique has been found only in Herod’s Palaces in Jericho (cf. Bonato-Baccari, “Le mausolée en ’opus reticulatum’ de Jérusalem”, 74-5). 89. The architectural fragments found during the 1977 excavations and those published by Schick in 1879 suggest an entablature carried by a Ionic row of columns (cf. Netzer/Ben-Arieh, “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum”, 171. For a comparison with other mausolea, see also Bonato-Baccari, “Le mausolée en ’opus reticulatum’ de Jérusalem”, 76-80. 90. Cf. Flavius Josephus, War 5, 108, 507. An alternative identification of Herod’s monument cited by Josephus is Herod’s Family Tomb, located in the area of the Nikephoria, property of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (see Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 356-7). 91. Cf. Netzer/Ben-Arieh, “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum”, 171. 92. Cf. M. Broshi, “The Serpents’ Pool and Herod’s Monument. A Reconsideration”, MAARAV 8 (1992) 213-22. 93. Cf. Bonato-Baccari, “Le mausolée en ’opus reticulatum’ de Jérusalem”, 85. 94. Cf. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 134. 95. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 469-70. 96. Cf. Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 271-7. 97. Cf. Netzer/Ben-Arieh, “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum”, 168.
124
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 44
In red the location of site 322a, cf. Schick 1893, 298, processing Riccardo Lufrani
for the destruction of the monument.⁹⁸ In 2006, Netzer affirms that “anyone who approached Jerusalem from the northwest could not have failed to see it [the mausoleum] towering above the Third Wall”, implying that for him the monument was still there in the Herodian time.⁹⁹ Finally, Kloner/Zissu 2007 state that, if the monument was the tomb of Herod’s family, it should have been emptied when the Third Wall was built, because of the laws of purity.¹⁰⁰ If it is impossible to determine the nature of this building, at the current state of the research, while its dating to the Early Roman period is assured by the presence of the opus reticolatum.¹⁰¹ 98. The excavators report of pottery of the Herodian period, found near the opus reticulatum walls in the lower layers, and of Late Roman-Byzantine periods (cf. Netzer/Ben-Arieh, “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum”, 171-3). 99. Cf. Netzer/Ben-Arieh, “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum”, 134. 100. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 470. 101. Though not precisely, as pointed out by Caillou 2008: “L’emploi de cette technique proprement italienne implique une main d’œuvre fortement romanisée. Sa mise en œuvre sous le règne d’Hérode le Grand est considérée comme la marque d’ouvriers italiens venus dans le sillage de la visite de M. Vipsanius Agrippa vers 15 av. J.-C. Dans les autres cas, elle pourrait découler de la présence de l’armée romaine et de l’emploi de ses légionnaires.
4.2.2 322b: Byzantine – Early Islamic remains near the Bus Station, Nablus Road 171749.22 132329.23 / 31°4701.2300N 35°13043.1700E¹⁰² In August 2011, in the area of Nablus Road bus station, a salvage excavation unearthed the remains of an ancient quarry, possibly Roman, and a section of a plastered wall, with remains of a floor and of a stone pavement not connected with any architectural context; the excavator states that the pavement probably date to the Late ByzantineEarly Islamic periods.¹⁰³ In March-April 2014 a salvage excavation in the southern part of Nablus road was carried out under the direction of Rina Avner and Roie Greenwald. For 150 m the road was excavated in its central part, and at the area in front of the White Sisters’ Monastery, the bedrock was reached. The remains of a large building dating to the A la lumière de ces considérations, le bâtiment circulaire de Jérusalem aurait donc pu être réalisé sous Hérode le Grand ou pendant le stationnement d’une légion romaine, c’est-à-dire à partir 70 ap. J.-C.”, Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 271. 102. Not in Kloner’s 2001 survey. 103. Cf. R. Lavi, “Jerusalem, Musrara. Final Report”, HA-ESI 124 (2012), Internet site.
Area [102] 323 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
Ayyubid period were unearthed, built above other installations which date to the Byzantine period. Surprisingly, No sign of the supposed Cardo of Ælia Capitolina has been found,¹⁰⁴ nor has any sign of a street been detected, until modern times.¹⁰⁵
4.3 Area [102] 323 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel This area is entirely dedicated to the Damascus Gate, where also two cremation burials were found.¹⁰⁶ 4.3.1 323a: Damascus Gate (323 in Kloner 2001): 171910.02 132105.65 / 31°46053.9700N 35°13049.2800E¹⁰⁷ The oldest construction in this area¹⁰⁸ seems to be an octagonal tower¹⁰⁹ interpreted by Avi-Yonah as a corner tower of Josephus’ “Second Wall”,¹¹⁰ or as a fortification flanking a gateway of the “Third Wall”, by Wightman.¹¹¹ In the following phase, between the second and third quarter of C2 AD, a triple gateway arch was built.¹¹² The debate is still wide open on the nature of this monument, a debate that is tightly interconnected with the question of Josephus’ Third Wall (cf. area 330a), as Küchler 2007 104. 105. 106. 107. 108.
109. 110. 111. 112.
Cf. § 3.1.5. Private communication with Rina Avner, April 2014. For the map of area 323 see figure 45. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17190 13212 / UTM 71111 351837. The area was outside the urban limits of Jerusalem until the Herodian period (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 106); the lack of clear signs of quarrying activity in the Damascus Gate area, coupled with the vast quarry to the east of the Damascus Gate (see areas 324d to 324f), which has been dated as far back as the Iron Age II C period (cf. Barkay, “Three First Temple Burial Caves”, 22-5), suggests that the area might have been used as a major avenue to the North of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II C and Persian periods (cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 102), which may explain the presence of the scant quantities of Iron Age II C and Persian shards found mixed in the earth fills form the Late Hellenistic – Roman levels (cf. ibid.). Note that in Geva/Bahat 1998, referring to Wightman 1989, there is reported a large quantity of Iron Age II C, on which they base the hypothesis of a dwelling settlement in the area North to Damascus Gate in Iron Age II C period (cf. H. Geva/D. Bahat, “Architectural and Chronological Aspects of the Ancient Damascus Gate Area”, IEJ 48 (1998) 223-5, on p. 223). See M. Magen, “Excavation at the Damascus Gate, 1979-1984”, in AJR 1994, 281-6, on p. 283. Cf. Avi-Yonah, “The Third and Second Walls of Jerusaelm”, 122. See also Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, 55. Cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 173. Cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 173. The size and style of the triple gateway arch suggest the C2 dating (cf. C. Arnaould, “Remarques sur la place et la fonction de la porte de Damas (porte romaine) dans la cité d’Aelia Capitolina”, ZDPV 114 (1998), 179-83).
125
has excellently summarised.¹¹³ More specifically, while the triple gateway arch is considered to have been built during the Ælia Capitolina period, as generally accepted by scholars,¹¹⁴ there is no consensus between the possible defensive function of the triple gate integrated to the walls of Ælia, if there was any wall at that period, and its alternative monumental function as a free standing triple arch.¹¹⁵ In the Byzantine period, because of a progressive accumulation of earth and debris,¹¹⁶ the lateral doorways were narrowed or maybe even blocked, and the towers reutilised for the production of olive oil.¹¹⁷ A thick destruction layer, associated to the Persian sack of 614 AD, shows no evidence of an interruption of the utilisation of the gate through the following centuries,¹¹⁸ since during the Umayyad period two cisterns were built to the East and to the West of the central gate, in front of the lateral blocked doorways.¹¹⁹ The reconstruction of the gate in the mediaeval period performed by Wightman was in part challenged by Murphy-O’Connor 1992,¹²⁰ and the three phases pro113. “Nach J.B. Hennessy gehörte das röm. Dreiertor zur Mauer (restriktive Linie: 56,4.b), weil die Begehungsebene eine AgrippaMünze einschloss; diese kann aber nur den terminus post quem angeben. Die Keramikfunde sind, da die Stratigraphie nicht durchgeht und die Scherben z.T. verwechselt und missverständlich beschriftet wurden, nach Wightman nur in den breiten chronologischen Raster von der Mitte des 1.Jh.p bis zum Ende des 2Jh.p anzusetzen. Er schloss sich zwar 1989 trotzdem der Agrippa-Theorie an (Gate 102f), entschied sich aber 1993 für das 2. oder 3. Viertel des 2 J h.p (Walls 173), wobei er im oktogonalen herod. Turm die Agrippa-Mauer sah und so die restriktive Linie der 3. Mauer retten konnte (dagegen: PEQ 130, 1998, 53; Bahat)”, Küchler, Jerusalem, 106. 114. Cf. Geva/Bahat, “Architectural and Chronological Aspects”, 225. 115. Cf. Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review”, 313-6. 116. Cf. Geva/Bahat, “Architectural and Chronological Aspects”, 230-1; cf. Magen, “Excavation at the Damascus Gate”, 286. 117. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 106. 118. Cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 103. 119. Cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 103. Murphy-O’Connor argues that, in order to build these cisterns, the level of the outside gate must have been more than halved, making unusable the gate, if the central Roman arch was still in place at that time, as proposed by Wightman (cf. J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Recension to The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Excavations by C.-M. Bennet and J.-B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66, (BAR International Series 519), by Wightman, G., J., Oxford, 1989”, RB 99 (1992) 288). Furthermore, concerning the forewall erected in front of the gate between C6 and C11 AD as described by Wightman, Murphy-O’Connor argues that this interpretation is based on an ambiguous text of William of Tyre and a misinterpretation of Planche II from Vincent/Abel Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament (cf. ibid.). 120. Murphy-O’Connor shows that both textual and archaeological evidence uncountable is consistent with a dating to the Ayyubid period for the angled gate ascribed by Wightman, at least for its basic elements, to the first phase, this reassessment raising the question of the location of the C12 AD gate, which MurphyO’Connor considers to be more probably being East of the triple Roman gate (cf. Murphy-O’Connor, “Recension to The Damascus Gate”, 288).
126
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 45
Location of the sites of Area 323, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Area [102] 324 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
posed by Wightman¹²¹ were reassessed by Geva/Bahat 1998 as follows: Phase I 1183-1192 End of Crusader rule, beginning of Ayyubid works; Phase II 1229-1244 Frederick II and Christian rule over the city; Phase III Post-1244 Final use in the mid-thirteenth century.¹²² The gate seems to have been neglected until it was reconstructed by Suleiman the Lawgiver in 1538 AD.¹²³ In 2004, three trial trenches (length 4-5 m, width 0.6-0.8 m, depth 1.1-1.3 m) were excavated in the Old City at the Damascus Gate, but no ancient remains were found.¹²⁴ 4.3.2 323b: Two cist tombs and a Cooking-Pot burial 171910.02 132105.65/31°46053.9700N 35°13049.2800E¹²⁵ In the excavations at the Damascus Gate, Hennessy found two cist tombs and an infant burial in a cookingpot, in area J III, four metres north of the entrance to the Damascus Gate, and 7.5 m under the level of the gateway at the time of the excavations.¹²⁶ Hennessy associates the three burials to the Early Roman period, followed by Kenyon 1974 and Wightman 1989.¹²⁷ Unfortunately, Wightman 1989 does not present drawings of the two cist tombs, which may be Late Roman or even Byzantine, according to their type.¹²⁸ Geva/Bahat 1998 raise the question of the dating to the Early Roman period, arguing that it would have been strange to have such burials under the entrance of an active city gate, and they propose a dating between 70 AD and the foundation of Ælia Capitolina, a period during which the area of the northern gate may have been deserted, even though the Late Roman period, would fit better, since the cremation and inhumation in a cooking-pot was a pagan burial practice typical of Late Roman period.¹²⁹ They also note that, while the cooking-pot burial was not a typical Jewish mortuary practice in Jerusalem during the Early Roman 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126.
127. 128. 129.
Cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 103-4. Geva/Bahat, “Architectural and Chronological Aspects”, 235. Cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 104. Cf. I. Zilberbod, “Jerusalem, the Old City. Final Report”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Kloner’s 2001 survey does not present these burials. Cf. J.B. Hennessy, “Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Damascus Gate 1964-1966”, Levant 2 (1970) 22. The level from which the 7.5 m are calculated is about the same level of the modern footbridge. Cf. Hennessy, “Preliminary Report”, 23; cf. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, 238; cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 103-4. Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 376-7. Cf. Geva/Bahat, “Architectural and Chronological Aspects”, 229. For the cremation practice in Jerusalem see also Avni, “The urban limits”, 379-80.
127
period, the use of this kind of cooking-pot covers a long period, between the late C1 BC and the beginning of C2 AD;¹³⁰ nevertheless they mention Kloner 1980, who reports three cooking-pot burials dated to the Early Roman period.¹³¹ The dating of these four cremation burials in cookingpots dated to the Early Roman period that there is not mention of them in the section “cremation burial” of the article published by Avni in 2005, where the scholar presents a simplified typology of Late Roman and Byzantine burials.¹³²
4.4 Area [102] 324 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel The Garden Tomb and the renewed excavations in its compound of a Late Roman agricultural installation are the most important sites of the area [102] 324. Under the same number the ASI includes El Heidhemiyeh Hill with Jeremias’ Grotto, and Zedekia’s Cave called also Solomon’s Quarries; even though these sites are outside the adjacent context of SEC Hypogea as defined in § 2.1, their interactions in ancient times with the sites comprised in the selected area may offer useful information.¹³³ 4.4.1 324a: Garden Tomb (324 in Kloner 2001): 171906.54 132368.69 / 31°4702.5100N 35°13049.1500E¹³⁴ Located at few meters from H1 (cf. figure 20), the burial cave, later named the Garden Tomb, was discovered in 1867, and visited by Schick the same year;¹³⁵ it was cleared by the owner of the parcel where the tomb is located, and visited again by Schick, in 1891¹³⁶ , who noticed that some 130. Cf. Geva/Bahat, “Architectural and Chronological Aspects”, 380. 131. On the western slope of Mont Zion, site B 4-8 (cf. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 171-2). Kloner 1980 believes burials in cooking-pots were possible even before the construction of the Second and Third Walls (cf. ibid. p. 148). It is worth noting that Wightman reports of the unpublished (?) discovery by Kloner of another infant burial in a cooking-pot similar to that of Hennessy’s excavation, near Birkat el Hijja (coordinates: 31°46059.8700N 35°1405.4400E, 172335.15 132287.48), 450 m East form of Damascus Gate, near the Ottoman city walls (cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 100). Other cooking-pot burials of the Late Roman period were found in the excavations in Ketef Hinnom (cf. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom, 15; cf. Avner/Zelinger, “Ketef Hinnom”, 82*-3*). 132. Cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 379-80. 133. For the map of area 324 see figure 46 134. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17193 13232 / UTM 71114 351857. 135. Cf. C. Schick, “Notes, Mr. Schick’s Work at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 6 (1874) 125. 136. Cf. C. Schick, “Gordon’s Tomb”, PEFQ 24 (1892), 120-124.
128
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 46
Location of the sites of Area 324, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Area [102] 324 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
of the slabs of the sarcophagi¹³⁷ had been removed and that the broken rock between the door and the eastern opening had been filled with masonry.¹³⁸ The interpretation of the Garden Tomb as the original Holy Sepulchre, supported by General Gordon since 1883,¹³⁹ is convincingly dismissed by Vincent 1925, who states also that, if the tomb was originally a Jewish burial cave transformed during the Byzantine period, as supposed by Schick 1892,¹⁴⁰ the alteration has been so radical, that nothing is left of its hypothetical first state.¹⁴¹ This hypothesis of the Byzantine transformation of an ancient Jewish burial cave was revived by Gabriel Barkay in 1986.¹⁴² While arguing that the absence of arcosolia and loculi, and of comb chisel marks on the wall of the tomb exclude a Hellenistic and Early Roman dating, he states apodictically that the benches of the original Iron Age II tomb were carved into sarcophagi in the Byzantine period, adding that “the carved-in-place sarcophagus opposite the entrance to the inner chamber is very short - less than 4 ¾ feet long on the inside. This was a result of carving out the two side burial benches to their full length, so that not enough room was left for the middle sarcophagus to extend along the full length of the wall”.¹⁴³ Barkay 1986 notes that the plan of the Garden Tomb, with one burial chamber beside the other, is not typical of Hellenistic and Early Roman burial caves, and proposes the tomb of the Royal Steward in Silwan as a parallel for this side-by-side plan, dated by the inscriptions on its façade to the Iron Age II period.¹⁴⁴ One of the two inscriptions of this tomb is clearly “intended to prevent someone from hewing out another burial chamber beside the one visible in the outer façade, and thereby accidentally breaking into the inner chamber because he didn’t know about the inner chamber hewn beside the entrance chamber”,¹⁴⁵ as Barkay 1986 reports; the Garden Tomb being at only few metres from Chamber 4bis of H1 (cf. figure 20), it seems very plausible that its second room was hewn beside the entrance chamber to avoid a possible intrusion in the neighbouring hypogeum, this suggesting only that the Garden Tomb was carved out after Chamber 4 bis of H1. Another argument proposed by Barkay 1986 for the dating to the Iron Age II period of the Garden Tomb is the 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.
142. 143. 144. 145.
For the nomenclature of the sarcophagi see §6.2.6. Cf. Schick, “Gordon’s Tomb”, 120-4. Cf. Schick, “Gordon’s Tomb”, 122. Cf. Schick, “Gordon’s Tomb”, 120-1. Cf. Vincent, “Chronique: Garden Tomb”, 418-9. Since Vincent’s article, only non-scientific attempts to locate the Holy Sepulchre at the Garden Tomb have been proposed, for example W.S. McBirnie, The Search of the Authentic Tomb of Jesus (Montrose: California, Acclaimed Books, 1975). Cf. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb”, 40-57. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb”, 51. Cf. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb”, 52. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb”, 52.
129
presence of Iron Age II material in the small collection of the Garden Tomb Association.¹⁴⁶ Unfortunately, the exact origin of this material is unknown; consequently it cannot be of any help for the dating of the Garden Tomb.¹⁴⁷ Barkay gives also two parallels for the Garden Tomb, the first is Tomb 9 in the Beth Shemesh Iron Age II cemetery, which, in fact, presents only two benches in the inner room,¹⁴⁸ and the other is an Iron Age II tomb found in Sobah, west of Jerusalem.¹⁴⁹ In fact, the argumentations proposed by Barkay constitute no assured base for the hypothesis that the Garden Tomb was a two-chambered bench-type burial cave hewn in the Iron Age II period. The site was reused during the medieval period, as several remains show. As pointed out by Vincent 1925, at the outer side of the tomb in correspondence to the entrance door, canals and mangers have been carved at the base, and, on the ‘façade’, notches for shelves and pointed arcades, all signs of a mediaeval transformation.¹⁵⁰ The remains of a mediaeval building are located in several C19 AD maps on the future Garden Tomb compound, about 50 m south of the Garden Tomb and interpreted by Schick 1892 as the “Asnerie”,¹⁵¹ mentioned in the Estat 146. Cf. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb”, 53. 147. In 1904 Beckholdt, the guardian of Garden Tombs at that time, conducted some excavations in the property of the Garden Tomb Association, and the findings were published by Hanauer in 1924 (J.E. Hanauer, “Remarks on the Supposed Shrine of Cybele Found near the Garden Tomb”, PEQ 56 (1924) 187-91). Barkay 1986 supposes that the Iron Age II findings may come from the tomb. It is worth noting also that the model of a Columbarium in the collection of the Garden Tomb Association was probably carved by Beckholdt, as Vincent 1925 asserts: “La plus élémentaire enquête sur l’origine de la pièce, quand on voulut bien s’en aviser, mit en pleine évidence qu’il s’agissait d’un lambeau vieux d’une quinzaine d’années, maquette de columbarium si l’on veut, découpée par un sculpteur danois, ci-devant gardien de la Tombe du Jardin. Cet homme industrieux avait coutume d’occuper les beaux loisirs de sa charge à ciseler dans la pierre douce ka’kouly des «modèles» d’édifices qu’il vendait aux visiteurs”, Vincent, “Chronique: Garden Tomb”, 426-7). 148. Cf. Mackenzie, “The Tombs of Beth-Shemesh”, Pl. VII. 149. Cf. A. Kloner, “A First Temple Period Burial Gave at Sobah”, HA 78–79 (1982), (Hebrew) 71-2. For a more recent presentation, with a plan of the tomb, see Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 109-12. This burial cave is presented in § 6.1. 150. Vincent 1925 calculates the pointed arch from the marks hewn in the “façade” of the Garden Tomb: “des arcades pointées dont le tracé fut régi par la formule du quinte-point, chère aux architectes français du moyen âge: R = 3B/5”, Vincent, “Chronique: Garden Tomb”, 419. 151. “About 160 feet south of this tomb were found, at the time when the tomb was discovered, the cribs or mangers of the ’Asnerie’ of the Middle Ages. about 7 feet under ground; so at that time the level of the ground was 9 or 10 feet lower than now, and the whole face of the tomb was above ground, and visible. Very likely the arched buildings then stood in front of the tomb. The whole accumulation of earth is of later date”, Schick, “Gordon’s Tomb”, 124.
130
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
de la Cité de Iherusalem.¹⁵² A huge cistern located about 20 m south-east of the tomb seems to be ascribed to the medieval period.¹⁵³ 4.4.2 324b: Roman Agricultural Installation and Caves 171956.01 132319.11/31°4700.9000N 35°13051.0300E¹⁵⁴ Within the precincts of the Garden Tomb compound, south of a natural bedrock boulder, identified in 1883 by Gordon as Golgotha, where in 1980 R. Wyatt unearthed several underground chambers, an excavation was carried out in August 2005, in order to clean and document the chambers already discovered; on this occasion, additional chambers were discovered.¹⁵⁵ Two other excavation seasons, in August 2006 and August 2007, completed the study of the site.¹⁵⁶ 152. For example, the map of the northern area of Jerusalem published in PEFQ 22 1890, p. 11; Schick relates the remains of ‘cribs or mangers’ (cf. Schick, “Gordon’s Tomb”, 124), interpreted as the “Asnerie” mentioned in Estat de la Cité de Iherusalem, attributed to Ernoul, whose surviving texts were written beween the 1230s to the 1250s: “Or vous dirai des autres.ij. portes, dont l’une est endroit l’autre. Celle deviers auilon a à non Porte Saint Estevene. Par celle porte entroient li pelerin en la cité & tout cil qui par deviers Acre venoient en Iherusalem, & de par toute le tiere dusques al flun, desci que à la mer d’Escalone. Dehors celle porte, ains c’on i entre, à main destre, avoit.j. Moustier de monseigneur Saint Estevens. Là dist on que saint Estevens fu lapidés. Devant cel moustier, à main seiniestre, avoit une grant maison c’on apeloit l’Asnerie. Cel Moustier de Saint Estevens abatirent li crestien de Iherusalem devant chou que il fuscent assegié, pour che que li moustiers estoit près des murs. L’Asnerie ne fu pas abatue; ains ot puis grant mestier as pelerins qui par treuage venoient en Iherusalem, quant elle estoit as Sarrasins, c’on nes lassoit mie hebegier dedens le cité. Pour çou lor ot li maison de l’Asnerie grant mestier.’ The Italian translation is: ‘Ora io vi dirò di altre due porte, di cui l’una è di fronte all’altra. Quella verso nord si chiama Porta di Santo Stefano. Attraverso quella porta I pellegrini entrano nella città, e tutti quelli che dalla zona di Acri vengono a Gerusalemme, e da tutta la terra fino al fiume e da lì al mare di Ascalona. Fuori quella porta, come si entra a destra ci è la chiesa di Monsignor Santo Stefano. Si dice che là Santo Stefano fu lapidato. Davanti a quella chiesa, a sinistra, vi sta una grande casa che si chiama l’Asinaia. Là solevano riposare gli asini e le bestie da soma dell’Ospedale; perciò si chiamava l’Asinaia. I Cristiani di Gerusalemme abbatterono quella chiesa di Santo Stefano prima che (la città) fosse assediata, perché la chiesa stava presso le mura. L’Asinaia non fu abbattuta; così fece poi gran servizio ai pellegrini che per la tregua venivano a Gerusalemme, quand’era occupata dai Saraceni, i quali non li lasciavano albergare dentro la città”, (cf. IHC III, 394, 404-7). Moreover the mediaeval remains of the vaulted building adjacent to the Saint Stephen medieval church in area 325c, have been identified as the “Asnerie” (cf. area 325c in the present work), and the excavations carried out at the SEC in 2013 unearthed a large medieval building which was probably related to the others in the area (cf. area 325e). 153. The bottom of the plastered bell-shaped cistern is a rectangle about 20 m long and 9 m wide. Schick 1890 reports the cistern in Schick, “Two cisterns”, 11). 154. These installations were excavated after Kloner’s 2001 survey. 155. Cf. Y. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. Final Report”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. 156. Cf. Y. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. Final Report”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site, and Y. Zelinger, “Jerusalem,
Most of the shards found in the soil fill of Locus 102 date from the Hellenistic¹⁵⁷ to the Byzantine periods. In the same fill the researchers have also found a coin dated to the Umayyad period, three fragments of glass vessels dating to C4 AD, other glass fragments dating to the Late Roman period, a fragment of a krater and a broken animal figurine dating to the Iron Age II period, a fragment of a jar dated to the Iron Age I period, and a glass cylinder (diam. 0.75 cm, length 1.7 cm), identified by C. Hersch as a local Neo-Assyrian seal dating to C8-C7 BC and portraying a “worshipper in front of a crescent on a stick, representing the moon god, Sin of Haran”.¹⁵⁸ The disturbances of Wyatt’s digs and the limited boundaries of Zelinger’s excavations make the interpretation of the remains uncertain; nevertheless, Zelinger identifies a first phase as a quarry,¹⁵⁹ above which an agricultural installation was built in the Late Roman period, in use also during the Byzantine period,¹⁶⁰ subsequently surmounted by a building, whose wall W502 is dated to the “Islamic period”.¹⁶¹ 4.4.3 324c: El Heidhemiyeh Hill (324 in Kloner 2001): 172029.93 132361.94 / 31°4702.2900N 35°13053.8400E¹⁶² El Heidhemiyeh Hill is the northern part of the Eastern Hill of Jerusalem. At the top of the hill there is the Muslim Cemetery of As-Sahira, devoid of any ancient constructions, except two Welys.¹⁶³ The south-western scarp was explored by Macalister, who gives a detailed description of three caves visible on the southern cliff of the hill: A small cave of two small irregular chambers, certainly artificial [...] there is a sort of shelf on the right-hand side of the entrance to the second chamber, possibly a rude arcosolium [...] the so-called “Skull Eye” (the left-hand or larger eye). Unquestionably an ancient cistern, though every scrap of plaster
157. 158.
159. 160. 161. 162. 163.
the Garden Tomb. Final Report”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. A fragment of spindle-bottle (cf. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb 2006”), found in several sealed Late Hellenistic tombs, such as the burial cave at Ramat Polin (cf. § 6.1). “The seal was made of transparent, colorless glass, which is quite rare in such an object; it bears a wheel-cut pattern, depicting a cultic scene. A wide perforation in the center of the cylinder may indicate its secondary use as a bead”, N. Katsnelson, “The Glass Finds”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), HA-ESI, Internet Site. Cf. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb 2006”. Cf. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb 2008”, and Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb 2010”. Cf. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb 2008”. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17193 13232 / UTM 71114 351857. Cf. R.A.S. Macalister, “El-Edhemîyeh (Jeremiah’s Grotto)”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 129-32, on pp. 130-1.
Area [102] 324 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
has been removed from the walls. There is a square hole in the top (blocked up) for dipping buckets. In the north-east corner a small subsidiary water store has been formed of masonry, cemented inside: no doubt a later construction. On the west side is a small domed chamber, communicating with the main chamber and with an independent opening under the rock scarp [the second “Eye”] is much smaller [...] in the floor, at A, is sunk a very curious little cistern.¹⁶⁴
131
Schick explains the fact that no artificial entrances to the caves have been found with the collapse of a greater cave in its southern part, leaving the rock standing up 2.5-3.5 metres.¹⁶⁵
Anatolia.¹⁷² Indeed, a moat, which cut the northern part of the eastern hill of Jerusalem, would have made the access to the northern side of the Temple precinct less easy. Nonetheless, the cutting of meleke stone was probably the main reason for the quarrying activity in this zone,¹⁷³ and it was only when it was first coupled with a fortification wall, (“Third Wall”? Late Roman-Byzantine wall?), that the moat started to exert its full defensive function.¹⁷⁴ Finally, the length of the most ancient segment of the quarry stretching alongside the northern section of the Ottoman Walls of the Old City cannot be easily determined;¹⁷⁵ nevertheless, it seems that the eastern¹⁷⁶ and western ditches¹⁷⁷ have been deepened and widened progressively during C12 AD and C13 AD, hewn for evident defensive reasons.¹⁷⁸
4.4.4 324d: Northern Moat of Jerusalem
4.4.5 324e: Jeremiah’s Grotto
172011.28 132268.61/31°46059.2600N 35°13053.1300E¹⁶⁶
(324 in Kloner 2001): 172042.83 132330.22/ 31°4701.2600N 35°13054.3300E¹⁷⁹
Between Zedekiah’s Cave (area 324f) and Jeremiah’s Cave (area 324e), an area of a width up to 125 m has been quarried out, perhaps starting from the Iron Age II period, as proposed by Barkay 1997.¹⁶⁷ Indeed, the Iron Age II findings unearthed from the lowest layers in several excavations in the area between the Damascus Gate (area 323a) and Jeremiah’s Cave (area 323e) may be related to this quarrying activity,¹⁶⁸ and the presence of Iron Age IIC pottery allegedly in situ in the Sultan Suleiman Street Burial Cave 1 may represent the terminus ante quem of the quarry, at least for area 321f.¹⁶⁹ Barkay 1997 states that a moat was hewn after the Iron Age period on the northern outskirts of Jerusalem,¹⁷⁰ and proposes two parallels of city moats dating to the Iron Age II period, one in Tell Jezreel, whose total length was more than 650 m,¹⁷¹ and the other the Iron Age period fort Van, at Tushpa, the capital of the Kingdom of Ararat, in Eastern 164. Macalister, “El-Edhemîyeh”, 129. 165. Cf. C. Schick, “Hill of Jeremiah’s Grotto, called by General Gordon ’Skull Hill”’, PEFQ 33 (1901) 402-5, on p. 404. 166. Not in Kloner’s 2001 survey. 167. Cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 22. 168. Iron Age II C findings, though scant, have been unearthed in several excavations in the zone, for example, for the Damascus Gate (area 323a), cf. Wightman, The Damascus Gate, 99, and for the Garden Tomb (area 324a), cf. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb 2006”. 169. Cf. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 3-5. For other quarries in Jerusalem during the Iron Age refer to Y. Shiloh/A. Horowitz, “Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Israel”, BASOR 217 (1975) 37-48, on p. 42, and A. Re’em, “Iron-Age Quarries, Second Temple-Period Installations and Ottoman Watchtower on the Southern Slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 63 (2010) 28-30. 170. Cf. Barkay, “The First-Temple period burial caves”, 25. 171. Cf. D. Ussishkin/J. Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992-1993: Second Preliminary Report”, Levant, 26 (1994) 1-48, on pp. 3-6.
Jeremiah’s Grotto is part of the vast meleke quarry, which constitutes the widest section of the northern moat of Jerusalem (cf. area 324d). It is not possible to date the period in which the cave was first quarried,¹⁸⁰ and quarrying activities are reported as being carried out at least until the end of C19 AD. Schick 1902 gives a detailed description of the cave, whose height at the centre is about 10 m..¹⁸¹ 172. Cf. M.T. Tarhan, “Recent Research in the Urartian Capital Tushpa”, Tel Aviv, 21 (1994) 25-67, on p. 25, fig. 2. 173. Cf. Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions”, 28. 174. Cf. § 3.1.4 and § 3.1.5. 175. Concerning the eastern part of the moat, Iron Age II C pottery have been unearthed in the excavations near Herod’s gate, at the foot of the southern cliff (cf. R.W. Hamilton, “Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937-8”, QDAP 10 (1940) 37, 44-5); similarly, the excavations carried out East of Herod’s Gate, inside the Old City, between July and November 1998, at the lowest level, directly on the bedrock, showed clear signs of ashlars quarrying, perhaps dating to the Iron Age II C period, as the presence of Iron Age II C pottery suggests (cf. G. Avni/Y. Baruch/S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Jerusalem, the Old City – Herod’s Gate”, HA-ESI 113 (2001) 76*-9*, on p. 78*. 176. Clearly visible, especially between the Rockefeller Museum and the opposite Ottoman City Wall. 177. Today under HaTsanhanim Street, remains of the medieval ditch were unearthed in 2003 (cf. S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Jerusalem, the Old City – the New Gate”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site). 178. Cf. Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem, 247-8. 179. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17193 13232 / UTM 71114 351857. 180. As noted by Küchler 2007, it is not possible to date the quarrying activity in Jeremiah’s Cave back to the Iron Age period and, because it is at the northern edge of the quarry, it is evident that the present form dates rather to the end of the quarrying activity in the cave (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 951). 181. Cf. C. Schick, “Notes to accompany the Plan of Jeremiah’s Grotto”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 38-42, on p. 42.
132
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
In Schick’s plan and sections, three undated tombs are marked in the garden at the entrance of the cave, and, on the eastern side of the garden a paved court with an opening of the well-hewn cistern beneath, and a rectangular building, perhaps a small church, whose original period of construction, according to Schick, may be Byzantine.¹⁸² On the western side of the entrance there is the cenotaph of the hermit Adham, who gives the name of El Heidhemiyeh Hill;¹⁸³ to the West, behind the cenotaph, a small domed building, which may be another tomb. In the middle of the entrance to the cave, between the two massive rocky piers of the cave, there is a mosque.¹⁸⁴ Today the grotto is used as a commercial storeroom. 4.4.6 324f: Zedekiah’s Cave / Solomon’s Quarries (324 in Kloner 2001): 171983.94 132183.9 / 31°46056.5100N 35°13052.0900E¹⁸⁵ Zedekiah’s Cave is a vast subsurface quarry, 230 m deep and up to 100 m wide for a total of about 9000 m2 , which extends under the Muslim quarter of the Old City.¹⁸⁶ The cave has no karstic chimney to the surface, nor other opening except the present entrance, located on a quarried sidewall, which was part of the northern moat (area 324d), some 16 m above the moat floor.¹⁸⁷ In 1873/4, Clermont-Ganneau found, carved on a rocky pier of the cave, a winged four-legged animal, similar to an Assyrian sphinx,¹⁸⁸ which has been considered by several scholars to be an indication of the possible activity of the quarry during the Iron Age II C period, until the new study of Barkay who dated the engraving to the Herodian period.¹⁸⁹ An attempt at dating the periods of exploitation of the quarry was made in August 2000 and September 2002, when the cave was measured with modern surveying equipment and excavated in five areas, and again in September 2011, but without significant results.¹⁹⁰ 182. Cf. Schick, “Notes to accompany the Plan”, 40. 183. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 950. 184. Schick notes that the western pier was probably reduced and that originally, the north-western corner of the mosque reached the original western pier (cf. Schick, “Notes to accompany the Plan”, 41). 185. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17193 13232 / UTM 71114 351857. 186. Cf. Y. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, ’Zedekiah’s Cave”’, HA-ESI 119 (2007), Internet Site. 187. Cf. Z. Lewy, “Zedekiah Cave or the Quarries of King Solomon in Jerusalem: A Subsurface Stone Quarry for Building the Second Temple by King Herod”, Geological Survey of Israel (2005), http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/cave358004.shtml. 188. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 946. 189. Cf. G. Barkay, “The Zedekiah Cave – The archaeological aspect”, Ariel 43 (1986), (Hebrew) 102-7. 190. The wall in area A has been dated to the Mamluk; in area C, apparently not disturbed by spill of the debris spilled into the cave, shards manly of the Roman and Byzantine periods were
Lewy 2005 is sceptical about the possibility of determining with archaeological evidence whether there was a quarrying activity in the cave from the Hasmonean to the Byzantine periods, as suggested by Safrai Sasson 2001, and proposes a dating of the period of major activity of the quarry, based on geological and religious considerations, linked to the construction of the Temple by Herod the Great, at the end of C1 BC. Lewy 2005 argues that the 3-4 m thick geological layer of the rather soft and wet limestone of Zedekiah’s Cave, while being easy to cut even with non-metal tools, seems to be unsuitable for construction. He pursues his argumentation affirming that Herod the Great promised to respect the religious law which forbade the use of metal tools for the blocks used for sacred buildings on the Temple Mount, and notes that, in a Roman quarry in southern England, huge blocks were quarried out of a subsurface quarry where the quality of the stone was similar to that of Zedekiah’s Cave. Lewy concludes his reasoning asserting that this kind of soft, and wet limestone, when exposed to outdoor atmospheric conditions, hardens and dries, making it suitable for large construction projects, such as the Temple one, and notes that the relatively small entrance of Zedekiah’s Cave, while it made the operations of extraction of the blocks particularly inconvenient because of the lack of light and air, minimised the escape of the moisture from the cave, preventing the rock from hardening and drying. According to Lewy, Roman experts may have detected the suitable layer of the soft limestone at 16 m above the moat floor,¹⁹¹ built a ramp to have access to the layer and started quarrying along the inclination of the layer, making the actual entrance.¹⁹²
4.5 Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel This is the area where are located the SEC Hypogea, which covers also the sites west of Nablus Road, in front of the SEC, where new excavations in 2013 and 2014 found, and only few Iron Age shards; area D, next to the spot where the carving of the winged four-legged animal was found, on the bottom of the cave, at 4 m of depth, a few Byzantine shards were found and only a single fragment of Iron Age bowl; in area E, the most ancient pottery found dates to C1 BC; Some 57 coins were unearthed, mostly of the Early Islamic period and some from the Byzantine period (cf. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, ’Zedekiah’s Cave”’). In September 2011, three others areas have been excavated, whose major result is the dating of a wall in area K to the Late Islamic period (cf. Y. Zelinger, “Jerusalem, ’Zedekiah’s Cave”’, HA-ESI 124, (2012), Internet Site). 191. The author seems not to take into consideration the fact that, between the cutting of the moat in Iron Age II C and the period of Herod the Great reign, six centuries passed, probably filling the moat with earth and debris to a depth of several metres. 192. Cf. Lewy, “Zedekiah Cave”.
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 47
Location of the sites of Area 325, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
133
134
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 48
Plan of SEC excavations, area 325c; cf. Vincent/Abel 1926, Pl. LXXVII
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
improved the knowledge of the archaeological framework.¹⁹³ 4.5.1 325a: SEC Hypogeum 1 (325 in Kloner 2001): 171881.02 132375.77 / 31°4702.7400N 35°13048.1800E¹⁹⁴ For the presentation of SEC Hypogeum 1 refer, for the status quaestionis, to Chapter 1, and for the current research to Chapters 5 and 7. 4.5.2 325b: SEC Hypogeum 2 (325 in Kloner 2001): 171887.06 132426.59 / 31°4704.3900N 35°13048.4100E¹⁹⁵ For the presentation of SEC Hypogeum 2 refer, for the status quaestionis, to Chapter 1, and for the current research to Chapters 5 and 7. 4.5.3 325c: Saint Stephen Basilica, Byzantine tombs, cisterns, mediaeval church, the ‘Asnerie’ and other remains under Nablous Road (325 in Kloner 2001): 171862.85 132441.37 / 31°4704.8700N 35°13047.4900E¹⁹⁶ In 1883, the excavations started of the remains of the Saint Stephen Basilica, built by the empress Eudoxia and dedicated twice, in 439 AD and 460 AD respectively,¹⁹⁷ and of the vast monastic complex annexed to the Basilica (cf. figure 48).¹⁹⁸ The remains, found in situ of the threeaisled 39.70 m long and 21.05 m wide Basilica, consist of vestiges of the mosaic floors, mostly of the lateral aisles, decorated with geometric motifs (m1-m7 in figure 48), three thresholds to the Basilica (S1-S3 in figure 48), a step to the bema (S in figure 48), the two antes of the apse (E and E1 in figure 48), the base of the altar connected to its pit (A in figure 48), a mosaic floor of a northern annex building (D in figure 48), and two foundations of two bases of columns (F and F1 in figure 48). Two vast 193. For the map of area 325 see figure 47. 194. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17185 13240 / UTM 71105 351864. 195. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17185 13240 / UTM 71105 351864. 196. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17185 13240 / UTM 71105 351864. 197. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 750. See also P. Devos, “Dédicace de Saint-Etienne à Jérusalem: 439”, Analecta Bollandiana 105 (1987) 265-279. 198. For a detailed description of the archaeological remains of the SEC see Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 766-804. For the literary sources on the Saint Stephen Eudoxian Basilica, the monastery annexed and the history of the site, see ibid. p. 743-765. The unearthing of the Basilica’s remains was completed between 1888 and 1890, according to the Chronicle of the Priory (cf. Chroniques des premières années, p. 37).
135
and very regular excavations, probably for quarrying the rock, destroyed the eastern part of the central aisle (B in figure 48) and of the northern annex building (C in figure 48).¹⁹⁹ The squared atrium of the Basilica, whose sides were 26.5 m long, was framed by a portico, where four Byzantine tombs were found (I-IV in figure 48). Tomb I, almost perfectly in axis with the central aisle, originally was partly hewn in the rock and probably covered by fine masonry, with two symmetric alcoves on the eastern side (B in figure 49); in a later period, the original vault was replaced by an asymmetric one, in poor masonry, and a corridor (A in figure 49), oriented like the building remains found to the West, was built for access to the tomb.²⁰⁰ The entrance to Tomb II is by a pit, the tomb being partly hewn in the rock and partly built in fine masonry, and through a doorway formerly closed by a vertical slab, which was not found; the mortuary chamber presents three trough graves, separated by plastered blockage partitions and a cross in relief of the plastering of the eastern sidewall.²⁰¹ The entrance of Tomb III (cf. figure 50), which is completely hewn in the rock, was covered by an inscribed slab; at the end of the flight of steps a door made of stone was found in situ, with its metal locks and hinges preserved; on the rock lintel there is a Greek inscription and inside the chamber two benches under arcosolia, the southern one sealed by three slabs, each one adorned with a Byzantine Cross and one of them with a Greek inscription.²⁰² Tomb IV (cf. figure 50), also completely hewn in the rock, presents a stairway which leads to a door, once closed by a rolling stone, which was not found during the excavations; in the burial chamber two trough graves are separated by a corridor.²⁰³ In the middle of the Atrium there is a vaulted cistern, accessed by a 199. Excavation B measures 11 m in length, 8 m in width and 5 m in depth, and showed clear signs of quarrying activity; excavation C was interrupted, showing the quarrying technique used. The presence of plaster suggests a later reuse of C as a cistern (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 775-6). Among the debris, were found some marble fragments, some stone balls, Arab coins, medieval grenades, a few damascene faience of C15 AD and a fragment of an Egyptian stele (see area 325d). Vincent/Abel 1926 note also that the orientation of the two excavations B and C is the same as that of the mediaeval buildings found to the West of the Basilica (cf. ibid. 776, note 3). 200. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 777. Probably Tomb I was the tomb of Empress Eudoxia and her granddaughter Eudoxia (cf. ibid. 749). 201. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 778. 202. The English translation of the Greek inscription proposed by Murphy-O’Connor 1986 is: “The private tomb of the deacon Nonnus Onesimus of the Holy Resurrection of Christ and of this monastery” (cf. J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Garden Tomb and the Misfortunes of an Inscription”, BAR 12 (1986) 54-5, on p. 55). In CIIP n° 888 is translated:”Tomb belonging to Nonnus (son of) Onesimus, deacon of the Holy Anastasis and of its monastery”. 203. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 780.
136
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
mediaeval well; to the West, another cistern, connected to the remains of the mediaeval church, obliterated by the construction of the modern Atrium.²⁰⁴ The Mediaeval church²⁰⁵ (see a-d, i-i’, m-n and o, in figure 48), was a one-aisle 21 m long and 7.40 m wide rectangle, with an apse at its eastern side, and a narrow narthex paved with reemployed slabs.²⁰⁶ The entrance was marked by a high step (a in figure 48), leading into the church, whose floor was made of large slabs. Another step (c in figure 48) leads to the bema, 0.25 m higher than the floor of the aisle, and to the altar (m in figure 48). A narrow corridor connected the apse to a small square room, at whose entrance was found the coronation of the mediaeval altar, a huge limestone slab broken in two and decorated with the Christ in majesty with the twelve Apostles on either side (a in figure 51)²⁰⁷ and the base of the altarpiece, hewn in the same block of meleke stone (b in figure 48).²⁰⁸ On the northern side of the church, there was a threeroom annex (e-g in figure 48), and, abutting this annex, four galleries, whose vaults were partly preserved (cf. figures 48 and 52), the complex being called by the Dominicans the “Asnerie”.²⁰⁹ Both the remains of the church and of the “Asnerie” were obliterated by the Dominicans, during the laying out of the modern Atrium and of the garden of the SEC.²¹⁰ In 2004, a clearing of the open space of the Atrium was 204. Vincent/Abel 1926 suggest that at the western side of the Atrium, other tombs may have been disrupted by the medieval constructions, or transformed into cisterns, such as the one marked i in figure 48. 205. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 803. 206. One of the slabs presents two Greek inscriptions in palimpsest, which may be read “Tomb of the spouses … and of their children” (cf. Lagrange, Saint Étienne, 123-4). 207. Vincent/Abel 1926 give a detailed description of the decorated slab: “Couronnée sur un de ses côtés longs par une corniche élégamment moulurée et rehaussée de dorure, elle présentait un revers piqué en ciseau, des tranches latérales polies, un sommet lisse à très fines stries diagonales et une face antérieure décorée d’une fresque étonnamment conservée malgré tant de siècles d’abandon parmi les décombres humides. Une arcature légère est divisée en deux sections égales par une arcade un peu plus ample au centre de laquelle trône le Christ en majesté, la main droite levée dans un geste de bénédiction ou d’enseignement. À droite et à gauche les Apôtres se répartissent sous les petites arcades, chacun paraissant tenir de la main gauche un emblème, tandis que la droite reproduit le geste doctoral du Sauveur. Une série d’incisions circulaires dans les lunettes qui séparent les retombées d’arcades représentant sans doute le scellement de disques en métal où étaient gravés les noms des Apôtres”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 770. Unfortunately, the treatment made by a visitor of the site on the fresco soon after the discovery resulted in the definitive deletion of its colours (cf. ibid. note 1). 208. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 770-1. 209. For the “Asnerie” in the Garden Tomb Compound, see area 324a. 210. “Ces annexes, de structure médiévale évidente, avaient remis en œuvre des matériaux de toute provenance. D’assez nombreux tronçons de colonnes en général de petit module, quelques
carried out to prepare it for a new gravel filling. Part of the vault of the cistern (A in figure 53),²¹¹ several remains of walls and an unknown threshold (B in figure 53), all oriented with the mediaeval buildings, were uncovered, as well as the imposing base of a column,²¹² previously known from the C19 AD photographs of the excavations, which was replaced in the garden, West of the Ecole building (cf. figure 54). South of the Basilica, at the south-eastern corner of the Ecole building, another burial area was discovered in 1891 (cf. figure 55).²¹³ There, Vincent/Abel 1926 single out two zones corresponding to two phases: the first, dated to C5 AD,²¹⁴ constituted by a chapel, oriented like the Basilica East-West, with a fine mosaic floor, similar in its composition and technique to the mosaic floors of the Basilica, and enriched by a central medallion representing a lamb among flowering shrubs (A in figure 55); this chapel is connected by a short corridor to a vertical pit,
211. 212. 213.
214.
chapiteaux frustres et des grossières impostes sans le moindre caractère médiéval ont été retrouvés parmi ces ruines qu’il serait superflu de s’attarder à décrire. Seules méritent d’être mentionnées les quatre galeries délabrées qui s’alignaient parallèlement aux annexes septentrionales de la chapelle. Des murailles massives à peu près de même caractère que celles des réduits contigus soutenaient encore quelques sections de leurs voûtes anciennes. Ces voûtes, tracées en berceaux brisés et bâties en conglomérat, étaient consolidées par intervalles réguliers au moyen de chainages en pierres de tailles faisant fonction d’arceaux dans ce blocage. L’ensemble était barré par un mur plein, à l’extrémité orientale. Des regards quadrangulaires obliquement percés dans les voûtes et probablement d’amples ouvertures sur la façade Ouest ajouraient ces tunnels presque totalement dépourvus de communication entre eux. Les multiples cloisons de refend et les traces de foyers qu’on y a constatées paraissent très modernes. En revanche, à l’installation primitive appartenaient sans contredit quelques mangeoires cimentées à la base des murs, des anneaux taillés dans plusieurs blocs des assises inférieures, des bancs en maçonnerie, des niches dans les parois: détails familiers dans tous les khâns d’origine médiévale en Palestine. Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, deux citernes, dont l’une très vaste à l’extrémité septentrionale du caravansérail, en complétaient l’aménagement. Une grande croix latine modelée en relief dans l’enduit imperméable dans la citerne du Nord atteste, sinon sa création, du moins sa remise en état par les Croisés. Devant l’établissement se développait une cour large de 6 à 8 mètres, bordée à l’Ouest par un mur dont la route moderne a enfoui les fondations. Après l’ère des Croisades l’enclos fut quelque temps encore hospitalier aux passants; parfois même il abrita leur tombe: témoin l’épitaphe arabe de cet «adolescent étranger» découvert au bord de la cour et qui porte, avec des noms et une généalogie sans histoire, la date du «4 djoumàdâ 1er de l’année 605 (14 novembre 1208)»”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 771-2. A similar building was uncovered during the excavation carried out in the SEC in 2013, presented further in the text. In the SEC today there are ten cisterns, all of them partly hewn in the bedrock and covered by fine masonry vaults. Diameter 1.20 m, longest side 1.52 m. Cf. P.M. Séjourné, “La Palestine chrétienne. Découvertes récentes et explorations”, RB 1 (1892) 118-25, on p. 119. For the excavations between H1 and the southern side of the Basilica, see notes 98 and 100 of the present work. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 779.
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
hewn in the bedrock, which gives access, to the north, to a burial cave (Tomb I) with three trough graves (I, plan and section in figure 55),²¹⁵ to the east, to another burial chamber (Tomb II), similar in its dimensions to Tomb I, but without any burial installation, was maybe a bone repository (II, plan and section in figure 55),²¹⁶ and, to the south, to a deep fracture bringing to a natural cavern, 3.50 m below the ground level, with a square stone block fixed on the ground of the cavern and a Cross engraved in the rock (III, plan and section in figure 55);²¹⁷ at the surface of the second zone (B in figure 55), a 9 m2 mosaic floor covers part of a tomb, hewn in the bedrock and coated on three sides with a masonry, and a vault, whose entrance is through a pit at the centre of the mosaic carpet²¹⁸. In 1989, during the restoration of the Archaeological Department of the EBAF, a quarry was discovered and partially unearthed, with several vertical blocks of stone partly prepared for the extraction (cf. figure 56).²¹⁹ Under the floor of the chapel, built by the Dominicans in 1888 transforming and expanding a C19 AD house annex to the Ottoman slaughterhouse,²²⁰ an opening was discovered and enlarged enough to permit entrance to the quarry, which was not completely filled up with debris and earth (cf. figure 57). The cleaning showed that the last stratum, sealed by the C19 AD house, dated to C14 – C15 AD;²²¹ under this stratum was found a huge quantity of plumb and iron slags;²²² the cleaning stopped before 215. In Tomb I were found some fragments of slabs with four or five Greek letters (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 788). 216. Vincent/Abel 1926 note that Tomb II is a tomb with no specific burial plan and that at first it was interpreted as a bone repository, similar to the repositories of the SEC Hypogea (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786). 217. A one-metre high embankment levelled the entrances to the tombs and the cavern. In this fill were found several fragments of sculpture, of column sections and a nicely worked Corinthian capital (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 788). 218. In this tomb were found a broken glass vial and two Byzantine oil lamps, without any Christian sign, one of them bearing an epigraph in kufic, translated as “To God the vengeance! For Him no deceit!”. The inscription in Arabic dates the lamp between C8 and C9 AD (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 788). In 1980, the tomb was cleared and dozens of human teeth were retrieved, as well as shards (box EB 154, in the inventory of the Archaeological Department of the EBAF) dating mostly to the late Byzantine period (cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert, 16th April 2013). 219. The approximate dimensions of the blocks are 0.50 m of width, 2 m of length and 50 m of depth, for the upper course, and about the same width and depth, but 1.50 m only of length, for the bottom course. 220. Cf. Chroniques des premières années, p. 42. 221. Dating assured by the presence of Palestine handmade painted pottery of the Mamluk period (cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert, 16th April 2013). 222. In the area near Jeremiah’s cave, there were iron and plump smelters until the second half of C20 (cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert, 16th April 2013).
137
reaching the bedrock for security reasons²²³ and, under the modern paving of the cave made in 1989, some C6 AD Sigillata Phocaean shards were found,²²⁴ with an extremely fine mosaic fragment, made up of tesserae from 3 to 5 mm per side (cf. figure 58).²²⁵ In the northern sidewall of the quarry, a natural shaft presents two niches hewn in the sidewalls (cf. figures 59 and 60),²²⁶ perhaps for oil lamp or candles, this suggesting that the shaft may have been a hermit shelter, or used by the guardians of the quarry. Among the numerous fragments of columns and capitals, clearly originating from the Byzantine Basilica and its annexes,²²⁷ three sections of an imposing column were found in the SEC, during the C19 AD excavations (cf. figure 61);²²⁸ associated to the inscriptions unearthed 100 West of SEC in 1904,²²⁹ and the sculpture of a head, possibly of the Emperor Hadrian found in 1873 some 30 m north of the Tomb of the Kings,²³⁰ the three sections of columns were attributed by Vincent and Abel 1926 to a commemorative arch of Ælia Capitolina,²³¹ scaled back by Blomme to a commemorative column.²³²
223. A small sounding in the eastern side of the ground, abutting the sidewall was dug two metres deeper, but the bedrock was not found (cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert, 16th April 2013). 224. According to Jean-Baptiste Humbert, who carried out the excavation of the quarry, part of the findings, notably Iron Age II C shards found in the debris out of context, was given for study to Gabriel Barkay, and unfortunately, in the exchange between the EBAF and Barkay they were lost. The Phocaea pottery was dated by the excavator to 540 AD (cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert, 16th April 2013). 225. The mortar of the support of the mosaic fragment shows the presence of grass filaments, used for wall mosaic to make it lighter. The opus vermicolatum technique, used for this mosaic, while it is typical of Hellenistic and Roman mosaics, has been recently found also in a C5–C6 AD mosaics (cf. private communication with Véronique Blanc-Bijon, 22nd April 2013). 226. The shaft was filled to the height of about 1.35 m from the bedrock cleaned by Jean-Baptiste Humbert. Its height from the bedrock is about 5 m. 227. For the details on the findings see Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 790-5. 228. In the Garden Tomb area, in the 1870’s, a column fragment was found comparable with those unearthed in the SEC, attributed to Schick to the column which, according to Antony of Placentia, who visited Jerusalem around 560 AD, stood in the very middle of the road, not far from Jerusalem and outside the gate of Saint Stephen monastery (cf. C. Schick, “Notes and News”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 1-9, on pp. 2-3). Another fragment, 1.90 m high and 1 m in diameter, similar to those found in SEC and the Garden Tomb, was found in 2010 during the reparation of a wall in the Schmidt Institut in Nablus Road. 229. Cf. M.R. Savignac, “Inscription romaine et sépultures au nord de Jérusalem”, RB 13 (1994) 82-100, on p. 91. See also area 325e. 230. Cf. L.-H. Vincent/F.-M., Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, vol. ii, i et ii (Paris: Gabalda, 1914), 37. 231. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 793. 232. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 362.
138
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
In 2007, during the renovation of the sewage system in front of the Ecole building, the remains of the southern slab pavement abutting the mediaeval church was again unearthed, and a north-south wall in fine masonry and large ashlars was discovered (cf. figures 62 and 63).²³³ In May 2013, during the soundings for the construction of a new system for drainage of rainwater from the roof of the modern Monastery, in the Lemon tree gardens of the SEC,²³⁴ the remains of a vaulted construction were unearthed. The salvage excavation started in July 2013 and ended in December 2014, under the direction of Rosemary Le Bohec and the present writer. (cf. figures 64 to 66). This construction was built not later than the end of the Crusaders period, at the end of C12 AD, and was in use, with several layers of occupation, until the end of C14 AD. In Trench K, the bedrock was reached, presenting clear signs of a quarry, and possibly of part of the evened façade of a burial cave (cf. figure 67); unfortunately, it was not possible to pursue the excavations to verify this hypothesis. Immediately outside the SEC, in April 1994, in wake of the preparation works for the installation of the petrol station at the south-eastern corner between Nablous Road and Naomi Kiss Road, several soundings were excavated under the roadway of Nablous Road:²³⁵ in sounding Ea-2 there was unearthed part of a plastered cistern hewn in the bedrock, whose pit was cut by a wall, which presented Roman pottery in the masonry; in sounding Ea-3 there were discovered the remains of three floors; one made of crushed limestone presented fragments of pottery form the Byzantine to the Umayyad periods, the second a white mosaic floor, found one metre South of the first floor and at the same level, and the third, 0.30 m higher than the other two, presented fragments of pottery from the Byzantine, Umayyad and Mamluk periods; in sounding Ea-4 there were found the remains of a north-south wall (3 m in exposed length and 1.50 m in preserved height) built with large and finely dressed ashlars, the pottery found in the filling of the wall being Byzantine and Umayyad; in sounding Ea-5 there were uncovered two channels (0.3 × 0.3 m, 0.22 × 0.26 m) conducting to a cistern, 3 m to the West, with Late Byzantine and Umayyad pottery fragments; sounding Ea-6 exposed the remains of a north-south wall (1.65 m in exposed length and 1.60 m in preserved height) built with ashlars and filled with small stones, which it was not possible to date because of modern disturbance; sounding Ea-7 unearthed a per233. Cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert, 17th April 2013. 234. Coordinates: 171916.23 132451.24 / 31°47005.69’’N 35°13049.52’’E. 235. Cf. R. Abu Raya, “The Third Wall”, HA 18 (1996), (Hebrew), 130.
fectly preserved installation (1.55 m in diameter and 1.55 m in height) cut in the bedrock, perhaps a storage facility, whose closing slab was in situ at the entrance from the ceiling, presenting pottery of the Byzantine period; the upper part of a tomb, vaulted with ashlars and plastered inside, was unearthed in sounding Ea-8, perhaps already excavated by the Jordanian Antiquity Authority in 1966.²³⁶ 4.5.4 325d: Late Bronze Age Egyptian Sanctuary? (325 in Kloner 2001): 171865.61 132414.12 / 31°4703.9800N 35°13047.5900E²³⁷ Reviving an interpretation dismissed long ago of the Byzantine marble slab found in situ in A (cf. figures 48 and 68)²³⁸ as an ancient Egyptian offering table, Barkay proposed in several articles the hypothesis of the presence of remains of a Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in the SEC.²³⁹ His hypothesis is based, on one hand, on the historical background of Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age, particularly under the 19th dynasty, supposing the existence of an Egyptian garrison²⁴⁰ in Urusalim²⁴¹ and, with it, of a temple for the Egyptian residents of the city;²⁴² 236. Cf. Abu Raya, “The Third Wall”, 131-2. 237. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17185 13240 / UTM 71105 351864. Because no remains of the supposed LB Egyptian sanctuary have been found, the coordinates given in the present thesis are those of the approximate centre of SEC. 238. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 774-5 and note 1, 775. 239. Cf. G. Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem?”, in Ruth Amiran Volume, Eretz-Israel: archaeological, historical and geographical studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990), (Hebrew) 94-106; cf. G. Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem?”, IEJ 46 (1996) 23-43; cf. G. Barkay, “What’s an Egyptian Temple Doing in Jerusalem?”, BAR 26 (2000) 48-57. 240. In C13 there was a renewed presence of Egyptian “residences” in Southern Levant, as archaeologically documented for Tell Afeq and Bet-She’an, particularly in the South, in Gaza, Ashkelon, Tel Mor, Deir el-Balah, Tell Jemme, Tell el-‘Ajjul, all fortresses which guarded the commercial routes (cf. M. Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia: Storia antica d’Israele (Roma - Bari: Editori Laterza, 2005), 16). The findings of Egyptian or Egyptianised artefacts in Jerusalem excavations indicates at most an Egyptian cultural influence, while no archaeological, or textual evidence points to the presence of an Egyptian garrison or residence in Urusalim (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 968). 241. “Urusalim” was the name of Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age, according to the Amarna letters (cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 52). 242. Barkay 1996 proposes the 19th Dynasty for the dating because “Papyrus Anastasi III mentions a fort of Merneptah near Sarram, which has been identified with Salem (cf. Genesis 14:18; Psalms 76:3). Another section mentions the arrival of an Egyptian officer from the ’Wells of Merneptah’ located in the mountainous area. These have been associated with Me-Nephtoah (“the waters of Nephtoah”) mentioned in Joshua (15:9, 18:15), located north-west of Jerusalem. This is essentially the only evidence of Late Bronze Egyptian activity in the central hill
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 49
Restitution of the plan and the section of Tomb I, SEC, Area 325c; cf. Vincent/Abel 1926, 777, fig, 324
fig. 50
Restitution of the plan and the section of Tomb I, SEC, Area 325c; cf. Vincent/Abel 1926, 777, fig, 324
139
140
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 51
Restitution of Medieval altar, SEC, Area 325c; cf. Vincent/Abel 1926, 770, fig. 320
fig. 52
Northern annexes to the Medieval Church, called the “Asnerie”, SEC, Area 325c, photo EBAF
fig. 53
Plan of the clearing of the Saint Stephen Basilica Atrium, SEC, Area 325c, F. Gouyot, unpublished
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 54
Base of column, SEC, Area 325c, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 55
Plan and sections of the burial area at the south-eastern corner of the Ecole building, SEC, Area 325c; cf. Vincent/Abel 1926, 787, fig.s, 332-334
141
142
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 56
Quarry under the Archaeological Department of the EBAF, SEC, Area 325c, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 57
Plan and section of the quarry under the EBAF Archaeological Department building, SEC, Area 325c, survived by Emmanuel Moisan the 19th April 2013
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 58
Mosaic fragment, quarry under the Archaeological Department of the EBAF, SEC, Area 325c, photo Riccardo Lufrani
143
144
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 59
Niche in the natural shaft of the quarry, Archaeological Department of the EBAF, SEC, Area 325c, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 60
Niche in the natural shaft of the quarry, Archaeological Department of the EBAF, SEC, Area 325c, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 61
Columns and capitals orders found in SEC, Area 325c, Vincent/Abel 1926, 792
145
146
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 62
Remains of the slabs pavement abutting the medieval church, SEC, Area 325c, photo Jean-Michel de Tarragon
fig. 63
Remains of the North-South wall, SEC, Area 325c, photo Jean-Michel de Tarragon
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 64
fig. 65
Plan of the SEC and location of the 2013 excavations, unpublished report
Plan of the 2013 excavation at the SEC, unpublished report, Rosemary Le Bohec
fig. 66
The site of the 2013 excavation at the SEC, unpublished report, Riccardo Lufrani
147
148
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 67
Quarried bedrock, Trench K, 2013 excavations at the SEC, unpublished report, Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 68
Base and pit of the Saint Stephen Basilica altar, Area 325d, Vincent/Abel 1926, 775
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
on the other hand, on the “Egyptian or Egyptianised” findings present in the SEC and in the Garden Tomb collections, which, according to Barkay’s reasoning, constitute a valuable additional clue to hypothesise the existence of an Egyptian temple north of Urusalim.²⁴³ The objects found in the SEC, which are considered to be evidence of an Egyptian temple in SEC are: a funerary stele, dated to the 19th or 20th Dynasties by Theis/Van der Veen 2011,²⁴⁴ found in the debris of the C19 AD excavations in SEC two alabaster vessels, dated to the Early Bronze Age I or II²⁴⁵ of unknown provenance,²⁴⁶ a fragment of a green serpentine statuette found on the surface of the SEC garden in 1975.²⁴⁷ While these four objects seem to be Egyptian or Egyptianised, they have no clear connection with the SEC location and merely suggest that the Egyptian influence in Urusalim, very clear at the end of C14 BC, may also have continued during C13 BC.²⁴⁸
243. 244.
245. 246.
247.
248.
country of Canaan. It should be noted that Late Bronze finds on the central mountainous range of Judah and Benjamin are few, and most originate in tombs”, Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple”, 41. It is worth noting that both identifications are hypothetical and do not constitute evidence of an Egyptian activity in the Central Hills, as Barkay himself states. Cf. Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple”, 42. “Based on stylistic grounds, as well as on additional funerary objects found in the immediate vicinity (such as the Late Bronze Age alabaster vessels), we would like to date the stele to the Ramesside Period (i.e. to the 19th or 20th Dynasties), when it must have been erected here within an Egyptian settlement or (perhaps more likely so) within a cemetery located on the northern outskirts of ancient Jerusalem, where people who apparently had served the Egyptian government (Egyptians or Egyptianized local Canaanites) were buried”, C. Theis/P. Van der Veen, “Some ’Provenanced’ Egyptian Inscriptions from Jerusalem: A Preliminary Study of Old and New Evidence”, in G. Galil et al., The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Century B.C.E.—Culture and History—Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010, Münster, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 392, Ugarit Verlag, 2012, 509-24, on pp. 514-5. Cf. Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple”, 34. Barkay 1996 states that the alabaster vessels were found in the C19 AD SEC excavations, but there is no report of their discovery in that occasion (cf. Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple”, 34). Cf. Barkay, “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple”, 35. The statuette is interpreted as being the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet (cf. P. Van der Veen, “When Pharaos Ruled Jerusalem”, BAR 39 (2013) 42-8, 67, on p. 46). Cf. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. Teil 1, 127-9. The other findings attributed by Barkay 1996 and 2000 to an Egyptian origin, and ignored in Van der Veen 2013, are clearly Byzantine: the white marble base of the Saint Stephen Basilica altar found in situ (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 775 and for a parallel see M.-C. Compte, Les reliquaries du Proche-Orient et de Chypre à la période protobyzantine (IVe – VIIIe siècles). Formes, emplacements, fonctions et cultes, BAT 20, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) 151, fig.s 61 and 64), a Byzantine reliquary (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 797 and for a parallel see Compte, Les reliquaries du Proche-Orient, 151, fig. 61), and a Byzantine capital in the Garden Tomb Com-
149
4.5.5 325e: Roman Vault, Roman Inscriptions, Mosaic Floor and Byzantine Tomb near Sa’ad and Sa’id Mosque (325 in Kloner 2001): 171715.78 132435.48 / 31°4704.6800N 35°13041.9000E²⁴⁹ Savignac 1904 describes the remains found in the excavations of the foundations of a house: a Roman vault, two Roman inscriptions, a mosaic floor and a Byzantine tomb at about 100m west of SEC, not far from the ruins of Sa’ad and Sa’id mosque.²⁵⁰ In 1924, the construction of another house in the area was the occasion of discovering other remains and locating more precisely the two excavations by Vincent 1924 - trench number 3 was dug in 1924 at 62 m west of the entrance gate to the SEC - and the remains presented by Savignac 1904 at about 40 m to the west (cf. figure 69).²⁵¹ Savignac was not able to verify the relation between the mosaic and the north-east / south-west wall a-b,²⁵² while he reports that a 10 m long segment of the same wall was found 30 m further north, together with tombs, lamps, coins and glass vessels.²⁵³ The vault, perhaps a tomb, presented two different masonry qualities, suggesting a later transformation (cf. figure 70).²⁵⁴ Under a slab
249. 250. 251. 252.
253.
254.
pound, whose dimensions fit perfectly with the small order of the SEC columns and capitals (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 792, fig. 338); for a parallel to the capital in the Garden Tomb see J.-L. Biscop, Deir Déhès Monastère d’Antiochène. Etude architécturale (Beyrouth: IFAPO, 1997), Pl. 23. Wimmer 1990 dismissed Barkay’s interpretations of the Byzantine base of the altar of the Saint Stephen Basilica altar as an Egyptian offering table, as well as the evidence of the existence of an Egyptian temple in the SEC (cf. S. Wimmer, “Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai”, in S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, II (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990) 1065-106). The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17185 13240 / UTM 71105 351864. Cf. Savignac, “Inscription romaine”, 91. Cf. L.-H. Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures archéologiques”, RB 33 (1924) 433. “Le mur ab n’a guère moins d’un mètre d’épaisseur; il est fait de beaux blocs lisses, à joints fins, avec un appareillage très soigné qui rappelle les bonnes constructions romaines. Il a été visiblement remanié en avant du caveau X, quand on l’a relié aux murs postérieurs et d’un mauvais travail qui font corps avec lui. C’est dans cette restauration qu’on y a inséré, en guise de moellons, les chapiteaux corinthiens mutilés et la base de colonne”, Savignac, “Inscription romaine”, 92. Cf. Savignac, “Inscription romaine”, 92. The area concerned seems to be adjacent to Area B in Tzaferis, Feig, Onn and Shukrun 1990-1992 excavations (see fig.s 152 and 208, cf. Tzaferis/Feig/Onn/Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall”, 291). “Le caveau adossé au gros mur était vide au moment de notre visite. Il offre deux constructions nettement distinctes (voy. plan et coupes): à l’ouest une partie très élégante avec ses parois appareillées et sa voûte intacte en berceau; à l’est, après un léger écartement des parois, de mauvaises murailles en blocage et une voûte irrégulière, qui, en s’effondrant au cours des récents travaux, a causé la découverte. On dirait d’une restauration postérieure à moins que - d’après certains dires des ouvriers
150
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 69
Plan of the excavations near the Sa’ad and Sa’id Mosque, Area 325d, cf. Vincent 1924, 433
Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 70
151
Plan and sections and findings of the excavations near Sa’ad and Sa’id Mosque, Area 325d, cf. Savignac 1904, 91
was found a tomb, marked Z in Savignac drawings (cf. figure 70), 1.85 m long and 0.44 m wide, whose sidewalls were plastered and decorated with a Cross.²⁵⁵ The two fragments of inscriptions found during the 1904 excavation have been interpreted by ClermontGanneau: fragment B may come from a funeral or an honorific inscription of a liberto and mentions three Roman legions, the Legio X Fretentis, the II Traiana and the XII Fulminata,²⁵⁶ while fragment A derives from an inscription of a unidentifiable monument.²⁵⁷ modernes que rien ne permet plus de contrôler - l’on ne veuille songer à un stucage peint en cette partie de la tombe. L’entrée parait avoir été de ce côté: il n’en reste en effet aucune trace dans les autres parois et il est difficile de reconnaitre une entrée dans l’ouverture que bouche actuellement une grosse pierre dans le haut du mur occidental. Il se pourrait qu’une tombe ait été creusée au-dessous de cette ouverture dans le roc qui fait le sol du caveau”, Savignac, “Inscription romaine”, 92-3. 255. Cf. Savignac, “Inscription romaine”, 93. 256. CIIP n° 717, dated to 117-138 AD the inscription is hypothetically reconstructed as: ’For Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, son of the deified Traianus Parthicus, grandson of the deified Nerva [– name –]us, his freedman (had erected/built this) with the help of the vexillations of the legions... and X Fretensis and II (Traiana?) and... and... and XII Fulminata’. See below in the text for the translation after the discovery of a fragment of the same inscription in 2014. 257. “Large slab of limestone; the front is very smooth, the back is rough, indicating that the stone was inserted into a structure. The stone was cut for reuse at the top as indicated by the damage to the tops of the letters in the first line (see especially C). The inscription was set in a tabula ansata, visible on the left side of the stone”, CIIP n° 715. Dated to 117-138 AD the inscription
During the salvage excavations carried out in July 2014 by Rina Avner and Roi Greenwald between area C and area D in figure 83,²⁵⁸ a number of graves dated to the Byzantine period were discovered, together with a slab with a Latin inscription, which is the right half of fragment A found in the same area in 1904 and presented above.²⁵⁹ The two inscriptions together give the following text, translated for the IAA by Avner Ecker and Hannah Cotton of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: (1st hand) To the Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, son of the deified Traianus Parthicus, grandson of the deified Nerva, high priest, invested with tribunician power for the 14th time, consul for the third time, father of the country (dedicated by) the 10th legion Fretensis (2nd hand) Antoniniana.²⁶⁰ is hypothetically reconstructed as: “For Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, son of the deified Traianus victor over the Parthians, grandson of the deified Nerva, high priest, consul for the third time, father of the fatherland, the arch(?) was built by the decision of the city council(?)”, ibid. 258. Coordinates: 171684.75 132451.19 / 31°47005.19’’N 35°13040.72’’E. 259. Unpublished report, courtesy of Rina Avner and Roie Greenwald. 260. Official site of IAA, retrieved 24.03.2015, http : / / www . antiquities.org.il/Article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240& id=4086.
152
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
According to Ecker and Cotton, “This inscription was dedicated by the Legio X Fretensis to the emperor Hadrian in the year 129/130 CE”.²⁶¹ Their analysis shows that the abovementioned fragment A of the inscription revealed by the IAA archaeologists is none other than the right half of a complete inscription, the other part of which was discovered nearby in the late nineteenth century and was published by the eminent French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau.²⁶² The 1924 excavations, 62 m to the West of the entrance gate of the SEC, unearthed an East-West 3 m thick wall in poor masonry, a mosaic floor, some tombs and a nicely dressed corner ashlar, which was in situ and marked the entrance of an unknown building.²⁶³ The wall, near point N in figure 69, recovered few well dressed, and long slabs, sealed in concrete on the flattened surface of the bedrock, as it was the case with the foundation of block X.²⁶⁴ Block X and the structural line of its foundations and the slabs are considered by Vincent to be an additional clue to the Roman remains of a commemorative arch of Ælia Capitolina.²⁶⁵ Further building activities to the East and the South of the area showed no ancient remains, and the only connection may be established to the West, with the remains unearthed in 1904.²⁶⁶ Finally, abutting the southern side of the wall, there were the remains of a poor pavement made of marble fragments, flattened pebbles and gross white tesserae.²⁶⁷ According to Vincent, after the transformations of the Byzantine period, of the Arab conquest and the Crusader period, the remains of the supposed commemorative arch of Ælia Capitolina might have been reused in the construction of a khan, similar to the “Asnerie” of the SEC,²⁶⁸ while the poor tombs, abutting the northern side of the wall, simple cist graves without any burial material, are consistent with a dating between C13 and C14 AD.²⁶⁹ 261. Official site of IAA, retrieved 24.03.2015, http : / / www . antiquities.org.il/Article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240& id=4086. 262. Cf. http://www.antiquities.org.il/Article_eng.aspx?sec_id= 25&subj_id=240&id=4086. 263. “A l’extrémité occidentale de la fouille, le bloc X (fig. 2) est isolé mais en place sur un béton nivelant la crête du rocher. A la manière dont le béton se développe à l’Est et au Sud on a l’impression que ce bloc marque l’angle d’une ouverture de largeur aujourd’hui indéterminée. Autant qu’il a été possible de la préciser l’orientation de cette ouverture était par 92 degrés elle ne sera donc pas mise en relation avec le grand mur AB, orienté par 93° 25’, avec inflexion brusque et irrégulière de 4° à 5° à l’extrémité B, comme si la ligne devait s’amortir sur un angle arrondi”, Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 434. 264. Cf. Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 436. 265. Cf. Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 437. 266. Cf. Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 437. 267. Cf. Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 436. 268. Cf. area 325c. 269. “Contre le parement septentrional de ce mur s’alignaient quelques sépultures creusées dans la couche a l’argileuse à la
4.6 Area [102] 326 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel Area [102] 326 harbours an important parallel of H1 and H2, at only a few dozen metres from the SEC. Furthermore, new surveys were conducted by the present writer which resulted in the production of a more precise plan and sections of Tomb 1 in the White Sisters’ Monastery Compound.²⁷⁰ 4.6.1 326a: Rock-hewn Tomb 1, Tomb 1a and a Cave in the White Sisters’ Monastery Garden (326 in Kloner 2001): 171769.22 132280.57/31°46059.6500N 35°13043.9300E²⁷¹ The White Sisters’ Monastery Compound extends over a surface of approximately 0.5 ha, and is located on the western side of Nablus Road, between 140 and 200 m north-north-west from the Damascus Gate.²⁷² Vincent 1924 describes the preparation work for the foundations of the monastery, stating that careful excavations evacuated a 1.80-1.82 m thick stratum of an embankment posterior to the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, as the material culture found showed. Except for the southern part of the excavation, where the rock layer was found at a depth of 5 m, the surface of the bedrock appeared everywhere else at a maximum depth of 2 m, showing no sign of ancient or modern foundations other than a wall, made with reemployed blocks, a corner of a sink and a few remains of an irrigation canal.²⁷³
270. 271. 272. 273.
base des décombres modernes. On n’imagine rien de plus misérable que ces fosses exiguës où des cailloux empilés revêtaient les parois, des pierres plates irrégulières servant de couverture d’ailleurs peu efficace contre l’envahissement des décombres. Inutile d’observer qu’en de telles cavités il n’y eut jamais place pour un cercueil et qu’on a vainement cherché dans toutes celles que la fouille exposait au jour la plus humble pièce de mobilier funéraire”, Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 436. For the map of area 326 see figure 71. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17182 13225 / UTM 71103 351849. The real Catholic Congregation name of the so-called White Sisters’ is “Sœurs Franciscaines Missionnaires de Marie”. Their monastery in Jerusalem was constructed in the 1930’s. Cf. Vincent, “Jérusalem, glanures”, 432-3. Vincent gives no denomination to the future large construction, whose preparation work he visited; nevertheless he locates the site on the western roadside of Nablus Road, 150 m north of the Damascus Gate, which corresponds with the White Sisters’ Monastery. In note 3, 433, added the 10th May 1924, Vincent states: “Il y faut ajouter aujourd’hui, près du débris de vasque: 1° une citerne assez exiguë, construite entièrement dans les décombres; 2° un vague foyer d’hypocauste (?) avec conduits en moellons noyés dans de la boue. Certaine archéologie très engouée pour les thermes et bains de toute nature aurait, cette fois, un fondement quelconque pour en ériger un en cet endroit, seulement tout à fait minuscule et postérieur à l’époque médiévale. Il est beaucoup plus vraisemblable de voir là les pauvres restes de quelque mesquin atelier arabe”.
Area [102] 326 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 71
Location of the site of Area 326, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 72
Entrance of “Chamber D”, north-eastern corner of the Knoll, photo Emmanuel Moisan
153
154
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 73
Entrance of “Chamber D”, of the Knoll, detail of the northCeastern hinge of the door, photo Emmanuel Moisan
At the beginning of the 1880’s, in what is today the garden of the White Sisters’ Monastery, located in the south-eastern ‘corner’ of the Knoll, near the Nablus Road bus station, a burial cave (Tomb 1) was discovered, described by Conder in 1881.²⁷⁴ According to Vincent and Steve 1954, the tomb is the only one left among the burial caves hewn all around the knoll and destroyed by quarrying activities.²⁷⁵ Tomb 1, which has never been published since the article by Conder,²⁷⁶ is hewn from a breccia, a sedimentary rock composed of angular to sub angular pieces of pre274. Cf. C.R. Conder, “Jerusalem”, PEFQ 13 (1881) 201-5. 275. Cf. Vincent/Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. vol. I, 30-1. In Vincent/Abel 1926 figure four tombs are marked around the Knoll, while in Warren/Conder 1884 only Tomb 1 is reported. The doorway of “Chamber D”, as named in Conder’s 1881 map, measuring 1.70 m of height and 1.50 m of width, is today blocked by masonry (cf. figures 72 and 73). Conder 1881 also describes a cistern: “I have long been aware of the existence of a curious cistern in the northeast corner of this scarp. It has a domed roof with a man-hole, and also a door with a passage 10 ft. long and 3 ft. wide, leading out eastwards. The cistern is about 8 paces in diameter, and three steps lead down from the door to the level of the cistern floor. This excavation seems originally to have been a chamber afterwards converted into a cistern, and there are sockets for the door-hinges and for bolts in the passage entrance”, Conder, “Jerusalem”, 204. During the survey by the present author, it was not possible to access to the other tombs and cisterns presented in the abovementioned maps. 276. Conder 1881 gives no report on material culture possibly present in Tomb 1 during his visit (cf. Conder, “Jerusalem”, 201-5). A short description of the tomb is presented in Barkay, Kloner, Mazar 1994, who date it to the Iron Age II C period: “West of the Nablus Road, in the courtyard of a Franciscan White Sisters convent, is another burial cave, discovered and published by C.R. Conder in 1881. In front of the cave is a
existing rock, which is easy to cut, but not suitable for a fine dressing of the sidewall.²⁷⁷ As suggested by the remains of the rock ceiling over the doorway which opens small courtyard from which an entrance leads westward into the burial cave. The central entrance hall, 2.74 × 1.83 m., gives access to three burial chambers, located in the south, west, and north respectively. Benches about 65 cm. high are hewn in the walls of the three burial chambers. Each of two square openings in the corners of the central entrance hall opposite the entrance leads to a repository. The two windows cut in the façade of the cave, on either side of the entrance, attest to its secondary use”, Barkay/Kloner/Mazar, “The Northern Necropolis”, 126). The present author and Emmanuel Moisan surveyed the tomb in two sessions, 7th February 2013 and 2nd May 2013. 277. “Tombs 1 and 1a and the Cave of the White Sisters’ Monastery have been excavated from a breccia, a sedimentary rock composed of angular to sub angular pieces of pre-existing rock. In this case, the breccia is made of clasts of limestone from meleke, a white and coarsely crystalline limestone deposited about 90 million years ago (the Bina Formation, late Cenomanian to Lower Turonian age, belongs to the Judea Group). The dimensions of broken fragments of this limestone are very heterogeneous: some pieces are less than 1cm large while others show tens of cm for width and length. Gravels are cemented together by a muddy matrix mostly composed of limestone. It appears that this collapsed breccia was probably created by the collapse of a sinkhole in a karst landscape. After removal of calcite components by dissolution, conduits, caves and sinkholes created through karst process may collapse and be filled by successive blankets of breccias. In this zone of Jerusalem, the presence of karstic features is not a surprise. It can be observed in many locations in the neighbourhood, and the historical water supply of the city has long been related to karstic springs and groundwater. In this area, the location of most of these karstic features is controlled by the existence of N110 faults and fractures, which have helped the development of the karstic network. It is probably not a coincidence if the entrance of the main tomb (the southern) has a N110 orientation while the northern opens towards a N30 azimuth. Both directions deal
Area [102] 326 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
on the Main Chamber,²⁷⁸ and by its sidewalls hewn in the rock to the southern and to the northern sides, a Vestibule may have led into the burial cave (cf. figure 74).²⁷⁹ The doorway, 1.34-1.46 m high, 0.70-0.96 m wide, and 0.40-0.50 m thick, leading to the Main Chamber by way of a modern step,²⁸⁰ seems to have been widened to its present ovoid shape at a later stage,²⁸¹ together with the
278.
279.
280. 281.
with faults and fractures generated during the latest tectonic events, and have been observed recently in the Tomb of the Kings. Tombs 1 and 1a and the cave are located in a zone in which the observation of geological objects is not easy because of the urban context. However, a very dense fault network has been identified in a western sector of the town. For this sector, the geological map shows a great number of N110 faults, dealing with an intense deformation. The extrapolation towards the east –the area of the tombs- of this high density of N110 faults is quite reasonable, as there is no geological reason for a drastic change in orientation and density of faulting. In Tomb 1, all rooms are cut in the breccia material. As it is a poorly consolidated rock, excavation was probably easy to do; however, the stability of the whole was not certain. The material is not rich, and excavation should not have been costly. Assuming the breccias-filled sinkhole was only few metres large, and aligned on the N110 direction, the tomb is probably located in the central part of the former sinkhole. In the Cave, the single large room shows different features. First of all, the material seems different, with probably more original limestone. Few fractures can be observed, and a karstic conduit is present on the right side of the top. This tomb was not only cut in the breccias, but more probably on the edge of the breccia-filled sinkhole. It may be probable, because of the existence of the vertical conduit, that part of this tomb was formerly a cave that was enlarged for excavating the tomb”, Expertise of the geologist Gérard Massonat, who visited White Sisters’ compound with the present author on 8th May 2013. For a synthetic presentation of the breccia, see http://flexiblelearning.auckland.ac.nz/rocks_ minerals/rocks/breccia.html, Internet site of the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Conder 1881 states that the two stones found in what he calls the Courtyard, were used to block a rolling stone at the entrance of the tomb (cf. Conder, “Jerusalem”, 204). Today, no such stones are visible at the entrance of Tomb 1. From the present state of the burial cave and of the rocky scarp where it is hewn, it is not possible to determine with certainty the existence of a vestibule at the access to T1, but it cannot be excluded. In order to simplify the presentation of the tomb, we name “Vestibule” the space before the Main Chamber. From the observation of Conder’s drawing, it seems that the eastern part of the floor of the Vestibule was not excavated to the bedrock, and no modern excavations of this tomb are reported. It is worth noting that both Conder 1881 (cf. Conder, “Jerusalem”, 204) and Barkay, Kloner, Mazar 1994 (cf. Barkay/Kloner/Mazar, “The Northern Necropolis”, 123) designate the Vestibule as a Courtyard, not taking into consideration the remains of the ceiling over the doorway and the fact that the height of the Main Chamber ceiling, even if we suppose that its bedrock floor was at the same level of the threshold of the doorway, would be only slightly lower than the ceiling of the Main Chamber. Conder 1881 reports that there were two steps (cf. Conder, “Jerusalem”, 204). The sides and the threshold of the entrance doorway have been covered with modern clay, hiding what might give some indication for a restitution of the original size and shape of the door. The lintel is slightly curved and hewn from the ceiling of the Main Chamber down to the eastern sidewall of the Main Chamber.
155
carving of two lateral openings, both measuring approximately 0.35 m high and 0.25 m wide, which bring light and air to the Vestibule. The floors of the Main Chamber, of the burial chambers and of the repositories were covered with earth and gravel after 1985.²⁸² The Main Chamber measures approximately 2.60 m long, between 2 and 2.40 m wide and around 1.75 m high,²⁸³ and presents a fairly flat ceiling, except for the collapses, and opens on to three burial chambers and two repositories. The doorway to Chamber 1 is sufficiently preserved to give its approximate dimensions 1.50 m high, 0.50 m wide, and 0.30 m thick (cf. figures 74, 80 and 81). The three burial chambers have the same plan, namely a central corridor, which outlines three benches on the three sides of the chamber. In Chamber 1, measuring approximately 2.20 × 1.75 m, the central corridor is 0.50 m wide, and the three benches are 0.80-0.95 m high and 0.70-0.80 m wide, the ceiling being at about 0.65 m from the benches. The clearing of the ground and gravel fill of the floor showed no steps between Chamber 1 and the Main Chamber.²⁸⁴ An opening 0.50 m wide and 0.53 m high connects the Main Chamber to Repository 1, hewn in a parallelepiped shape and measuring approximately 1.50 m long, 1.40 m wide and 0.50 m high.²⁸⁵ In Chamber 2, which measures 2.40 m of length and 2 m of width, the benches are 0.70-0.90 m wide, approximately 0.90 m high, and the height of the ceiling over the benches is 0.75-0.85 m (cf. figure 78).²⁸⁶ The northern bench is badly damaged by a collapse of the breccia in its eastern side, which completely destroyed the north-eastern sidewall of Chamber 1 and the adjacent sidewall of the Main Chamber; part of the damaged bench is reconstructed to its original length by a modern masonry. Under the same bench, Repository 2 stretches towards north in a parallelepiped shape of approximately 1.70 m long, 1.45 m wide and 0.50 m high. The southern sidewall of Chamber 3 is completely destroyed (cf. figure 79), while the 282. The material of the floor filling is quite homogenous and seems to have been laid at the same time. During the clearing to the bedrock of the modern filling of the floor of Chamber 1, about 0.20 m thick, adherent to the bedrock, a coin was found of ½ New Israeli Shekel, which was introduced into circulation in 1985 (cf. Numista website, http://en.numista.com/catalogue/ pieces1720.html, accessed the 6th May 2013). The material culture find during the clearing is evidently modern. 283. The measure of the height of the ceiling is taken from the floor cleared of the earth and gravel, in front of the doorway to Chamber 1, and in other places, subtracting 0.20 m of the covering layer to the measurement. 284. Feature probably common to the other two burial chambers of the tomb. 285. From its ceiling and the level of the floor with ground and gravel filling. Note that the Repositories may be deeper than the level of the Main Chamber. 286. Since the earth and gravel of the floor were removed only in Chamber 1, the heights measured from the present floor level are estimated adding to the measurement 0.20 m, which is the thickness of the floor filling in Chamber 1.
156
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
two lateral benches, 0.85 m high²⁸⁷ and 0.60-0.80 wide, are damaged and partly restored by modern masonry in their southern edges; the ceiling collapsed in the middle, in correspondence with a fracture of the rock, and as a consequence is very irregular, except in its northern part, where it is 0.80 m from the benches. The opening in the northern sidewall of the Vestibule, 0.50 m wide, 0.60 m high and 0.40 m thick, leads into another chamber, Tomb 1a, approximately 2.70 m long, 1.80 m wide, almost completely filled with earth and rubbish (cf. figure 76).²⁸⁸ Dry masonry blocks the original entrance of Tomb 1a, opening to the east. Conder’s 1881 description and plan give an idea of Tomb 1a,²⁸⁹ and its connection to the north with the Cave, today blocked by masonry filling a regular carving of the rock in an arched shape, visible only in the south-western sidewall of the Cave.²⁹⁰ The ceiling of the Cave partly collapsed in recent time, as suggested by the absence of patina in several fragments fallen to the ground and the broken rock of the ceiling. On the north-western corner of the Cave, another masonry blocks the entrance to an additional chamber, as shown in Conder’s 1881 plan. Finally, the ceiling behind the entrance doorway, which is 1.60 m high from the threshold, 1 m wide and 0.80 m thick, is finely hewn. The Cave, which appears to be a natural formation transformed by human activity, might have been discovered in ancient times while hewing a burial cave, as the fine dressing behind the doorway suggests, and subsequently readapted with the connections to the South, with Tomb 1a, and to the West, with another chamber, today inaccessible. On the ceiling and on part of the sidewalls, the presence of soot points to a use of the Cave as a shelter until modern times.
4.7 Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel In area [102] 330 a significant number of remains of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall are located, together with the vestiges of possibly four Byzantine monasteries, with their burial facilities.²⁹¹ 287. Estimated adding 0.20 m of earth and gravel level to the measure of 0.63 m. 288. Because of the presence of earth and rubbish all over the floor of the chamber, it is impossible to estimate its height. 289. “On the right (or north) is a side entrance, leading into a chamber with a single loculus, and thence into a cave, some 8 paces square and 10 ft. high, with a well-mouth in the roof ”, Conder, “Jerusalem”, 204. 290. The approximate dimensions of the cave are: 7.25-7.35 m long and 4.80 m wide (near the entrance doorway). For the presence of ground and rubbish all over the floor of the chamber, it is impossible to estimate its height. 291. For the map of area 330 see figure 82.
4.7.1 330a: The Sukenik/Mayer Wall (330 in Kloner 2001): 171718.13 132518.34 / 31°4707.3700N 35°13041.9900E²⁹² Remains of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall were detected as early as 1838 by Robinson,²⁹³ who was the first to connect them to Josephus’ “Third Wall”.²⁹⁴ Until today, the interpretation of these remains the object of an endless debate among scholars,²⁹⁵ which the most recent excavations did not manage to settle.²⁹⁶ The northern section of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall stretches over about 750 m (cf. figure 82, Segments 1-8),²⁹⁷ between 420 and 500 m north of the parallel Ottoman Wall of the Old City. The archaeological remains found in this section are the following: Segment 1: was unearthed a 32 m long and about 4.5 m wide section of the bedding of the Wall, with no masonry left; three rock-hewn tombs were found at the southeastern end of the bedding, in the line of the Wall, and 292. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17172 13252 / UTM 71092 351876. Kloner’s 2001 coordinates are related to a small section of what, together with the majority of Israelis scholars, he considers to be Josephus’ ‘Third Wall’. The coordinates given in the present work are taken at the middle of Segment 3 in map 25, § A 3.2.7. 293. Cf. E. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine. Vol. I (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1860), 314-5. Before the excavations of Sukenik/Mayer 1925-1927, only minor investigations and soundings were carried out: cf. C. Schick, “Tombs, or a remainder of the Third Wall?”, PEFQ 27 (1895) 30-2; cf. L.B. Paton, “The Third Wall of Jerusalem and some Excavations along its Supposed Line”, JBL 24 (1905) 197-211; cf. C. Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, (London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1906), 203-4). 294. Flavius Josephus describes the “Third Wall” in War 5:147-161; he gives three different reasons for the interruption of the construction of the ‘Third Wall’ in Ant. 19:327 (Claudius ordered Agrippa I to stop the construction), in War 5:152 (Agrippa I was afraid to raise the suspicions of Claudius) and in War 2:218-219 (the death of Agrippa I); finally, in War 5:259, 260 and 284, Flavius Josephus tells how Titus attacked the “Third Wall” from the West. It is worth noting that Flavius Josephus is the only source on Agrippa’s ‘Third Wall’, with perhaps the exception of an ambiguous passage from Tacitus History 5:12. 295. For an excellent summary of the debate, see Küchler, Jerusalem, 979-81. More recently, Magness 2011 presented a review on the “Third Wall” issue, connected to the debates on Hadrianic Jerusalem, substantially brining no new elements to Küchler’s 2007 presentation (cf. Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review”, 313-24). 296. For the list of the excavations related to the Sukenik/Mayer or Josephus’ ‘Third Wall’ see Küchler, Jerusalem, 983, and Magness, “The North Wall”, 328-9. 297. In order to maintain a certain consistency with the numbering of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall’s sections given by Sukenik/Mayer in their 1930 and 1944 publications, and generally followed by other authors afterwards, the present work keeps the same numbering, adding a letter for the sections discovered after 1940, while naming the sections “segments”, in order to point out the new numbering with the additions to the original Sukenik/Mayer numbering (cf. E.L. Sukenik/L.A. Mayer, The Third Wall of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Azriel Press, 1930)).
Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 74
Remains of the ceiling of the ante-chamber, White Sisters’ Monastery, Tomb 1, looking west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 75
Remains of the southern sidewall of the ante-chamber, White Sisters’ Monastery, Tomb 1, looking south-west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 76
Remains of the northern sidewall of the ante-chamber, White Sisters’ Monastery, Tomb 1, northern side, detail of the opening to Tomb 1a, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
157
158
fig. 77
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
Entrance to Chamber 1, White Sisters’ Monastery, Tomb 1, looking south, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 79
fig. 78
Entrance to Chamber 2 and Repository 2, White Sisters’ Monastery, Tomb 1, looking west, Emmanuel Moisan
Chamber 3, White Sisters’ Monastery, Tomb 1, looking north, Riccardo Lufrani
Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 80
Plan of Tomb 1, White Sisters’ Monastery, Emmanuel Moisan
159
160
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 81
Sections of Tomb 1, White Sisters’ Monastery, Emmanuel Moisan
Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 82
161
Map of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall remains. In white the segments excavated after 1925 (1-8) and in yellow the segments reported from Robinson 1838. Location of Avner 2016 excavations
several Byzantine shards and the remains of a vast building, dated to a later period, were unearthed to the south of the Wall.²⁹⁸ Segments 2 and 2a: a 56 m long and 4-4.5 m wide stretch of wall was unearthed, east and west of a northward protruding tower, 8 m on the eastern side, 9.1 m on the western side, 11.95 m long east-west; the 1.2 m high lower course of the wall is preserved all along the segment; the masonry to the west and that to the east of the tower present different quality in their masonry; the wall blocks are posed on a 0.8 m thick layer of small stones, earth-mortar and rubble, which levels the unevenness of the rock; a Byzantine cistern abuts the southern face of the tower.²⁹⁹ In the 1990-1992 excavations, a 20 m long and 4 m wide segment of the foundations of the wall and of part of a north protruding tower were unearthed (named Segment 2a in the present work).³⁰⁰ Segment 3: a 81.70 m long section of the wall’s foundations, without the first course of stones, only partly on a 298. Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 13. 299. Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 13-20. 300. Area A in Tzaferis/Feig/Onn/Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall”, 288).
bedding (46 m), was uncovered by Sukenik/Mayer,³⁰¹ and re-excavated in 1972-1974 by Ben-Arieh and Netzer, who extended the sounding to the north of the area;³⁰² the first human activity in the area was the quarrying, which was found along and under the Wall foundations;³⁰³ BenArieh and Netzer exposed the foundations of three towers, at a distance one from the other of about 30-32 m, a one-room building adjacent to the Wall and dated by the findings to C1 AD;³⁰⁴ also five Late Roman shaft tombs, all plundered in antiquity, were uncovered, all of them in the southern side of the Wall and all cut in the Wall’s 301. 302. 303. 304.
Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 20. Cf. Ben-Arieh/Netzer, “Excavations along the ’Third Wall”’, 97. Cf. Ben-Arieh/Netzer, “Excavations along the ’Third Wall”’, 98. Cf. Ben-Arieh/Netzer, “Excavations along the ’Third Wall”’, 100, 102-5. According to Magness 1993, the pottery found in the two soundings carried out by the excavators was in use also in C2 AD (cf. J. Magness, Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology circa 200-800 C.E. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 29-43). Hamrick 1985 reports of C1 AD “pre-Titus” pottery for trench I of Kenyon’s excavations of area T, consistent with the pottery found in Ben-Arieh and Netzer excavations (cf. E.W. Hamrick, “The Northern Barrier Wall in Site T. Pp.”, in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. I (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1985), 219).
162
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
bedding and the underlying rock, giving the terminus ante quem of the lifespan of the Wall³⁰⁵ ; Ben-Arieh and Netzer excavated also a large Byzantine complex, formed by several rooms with the same width (4.5 m) and long between 10 and 15 m, paved with white tesserae, probably organised around one or more courtyards, and an intricate system of canalisations, presumably for the collection into cisterns of the rainwater coming from the roofs; two of the cisterns were partly unearthed during the excavations.³⁰⁶ Segment 4: as reported by Sukenik/Mayer 1930, several excavations and soundings were carried out around this 8.80 m long segment between the end of C19 AD and the beginning of C20 AD;³⁰⁷ Schick found two Late Roman tombs abutting the southern side of the segment, but gives no details on them;³⁰⁸ in 1965, Kenyon dug two trenches (T. I.1 and T. I.2.) on the northern side of Segment 4; in the deposits associated with the foundation of the Wall, she unearthed mostly C1 AD “pre-Titus” pottery, and several coins, the latest of them being two procurator coins of 54 AD and 58-59 AD respectively, giving the terminus post quem of the construction of Segment 4;³⁰⁹ Kenyon’s third trench (T. II), dug at about 23 m East of T. I.2.,³¹⁰ gave results similar to those for the other two trenches.³¹¹ Segment 5: 70 m east of Segment 4, a section of the Wall of about 26 m total was discovered in what was probably a quarry of some of the blocks used for the Wall itself; on the eastern end of the segment, the remains of a tower projecting northwards and a cistern built inside the tower were also found.³¹² Segment 6: about 40 m east of Segment 5, Sukenik and Mayer unearthed part of a tower protruding towards the north and, on the other side of Salah Ed-Din Street, the eastern side of a gate;³¹³ on that occasion, an Arab building, a room abutting the tower and two Roman tombs 305. Two of them already discovered by Sukenik and Mayer 1925-1927 excavations (cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 1930, p. 39). Tombs loci 119 and 120 are one-grave shaft tombs, while tombs loci 66, 134 and 141 are three-grave shaft tombs (cf. Ben-Arieh/Netzer, “Excavations along the ‘Third Wall”’, 105-106). 306. Cf. Ben-Arieh/Netzer, “Excavations along the ’Third Wall”’, 106. 307. By Wilson in 1864-1865, by Schick in 1875 and Paton in 1904 (cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 22-3). 308. Schick writes about “tombs”, not specifying their number or shape (cf. Schick, “Tombs, or a remainder”, 31), nevertheless, Sukenik/Mayer 1930 report of two tombs, without any other detail (cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 24-5; cf. also Sheet 2 E 13) and Hamrick 1985 date them to the Late Roman period (cf. Hamrick, “The Northern Barrier Wall”, 220). 309. Cf. Hamrick, “The Northern Barrier Wall”, 219. 310. Cf. E.W. Hamrick, “New Excavations at Sukenik’s ’Third Wall”’, BASOR 183 (1966) 19-26, on p. 21. 311. Cf. Hamrick, “The Northern Barrier Wall”, 218. 312. Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 25. 313. Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 27.
were discovered at the southern side of the tower;³¹⁴ in July 1981, the installation of telephone cables under Salah Ed-Din street, in front of the Albright Institute, left a segment of the Wall exposed for few hours;³¹⁵ in August 2004, during a salvage excavation in Salah Ed-Din Street, North of the Sukenik/Mayer wall line, the remains were unearthed of what might be the blockage of the gate built by the rebels of the First Revolt, and, during C3 AD or C4 AD, covered by an imposing wall, bordered by a paved road built over the older one.³¹⁶ Segment 7: in 1940 Sukenik and Mayer resumed the excavations at the eastern side of the garden of the Albright Institute, finding a tower protruding northwards, 9 m wide, and a section of the Wall, 23 m long, a large part of the eastern portion being destroyed by the construction of Ibn Haldun Street.³¹⁷ Segment 8: about 135 m east of Segment 7, in Sukenik/Mayer 1940 excavations there were found the remains of the bedding and a few stones of what they interpreted as a corner tower, whose unusual length was estimated at 20 m, possibly presenting a first turn towards the South of the Wall.³¹⁸ Segments 9-14 were observed only by mid C19 AD explorers, and never studied with modern criteria.³¹⁹ Therefore no archaeological report is available to check whether these segments show the same characteristics of Segments 1-8 of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall.³²⁰ On the Russian Compound hill, during recent excava314. Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 41-2. 315. Cf. Hamrick, “The Northern Barrier Wall”, 232. 316. Cf. D.A. Sklar-Parnes, “Jerusalem, Salah a-Din Street”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Above the C3-4 AD road, a Byzantine construction, and a few retaining walls of an Early Arab agricultural facility were built (cf. ibid.). Since East of Segment 6 no remains of the Wall had been found in the excavations, the authors also dug in front of the first tower to the West of Herod’s Gate, to check weather a North-South line of the Wall connected it to the East-West line; there they found two courses of large blocks, which they assumed to be of a large wall, whose lower course projected towards the North; under these projecting stones they found a bedding 4.40 m wide and 0.60 m deep, similar to that of the other segments of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall, while on both sides of these stones lies the present East-West Ottoman wall, directly on the bedrock; the soundings made North of the protruding wall showed that the North-South wall had been destroyed (cf. Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 35). 317. Cf. E.L. Sukenik/L.A. Mayer, “A New Section of the Third Wall, Jerusalem”, PEQ 76 (1944) 145-51, on pp. 148-9. 318. Cf. Sukenik/Mayer, “A New Section of the Third Wall”, 150-1. The excavators regret that they were not able to dig further, in order to ascertain their hypothesis (cf. ibid. p. 151). 319. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 983 320. In 1996, during the excavations of the foundations of the Knights’ Palace Hotel, in the Old City, a short segment of a city wall was unearthed and interpreted by the excavator as part of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall (cf. J. Seligman, “Jerusalem’s Ancient Walls Strike Again - The Knights’ Palace Hotel”, ‘Atiqot 43 (2002) 73-86), without convincing argumentations (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 983) and with no diagnostic shards to support his hypothesis (cf. Seligman, “Jerusalem’s Ancient Walls”, 80).
Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
tions conducted by Rina Avner and Kfir Arbib (cf. figure 82) in the parking lot between the Holy Trinity Church and the Underground Prisoners Museum, were discovered the remains of a large wall and of a tower, which the excavators ascribe to the north-western course of the “Third Wall”. More than 70 ballista and score of sling stones were found opposite to the western side of the tower, possibly the rests of an attack of the army of Titus against the defenses set up by the rebels of the First Jewish Revolt.³²¹ If confirmed in the final report, the interpretation of these remains as being part of the fortification set up in a few years by the rebels Some general remarks may be made on the archaeological analyses of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall remains presented above: • The extensive excavations of the northern portion of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall have been carried out by Sukenik and Mayer before the development of the Wheeler-Kenyon method, thus not paying attention to the stratigraphy, nor to the pottery which Sukenik and Mayer have found.³²² • If Kenyon’s 1965 excavations are the first scientific ones ever made on a segment of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall, they were very limited in scope, and the results on the dating of Segment’s 4 terminus post quem to the sixth decade of C1 AD cannot be simply extended to the rest of the segments. • In the 1972-1974 Ben-Arieh/Netzer excavations, the dating of the Sukenik / Mayer Wall to C1 AD is based on the pottery found under the floor of a one-room building (loc. 91) abutting the southern face of the Wall, interpreted by the excavators as being in connection with the Wall through a 0.40 m long segment, which survived the Byzantine destruction of the building.³²³ Again, the dating to C1 AD - challenged by Magness 2000 who argues that the pottery types found there were in use until C2 AD³²⁴ – can be attributed only to Segment 3, and not simply extended to all the other segments of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall. 321. Cf. R. Avner/K. Arbib, “New archaeological excavations at the ’Russian Compound’: a contribution to the study of the ’Third Wall’ and the battle for Jerusalem”, in G.D. Stiebel et al. (ed.s), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, vol. 10, (Jerusalem: IAA-HUJ, 2016), 83-95. 322. Cf. Hamrick, “The Northern Barrier Wall”, 217. 323. “We came to the conclusion that the white floor which touches the Third Wall and the one-room structure built upon it were integrated into the function of the Wall. Since the pottery enables us to date the floor and room to the first century A.D., it follows that the Wall also existed at that time”, Ben-Arieh/Netzer, “Excavations along the ’Third Wall”’, 105. 324. Cf. Magness, “The North Wall”, 337.
163
• The Tzaferis, Feig, Onn, and Shukrun 1990-1992 excavations discovered a portion of Segment 2a, but the scientific report has not yet been published.³²⁵ • In several sites, the presence of Late Roman burials a total of twelve - sets the terminus ante quem to the existence of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall.³²⁶ • Along the 750 m of the exposed line of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall, the construction technique and the materials employed are not homogeneous, in some cases showing high engineering skills and finely dressed ashlars, in others hasty work and roughly squared blocks, and unhewn fieldstones and boulders.³²⁷ From these considerations, the history of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall or the “Third Wall” of Josephus might be the following: partly built with highly sophisticated technique and in good, impressive masonry, it was reutilised and completed rapidly with poor technique and masonry by the rebels of the First Jewish Revolt;³²⁸ the wall line constituted the northern limit of Ælia Capitolina, perhaps with the Damascus Gate as a central triumphal arch, and was definitely abandoned at the end of C3 AD or the beginning of C4 AD, when a new city wall was built on the line of the present Ottoman wall.³²⁹ Finally, if the reliability of Flavius Josephus on his accounts and descriptions concerning the topography of 325. In their 1994 publication, the authors give only general information about the segment of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall unearthed during the 1990-1992 excavations, with no indication on the stratigraphy, nor of the findings connected to the Wall (cf. Magness, “The North Wall”, 288). 326. Three in Segment 1, five in Segment 3, two in Segment 4, and two in Segment 6. 327. “The masonry is heterogeneous: unhewn fieldstones and boulders, roughly squared blocks, ashlars of various sizes with marginal drafts and central panels either shallow or raised; other ashlars with smooth faces or rough bosses. Many of the ashlars are laid indiscriminately without regard to the drafting, showing that they are in secondary use. Some of the stones, however, are in primary use, while others were recut and shaped on the spot. Wherever it has been exposed the top surface of the lowest course is very regular and horizontal. The core of the wall is composed of small stones and boulders (some squared) set in hard mortar; in a few places the compact core stands higher than the robbed-out facing blocks”, Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem, 166. 328. “Once more we should return to the evidence in Josephus. He asserts that Agrippa, who initiated the construction of the Third Wall, was ordered by the Romans to discontinue his enterprise. It subsequently was completed, hastily perhaps, at the time of the War against the Romans” S. Ben-Arieh/E. Netzer, “Where is the Third Wall of Agrippa I?”, The Biblical Archaeologist 42 (1979) 140-1, on p. 141. In this sense, see also Avner/Arbib, “New archaeological excavations at the ’Russian Compound”’. 329. Cf. Magness, “The North Wall” 337; cf. Avni, “The urban limits”, 390-3.
164
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
Jerusalem has been recently rehabilitated,³³⁰ of great interest is also the Slavonic version, which gives a description of the ‘Third Wall’ conspicuously shorter than the Greek one.³³¹ If it is true, as proposed by Etienne Nodet, that the Slavonic text of Josephus’ War is the translation of an original version older than the Greek one,³³² and perhaps more reliable for the topographical indications included, then, according to the description of the “Third Wall” given in the Slavonic version, the “royal caverns” might be quarries for royal buildings located on the eastern slope of the north-eastern hill of Jerusalem, where the “place” of the Fuller (and not his tomb) was in a site overhanging the Cedron valley, suitable for the evacuation of the waters used in the process of bleaching wool clothes.³³³ 4.7.2 330b: Four (?) Byzantine Monastic Complexes (330 in Kloner 2001): between 171574.46 and 171797.9, and between 132597.78 and 132291.35 / between 31°4709.9500N and 31°4700.0000N, and between 35°13036.5300E and 35°13045.0200E³³⁴ From the beginning of C20 AD to 2002,³³⁵ a great number of remains of Byzantine monastic complexes were unearthed in an area of about 7 ha between the Route One to the West, the former East Jerusalem American Consulate to the North, Nablus Road to the East and the Nevi’im Street to the South (cf. figure 83). Since then, no comprehensive study has been yet published; each discovery is presented separately, as in Kloner’s 2001 survey. 330. Cf. R. Reich, “The Sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE: Flavius Josephus’ Description and the Archaeological Record”, Cathedra 131 (2009), (Hebrew) 25-42. See also R. Reich, “Roman Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE: Flavius Josephus’ Account and Archaeological Record”, in G. Theissen et al. (ed.s), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie, Topographie, Theologie: Festschrift für Max Küchler zum 65. Geburtstag, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 70, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) 117-132. 331. “The third one goes from the Horse tower, and even to the strong house and ends at Helena’s tomb and at the royal caves, where there is the Fuller’s tomb”, Leeming, Josephus’ Jewish War, 480. 332. Cf. E. Nodet, “Josephus and discrepant sources”, in J. Pastor/P. Stern/M. Mor (ed.s) Flavius Josephus. Interpretation and History, Supplements of the Journal of the Study of Judaism 146 (LeidenBoston: Brill, 201), 275-7. 333. Hypothesis proposed by Etienne Nodet at the EBAF seminar held on 11th April 2013 by Etienne Nodet, Jean-Baptiste Humbert and the present author. The attempt to locate the “royal caverns” and the “Fuller’s Tomb” on the eastern slope of the north-eastern hill and goes beyond the scope of the present work. 334. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17172 13252 / UTM 71092 351876. The coordinates define an area where there are the remains of Byzantine monasteries (except for the Saint Stephen monastery, presented in area 325c). 335. Cf. A. Re’em, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall. Final Report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site.
During the Sukenik/Mayer 1925-1927 excavations, several Byzantine remains were unearthed, probably related to the monastic complexes in area 330b. In correspondence with Segment 2 of the Sukenik/Mayer excavations north of the wall section, there are remains of a large building with a mosaic floor, and a mosaic Greek inscription, today in the EBAF collection (cf. figure 84).³³⁶ In correspondence with Segment 3 of the Sukenik/Mayer excavations, reopened during the 1972-1974 excavations of Ben-Arieh and Netzer, was found another Byzantine building (cf. area 330a, Segment 3), as was a Latin inscription³³⁷ on the slab which covered the grave of one of the five tombs located in the area.³³⁸ In 1938 Baramki published an article relating the discovery of Byzantine remains near the corner of Coeur de Lion and St. Paul Streets, namely a chapel, four rooms, three of them with mosaic floors, and a corridor.³³⁹ 336. The inscription was published by Abel in 1925 (cf. F.-M. Abel, “Mélanges II. Épigraphie Palestinienne”, RB 24 (1925) 575-82, on p. 575 and Pl. XIX 1). The English translation presented by Sukenik/Mayer 1930 is: “Here lies Anatolia of Arab(issos?) sister of … having fought a good fight and consecrated herself to God, fell asleep on the 21st of the month October of the indiction 3”, Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 46). In CIIP n° 875, the C7 AD inscription is translated: “Here lies Anatolia of Arabissos, the sister of the emperor(?), having valiantly fought the fight and consecrated herself to God. She fell asleep in the month of October, the 21st, of the third indiction”. The mosaic arrived at the EBAF collection during the 1940’s, by an exchange with the Hebrew University (cf. private communication with Jean-Baptiste Humbert on the 30th April 2013), and was restored in 2011. 337. Probably coming from a mausoleum, whose dating is uncertain, the inscription is reconstructed as: “For Glaucus, son of Artemidorus from Zeugma, who lived 78 years, for C... Marcella, the wife of Glaucus, who lived 48 years, for Flavius Demetrianus, their duitful son, who lived 27 years. Titus Flavius Clemens had the tomb built for his parents”, CIIP n° 740. The inscription is presented in Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 45. 338. “The first tomb is a sort of narrow cave 1.70 m. long, 0.60 m. wide and 1.15 m. deep. The cave contained two tombs, one above the other, divided by slabs of stone. On clearing the upper tomb we found a Latin inscription, (see Chapter ’Inscriptions’), on one of the slabs which covered the lower tomb. The position of this slab, facing downwards, clearly shows that it was not in situ. Potsherds unearthed from these tombs show that they belonged to the Byzantine period. Of a different type is the second tomb-cave cut into the rock near the Nablus Road to the north of the Wall (fig. 33). The entrance to the cave was formed by a horizontal shaft 1.20 m. deep, 1.72 m. long and 0.55 m. wide. Up to about 0.80 m. in front of the rock the shaft widens, then narrows again till it reaches the rock, where it was blocked by a slab of stone. About 0.30 m. beneath this slab of stone, there is a small room with a diameter of approximately 2.20 m., at the bottom of which three sarcophagi were cut. The middle one, 0.53 m. wide, was the narrowest of the three. The two lateral sarcophagi were covered with slabs of stone and contained bones of the dead. The middle one did not contain any bones. This cave belongs to the type of Roman tomb discovered some decades ago near the Tombs of the Kings”, Sukenik/Mayer, The Third Wall, 39-40. 339. Cf. D.C. Baramki, “Byzantine Remains in Palestine II. A small monastery and chapel outside the ’Third Wall”’, QDAP 6
Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 83
165
Area 330b, Google Earth, porcessing Riccardo Lufrani
Between 1990 and 1992, in the wake of the preparation works for the new Route 1, several excavations were carried out under the general direction of Vassilios Tzaferis.³⁴⁰ Four areas were excavated: Areas A, B, C and D (cf. figure 83). In Area A we uncovered an extensive complex of buildings, over 115 m. long, which comprises a large monastery and a hostelry. In the center of the complex is a large courtyard encompassed by rooms on its eastern side, and apparently also on the western side-most of them for the accommodation of pilgrims and various service rooms with a kitchen, bakery, and a scriptorium. The residential rooms of the monks are situated to the south of the courtyard where a chapel was discovered, decorated with a colorful mosaic floor. This chapel apparently served the devotional needs of the monks attached to the monastery. Another chapel excavated in the 1930s by D.C. Baramki next to the hostel most probably was used by the pilgrims staying there. The complex also included a variety of burial caves for more than one body, and rock-cut graves for individual burials. Beneath the chapel we found three burial crypts of identical plan. Each crypt could be entered from the chapel by a separate entrance and had two rock-hewn or built up burial places […] North of the central courtyard is a cemetery for individual (1938) 56-8, Pl. IX-X. 31°4709.5800N 35°13041.6600E / 171709.43 132586.41 are the approximate coordinates estimated from the key plan presented in the article. 340. The reports of the different excavations have been published first in ESI 10, p. 130-133, and ESI 13, on pp. 80-83, than in two synthetic articles in the AJR volume in 1994, on pp. 287-298.
burials. The graves are laid out in orderly fashion, side by side.³⁴¹ According to the excavators, the foundation of the complex dates to the end of C5 D and its use continued after the Arab conquest, until the beginning of C9 AD, while the hostel may have been in use for the pilgrims until the beginning of C8 AD.³⁴² In Area B was unearthed a square courtyard of 40 m of side surrounded by rooms, the floors of which were decorated with mosaic of geometric pattern. A small apsidal chapel presented a more refined mosaic floor. The foundation of this complex may be dated to C6 AD and the end of the occupation to C7 AD, while the hostel was destroyed in C8 AD.³⁴³ Remains of another monastery were discovered in Area C south of Area A. This monastery differs by its better construction from the other monasteries found in this area. The foundation courses are built of dressed ashlars laid on bedrock, and in some places also integrated with it. In the center of this monastery, too, is a courtyard, with rooms arranged on three of its sides. The building was severely damaged in the past, and only the remains of ten rooms are partly preserved. A corridor between the rooms and the courtyard leads to a rock-cut crypt beneath it. A cross is carved on a stone slab that had obvi341. Tzaferis/Feig/Onn/Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall”, 289-90. 342. Cf. Tzaferis/Feig/Onn/Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall”, 290. 343. Cf. Tzaferis/Feig/Onn/Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall”, 291.
166
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
ously served as the cover of one of the graves in the crypt.³⁴⁴ West to Area C, were found three tombs, namely Cist Grave 1, partly hewn in the rock and partly built of small fieldstone and two burial caves, Burial Cave 1 entirely hewn in the rock, presenting a passage leading to the entrance of the burial chamber, with three low benches, the eastern one being about 2 m wide and 4 m long, and Burial Cave 2 partly built in masonry with a white plastered barrel vault. Human and animal bones, together with pottery and glass fragments of the Byzantine period, were found in the burial caves; according to the excavators, this material culture is older than the one unearthed in the adjacent building. Furthermore, the rock cuttings around and in the construction are dated by the findings to the “Second Temple Period”.³⁴⁵ Area D stretches for about 100 m North-South on the western side of Route 1 and is divided by the excavators into two Areas, the Southern Area, 65 × 20 m where there are the remains of an Armenian monastery complex, and the Northern Area, 35 × 8 m, where no sign designate the remains of another monastic complex as Armenian, and which probably are linked to the abovementioned Byzantine vestiges found by Sukenik and Mayer north of Segment 2.³⁴⁶ In the Area D South, evident signs of quarrying activities may be related to the construction of the nearby Third Wall. Of the monastic complex, in activity between C6 AD and C8 AD, were unearthed a church, residences, a paved courtyard, several rooms and a water collection system. The church was built on a C5-C6 AD burial ground, which presented several crypts and individual graves, both carved in the bedrock and constructed, some sealed by the church building, and others still accessible after the construction of the church.³⁴⁷ The bema of the church was paved with white, red and black stone tiles, preceded by a C6-C7 AD Greek inscription.³⁴⁸ Under the small narthex in the southern side of the church, a barrel-vaulted crypt was discovered, where skeletal remains were found, in at least one case with articulated bones, two bowls, a large assemblage of glass vessels and the remains of a 344. Tzaferis/Feig/Onn/Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall”, 291-2. 345. Cf. E. Shukrun/A. Savariego, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall (Area C)”, ESI 13 (1995) 78-9, on p. 79. In a personal communication with Shukrun, the excavator stated that Burial Cave 1 reminded him of an Iron Age II C tomb, transformed in the Byzantine period (cf. private communication, 19th April 2013). 346. Cf. D. Amit/S.R. Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery in the Morasha Neighborhood, Jerusalem”, in AJR, 1994, p. 293-8. 347. Cf. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 293-4. 348. The reconstructed translation is: “In the day of Silvanus, the most God-loving deacon and abbot, the present mosaic(?) was made and the apse and annex of the church, for a length of … cubits and a height of six cubits. Remember him, O Lord, in Thy kingdom”, CIIP n° 809.
wooden coffin. Two crypts are located under the western half of the narthex and at the western side of the prayer hall. A number of other tombs were found North of the church.³⁴⁹ The residential unit, in the central part of Area D South, consisted of a reception hall, with a mosaic floor and with a central medallion Armenian inscription, surrounded by a series of rooms, the southern ones probably the oldest building of the complex, and a bath installation.³⁵⁰ East of the residential unit the courtyard was paved with stones, and several additional rooms were located along its southern side. The system of collection of the water was connected to a large reservoir, with an estimated capacity of more than 700 m3 . The excavators distinguish two architectural phases, the construction of the monastery dated to C6 AD, and an expansion in C7 AD, the end of the use of the complex dating between C8 and C9 AD,³⁵¹ noting that this is “a rare example of a monastic complex of the Umayyad period which surpasses its Byzantine predecessor in relative size and grandeur”.³⁵² In the northern part of the excavations of Area D were discovered the remains of an open air corridor paved with a rough white mosaic, two large cistern connected to a rainwater collection system, a row of rooms with white mosaic floors or a combination of mosaic and slabs, and two barrel-vaulted tombs sharing the same façade and presenting 20 box-like troughs, hewn in the floor. This monastic complex had a development similar to that of the Area D South, nevertheless it presents no sign whatsoever of an Armenian origin, and, according to the excavators, was more probably connected to the Area A monastery.³⁵³ A vaulted tomb in Area E, decorated with wall paintings was unearthed during the 1993 construction of Route 1 and published by Tzaferis, Amit and Sarig in 1996.³⁵⁴ Damaged by modern constructions, only the western part of the tomb is preserved. Rectangular in plan, aligned north-south, the tomb was built of small limestone ashlars. It consisted of two elongated burial cells along its eastern and western walls, separated by a narrow passageway. The entrance to the tomb was from the south. In the eastern burial cell, scattered human bones 349. 350. 351. 352.
Cf. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 295-6. Cf. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 296. Cf. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 296-7. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 297. The authors state also that the “Birds mosaic” (cf. area 337a) was probably part of the Armenian monastic complex of the Southern Area in Area D (cf. ibid. p. 297-298). 353. Cf. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 298. 354. Cf. V. Tzaferis/D. Amit/N. Sarig, “A Byzantine Painted Tomb North of Damascus Gate”, ‘Atiqot 29 (1996), (Hebrew), 71*-5*, 112-3.
Areas [102] 336, [102] 337 and [102] 338 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
were found, among which skull and limb fragments of two adults could be identified. The interior was plastered and adorned with secco wall paintings, only partially preserved on the eastern and northern walls. The decoration on the eastern wall is divided into two panels: the lower panel is almost completely destroyed, and only remnants of unidentifiable gray geometric designs, on a white background, could be discerned. The upper panel contains a polychrome decoration of which the central motif comprises rhombi containing white Maltese crosses. On the northern wall fragmentary spirals and a small tree, possibly a cypress, are enclosed by two gray rectangular frames. This obviously Christian tomb is one of several decorated Late Roman and Byzantine Christian, pagan and Jewish tombs, which have been uncovered in Israel from Ashqelon in the south to Tarshiha in the north. It was apparently looted, and contained hardly any ceramic or numismatic finds. However, embedded in the plaster, a small worn coin (D 7 mm) was found, dated by its shape and size to the fifth-sixth centuries CE. Since the tomb is part of a monastic complex dated to the sixth century CE, this seems to be its most probable date.³⁵⁵ In October 2001 and January 2002, two salvage excavations were carried out, in the wake of the construction of the light railway on Route 1, near the Ramsis Hostel.³⁵⁶ In Area A, in the lower layer, a wall dated possibly to C5 AD and preserved for four courses at a height of 1.9 m was found.³⁵⁷ The two upper layers unearthed a room and a drainage channel, not dated by the excavator, who adds that 80 m East of Area A four parallel vaults were found, with tiles on the floor similar to those used in Jerusalem’s wealthy Arab neighbourhood at the beginning of C20 AD. Underneath two modern layers, in Area B, traces of quarrying activity with shards dating to the Byzantine period were discovered at the bedrock level. The connection between the constructions found in Areas A and B could not be made, because of the exiguity of the two soundings, which were not contiguous.³⁵⁸ Finally, during July 2002, in another salvage excavation conducted on Route 1, East of the abovementioned Area D South, a Byzantine burial cave was discovered partly hewn in the rock, apparently a crypt, because incorporated in a Monastic building, and dated between 355. Tzaferis/Amit/Sarig, “A Byzantine Painted Tomb”, 112-3. 356. Cf. R. Avner, “Jerusalem, Ha-Nevi’im Street”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. 357. “The wall could not be dated with certainty, yet a coin dating to 408–425 CE (IAA Reg. No. 96497) and recovered from the fill on the natural bedrock probably belonged to this layer”, Avner, “Jerusalem, Ha-Nevi’im Street”. 358. Cf. Avner, “Jerusalem, Ha-Nevi’im Street”.
167
the end of C6 AD and the beginning of C7 AD.³⁵⁹ Accessed by a built staircase, from a flagstone pavement, a narrow Ante-Chamber presented two Crosses engraved at the entrance to the interior cave), which was roughly hewn and partly restored with fieldstones and mortar. The articulated bones of at least ten individuals,³⁶⁰ oriented west-east, were found in the cave, together with shards of C6-7 AD pottery, including fragments of a Fine Byzantine Ware cup, and a collection of glass vessels and fragments.³⁶¹
4.8 Areas [102] 336, [102] 337 and [102] 338 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel Finally, three areas are considered in this section, where three mosaic floors have been found and where possibly was located a small lake known only from medieval literary sources.³⁶² 4.8.1 336: White Mosaic Floor (336 in Kloner 2001): 17177 13235 / 31°47001.90” 35°13043.96”³⁶³ The only available information on these remains is reported in Kloner’s 2001 survey: “White mosaic floors on a moderate slope, representing the remains of three rooms (near the New Central Bus Station, Shekhem Rd.) Damaged by mechanical equipment in the mid-1970s. Pottery: Herodian (scanty remains), Byzantine”.³⁶⁴ 359. Cf. Re’em, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall”. 360. Two children and eight adults, of which two were females and three males, the gender of others not being identified. One male was 40-50 years of age and the children between two and four and five and eight respectively (cf. Re’em, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall”). 361. “Scattered on the floor of the cave (L300) and in the antechamber (L250) were fragments of pottery vessels, characteristic of the second half of the sixth century–beginning of the seventh century CE, which included a plain type of a Fine Byzantine Ware cup (Fig. 8:1), basins with ledge rims (Fig. 8:2, 3), a jug base (Fig. 8:4), a bag-shaped jar from the north of the country (Fig. 8:5) and a large intact lamp (Fig. 8:6). Glass vessels and glass fragments (Figs. 9, 10) were collected near the entrance to the cave and beneath a pile of fieldstones (L310). These included bottles with a squat spherical body and a funnel-like neck (Fig. 9:1-4), bottles with a spherical body and a cylindrical neck (Fig. 9:5-8) and a juglet (Fig. 9:9). The bottles with the funnel-like neck are similar to each other and were apparently produced in the same workshop. The vessels were free and mold-blown; a pontil scar was identified only on the juglet. The glass assemblage is dated to the end of the Byzantine period (end of the sixth–beginning of the seventh centuries CE). A similar assemblage was discovered in a nearby crypt that belonged to the same architectural complex (Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, p. 295)”, Re’em, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall”. 362. For the map of areas 336-338 see figure 85. 363. The approximate coordinates are those given in Kloner’s 2001 survey. 364. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 109*.
168
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 84
Anastasia mosaic floor inscription found near Segment 2 of the Sukenik/Mayer Wall
Areas [102] 336, [102] 337 and [102] 338 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel
fig. 85
169
Location of the sites of Areas 336, 337 and 338, Google Earth, processing Riccardo Lufrani
4.8.2 337a: “Birds” Mosaic (337 in Kloner 2001): 171675.55 132319.97 / 31°4700.9300N 35°13040.3700E ³⁶⁵ Discovered during the construction of a house in 1894³⁶⁶ in a C5-C6 AD Armenian burial site,³⁶⁷ the “Birds’ Mosaic” covers a surface of 3.9 ×.6.3 m, with an apse and an Armenian inscription on the eastern side, which suggests that it was a Burial Chapel for the Armenians whose names were not known.³⁶⁸ As noted by Amit/Wollf 1994, this mosaic floor may have been part of the Armenian monastic complex of area 330b.³⁶⁹
and transported to the Istanbul Imperial Museum in 1905.³⁷¹ Dated between mid C6 AD and the first half of C7 AD,³⁷² the fauna represented on the 5.70 × 3.20 m mosaic floor suggest that it was made by a local artist, however, there is no agreement among the scholars on the pagan, Jewish or Christian character of the scenes represented.³⁷³ 4.8.4 338: Leger’s Pool (Lacus Legerii) (338 in Kloner 2001): 171725.83 132181.99/31°46056.4500N 35°13042.2800E³⁷⁴ Mentioned in a text of 1177,³⁷⁵ the “Leger’s Pool” has been located in the area called ‘Ard el Birkeh (which
4.8.3 337b: “Orpheus” Mosaic (337 in Kloner 2001): 171665.84 132221.1 / 31°46057.7200N 35°13040.0000E³⁷⁰ The “Orpehus Mosaic” was found in 1901 in the courtyard of a house of the former Jewish colony of Musrara, 365. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17177 13235 / UTM 71087 351856. 366. Cf. P.-M. Séjourné, “Chroniques Palestiniennes”, RB 3 (1894) 627-8. 367. C5-C6 AD oil lamps, a stone vessel and a Cross with Armenian inscriptions have been found in the site (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 964). 368. The C6-7 AD inscription may be translated into as: ‘For the memorial In memory and salvation of all Armenians whose names the Lord knows’, CIIP n° 812. For the detailed description of the mosaic floor, refer to Küchler 2007 (cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 965). 369. Cf. Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 297-8. 370. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17177 13235 / UTM 71087 351856. The approximate coordi-
371. 372.
373. 374. 375.
nates given in the present work are estimated from the sketchy plan in Strzygowski 1902 (cf. J. Strzygowski, “Das neugefundene Orpheus-Mosaik in Jerusalem”, ZDPV 24 (1901) 139-65, on p. 156), and Kloner’s 2001 indications (cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 110*). Cf. L.-H. Vincent, “Une mosaïque byzantine à Jérusalem”, RB 10 (1901) 436-52, on p. 436. Cf. M.T. Olszewski, “The Orpheus Funerary Mosaic from Jerusalem in the Archaeological Museum at Istanbul”, in M. Şahin (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaic, October 16th – 20th, 2009 (Busra Turkey - Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2011) 655-63, on p. 659. For a detailed presentation of the different interpretations refer to Küchler, Jerusalem, 966. The approximate coordinates given in Kloner 2001 are ICS 17175 13215 / UTM 71096 351839. “ […] que videlicet vinea habet ab oriente et septentrione vienam de Latina, ab occidente stratam regiam que ducit a domo leprosorum Sancti Lazari versus lacum Legerii, a meridie viam que ducit ab eccledia Sancti Stephani ad eamdem stratam […]”, G. Bresc-Bautier, (ed.), Le cartulaire du Chapitre
170
Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea
means “quarter of the pool”), North of the Damascus Gate. In use until the Ottoman period, the pool area was settled during the British Mandate, and became a noman’s land between 1948 and 1967, after which it was levelled by the Israeli authorities (cf. figure 85).³⁷⁶ In 1992 Broshi proposed to identify the “Leger’s Pool” with the “Serpent’s Pool”,³⁷⁷ mentioned in Flavius Josephus works,³⁷⁸ arguing that the “Herodian Monument” (cf. area 322a) is located on the knoll north to the Damascus Gate, as proposed by Netzer,³⁷⁹ linking to the Pool the remains of aqueducts found by Hamilton near the Damascus Gate.³⁸⁰
4.9 Conclusion The detailed analysis of the archaeological evidence concerning the area constituting the adjacent context of the SEC Hypogea may be summarised in a proposition on the evolution of this area from the Iron Age II period, until Byzantine times: - During the Iron Age II the area was exploited as a quarry and possibly for burials, the northernmost tomb found with its material culture in situ being Sultan Suleiman Street Cave 1,³⁸¹ a few metres north of the Ottoman city wall, the other burial caves of this period being dated only on the basis of their architectural features. - After the destruction of 586 BC and until the construction of the “Third Wall” in the first half of C1 AD, namely 600 years, even though on a main road leading to Jerusalem, this area seems to be completely barren of any building or burial activity - with the exception of the Herodian building³⁸² - and possibly exploited only for quarrying activities and the cultivation of orchards. - The projected new urban area protected to the north by the “Third Wall” was never realised, since in all the excavations only two dwellings were found dating to C1 AD, a small room abutting to the inner side of the
376. 377. 378.
379. 380. 381. 382.
du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1984), 314. Cf. Kloner, Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector, 110*. Cf. Broshi, “The Serpents’ Pool”, 213-22. Flavius Josephus War, 5, 108 and 507. The “Serpent’s Pool” was identified by Dalman (1930) and Simons (1953) as the “Sultan’s Pool”, located in the Geh Hinnom, down below the south-western corner of the Ottoman Walls of the Old City, as reported by Broshi 1992 (cf. Broshi, “The Serpents’ Pool”, 213). Cf. E. Netzer, “Herod’s Family Tomb in Jerusalem”, BAR 9 (1983) 52-9. Cf. Broshi, “The Serpents’ Pool”, 220. Cf. § 4.1. Cf. § 4.2.1.
“Third Wall”³⁸³ and a rustic house in the Karm el Sheikh area.³⁸⁴ - In the Late Roman period, after the abandonment of the project of a northern urban area also for Colonia Ælia Capitolina, whose northern limits were possibly marked by the course of the “Third Wall”, the area started to be used intensively for burials with tombs constructed and hewn in the bedrock (pit tombs, cits graves, arcosolia with sarcophagi).³⁸⁵ - Finally, the area was invested by large building activities with the foundation of great monastic complexes, starting from the Eudocian Basilica of Saint Stephen and the annexed monastery in C5 BC, to which were associated a large number of burials.³⁸⁶ If this was the history of the occupation of the area, three questions remain unanswered, which are crucial for the purpose of the present work: 1. Why is the supposed Iron Age II Northern Necropolis sited about 600 m from the city wall of that period, this area being mostly used for quarrying, while the other Iron Age II necropolises are located from the Iron Age II C city wall respectively at c. 100 m for the Silwan Necropolis, c. 150 m for the Western Necropolis and c. 250 m for the South-Western Necropolis? The hypothesis of a northern suburb during the late Iron Age II C period, proposed by several scholars to explain this gap in the distribution of Iron Age II tombs north of the city wall, is not confirmed by any remains of settlements, with the exception of the occupation floor unearthed at the “Vartan Chapel”, about 200 m North of the Iron Age II C city wall. If there was a northern suburb, its extent has not been securely estimated yet. Indeed, only a few Iron Age II burial caves were discovered in today’s Christian and Muslim quarters; however, most probably, the intensive settlement during the Roman and Byzantine periods obliterated and transformed the existing Iron Age II tombs, leaving only scant remains; furthermore, the difficulty of carrying out excavations in this densely populated area, makes it difficoult to ascertain the existence of a Iron Age II necropolis there.³⁸⁷ 2. Since the Late Hellenistic period, Jerusalem reached about the same size as during the Iron Age II C period, why were the Late Hellenistic northern necropolises located as far as c. 2.5 km north of the contemporary city wall, while the other necropolises of the same period were much nearer to it? The area comprised between the northern course of the Hasmonean and the 383. 384. 385. 386. 387.
Cf. § 4.7. Cf. § 3.1.5. Cf. § 3.1.5. Cf. § 4.5, § 4.7 and § 4.8. Cf. § 3.1.2 and § 3.2.1.
Conclusion
Ottoman city walls developed during the end of the Hellenistic period and was later protected by Herod the Great with what Flavius Josephus named the “Second Wall”, while the zone comprised by the Ottoman city wall and the “Third Wall” was planned as an urban area only in the first half of C1 AD. Furthermore, Late Hellenistic-Early Roman tombs were found in proximity of the northern course of the Hasmonean wall (i.e. the loculi tomb in the Holy Sepulcher), namely in the very proximity of the city limits.³⁸⁸ 3. Crossed by the major route of access to Jerusalem from the north, the area adjacent to the SEC Hypogea was surely frequented also in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. How come that this large zone, 388. Kloner/Zissu 2007 explain the presence of ”‘Second Temple Period” tombs in the Golgotha arguing in that area “there were several tombs, some of which probably served as ’borrowed’ or temporary tombs”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 29. This explanation constitutes no argumentation to the supposed exceptionality of tombs near the city wall. In fact, no suburbs are reported in the area north of the Hasmonean wall, before the expansion occurred during the reign of Herod the Great, who built the “Second Wall”.
171
particularly suitable for the hewing of burial caves for the quality of the rock and the presence of a cliff on the western side of El Heidhemiyeh Hill,³⁸⁹ was not exploited by the aristocratical families to carve their funeral monuments? Indeed, if the priestly elite may have preferred for their family tombs a location near the new rebuilt temple,³⁹⁰ the major families of Early Hellenistic Jerusalem may have wanted to show their wealth and power on the main axe of access to the city, as it is the case for the Late Hellenistic period.³⁹¹ In the next Chapter, the detailed study of the SEC Hypogea and their comparison with other burial caves in the region provide crucial information which may contribute to answer to these questions.
389. Cf. § 1.1. 390. Cf. note 207 in Chapter 1. 391. For example the Sanhedriya tombs (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 407-24).
Chapter 5 The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics In this Chapter are presented the geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea, studied by the geologist Gérard Massonnat¹ (§ 5.1), the detailed description of H1 and H2 (§ 5.2), and the material culture discovered in H1 (§ 5.3), followed by the conclusion (§ 5.4).
5.1 Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea As Avnimelech pointed out, the geological features of land surface determine the nature of the soil, the flora and fauna, the hydrological conditions, the road tracks and other territorial characteristics that influence the development of human presence and activity, including the burial methods.² For a better comprehension of the SEC Hypogea are presented in the following sections the geological description of the material (§ 5.1.1), the geological aspects of the SEC Hypogea (§ 5.1.2), and the hewing of H1 and H2 (§ 5.1.3). 5.1.1 General description of the material The area of the Saint-Etienne Compound lies on the Turonian layer, where the SEC Hypogea were carved in the white, coarsely crystalline meleke limestone.³ This stone may retain its white color for many years, then 1. 2. 3.
The text of § 5.1 is the present writer’s redaction based on a series of personal communications had with prof. Massonnat between 2011 and 2013. Cf. Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions”, 24, 29-31. Meleke is an Arabic word translated as “kingly stone”, “royal stone”, or “stone of kings”, in the jargon of local stonemasons (cf. Lexique stratigraphique international, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1960, 70), adopted by the geologists in the technical literature (cf. Y. Arkin/A. Ecker, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Concerns in Developing the Infrastructure Around Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The Ministry of National Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel, 2007), 7), probably a derivation from the meleke’s use in the monumental buildings and tombs of Jerusalem (cf. “Jerusalem”, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1915, BibleWorks 9).
turning to a light golden yellow, ranging from pinkish to off-white. When quarried, meleke is soft and quite easy to chisel, and upon exposure it hardens and develops a clear surface.⁴ The stratigraphic framework is constituted by the Judea and Mount Scopus groups, which are the main rocks exposed in the Jerusalem area. These comprise limestone, dolomite, marl, chalk and flint which are subdivided into correlated lithostratigraphic units. They were deposited during the transgression of the Cretaceous Tethys sea which encroached from the NW over most of the Middle East region. This sea spread out over a broad continental shelf of the Arabian-Nubian shield and was generally warm and shallow. “The fauna that existed in the sea and are now found as fossils within the various formations include abundant shells of microorganisms, lamellibranchs, echinoderms, rudistids and gastropods”.⁵ Continued transgression of the sea over this uniform shelf led to the deposition of a thick carbonate sequence reaching almost one kilometre in the Jerusalem area. This shelf later became gradually modified by tectonic movements that led to the development of the anticline and syncline structures. The sedimentation of the Mesozoic stratigraphic column of Israel is controlled by both global eustatic sea level changes,⁶ and by regional stages in the tectonic evolution of the Tethys, the former ocean in which the Judea and Mt Scopus Groups were deposited. Among the main events, the global Late Turonian/Coniacian lowstand⁷ corresponds to a hiatus of sedimentation at the top of Bina formation.⁸ This hiatus may have led to the 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Cf. Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions”, 29. Arkin/Ecker, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Concerns, 10. “Uniformly global change of sea level that may reflect a change in the quantity of water in the ocean, or a change in the shape and capacity of the ocean basins”, www.dictionary.com. “The sedimentary accumulation that straddles the lowest position of the relative sea level curve”, SEPM STRATA, http : //www.sepmstrata.org/. Cf. A. Livnat/A. Flexer/N. Shafran, “Mesozoic unconformities in Israel: Characteristics, mode of origin and implications for
174
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
first karstification stage in the diagenetic⁹ history of the meleke.¹⁰ The structural pattern of the Jerusalem area is characterized by the anticline whose structures form the mountainous backbone of Israel. From West to East, a succession of folds with N40 axes is composed of Judea Group carbonates in anticlines,¹¹ and by Mount Scopus Group chalk on the flanks. Jerusalem is situated north of the structural saddle between Judea and Hebron anticlines. These asymmetric structures have a steep western flank dipping down to the foothills of the coastal plain and a shallow eastern flank that dips gradually down to the Dead Sea Rift valley. The Old City is located on the gently dipping S-SW flank of the Judea anticline. The orientation of the folds is compatible with the NNW–SSE shortening¹² that has been associated with Miocene to Recent movement along the Dead Sea Transform, as well as with the WNW–ESE shortening trend of the Syrian Arc fold belt (SAFB). Azimuths¹³ of faults identified on the geological map of Jerusalem show at this scale the existence of three main fracture sets: two are clearly identified with the folding (N60-70, and N150), while the third may have been generated later (N90-110). Even though hidden by alluvial deposits, the northern part of the old Jerusalem may be located at the intersection of two zones of intense fracturing, in N70 and N110 azimuths. At the south-east of the city, the chalky layers of the Menuha formation compose most of the fields, while the dolomites of the Weradin formation shape the landscape in the western part of Jerusalem, with very classic karstic features as lapiaz¹⁴ and caves (with stalagmites, calcite
9. 10.
11.
12. 13.
14.
the development of the Tethys”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 55 (1986) 189-212. “The physical and chemical changes occurring in sediments between the times of deposition and solidification”, www.dictionary.com. Karst: “a landscape that develops from the action of ground water in areas of easily soluble rocks. Characterized by caves, underground drainage and sinkholes”, Glossary of Geological Terms, Iowa State University, http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/ glossary-of-geologic-terms/. “A formation of stratified rock raised up, by folding, into a broad arch so that the strata slope down on both sides from a common crest”, versus syncline “a downward fold of stratified rock in which the strata slope towards a vertical axis”, www.dictionary.com. A reduction in size of the land area of the Earth’s crust due to tectonic influences such as collisions with other landmasses, resulting in mountain building (orogenies). “A trend direction as indicated by an angle 0 - 360 degrees with 360 degrees with North at 0 (or 360), East at 90, South at 180, and West at 270”, University of South Alabama http : / / www . usouthal . edu / geography / allison / GY403 / StructuralLaboratory_3Dblock.pdf. Lapiaz is a limestone pavement formed as a natural karst landform (cf. I.C. Burgess/M. Mithcell, “Origin of limestone pavements”, Proceedings of Cumberland Geological Society 5 (1994) 405-12).
curtains and crystal clear pools such those in the Soreq caves). As far as the Bina formation is concerned, it mostly outcrops in the old Jerusalem and the surroundings, and in the north and the south of the city. These limestone rocks are characteristics of Jerusalem, and meleke had already extensively extracted for centuries before the present from quarries in the Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas.¹⁵ Finally, the Bina formation is usually composed of a micritic,¹⁶ pale yellow limestone, generally well-bedded, with a bed thickness possibly ranging from 10 cm to 1.5 m.¹⁷ The fossil-rich micrites of the Bina formation include several types of discontinuities such as faults,¹⁸ fractures, and bedding planes.¹⁹ Discontinuities are usually classified according to direction, form, frequency, density, and degree of opening. In the case of the Bina formation, these discontinuities have favored the circulation of water from rainfalls. Karstic features are quite common in the form of solution holes and caves often infilled with red-brown Terra Rossa soil and rock fragments. 5.1.2 Geological aspects of the SEC Hypogea The Bina formation in which the burial complexes were hewn, is fully representative of the description that has been made in the previous Section. Lithological facies,²⁰ fractures azimuths, and karstic features are similar to those that can be expected from aerial observation. The 15. Cf. Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions”, 28. 16. Micrite: “is a term used to describe lime mud, carbonate of mud grade. The term is also used in the Folk classification to describe a carbonate rock dominated by fine-grained calcite. Carbonate rocks that contain fine-grained calcite in addition to allochems are named intramicrite, oomicrite, biomicrite or pelmicrite under the Folk classification depending on the dominant allochem. Micrite as a component of carbonate rocks can occur as a matrix, as micrite envelopes around allochems or comprising peloids. Micrite can be generated by chemical precipitation, from disaggregation of peloids, or by micritization”, Imperial College Rock Library. 17. Cf. Arkin/Ecker, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Concerns, 15. 18. Fault: “the surface of rock rupture along which there has been differential movement of the rock on either side”, Glossary of Geological Terms, Iowa State University, http://www.ge-at. iastate.edu/glossary-of-geologic-terms/. 19. Bedding plane: “surface separating layers of sedimentary rocks and deposits. Each bedding plane marks termination of one deposit and beginning of another of different character, such as a surface separating a sandstone bed from an overlying mudstone bed. Rock tends to breaks or separate, readily along bedding planes”, Glossary of Geological Terms, Iowa State University, http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/glossary-of-geologic-terms/. 20. Facies: “The overall characteristics of a rock unit that reflect its origin and differentiate the unit from others around it. Mineralogy and sedimentary source, fossil content, sedimentary structures and texture distinguish one facies from another”, Oilfield Glossary, http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/ Terms.aspx?LookIn=term%20name&filter=facies.
Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 86
Stratigraphic dipping of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 1, Main Chamber, looking north-east, photo and processing by Gérard Massonnat
fig. 87
Stratigraphic dipping of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 3, detail, looking east photo and processing by Gérard Massonnat
fig. 88
Stratigraphic dipping of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 3, detail, looking south-east, photo and processing by Gérard Massonnat
175
176
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 89
Stratigraphic dipping of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 3, detail, looking south, photo and processing by Gérard Massonnat
fig. 90
Dissolution features, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 4bis, detail, looking south, photo and processing by Gérard Massonnat
Bina formation gently dips by 20° towards N30E, with a stratigraphic bedding, and it is clearly visible in H1, namely from the northern and eastern sidewalls of the Main Chamber (cf. figure 86), descending into Chambers 2 and 3 (cf. figures 87 and 88). Several karstification features are visible along and below the stratigraphic bedding, related to karstification stages prior to the excavation of the Hypogea, and whose dissolution intensity variation depends on the lithology characteristics of the area interested by this phenomenon (cf. figure 89). In some areas, the dissolution features preexisting the excavation of the burial complex occur along the stratigraphic bedding (cf. figure 90). In Chamber 4 bis, the fractures enlarged by dissolution cross the ceiling and favor recent circulations, producing brown oxyds and terra-rossa, which cover part of the ceiling around the fractures (cf. figure 91). A fault N150E shapes both the bottom of the doorway and the northern bench of Chamber 3 (cf. figure 92), while a fracture affects the same bench (cf. figure 93), both fault and fracture having been karstified before the bench was hewn (cf. figure 94). Similarly, an opportunistic use of the stratigraphic inter bed and of a fracture N90E can be detected in the shaping of the top and the
jambs of the doorway to Chamber 4 bis (cf. figures 95 and 96). The Northern and Southern Extensions of H1 are not affected by major fractures and stratigraphic bedding is not obvious, leading the rock to present a homogeneous and solid texture, much less affected by dissolution (cf. figures 97 and 98). H2 is hewn in a more homogeneous stone than H1,²¹ with fewer discontinuities originated from fractures or karstic features, nevertheless it is possible to detect a probable opportunistic use of a N110E fault for the design of the Main Chamber and of the doorways of the northeastern and south-western chambers (cf. figures 99 and 100), the fault being visible also in the Preparation Chamber, crossing a stratigraphic bed of the Bina formation (cf. figure 101), which can also be detected in the southwestern corner of the Main Chamber (cf. figure 102) and in Chambers 4 (cf. figure 103) and 6 (cf. figure 104). Another fracture is visible in Chamber 5 (cf. figure 105), in part shaping the steps between the benches. 21. The ceiling and part of the sidewalls of H2 having collapsed, it is not possible to verify whether in H2 there were other major faults or fractures.
Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 91
Fractures elnlarged by recent water circulation, with brown oxyds and terra-rossa, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 4bis, detail, looking south-east, photo and processing by Gérard Massonnat
fig. 92
Fault N150E, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 3, detail, looking east, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
177
178
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 93
Fault N150E, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 3, detail, looking north-east, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
fig. 94
Fault N150E, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 3, detail, looking north-east, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 95
Opportunistic use of the stratigraphic inter-bed, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 4bis, detail, looking west, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
fig. 96
Opportunistic use of the stratigraphic inter-bed, SEC Hypogeum 1, Chamber 4bis, detail, looking west, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
fig. 97
Northern Extension, SEC Hypogeum 1, looking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
179
180
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 98
Southern extension, SEC Hypogeum 1, looking east, Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 99
North-eastern area of the Main Chamber, SEC Hypogeum 2, looking north-east, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 100
South-western area of the Main Chamber, SEC Hypogeum 2, looking south-west, photo and processing Gérard Massonnat
fig. 101
Stratigraphic bed of the Bina formation and fault, SEC Hypogeum 2, Preparation Chamber, looking south-east, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
181
182
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 102
Stratigraphic bed of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 2, north-western corner of the Main Chamber, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 103
Stratigraphic bed of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 2, Chamber 4, looking north-west, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 104
Stratigraphic bed of the Bina formation, SEC Hypogeum 2, Chamber 6, looking east, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 105
Fracture N130, SEC Hypogeum 2, Chamber 5, looking north, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 106
Tool-marks on the southern jamb of the doorway, SEC Hypogeum 2, Chamber 1, looking south, Riccardo Lufrani
183
184
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 107
Tool-marks on the eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension, SEC Hypogeum 1, looking east, Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 108
Tool-marks on the northern bench of Chamber 2, SEC Hypogeum 2, looking north-west, Riccardo Lufrani
Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 109
Tool-marks on the northern side of Repository 3, SEC Hypogeum 1, looking north, Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 110
Dissolution of the ceiling, Chmaber 5, SEC Hypogeum 1, Riccardo Lufrani
185
186
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
5.1.3 Hewing of the SEC Hypogea The hewing process of the SEC Hypogea may be figured out in four different scenarios: a. the burial complexes were hewn as primary purpose, b. natural caves were exploited first as a quarry, and then the burial complexes were hewn, c. the burial complexes were hewn exploiting natural caves first, and then as a quarry, d. quarries were exploited, and then the burial complexes were hewn. The size of the SEC Hypogea, if compared to the nearby subsurface quarry in the Archaeological Department of the Ecole biblique,²² is consistent with the hypothesis that a quarry was there before the burial complexes were hewn, and indeed, when H1 was discovered, the floor of the access to H1 was bed of a quarry, before it was leveled to build the Modern Chapel.²³ Furthermore, the entrance to the Main Chamber of H1 is large enough to let a big block be taken out,²⁴ and Lewy’s theory on the geological and religious reasons for a small access to the huge Solomon’s quarries could also be applied to the SEC burial caves.²⁵ All these observations are consistent with the existence of a quarry before and/or during the hewing of the SEC Hypogea. Conversely, the quality of the meleke stone of the SEC, as it is visible in the two Hypogea and the quarry under the Archaeological Department, is dissimilar, the stone of the Southern and Eastern Extensions of H1, and of the abovementioned subsurface quarry presenting a considerably more homogenous stone, less affected by fracture or karstic discontinuities than the upper part of H1, where the quite significant karstic network makes the rock unsuitable for the quarrying of good quality ashlars. Considering that several natural caves are present in El Heidhemiyeh hill and with such evidence of karstic features and water circulations occurring in the meleke of the caves complexes, the SEC Hypogea may have been hewn from a cave. In fact, the directions on which are aligned the tombs correspond to two main fractures directions, N70 and N150, which control the development of karstification in the Jerusalem area.²⁶ It is therefore likely that if caves existed, they had this orientation. However, they would probably not have been as extensive as the tombs, and needed to be expanded. Nevertheless, even if caves did not previously exist, to follow the main directions of the local fracturing was the easiest way to dig the tombs. In both cases, the direction of the burial complexes is not accidental, since the topography also favored these directions. 22. Cf. § 4.5.3. 23. Cf. § 1.2.1. 24. Cf. For the standard dimension of quarried stones see Z. Safrai/A. Sasson, Quarrying and quarries in the land of Israel, in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Elkana, 2001) (Hebrew), 53. 25. Cf. § 4.4.6. 26. Cf. § 5.1.1.
We can assume that the SEC Hypogea were hewn on the western slope of El Heidhemiyeh hill, as burial caves hewn in the meleke layers in a cavelike shape, which had several advantages, as Avnimelech 1966 pointed out,²⁷ but, most probably, not from preexisting natural caves, since the carving would have been difficult because of the joints of the rocks. Considered that the ceiling is far higher than the level of the entrance, the hewing of SEC Hypogea was realised progressively from the bottom up to the level of the ceiling, operation extremely more complicated and annoying than cutting out the rock from the bottom, as in many burial caves with a standing pit.²⁸ This scenario does not dismiss the possibility that during the preparation of the tombs, the rock was hewn as in a quarry in order to use the blocks for building²⁹ and/or the cliff of the hill was regularised, but not necessarily in the first stage of the hewing of the Hypogea. In the Byzantine transformation at the entrance of Chamber 1 of H2 (cf. figure 106), and the Northern and Southern Extensions of H1 (cf. figure 107), the tool-marks are clearly visible, while the surface of the Hypogea seems to have been carefully smoothed,³⁰ with the exception of the bottom of the northern bench of Chamber 2 of H2 (cf. figure 108), which is consistent with the technique used in hewing bench chambers with an iron pic, in concentric pattern. 27. “Generally it was easier to dig the grave from the side, along the natural slope of a given rock layer. It was more difficult to dig downwards, at right to the angles layer. Therefore most rock tombs were dug in the form of a cave and not in the form of a cistern. The cavelike form had another important advantage: with a little effort it was possible to widen it and prepare it for the burial of many bodies, contrary to a vertical tomb. Thus were created burial cells, family tombs and graves of an entire community. The second problem was the quality of the rock. It was easy to prepare a grave in soft Senonian rocks. But the Senonian area was much too far away from the town, and climatically conditioned burial without delay required haste. Moreover, soft rocks were not durable and after a few years the work was damaged. For such reasons the cave tombs were seldom large. None of these shortcomings existed in Turonian layers. Quarrying into them was not very difficult, although it required skilled workmen and it was essential to prepare graves long beforehand”, Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions”, 30-1. 28. For the definition and distribution of the “standing pit” in the burial cave in the region see § 3.3. 29. An example of the double purpose, hewing a room in the rock and quarrying the rock to make ashlars for building, is the cave rooms in the restored Byzantine house in Avdat National Park. 30. For Barkay/Kloner 1986, the fine dressing of the Hypogea surface is a sign of “royal architecture” (cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 34), while many other example of Iron Age II tombs present the same smoothing surfaces; for example, see the Iron Age II the necropolis at an-Nabi Danyel, where several tombs present smoothed surfaces, while others show the tool-marks still visible, cf. D. Amit/I. Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery and Wine Presses at an-Nabi Danyel”, IEJ 51 (2001) 171-93.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
In some of the repositories of the SEC Hypogea, the marks of the iron pick are clearly visible, while in others they are less evident, probably because of the dissolution of the rock (cf. figure 109). The almost total absence of tool-marks in the older parts of the SEC Hypogea,³¹ as above stated, is the result of a careful smoothing of the surface, the final stage of preparation of the complex, consistent with the absence of any sign of plaster.³² The use of the iron pick is attested from C13 BC in Egypt and until modern times,³³ and cannot be useful for dating the Hypogea, while the smoothing of the rock surface, cannot be unambiguously associated to Iron Age II royal architecture, as stated by Barkay and Kloner 1986,³⁴ first of all because in several simple Iron Age II burial tombs the surface is smoothed,³⁵ and secondly because the fine dressing of the surfaces is also present in tombs from other periods, for example for the facades of Hellenistic-Early Roman burial caves.³⁶ Finally, both in H1 and H2, the dissolution of the rock, especially in the upper layers, has accelerated since the discovery and the clearing of the Hypogea, endangering the preservation of the burial caves (cf. figure 110). 31. The same features are present in the Schmidt Institut Hypogea, where the only tool-marks visible are those of iron picks in the Repository, in which a fragment of iron, probably from a pick, is stuck in a sidewall of the Repository (cf. § 4.1.4). 32. Plaster was found on the walls of some Hellenistic-Early Roman burial caves, (the following references are in Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem), such as tomb 13-4 on p. 347, in the Talpyot area, in use between C1 BC and C1 AD,Ttomb 21-1 on p. 379, in the Valley of the Cross, used during C2-1 BC, Jason’s Tomb, 23-3 on p. 388, in use in C1 BC, Tomb 24-10 on p. 402, in Tel Azra, dated to the second half of C1 BC, Tomb 28-19 on p. 445, in Nablus Road, probably quarried in the Hasmonean period and in use until the Herodian period. 33. “Le pic métallique et à fortiori, le pic en pierre dure, est certainement un de plus anciens outils de taille de pierre. On constate que les seules périodes où son emploi est restreint, correspondent à des époques où l’architecture utilisait, soit des grands appareils de pierre dure. D’autre part, il est employé pour parementer des blocs, essentiellement sur des monuments d’époque romaine et toujours en complément de l’escoude, sur des blocs bruts d’extraction. Il s’agit, la plupart du temps, de monuments utilitaires tels les aqueducs et les ponts. On peut situer son abandon définitif, du moins pour la France, vers 1950, son déclin a commencé avec l’apparition et la généralisation du sciage mécanique”, J.-C. Bessac, L’outillage traditionnel du tailleur de pierre de l’Antiquité à nos jours (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1987), 24. Furthermore, on the summit of the Mt. Adir, in the northern Galilee in 1976 was found an iron pick, which may have been used in the excavation of the foundation trenches in the limestone bedrock of the casemate closure walled enclosure of the site and which is dated to C12 BC (cf. D. Davis/R. Maddin/J.D. Muhly/T. Stech, “A Steel Pick from Mt. Adir in Palestine”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44 (1985) 41-51, on pp. 41-5). 34. Cf. note 30. 35. As an example, see caves 2, 4, and 9 in an-Nabi Danyel cemetery (cf. Amit/Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery”, 174-81). 36. Cf. note 157 in Chapter 1.
187
5.2 Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea The first descriptions of the SEC Hypogea presented in Chapter 1 provide valuable information on the state of the burial complexes before the modern transformations, while lacking of precision and details on the architectural features. In the following Sections are presented the detailed descriptions of the SEC Hypogea, based on the surveys carried out by the present author.³⁷ Located at about 50 m one another, south of the modern Basilica of Saint-Etienne (cf. figure 111), the SEC Hypogea were surveyed by the present author and the topographer Emmanuel Moisan in 2012-2013. The surveys were followed by the realisation of 3D models,³⁸ which offer precise measurements of the Hypogea, and make it possible to plot accurate plans and sections of the burial complexes, while offering virtual “external” views of the burial complexes, which, in some cases, permit a clearer identification of the details. The following Sections present the detailed descriptions of H1 (§ 5.2.1), and H2 (§ 5.2.2). 5.2.1 Architectural features of Hypogeum 1 In this Section are presented the dimensions of the ancient parts and proposed the possible original state of several architectural features of of H1. The original Access to H1 may only be figured out from the scant information available in the first reports presented in § 1.2.1. The three steps, which were obliterated during the modern transformation, led to an open or partially covered forecourt³⁹ or to a completely or partially roofed vestibule (cf. figures 112 to 115).⁴⁰ 37. Cf. § 2.2. 38. For the methodology of the photogrammetric survey and the 3D modelling see § 2.2. 39. From the Iron Age II to the Late Roman periods, number of burial caves in the region were equipped with a forecourt, or courtyard: “The courtyard is the outer open area from which one entered the cave, either just through an opening or through an opening and a vestibule. The term ’courtyard’ refers to any flat, contiguous surface, or even a terraced one. Courtyards are found in many of the Second Temple period burial caves known in Jerusalem. Frequently, we cannot identify the cave courtyard with certainty, because it was either not exposed and investigated or was eliminated by later quarrying. In a few cases, sometimes for topographical reasons, the courtyard is limited to a narrow shelf at the front of the cave. It seems that the courtyards of tombs from the Second Temple period were a continuation of a longstanding tradition that began in the Iron Age”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 41. 40. “The vestibule is a roofed, rock-cut chamber for entry and passage that connects the courtyards with the burial cave. The vestibule was cut out of the rock, and it may be regarded as part of the cave or as a roofed section of the courtyard”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 51.
188
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 111
Plan of SEC, location of the Hypogea, Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 112
Plan, SEC Hypogeum 1, Emmanuel Moisan
189
190
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 113
Sections, SEC Hypogeum 1, Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 114
Reconstruction of the access to H1, processing Lionel Mochamps, Michele Bommezzadri and Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 115
Reconstruction of the access to H1, processing Lionel Mochamps, Michele Bommezzadri and Riccardo Lufrani
191
192
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
The topography of the western side of El Heidhemiyeh hill, where H1 was carved out, was compatible with a roofed vestibule, as shown in the reconstruction made by Schick 1886 (figures 5 to 6). The existence of a roofed vestibule was possible also if its roof was not as thick as proposed by the reconstruction of Schick 1886 (figure 7), but only 0.50 m, as suggested by the remains of a roof in figure 17, for a similar thickness of the roof is measured in the Main Chamber and in Chamber 4 (see below).⁴¹ In correspondence to the obliterated three steps, the Doorway to the Vestibule may have had the same width of the Doorway to the Main Chamber, namely 0.80 m, if estimated from figures 13 and 16, or smaller if reconstructed form figure 5; the depth of the Entrance Doorway may have been 0.68 m, similar to the Doorway to the Main Chamber, while its height cannot be estimated. The dimensions of the Vestibule may be estimated as follows: length 2.70 m,⁴² width 2.23 m, height 2.60 m. Indeed, the bedrock is partly preserved in the masonry of the northern sidewall of the Vestibule, exactly at 2.70 m from the eastern sidewall (cf. figure 116). In the plan published by Schick in 1886 (cf. figure 5), the length is also about 2.70 m, while in the text the measure given is 2.50 m; furthermore, in the same plan, the western sidewall of the Vestibule is coloured as “Altes Mauerwerk”,⁴³ while in Vincent/Abel 1926 it is shorter than the width. In the plan stored at the Department of Archaeology of the EBAF (cf. figures 12 and 13), the captions assign the northern, southern and western sidewalls of the Vestibule to the “parties du rocher ne s’élevant que de 0.50 à 1m.50 au dessus du sol de la grande chambre”, while the section (figure 14), presents a masonry on the northern sidewall of the Vestibule. In general, the first drawings of H1 and the state of the burial complex today are compatible with an original access to H1 organised in an open forecourt accessed by 41. Also in the very schematic plan published by Merrill in 1885, there is a closed chamber at the access of H1 (cf. fig. 4). Merrill noticed that: “The southern wall of room No. 2 has been broken away, but being so much above the level of the vault, neither the roof of that nor any portion of G, D, G, II were in any manner affected by it”, Merrill, “New Discoveries”, 225; this supports the hypothesis that, when H1 was discovered, the western walls of the Vestibule were still in place, and that they were obliterated together with the three steps during the modern restorations. 42. Estimation from the drawing of Vincent/Abel 1926 in figure 16. 43. In the text of his article, Schick affirms that: “Die im W. gelegene Vorkammer, die eine Länge von 2,50 m, eine Breite von 2,30 m und, wie die übrigen Seitenkammern, eine Höhe von 2,30 m hat, ist durch die bereits erwähnte Zerstörung betroffen, jedoch später wieder durch Mauerwerk ergänzt und mit Senkgräbern in dem Boden ausgestattet worden”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 75. Surprisingly, no sign of trough graves can be seen in Schick’s drawings, or in any other plan published in the first reports; furthermore, the floor of the Vestibule is the bedrock, with the exception of a modern small levelling of the ground east of the modern altar.
the exterior through a three-step stair, a framed façade or a vestibule where an opening leads to the Main Chamber. If there was no vestibule, then the forecourt was enclosed in all sides by rocky sidewalls, which, at the discovery of H1, were at least 0.50 m high, according to the captions of figures 12 and 13. In this case, the entrance to the burial cave would have been through the opening which leads to the Main Chamber, whose closing from the exterior may have been assured by a blocking stone, or/and from the interior by a two-panelled door set on the two sockets on the step and a wooden structure which framed the doors, or by a grating (cf. figures 120 to 122). A double closing would be unique and rationally peculiar, as well as unpractical, and it is possible that the sockets on the step were carved out in a second phase of utilisation of H1. On the contrary, a vestibule, closed by a stone from the outside, may be more rationally coupled with the closing of the Main Chamber fixed on the step. The level of the first step leading to the Vestibule, seems to have been at the same level as the Northern Extension, at about 0.80 m from the floor of the Vestibule, while the third and last step protruded over the floor at a height of 0.40 m, according to the drawing of Vincent/Abel 1926 (cf. figure 17). The preserved rocky sidewall at the east of the Vestibule is not on the same line as the eastern sidewall of the Northern and Southern Extensions,⁴⁴ but orthogonal to the Main Chamber (cf. figure 112). This means that the transformations of H1 in ancient time, did not follow exactly the original orientation of H1, which presents a greater deviation from the precise east-west orientation. Following the north-south and east-west natural slope of the western side of the El Heidhemiyeh hill, the levels of the bedrock in all the drawings of the first publications on H1, and especially those of the Department of Archaeology of the EBAF (cf. figures 14 and 15), seem to be a good estimation; probably, during the construction of the terrace on the Modern Chapel and of the compound outer wall, parts of the bedrock, now no longer visible, were exposed.⁴⁵ From these drawings, it appears that either H1 was hewn about half a metre under the surface of the bedrock, or quarrying activities sensibly reduced 44. The rocky sidewall was completed by two blocks, probably during the construction of the Modern Chapel, since the toolmarks and the absence of any patina suggest a recent carving of the stone, and at the same time an arched recess (0.70 m deep and 1.40 m high) was carved out, probably to be used for the sacred vessels during the Masses celebrated on the Modern Altar. 45. For example, in Schick’s 1886 drawings the bedrock, in the northern part of the burial complex, is reconstructed in the east-west slope going down from the level of the path between the Muslim cemetery, the Garden Tomb and the SEC, to the level of the bed of the quarry which was still visible before the construction of the Modern Chapel (cf. figure 7), and a northsouth slope (cf. figure 6). Similarly, the reconstructed pattern of the bedrock is highlighted in figures 13 and 14.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 116
Preserved bedrock on the northern sidewall of the Vestibule, H1, looking north, in red the line of the natural bedrock, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 117
Modern lintel on the eastern sidewall of the Vestibule, H1, looking east, Riccardo Lufrani
193
194
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 118
Opening of the Main Chamber, H1, in red the line of the natural bedrock, photo and processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 119
Opening of Chamber 4, H1, Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
the thickness of the bedrock above the burial complex in a later period. In fact, the thickness of the bedrock above H1 is now visible only in two spots: in the modern chimney located in the north-western corner of the Main Chamber and in the eastern part of Chamber 4 (cf. figures 118 and 119). In the modern Chimney of the Main Chamber, the thickness of the bedrock is about 0.30 m. With a side measuring 0.50 m, the squared opening connects the Main Chamber to the level of the modern terrace, 1.65 m above. The chimney, built with small meleke ashlars, probably was conceived to give light to the Main Chamber, when the Modern Chapel was constructed, while the opening, according to Schick, was already present when H1 was discovered, and used in a certain period to let down corpses directly into the Main Chamber; however, the absence of patina and the tool-marks visible on the rock suggest that, if it was ancient, the opening was reworked during the construction of the chimney (cf. figure 118). The opening in the ceiling of Chamber 4, a square with rounded edges and sides of about 0.53 m, exposes a thickness of the bedrock of about 0.40 m. It seems to be hewn in ancient times, because the patina and degradation of the rock is the same of the rest of the ceiling. The masonry which constitutes the chimney is made of small stones and blocks fixed by a thick gray mortar, while the shape of the chimney is pyramidal, with its top truncated and sealed by a large white fieldstone (cf. figure 119). Concerning the two chimneys in H1, in the sections of the burial complex there is an incongruence which makes the deductions less assured: in Schick’s 1886 drawings, only the chimney in the Main Chamber is reported (cf. figures 5 to 6), while in the section of the Department of Archaeology of the EBAF only the chimney of Chamber 4 is drawn, the former being added with a pencil dashed line (cf. figure 14); moreover, Vincent/Abel 1926 section of H1 presents both chimneys (cf. figure 17). Nevertheless, the measurements taken in H1 and the present topography correspond to the level of the bedrock represented in the oldest drawings of the burial complex (cf. figures 10, 14 and 15). If in figure 14 no built chimney atop to the opening in Chamber 4 is drawn, the masonry must have been realised before the construction of the outer wall of SEC and the restorations of H1, suggesting that the drawing did not report the existing chimney, which may be ancient. In fact, as shown in figure 111 and also in Schick’s plan in figure 5, the outer wall of the SEC is flanked by a path which today is blocked by the parking box of the Garden Tomb - being the continuation of Conrad Schick Street. Formerly, this path connected Nablus Road with Salah edDin Street, passing to the west and north of the Muslim Cemetery. According to Schick’s plan and sections (figures 5 to 6), a lower wall bordered the path at about 4 m east of the
195
outer wall of SEC, in the vicinity if not exactly over the opening in Chamber 4. It is probable that the white large fieldstone visible at the end of the chimney of Chamber 4 is the lower block of the foundations of the eastern wall of the path. To return to the possibility of a Vestibule, Vincent/Abel 1926 relate of an “alcôve”, which implies a ceiling,⁴⁶ while in his plan De Vaux 1888 marks the room as “petit atrium”, where the Main Chamber is named “grand atrium” (cf. figure 8), suggesting a roofed space as in the Main Chamber, and, as mentioned above, Schick 1886 gives the height of the Vestibule which he calls “Vorkammer”, clearly presenting it as a roofed space.⁴⁷ In Barkay/Kloner 1986 nothing is said about the possibility of a forecourt or a vestibule, in correspondence of the space before the Main Chamber; nevertheless in their plan of H1, the reconstruction looks more like a forecourt, than a vestibule. Furthermore, in the article published in 1990 by Barkay, the same space is called in modern Hebrew “razah”, which means “forecourt / courtyard”.⁴⁸ Indeed, from the first reports and the observation of the current state of H1 it is not possible to determine with certainty if a forecourt or a Vestibule led to the Main Chamber of H1; nevertheless the converging evidence reported by the scholars who studied the burial complex before the modern transformations, or who had access to the information previous the construction of the Modern Chapel, coupled with the measurement realised during our survey, supports the hypothesis of the presence of a Vestibule, as proposed in the reconstruction in figure 114.⁴⁹ A third possible configuration of the Access to H1 seems to be compatible with the information of the first reports and the current state of the burial cave, namely a façade of a vestibule with a wide and high opening, with or without a framed decoration, attested in the Late Hellenistic - Early Roman tombs (cf. figure 115).⁵⁰ Finally, a forecourt may have been hewn in front of the Access to H1, stretching to the West and the South, as shown in Schick’s 1886 plan, where the east-west levelline, which cuts in the middle the area of the Modern Chapel, is the continuation of the line of the northern sidewall of the presumed Vestibule⁵¹ (cf. figures 5 to 6 and the reconstructions in figures 114 and 115). 46. 47. 48. 49.
Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 782. Cf. note 43. Cf. Barkay, “Jerusalem’s cemeteries”, 113. The forecourt from where the three steps led to the Vestibule of H1 may have stretched toward the West and the South, as the plan of Schick 1886 seems to suggest, the east-west level-line of the quarried bedrock being in correspondence with a kind of path. 50. Types 2 and 3 in the typology of the tombs’ façades proposed by Kloner/Zissu 2007 (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 47). 51. To simplify the presentation, even if there is no clear evidence that the space before the Main Chamber was a completely roofed vestibule, we will continue to name it “Vestibule”.
196
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
The Doorway to the Main Chamber presents signs of the original dimensions, as marked in Vincent and Abel 1926 section (cf. figures 17, 120 and 121), namely 0.80 m in width, 0.80 m in height and 0.68 m in thickness. The doorway was subsequently raised to a height of 1.50 m, while the fracture of the rock on the southern jamb was restored with small-stone masonry and a thick grey mortar.⁵² From the Doorway to the Main Chamber, a Step (cf. figures 121 and 122), measuring 1.43 in length, 0.48 in width and 0.16 in height above the floor of the Main Chamber, which is 0.32 m lower than the floor of the Vestibule. The Step presents two sockets protruding from its surface. The well preserved northern socket has a width of 0.27 m, a length of 0.19 m and a height of 0.03 and 0.09 m respectively in the northern and southern sides, and a central square of 0.10 m per side, hewn at the level of the surface of the Step. Of the severely damaged southern socket, only the length of 0.27 m and the width of 0.16 are measurable. Since there is no sign of sockets on the western sidewall of the Main Chamber, whose northern part is well preserved, the closing of the Main Chamber was either assured by a door system (double door?) set on a wooden frame, or by a removable grating, which was fixed on the sockets.⁵³ The Main Chamber presents a parallelepiped form, the height of the ceiling going from 3.55 m in the western part to 3.52 m in the eastern part, and the width from 4.22 m of the western sidewall to 4.20 m of the eastern sidewall, the length on the northern and southern sidewalls measuring 5.32 m. The southern rock sidewall and the southern part of the western sidewalls collapsed in ancient times and were replaced by dry masonry, which shrunk when the foundations of the outer wall of the SEC were dug in 1885.⁵⁴ A modern masonry replaced the collapsed sidewalls, (cf. figure 123). The Ceiling of the Main Chamber is framed by a rightangled cornice carved in the rock of 0.18-0.20 m in height and 0.05-0.06 m in depth (cf. figure 124),⁵⁵ and in the centre there is a hole for a metal hook for hanging lamps, such as those found in several Late Roman and Byzantine tombs in the region (cf. figure 125).⁵⁶ 52. This mortar is rich in charcoal splinters and may be analysed with C14 to determine a range for its dating. 53. As quoted in note 151 in Chapter 1, Barkay/Kloner 1986 suggest that this kind of steps and sockets can be found in several Iron Age II structure in Assyria (cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 27). 54. Cf. § 1.2.1. 55. Barkay/Kloner 1986 see a double right-angled cornice framing the ceiling of H1, while instead is a single right-angled cornice combined with the upper sunken panel. 56. Hanging lamps dating from late C3 AD to C5 AD were found in tombs in Palestine: “this type of polycandelon or mutlinozzle lamps is a distinctive Palestinian product [...] Excavated example come primarily from tombs datable by other objects to the second half of the third century to the fifth century. Several of these tombs have been identified as Jewish and Christian, which
The Floor of the Main Chamber presents several natural holes in the bedrock, some of them enlarged by human activity, such as the visits of groups.⁵⁷ A rectangular recess, 1.00 m in length, 0.50 m in width and 0.50 m in depth, contained the decorated metal box, probably a burial for a child, described by Ludovic De Vaux and stolen soon after its discovery (cf. figure 126).⁵⁸ The preserved Sidewalls present a simple decoration carved on the surface, a sunken frieze of 0.64-65 m in width, along the entire length of all the preserved sidewalls, and two superposed panels, the upper and bottom panels being respectively 0.72-0.74 m and 0.70-0.73 m in height, on the northern and eastern sidewalls, the western sidewall presenting only the frieze. The frieze outlines at its top a strip 0.18 m high and at its bottom a strip about 0.35 m high, formed by the protruding band of the walls where the panels are carved and where the doorways open to the burial chambers (cf. figures 124 and 127).⁵⁹ In the Main Chamber, six Doorways open to the Chambers, the southern ones being reconstructed by the modern masonry. The preserved Doorways, 0.06-0.08 m above the level of the floor of the Main Chamber, measure between 1.80 and 1.84 m in height, and present a slightly trapezoidal shape, the upper width being 0.80 m and the bottom width between 0.75 m and 0.78 m. The thickness of the Doorways shows a more accentuated trapezoidal shape, the upper part of the jambs measuring 0.30-0.32 m, and the bottom part 0.38-0.40 m. All the Doorways are bordered by a sunken frame of 0.19-0.22 m wide and 0.05 m deep, the frames being at 0.23 m from the adjacent sidewalls (cf. figures 124 and 127). Barkay 2000 suggests that the frames might have been used to fix wooden panels to close the Chambers.⁶⁰
57. 58. 59. 60.
attests the versatility of the arcade motif. Other fragmentary examples suggests that such lamps were used in the home as well”, J. Biers/J. Terry, (ed.s), Testament of Time: Selected Objects from the Collection of Palestinian Antiquities in the Museum Art and Archaeology (University of Missouri-Columbia - Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003), 177. Barkay 2000 suggests that a hanging lamp was fixed in the ceiling of H1, reporting as a biblical parallel Daniel 5, 5, translating the word “atsherben” with “hanging lamp”, while the current translation is “lampstan”’ (NAS, 1977, NIV 2011, NET) (cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 257). As an archaeological parallel, Barkay 2000 mentions the hanging Etruscan lamp dated to C5 BC (cf. ibid.), found in 1840 outside of any archaeological context at the side of a country road near Cortona, Italy (cf. A. Lorini, Osservazioni sopra un’etrusco lampadario di bronzo rinvenuto recentemente nel territorio di Cortona (Montepulciano: Tipografia Angiolo Fumi, 1844), 6 ), now in the Museo Civico of Cortona, Italy (cf. B.M. Kreutz, “Mediterranean Contributions to the Medieval Mariner’s Compass”, Technology and Culture 14 (1973) 367-83, on p. 380). In one of these holes, a coin was found during the survey in 2013 (cf. § 5.3.3). For the description of the Metal Box see § 1.2.1, and § 5.3.1. The bottom panel of the eastern sidewall is too damaged to be measured. Cf. Barkay, “The necropolis of Jerusalem”, 257.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 120
Doorway to the Main Chamber, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 121
Doorway to the Main Chamber, H1, looking west, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
197
198
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 122
Step, Main Chamber, H1, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 123
Southern sidewall of the Main Chamber, H1, looking south, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 124
Eastern sidewall of the Main Chamber, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 125
Central hole carved in the ceiling of the Main Chamber, H1, looking south, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert, processing Riccardo Lufrani
199
200
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 126
Recess, Main Chamber, H1, looking south-east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 127
Northern sidewall of the Main Chamber, H1, looking north, Jean Baptiste-Humbert
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
The sunken panels, coupled with the frames of the Doorways, seem to shape what is paralleled by Barkay/Kloner 1986 to the “beams” of Solomon’s Temple.⁶¹ Indeed, the “beams” may be the product of the sunken Panels and the frames of the Doorways, or the reproduction of a wooden structure of a house, the resulting strips being of different widths, namely 0.31-0.36 m around the central and bottom panels, 0.23 m on the external sides of the Doorways, and 0.18-0.20 m under the cornice of ceiling. Chambers 1, 2, and 3 measure in average 2.60 m in length, 2.40 m in width and between 2.20 m and 2.35 m in height, the sidewalls of these Chambers being irregularly carved and in several spots badly damaged by collapses and decomposition of the rock (cf. figure 128). The three benches in each Chamber are approximately at a height of 1.02-1.05 m from the floors of the Chambers. The width of the benches is comprised between 0.60 m and 0.64 m, with the exception of the northern bench of Chamber 1, which is 0.72 m in width. All the benches present a parapet 0.07-0.08 m wide, with the exception of the parapets of the northern bench of Chambers 1 and the eastern bench of Chamber 3 which measure 0.10 m in width. The parapets, where preserved, are 0.04-0.05 m above the surface of the benches, and 0.07-0.010 m in width. The thresholds of Chambers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 measure 0.48 m in width (cf. figure 126). In the central corridor and leaning to the northern bench, Chamber 1 presents two Steps of 0.40 m wide and 0.14 m and 0.19 m high, respectively the bottom Step and the upper Step, while Chambers 2 and 3 have only one Step, of 0.40 m and 0.38 m wide and 0. 25 m and 0.21 m high respectively. In Chamber 1, 2, and 3, the distance of the lateral benches at the level of the upper Step is shorter than the same distance at the upper level of the benches, giving a trapezoidal shape to the benches: 0.70 m and 0.80 in Chamber 1, 0.72 m and 0.88 m in Chamber 2, and 0.82 m and 0.90 m in Chamber 3 (cf. figure 128). Round Holes, about 0.20 m of diameter, are carved on the surface of some benches, communicating with the repositories underneath, in Chambers 2, 3 and 4 (cf. figures 129 and 130). Two of the six holes are not completed and do not lead to a repository (on the western bench of Chamber 2 and the southern bench of Chamber 3), while the hole on the northern bench of Chamber 3 is damaged and irregularly enlarged. A total of four Repositories are preserved, all of irregular shape, carved in order to be used in two Chambers at one time,⁶² by depositing the bones from the main open61. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 27. 62. As a straight parallelepiped for the Repositories 1 and 3, which are between two adjacent Chambers, or an L-shape parallelepiped for the Repositories 2 and 4, which are between two Chamber in an corner of the Main Chamber. The approximate measurements are: 2.00 m in length and 1.50 m in width for
201
ing or by dropping them off through a Hole in a bench (cf. figures 130 and 131). Repository 3 is completely empty, while the bones in the other Repositories may have been added in modern times.⁶³ Only Repository 4, studied by Susan Guise Sheridan and her associates, seems to have a large number of ancient bones.⁶⁴ The Openings of the Repositories are almost square and are of slightly different dimensions: 0.50-0.52 m wide, 0.60-0.62 m high and 0.23-0.25 m deep for the Opening of Repository 1, at 0.10 m from the floor of Chamber 1; 0.64-0.71 m wide, 0.50-0.54 m high and 0.25 deep for the Opening of Repository 2, at 0.25 m from the floor of Chamber 2; 0.52-0.55 m wide, 0.66-0.69 m high and 0.23 m deep, for the Opening of Repository 3, at 0.15 m from the floor of Chamber 3; 0.55-0.60 m wide, 0.70 m high and 0.23 m deep, for the Opening of Repository 4, at 0.06 m from the floor of Chamber 4. The Opening of Repository 4 in Chamber 5 is integrated in modern masonry which does not allow an exact measurement. All the preserved benches present Headrests, of approximately horseshoe shape, and dimensions, namely about 0.38 m wide, 0.36 m long, and between 0.06 m and 0.08 m high (cf. figure 132). The transversal benches in Chambers 1, 2 and 3 present two Headrests, one on each part of the bench, suggesting that two bodies might be laid down at the same time (cf. figure 133). Compared to the other chambers of H1, Chamber 4 has a different configuration, which is determined by the connection through a four-step stair⁶⁵ to Chamber 4 bis, hewn from the eastern sidewall of Chamber 4. While the length (2.60 m) and the width (2.40 m) are the same as the other Chambers, Chamber 4 presents a height of 3.00 m, because of the room needed for the stair and the doorway to Chamber 4 bis. The two benches, slightly larger than Repository 1 (the depth cannot be measured because of the presence of bones); 1.80 m in length and 1.50 m in width for the L-shape Repository 2 (the depth cannot be measured because of the presence of bones); 2.20 m in length, 1.15 m in width and 1.70 m in depth; 1.90 m in length and 1.70 m in width for the L-shape Repository 4 (the depth cannot be measured because of the presence of bones) (figure 112). 63. In a private communication in April 2013, the present writer was told that the bones at the surface of Repository 1 were deposited there in 1990, coming from an excavation. In another private communication, it was said that some bones in Repository 2 were deposited in modern times. 64. Cf. § 1.3.3. At the discovery of H1, in 1885, the great quantity of bones, as De Vaux reports, which were found in the burial complex, were collected in boxes, according to Merrill or reburied in an appropriate place, as Schick affirms. The bones present now in H1 seem to be only a fraction of what was found in 1885, if one believes to De Vaux’s report (cf. § 1.2.1). 65. All four steps are about 0.35 m wide, while their height varies, from 0.15 m of the top step, 0.16 m of the second, 0.40 m of the third, the fourth preserved only at a height of 0.05 m. The third and fourth steps are damaged and show signs of decomposition of the rock, broken into small stones, in correspondence with a fracture visible on the sidewall of the northern bench.
202
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 128
Chamber 3, H1, looking north, photo Jean-Bapstiste Humbert
fig. 129
Hole on the eastern bench of Chamber 2, H1, photo Jean-Bapstiste Humbert
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 130
Opening of Repository 3, Chmbaer 3, H1, looking south, photo Jean-Bapstiste Humbert
fig. 131
Repository 4, between Chambers 4 and 5, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Bapstiste Humbert
203
204
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 132
Headrest of the northern bench, Chamber 3, H1, looking south, photo Jean-Bapstiste Humbert
fig. 133
Northern bench in Chamber 1, H1, looking north, photo Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 134
Northern bench in Chamber 4, H1, looking north, photo Jean-Bapstiste Humbert
fig. 135
Eastern sidewall of Chamber 4, Dorway to Chamber 4bis, H1, looking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
205
206
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 136
Chamber 4bis, H1, looking west, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 137
Eastern sidewall and part of ceiling, Chamber 4bis, H1, looking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
the benches in the other chambers, namely 0.67-0.68 m, are sensibly longer than the others, measuring 2.60 m. If this feature, coupled with the two eastern headrests, suggests that the hewing of Chamber 4 bis was already planned when Chamber 4 was carved out, nevertheless the transformation from an original three-bench chamber was possible, because the height of the benches of Chamber 4 is about 0.10 m less than the 1.02-1.05 m of the average height of the benches in the other chamber, thus giving enough room to carve out the eastern headrests of Chamber 4, which are oriented toward the west, and not toward the north and the south, as might have been the case of an original transversal bench. Furthermore, the greater width of the benches may be explained by the carving of 0.10 m of their original surface coupled with their trapezoidal form, while the two first steps, for a total of 0.70 m, may have been carved out from the transversal bench, the other two being the steps of the same original bench. On the southern bench in Chamber 4 there is a headrest, whereas the headrest on the northern bench has disappeared in the destruction of part of the bench itself and of part of the northern sidewall. The two benches also present two holes of about 0.24 m of diameter, communicating with Repositories 3 and 4 (cf. figure 134). The sidewalls of Chamber 4 present a simple decoration, namely two vertical strips of 0.18 m in width, protruding from the sidewall 0.05 m, which frame the Doorway to Chamber 4 bis. Underneath the right-angled cornice of the ceiling, of 0.15 m high, run two horizontal strips, which are connected to the two vertical ones beside the doorway (cf. figure 135). The Opening on the ceiling previously mentioned is placed above the stair to Chamber 4 bis, associated to a chimney, described above (cf. figure 119). Around the Doorway to Chamber 4 bis, 1.50 m high and 0.80 m wide, a right-angled frame of 0.15 m in width is carved out, at 0.05 m from the sidewall (cf. figure 135). The damaged threshold is 0.24-0.26 m above the first step in Chamber 4, and 0.25 m from the floor of Chamber 4 bis. Chamber 4 bis, 3.20 m long, 2.80 m wide, and 2.44 m to 2.48 m high, from West to East, presents a different configuration, with its three “sarcophagi”⁶⁶ carved in the rock (cf. figure 136). A right-angled cornice 0.15-0.16 m high frames the ceiling, which is restored with modern clay in three spots (cf. figure 137). The two lateral “sarcophagi” measure 2.16-2.20 m in length, while the transversal one measures 2.60 m, all three of about 1.00 m in width. The floor of the transversal “sarcophagus” is about 0.35 m higher than the floor level of Chamber 4 bis, while the floors of the other two 66. For the definition of “sarcophagus” as it is used between brackets in this dissertation refer to Section § 6.2.6.
207
“sarcophagi” are at about 0.25 m from the level of the floor of the Chamber. Framed by a border of 0.08-0.10 m in width and 0.10-0.18 m in height, the bottoms of these two “sarcophagi” present a deepening, rounded at the short sides, about 0.50 m wide and 1.90 long, slightly deeper in their eastern side.⁶⁷ The borders of the deepening in both the lateral “sarcophagi” are 0.08-0.10 m in width and 0.10-0.18 m in height from the bottom of the “sarcophagi”. The floor of the transversal “sarcophagus” is evenly rectangular and flattened at its bottom, with no visible signs of a cushion (cf. figure 138). This difference hints to a distinct way of burial, possibly in a coffin in the transversal bench, while in the other two the corpse may have been laid directly in the “sarcophagus”. All the sides of the “sarcophagi” are about 0.80 m above their respective floors and the height of the lateral “sarcophagi” from the floor of the Chamber, where preserved, is 1.03 m.⁶⁸ Seemingly, the three “sarcophagi” were originally covered with slabs, laid on their outer edges and the respective sidewalls, where there are 0.06-0.08 m wide horizontal edges. The outer faces of the sides of the lateral “sarcophagi” present a simple decoration in the form of a sunken panel of 0.05 m in depth, hewn at 0.15 m from the top of the sides (cf. figures 139 and 140). The outer side of the transversal “sarcophagus” is damaged to the level of its floor, thus it is not possible to state weather a sunken panel was carved also on this side. Finally, the width of the outer sides of the three “sarcophagi” measures between 0.13 and 0.15 m. Chamber 5, whose ideal dimensions are 2.60 m in length, 2.40 m in width and 2.30 m in height, has undergone considerable transformations. Formerly presenting the configuration of the other Chambers opening to the Main Chamber, at some time the three benches of Chamber 5 were obliterated to a height of 0.25 m from the floor of the Chamber.⁶⁹ The preserved part of the eastern bench measures 0.65 m in width and, while the western bench shows a preserved width of 0.64 m, its northern part being obliterated to the floor, at 1.73 m from the southern sidewall of Chamber 5, the transversal bench and the remains of a step present a 1.06 m of width, while an East-West excavation, 1.10 m long, 0.15 m wide and 0.03 m deep, is visible in the middle of the bench (cf. figure 141). The rock separating Chamber 5 from the adjacent Southern Extension is between 0.20 m and 0.30 m thick and in the preserved western sidewall, at 1.50 m from the 67. At these places Schick 1886 draws headrests similar to those in the Chambers in the three “sarcophagi” (cf. figure 5). Today no remains of headrests can be detected. 68. The southern sarcophagus presents a protrusion of about 0.15 m in height above the level of its northern side, in correspondence to the western sidewall of Chamber 4 bis. 69. The rock is preserved at only 0.10 m under the modern opening to Repository 4.
208
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 138
Virtual “external” view looking north of Chamber 4bis, H1, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
floor of the Chamber, presents a 0.10 m thick excavation of the jamb of a doorway or a window,⁷⁰ with the upper hinge clearly visible, 0.05 m in diameter and 0.04 m in depth (cf. figures 142 and 143). The marks of iron pick are also visible. The collapse of the western sidewall, in correspondence with a fracture of the rock, destroyed the northern jamb and the bottom of the doorway/window, replaced by modern masonry (cf. figures 144 and 145). The Southern Extension is separated from Chamber 5 by a wall of 0.20-0.30 m. The eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension presents a right-angled cornice, 0.24 m high and a frame 0.18 m high, at the same level as the ceiling of Chamber 5, while the above collapsed bedrock, in its southern part, is carved as a masonry ashlar of 0.60 m in height surmounted by a horizontal excavation of 0.12 m in height and 0.05 m in depth, which is at the same level of the preserved Byzantine masonry on the southern sidewall (cf. figure 144). The approximate dimensions of the Southern Extension are: 7.30 m long, 2.90 m and 2.80 m wide respectively in its western and eastern parts, and 1.90 m below the level of the modern concrete floor.⁷¹ The modern concrete floor was installed exploiting the 70. In figure 15, the preserved level of the bedrock on the northern side of the eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension seems to point to a doorway, in correspondence with the east-west wall which is in the middle of the lower part of the Southern Extension. On the contrary, in figure 18, the preserved bedrock
protrusions where a former floor was seemingly in place in ancient times (cf. figures 146 and 147).⁷² A rabbet runs horizontally under the preserved bedrock of the southern side, about 0.20 m in height and 0.20 m in estimated width, while the estimated rabbet of the northern wall is less than 0.10 m in width.⁷³ On the southern and northern sidewalls, two on each side, four recesses are hewn to fix two beams between 0.15 m and 0.22 m in height, 0.24 m and 0.25 m of width and between 0.10 m to 0.14 m in depth (cf. figures 147 and 148). Vincent/Abel 1926 suggest that the upper part of the Southern Extension was formerly a Chamber (Chamber 6) like Chambers 1 to 5, because of scant but clear remains of the original entrance and ceiling.⁷⁴ They are shapes clearly a window. 71. The modern width of the Southern Extension in the western part is 3.66 m. 72. The views of the 3D model show the protrusions where the modern floor is set. In the rendering of the volumes and the texture in correspondence of the sides where the modern floor is set we assumed that the rock presents no rabbets and has the same texture as the sidewalls under the modern floor. 73. The estimations are measured on the 3D model. At present, with the modern concrete floor still in place, it is not possible to determine the width of the rabbets on both the northern and the southern side of the Southern Extension. 74. “La seconde [the supposed Chamber 6 replaced by the Southern Extension] ne pourrait même pas être soupçonnée sans les indices ténus mais indubitables de son entrée primitive et de son plafond de roc”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 782-3.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 139
Outer side of the southern “sacrophagus”, Chamber 4bis, H1, looking south-west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
209
210
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 140
Outer side of the northren “sarcophagus”, Chamber 4bis, H1, looking north, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 141
Remains of the benches in Chamber 5, H1, looking south, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 142
Door/window, Chamber 5, H1, looking south-west, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 143
211
Hinge of the door/window, Chamber 5, H1, looking south-west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
212
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 144
South-eastern corner of the Southern Extension, H1, looking south-east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 145
The Southern Extension, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 146
Perspective virtual view of the Southern Extension without the modern floor, H1, looking south-east, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
213
214
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 147
Southern sidewall of the Southern Extension H1, looking south-east, photo Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 148
Northern sidewall of the Southern Extension, H1, looking south-east, photo Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
probably referring to details concerning the doorway before the building of the modern masonry and to the few centimetres of ceiling visible under the collapsed rock in correspondence with the doorway/window communicating with Chamber 5. The remains of the ceiling might instead be the result of the hewing of the upper cornice of the eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension; furthermore, as for the Chambers on the opposite side of the Main Chamber (Chamber 1 and 2), the thickness of the rock separating Chamber 5 from a similar Chamber to its South is probably about 1.30 m. This would mean that the transformation of the original Chamber cut about 1.00 m of rock, the thickness of the rock between Chamber 5 and the Southern Extension being 0.20-0.30 m, leaving no possible sing of the original ceiling of the supposed Chamber 6. Nevertheless, the existence of a Chamber before the hewing of the Southern Extension is consistent with the standard dimensions of the chambers and the present state of the space (cf. figures 149 and 150); finally, also in the Hypogeum of the Schmidt Institut, which presents the same dimension as H1 in its preserved parts, to the left of the entrance to the Main Chamber there is a Chamber (cf. § 4.1.4). According to Barkay/Kloner 1986, the original space adjacent to Chamber 5 was not a Chamber, but a Preparation Chamber, like the one in H2 (cf. § 1.2.2 and § 5.2.2), but oriented in a different way. The reconstructed dimensions given by the Israeli archaeologists are based on the existing edge on the southern sidewall of the Southern Extension, which is at the end of a straight line of 4.55 m in length, and the estimated line of the northern sidewall, the width of the Preparation Chamber being the same as the width of the reconstructed eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension, namely 2.80 m, for a surface of about 12.74 square m, which is sensibly smaller than the approximately 17 square m of the Preparation Chamber of H2. Indeed, the difference in the relative orientation between the Preparation Chamber in H2 (whose width is greater than its length) and the supposed Preparation Chamber in H1 (whose length is greater than its width), may have been determined by the different configuration of the rock of the cliff where the two burial complexes were hewn. Furthermore, in Cave 24 of the Ketef Hinnom Necropolis, paralleled by Barkay 1994 to H1 and H2, the reconstructed plan shows no Preparation Chamber.⁷⁵ In fact, no other Preparation Chambers are reported in burial facilities in the region. Vincent/Abel 1926 define as “Byzantine” the masonry constituted of large limestone ashlars, which is placed on the carefully levelled bedrock on the southern side of the Southern Extension. The sidewalls of the corridor behind the doorway, report the Dominican scholars, was partially cut in the rock and completed with an arch and the same 75. Cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 94.
215
masonry visible in the Southern Extension (cf. figure 18). They suggest that the unexplored corridor connected H1 with an annex in the compound of the Garden Tomb⁷⁶. The south-eastern corner of the Southern Extension shows the collapsed rock, adjusted in its southern side by means of small stones, in order to fit the large ashlars to the rock, while on the eastern side, two horizontal notches 0.09 m in height might have been used to fix a ceiling, while, under it, the rock is moulded as an ashlar (cf. figure 144). The northern part of the collapsed rock was in place when the notch was carved, as the section of the notch hewn in the protruding rock shows (cf. figure 152), suggesting that the masonry completed the southern part of the Southern Extension and supported a ceiling. Nevertheless, it is impossible to determine whether this ceiling was fixed only on the remaining part of the bedrock, the collapse having damaged all the original ceiling, or along all the rock still in place on the east-west section, if the present state of the rock were the product of a later collapse. A doorway opens in the eastern section of the southern sidewall of the Southern Extension, in front of the modern doorway which leads to the Main Chamber (cf. figures 112, 113 and 153). The lower part of the doorway is hewn in the levelled bedrock, rising about 1 m above the level of the modern concrete floor, and it has a width of 1.17 m on the top and 1.20 m on the bottom, while the upper part is built with large ashlars, hewn in the same limestone of the burial complex, to a height of 2.18 m from the modern concrete floor. The lower step, which measures 0.90 m in width and 0.27-0.29 m in depth, is cut in what may be a former floor, whose eastern side is preserved for a width of about 0.20 m and a height of 0.26 m from the modern concrete floor, and its southern side for a depth of 0.30-0.5 m (cf. figure 153). This supposedly original floor may have been cut in correspondence of a stratigraphic inter-bed (cf. figure 147). The doorway is framed in the bedrock and masonry outer structure, by a frame of 0.7-0.12 m in width. The threshold, 0.90 m long, presents a square of 0.17 m of side recess. Two hinges of 0.07 m in diameter and 0.06 m in depth were carved to hold probably a wooden door, which was locked with a bar inserted in its recess of 0.16 m in height, 0.11 m in width and 0.07 m in depth carved in the correspondent ashlar (cf. figure 153).⁷⁷ This ashlar presents marks of a comb carving tool, while on the surface of the rock and all the ashlars which constitute part of the southern sidewall of the Southern Extension, no tool marks are visible; furthermore, these ashlars present the same kind of decay of the surface of other parts of H1. On the top of the doorway an ashlar protrudes 0.10 m from the frame of the doorway, which has a width between 0.07 m and 76. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 783-784. 77. Modern plaster closes what may have been another recess.
216
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 149
Virtual isometric reconstruction of Chamber 6, H1, looking north-west, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 150
Virtual isometric reconstruction of Chamber 6, H1, looking east, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 151
217
Virtual zenithal view of the Southern Extension, H1, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
0.12 m (cf. figure 154). Finally, the lintel, 1.68 m high and 0.56 m long, is carved in correspondence with the outer frame of the doorway (cf. figure 155). The Southern Extension presents eleven trough graves, including four with arcosolium (grave 1, 5, 8 and 11) and three with niches (2, 3 and 10); eight of the eleven trough graves (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10) were used for the burial of Dominican brothers who died between the end of C19 AD an the beginning of C20 AD (cf. figures 151 and 156). In the western part of the Southern Extension, all the original five through graves are used for modern burial (cf. figure 157). Grave 1 presents an irregular arcosolium, of 2.30 m in length, 0.78 m in height from the modern level, and about 1 m in width, its depth from the border of the arcosolia being 0.50 m or less, according to the only description available of the state before the modern burial, given by Schick 1886.⁷⁸ Grave 2, 0.78 m wide and 2.20 m long, has a well-shaped niche of 0.50 m in depth, 0.76 m in width, the height from the modern surface of the grave being 1 m. A simple Cross is carved in the niche of Grave 2 (cf. figure 158). Grave 3 measures 2.26 m in length and 0.78 m in width, while its niche dimensions are 0.76 m of width, 0.46 m of depth and 0.75 m above the modern level. When H1 was discovered and cleared, in Grave 3 two fragments of a stone sarcophagus were found still in situ, presenting a hewn Cross on the stone slab, as reported by Schcik 1886 and Vincent and Abel 1926 (cf. figures 5 and 78. “Drei Mal neben einander - von W. nach O. - sind in den Boden je zwei (in der westlichen Reihe je drei) Troggräber von auffallender Länge so angelegt worden, dass das untere bis zu einer Höhe von 0,50m nur 0,50m Weite, das obere aber 0,80 m Weite hat”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 76.
16).⁷⁹ Without niche, Grave 4 is 2.17 m long and 0.74 m wide, while the arcosolium Grave 5, 2.28 m long and 1 m high, is vertically covered by the modern concrete which seals the modern tomb. Graves 2, 3 and 4 are separated by a two-three-course masonry of 0.27 m in width, while the original parapets of the two arcosolium graves 1 and 5 are either restored or covered by modern concrete. The central part of the Southern Extension presents three graves, including one with arcosolium on the southern side (cf. figure 159). Grave 6, which was not reused in the modern period, is 2.20 m long, 1.02 m wide in the eastern side, while the western side presents an enlargement on the northern side, in line with Grave 2. The depth of Grave 6, from the preserved masonry which delimit it on three side, is 0.76 m. Grave 7, occupied by a modern burial, has a regular rectangular shape, 2.20 m in length and 1.02 m in width, while arcosolium Grave 8 has been used for two modern burials, which nevertheless leave the original state of the upper part of the western side visible, where a 0.30 m wide Cross is carved from the surface of the rock (cf. figure 160). The length of the arcosolium of Grave 8 is 1.82 m, its height 0.82 m and its width 1.10 m. The upper corners of the arcosolium of Grave 8 were enlarged, at a later time, as the absence of patina in correspondence with the corners suggests. 79. “In der mittleren Abtheilung der westlichen Reihe finden sich, auf den erwähnten Absätzen ruhend, noch zwei Bruchstücke eines Steinsarges. Erklärt sich die auffallende Länge der Gräber viel leicht daraus, dass sie überhaupt dazu bestimmt waren, um Stein oder Holzsärge aufzunehmen?”, Schick, “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber”, 77; “Toutes avaient été ouvertes et dans l’une demeuraient insérés les lambeaux d’un sarcophage en pierre orné d’une grande croix à branches égales”, Vincent/Abel,
218
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 152
Notches and rock moulded as an ashlar, eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension, H1, looking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 153
Doorway on the southern sidewall of the Southern Extension, H1, looking south, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
219
220
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 154
Recess of the locking bar of the Doorway of the Southern Extension, H1, looking south-west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 155
Top of the Doorway of the Southern Extension, H1, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 156
Plan of the Southern Extension, H1, Emmanuel Moisan
221
222
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 157
Western part of the Southern Extension, H1, looking west, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 158
Western part of the Southern Extension, detail, Cross carved in the niche of Grave 2, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 159
Central part of the Southern Extension, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 160
Western side of Grave 8, Southern Extension, H1, looking south-west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
223
224
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 161
Graves 10 and 11, Southern Extension, H1, looking south, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 162
East-west wall (in the foreground of the northern side of Grave 11), Southern Extension, H1, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 163
East-west wall and eastern sidewall, Southern Extension, H1, looking north-east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
225
226
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
In the eastern row of the Southern Extension, Grave 9 presents of 2.25 m long, between 0.97 m and 1.03 m wide, and between 0.83 m and 0.87 m below the level of the preserved course of the east-west wall. Grave 10, 2.20 m long, between 0.86 m and 1 m wide, has a niche 1.33 above the modern concrete covering, which seals no modern burial.⁸⁰ Finally, Grave 11 is the only arcosolium grave preserved in its original shape, measuring in the inner part 2.40 m of length, 1.25 m in width, while the arcosolium opening measures 1.80 m in length and 1.20 m in height. The ground of Grave 11 presents a slope, from west to east, the depth of the grave from the board of the arcosolium being 0.46 m in the western part and 0.65 m in the eastern part (cf. figure 161). The trough graves are delimited by the large east-west wall, 5 m long, 0.56 m wide, preserved at a height of 0.76 m from the ground, two smaller north-south walls, preserved at the same height (between 0.27 m and 0.30 m in width), and two east-west walls of 0.27 m in width, which delimit Graves 2, 3 and 4 (cf. figures 151 and 156). The walls are built of finely dressed ashlars, 0.30 m in height for the small walls and 0.40 m in height for the large wall (cf. figure 162). The ashlars are cemented with a grey mortar rich in charcoal chippings, visible on the eastern sidewall of the Southern Extension in correspondence with the east-west wall, for at least two more courses of ashlars (cf. figure 163). It is worth noting that the openings of the arcosolia of Graves 1 and 5 are of similar dimensions and shape, while those of Graves 8 and 11 present a shorter opening and squared corners (figures 164 and 165). On the northern side of the Southern Extension, in correspondence with Grave 6, the remains of a wall suggest that, in a later period, the enlarged carving of the Extension in its western part was filled in order to build a rectangular grave of regular dimensions (cf. figure 166). The surfaces of the Southern Extension show the toolmarks of iron picks, with the exception of the niches, where the carved rock was smoothed (cf. figures 162 and 163). A small arched stair, built of limestone blocs, rises from Grave 10 to one course above the level of the east-west wall (cf. figures 156 and 167). A reddish water-repellent plaster covers the eastern side of the steps, while a recess of 0.26 m in width, 0.24 m in height and 0.12 m in depth is carved in the southern sidewall of the Southern Extension, in front of the third step of the stair. A similar stair Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 783. 80. The height of the east-west wall above the modern concrete floor is 0.66 m, which is about 0.20 m above the level of the bedrock in adjacent Grave 9, suggesting that the modern floor covers no burial, as is also suggested by the absence of a tombstone, whereas on all the other graves used for modern burials a small tombstone is engraved with the name of the deceased Dominican brother.
was found in a Byzantine burial complex in the Albright Archaeological Institute in Salah ed-Din Street, in 1932 (cf. figures 168 and 169). Because of its organisation with trough graves and its general plan, these tombs represent a major parallel to the Southern Extension; their dating is assured by the material culture retrieved during the excavations, pointing to the late fifth – early sixth century AD.⁸¹ According to the captions of figures 12 and 13, the bedrock on the northern sidewall of the Southern Extension was still in place with a height between 0.50 m and 1.50 m, when H1 was discovered. To build the masonry which replaces the collapsed one, the Dominicans regularised the bedrock, to the level of the floor of the Main Chamber, on the eastern side, and to different heights on the western side, probably squaring off the irregular slope of the rock (cf. figure 148). In the central section, a sort of panel is engraved, of 0.70 m high and 0.50 m wide, educing a 0.11 m wide right-angled cornice on its eastern side. The absence of patina seems to point to a modern carving of the panel. On the southern side of the Southern Extension, the bedrock is levelled on both sides of the doorway, at 1 m from the modern concrete floor, like the bed of the masonry still in place east of the doorway, but completely absent on the other side (cf. figures 147 and 164). In correspondence with what may have been the western sidewall of the Preparation Chamber the bedrock slopes down toward the Modern Chapel to the west, where the bedrock was levelled to match with the floor of the Modern Chapel, being filled with concrete where it was lower than the floor, sloping to the west under the level of the floor, which in that area is constituted by slabs of different sizes (cf. figure 170). Finally, concerning the original roofing of lower part of the Southern Extension, as noted by Schick 1886, at a certain time, a restoration was realised: two wood beams may have been inserted in the notches still visible on the southern and northern sidewall of the Southern Extension (cf. figures 147 and 148) and a wooden plank floor may have roofed the lower part of the Southern Extension, placed over the beams and the lateral rabbets running at the floor level on the southern sidewall, now covered by the modern floor, reconstructed in the 3D model (cf. figures 19, 146 and 151).⁸² The possibility of a covering 81. Cf. M. Burrows, “The Byzantine Tombs in the Garden of the Jerusalem School”, BASOR 47 (1932) 28-35, on p. 29. 82. “The whole enclosure of this peculiar group of graves appears to have been restored by means of small planks or laths. On the long sides hewn in the rock there are small furrows or rabbets running horizontally, by mens of which one plank after another was let into the hewn groove in the side, and then finished up sidewards into the rabbet opposite, till a closely built plank covering was formed”, Schick, “The Newly Discovered”, 157. It is worth noting, that the four recesses for the beams are at a higher level than the supposed floor.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 164
Virtual section of the southern part of the Southern Extension, H1, looking south, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 165
Virtual section of the northern part of the Southern Extension, H1, looking north, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
227
228
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 166
Remains of a wall on the northern sidewall, Southern Extension, H1, looking north, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 167
Stair on Grave 10, Southern Extension, H1, looking west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 168
Stair, Byzantine Tomb, Albright Institute, JErusaelm, cf. Burrows 1932, fig. 4, 30
fig. 169
Plan and sections of a Byzantine burial complex, Albright Institute, Jerusalem, cf. Burrows 1932, fig. 8, 3
229
230
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 170
Virtual zenithal view of the southern part of the Modern Chapel, H1, red line showing limits between the bedrock and the modern slabs, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
by vaulted masonry is ruled out by Schick 1886, because of the small size (0.20 m) and the shape of the recesses and arched grooves,⁸³ while Vincent/Abel 1926 propose a possible low masonry vault as intermediate roofing of this Extension.⁸⁴ In fact, the organisation of the Southern Extension and the functioning of the spaces and the successive phases of this part of H1 are extremely difficult to understand.⁸⁵ The Northern Extension is a space 3.30 m long and 3.45 m wide, hewn north of the Vestibule. It presents six trough graves, the eastern ones with a niche on the eastern 83. Cf. Schick, “The Newly Discovered”, 157. Schick 1866 adds also that no rests of a collapsed masonry vault were discovered in the Extension (ibid.). 84. “Une voûte basse, dont les retombées s’engageaient en des sillons creusés sur les parois longitudinales - peut-être un simple plafond - couvrait jadis cette crypte à un niveau légèrement plus élevé que celui de l’hypogée primitif ”, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. 85. If it is clear that the doorway opening to the Corridor was not in connection with the stair in the lower part of the Southern Extension, either this doorway precedes the hewing of the lower part, being then in connection with an original floor of a Preparation Chamber, for example, or the entire floor, during the Byzantine time, was covered with planks placed in the lateral furrows and on the central east-west wall (which arrived at the same level of the doorway between the Southern Extension and Chamber 5, at least at its eastern side, since remains of the mortar of this wall are still visible on the eastern sidewall of the lower part of the Extension), with a stair built on the east-west wall descending from the doorway of Chamber 5 to the lower part of the Extension, where the planks were removed when the access to the lower part was needed. If this last explanation may work for 2/3 of the Southern Extension, the roofing of its westernmost part seem to be inexplicable, unless to suppose that its ceiling was the bedrock, and that only the eastern part of the Southern Extension presented two floors.
side. Three of them (graves 1, 4 and 5) were reused for burials in modern time, and therefore are not accessible to the survey (cf. figures 171 to 173). The graves were covered by slabs, some of which were found when H1 was cleared, one (1 m x 0.65 m x 0.10 m) presenting an engraved Greek inscription, dated to C5 AD, found on Grave 2.⁸⁶ On the eastern sidewall, the bedrock is preserved at a maximum height of 1.80 m, while all over the three sidewalls, it was levelled at various heights to place the modern masonry (cf. figures 19 and 172). The surface of the rock was also cut vertically to match with the modern wall, as the absence of the patina and the tool marks show clearly (cf. figure 172). Graves 2 and 3 present irregular niches carved to the eastern side (Grave 1 is no longer visible, but the presence of a niche is attested in figures 16 and 171, and by a modern, fine mortar which seals the niche, whose profile is visible on the northern sidewall of Grave 2). The graves measure approximately 1.70 m in length, between 0.80 m and 0.92 m in width⁸⁷ and 0.92 m in depth. On the bottom, on the western side, in both Graves 2 and 3 a slope reduces their depth to 0.75 m and 0.80 m respectively (cf. figure 174). 86. “Vides aussi les auges sépulcrales de l’annexe Nord, E, où les pillards avaient toutefois laissé en place un petit nombre des dalles de fermeture; l’une d’elles (sur la tombe 2), obliquement brisée, portait une épitaphe byzantine de lecture limpide: [...] †Tombeau particulier du diacre Euthymios Pindir醔, Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784. In CIIP n° 883, dated to C6 AD, and translated “Tomb belonging to Euthymius the deacon, (son) of Pindires”. 87. The width of Grave 2 is 0.90 m, while Grave 3 presents a trapezoidal shape: 0.80 m in width in the eastern part and 0.92 m in the western part.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 171
Plan of the Northern Extension, H1, Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 172
Northern Extension, H1, lokking east, photo Emmanuel Moisan
231
232
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 173
Virtual zenithal view of the Northern Extension, H1, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 174
Grave 2, Northern Extension, H1, looking south, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 175
Grave 6, Northern Extesion, H1, looking west, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
fig. 176
233
Grave 6, Northern Extesion, H1, looking east, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert
234
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 177
Virtual “external” section of Graves 2, 3, and 6, Northern Extension, H1, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 178
Grave 6, Northern Extesion, H1, looking south-west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 179
Grave 6, Northern Extesion, H1, looking north, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 180
Grave 3, Northern Extesion, H1, looking west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
235
236
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 181
Grave 2, Northern Extesion, H1, looking west, photo Emmanuel Moisan
fig. 182
Virtual section of the Northern Extension, Graves 2, 3, and 6, H1, looking north-east, 3D model Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
Grave 6 presents three ancient masonries at the bottom, two along the long sidewalls and one in the middle, creating two separate narrow spaces (cf. figures 170, 175 and 176).⁸⁸ The depth of Grave 6 from the modern surface is 0.92 m to the masonries, and 1.20 m to the bottom of the grave, with the western part rising 0.34 m, up to the level of the three masonries. Its width is 1 m on the eastern part and 0.92 m in the western part, while its maximum length is 1.74 m (cf. figures 170). In the eastern part, on the bottom, a round depression 0.30 m in diameter and 0.15 m in depth is hewn in the bedrock, partially covered by the middle masonry (cf. figure 176). On the southern sidewall two recesses (0.30 m in length, 0.10 m in height and 0.06 m in depth) are carved in the bedrock at 0.50 m from each, at almost the same level as that of the preserved bedrock visible on the northern side of the grave (cf. figure 178). On the western side of Grave 6, a stone embedded in a mortar covers part of the northern space divided by the middle masonry, while two superposed modern slabs elevate the western part of the grave to the modern level of the Northern Extension (cf. figure 179). Finally, in all the three accessible graves the levelled bedrock is visible at about 0.30 m from the bottom of Graves 2 and 3, and from the level of the masonry rising on the northern side from the bottom of Grave 6 (cf. figures 177 and 182). Small-stone masonries, partly covered by a granular rose plaster, elevate the sidewalls of the three graves to the modern level of the Northern Extension, the upper part of these sidewalls being partially plastered with modern cement (cf. figures 174, 179 to 181). It is worth noting that in Schick’s 1886 C-D section of H1 (cf. figure 7), though not precise, the level of the bedrock of Grave 5 (today sealed by a modern burial) seems to be consistent with its level in the graves accessible today, while figure 19 presents no difference between the bedrock and the masonry on the sidewall of Graves 4 to 6, represented in the section.⁸⁹ 5.2.2 Architectural features of Hypogeum 2 Hypogeum 2 presents similar architectural features to Hypogeum 1; however, dimensions, orientation and other features are sensibly different, notably the absence of any decoration, with the exception of the right-angled cornice in the Preparation Chamber. The modern access to H2 was built on the northern side of the burial complex at the beginning of C20 AD, together with the modern masonry which completes the disrupted rock, the vaulted ceilings of the Main Chamber, of the Preparation Chamber and the ceilings of the chambers where the rock collapsed (Chambers 1 and 4-7). This 88. The masonry was in place when H1 was discovered, as reported by De Vaux 1888 (cf. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles”, 34). 89. Furthermore, in this section, Grave 6 is represented without the three masonries at the bottom.
237
modern access is constituted by a doorway, two square openings and a modern stair which leads from the level of the nearby Basilica, 2 m down to the floor of the Main Chamber of H2 (cf. figures 183 to 189).⁹⁰ The Original Entrance of H2 was at the southern sidewall of the Main Chamber.⁹¹ The Doorway to the Main Chamber measuring 0.75 m in width, while the preserved height of the sidewall in correspondence of the opening is 0.68 m on the western side and 0.82 m on the eastern side, measured from the floor of the Main Chamber (cf. figure 188). Figure 186 shows that the southern part of H2, namely the Vestibule,⁹² was preserved and protected by a retaining wall built against the east-west path, today tarred, while the Vestibule and other parts of the burial caves were covered with earth, and the entrance and the southern sidewall of the Main Chamber were walled up with modern masonry (cf. figure 185 to 189).⁹³ Of the dimensions of the Vestibule, only its width can be estimated,⁹⁴ where it presents the same dimension of the width of the Main Chamber, namely 4.50 m. The Step at the entrance to the Vestibule is only partially preserved. It measures 1.40 m in length, 0.70 m in width and 0.20 m in height, in the less disrupted parts. Only poor traces of the hinges are still visible (cf. figure 188). The Main Chamber presents quite regular dimensions: 7.20 m and 7.15 m in length for the western and the eastern sides respectively, 4.52 m and 4.50 m in width for the southern and the northern sides respectively. The original height of the Main Chamber cannot be measured, since the original ceiling collapsed in ancient times and was replaced with a wooden roof, probably during the reutilisation of the tomb in the Byzantine period.⁹⁵ Eight Doorways lead to seven Chambers and a Preparation Chamber. Only the doorways of Chambers 2 and 3 are preserved to their original height of 1.68 m, the rest being restored in modern time (cf. figure 189). All the doorways present the same dimensions, namely 0.75 m in width, a depth of 0.45 m in the upper part and of 0.50 m in the lower;⁹⁶ the thresholds rise between 0 m and 90. As pointed out in § 1.2.2, the dates of the discovery and its restoration are not known. 91. H2 present a north-west / south-east orientation. To simplify the reading, only the main north-south orientation is used in the presentation. 92. It is not possible to ascertain if the access to H2 was through a vestibule or a courtyard; nevertheless, assuming that the plan of H2 is similar to the plan of H1, the argumentations in favor of the existence of a roofed vestibule at the access of H1, presented in § 5.2.1, may be applied to H2 as well. 93. The photo attests that the Vestibule drawn in figure 20 is not a reconstruction by Vincent, but it is probably the actual plan of this part of H2, now inaccessible. 94. From figure 21. 95. Cf. § 1.2.2. 96. It is worth noting that the upper and the lower part of the
238
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 183
Plan, H2, Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 184
Sections, H2, Emmanuel Moisan, processing Riccardo Lufrani
239
240
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 185
Restoration of H2, looking north, EBAF Archives
fig. 186
Restoration, H2, looking south, EBAF Archives, processing Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
0.08 m from the floor of the Main Chamber, and their depth is 0.51 m (cf. figure 190). The Preparation Chamber⁹⁷ measures 4.77 m and 4.74 m on the southern and northern sides, and 3.62 m and 3.61 m on the western and eastern sides respectively. Part of the original ceiling and a right-angled cornice is preserved in the north-eastern corner, the south-eastern corner and the eastern and southern sides, giving the original height of the Chamber, namely 2.58 m. (northeastern corner) and 2.53 m (south-eastern corner). The cornice measures 0.12-0.13 m in height and 0.06-0.07 m in depth (cf. figures 191 and 192). The south-western corner of the floor is not completely flattened, showing the marks of a straight cutting from the southern doorjamb going Southward for about 0.50 m, 0.30 m above the floor level (cf. figure 193). Chamber 1 was greatly transformed in ancient times; nevertheless most of the original architectural features are still visible. The original doorway was altered in ancient time to fit a door, probably a wooden one. In the threshold was hewn a hinge of 0.08 m in diameter, and a 0.20 m wide band was carved out from the original threshold (cf. figure 194). In the northern outer doorjamb three fairly square recesses were carved (form the bottom one to the upper one measuring respectively 0.06 m in width, 0.08 m in height and 0.06 m in depth; 0.08 m in width, 0.13 m in height and 0.13 m in depth; 0.06 m in width, no clear height can be measured because of the disruption of the rock, and 0.08 m in depth). In both the inner doorjambs, at the same height form the level of the threshold, two perfectly square recesses of 0.10 m per side are carved, presenting a depth of 0.09 m for the southern doorjamb and 0.19 m for the northern one (cf. figures 195 and 196). The inner doorjambs were also enlarged by hewing the rock 0.07-0.08 m for the southern doorjamb and 0.05-0.07 m for the northern one, making possible the opening of the door inside the Main Chamber. Chamber 1 is 2.56 m long⁹⁸ and 2.38 m wide, the original height being lost, because of the modern concrete ceiling. The southern bench is the only one which presents the original features. It is 1.85 m long and 0.75 m wide, comprising the parapets, which are 0.09 m in width and between 0.09 m and 0.12 m in height, the height of the bench being 1.03 m. The headrest has a length of 0.26 m, a width of 0.40 m and a height of 0.07 m, and at its centre it presents a regular hemispherical recess of 0.20 m in diameter (cf. figure 197 and 198). doorways present the same width (0.75 m), while in a regular basis in H1 the width at the bottom is shorter than on the top of the doorways (cf. § 5.2.1). 97. The interpretation of this space as a preparation chamber for the dead bodies was given first by Barkay/Kloner 1986 (cf. § 1.2.2). 98. A small portion of the bedrock is still visible on the western sidewall, which is almost totally built of modern masonry.
241
The rock of the northern bench, probably already carved out as a Repository (Repository 1) was partly destroyed in ancient times to create the ‘Hidden Grave’ (see later in this Section), then reconstructed with square red bricks 0.26 m in side and 0.03 m in thickness, covered by a thick plaster (cf. figure 199). This bench measures 1.84 m in length, between 0.77 m and 0.79 m in width and 1.03 m in height. Repository 1 was probably enlarged when the ‘Hidden Grave’ was hewn. The opening of the Repository was blocked by the same brick masonry which was used to fill the repository itself. Most of the masonry was dismantled when the grave was discovered (cf. figure 200).⁹⁹ In ancient times, an arch of roughly dressed limestone blocks was built on the transversal bench, which measures 2.38 m in length and 0.75 m in width; the arch was partly dismantled during the modern restoration of H2 (cf. figures 201 and 22). There are two steps abutting to the transversal bench: the lower one is 0.12 m in height and 0.30 m in width, and the other 0.20 m in height and 0.32 m width. Chamber 2 measures between 2.58 m and 2.60 m in length, 2.38 in width and 2.20 m in height. The rock of the southern bench was almost totally disrupted in ancient times, and partly replaced by the same masonry found in Chamber 1, which sealed the ‘Hidden Grave’. The bench measures 1.84 m in length, 0.70 m in width and about 1 m in height (cf. figure 202). The northern bench is 1.90 m long, 0.77 m wide and 1.03 m high. Where preserved, the 0.09 m wide parapet rises at 0.13 m from the surface of the bench. The headrest is badly damaged, its remains measuring about 0.36 m in length, 0.40 m in width, and 0.13 in height. The opening of the repository under this bench is damaged in its upper part, measuring 0.52 m in width, 0.60 m in height (estimated) and 0.25 m in thickness (cf. figure 203). The transversal bench is 2.38 m long and 0.77 m wide. On its northern side, it presents one of the best preserved headrest of H2; the headrest measures 0.34 m in length, 0.33 m in width and 0.13 m in height, while the hemispherical recess has a diameter of 0.20 m. In contrast, the southern headrest is a rough square frame 0.36 m in length and 0.32 m in width. The western sidewall presents an opening about 1.25 m in width, exposing a thickness of the rock sidewall of about 0.20 m. This opening is sealed by modern masonry, while a rectangular area of the ceiling, in correspondence with the opening, is filled by modern concrete (cf. figure 204). The opening of Repository 2 under the northern bench is badly damaged. It measures 0.54 m in width, 0.24 m in depth, while the estimated height is between 0.57 m and 0.60 m. The Repository is approximately a 99. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786.
242
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 187
Modern entrance, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 188
Original entrance, H2, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 189
243
Western sidewall, Main Chamber, H2, looking west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
parallelepiped of 1.54 m in length, 1 m in width and 0.70 m in height. In the northern sidewall a square window (about 0.74 m in width, 0.87 m in height, and 0.26 m in thickness) connect Chamber 2 to Chamber 3. In the western side of the window is carved a doorjamb for a wooden door, which was opened inside Chamber 2 (cf. figure 205). There are two steps abutting to the transversal bench: the lower one measures 0.13 m in height and 0.28 m in width, and the other 0.18 m in height and 0.27 m in width. The “Hidden Grave”¹⁰⁰ measures 2.10 m in length, 0.60 m in width and about 0.70 m in depth, the eastern part of the bottom of the grave rising about 0.10 m compared to the western side. The grave was sealed by four limestone slabs;¹⁰¹ the one still in situ measures 0.90 m in length, 0.45 m in width and 0.07 m in thickness. Placed in a not perfectly symmetrical way, three iron bars supported the slabs. The bars are about 0.80 m long, 0.05 m wide and 0.02 m thick (cf. figure 202). Vincent/Abel 1926 noted that the deviation of the grave from the orientation of the longitudinal axe of the benches where it was hewn is so evident, that it may have been done on purpose;¹⁰² yet, as pointed out above concerning the asymmetrical iron bars, the overall execution of this grave appears not to be particularly accurate, and the deviation of its orientation seems to be more the re100. Cf. § 1.2.2, and note 114 in Chapter 1, in particular for the description of the discovery of the “Hidden Grave” and of the material culture found in it. 101. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786. 102. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 786.
sult of the difficult hewing in the narrow space of the repository than a deliberate choice.¹⁰³ Unfortunately, the information available on the material culture retrieved in the unviolated grave is too brief to prove more than that it was a Christian burial, probably Byzantine.¹⁰⁴ Chamber 3 presents the following dimensions: between 2.56 m and 2.58 m in length, 2.45 m in width and 2.30 m in height. The southern bench rises at a height of 1.09 m from the floor of the Chamber, is 1.81 m long and 0.77 m wide. The well-preserved headrest is 0.32 m long, 0.32 m wide and presents a height of 0.08 m, while the parapet is 0.08 m wide and 0.10 m high (cf. figure 206). Similar dimensions are shown by the northern bench, which is partially damaged by a fracture of the rock: 1.10 m from the floor of the Chamber; 1.80 m in length, 0.77 m in width; the headrest is 0.32 m long, 0.35 m wide and 0.09 m high (cf. figures 207 and 208). In the line of the same fracture, the bench presents an irregular hole which connects it with Repository 3. The opening of the Repository under the bench measures 0.52 m in width, 103. The orientation of the axe of the “Hidden Grave” is south-west / north-east, pointing to no ideologically significant sites. 104. In the grave were found the remains of a wooden coffin and some nails (cf. note 114 in Chapter 1). The use of wooden coffins in Byzantine tombs is attested in Jerusalem (for example, see Avni/Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs, 13. Furthermore, the presence of glass phials in the grave point to the Byzantine period (for example see, Amit/Wolff, “An Armenian Monastery”, 293-8.
244
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 190
Doorway of Chamber 3, H2, looking west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 191
Eastern sidewall, Preparation Chamber, H2, looking east, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 192
North-eastern corner of the ceiling, Preparation Chamber, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
245
246
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 193
South-western corner, Preparation Chamber, H2, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 194
Threshold of Chamber 1, H2, looking west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 195
Southern doorjamb of Chamber 1, H2, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
247
248
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 196
Northern doorjamb of Chamber 1, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 197
Southern bench, Chamber 1, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
249
250
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 198
Headrest of the southern bench, Chamber 1, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
0.64 m in height and 0.26 m in depth. It has an irregular right-triangular shape, whose sides are about 2.60 m and 1.80 m, while its height is between 0.90 m and 1 m. The transversal bench is 2.45 m long, 0.72 m wide, with a parapet 0.09 m wide and 0.10 m high. The two headrests measure respectively 0.35 m in width, 0.34 m in length and 0.10 m in height for the southern headrest, 0.35 m in length and width and 0.07 m in height, for the northern one (cf. fig 209). There are two steps abutting to the transversal bench: the lower one measures 0.20 m in height and 0.20 m in width, and the other 0.13 m in height and 0.22 m in width. Chamber 4, 2.78 m in length and 2.32 m in width,¹⁰⁵ is characterised by the poor quality of the rock. The benches are slightly lower than in the other Chambers of H2, namely 0.96 m for the western bench and 0.99 m for the eastern bench, while the length is about 2 m and the width is 0.72 m for the western bench and 0.76 m for the eastern one, the transversal bench measuring 0.77 m of width.¹⁰⁶ Between the eastern bench and the eastern sidewall, a large irregular hole (0.70 m long) connects Chamber 4 to Repository 3. 105. The height of Chamber 4 cannot be measured, because the original ceiling was completely lost, and was replaced by a modern concrete one. 106. The poor quality of the rock may have made it necessary to carve the ceiling at a lower level in the other Chambers, and consequently to lower the height of the benches. Another possibility is that the level of the surface of the rock was lower, requiring a lower ceiling.
The headrests of the western and the eastern benches were not completely carved, leaving the rock at a preparation stage, while for the transversal bench, its western headrest was roughly carved (0.35 m in length, 0.40 m in width and 0.10 m in height), while its eastern headrest was fully hewn out of the rock (0.34 m in length and in width and 0.09 m in height) (cf. figure 210). There are two steps which rise towards the transversal bench: the lower one measures 0.15 m in height and 0.24 m in width, and the other 0.20 m in height and 0.28 m in width. Chamber 5 is 2.72 m long and between 2.43 m and 2.46 m wide. Interrupted by a large fracture,¹⁰⁷ the western bench rises to a height of 1.08 m, being 2 m long and 0.79 m wide. Its headrest was not completely carved, measuring 0.35 m in length, 0.39 m in width and 0.10 m in height (cf. figure 211). The parapet, damaged by the fracture, is 0.09 m wide and 0.10 m high. Similarly, the eastern bench is 2 m long, 0.77 m wide and rises to a height of 1.06 m from the ground of the Chamber. The headrest is 0.30 m long, 0.36 m wide and 0.10 m high. The parapet is almost completely destroyed, measuring 0.11 m in width and 0.13 m in height where it is preserved, while the opening of Repository 4 measures 0.52 m in width, 0.55 m of height and 0.22 m in depth. Repository 4 presents a semi-circular shape measuring about 2 m in length, 1.20 m in width and 0.75 m in height. Its opening is 0.52 m wide, 0.55 m high and 0.22 m deep. 107. Cf. § 5.1.2.
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 199
Northern bench, Chamber 1, H2, looking east, photo Riccardo Lufrani
251
252
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 200
Masonry in Repository 1, Chamber 1, H2, looking south, photo taken inside the repository, Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 201
Transversal bench, Chamber 1, H2, looking west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 202
“Hidden Grave”, Chamber 2, H2, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 203
Northern bench, Chamber 2, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
253
254
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 204
Transversal bench, Chamber 2, H2, looking west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 205
Chamber 2, H2, looking north-west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 206
255
Southern bench, Chamber 3, looking south-west, photo Riccardo Lufrani
The transversal bench, 2.43 m long and 0.70 m wide, is crossed by the above mentioned fracture, which probably caused the collapse of the parapet in the middle segment. The western headrest measures 0.35 m in length, 0.32 m in width, and 0.10 m height, while the eastern one is 0.35 m long, 0.37 m wide and 0.11 m high. Finally, the lower step to the transversal bench is 0.20 m high and 0.28 m wide, while the second one is 0.15 m high and 0.30 m wide. Chamber 6 is 2.70 m long and between 2.37 m and 2.41 m wide.¹⁰⁸ The northern bench, 1.87 m long and 0.76 m wide, rises 1.10 m from the ground. Its parapet, in great part destroyed, rises 0.10 m and is 0.11 m wide. The headrest measures 0.37 m in length, 0.35 m in width and 0.09 m in height. The southern bench, 1.90 m long, 0.77 m wide and 1.08 m high, presents a parapet 0.11 m high and 0.10 m wide, while its headrest is 0.34 m long and 0.38 m wide, rising 0.09 m from the surface of the bench. The transversal bench is 2.37 m long and 0.77 m wide. Its parapet is 0.11 m wide and 0.11 m wide, while the northern headrest is 0.37 m long, 0.33 m wide and 0.12 m high, and the southern one 0.35 m long and wide, and 0.08 m high (cf. figure 212). The lower step is 0.25 m high and 0.26 m wide, while the upper step is 0.18 m high and 0.29 m wide. It is worth noting that in Chamber 6 there is neither a Repository, nor a hole connecting the Chamber to the nearby Repository 5 of Chamber 7.
Finally, Chamber 7 presents a length between 2.58 m and 2.64 m, while its width is between 2.32 m and 2.36 m.¹⁰⁹ The northern bench, 1.83 m long and 0.71 m wide, rises 1.08 m from the floor of the Chamber. Its headrest is 0.30 m long and 0.38 m wide, presenting a height of 0.09 m, while its parapet, where preserved, is 0.09 m wide and 0.08 m high. The southern bench, 1.86 m long, 0.77 m wide and 1.11 m high, presents a headrest 0.25 m long and 0.32 m wide, which is almost completely erased. Its parapet, badly degraded, is 0.09 m wide and 0.08 m high (cf. figure 213). The transversal bench, 2.37 m long and 0.75 m wide, presents two badly damaged headrests: the northern one is 0.30 m long and 0.38 m, wide, while the southern one is almost totally levelled. The steps abutting to the transversal bench are 0.20 m in height and 0.21 in width, the lower one, and 0.15 m in height and 0.30 m in width, the upper one. The opening of Repository 5, under the northern bench, measures 0.47 m in width, 0.58 m in height and 0.28 m in depth. The Repository presents an approximate parallelepiped volume of 1.32 m in length, 1 m in width and 0.73 m in height.
108. The height of Chamber 6 cannot be measured, because the original ceiling was completely lost, and was replaced by a modern concrete one.
109. The height of Chamber 7 cannot be measured, because the original ceiling was completely lost, and was replaced by a modern concrete one.
256
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 207
Northern bench, Chamber 3, H2, looking north, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 208
Western bench, Chamber 4, H2, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
257
258
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 209
Transversal bench, Chamber 3, H2, looking east, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 210
Eastern headrest, transversal bench, Chamber 4, H2, looking east, photo Riccardo Lufrani
Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea
fig. 211
Headrest, western bench, Chamber 5, H2, looking east, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 212
Transversal bench, Chamber 6, H2, photo Riccardo Lufrani
259
260
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 213
Southern bench, Chamber 7, H2, looking south, photo Riccardo Lufrani
5.3 The material culture discovered in Hypogeum 1 As reported in Chapter 1, the SEC Hypogea were cleared at their discovery, and no detailed report of the material culture retrieved is available.¹¹⁰ Oil lamps with Jewish symbols were found in H1,¹¹¹ but unfortunately no other details are given by Vincent/Abel 1926. In fact, the identification of some of the oil lamps retrieved in H1 as Jewish point to a span of time comprised between the Hellenistic period¹¹² and the Byzantine period.¹¹³ In this Section are presented the Metal Box found in a recess carved in the floor of the Main Chamber of H1 in 1885 (cf. § 5.3.1), two fragments of lead coffin (§ 5.3.2) and a coin (cf. § 5.3.3) retrieved in H1 during a survey conducted using a metal detector on 23rd July 2013. 5.3.1 The Metal Box found in the Main Chamber The descriptions of the Metal Box given by Ludovic De Vaux constitute the only elements available to attempt a 110. Cf. § 1.2. 111. The material culture reported for H2 is limited to the findings in the “Hidden Grave”, dating to the Byzantine period (cf. note 102 in Chapter 1). 112. Cf. J. Mlynarczyk, “Terracotta oil lamps from Qumran: the typology”, RB 120 (2013) 99-133. 113. Cf. V. Sussman, “Secular and Religious Life in the Holy Land in the Roman and Byzantine Periods as illustrated on Oil Lamps”, in L., Chrzanovski (dir.), Nouveautés Lychnologiques (Sierre: LynchoService, 2003) 223-36.
dating of the object.¹¹⁴ In fact, no other recess such as the one in the Main Chamber of H1 are reported in Jerusalem and no parallel for the Metal Box can be considered for comparison. The elements of the decorations described by De Vaux as ‘foliage garlands artistically intertwined’, three naked children holding hands, or two figures holding an urn, point to greco-roman style decoration, which are typical of Roman marble sarcophagi in C3 AD.¹¹⁵ The nearest parallel of such a decoration on a metal material are the lead coffins, widespread in Jerusalem in the Late Roman and Byzantine times. For example, a lead coffin found in Netanya is embellished with foliage motif, or a lead coffin retrieved in Salah ed-Din Street, some hundreds metres north of the SEC, which presents a decoration with foliage and grapes,¹¹⁶ both coffins dating between mid C3 AD to early C4 AD,¹¹⁷ while motifs of Erotes are common in Late Roman coffins in Jerusalem.¹¹⁸ Since no Cross is reported in De Vaux description, neither the kind of metal of the box, we can only speculate 114. The first description given by De Vaux in 1886 is quoted in the text in § 1.2.1, while his second description is related in note 70 in Chapter 1. 115. Cf. G. Koch, Sarkophage der Römischen Keiserzeit (Darmstadt: WBG, 1993) abb. 1-4, 27-32. 116. “This fragment was recovered in 1949, in the course of the development of Netanya at the western part of Umm Khalid (map ref. 138 193), a site containing Late Roman - Byzantine (third to fifht centuries C.E.) as well as Crusader remains”, L.Y. Rahmani, “More Lead Coffins from Israel”, IEJ 37 (1987) 123-46, on p. 124. 117. Cf. L.Y. Rahmani, “Five Lead Coffins from Israel”, IEJ 42 (1992) 81-102, on p. 88. 118. Cf. Rahmani, “More Lead Coffins”, 123, note 3.
The material culture discovered in Hypogeum 1
that the Metal Box may have been a small lead coffin, probably for a new-born child, dated to the Late Roman period, even if none of lead coffins found present the dimensions of the Metal Box found.¹¹⁹ If the Metal Box may have been the coffin of a child, as De Vaux proposed,¹²⁰ Schick 1886 reports that he was said that the content of the Metal Box consisted of bird bones,¹²¹ which hints to a votive deposit, and not a burial; nevertheless no such votive deposit in metal boxes were retrieved in Jerusalem so far. 5.3.2 Two fragments of lead coffin found in Chamber 5 During the survey in July 2013, two fragments of lead coffin were discovered in H1, among the debris of Chamber 5 (cf. figure 141). The first fragment measures 34 mm in length, 25 mm in height and 4 mm in thickness (cf. figure 214). It presents a decoration in form of a cord of 6 mm in diameter applied on the surface. In the Jerusalem area, this kind of decoration on lead coffins was used from C3 AD on pagan coffins, until the second half of C5 AD on christian ones.¹²² The cord decoration¹²³ was used for reproducing the wrapping of the 119. Another possible interpretation for the Metal Box would be to consider it an Hellenistic larnax; nevertheless, with the exception of the golden larnakes found with the cremated bones of a man and a women in Tomb 1 at Vergina, no metal larnax were found so far (cf. V. Vlachou, “Death and Burial in the Greek World”, in ThesCRA Vol. VIII, ad. to Vol. VI (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2012) 363-84, on p. 382). 120. Cf. note 70 in Chapter 1. 121. Cf. note 54 in Chapter 1. 122. “Jerusalem, the only inland local center to produce a large number of specimens, differs in its techniques and in almost all of its stamps and their display from both the Lebanese and the other local workshops. During the third century, the motifs seem to have been chosen by devotees to Dionysos, many (if not all) of whom appear to be Roman legionaries or veterans of the Jerusalem garrison and their families. The city’s workshops began production in the second quarter of the third century CE, or perhaps slightly earlier, continuing production of their two types of coffins well into the second half of that century. Their modes of display emphasize protection of the dead and the release of the soul from the bonds of the body and the tomb. Christian coffins, produced by Jerusalem workshops up to the second half of the fifth century, show continuation of these local traditions in technique and display, though now applying the cross both for protection and as an expression of redemption”, L.Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Roman and Byzantine Lead Coffins from Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1999), 84. 123. “*Cord Extensively used on Tyrian coffins as a frame for panels (e.g., No. 8) or to form a star-shaped ornament (below) on the short side (e.g., Fig. 183), and on Sidonian coffins mainly in panel frames (e.g., Nos. 3-6). The cord is employed in a similar manner in Israel at all coastal sites (though only rarely to form a star – Nos. 99, 100). At Ashqelon, the cord sometimes replaces the vine-tendril in rendering the pseudo-gable (§7C; Fig. 87), eventually replacing it in other elements as well (No. 27). On the pagan coffin of Jerusalem (Nos. 47-74, 76) and vicinity (No.
261
coffin¹²⁴ – the cord-bound coffins¹²⁵ -, or in cord loops,¹²⁶ distributed on the surfaces of the coffins and the lids. The cord decoration of fragment 1 being straight, it is probable that it comes from a cord-bound type decoration and not from a loop; nevertheless, in some cases, the ends of the cord loops present a straight part, which is compatible with our fragment. Out of the 38 lead coffins found in the Jerusalem area, 34 present the bound coffin motif, and out of the 31 pagan coffins, 29, namely 94% present this decoration, while out of the 7 christian coffins, 5 present the bound motif, namely 71 %.¹²⁷ The second fragment of lead coffin retrieved in the survey mentioned above measures 45 mm in length, 20 mm in width and 2 mm in thickness (cf. figure 215). It presents a decoration, partly engraved (the border) and partly applied (three spots, two of them lost, and a sort of ribbon), which may be part of a panel decorating the coffin, like on most of the pagan lead coffins found in the Jerusalem area. 5.3.3 A Late Roman coin found in the Main Chamber During the same survey, on the ground of the Main Chamber, in a recess approximately 0.10 m of width and
124.
125. 126.
127.
93), the cord (Figs. 11, 12) is applied diagonally on all sides and lid, forming the bound coffin motif; later, it is used in this manner on that city’s Christian coffins (Nos. 78-82) and on one Be’er Sheva Christian coffin (No. 45). In most cases it was probably applied with a roulette (see above §6A.iv), at times faultily (Fig. 11); in rare cases it appears to have been produced by application of an actual cord, with the imprint showing its knotting (Fig. 14). Eventually this motif is debased (No. 38) to a toothed pattern (Fig. 13) still recognizable as a cord when used in rotated squares (below)”, Rahmani, A Catalogue of Roman, 18-9. Wooden coffins were sometimes wrapped with ropes, once or more times, and fixed with an overhand knot, as in the ‘Ein Gedi wooden coffin (cf. R. Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 490-1). The securing of the coffins with ropes, may have a symbolic meaning for the lead coffins, namely: “the purpose might have been to prevent the ghost of the deceased from escaping its chest to harm the living, as well as to protect the spirit of the dead from the power of evil”, ibid. , 494. Cf. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Roman, 79. “*Cord Loop Loose cord loops appear on 27 of Jerusalem’s 31 pagan coffins, and once only, in a rather debased and careless execution, on a c. mid-fourth century Ashqelon specimen (No. 36; see Fig. 37). The motif consists of a length of looped cord, its loose and frayed ends crossed over the base (Fig. 15). In most cases the motif stands alone, though it occasionally serves as the frame, once of gorgoneion (§7G; Fig. 16), once of a diminutive head (No. 72), once of a grape cluster (No. 55; §7D, Vine), and once, rather pronounced and in single application upon the lid, of an eagle (§7E) in an aedicule (Fig. 17)”, Rahmani, A Catalogue of Roman, 19. Avi-Yonah suggested that the cord loop might be symbol of immortality and resurrection, and also the binding of evil spirits (cf. M. Avi-Yonah, “Three Lead Coffins from Palestine”, JHS 50 (1930) 310-2, on p. 310). These figures are calculated by the present writer from the catalogue of Rahmani 1999.
262
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
fig. 214
Fragment 1 of lead coffin, Chamber 5, H1, photo Riccardo Lufrani
fig. 215
Fragment 2 of lead coffin, Chamber 5, H1, photo Riccardo Lufrani
The material culture discovered in Hypogeum 1
fig. 216
Coin found in the Main Chamber, H1, photo Riccardo Lufrani
263
264
The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics
0.15 m of length, filled with a thick and grey mortar, a bronze coin 23 mm in diameter and 6.22 g in weight was found. The coin was found on the top of the mortar (cf. figure 216). The 7th of October 2013, in a private expertise, Thomas Bauzou identified the coin, however with some reserve because of the poor state of preservation, as a follis of Emperor Maximinus II Daia (308-313 AD); nevertheless, other follis of other Roman emperor of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods may be considered for the identification of the coin retrieved in H1.
5.4 Summary The description of the SEC Hypogea and the material culture retrieved in H1 presented in this Chapter provide several interesting elements for the dating of the two burial complexes, and other similar tombs in the region. In this Section are summarised the considerations resulting from the geological survey in § 5.4.1, and the major points concerning the descriptions of H1 and H2 in § 5.4.2, while the observations on the material culture retrieved in H1 can be found in § 5.4.3, followed by the general considerations on the Chapter in § 5.4.4. 5.4.1 The geological features Carved in the meleke limestone of the exposed Turonian layer of the Jerusalem area, the SEC Hypogea follow the main directions of the local fracturing, which determined the different orientation of H1 (NEE-SWW) and H2 (NNW-SSE).¹²⁸ In several parts of the SEC Hypogea, the natural faults, fractures and inter-bed of the rock were taken into consideration to outline several architectural transitions, such as the lintel of the doorway between Chambers 4 and 4 bis in H1, or the diagonal fracture in the Main Chamber of H2.¹²⁹ The complex hewing of the tombs, carried out with iron picks, left clear marks only in the parts of the Hypogea which were not subsequently polished, such as in the repositories, while the rest of the walls and benches present a finely dressed surface, now seriously decayed because of the dissolution of the rock, accelerated since the clearing of the burial complexes¹³⁰. Finally, it is possible to affirm that, even though the geological patterns characterising the SEC influenced the plan and the orientation and some architectural details of H1 and H2, the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea can be considered well planned and carefully realised, 128. Cf. § 5.1.1. 129. Cf. § 5.1.2. 130. Cf. § 5.1.3.
nevertheless ignoring most of the irregularities of the rock, in order to follow the style scheme. 5.4.2 The architectural features The surveys carried out between 2011 and 2014,¹³¹ cross-referenced with the information coming from the historical evolution of Jerusalem,¹³² the analysis of the necropolis in the region¹³³ and of the use of the burial bench in the region,¹³⁴ associated with the biblical and extra-biblical texts related to the burial customs,¹³⁵ and completed by the first descriptions of the SEC Hypogea which provide details that are now unverifiable,¹³⁶ produced the following major results: - The original access to H1 consisted probably in an uneven courtyard, and a small or large doorway leading to a Vestibule through a three-step stair (cf. fig.s 4-10 and 277-278). - The thickness of the bedrock above H1 was about 0.50 m (cf. fig.s 14 and 277-278). - Both chimneys of H1 are modern, while the opening in the ceiling in Chamber 4 was carved in ancient times; the opening in the ceiling in the Main Chamber seems to have existed before the discovery in 1885 (cf. fig.s 281-282), but it is impossible to determine if it was part of the original plan of the tomb.¹³⁷ - The Entrance Doorway to the Main Chamber of H1 was raised and restored in ancient times (cf. fig.s 17 and 283-284). - The Main Chamber was closed by a double door set on a wooden frame or a removable grating placed on the sockets of the entrance step (cf. fig. 285). - Most likely, originally Chamber 4 was a burial chamber with three benches, like the other burial chambers of H1, and it was later transformed for the carving of Chamber 4 bis.¹³⁸ 131. Geological survey (cf. § 5.1); measurements and photogrammetry (cf. § 5.2) 132. Cf. § 3.1. 133. Cf. § 3.2. 134. Cf. § 3.3. 135. For the textual sources are considered the references studies of Bloch-Smith 1992 for the Iron Age period (cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 109-30), and the work of Hachlili 2005 for the Hellenistic and Roman periods (cf. Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, 447-514). 136. Cf. § 1.2.1. 137. Cf. note 45. 138. The two lateral benches in Chamber 4 are sensibly lower than the average height of the benches of H1, and proportionally larger, these differences being probably the results of the over carving of the existing benches, lowered to have enough rock for the new headrests, oriented according to the direction eastwest of the benches (cf. § 5.2.1).
Summary
- Most probably, the ancient transformations of the Southern Extension disrupted the original Preparation Chamber, as proposed by Barkay/Kloner 1986.¹³⁹ - The opening on the western sidewall of Chamber 5 was seemingly a doorway carved out in Byzantine times, closed by a wooden door fixed on hinges and probably leading to a stair which descended to the Southern Extension (cf. fig.s 305-7). - The presence of notches carved in the collapsed bedrock at the south-eastern corner of the Southern Extension hints at a wooden roofing of the upper part of the Southern Extension of H1, in Byzantine or later times (cf. fig. 315). - A possible configuration of the Southern Extension before the ancient and modern disruptions may be reconstructed supposing that its lower part was covered by the bedrock in the western section, while a roofing made of wooden planks covered the rest of the Extension, allowing the connection with the southern doorway (now blocked by modern masonry), and easily removable when it was required for a burial or any other necessity, in order to access, via the stair, the lower part of the Southern Extension.¹⁴⁰ - The level of the floor of the Northern Extension as it is visible today, in several parts is raised from the bedrock by masonry (cf. fig.s 343-345), this implying that the original graves were less deep than today. - The plan of H2 of Vincent/Abel 1926, which shows a part of the room which precedes the Main Chamber, possibly a Vestibule, may correspond to the observable remains before they were covered by the modern garden (cf. fig.s 21 and 350).
265
5.4.3 The material culture The scant and unsystematic information on the material culture retrieved during the clearing of H1 and H2 suggests a dating range comprised between the Hellenistic and the Byzantine periods, while the descriptions of the Metal Box found in H1 was possibly the lead coffin of a child, dating to the Late Roman period, since no Crosses are reported by De Vaux 1886 and 1888.¹⁴¹ The two fragments of lead coffin retrieved during the survey in July 2013 can be dated between C3 AD to C5 AD, while the bronze coin found in a recess in the floor of the Main Chamber of H1 was identified as a foliis of Emperor Maximinus II Daia, which was minted between 308 and 313 AD.¹⁴² 5.4.4 General considerations The SEC Hypogea were carved following a precise plan and according to a particular style, taking into consideration the geological characteristics of the rock formation, like most of the larger burial caves in Jerusalem, while the size of these burial caves and the finesse and difficulty of their hewing designate them as affluent family tombs. Carved in the western cliff of the Heidhemiyeh Hill, a courtyard preceded the SEC Hypogea, which were accessed through a Vestibule, opening on a large Main Chamber. The comparison with other burial complexes of these architectural features carried out in the next Chapter will offer valuable information for the dating of H1 and H2, since the scant material culture retrieved in H1 points to a large span of time, comprised between the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods.
These observations broaden the available information on the SEC Hypogea, improving the scope of their comparison with the selected twenty-two burial caves. 139. Cf. § 5.2.1. 140. Cf. note 85.
141. Cf. § 1.2.1 and § 5.3.1. 142. Cf. § 5.3.2 and § 5.3.3.
Chapter 6 The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural features If the ancient transformations of H1 can assuredly be dated to the Byzantine period,¹ the dating of the original hewing of the SEC Hypogea, as stressed before,² may be proposed only from a comparison of their architectural features with other burial caves, whose dating is based on archaeological evidence, such as the material culture retrieved in a safe stratigraphic context, C14 or other dating analysis and other objective criteria.³ Unfortunately, almost all the burial caves which present features similar to SEC Hypogea were looted or excavated with poor standards or the results of the excavations are not yet published. In this Chapter are presented the burial caves selected for the comparison (§ 6.1),⁴ followed by the comparative analysis of their architectural features (§ 6.2), and the summary completed by several concluding remarks (§ 6.3).
6.1 The tombs selected for the comparison Preceded by their rank number in the database,⁵ the twenty-one bench-type burial caves which have been selected for the comparison with the SEC Hypogea are presented below, together with two burial caves which are considered for some comparisons with the SEC Hypogea, but cannot be included in the database: 3. Schmidt Institut Hypogeum: see the presentation of the burial complex in § 4.1.4. 1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
Cf. § 1.3.3 and § 5.2.1. Cf. § 1.5. The dating of tombs by their architectural features is widely attested in the scientific literature (cf. A. Fantalkin, “The Appearance of Rock-cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation”, in A. Fantalkin/A. Yassur-Landau (ed.s), Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Series 31 (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 18-9). For the criteria of the selection see § 2.3.1, while for the population of tombs considered for the selection refer to § 2.3.2 Cf. § 2.3.
4. White Sisters Tomb 1: see the presentation of the burial complex in § 4.6.1. 5. Sultan Suleiman Street Cave 1: see the presentation of the burial complex in § 4.1.6. 6. Sultan Suleiman Street Cave 2: see the presentation of the burial complex in § 4.1.6. 7-8. Western City Wall Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 Under the western segment of the Jerusalem City Wall, two tombs were excavated between 1973 and 1978, and studied by Broshi/Gibson in 1982.⁶ Tomb 1 (T.1) and Tomb 2 (T.2) present similar architectural features, T.1 being hewn “at a slightly later date than Tomb 2”.⁷ Two framed entrances lead to T.1, where two raised troughs have sunken headrests. A finely chiselled framed entrance leads to T.2, where two broad benches with sunken headrests on the lateral sidewalls provided room for two bodies each. The more external burial place of each bench is carved out with a rectangular niche in the sidewalls, which possibly was sealed by thin slabs,⁸ fragments of which were found during the excavations, while the entrance opening, rectangular on the façade, has a triangular ceiling in the inner side. Both in T.1 and T.2 no repositories are hewn. In Broshi/Gibson 1994 there is no mention of the material culture retrieved during the first excavations, consequently the dating proposed by the scholars of C8 BC is based on the architectural features currently associated to Iron Age II tombs, i.e. the benches in T.2 and the sunken headrests in both burial caves, and the fact that they are carved under the Hasmonean city wall, which constitutes the terminus ante quem for these two burial caves.⁹ 6. 7. 8. 9.
Cf. Broshi/Gibson, “Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls”, 147-9. Cf. Broshi/Gibson, “Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls”, 148. A recess frames the borders of the rectangular niches for placing the slabs. Cf. Broshi/Gibson, “Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls”, 148-9.
268
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
9-10. Ketef Hinnom Cave 20 and Cave 24 Located on the eastern and northern slopes of Ras edDabbous,¹⁰ in Jerusalem, the multi-chambered benchtype Cave 20 (C.20) and Cave 24 (C.24) in the Ketef Hinnom Necropolis present the multi-chambered plan. The access to C.20 may have been constituted by a forecourt or even a vestibule, for, before the disruption caused by the quarries and explosions,¹¹ the rocky scarp in this part was high enough to allow a closed space, namely a vestibule. In C.20, the burial chambers present a small bench on one side and a far larger one on the other, all without headrest. A repository is carved under the southern bench of the western burial chamber, while a right-angled cornice is still visible on the south-eastern corner of the ceiling of the main chamber. The dating of C.20, linked to the material culture retrieved in Cave 24, is debated, since no final report of the excavations has been published so far,¹² and no detailed stratigraphy is available of the dig of Repository 25 of Cave 24,¹³ where a rich assemblage of more than a thousand finds was retrieved.¹⁴ According to Barkay, who excavated the site between 1975 and 1989, Cave 24 was hewn during C7 BC,¹⁵ while 10. Cf. G.H. Dalman, Jerusalem und sein Gelände (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930), 358. As reported in § 3.2.1, since the publications on the discovery of Cave 24, the area has been named “Ketef Hinnom” by Barkay, and after him by the academic literature (cf. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom, 10). 11. Cf. § 3.2.1. 12. In this sense: “Everyone will join Na’aman ’s criticism of Barkay for neglecting to publish a proper report of his excavation many years ago. This leaves room for much speculation on the nature of the burial cave finds in general, and specifically of the amulets”, S. Ahituv, “A Rejoinder to Nadav Na’aman’s ’A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom”, IEJ 62 (2012) 223-32, on p. 224. 13. Cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 95-105. 14. Cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 85. 15. “The pottery assemblage cannot be paralleled to any assemblage from excavated strata at sites where vessels were used for a short terminal period, as the pottery and other finds from the repository were accumulated over an extended period of time. The general impression is that the pottery assemblage dates from the 7th century to the early 5th century B.C.E. with no gap or ’cultural break’ following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587/6 B.C. E. The main bulk of 255 pottery vessels represents a continuity linking the end of the Monarchy with the period of Babylonian rule and the beginning oft be Persian period. Thus, the assemblage can be divided along general lines into two equal parts: the earlier stage - 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.E.; and the later stage - from the mid-6th to the early 5th centuries B. C. E. However, chronological assignment of the pottery vessels to either group is problematic since parallels from stratified deposits from excavations in Judah are often lacking”, G. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem”, TA 19 (1992) 139-92, on p. 147. Some more detailed information on the stratigraphy of Repository 25 are presented in G. Barkay/A.G. Vaughin/M.J. Lundberg/B. Zuckerman, “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation”, BASOR 334 (2004) 41-71, on pp. 43-4.
Yezerski 2013 classifies Cave 24 of Ketef Hinnom among the post-exilic burial caves.¹⁶ Badly damaged by quarrying activities, probably during the Ottoman period,¹⁷ only two burial chambers of C.24 are partly preserved: the transversal bench of the square southern chamber provided room for four bodies, as the four sunken headrests suggest, while the large rectangular chamber on the west presents two narrow benches (the southern and the transversal) and a large bench in the north with room for at least six bodies. All the benches present sunken headrests. A smaller and intriguing chamber is carved on the western side of the main chamber. Its benches present a depression of 0.20 m, 1.5 m long and 0.40 m wide, while the parapets of the two benches are 0.20 in height. According to Barkay, these benches were used for the “chemical treatment of bodies before they were laid out on the benches in the other chambers of the cave (cf. 2 Chronicles 16:14)”.¹⁸ 11. Mount Zion Burial Cave This two-chambered tomb is hewn on the western slope of Mount Zion, at the northern edge of a line of other burial caves.¹⁹ The entrance chamber presents two benches, while in the lateral chamber three benches surround a central corridor, and a repository is hewn beside the eastern bench. Both chambers are irregular in shape. The tomb was found with its sealing stone in place, two skeletons lying parallel to each other on the southern bench of the entrance chamber, while the remains of three other skeletons were found on the eastern bench.²⁰ The pottery 16. Cf. § 3.3. It is worth noting that the debate on C.24 is focused on the dating of the two Silver Amulets found by Barkay in Repository 25, ranging from the pre-exilic period (cf. G. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem”, Cathedra 52 (1989), (Hebrew) 37-76; cf. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction”, 1992, 139-151; cf. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom”, 85-106; cf. Barkay/Vaughin/Lundberg/Zuckerman, “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom”, 41-71; cf. Ahituv, “A Rejoinder to Nadav Na’aman’s”, 223-32) to the Hellenistic period (N. Na’aman, “A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom”, IEJ 61 (2011) 184-95). 17. Cf. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction”, 1992, 141. 18. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction”, 1992, 142-3. 19. Unfortunately the other tombs are not documented: “The burial caves are situated along a north-south line, in close proximity to each other. The southern caves show signs of later use, whereas the northern one, which is described below, was still sealed with the original blocking stone”, Kloner/Davis, “A Burial Cave”, 107. 20. “In addition to these five skeletons, the cave contained many others that already in ancient times had been removed from their original resting places and carefully arranged on the floor. The skulls were concentrated at the base of the shelf, while the other skeletal parts were placed on the floor nearby. The bones covered the entire floor surface, except for the step at the entrance”, Kloner/Davis, “A Burial Cave”, 108.
The tombs selected for the comparison
retrieved dates to C7 BC, while a seal found in this tomb was dated to C8-7 BC.²¹ 12. Silwan Tomb 12 Tomb 12 (T.12) was the only one-chambered burial cave of this large necropolis with three benches on its sides raised to the same level from the floor, before the later transformations.²² As several other in the Silwan Necropolis, this tomb presents a right-angled cornice under the ceiling.²³ The necropolis of Silwan is dated to the late C8 BC by Ussishkin 1993,²⁴ who supposes that the tombs with gabled ceiling were hewn before those burial caves which present a flat ceiling, such as T.12.²⁵ 13. An-Nabi Danyal Cave 6 An Iron Age II cemetery, with nine burial caves dated to C8-7 BC,²⁶ was surveyed between 1992 and 1995 by David Amit and Irit Yezerski, a few kilometres south-west of Bethlehem, near the maqam an-Nabi Danyal.²⁷ Cave 21. Cf. Kloner/Davis, “A Burial Cave”, 107-10. 22. Also Tomb 38 at Silwan Necropolis presents three benches along the three sides, but the transversal bench is sensibly higher than the other two benches (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 277). 23. Cf. § 6.2.5. 24. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 327. In the same sense, Barkay 2013 dates the “Tombs of Pharaoh’s daughter” to the late C8 BC, beginning of C7 BC (Cf. Barkay, “Who Was Buried”, 12, while Loffreda 1973 dates this tomb to the Late Hellenistic period. Cf. note in 30 Chapter 4. 25. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 281. 26. The tombs are dated on the basis of their architectural features and the material culture found in the area: “All the caves have been robbed and contain almost no indicative finds, but may be dated according to the pottery found in their vicinity. As mentioned above, numerous potsherds are scattered around the surrounding terraces; these date from the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. Also indicative for dating purposes is the similarity of these burial caves to other Judaean caves, which exhibit an architectural tradition that had already crystallised in the ninth century B.C.E. or even earlier”, Amit/Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery”, 192. 27. “Eight of the caves contain single burial chambers, while the other four contain two or three chambers each. The caves display considerable consistency in the style of hewing, chiselling and finish, but differ in depth. Most have hewn forecourts, which, in the case of Caves Nos. 1 and 12, are merely long approach corridors. Some of the entrances are decorated by a frame shaped like a recess. […] All the entrance openings are small and square, with a raised hewn threshold. From the entrance one descends to the cave floor, at times by means of one or more stairs. The chambers themselves are square, with straight, horizontal ceilings. The caves have different sizes, which differ from the average size of the Judaean burial caves in the Iron Age (3.00 2.50-3.00 m.). […] In nearly all the caves the marks of the tools used in hewing out the walls and ceiling are visible; it would appear that the workers did not take the trouble to smooth the surfaces and to provide a superior finish. […] Six of the caves contain a single repository each; only in cave No. 4 were two found. Although the repositories are of various shapes and sizes, most belong to one of two types: either
269
6 is a two-chambered burial cave (an entrance chamber and a side chamber), accessed through a partially covered forecourt similar to the entrance to Cave 9 in the same cemetery, and presenting a trapezoidal repository at the level of the transversal bench. 14. Burial Cave between Beit Hanina and Nabi Samwil This one-chambered burial cave, located about 7 km North of Jerusalem,²⁸ presents a forecourt, a framed façade with a small opening leading to one square chamber, with three benches framing a standing pit, and a pit repository hewn on the surface of the transversal bench. On all the benches are carved sunken headrests and a peculiar rectangular surface.²⁹ Moreover, according to Kloner 2001, the unit of measurement of this burial cave is the long cubit.³⁰ A rescue excavation was carried out by Kloner and Eshel, after the tomb had been robbed subsequent to its discovery in July 1984.³¹ From the sifting of what remained after the robbery, more than 300 fragments of pottery were found, which can be dated to C7-6- BC;³² nevertheless, Kloner dates the hewing of the tomb to a time between the end of the Iron Age II period to the Post-Exilic period, pointing out that the burial had been in use also during the “Second Temple times”.³³
28. 29.
30.
31. 32.
33.
round or square, hewn in one of the chamber’s corners (e.g. in caves Nos. 2 and 4), or else a hewn cell (only in Complex No. 6)”, Amit/Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery”, 190. “The tomb is cut into the rock on the sloping bank of the wadi east of Khirbet Hazur”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 104. “At the head of each one of the benches is a ’cushion’ with a recess which served to receive the heads of corpses. Next to the recesses are slightly raised, smooth rectangular surfaces, measuring 0.30 × 0.25 m on the two side benches, and 0.20 × 0. 15 m on the central bench. These surfaces are located to the right of the headrests on the benches nearest to the entrance, but to the left of the other, central bench. This is the first known instance of such smooth surfaces having been found in burial caves of the Iron Age in the Judean Hills. The deceased were apparently placed on the side benches with their heads facing the interior of the chamber; the head of the body, which was laid on the inner bench, faced to its right”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 107. “It seems that this cave tomb was hewn according to the standard long cubit of 52.5 cm (Eshel, 1987), for the distance between the two side benches is exactly 1.05 m, i.e., two cubits. The length of the central space from the bottom of the upper step to the bench at the far end of the chamber is 1.57 m, i.e., exactly three cubits. The ceiling of the cave is also 1.57 m from the floor of the central space. Although the other dimensions are not as accurate, the cave was apparently planned to have been 5.5 × 5.5 cubits and 3 cubits high. The heights and widths of the benches are all about 1.5 cubits”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 107. Cf. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 116, note 10. “Most of them typical of the late Iron Age, but the fragments of a juglet and a cooking pot of the late Hellenistic period probably attest to its continued use to at least Second Temple times”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 107. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 109-12.
270
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
15. Burial Cave at Suba The Burial Cave at Suba, ten kilometres West of Jerusalem, is a two-chambered bench-type tomb, excavated in 1980, after previous unsupervised excavations carried out by members of the nearby kibbutz Tzova.³⁴ The three benches of the entrance chamber (Chamber A) present raised parapets and headrests, while those of the lateral chamber (Chamber B), having parapets, are deprived of headrests. A repository is carved under the transversal bench of Chamber A, while a repository pit is hewn at the level of the northern bench of Chamber B. Many objects were removed from the tomb before the excavations and unfortunately are no longer accessible to scholars; nevertheless several finds dating to C8-7 BC were retrieved by sifting.³⁵ 16. Burial Cave at Khirbet Beit Lei This tomb discovered in 1961 at Khirbet Beit Lei, 8 km East of Lachish, is a multi-chambered tomb with two burial chambers, which open on the main chamber.³⁶ The shape of the burial chambers is significantly irregular, while a right-angled cornice decorates the main chamber. No repositories are hewn in the burial cave, while two doorways lead to the burial chambers, and a third is only outlined on the northern sidewall of the main chamber. The burial complex can be dated by the excavator to C7-6 BC from the architectural features and the carved inscriptions in Hebrew and several graffiti dated to C6 BC, which gives the terminus ante quem.³⁷ The material culture is constituted by a few objects retrieved inside 34. Cf. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 117, note 18. 35. “The cave had been left open for a long time before it came to be excavated and this resulted in the infiltration of silt which filled its upper part. People and animals had also been inside, creating disturbances. Uncontrolled excavations in the cave had also caused damage, all of which precluded the proper investigation of the cave. It is therefore impossible to determine the exact form of burial practiced in the cave. It appears that many objects have been removed from the cave and are apparently no longer accessible to scholars, including three oil-lamps, a small bowl, a jug, fragments of bowls, bottles, and jewellery (mainly rings). In the sifting of the displaced material in the course of the excavation conducted in the cave, about 2,000 pottery fragments of the Iron Age were gathered, as well as fragments of metal objects, beads and semi-precious stones. The pottery finds date the cave to the eighth to seventh centuries BC. Examination of the little broken bone material that has survived, shows that at least 15 individuals were buried in the cave, but these figures must be taken as tentative”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 112. 36. Cf. J. Naveh, “Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave”, IEJ 13 (1963) 74-92, on p. 74. 37. Cf. Naveh, “Old Hebrew Inscriptions”, 89 and 207. For Särkiö 1997 the dating of the inscriptions should be set at the beginning of C7 BC (cf. P. Särkiö, “Hilferuf zu Jahwe aus dem Versteck. Eine neue Deutung der Inschrift šr mr aus Hirbet Bēt Lēy”, ZDPV 113 (1997) 30-60, on p. 40)
the burial cave, while the only pottery found lying by the opening of the tomb dates to the Persian period.³⁸ 17. Lachish Tomb 106 Tomb 106 is a three-chambered burial cave with entrance chamber provided with a burial bench and two burial chambers.³⁹ Accessed through doorways, the chambers present two ‘circular’ repositories which open at the level of the benches. The tomb was found sealed,⁴⁰ but the sealing refers to the secondary use of the cave during the Late RomanByzantine period.⁴¹ A large quantity of material culture was retrieved, thoroughly analysed and presented by the excavator. For the primary use of the tomb, the findings suggest a dating between 670 and 580 BC.⁴² 18. Burial Cave at Tel Goded Located at about four kilometers north of Beit Guvrim, though this burial cave is provided with benched-niches, it is interesting to compare it to the SEC Hypogea because of its plan constituted by a rectangular main chamber and three burial chambers. The entrance was probably near the north-eastern corner of the main chamber.⁴³ 38. “On the benches were found human bones, a ring and an earring of bronze, and a plaque of the same material doubled over and secured by two nails (Fig. 2:1-3), which may have served as a bracelet-clasp. No earthenware vessels or fragments of pottery were found inside the cave, either on the benches or on the floors of the burial chambers or of the ante-chamber. Some fragments of a pot, most of whose pieces were found outside the cave (see Fig. 2:5), were discovered in the earth which had drifted into the tomb through crevices in the large stones blocking the entrance. A juglet, still whole, was found by the opening outside (Fig. 2:4). These vessels belong to the Persian period”, Naveh, “Old Hebrew Inscriptions”, 75. Cross 1970 points out that the burial cave was looted before 1961, because of the absence of pottery in the cave (cf. F.M. Cross, “The Cave Inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei”, in J.A. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1970) 304). 39. Also Lachish Tomb 105 shows a similar plan, but it was completely emptied in ancient time; probably its contents were placed in Tomb 106, which would explain the congestion of items in Tomb 106 (cf. Tufnell, Lachish III, 179). 40. “The low rectangular entrance was partially blocked with a sealing of mud and stones, but the bottom courses had been removed to introduce the latest burials. On clearance of the sealing, the upper layer of the contents of the outer chamber became visible, as the tomb was not completely filled with debris”, Tufnell, Lachish III, 179. 41. “Burials in Tomb 106 were made in two periods, the seventh to sixth centuries B.C., possibly extending into the fifth century, and the third to fourth centuries A.D.”, Tufnell, Lachish III, 180. 42. Cf. Tufnell, Lachish III, 179. 43. “There are signs of a narrow opening, about 0.45 m wide near the northern corner at a level near the ceiling and it may possibly have been the main entrance to the complex, but this would only be possible to verify by excavation”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 115.
The tombs selected for the comparison
The doorways to the burial chamber are trapezoidal in shape, narrowing at the bottom, and “around the carved frame of the opening to the western chamber there is a rafter and a door-jamb set in relief ”,⁴⁴ while in the western burial chamber a repository pit is carved at the level of the benches. No proper excavations have been conducted in this tomb, and unfortunately modern pillage disrupted the original stratigraphy. The few fragments of pottery found during the survey date to C8 BC and C7 BC, which was the period of use of the complex, according to Kloner.⁴⁵ 19-20. Khirbet Kabar Cave 1 and Cave 2 Three burial caves were found during the salvage excavations carried out in 1994 and 1995 at Khirbat Kabar, South of Beit Jala, on a spur which overlooks the southern outskirts of Bethlehem.⁴⁶ Khirbat Kabar Cave 1 (C.1) and Cave 2 (C.2) are one-chambered tombs with a standing pit and a repository.⁴⁷ The two tombs share the same courtyard, which is however partitioned in two by a wall dated to the Persian period. The ceiling of C.1 is completely disrupted, as is the entrance opening.⁴⁸ A step 0.62 m high leads to the chamber, where three benches encircle the standing pit. A quite regular rounded repository, about 1 m wide, and another smaller and unfinished one open on the northern bench. C.2 is better preserved than C.1., but presents only two benches in the northern and southern sides, the western sidewall of the chamber seemingly not being completed. An elliptical repository is carved at the south-western corner of the chamber, with a maximum width of about 1 m.⁴⁹ Both tombs were completely looted, and in C.2 were found only few shards, which, together with the adjacent buildings, date the hewing of the two burial complexes to the Persian period.⁵⁰ 44. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 115. 45. “Fragments of pottery collected in the cave are dated to the eighth and seventh centuries BC. The finds include parts of bottles, juglets, bowls and so forth, and they indicate that the burial cave was hewn and used during the 200 year period preceding the conquest of the Judean Kingdom”, Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 115. 46. Cf. Baruch, “Buildings of the Persian”, 205-7. 47. The third burial cave was not excavated and no drawing of it are available; its opening measures 0.55 m in width, 0.50 m in height and 0.60 m in depth (cf. Baruch, “Buildings of the Persian”, 205). 48. Until recent times, both Burial Cave 1 and Burial Cave 2 were used as warehouses by the resident of the adjacent village (cf. Baruch, “Buildings of the Persian”, 68*). 49. Estimation from the plan of the article. 50. “The tombs were found empty, other than three Attic blackslipped sherds in Tomb 2 (Fig. 23), which may indicate that all three of them date to the Persian period and are associated with the southern structure”, Baruch, “Buildings of the Persian”, 207.
271
21. Qalandiya Tomb 2 Without constituting an organised cemetery, several burial caves are located in the village of Qalandiya and in the quarries to the east and west of the site, associated to the Hellenistic farms in the area. Most of these tombs present courtyards, framed entrances, and in some cases decorated façades. The site is particularly interesting because burial caves with loculi are hewn alongside tombs with benches or troughs.⁵¹ Tomb 2 presents a façade decorated with two pillars, four troughs with sunken headrests organised around a large standing pit, and no repositories. This burial cave was looted and no finds were retrieved inside the tomb; nevertheless, the “few indeterminate pottery vessels from the Hellenistic period”⁵² found near the entrance of the burial cave, associated to its architectural features and the dating of the nearby burial caves with loculi suggest that Tomb 2 may have been hewn at the end of the Early Hellenistic or the beginning of the Late Hellenistic period (C3-2 BC).⁵³ 22. Burial Cave near Gilo Found sealed by its closing stone in 1981, the burial cave near Gilo is a one-chambered tomb, with a standing pit and a repository pit. The material culture retrieved (spindle bottles, and fragments of alabaster), lets the excavator affirm that the tomb was in use from C2 BC and until the beginning of C1 AD.⁵⁴ 23. Burial Cave at Ramat Polin The salvage excavations carried out by the IAA in December 2012 in the Ramat Polin neighbourhood, about 1 km South-West of Beit Hanina, exposed a burial cave still sealed by its sealing and blocking stones.⁵⁵ A square opening leads to a finely hewn burial chamber, with rounded corners. Around the standing pit, three benches are carefully hewn, while at the inner corner between the transversal and the southern benches, a column (0.09-0.10 m in 51. “The tombs do not form an organized cemetery. Rather, they are spread throughout the fields, a fact indicating that these are the tombs of the landowners. Some of the deceased probably lived at the agricultural farm of Qalandiya. There are two types of tombs. In one type the burial was on shelves and in troughs. Tombs of this type reflect a First Temple-period burial tradition, which continued to the Hasmonean period. In the second type the burial was inside kokhim (loculi). This type of burial was common during the Second Temple period”, Magen, “Qalandiya”, [74]. 52. Magen, “Qalandiya”, [77]. 53. “The author believes that the tombs at Qalandiya constitute the missing link in Jewish burial customs in the region of Benjamin and Jerusalem during the Second Temple period”, Magen, “Qalandiya”, [83]. 54. Cf. Kloner/Zelinger, “The Evolution of Tombs”, 211. 55. Cf. Wiegmann/Tanami, “Jerusalem, Ramat Polin”, Internet Site.
272
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
diameter), with remains of a thick plaster, is left in the bedrock to support the ceiling of the burial cave. The human remains of three individuals were found in the tomb, the skeleton of one of them being articulated in a supine position. The findings, two complete vessels and three large fragments, date to C2-1 BC.⁵⁶ - Great Cave at Van The Great Cave at Van, Urartu, multi-chambered burial cave is not included in the database because of its exceptionally large dimensions which would unbalance the statistical comparison with the other burial caves of the database; nevertheless is considered in the comparison for its plan and the cornice in its Main Chamber. Ussishkin 1994 offers a synthetic description of this large burial complex: The Great Cave is located in the eastern part of the cliff [of Van Kale, ancient Tushpa]. A wide staircase cut in the rock descends to a spacious platform in front of the tomb. The high, rectangular entrance is cut in the smoothed rock-façade. Six rock-cut steps ascend from the platform to the entrance; the threshold forms an additional, seventh step. The entrance has a deep door frame on the inside. It opens to the main hall, which is c. 9.38 m. long, 6.17 m. wide and c.5.97 m. high [...]. The hall has a flat ceiling with a cornice cut at the upper edge of the walls, creating a double angle along the comer of the walls and the ceiling. Rectangular doorways lead from the main hall to three, smaller burial chambers. Two of them contain burial benches along one of the side walls.⁵⁷ - Hypogeum at Wadi Beit Sahur Discovered and published in 1899 by ClermontGanneau,⁵⁸ the hypogeum at Wadi Beit Sahur must be added to the list of the tomb to compare to the SEC Hypogea, since it presents several interesting similarities with H1. Unfortunately it cannot be inserted in the database, because no information on its dimensions is available, while the drawings published by ClermontGanneau 1899 present incoherent scales, precluding the possibility to estimate the dimensions form the plan and sections. The following description of this hypogea provides some interesting information of its architectural features:
the northern side of the courtyard. An arcosolium was hewn above a burial trough in the western side of the vestibule. A tall and vaulted entrance to the burial system was cut in the northern wall of the vestibule. The entrance opens into the square burial room, whose ceiling was adorned with a cornice. Four smaller chambers were cut in the eastern and western walls, two in each wall. Two elevated ledges were hewn on both sides of a central passage in each chamber. An apsidal niche with a bench running along its wall was cut in the center of the northern wall of the room. A single step gives access to the niche. In the center of this niche a gabled entrance with a decorative frame was cut. This entrance leads into an interior burial room with two burial troughs cut in its walls, one in each wall. Th apsidal niche is an unusual architectural element in Jerusalem’s necropolis [...]. Similar semicircular niches are known from the Hellenistic burial systems at Alexandria (Adriani 1936, Tomb No. 3).⁵⁹
6.2 The comparison of the architectural features In this Section are compared the architectural features of the twenty-three tombs which constitute the population of the database. After the systematic comparison of their dimensions and the proportions, and the estimation of the unit of measurement used for their hewing (§ 6.2.1), are presented respectively the comparisons of their accesses (§ 6.2.2), their benches and parapets (§ 6.2.3), their headrests (§ 6.2.4), their right-angled cornices (§ 6.2.5), their rock-cut “sarcophagi” (§ 6.2.6), their openings in the ceilings (§ 6.2.7), and their parietal decorations (§ 6.2.8). 6.2.1 Dimensions, proportions and units of measurement
The rooms of the system are arranged in a line. A wide opening to a rectangular vestibule was cut in
The dimensions and the proportions of the architectural plan of a burial complex constitute the first criterion of its comparison to other burial caves. Common patterns in the dimensions, proportions and the same unit of measurement may reveal a particular style, linked to a geographical and/or temporal horizon, which may contribute to a dating of the tombs considered.⁶⁰ An effective method to detect the similarities and the differences among the burial caves is the comparison of the coefficients of variation (cv) of the dimensions of the architectural features of the tombs. With the database are calculated the coefficients of variation of
56. Cf. Wiegmann/Tanami, “Jerusalem, Ramat Polin”, Internet Site. 57. Ussishkin, “The Rock-Cut Tombs at Van”, 253 58. Cf. Clermont-Ganneau/Aubrey, Archaeological Researches, 433-7.
59. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 262. 60. For the methods used for the presentations of the figures of the dimensions, proportions and unit of measurement of the twenty-two burial caves and of H1 and H2 see § 2.3.
The comparison of the architectural features
the length, width, height, and depth of the main chambers, the entrance chambers, the burial chambers, the benches, the entrance openings and the repository openings of all the twenty-four tombs of the database. These coefficients of variation are compared with the coefficients of variation of the same figures for groups of tombs aggregated according to the dating⁶¹ (18 Iron Age II tombs, 2 Persian tombs, 3 Hellenistic tombs), the location (14 tombs in the Jerusalem area, 9 tombs outside the Jerusalem area), the type (11 tombs bench-type tombs, 10 standing-pit type tombs, 2 trough-type tombs), the plan⁶² (9 multi-chambered tombs, 5 two-chambered tombs, 9 one-chambered tombs).⁶³ With the exception of the dimensions of the main chambers, for the most, the different coefficients of variation calculated both for the totality of the sample of tombs selected and the aggregated groups present low figures, indicating that the differences in the dimensions of the architectural features of burial caves considered are not significant. Indeed, the statistical significance of these comparisons is lowered by the limited number of tombs considered, especially for the groups “Persian”, “Hellenistic”, and “trough type”; nevertheless, these calculations detect a slightly greater homogeneity in the dimensions of the main chambers in the tombs outside Jerusalem, in the length and height of the entrance chambers for the tombs of the standing-pit type, in the length and height of the benches of the one-chambered tombs, in the width and height in the entrance openings of the two-chambered tombs, and in the dimensions of the repository openings of the bench-type and multi-chambered tombs.⁶⁴ It is worth noting that all the tombs of the multichambered bench-type known in the Levant are inserted in the database, this fact signifying that the calculations for these tombs presented in this dissertation cannot be improved by a greater number of tombs considered. Furthermore, the average dimensions of the onechambered tombs dating to the Iron Age II in Judea are very similar to the average of the one-chambered group of the database, which is constituted of nine burial caves, and of which two are of the Persian period and three of the Hellenistic period;⁶⁵ if we consider that most of the Iron Age II bench-type tombs in Judea are one-chambered 61. Since there is only a Neo-Babylonian burial cave in the database, it makes no sense to consider the coefficients of variation of its dimensions. 62. Similarly, since there is only one three-chambered burial cave, no coefficient of variation is calculated. 63. A smaller coefficient of variation of a category calculated for a group compared to the overall coefficient of variation hints to a greater similarity among the tombs of the group. 64. he significance of these considerations are directly proportional to the number of the tombs considered. A systematic database of all the known burial caves would provide a solid ground for a typology, which is not the purpose of this dissertation. 65. “Although rock-cut tombs of this type differ in their dimensions, on average the opening is 0.50 × 0.50 m., the burial chamber
273
burial caves,⁶⁶ these facts improve the significance of the comparisons of the coefficients of variation. Moreover, the groups of tombs from the database, if aggregated according to other criteria, show no significant similarities either.⁶⁷ Finally, the comparisons of the coefficients of variation of the dimensions of the architectural features of the burial caves considered provide no major evidence which can be useful for the dating of SEC Hypogea. Considering the proportions of the main chambers, three multi-chambered burial complexes H1, Schmidt Institut Hypogeum⁶⁸ and White Sisters’ T1 show a ratio “width/length” close to 0.80.⁶⁹ Interestingly, the proportion “height/length” of two of them, namely H1 and White Sisters’ T1, has the same figure of 0.66, and the burial chamber of the one-chambered tomb An-Nabi Danyal C.6 show similar figures, namely 0.81 for the “width/length” proportion and 0.62 for the “height/length” ratio, while the burial chambers of Lachish T.106 have 0.81 and 0.60. Also, the Entrance Chamber of Mount Zion Burial Cave has a proportion “width/length” of 0.81, but its “height/length” proportion is 0.56. Finally, five burial caves⁷⁰ present a proportion “width/length” between 0.94 and 0.97 in the average dimensions of their respective chambers, however with disparate proportions “height/length”). To sum up, the proportions recorded for the twentyfour burial caves of the database, while showing some common figures, offer no elements for the dating of SEC Hypogea. In fact, the proportion of the Main Chamber of H1, similar to that of White Sister’s T1, is different from that of H2, and of other burial caves dated to the Iron Age II period. Also the proportion of the Chambers, is different form the proportion of the five complexes which present a proportion “width/length” in their main chambers more similar among each other. The analysis of the units of measurement used in the hewing of the burial caves of the database produced the following results:⁷¹
66. 67.
68.
69. 70. 71.
3.00 × 3.00 × 1.70 m. and the shelves 1.00 m. in width and height”, Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 56. Cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 56. The coefficients of variation of the “Comparative analysis” have been calculated for the following groups of tombs: tombs in the vicinity of SEC Hypogea (rank numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); multi-chambered tombs in Jerusalem (rank numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10); tombs with height of benches equal or higher of 0.95 m (1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16); tombs whose main chamber is 4 m long or more (1, 2, 3, 10, 18). For the rank numbers of the tombs of the database refer to § 2.3.2. For Schmidt Institut Hypogeum, as presented above (cf. § 4.1.4), the width is an estimation based on the hypothesis that the proportion “width/length” in the Main Chamber is the same as in the Main Chamber of H1. The range considered is 0.76-0.84. Rank number: 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12. For the method used to calculate the unit of measurement see § 2.3.3.2.
274
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
• of the twenty-three tombs, eleven present some dimensions which are compatible with the long cubit and some other dimensions with the short cubits;⁷² • no burial caves present dimensions which are compatible only with the long cubit; • seven tombs show some dimensions compatible with the short cubit only;⁷³ • three burial caves present dimensions which may be converted both to long or short cubits;⁷⁴ • long and short cubits figures are present in Iron Age II⁷⁵ and Hellenistic tombs,⁷⁶ while the dimensions of two tombs show no compatibility with either long or short cubits.⁷⁷ These results determine that the unit of measurement used in hewing the burial caves give no useful information concerning the dating of SEC Hypogea. 6.2.2 Access to the burial complexes As stated in § 5.2.1 for H1 and in § 5.2.2 for H2, it is not possible to determine with certainty if the access to SEC Hypogea was through a courtyard or through a roofed vestibule, as the first reports on H1 and some scanty evidence still visible suggest. In the region, courtyards are relatively common at the access of Iron Age II burial caves,⁷⁸ while vestibules are found only in few burial complexes: the “Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter”, and Tombs 2, 18, 20 in the Necropolis of Silwan, where a short corridor leads into a small internal antechamber, not a proper vestibule;⁷⁹ the onechambered bench-type Tomb 4 in Khirbet Kufin,⁸⁰ on the Hebron Hills, dated to the Late Iron Age or Persian periods;⁸¹ Cave 10 at the an-Nabi Danyal C8-7 BC cemetery,⁸² south-west to Bethlehem, where a large vestibule, singular in its shape, is shared by two independent burial caves. None of these vestibules is similar to the one that may be reconstructed for H1. Among the burial caves considered in the comparison to the SEC Hypogea, only T.1 in the garden of the White 72. Rank numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 23. 73. Rank numbers 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20, 21. 74. Rank numbers 2, 12, 14. The same is true for the Preparation Chamber of H2, which can be expressed in mostly round figures both in long and short cubits, i.e., 9 lc or 10 sc for the length, 6.9 lc or 8 sc for the width, 4.9 lc or 5.7 sc for th height. 75. Rank numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 76. Rank numbers 21, 23. 77. Rank numbers 18 and 22. 78. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 41. 79. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 40-62. 80. Cf. R.H. Smith, Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirhet Kufin, Palestine (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1962), 30-2. 81. Cf. J.A. Sauer, “Babylonian-Persian Cemetery at Tell al-Mazar”, BA 42 (1979) 71-2, on p. 72. 82. Cf. Amit/Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery”, 181-5.
Sisters’ Monastery presents some remains which could be those of a vestibule, as reported in § 4.6.1. For the other burial caves, either the observable remains and/or the archaeological reports do not contemplate this part of the tombs, or the evidence is too poor to allow any hypothesis concerning the existence of a vestibule. Ahead of its Main Chamber, Ketef Hinnom Cave 20 presents a space which, from the plan published in Barkay 1994, seems to be a forecourt; nevertheless, the topographical conformation of the hill is compatible with a roofed three-sided vestibule, whose northern side may have been completely open,⁸³ similar to the vestibule of two burial caves in Ben Hinnom Valley, near the confluence with the Cedron Valley dated to the Herodian period.⁸⁴ A similar vestibule may have been the access to H1 (cf. figure 115). The frame-type access can be found in number of burial caves in the region, dated from the Iron Age II to the Herodian period such as: most of the Iron Age II burial caves in the an-Nabi Danyal cemetery Caves 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13;⁸⁵ the burial cave between Beit Hanina and Nabi Samwil, dated between the Late Iron Age period and the Post-Exilic period;⁸⁶ the Persian period Burial Cave 2 in Khirbat Kabar;⁸⁷ in the Early Hellenistic quarry at Qalandiya, several burial caves present a framed façade, namely Tomb T-2 embellished by two pillars and a right-angled cornice, Tombs T-4, T-5, T-7 and T-8;⁸⁸ the Burial Cave at Ramat Polin dated to C2-1 BC;⁸⁹ two burial caves opening on the same courtyard at the Beit ‘Anun cemetery, on the Hebron hill, dated to the Late Hellenistic period and Early Roman period, named Tomb B in Magen 2001;⁹⁰ the burial cave in the Mahanayim neighbourhood, in use between C1 BC and 83. The construction of the modern building of the Menachem Begin Heritage Center obliterated what may have been the courtyard into where opened the vestibules of Cave 20 and Cave 34; furthermore, in the plan of Cave 20, a large stone and few small stones, now disappeared, marked the northern side of the vestibule. Since no scientific report of Barkay’s excavations at Ketef Hinnom has been published, it is impossible to know if these stones must be attributed to a later period, as for the wall blocking the access to Cave 34, or belong to the original state of the caves. 84. Caves 10-36 and 10-37 in Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 307-8. Cf. Macalister, “The Rock-Cut Tombs”, 225. 85. “All the caves have been robbed and contain almost no indicative finds, but may be dated according to the pottery found in their vicinity. As mentioned above, numerous potsherds are scattered around the surrounding terraces; these date from the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. Also indicative for dating purposes is the similarity of these burial caves to other Judean caves, which exhibit an architectural tradition that had already crystallised in the ninth century B.C.E. or even earlier”, Amit/Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery”, 192. 86. Cf. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 106-8. 87. Cf. Baruch, “Buildings of the Persian”, 69*. 88. Cf. Magen, “Qalandiya”, [76]-[81]. 89. Cf. Wiegmann/Tanami, “Jerusalem, Ramat Polin”, Internet Site. 90. Cf. Y. Magen, “Cemetery at Beit ‘Anun, on the Hebron Hills”, Qadmoniot 34 (2001) 53-9, on pp. 56-7.
The comparison of the architectural features
C1 AD;⁹¹ the large burial complex beneath Othman Ben Afan Street, in Jerusalem, about 800 m North-East of SEC Hypogea dated to the Herodian period;⁹² a burial cave on the Mount of Olives, excavated between 2002 and 2003 and found without material culture.⁹³ Finally, in several Iron Age II burial caves, the entrance openings to the burial complexes is framed by a recess, to fit a plug-shaped stone, which seals the tombs, like an-Nabi Danyal T.3, whose closing stone was found in the forecourt of the cave. This kind of closing stones have been found in an-Nabi Danyal Cemetery, in Jerusalem and in other locations in Judea: “for example, in several locations in Jerusalem at a cave near the foot of Mount Zion, at a cave in the Ma’alot Dafna neighbourhood, at a cave in the German Colony and in Tomb 7 at Mamilla, Jerusalem - and at cave No. 16 at Beth Shemesh”.⁹⁴ This system was also in use from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods,⁹⁵ as for example, in the Late Hellenistic tomb found in the neighborhood of Gilo in 1981.⁹⁶ The Entrance Opening to the Main Chamber of H1 presents no recess, and it may have been closed by a simple square stone placed against the opening, this being a kind of blocking which in some cases was assured at its basis by a buttressing stone.⁹⁷ 91. Cf. L.Y. Rahmani, “Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 3 (1961) 93-120, on pp. 108-9. 92. Tomb 5-15 in Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 240. The access to the burial complex is similar to the access to T.1 in the garden of the White Sister’s Monastery. 93. “In the ash-Sheikh neighborhood on the southern ridge of the Mount of Olives above Nahal Kadum”, N. Feig, “An Iron-Age II Dwelling Cave on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 67 (2011), (Hebrew) 41-69, 86*-7*, on p. 86*. 94. Amit/Yezerski, “An Iron Age II Cemetery”, 191 95. “Most often, the blocking stone was a rectangular stone slab slightly larger than the opening and 0.2-0.3 meters thick. In the center of the slab, a protruding square lug was left to be inserted in the opening, fitting snugly into it. Like a stopper; the sides of the closing stone leaned against the frame of the opening and sealed it”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 54. 96. The entrance “was closed by a blocking stone and opens into the burial room. A standing pit, surrounded by ledges, was cut in the center of the room. A collection pit was hewn in the southwestern corner of the room. Pottery vessels were found in the cave, including spindle-shaped bottles, fragments of piriform bottles and fragments of alabastron-shaped bottles. The finds indicate that the cave was used from the second century BCE and the first century BCE through the first century CE”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 353. 97. “The buttressing stone was square or round. Most commonly it was a large, undressed stone block placed against the outside of a rectangular closing stone to prevent it from moving or falling over”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 57. A rolling stone must be excluded for H1, since there is no channel in the floor at any side of the opening, which may allow the necessary shifting of the stone, as it is found in the Iron Age II burial cave between Beit Hanina and Naby Smwil (cf. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 107). It is worth noting that, rolling stones were used, especially in C1 AD, but burial caves of the Late Hellenistic period with this kind of sealing have also been
275
The closing of the Main Chambers of H1 and H2, as reported in § 5.2.1 and § 5.2.2 respectively, was probably assured by a two-panelled door or a removable grating. No Iron Age II tomb in the region shows sockets for hinges as the ones still visible on the steps at the entrances to the Main Chambers of the SEC Hypogea (cf. figure 122), while sockets were found in Jerusalem also in large burial complexes dating from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods.⁹⁸ It is possible that the sockets in H1 were carved in a later period than the original hewing, for example, to provide a new closing once the original Vestibule of H1 was destroyed, lowering the height of the supposed original step of at least 0.10 m; nevertheless, the fact that these sockets are found in both H1 and H2 suggest that the kind of closing of the burial complexes was the same, making the transformation for an adjustment to a new configuration of the tombs less probable.⁹⁹ In conclusion, if a vestibule seems to be more probable in the organisation of the original access to the SEC Hypogea, it is worth noting that vestibules are common in large burial complexes from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods,¹⁰⁰ while, so far, no Iron Age II tombs have been found which present a vestibule comparable to the reconstructed vestibule of H1. In this sense, if the comparison of the accesses of the SEC Hypogea with the burial caves considered may give an indication useful for the dating of our burial complexes, this points more to the Hellenistic and Roman periods, than to the Iron Age II period. 6.2.3 Benches and parapets According to Kloner/Zelinger 2007, “the benches in the Iron Age period are raised some 80-90 cm above the floor”,¹⁰¹ and parapets 0.04-0.05 m high and 0.06-0.10
98.
99. 100.
101.
found, for example the burial cave at Jifna discovered in 1995 (cf. Kloner/Zelinger, “The Evolution of Tombs”, 216-7). “Several ornate Second Temple period tombs were discovered in Jerusalem were closed with stone doors that turned on hinges. The “Tomb of the Kings” (5-1-) had hinged door in the main entrance, on the interior side of a round closing stone. Similar doors closed burial chambers and passages descending to the arcosolium chambers. The sockets for the hinges remain, and indicate how the doors were made. Two rounded pivots extended from the top and bottom corners of the stone door, fitting into sockets hewn in the threshold and the lintel”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 58-9. “Tombs closed with hinged doors – one-panelled or two-panelled – became common all over the country only in the second century AD. Pinkerfeld maintained that stone doors existed at least as early as the first century BCE, but they seem to have been rare then”, ibid. 60. For the parallels of the step with this kind of sockets in palaces in the Levant, see note 151 in Chapter 1. “Vestibules are more common in large burial complexes. So far they have been found in more than one hundred burial caves in the Jerusalem necropolis”, Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 51. Kloner/Zelinger, “The Evolution of Tombs”, 209-10. It is worth noting that the benches in the burial caves of the Silwan Necrop-
276
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
wide, while H1 and H2 benches present an average of 1.04 m and 1.08 m in height respectively.¹⁰² Indeed, the average width of the benches in H1 is 0.62 m, while in H2 is 0.76 m. The parapets of the benches in H1 are raised in average 0.05 m from the bench and between 0.08 m wide, while in H2 the height of the parapets is in average 0.11 m and the width 0.08 m. Among the burial caves considered in this Section,¹⁰³ only Schmidt Institut Hypogeum shows figures very close to those of H1 and H2 for the benches and parapets. The others burial caves present benches which are lower, and irregular in their width. Similarly, parapets comparable to those of the SEC Hypogea are present in Schmidt Institut Hypogeum, Sultan Suleiman 2 and Suba, these last two tombs showing some similarities to each other in their plans and for the presence of headrests. Benches with parapets are found also in burial caves in Lycia, dated to C4 BC, for example in the lower tomb at Anbarcuk, where the one-chambered burial cave presents two parallel high benches, with 0.06 m raised cushions and 0.07-0.09 m wide parapets, and the burial cave at Söğüt, with the same configuration and 0.08 m high parapets.¹⁰⁴ In some of the benches of the SEC Hypogea, a round hole connects directly to the repository below (cf. figures 129 and 207).¹⁰⁵ Among the burial caves considered above, only the burial cave in Suba presents such a hole (0.15 m in diameter). In the SEC Hypogea, in some cases the repositories openings are under the bench which presents a hole, in other the hole connects with a repository which opens in the adjacent chamber. Supposedly,
102.
103.
104. 105.
olis are sensibly lower than the average proposed for Iron Age II tombs by Kloner/Zelinger 2007, namely between 0.15 m to 0.72 m (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, table 9, 279). The average figures reported do not consider the special benches of Chamber 4, in H1, and the sensibly lower benches in Chamber 4, in H2, which are explained with particularities of the respective chambers, as presented respectively in § 5.2.1 and § 5.2.2. The height of the benches is the following: less the 0.50 m AnNabi Danyal Burial Cave; between 0.51 m and 0.60 m Khirtbet Kabar C.1; in the range 0.61-0.70 m is Tel Goded Burial Cave; between 0.71 m and 0.80 m Qalandiya T.2 and Burial Cave at Ramat Polin; in the range 0.81-0.90 m Sultan Suleiman Street C.2, Western City Wall T.1 and T.2, Mount Zion Burial Cave, Ketef Hinnom C.24, Burial Cave between Beit Hanina and Nabi Samwil, Lachish T.106, Khirbet Kabar T.2, and Burial Cave near Gilo; in the range 0.91-1.00 m White Sisters’ T.1, Suba Burial Cave, and Khirbet Beit Lei Burial Cave; over 1.01 m H1, H2 and Schmidt Institut Hypogeum. Cf. Gay/Corsten, “Lycian Tombs”, 49-53. In H1: western and eastern benches of Chamber 2, northern and southern benches of Chamber 3, northern and southern benches of Chamber 4; in H2: northern bench of Chamber 3. The diameter of the holes is around 0.20 m in H1, while in H2 the hole of the northern bench of Chamber 3 is irregularly rectangular, measuring 0.16 m of length (a large fracture between the surface and the sidewall of the western bench, namely 0.70 m in length, connects to Repository 3). In H1, the hole in the northern bench of Chamber 3 was not completely hewn.
these holes may have been hewn to facilitate the removal of the bones from the benches; nevertheless this kind of hole is somehow puzzling, since they are very rare while in the SEC Hypogea, they present no homogenous pattern. No particular indication for the dating of the SEC Hypogea may be deduced from the observations on the benches and the parapets. 6.2.4 Headrests Used to support the head of the dead, the headrests can be found in the burial caves in the region in two different shapes: a “raised, dressed pillow-like protuberance”¹⁰⁶ (raised headrests), and a “carved, rounded depression left at the end of a shelf ”¹⁰⁷ (sunken headrests). Appeared in Jerusalem during the Iron Age II, headrests are recorded also in burial caves dating to the Hellenistic and the Roman periods, frequently associated to arcosolia.¹⁰⁸ The geographical distribution of this architectural feature of the bench tombs stretches from the Late Iron Age Phrygian and Salamis necropolises, through the Roman period burial caves in Anatolia,¹⁰⁹ and reaches as far as the Hellenistic Etruscan necropolis of Caere (today Cerveteri), however in shapes different from the forms common in the Judean burial caves.¹¹⁰ Among the burial complexes considered in our comparison, sunken headrests are found in Western City Wall Tombs 1 and 2, Ketef Hinnom Cave 24, the burial caves between Beit Hanina and Nabi Samwil, and in the troughs of Tomb 2 at Qalandiya burial ground, while raised headrests are present in the SEC Hypogea, Schmidt Institut 106. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 82. 107. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 82. 108. For example, in the burial cave documented in 2010 in the village of Sur Bahir, in the southeastern outskirt of Jerusalem, in use from the end of C1 BC to C1 AD, two burial chambers of this complex presented two benches each one provided with a cushion-shaped headrest (cf. Ganor/Klein, “Jerusalem, Sur Bahir”, Internet Site). Headrests are found also in C2-4 AD cist graves in Salah ed-Din Street (cf. Avni/Adawy, “Jerusalem, Sallah ed-Din Street”, 76*. 109. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 83. Sunken and raised headrests are present also in several burial caves in Etenna, Southern Anatolia, dated to the Roman period (cf. Çevik, “New Rock-Cut Tombs at Etenna”, 97-116). 110. “Carved headrests and raised parapets are found on benches in Phrygian tombs, whose rock-cut interiors have pitched ceilings with imitation beams. These elements are also present in many of the tombs at Salamis. However, the rectangular, pillow-shaped Phrygian and Cypriot headrests differ significantly from the semicircular Judean and Etruscan examples. The Etruscan headrests are carved in low relief and tend to be C-shaped, with a more open form than the horseshoe-shaped Judean examples. They can terminate in thickened, rounded ends, or in upturned ends that give them the shape of the Greek letter omega”, Magness, “A Near Eastern Ethnic Element”, 87-8.
The comparison of the architectural features
Hypogeum, Sultan Suleiman Street Tomb 2 and the burial cave in Suba. In addition, sunken headrests are still visible in Tombs 6, 10 and 16 of the Silwan necropolis, while Tombs 9, 13, and 14 present only remains of headrests,¹¹¹ in the burial cave in Ma’alot Dafnah Neighborhood,¹¹² Tomb 1 at Khirbet el Kom,¹¹³ and several tombs in the Gibeon necropolis.¹¹⁴ As pointed out by Eshel for the necropolis of Gibeon, the presence of burial caves with headrests along with others deprived of this features, associated with the fine carving of some of the tombs, shows that there is no clear correlation between the headrests and the quality of the hewing of the burial caves.¹¹⁵ Headrests are found in other tombs in the region: Tell ‘Aitun;¹¹⁶ Tel Haif;¹¹⁷ Tel Ira;¹¹⁸ Khirbet el-Qom.¹¹⁹ It is worth noting that in a burial ground, the headrests are either sunken or raised, the two kinds of headrests seemingly not being used together in a same necropolis.¹²⁰ This may suggest an evolution of the shape during time, especially if we consider the proximity in Jerusalem of the burial grounds where the two kinds of headrests are found: the northern necropolis with Sultan Suleiman Street Tomb 2, Schmidt Institut and SEC Hypogea all presenting raised headrests, while Ketef Hinnom Cave 24 and Western City Wall Tombs 1 and 2 showing sunken headrests.¹²¹ Unfortunately, a relative chronology of the 111. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 269. 112. Cf. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 95-9. 113. Tomb 1 at Khirbet el Kom is a benched-niche burial cave (cf. Yezerski, “Typology and Chronology”, 64) with a main chamber and three burial chambers, each with three benches. Chambers 1 and 3 show parapets and two opposite sunken headrests for each bench, while only under the transversal bench of Chamber 3 there is a repository. Disturbed probably already in antiquity, the sifting of the slit found in the tomb during the salvage excavations of 1967 produced only ‘few bones and indeterminate Iron II sherds’ (W.G. Dever, “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kôm”, Hebrew Union College Annual 40 (1969-1970) 139-204, on p. 142). 114. Cf. Eshel, “The Late Iron Age Cemetery”, 1-17. 115. Cf. Eshel, “The Late Iron Age Cemetery”, 16. 116. Cf. G. Edelstein/D. Ussishkin/T. Dothan/V. Tzaferis, “The Necropolis at Tell ’Aitun”, Qadmoniot 4 (1971), (Hebrew) 86-90. 117. Cf. A. Biran/R. Gophna, “Tel Halif ”, IEJ 15 (1965) 255. 118. Cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 233. 119. Cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 241-2. 120. The southern headrest in Tomb 10 at the Silwan Necropolis may be considered an exception, for it is raised from the level of the trough; nevertheless the shape of the recess for the head and the neck of the deceased resembles more to the shape typical of the sunken headrests, than of the raised ones (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, fig. III.62, 81 and photo III.65, 83). Furthermore, in the Silwan Necropolis, headrests are found manly in troughs, with the exception of Tomb 15, where of the three very low benches (0.15 m high), two present sunken headrests (cf. ibid. fig III.72, 98 and photo III.77, 102). 121. In Jerusalem, other burial caves present sunken headrests: 3-27 Late Hellenistic; 3-34 tomb 4 C1 AD; 7-39 C1 BC; 11-27 Late Hellenistic (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem).
277
two shapes of headrests is impossible to determine, since no material culture from the burial caves with raised headrests from the Northern Necropolis is available.¹²² For the stylistic origin of SEC Hypogea headrests, Othmar Keel suggests a Mesopotamian influence in the well carved, “omega-shaped” headrests of H2,¹²³ while Barkay replies to the Swiss scholar that these headrests ‘are simply an elaboration of the standard headrests found’ in H1, with no symbolic implications, and even with no connection to the Egyptian goddess Hathor.¹²⁴ More probably, as pointed out by Barkay 1994, the headrests of SEC Hypogea were inspired by Egyptian headrests used in the daily life, either directly or through the Phoenicians, who brought Egyptian influences in their commercial and colonial expansion during C8-6 BC.¹²⁵ Finally, while the bench started to be used in the burial architecture of the Levant during the Late Bronze Age, as stated above, the appearance of the headrests in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean between C8 BC and C6 BC can be considered a terminus post quem for the dating of the SEC Hypogea. 6.2.5 Right-angled cornices In the scholars literature, the term “rigth-angled cornice” designates a cornice which decorates the top of the walls, connected with the ceiling of a main chamber or a burial chamber, where only two faces of the cornice protrude from the rock, the other two of the parallelepiped shape being integrated with the walls and the ceiling. H1 shows right-angled cornices, in the Main Chamber,¹²⁶ in Chamber 4,¹²⁷ in Chamber 4 bis¹²⁸ and in the Southern Extension¹²⁹ (cf. figures 124, 135, 137 and 144), while H2 presents a right-angled cornice in the Preparation Chamber (cf. figure 192).¹³⁰ 122. The only information about the material culture of a burial cave with raised headrests comes from Suba burial cave, where the pottery found in a disrupted stratigraphy is dated to C8-7 BC (cf. Kloner, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 112). 123. “For the moment the omega-shaped headrests found in the Judahite tombs are the only evidence for the survival of this symbol in Iron Age Palestine. Nevertheless I think that they should be interpreted in the light of the Bronze Age use of this symbol in Mesopotamia and Canaan, especially because we know that the symbol of the mother goddess and ’Lady of Birth’ was still in use during later periods in Mesopotamia. It occurs many times on the so-called kudurru boundary stones from the 12th century B.C. down to the seventh”, O. Keel, “The Peculiar Headrests for the Dead in First Temple Times”, BAR 13 (1987) 50-3, on p. 53. 124. Cf. G. Barkay, “Burial Headrests as a Return to the Womb. A Reevaluation”, BAR 14 (1988) 48-50, on p. 49. 125. Cf. Barkay, “Tombs and Burial Practices”, 156-60. 126. 0.18-0.20 m in height and 0.05-0.06 m in depth. 127. 0.15 m high. 128. 0.15-0.16 m high. 129. 0.24 m high. 130. 0.12-0.13 m in height and 0.06-0.07 m in depth.
278
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
Similar cornices are found in: - sixteen tombs in the Silwan Necropolis, all with flat ceiling:¹³¹ Tomb 1,¹³² Tomb 12¹³³, Tomb 21,¹³⁴ Tomb 23,¹³⁵ Tomb 25,¹³⁶ Tomb 27,¹³⁷ Tomb 30,¹³⁸ Tomb 35 of the “Royal Steward”,¹³⁹ Tomb 36,¹⁴⁰ Tomb 37,¹⁴¹ Tomb 38,¹⁴² Tomb 41,¹⁴³ 131. Ussishskin 1993 classifies the tombs of the necropolis of Silwan in four major groups: tombs with gabled ceiling, tombs with flat ceiling, monolithic above-ground tombs and tombs of hybrid type (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 257-68). According to the archaeologist, the tombs with gabled ceiling were probably hewn before the tombs with flat ceiling (cf. ibid. 281). 132. “The cornice is not uniform in size (height 18 cm, width 15 cm on rear wall; height 11 cm, average width 8 cm on side and front walls)”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 39. 133. “Cornice on rear wall - height ca. 17 cm, width ca. 13 cm; on front wall - height 10-12 cm, width 14 cm; on left wall- height ca. 11 cm, width 17-20 cm; on right wall - height 12 cm, width 22 cm in middle, 13 cm on sides”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan 88. 134. In the front chamber: “cornice - on front wall height 8 cm, width 12 cm; on rear wall height 10 cm, width 11 cm; on right wall height 10 cm, width 11 cm; on left wall height 9 cm, width 11 cm)” Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 126; in the rear chamber: “cornice, measured at mid-wall- on front wall height 9 cm, width 10 cm; on rear wall height 9 cm, width 22 cm; on right wall height 12 cm, width 15 cm; on left wall height 13 cm, width 10-22 cm)”, ibid. 128. 135. In the rear chamber: “cornice - height on all the walls 12-14 cm, width 10-12 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 140. 136. “Cornice - height 7-9 cm, average width 8 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 148. 137. In the front chamber: “Height and width of plastered cornice on right wall ca. 8 cm; height of plastered cornice on rear wall 6 cm, width near rear right corner 7 cm, near end of cornice as preserved on the left 22 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 151. In the rear chamber: “cornice - height on front wall 9 cm, width 8 cm; on rear wall height 8 cm, width 7 cm; on right wall height 8 cm, width 10 cm; on left wall height 8 cm, width 7 cm)”, ibid. 153. 138. In the front chamber: “cornice on right wall - height 10 cm, width 10 cm; on rear wall - height 8 cm, width 17 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 170. In the rear chamber: “cornice on right wall height 10 cm, width 7 cm; on left wall height 9 cm, width 6 cm; on rear wall height 10 cm, width on right 14 cm, on left 9 cm”, ibid. 139. In the outer chamber: “height of cornice on the various walls 9-10 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 199. In the lateral chamber: “cornice on front wall - height and width ca. 10 cm”, ibid. 140. “This tomb was not investigated or measured during our survey. Part of a burial chamber with a flat ceiling and a cornice is preserved in it”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 202. 141. “Cornice-height on rear wall 12 cm, width 12 cm, height on left wall 12 cm, width 14 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 204. 142. In the front chamber: “cornice on rear wall, height 16 cm, width 11 cm; on right wall, height 16 cm, width 13 cm; on left wall, height 17 cm, width 10 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 205. In the rear chamber: “cornice - in middle of front wall, height 16 cm, width 5 cm; in middle of rear wall, height 14 cm, width 6 cm; in middle of right wall, height 16 cm, width 7 cm; in middle of left wall, height 13 cm, width 10 cm”, ibid. 208. 143. In the front chamber: “height of cornice on all walls 14-15 cm, width 12-13 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 215.
Tomb 42,¹⁴⁴ Tomb 43,¹⁴⁵ Tomb 44,¹⁴⁶ Tomb 49;¹⁴⁷ - the Main Chamber of Ketef Hinnom Cave 20; - the Main Chamber of the burial cave at Khirbet Beit Lei; - the Main Chamber of the Great Cave in Van.¹⁴⁸ In no other burial caves in the region are found this kind of right-angled cornice; nevertheless, the Hypogeum at Wadi Beit Sahur presents several similarities with the architectural features of H1, and among them a rightangled cornice, which protrudes for three faces (not only two, like for the other kind) near the ceiling of the Main Chamber. As for their derivation, according to Tal 2003, the cornices “in the upper part of the walls of the burial halls in some loculi tombs apparently represent a known architectural decorative feature from the upper part of the courtyard walls of the house”.¹⁴⁹ To sum up, the right-angled cornice integrated in the walls and the ceiling is attested only in burial caves dated between C8 BC and C6 BC, this constituting the terminus post quem for the dating. The presence of a similar cornice in the Hypogeum at Wadi Beit Sahur, dated to the Hellenistic period, hints to an evolution of this decoration after the Iron Age II period. 6.2.6 Rock-cut “sarcophagi” First of all, it is necessary to clarify the terminology used to designate the individual burials carved in Chamber 4 bis. Probably, the lack of a specific term induced Barkay/Kloner 1986 to use “sarcophagus”, though commonly this term refers to a movable stone coffin.¹⁵⁰ In a simple typology, Kloner/Zissu 2007 introduce the term “sarcophagus-like trough”, which is associated with arcosolia and appeared in Jerusalem during C1 AD;¹⁵¹ 144. In the front chamber: “cornice on rear wall 1 0-15 cm, width 3 cm; height of cornice on right wall 10 cm, width 6 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 221. In the middle chamber: “height of cornice on all walls 8-10 cm, width 4 cm”, ibid. In the rear chamber: “height of cornice on right wall 9 cm, on other walls 7-8 cm; width of cornice on all walls 5-6 cm”, ibid. 223. 145. “Height of cornice on rear and left walls 11 cm, on right wall 11-15 cm; width of cornice on all walls 9 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 226. 146. “Cornice - on rear wall height 18 cm, width 10 cm; on right wall height 16 cm, width at mid-wall 10 cm, near rear right corner 15 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 229. 147. In the left lateral middle chamber: “cornice on front wall height 7 cm, width 10 cm”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 235. 148. Cf. Ussishkin, “The Rock-Cut Tombs at Van”, 253-4. 149. O. Tal, “On the Origin and Concept of the Loculi Tombs of Hellenistic Palestine”, Ancient West & East 2 (2003) 288-307, on p. 300. 150. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 28. 151. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 83; see also tombs 7-39, 7-76, 25-7, 26-9, and 29-19 (cf. ibid.).
The comparison of the architectural features
furthermore, the two scholars differentiate four types of troughs: 1. “a trough tomb on a shelf, against the wall lengthwise (2-4, 2-20, 21-1); 2. trough tomb cut out the bottom of a koch […]; 3. a shallow two-bed tomb with a partition in an arcosolium […]; 4. parallel trough tombs (13-10) that are not in an arcosolium”.¹⁵² In reporting Iron Age arcosolia and bench tombs, Bloch-Smith 1992 considers as synonyms “sarcophagus” and “trough”,¹⁵³ while Ussishkin 1993 refers to the burial facilities in Chamber 4 bis of H1 as “troughs”.¹⁵⁴ In fact, the three individual burials carved out from the rock in Chamber 4 bis resemble more to stone coffins integrated in the sidewalls than to troughs hewn in benches; unfortunately, no exact parallel of this kind of burial can be found to constitute a type in a well assessed typology.¹⁵⁵ In this dissertation the term “sarcophagus” in brackets designates the individual burials carved such as those in Chamber 4 bis, to distinguish them at the same time from the stone coffins, the sarcophagus-like trough with arcosolia and the troughs. Searching for similar rock-cut “sarcophagi”, at only a few metres south of H1, an interesting comparison for Chamber 4 bis is constituted by the Garden Tomb. According to Barkay 1986, during the Byzantine period the three “sarcophagi” of its burial chamber may have been carved out from the original benches of an Iron Age II burial cave. The argumentations brought by Barkay to this interpretation being disputable, without excluding later transformations, it is possible that the Garden Tomb was hewn originally with the “sarcophagi”, and that the dating of this tomb shall be placed at the same period of the hewing of Chamber 4 bis of H1.¹⁵⁶ In fact, concerning the dimensions, the length of the northern and southern “sarcophagi” are respectively 2.13 m and 2 m, their width about 1 m each, and their maximum depth 0.97 m and 0.84 m respectively,¹⁵⁷ the two presenting different heights from the level of the floor of the burial chamber, while the width of the internal sidewalls of the 152. 153. 154. 155.
Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 87. Cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 41. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 298. The parallel proposed by Barkay/Kloner 1986, namely the bathhub “sarcophagus” in T.2 in the Silwan Necropolis, presents a significantly different shape, being rounded in the short sides and its edge being detached from the sidewall of the tomb (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 40-3, cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 28), while Bloch-Smith 1993 considers in the same category the troughs of the Gibeon Late Iron Age Cemetery, of Western City Wall T.1, the “sarcophagi” in H1 and the troughs niches in the Silwan Necropolis (cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 41); in fact, Iron Age II troughs are generally less deep and their edges are thicker, while many of them present sunken headrests. 156. Cf. § 4.4.1. 157. The bottoms of the two “sarcophagi” raise sensibly in their western part, while a deepening of the bottom of the northern “sarcophagus” is carved even further to the east, beyond the limits of the burial chamber.
279
“sarcophagi” is about 0.20 m. These figures are comparable with the dimensions of the lateral “sarcophagi” of Chamber 4 bis in H1;¹⁵⁸ nevertheless the organisation of the burial chamber of the Garden Tomb, with a large standing-pit instead of the central corridor of Chamber 4 bis, the short transversal “sarcophagus”, and the bottoms of the other two “sarcophagi” with a slope and a cushion in their western sides limit the parallelism. In the Silwan necropolis, Tomb 11 presents the rests of two “sarcophagi” next to the sidewall of the burial cave, almost completely destroyed during the hermit occupation,¹⁵⁹ while another badly damaged “sarcophagus” was carved along a sidewall in Tomb 43.¹⁶⁰ Concerning the 158. Cf. § 5.2.1. 159. “Two resting-places were hewn in the chamber - one next to the left wall and the other next to the rear wall. These seem to have been troughs, originally covered with lids, hewn next to the walls rather than in niches. During the hermits’ occupation, the troughs were almost completely destroyed and their bottoms were lowered to the new floor level. The remains of the ledges and the sides allow only a partial reconstruction. One burial trough extended along the entire rear wall and its sides adjoined the lateral walls of the chamber. The other extended along most of the left wall between the front wall and the rear trough. The ledges which had been carved along the upper edges of the troughs’ sides have been preserved along the left wall and the left half of the rear wall. Remains of a ledge are also visible in the rear right corner. The line dividing the ledge at the back of the lateral trough from that on the left side of the rear trough can be clearly traced on the left wall, because the latter ledge is 5 cm higher than the former. Thus, the left ledge and part of the back ledge have been preserved in the rear trough. The rear wall of this trough has also been partly preserved, and one can discern the place where the original stonedressing ends and the coarse dressing indicating the destruction of the trough bottom by the hermits begins. Reconstruction of the bottom of the trough therefore presents no difficulties. On the right wall of the chamber chisel marks denote the corner between it and the outer edge of the trough’s front, thus indicating the overall width of the trough’s right side. Only the back ledge of the lateral trough has survived, this being the sole evidence of its existence. All the other data concerning this trough are therefore reconstructed. The preserved ledges of both troughs are 7-8 cm wide. In estimating the length and width of the troughs, we assume that the width of the missing ledges was the same”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 86. 160. “The remains of the resting-place along the right wall are sufficient for a partial reconstruction. It belongs to the burial trough type, but here it was hewn in the chamber next to the wall, rather than in a niche. Today the upper part of the trough no longer exists, so that it is not possible to establish whether it had ledges for a lid. Most of the trough bottom, which is 44 cm above the chamber floor, has been preserved. A fairly long portion of the trough’s front has survived to a height of 6 cm above the trough bottom near the front wall of the chamber. The rear wall of the trough - which is, in fact, the right wall of the chamber - was almost completely destroyed during the hermits’ occupation, when a niche was carved here with a bottom continuing the level of the trough bottom. The right end of the trough has either been destroyed or is concealed by the modern wall built in front of the chamber, but it may have been aligned with the chamber’s front wall. The left side of the trough has been demolished, but its base can be traced in the chisel marks on the trough bottom. This side is 35 cm distant from the rear wall of the chamber. The front of the trough is not parallel to the back, and the right side
280
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
dimensions of these “sarcophagi”, only the restituted lateral “sarcophagus” of Tomb 11 presents a length comparable to the length of the lateral “sarcophagi” of Chamber 4 bis, all the other being far shorter (1.40 m n Tomb 43, and 1.73 m for the transversal “sarcophagus” of Tomb 11¹⁶¹), while their widths range from 0.56 m in Tomb 43 to 0.70 m for the transversal and 0.76 m of the lateral “sarcophagi” of Tomb 11. A configuration similar to Chamber 4 bis can be found also in a Late Roman-Byzantine tomb in the Carmel region. Tomb 3 of the site 161¹⁶² is a one-chambered standing-pit type burial cave, with an irregular façade framing the entrance which is 0.52 m wide and 0.95 m high. Three “sarcophagi” 0.43 m deep and 0.60 m wide are carved along the three sidewalls, all presenting a cushion at one edge.¹⁶³ This tomb is one of four burial caves carved along a quarried cliff, other two being one-chambered tombs with sarcophagi-like arcosolia, while one is a cave with no particular burial facilities.¹⁶⁴ Finally, the burial complex at Wadi Beit Sahur presents a burial chamber similar to Chamber 4 bis of H1. Organised in a vestibule, a main chamber from which radiate four lateral burial chambers and a hemicycle, in this burial cave, hewn at a higher level, the most important burial chamber presents two “sarcophagi”.¹⁶⁵ No precise dating is proposed for this tomb, the only parallel made by the scholars is the Hellenistic Tomb 3 in the Necropolis of Mustafa Pasha in Alexandria, for the presence of a hemicycle similar to the one in the main chamber of Beit Sahur burial complex.¹⁶⁶
161. 162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
is therefore wider than the left (trough, preserved part - length 2.13 m, up to modern wall; width on right 50 cm; thickness of front 20 cm; thus overall width on right 70 cm)”, Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 227. These figures are estimated form the plans presented in Ussishkin 1993. The depth of the “sarcophagi” cannot be estimated because of the later disruptions. Site 161: “H. Hermesh (Haramais) 3167/1, Koord. 1563 2272-3. Baubefunde (u.a. Ölpresse und Kelter), Gräber (Typ A) und Kleinfunde der Stufe C-1”, H.-P. Kuhnen, Nordwest-Palästina in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Bauten un Gräber im Karmelgebiet (Weinheim: Acta Humaniora, 1987), 92. The burial cave is 2.34 m long, 2 m wide and 1.56 m high. The benches raise 0.70 m from the level of the floor (all these figures and those reported in the text are estimated from the plan and sections of table 38, in Kuhnen, Nordwest-Palästina, Tafel 38). According to Kuhnen 1987, tomb 3 may be a later addition, because its different shape may be explained with the lack of room to carve a tomb with arcosolia troughs, such as the other burial caves (cf. Kuhnen, Nordwest-Palästina, 55). Unfortunately, as noted above in the text, the two scales of the drawings in the publication of Clermont-Ganneau are not coherent and it is impossible to estimate the dimensions of the architectural features of this burial complex; nevertheless, Kloner surveyed the tomb in 1976. From the drawings produced by Clermont-Ganneau and the text in Kloner/Zissu 2007 it is possible to determine that two rock-cut “sarcophagi” are hewn on the lateral sides of the elevated burial chamber (cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 262). Cf. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, 53-62.
Concerning the form of burial in the “sarcophagi” of Chamber 4 bis, their dimensions make it possible to bury the dead directly in the cavities or in a coffin.¹⁶⁷ Because of the existence of “sarcophagi” in the Iron Age II necropolis of Silwan and the use of this form of burial during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods, this architectural feature of H1 offers no indications for a dating of Chamber 4 bis. 6.2.7 Openings in the ceilings As for the two square openings and their respective chimneys of H1,¹⁶⁸ it is worth noting that, if the access to the tomb was the entrance doorway visible today, the presence of an opening in the ceiling so close to their doorway cannot be easily interpreted as an evacuation shaft for the debris of the hewing of the tomb; nevertheless, it is possible that the opening in the main chamber of H1 was used to start the carving of the burial complexes with a narrow shaft deep enough to provide room for a carver, who then would have started to cut the rock horizontally in the directions planned. In fact, hewing from up to down is significantly easier than the opposite, as it would have been the case for the SEC Hypogea and other burial complexes, if the opening were not used; nevertheless, the opening in Chamber 4 of H1, cannot be explained as a carving shaft, unless to imply that the planning and the realisation of the tomb were precisely calculated to make a correct connection between the Main Chamber and Chamber 4. Furthermore, the narrowness of the openings did not facilitate the vertical carving and the evacuation of the debris, even if this cannot be excluded. Concerning H1, there are no remains of plaster or any other sign which could imply an utilisation of the Main Chamber and Chamber 4 as a water storage,¹⁶⁹ while the use of the opening for the evacuation of the debris during the hewing of the burial complex and/or an access to fresh air and to light seems to be possible reasons for such openings. However, in order to avoid to leave an open access to the decomposing bodies, which would have attracted animals, and to let the rainwater to freely 167. For example, wooden coffins may have been used, as it is considered possible for the bath-hub “sarcophagus” in T.2 of the Silwan Necropolis (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 266). Anthropoid, wooden and stone coffins are found in Southern Levant in the Iron Age I period (cf. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 33-6). The use of wooden coffins is also attested in the region from C1 BC (cf. Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, 100; for a typology of wooden coffins see also ibid. 69-94). Wooden coffins were used until C7 AD in Jerusalem (cf. Avni/Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs, 36). 168. Cf. 5.2.1. 169. Nevertheless, the concave configuration of the bedrock above Chamber 4 may have facilitate the channeling of water to the opening. In this sense, the Hasmonean/Herodian drain tunnel west of the Haram al Sharif passes through several plastered cisterns connected to the level of the street of the times of Agrippa I by chimneys built with well cut slabs (cf. note 170).
The comparison of the architectural features
drain into the chamber disrupting the burials, a closing device, most probably a stone, would have been used to seal these openings. Other similar openings and/or chimney can be considered in a comparison: several caves south-west of the Temple Mount excavated by Benjamin Mazar present openings in the ceiling,¹⁷⁰ while two burial complexes dated to the Herodian period, one in Beit Safafa¹⁷¹ and the other near Ramat Shlomo,¹⁷² have chimneys carved in the bedrock up to the ground level above them. As for the installations found by Mazar, a possible explanation of the presence of these openings is the so called nefesh, a soul and tomb marker apparently originated in C5 BC in Central Arabia, and later spread in the Levant, which may have been placed atop of H1, in correspondence of the chimney. Benjamin Mazar proposed to use this term to describe the rectangular openings in the ceilings of several man made caves discovered during the excavations in the south of the Haram al Sharif. He interpreted these rock installations as former cisterns transformed during C8 BC in burial caves similar to some tombs in Achziv, and in the Hellenistic period converted in ritual baths. These openings, according to Mazar, covered with slabs or a gabled ceiling, which may have been conceived as funerary monuments.¹⁷³ No evidence of such funerary markers were found in the excavations of Mazar, and even the use of these installations as tombs is debated.¹⁷⁴ Furthermore, 170. Cf. B. Mazar/E. Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount. The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, Qedem 29, (Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989), 50-3. Also in the Hellenistic-Herodian sewage tunnel near the Harm al-Sharif, an Iron Age II tomb transformed in a cistern presents an opening and a chimney which puts it in communication with the level of the C1 AD street above (cf. L. Ritmeyer, The quest: revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, The Lamb Foundation, 2006), 238). 171. Site [105] 95 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel, http : / / www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx?pid=7883; Kloner/Zissu 2007 report that the burial complex was converted in a dwelling during the Byzantine times and several Crosses were then carved, while the southern corridor was used as a water cistern (cf. T. 13-5 in Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 348). 172. Site [102] 117 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel, http:// www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx?pid= 10214; T. 30-4 in Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 460. 173. Cf. Mazar/Mazar, Excavations in the South, 49-55. 174. “The question of the existence of this burial ground remains open, since only the one cistern with the memorial tablet niche can be convincingly interpreted as a tomb. None of the cisterns contained human bones, apparently because these were removed in antiquity. One of the cisterns contained dozens of pottery vessels dating to the 8th century BCE and was apparently used as a favissa for broken or disused ritual vessels”, E. Mazar, The Complete Guide o f the Temple Mount Excavations (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2002), 14. In fact, in these rock-cut installations no architec-
281
contrary to later periods, there is no epigraphic evidence of the use of the term nefesh in Judah during the Iron Age II period, and no other scholar has accepted Mazar’s interpretation.¹⁷⁵ The use of the nefashot is attested in Jerusalem in the Late Hellenistic period:¹⁷⁶ the vestibule of Jason’s tomb was crowned by a construction, which has been interpreted as a pyramid by Rahmani 1967,¹⁷⁷ and later reconstructed;¹⁷⁸ the Benei Hezir Tomb, in the Cedron Valley, built during the second half of C2 BC period;¹⁷⁹ the monolithic Tomb of Zechariah, dated to the second half of C1 BC and located twelve metres south of Benei Hezir Tomb;¹⁸⁰ the Tomb of Absalom, built in the Julio-
175.
176.
177. 178.
179.
180.
tural features distinctive of Iron Age II burial caves are present, and there is no material culture typically associated to burials. Cf. L. Triebel, Jenseitshoffnung in Wort und Stein Nefesch und pyramidales Grabmal als Phänomene antiken jüdischen Bestattungswesens im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 38-9. The pyramid above the “Pharaoh’s Daughter Tomb” (T.2 in the Silwan Necropolis), dated to the Iron Age II by Ussishkin 1993, is considered indirectly by the scholar as a “monument” or a “nefesh”, when he retracts his previous hypothesis on the existence of similar pyramids atop of tombs 47, 50 and 79, after the excavations carried out behind T. 50 (cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 314, note 51). This denomination of the pyramid as a nefesh for the Iron Age II period is an anachronism as pointed out by Triebel 2004, who affirms that, in the case of Silwan T.2, it was more a symbol of power than a monument marker in the sense of the later use of the term nefesh (cf. Triebel, Jenseitshoffnung in Wort und Stein, 35-6 and 266-9). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the dating of the “Pharaoh’s Daughter Tomb” is disputed: as reported by Küchler 2007 (cf. note 30 in Chapter 4). Cf. L.Y. Rahmani, “Jason’s Tomb”, IEJ 17 (1968) 61-100. As reported by Caillou (cf. Caillou, Les Tombeaux Royaux, 230), the tomb has been dated to the first half of C2 BC by Foerster (cf. G. Foerster, “Architectural Fragments from ’Jason’s Tomb’ Reconsidered”, IEJ 28 (1978) 152-6), while Bonato remarks that “dans le climat d’exaltation nationaliste du IIe siècle av. J.-C., la construction d’une tombe monumentale qui porte la marque nette, bien qu’encore discrète, de l’hellénisme semble délicate ; un tel tombeau se conçoit plus aisément lorsque le rigorisme de la dynastie s’affaiblit et que percent les valeurs étrangères, soit vers la fin du IIe ou le début du Ier siècle av. J.-C.”, S. Bonato, “Aspects de l’hellénisation de la Judée : les monuments funéraires des nécropoles de Jérusalem”, Kölner Jahrbuch 32 (1999) 7-31, on pp. 8-9). In a personal communication in 2013, Caillou presented the difficulties in reconstructing the monument above the vestibule of Jason’s Tomb as a pyramid. He correctly expressed his reserve on the possibility that the relatively thin ceiling of the vestibule may have supported the burden of a pyramid, while the fragments interpreted by Rahmani as belonging to the pyramid, were most probably elements of a vault which covered the space between the vestibule and the column. For this tomb, Avigad 1954 proposed a nefesh in form of a pyramid (cf. N. Avigad, Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1954), (Hebrew), 75-8), while Barag 2003 showed that is more probable that the nefesh was in the shape of a tower (cf. D. Barag, “The 2000-2001 Exploration of the Tombs of Benei Hezir and Zechariah”, IEJ 53 (2003) 79-95). On the façade of the tomb of Absalom, an epitaph mentions a nefesh, but it is not clear if it is the pyramid of the Tomb of
282
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
Claudian period (31 BC - 68 AD), and whose nefesh has the shape of a tholos.¹⁸¹ Finally, the pyramids of the C1 AD Tomb of the Queen of Adiabene whose existence is reported by Flavius Josephus,¹⁸² despite recent excavations, have not yet been found.¹⁸³ Concerning the chimneys of the two Herodian burial caves in Beit Safafa and in Ramat Shlomo, the only information available comes form the plans and sections of the two tombs. The regular circular chimney (diameter 1 m) in the Beit Safafa burial cave, 6.4 m long, links the surface of the bedrock with the main chamber through the ceiling. In both tombs, the top of the chimney is drawn blocked by a stone, while the chimney of the burial cave in Ramat Shlomo seems to be a natural karstic shaft reworked into an ovoidal section (1.4 m × 0.70 m) and 2.85 m high, and connected to the Entrance chamber through its northern sidewall, and not from the ceiling, at about 1.5 m from the level of the floor. Since no monument markers or nefesh have been so far discovered connected by an opening and or a chimney to the burial complex annexed, the more plausible explanation for H1 and for the chimneys of the burial caves in Ramat Shlomo and Beit Safafa, the openings in their respective ceilings or sidewalls, is the requirement of light and of fresh streaming air during particular situations, such as an interment, a funerary ceremony, or any other circumstances which demands the presence in the burial cave; once these occasions finished, the tombs were sealed at the entrance and atop of the openings, to avoid to the rainwater and to the animals to penetrate into the burial complexes. Concerning the dating, since the rock-cut installations south of the Haram al Sharif cannot be identified as tombs, no direct parallels can be found for H1’s openings. 6.2.8 Parietal decorations The “panels and beams” decorations of the Main Chamber, Chamber 4 and Chamber 4 bis of H1 are definitely of a very singular type, since no parallel can be found. As reported in § 1.3.1, Barkay/Kloner 1986 appeal incorrectly to the description of the decoration of Salomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6:9 and of a house or a palace in Jeremiah 22:14,¹⁸⁴ while Ussishkin 1993, who carried out
181. 182. 183.
184.
Zechariah, or the nefesh of the Benei Hezir Tomb (cf. Barag, “The 2000-2001 Exploration”, 99). Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 243. Flavius Josephus Ant. 20, 95. The EBAF carried out two excavations at the site of the Tomb of the Kings (the name of the Tomb of Queen of Adiabene), in 2008-2009 by Jean-Baptiste Humbert (the present writer participated at the excavations) and in 2013 by Jean-Sylvain Caillou. In both cases, no signs of the pyramids, their foundations or other assimilable monuments were found. Cf. § 1.3.1.
a thorough search of parallels to Iron Age II burial caves of Jerusalem in the Mediterranean area and the Levant, could not find any decorations similar to the “beams and panels” of H1.¹⁸⁵ Equally, the systematic research of the present writer in the necropolises considered for the comparison, produced the same negative results.¹⁸⁶ In 1976 Mazar proposed the standard Iron Age II burial chamber with three benches as the schematisation of the four-roomed private house typical in Judah since C9 BC.¹⁸⁷ Barkay 1994 developed this hypothesis considering the burial chamber as a symbol of the dormitories in the houses of the Iron Age period and the multichambered burial caves with main chambers as a burial for extended family, in line with the social custom in use for the houses,¹⁸⁸ while Faust/Bunimovitz 2008 consider this type of Iron Age II family tombs as a “sociological and ideological response of the extended family - the biblical bet’ab - to a series of Iron Age II threats upon its unity and coherence. As such, the rock-cut tomb was an attempt to immortalise the bet’ab in stone”.¹⁸⁹ Osborne 2011 affirms that there is a real “isomorphism” between the pillared Iron Age II house, called also fourroom house, and the tombs of the same period, and adds the textual occurrences in the Bible where the term “bét” may be translated “tomb” (Isaiha 14:18; 1 Samuel 25:1),¹⁹⁰ or connected with the word “eternal” (Qohelet 12:5d; Psalms 49:12), and extra-biblical texts where the terminology used for the houses is referred to a tomb, such as “heder” in the shorter tomb inscription on the Tomb of the Steward, in the Silwan necropolis.¹⁹¹ In fact, if the parallel life/death and house/tomb is a common anthropological pattern attested in the region in different periods,¹⁹² there is no clear isomorphism 185. Cf. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan, 303-19. 186. For the list of the necropolises and tombs analysed for this dissertation see § 2.3.2. 187. “It appears possible to the present writer that this tomb plan is a schematization of the four-roomed house, the dominant private house type in Judah and Israel during this period. The plan of the cave is similar to that of the private house in the division of the rectangle into three long units and a single broad one. The central, rectangular depression may be taken as analogous to the courtyard and the benches to the three roofed rooms around it. The idea of imitating architectural elements in rockcut tombs is well known from the Siloam Village cemetery of the same period and in Iron Age tombs in Cyprus and Etruria”, Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves”, 4, note 9. 188. Cf. Barkay, “Tombs and Burial Practices”, 148-50. 189. A. Faust/S. Bunimovitz, “The Judahite Rock-Cut Tomb: Family Response at a Time of Change”, IEJ 58 (2008), 151. 190. It is worth noting that the LXX translate “bét” with “oikos”. 191. Cf. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice”, 49-50. 192. An evident parallelism house/tomb is found, for example, in the Lycian rock-cut tombs at Myra (C4 BC) where “there were often small paths, gates and stairs to allow people to reach the tombs on the rock faces. These give us an idea about the city texture of Lycia. It was a kind of city plan that was visually easily recognisable. Çevik (2009) considers that Lycian rockcut tombs are not only the imitation of civil architecture but
The comparison of the architectural features
between Iron Age II house and burial complexes, such as the SEC Hypogea, since the “archetypal” four-room house of the Iron Age II does not match with hypogea where six or eight chambers open on the main chamber, image of the internal courtyard of the Iron Age II house, as it is the case for H1 and H2 respectively (cf. figures 112 and 183). In the Hellenistic funeral architecture the parallel house/tomb was stigmatised by Pagenstecher 1919, which proposed the distinction between “peristyle” and “oikos” tombs,¹⁹³ since then widely accepted by the scholars.¹⁹⁴ The wall decoration of the Hellenistic houses was reproduced in the tombs,¹⁹⁵ along with other architectural features of the dwellings, such as vestibules and kline chambers. Even if no formal standard of the wall decoration in Hellenistic houses and tombs can be defined,¹⁹⁶ nevertheless a so called “zone system” has been outlined by Adriani 1936: La paroi est constamment partagée en plusieurs parties horizontales (zones): a) plinthe ou socle de base;
193. 194.
195.
196.
also the imitation of a civic settlement”, M. Atik/S. Bell/R. Erdogan, “Understanding Cultural Interfaces in the Landscape: A Case Study of Ancient Lycia in the Turkish Mediterranean”, Landscape Research 38 (2013) 22-42, on p. 13.; in the Etruscan necropolises the C6-3 BC “tombe a dado” or “house tombs” (cf. Steingraber, “New Discoveries and Research”, 79); the tombs at Kibyratis (C4 BC) in the Lycian style (cf. Gay/Corsten, “Lycian Tombs”, 47-60); in Ancient Mesopotamia it is clear that the house, “- das Heim des Menschen - auch seine Ruhestätte nach dem Tod und der Ausgangspunkt für die lange und beschwerliche Reise seiner Seele in die Unterwelt war”, M. Novak, “Das ’Haus der Totenpflege’. Zur Sepulkralsymolik des Hauses im Alten Mesopotamien”, Altorientalische Forschungen 27 (2000) 132-54, 143.). Cf. Pagenstecher, Nekropolis, 97-167. As pointed out by Venit 2002: “the differentiation is dependent upon the perceived arrangement of their rooms: Pagenstecher’s oikos tomb has rooms distributed on a linear axis; his peristyle tomb has rooms distributed around a peristyle (or pseudo-peristyle) court. Yet, although the terms are useful as descriptors and although this division has remained the basis of the discussion of Alexandrian tomb architecture, the differentiation does not seem conceptually, ethnically, or chronologically significant and in a recent article, Wiktor Daszewski has argued that is not descriptively valid either. Yet Pagenstecher’s divisions pervade scholarly literature, and his terms, at least, are still worth applying when they are appropriate”, Venit, Monumental Tombs 14. “The use of Doric peristyle, from early Ptolemaic times onward, is attested by their presence in the rock-cut tombs of Alexandrian cemeteries, which clearly imitate the plans and forms of domestic architecture”, F.E. Winter, Studies in Hellenistic Architecture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 170. Even though a certain formal standard was developed for the Pompeian houses, and in a way applied retroactively to the Hellenistic tombs in Alexandira: the ‘zone system’ found in the tombs of the Mustafa Pasha necropolis is paralleled to the later First Style of the Pompeian houses and considered as its direct predecessor (cf. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, 120-1).
283
b) ligne d’orthostates; c) bande intermédiaire ou de couverture; d) zone unie, délimitée en haut, à peu près aux 2/3 de la paroi, par une petite corniche; e) zone unie, délimitée ou non par [f] une bande en relief ou en peinture au dessous du plafond¹⁹⁷ which can be resumed in English as follow: a. plinth, b. orthostats, c. intermediate strip, d. frieze, e. upper strip, f. cornice. If applied to the sidewall of the Main Chamber of H1, the pattern of the “zone system” constituted by six elements fits the decoration, when divided in zones (cf. figure 217). In fact, as in a number of painted walls of the Hellenistic houses and tombs, the upper part of the decorations is constituted by a long and uninterrupted band, while the lower part is fractioned in panels. Furthermore, the proportions of this two parts are very similar to those found in the façades of the Macedonian tombs,¹⁹⁸ namely the upper part is about 30% of the entire height in the sidewall of the Main Chamber of H1, and the façade of Tomb 1 and Tomb 3 at Vergina. If indeed the rhythm of the different zones and parts of the decoration of the sidewalls of H1 corresponds to the hellenistic pre-Pompeian style,¹⁹⁹ it must be considered that in H1 there is no paintings or any other Hellenistic garnishing, and that the configuration of the panels of the orhtostats zone is normally different from the vertical superposition of the two central panels found on each of the sidewalls of H1.²⁰⁰ Nevertheless, the pre-Pompeian wall pattern is the sole parallel to H1 decoration and may have induced the first interpretations of the SEC Hypogea as Hellenistic-Herodian burial caves.²⁰¹ Since the dating of the Vergina tombs is attested to the late C4 BC,²⁰² while the hypogea at the Mustafa Pasha 197. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, 113. 198. “It is reasonable to assume that the Macedonians, setting in the Nile delta after 332, started to bury their dead according to their own customs. Nevertheless, local geological and climatic conditions, the Pharaonic heritage, and especially the rock-cut traditions of Asia Minor and the Cyrene region all influenced the development of Macedonian-Alexandrian tomb architecture […] the wall is decorated with a small tetrastyle Ionic temple facade supporting a low pediment; this scheme recalls the fronts of Macedonian tombs’, J. Fedak, “Tombs and commemorative monuments”, in F.E. Winter (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Architecture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006) 86-90, on p. 90. 199. Cf. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, 120-1. 200. An example of superposed sunken panels is found in the Late Hellenistic Burial Cave 3 in Akeldama, probably as imitation of wooden doors (cf. Avni/Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs,. 27-8, fig.s 1.48-50). 201. Cf. § 1.2.1. 202. “If the present authors are correct about Tomb I containing the burials of Philip II and Kleopatra, Tomb II the burial of Arrhidaios and Adea Eurydike, and Tomb III the burial of Alexander IV, the dates are 336, 317/16, and 311/10 B. C. (or shortly thereafter) respectively”, Palagia/Bozra, “The Chronology of the Macedonian Royal Tombs”, 117.
284
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
fig. 217
Northern sidewall of the Main Chamber, H1, photo Jean-Baptiste Humbert, processing Riccardo Lufrani
necropolis in Alexandria date between C3 BC and C2 BC,²⁰³ the similarities of the sidewall decorations of H1 with the abovementioned tombs point to the Early Hellenistic period.
6.3 Summary and concluding remarks The comparative analysis of the SEC Hypogea with the twenty-three burial caves, selected according to the criteria presented in § 2.3.1 among a large population of tombs considered in the regions stretching from the Levant to the Central Mediterranean,²⁰⁴ demonstrates that no correlation can be ascertained between the dimensions and the proportions of the architectural features of the burial complexes and the dating of the tombs. In fact, the comparison of the coefficients of variations among clusters of tombs defined according to their accepted dating, their location, their type, and their plan shows no major similarities among tombs of the various clusters, which can provide a clear indication for the dating of the SEC Hypogea. Similarly, the calculations of the units of measurement for the twenty-three tombs, showing that the long and the short cubits were sporadically used in the hewing of burial caves in different periods, offer no information which can be useful for the dating of H1 and H2.²⁰⁵ 203. Cf. J. Fedak, “Tombs and commemorative monuments”, in F.E. Winter (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Achitecture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006) 89-90. 204. Cf. § 2.3. 205. Cf. § 6.2.
If the presence of a courtyard is relatively common for burial caves of various periods, the comparison of the accesses indicates that no known Iron Age II tombs presents a vestibule, which instead is frequently found in large burial complexes starting from the Late Hellenistic period, while the frame-type entrance is frequent in tombs dated from the Iron Age II until the Early Roman period. The presence of a vestibule in H1 would support a dating to the Hellenistic and Roman periods.²⁰⁶ Furthermore, the comparison of the other architectural features considered of the twenty-three tombs offers the following results: - The size and style of the burial benches, as well as their features like the parapets, present no clear correlation with a particular period and/or region, while the holes connecting to the repositories are extremely rare, being found only in the SEC Hypogea and in the Burial Cave at Suba. No elements useful for the dating of the burial complexes can be deduced form the analysis of the bench and their features.²⁰⁷ - Appeared during the Iron Age II period, headrests are found in tombs of different periods and in a large geographical region, from the Levant to the Italian peninsula. In the Jerusalem area and its adjacent regions, two types of headrests are found: sunken and raised. In Jerusalem and its adjacent regions, in each necropolis only one kind of headrest was used, either sunken, or raised, this suggesting a chronological evolution, which unfortunately cannot be ascertained because of the un206. Cf. § 6.2.2. 207. Cf. § 6.2.3.
Summary and concluding remarks
-
-
-
-
certain dating of most of the burial caves; the particular raised headrests of H2 are considered to be influenced by the iconographical tradition of the Egyptian goddess of Hathor, according to Keel, while Barkay is prone to consider the headrests in general as being influenced by Egyptian cushion used in ancient time for sleeping. The presence of headrests in tombs of various periods limits the information for the dating to the terminus post quem of their appearance in the burial in Judea region at the Iron Age II.²⁰⁸ Found mostly in the Iron Age II Silwan Necropolis, right-angled cornices decorate also the main chamber of the C6 BC tomb at Khirbet Beit Lei, while a similar cornice is found in the main chamber of a Hellenistic burial complex at Wadi Beit Sahur; this kind of cornice, found also in Late Hellenistic tomb, according to Tal 2003, may represent the upper part of the courtyard wall of a house.²⁰⁹ The prevalence of the right-angled cornices in the tombs of the Iron Age II Necropolis in Silwan and their presence in other burial caves dated to later periods suggest that they were introduced in Jerusalem in the Iron Age II period, which constitute the terminus post quem for this architectural feature. While no perfect parallel of the rock-cut “sarcophagi” in Chamber 4 bis of H1 can be found, similar “sarcophagi” are present in Tomb 11 in the Silwan Iron Age II Necropolis, at the Garden Tomb, and in a Late Roman or Byzantine tomb at Haramis, in the Carmel region, while the elevated burial chamber of the burial complex at Wadi Beit Sahur, very similar to Chamber 4 bis, presents only two “sarcophagi” on the lateral sidewalls. Also for this architectural feature, the Iron Age II constitutes only the terminus post quem.²¹⁰ The square openings in the ceiling found in the Main Chamber and n Chamber 4 of H1 seem to have no clear parallels, while the square openings found by Benjamin Mazar in the installations at his excavations west of the Haram Al-Sharif - which he calls erroneously “nefashot” - cannot be paralleled to those of H1 because these installations most probably are not tombs; finally, the square openings found in the Herodian tombs in Beit Safafa and at Ramat Shlomo are connected to long chimneys. In any case, these openings seem to have only the practical duty to ventilate the burial complexes when they were opened for new burials or other activities related to the burial practices. No indication for the dating of the SEC Hypogea can be retrieved from this architectural feature.²¹¹ The definition “Beams and panels”, given by Barkay/Kloner 1986 to describe the decorations of the
208. 209. 210. 211.
Cf. § 6.2.4. Cf. Tal, “On the Origin and Concept of the Loculi Tombs”, 300. Cf. § 6.2.6. Cf. § 170.
285
sidewalls of H1, is based on a disputable interpretation of biblical texts;²¹² the plans of the SEC Hypogea, along with those of Iron Age II tombs, are considered to be inspired to the four-roomed pillared house, typical of the Iron Age II period;²¹³ in fact, the plan which matches the better those of H1 and H2 is the configuration of the Hellenistic and Roman houses, stigmatised by Pagenstecher 1919 in his classification of the Hellenistic tombs in two major categories, inspired from the Hellenistic houses, namely the “peristyle” type, and the “oikos” type;²¹⁴ furthermore, in the parietal decorations of the Hellenistic houses reproduced in several hypogea in Alexandria, even though not in a perfectly standardised form, the so called “zone system” proposed by Adriani 1932 can be defined;²¹⁵ this “zone system”, organised in five or six horizontal orders or patterns, seems to apply also to the decorations of H1. If the application of the “zone system” to the parietal decorations of H1 is assumptive, a possible influence of the decorations currently used in the Hellenistic houses in the region on H1 cannot be ruled out.²¹⁶ The results presented above constitute no final evidence for a sound dating of the SEC Hypogea; nonetheless, an important conclusion is acknowledged: • the presence of benches, repositories, and headrests points not exclusively to the Iron Age II period, this constituting the terminus post quem of the dating of burial caves that present these architectural features. Furthermore, two major orientations for the proposal of dating of the SEC Hypogea derive from the analysis carried out in this Chapter: • The “oikos” plan and the decorations of H1 point to the Hellenistic style of more lavish hypogea in Alexandria and of other Hellenistic cities in the Mediterranean region.²¹⁷ • From the observation of the architectural features, it is possible to hypothesize their evolution from the original forms developed during the Iron Age II period, to their configuration in the Late Hellenistic period. For example: for the right-angled cornices, the one found in the hypogeum at Wadi Beit Sahur may constitute an intermediate passage to the more embellished cornices found in later burial complexes;²¹⁸ again the 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218.
Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 36-7. Cf. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice”, 49-50. Cf. Pagenstecher, Nekropolis, 97-167. Cf. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, 120-1. Cf. § 6.2.8. Cf. Greve, Sepulkrale Hofarchitekturen im Hellenismus, 187-243. For example, tombs 3-27, 10-31, 14-2, and 26-8 in Kloner/Zissu 2007.
286
The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature
tomb at Wadi Beit Sahur presents T-shaped doorways to the burial chambers where only two benches are carved, which may represent an evolution towards the burial in loculi;²¹⁹ the relatively small vestibule of H1 may be the transitional step between the small antichambers found in some Iron Age II tombs of the Sil219. Cf. Tal, “On the Origin and Concept of the Loculi Tombs”, 288-307.
wan Necropolis and the large vestibules of several monumental burial complexes dated to the Late Hellenistic period.²²⁰ The results and orientations acknowledged in the present Chapter constitute the base for the dating for the SEC Hypogea, proposed in the conclusive Chapter 7. 220. Cf. § 6.2.2.
Chapter 7 The social setting of Jerusalem at the Early Hellenistic period and the dating of the SEC Hypogea More than 150 years of archaeological investigations in Jerusalem have produced a tremendous amount of information, and the knowledge regarding its topographical development throughout the ages is becoming clearer every day; however, a number of crucial questions on Jerusalem’s evolution remain until now unanswered. The extent of Jerusalem in the Early Hellenistic period (332-167 BC) is one of the more obscure issues: no major architectural remains¹ and not a single burial are considered to date to this period.² However, from the textual sources and the material culture found in Jerusalem dating to this period,³ we know that, though peripheral, Jerusalem played a major role as the capital of the province of Judea, which enjoyed a certain autonomy in religious and administrative affairs.⁴ 1.
2. 3. 4.
The only Early Hellenistic architectural remains retrieved so far in Jerusalem are very meagre: “The Early Hellenistic Stratum 8 is fully represented in the City of David only in Area E2 (Shiloh 1984: 4, Table 2 and cf. to p. 10; De Groot 2004: 67-9) . This Stratum is also partially represented in Areas E1 (Shiloh 19 8 4 : 14-15) and E3 (cf to pp. 10- 11), and scarcely represented in Areas D1 (cf. to pp.7-8) and D2 (cf. to pp. 8-9).In this case, too, the finds that can safely be attributed to this Stratum are meagre, and mainly consist of three columbaria (De Groot 2004: 67-8; 2005: 84) and a structure (in Area E I) that yielded a rich corpus of pottery dating to the third century BCE. The excavators did not find Yehud stamp impressions of the late types, dated to the second century BCE, in either of these strata (Stratum 9 and 8). Most of the late types were discovered in Stratum 7 (Ariel and Shoham 2000, Table 1, and see also Reich 2003: 258- 59 and Tables 7.1-7.2)”, O. Lipschits, “Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of the City in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods”, in L.L. Grabbe/O. Lipschits (ed.s), Judah Between East and West. The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400-200 BCE), LSTS 75 (London: T&T Clark, 2011) 163-75, on p. 173. Moreover, no new discoveries, archeological or textual, shed new light on the current knowledge on the Early Hellenistic period in Jerusalem (cf. L.L. Grabbe, “Hyparchs - Oikonomoi, and Mafiosi: The Governance of Judah in the Ptolemaic Period”, in L.L. Grabbe/O. Lipschits (ed.s), Judah Between East and West. The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400-200 BCE), LSTS 75 (London: T&T Clark, 2011) 163-75). Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 139-41. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 54-7. See further in the text.
The existence of a rich elite in Jerusalem during the Early Hellenistic period raises the question of where they lived and worked, and, more interesting for our subject, in what kind of tomb they were buried. If the first question cannot be answered unless new archaeological discoveries are made,⁵ in the light of the results of the previous Chapters, a possible answer to the second question on the burials in the Early Hellenistic period is proposed in this Chapter. In § 7.1 the available information on Jerusalem and its necropolises during the Early Hellenistic period is summarised, while in § 7.2 is proposed the dating of the SEC Hypogea, followed in § 7.3 by a speculative attempt to designate who was buried in the SEC Hypogea, § 7.4 presenting the researches which may be carried out in the future.
7.1 Jerusalem and its necropolises in the Early Hellenistic period The focus of the archaeological and historical research on Jerusalem, and in general in the region, is concentrated mainly on the Iron Age II period, and to a lesser extent on the Hasmonean and Herodian periods.⁶ More 5.
6.
Even though the remains of the Persian and Hellenistic buildings are probably definitively lost because of the construction activity in the following periods, as pointed out by Lipschits 2009: “In contrast to the rich and well recognized architectural remains from the late 8th to 7th and the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE, not many building remains from the intervening period, i.e., the Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic periods, have been uncovered in Judah. This is the case even at sites where an abundance of pottery sherds, stamp impressions, figurines and other typical Persian period finds have been uncovered (Stern 2001: 424–427, 461–462) [...] I will suggest that the Persian and early Hellenistic period occupation levels were severely damaged by intensive building activities conducted in the late Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and even later periods”, Lipschits, “Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem”, 5. The political implications in the archaeological and historical researche on Jerusalem may be illustrated by the following statement of Levine 1999: “At the end of the Second Temple
288
The social setting of Jerusalem at the Early Hellenistic period and the dating of the SEC Hypogea
recently several scholars have renewed their interest in the Persian (539-332 BC) and Early Hellenistic periods (332-167 BC), providing a less fragmented picture of the historical landscape of the region in those times.⁷ The centrality of Jerusalem as capital and major city of the province of Yehud, part of the fifth Persian satrapy, for the Judahite world in the region and in the Diaspora is documented by the way in which, during the Persian period, “Jerusalem’s religious leadership was viewed […] as authoritative”, as attested in the Elephantine papyrus, but also by the economic activity, such as the minting of local coins.⁸ At the same time, the Hellenistic influence in the coastal region, and later in Jerusalem, started even before the conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 BC, since symbols such as the Athenian owl were represented on the silver coins minted in C4 BC by the authorities in Jerusalem for use in the Yehud province, and contextually Greek pottery was imported and local pottery started to be produced in foreign styles.⁹ In the framework of the Hellenistic cities on the coastal plain and the central hills, already settled in the Persian period, some of them later elevated by the Ptolemys to the rank of polis, with several privileges, such as the right to mint coins,¹⁰ Jerusalem continued to play its central role as Temple city of the “Temple state” of the Judahite ethnos, which probably encompassed the same region as the Persian province of Yehud,¹¹ its influence spreading in some cases beyond these limits, thanks to the fortunes of powerful Jerusalemite families such as the Tobiads and the Oniads.¹² This special status of Jerusalem continued under the Seleucid rule, with possibly a greater independence from the central authorities of the Empire.¹³
7.
8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13.
period, in 70 C.E., Jerusalem had been under Jewish hegemony for almost one thousand years. The city had come to be regarded, by Jew and non-Jew alike, as a quintessentially Jewish city. Jerusalem’s population was overwhelmingly Jewish, as were its leadership, calendar, and public institutions, first and foremost of which was the Temple”, L.I. Levine, “Second Temple Jerusalem: A Jewish City in the Greco-Roman Orbit”, in L.I. Levine, Jerusalem. Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (New York: Continuum, 1999), 53. Cf. Grabbe/Lipschits, Judah Between East and West; cf. I. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (2008) 501-20. Cf. note 128 in Chapter 3. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 38-40. “Zu den von den Ptolemäern auf diese Weise ausgezeichneten Städten gehörten im der Küstenebene die Poleis Ptolemais-Akko, Jaffa, Askalon und Gaza, im Ost-Jordanland Philadelphia- Amman und wohl auch Pella-Tabaqât Fahil und Dion-Tell eI As’ari, ferner Philotheria-Beith-Yerah, am Südende des Sees Genezareth. Samaria erhielt eine makedonische Militärkolonie, Dor eine königliche Festung, die aber später ebenfalls den Status einer Polis bekam”, Kuhnen, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit, 33. Cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 23-4. Cf. Kuhnen, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit, 33. Cf. Kuhnen, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit, 34. Finkelstein 2010 estimates the extent of the province of Judea in the
In this sense, the literary sources offer few but reliable pictures of the social, political, economic and administrative landscape of the region and of Jerusalem in particular, as perspicuously summarised by Grabbe 2011: - Hecataeus of Abdera indicates that the priests - the high priest in particular - were responsible for regulating, judging, and generally administering the community. - The Zenon papyri show that local dignitaries of Syria and Palestine often had high official positions or at least possessed a confident independence in relation to the Ptolemaic officialdom. The most important was Tobias who headed a military colony, perhaps encompassing both cavalry and foot soldiers, in the ’ land of Tobias’. The local man Jeddous (probably a Hebrew name and thus possibly in Judah) is ready to resist Zenon’s man sent to collect a debt or to take the surety for it, while two Idumaean brothers are happy to try to extort money even from the dioiketes of all Egypt. - In the Tobiad Romance the high priest represents the community to the Ptolemaic government and is responsible for paying a sum of money to Ptolemy (most likely the regular taxes of Judah). It also shows the continuation of local power in the Tobiad family, again with official sanction. - The inscriptions of Ptolemy II show that a number of the normal Egyptian officers have a part in the administrative scene in Syria and Palestine, including the oikonomos (finance officer), the komarches (village head), and a higher dioikon tas kata Surian kai Phoiniken prosodous (supervisor of the revenues in Syria and Phoenicia, though this might be the same as the dioiketes or the head of financial matters in Egypt). The Hefzibah Inscription indicates that toparchs may also have been appointed over districts. - Judaic coinage in the early part of the third century (prior to about 269 BCE) might indicate a certain autonomy on the part of Judah in the early Ptolemaic period. - The decree of Antiochus III shows that Judah was allowed to have a form of government to which Hellenistic period as follows: “Judea of the early Hellenistic period, including the early days of the Hasmoneans, was still limited in territory, though somewhat larger than Persian-period Yehud. It extended from Beth-zur in the south to the area of Mizpah in the north, and probably included some territory in the up- per, eastern Shephelah. Its population grew dramatically – it is estimated to have numbered ca. 40,000 people. This estimate validates the figures given to the forces of Judas Maccabeus in 1 Maccabees, but is significantly smaller than past estimates for both the population of Judea and over-all force of the Hasmonean in the 160s BC”, Finkelstein, “The Territorial Extent and Demography”, 54.
Jerusalem and its necropolises in the Early Hellenistic period
it was accustomed […]. This included the native institution of the gerousia (council of elders).¹⁴ From this information, and the discovery on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem and other locations of more than a thousand stamped handles of Rhodian amphorae,¹⁵ it is clear that in Jerusalem, during the Early Hellenistic period, a Judahite elite composed of priests and prominent families thrived in this relatively peaceful period,¹⁶ living in houses and buried in tombs of the same affluence as their social and economic status. Yet, no remains of splendid buildings nor of large burial complexes were found in Jerusalem; in fact, as previously reported, in Jerusalem only scant remains of building and not a single tomb are dated to the Early Hellenistic period. Indeed, the dimension of Jerusalem during the Persian period is still debated, as reported in § 3.1.3. Nonetheless, it is possible to assume that the extent of the destructions of the Neo-Babylonian conquest and the reconstruction under the protective auspices of the Persian Emperor may have bequeathed to the Ptolemy dynasty a city as large as the Iron Age II C Jerusalem, with its walls restored to some extent, though mostly uninhabited, with the exception of the south-eastern hill.¹⁷ Moreover, the city which was transformed around 175 BC by Jason into a Hellenistic polis, and visited by Antiochus IV Epiphanes a few years later, seemingly was far larger and richer than the meagre archaeological remains attest:¹⁸ “both books 14. Grabbe, “Hyparchs - Oikonomoi, and Mafiosi”, 88-9. 15. Cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 56. 16. “Palestine was above all granted a period of peace for eighty years, a time of relatively peaceable development such as the country was not to see again over the next three hundred years”, Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 12. 17. “Based on the assumption that the biblical text describes historical events of the Persian period, as is generally accepted, we must conclude that some repair work was carried out by Nehemiah in the still-standing old Judahite city wall surrounding the city, which was largely abandoned at that time”, D. Ussishskin, “On Nehemiah’s City Wall and the Size of Jerusalem during the Persian Period: An Archaeologist’s View”, in I. Kalimi, New Perspectives on Ezra–Nehemiah. History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012) 101-31, on p. 125. 18. According to Mazar/Eshel 1998, grand Hellenistic buildings from the time of Jason were located in the Upper City (cf. B. Mazar/H. Eshel, “Who Built the First Wall of Jerusalem?”, IEJ 48 (1998) 265-8, on p. 267). For the context of the lavish welcoming to Antiochus IV in Jerusalem, it is worth noting that “it is quite evident from what took place after the transformation of the city that Jason was not totally out of step with most of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. When Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem a year or two later [i.e. after 175 BC], perhaps on the occasion of the formal establishment of the polis ’Antioch in Jerusalem,’ a not uncommon phenomenon in Hellenistic cities as Tcherikover suggests, ’he was sumptuously greeted by Jason and the Jerusalemites, and he was brought into the city with a torchlight parade and shouts of applause. Thereafter in the same manner [...] he and his army marched off to Phoenicia’ (2 Mace.
289
of Maccabees state that when Antiochus IV Epiphanes became king in 175 B.C.E., Jason received permission to build a gymnasium in Jerusalem and referred to the Jerusalemites as ’Antiochene’. This implies that Jerusalem had become a Greek ’polis’ in 175 B.C.E. (see 2Macc. 4:9-11; 1Macc. 1:14). It is unlikely that a city only 15 acres in size, confined to the Eastern Hill, would be granted the status of a polis”.¹⁹ In fact, both the text of Greek historians²⁰ and the context of the Maccabean revolt suggest a sizable recovery of Jerusalem in the four centuries which followed the catastrophe of 586 BC. When the Hasmonean dynasty finally took control of Jerusalem, there was already a large city to be protected by walls; in fact, the “First Wall” of Jerusalem, which encompassed the same areas of Jerusalem as the Iron Age II C city wall, was probably completed when Antiochus VII besieged Jerusalem around 134 BC.²¹ If the buildings are easily erased by new constructions²², generally the tombs, especially if carved in the rock, represent the main archaeological evidence for several periods²³. Indeed, the Judahite elite, though hellenised to some extent, most probably continued to be inhumed with the same burial practices as in the previous periods,²⁴ which
19.
20.
21. 22. 23. 24.
4:22). Given this warm reception, which clearly expressed a high degree of goodwill and loyalty to the king, it seems safe to assume that the reaction of the Jerusalem populace to Jason’s reforms, which were closely associated with the monarch, was far from hostile”, Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 73-4. Mazar/Eshel, “Who Built the First Wall”, 267. In the same sense: “There was, however, apparently a gradual improvement in the economy of Judah and Jerusalem through the third and early second centuries. We have the impression that little had altered over many centuries, but through the length of the early Greek period significant changes took place, at least in Jerusalem itself. Jerusalem became a consequential city in the region during this time, as is shown by the fact that it was able to be transformed into a Greek polis about 175 BCE”, Grabbe, A History of the Jews, 333. “The city, which underwent an economic revival under the tax farmer Joseph, now also attracted the interest of ancient writers. Timochares, the biographer and presumably also the contemporary of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, gives as its circumference the figure of 40 stadia (4.8 miles), which is probably set too high. The same figure also appears in Ps. Aristeas 105f., and at the same time or a little later the topographer Xenophon, or an anonymous writer, speaks - probably more realistically - of 27 stadia. Even for Greek conceptions, Jerusalem itself was no longer a small city”, Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 53. Cf. Mazar/Eshel, “Who Built the First Wall”, 265. Cf. note 5. For example, the extent and importance of Jerusalem in the Middle Bronze Age is inferred from the necropolis on the slopes of the Mount of Olives (cf. § 3.1.1). As pointed out by Levine 2002, there is no evidence that verifies the assertions made by Hecataeus of Adbera on the foreign influences on the burial practices of the traditional Jerusalem society of the Early Hellenistic period (cf. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City, 54).
290
The social setting of Jerusalem at the Early Hellenistic period and the dating of the SEC Hypogea
are attested until the end of the Early Roman period,²⁵ along with the new practice of burial in loculi which appeared in C2 BC.²⁶ The surprising absence of Early Hellenistic tombs in Jerusalem can be explained by postulating either that the tombs were constructed and not carved in the bedrock, in flagrant rupture with the previous longstanding Judahite tradition,²⁷ and that all were completely obliterated, or that burial caves attributed to other periods were hewn during the Early Hellenistic period. Furthermore, it is puzzling that in the burial caves dated to the Iron Age II period and reused in later periods, a hiatus occurred during the Early Hellenistic period, these tombs showing material culture of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian and Late Hellenistic periods, but not of the Early Hellenistic period, as noted before.²⁸ No remains whatsoever of Early Hellenistic burials have so far been retrieved in Jerusalem, neither tombs, nor material culture in older burials: the Early Hellenistic affluent elite of Jerusalem left no burial traces of their 191 years long existence! The contradiction between the complete absence of vestiges of Early Hellenistic Jerusalem, and the vibrant portrait of an affluent elite prospering at that time in the same city, as outlined by the reliable texts available and the large number of Rhodian handles found in the excavations, is indeed blatant.
7.2 The dating of the SEC Hypogea The use of the bench-type burial in the Jerusalem area is attested from the Iron Age II until the end of the Early Roman period, along with the loculus form of burial which appeared in Jerusalem during C2 BC, as reported above,²⁹ this implying that the SEC Hypogea can be dated in this broad range. The analysis of the tombs of the database aggregated in various groups shows no significant patterns concerning the dating of the burial caves.³⁰ Indeed, the absence of vestibules in the burial caves soundly dated to the Iron Age II period suggests a later dating for the large complexes such as the SEC Hypogea, which present an organisation of the spaces more similar to the oikos type of the Hellenistic necropolises of Alexandria,³¹ as is the case for most of the large burial complexes of the Late Hellenistic period in Jerusalem, which are provided with a vestibule.³² 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
For the use of the bench-type burial refer to § 3.3. Cf. § 3.2.3. Cf. § 3.2.1. Cf. § 3.3. Cf. § 3.3. Cf. § 6.2. Cf. Venit, Monumental Tombs, 14. Cf. Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 51-2.
Some of the architectural features of the SEC Hypogea compared to features of other tombs, are not unequivocally and solely connected to the Iron Age II period, such as the raised benches opposed to the standing-pit type, as stated by Kloner and Zelinger 2007,³³ since in the same period both raised benches and standing-pits are found,³⁴ the discriminant element for the use of these two different kinds of configuration of the tombs being probably the different cost of hewing.³⁵ Other features are mainly found in Iron Age II tombs, such as the right-angled cornices, most of them present in tombs of the Silwan Necropolis;³⁶ nevertheless it is possible that this kind of decoration continued to be used in later periods, as suggested by the cornice in the Main Chamber of the burial complex in Beit Sahur - possibly dated to the Hellenistic period - which may be an evolution of the right-angled cornice. Concerning the repositories for the bones of the deceased, in several Iron Age II tombs they are absent, implying that this is not a characteristic univocally associated to that period.³⁷ For the “sarcophagi” in Chamber 4 bis in H1, considering that this Chamber was hewn in a subsequent time,³⁸ if no perfect parallel can be found, the Late Roman-Byzantine burial cave in the Carmel region presents the closest configuration, while the less similar pattern of the Garden Tomb, at only a few metres from Chamber 4 bis, coupled with the elevated burial chamber with two “sarcophagi” in the hypogeum at Beit Sahur, suggest a wide range of time for the dating of this burial chamber of H1. While the openings on the ceiling of H1 have no closer parallels than those in two burial caves dated to the Early Roman period,³⁹ the only feature which can provide some indications for the dating of the SEC Hypogea is the parietal decoration in the Main Chamber of H1. As pointed out in § 6.2.8, despite the careful research, no parallels can be detected for this kind of decoration; nevertheless the “zone system” of the parietal decoration of the Hellenistic hypogea in Alexandria, common to the Hellenistico-Roman world in later periods too, seems to match the patterns of the decoration of the sidewall of the Main Chamber of H1. In spite of the differences from the possible Alexandrian models,⁴⁰ and far from constituting evidence, the matching of H1’s decoration with the Hellenistic “zone system”, together with the similarities of the plans of the 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
Cf. Kloner/Zelinger, “The Evolution of Tombs”, 209-10. Cf. § 3.3. Cf. § 5.1.3. Cf. § 6.2.5 Cf. § 3.3. Cf. § 5.2.1. Cf. § 6.2.7. In the Hypogea of Alexandria the panel are painted and generally juxtaposed, and not superposed, as in H1.
Who was buried in the SEC Hypogea ?
SEC Hypogea with the oikos type, may point to the cultural influence of Ptolemaic Egypt, and cannot be simply dismissed.⁴¹ The existence of an Early Hellenistic Necropolis beside one of the main roads of Jerusalem, in an area previously exploited for quarrying activities during the Iron Age II period, seems to raise the same question asked in the conclusion of § 4.9, namely, why have a necropolis so far from the city limits, both in the Iron Age II and the Late Hellenistic periods, when the northern line of the city wall was respectively about 600 m and 1000 m south of their location? This question may be answered if we consider that the location on a main road of the city would have granted to the aristocratic families of the Early Hellenistic period the visibility they needed of their power and wealth. Furthermore, the absence of Late Hellenistic period tombs in this area can be explained with the continuity in use of the tombs carved in the previous period by those families, who may have continued to inhume their dead with the same burial practices in continuity with the traditional Judahite practice, or simply because the carving of loculi in tombs like the SEC Hypogea, the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum, the tomb at the White Sisters’ Monastery and Cave 2 in Sultan Suleiman Street, was impossible, given their plans. The considerations presented above prove that there is not definitive evidence which compels a dating of the SEC Hypogea to the Iron Age II period, and that, at the same time, several elements suggest a later dating, which, assuring the continuation of the traditional Judahite burial practices, integrates these elements. The Early Hellenistic period seems to be a suitable candidate for a proposal of dating of the SEC Hypogea, and with them of other burial caves which present similar architectural features, first of all the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum,⁴² but also the less affluent burial cave in the White Sisters’ Monastery,⁴³ this shifting the period of the Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem three or four centuries later than previously hypothesised.⁴⁴ 41. As a reminder of what is summarised in § 5.4.3, the only information offered by the scant material culture retrieved in H1 points to a utilisation of this tomb during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. This is perfectly consistent with the dating of the Southern and Northern Extension of H1, with the Hidden Grave and the transformations having occurred in H2 during the Byzantine period, with the large proportion of Late Roman pottery found in Repository 4 of H1 (cf. § 1.3.3), and ultimately with the overall topographical evolution of the northern area of Jerusalem, which was extensively used for burials starting from the Late Roman period (cf. § 4.9). 42. Cf. § 4.1.4. 43. Cf. § 4.6.1. 44. In this proposal of dating, the Neo-Babylonian period is excluded because it is too close to the destruction of Jerusalem of 586 BC to allow us to suppose the existence of an elite affluent enough to afford the hewing of large burial complexes.
291
7.3 Who was buried in the SEC Hypogea ? Forgive him, on account of his age; for thou canst not certainly be unacquainted with this, that old men and infants have their minds exactly alike; but thou shalt have from us, who are young men, every thing thou desirest, and shalt have no cause to complain.⁴⁵ Joseph son of Tobias is supposed to have addressed Pharaoh Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 BC) or Ptolemy IV Epiphanes (204-180 BC) with these entertaining words, making fun of his uncle, the High Priest Onias, who had refused to pay the taxes to the Egyptian king.⁴⁶ This scene would have taken place on the royal chariot, Indeed, the “capital” was shifted to Mipzpa, at least until the end of the Neo-Babylonian rule, and no evidence, archaeological or textual, supports the hypothesis of the presence of an elite in Jerusalem in the Neo-Babylonian period (cf. A. Lemaire, “Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period”, in O. Lipschitz/J. Blenkinsopp, Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbraun, 2003) 285-98, on p. 291). For the Persian period too, no evidence is available of a prosperous elite such as in the Early Hellenistic period (cf. § 3.1.3 and § 3.1.4.). Similarly, the Late Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods are also improbable, since new practices of burials were introduced at that time, first the loculi and later the arcosolia. Even though the burial bench was still in use in this period, as attested in the burial caves found sealed with material culture of this period, and in the reutilisation of Iron Age II burial caves during this period, which can be explained with the bourgeoning of the population in need of burials, the absence of decorations typical of the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period in the SEC Hypogea makes it extremely implausible that H1, H2 and the Schmidt Institut Hypogeum were carved during these periods (for the decoration in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman burial caves see Kloner/Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem, 39-92.). Finally, the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, when the burial practices in use present a large variety of forms (mainly simple cist graves, caves with a single chamber with burial troughs, arcosolia in burial caves, composite caves with several chambers, hall caves and catacombs, and cremation burials, as presented in § 3.2.3), may be excluded, because there is no evidence of the use of the practice of burial on benches, typical of the Judahite population, which was obliged to abandon Jerusalem after the Second Jewish Revolt (cf. § 3.1.5). Furthermore, the burial chambers of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods present a highly standardised size of 2.20 x 2.10-2.20 m (see note 347), consistently different form the size of the SEC Hypogea burial chambers, measuring in average 2.60 x 2.40 m (cf. Table A2). 45. Flavius Josephus, Ant. XII, 4, 2. 46. The chronology of “the Tobiad Story” in Ant. XII does not match in several points. Sartre 2001 proposes to date this episode to 220 BC, when the the Pharaoh was Ptolemy III, even though his wife’s name was Berenice, and not Cleopatra, who was in fact the wife of Ptolemy V (cf. M. Sartre, D’Alexandre à Zénobie: Histoire du Levant antique (IVe siècle av. J.-C.-IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Paris: Fayard, 2001), 327-8). According to Nodet 2005, Flavius Josephus arranged the information he collected from different sources to fit his chronological frame of the succession of the Zadokite dynasty of High Priests (cf. E. Nodet, La crise maccabéenne. Historiographie juive et traditions bibliques (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 251-2).
292
The social setting of Jerusalem at the Early Hellenistic period and the dating of the SEC Hypogea
where the king himself invited Joseph to sit together with his wife Cleopatra (or Berenice) and the former “Egyptian Ambassador in Jerusalem”, Athenion, who recognised Joseph in the street of Memphis. Thanks to this encounter, well prepared in Jerusalem by Joseph in the days when he succeeded in winning the favour of the royal emissary Athenion, and thanks to another humorous stroke of genius in Memphis during the auction for the assignment of the collection of the taxes, the king “granted him [Joseph] the farming of the taxes without any sureties”.⁴⁷ If the incongruences of “the Tobiad Story” are numerous, and the events and conversations reported worthy of a novel, the historical background of this tale cannot be dismissed, since it is consistent with other documents.⁴⁸ Two major families are cited in this entertaining tale, the Oniads and the Tobiads, whose presence is attested in Jerusalem during C3-2 BC in other sources, along with a gerousia composed of non-priestly families, and who played an important role in the administration of Jerusalem and the regions annexed.⁴⁹ Where did these families dwell in Jerusalem? No archaeological remains can answer to this question, as noted before; nevertheless, the presence of large quantities of C3-2 BC stamped handles of Rhodian amphorae in the south-eastern hill,⁵⁰ and the scant evidence of architectural elements found in the Upper City⁵¹ suggest that these well-off families may have had their houses in these two locations of Jerusalem, the Upper City becoming in the Early Roman period, in continuity with the Late Hellenistic period, the rich quarter of Jerusalem, between the royal palace to the west, and the temple to the east.⁵² Where did these families bury their dead? As repeated several times, in the Jerusalem area, not a single burial or even the reutilisation of older tombs can be dated to the Early Hellenistic period: the priestly and aristocratic families of the Early Hellenistic Jerusalem did not leave any trace of their mortal remains.⁵³ Nevertheless, the burial practices did not change, until the second half of C2 BC, as reported above.⁵⁴ Probably, the rich families of Jerusalem owned farms and fields on the outskirts of the city, and one of the best locations was the area occupied today by the SEC; as in later periods, they may have used their land possessions for their burials too. Indeed, at only about 600 m from the Iron Age II C 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.
Cf. Flavius Josephus, Ant. XII, 4, 4. Cf. Grabbe, Hyparchs, Oikonomoi, and Mafiosi, 77-80. Cf. Grabbe, Hyparchs, Oikonomoi, and Mafiosi, 87. Cf. § 3.1.4. Cf. § 7.1. Cf. § 3.1.4 and § 3.1.5. Cf. § 3.2.2. Cf. § 3.1.4.
and Late Hellenistic city walls, on one of the main routes of access to Jerusalem, with the cliffs of El Heidhemiyeh hill already squared by the previous quarrying activities, what better location to place a visible monument of the wealth and power of a Jerusalemite family of the gerousia could be imagined at that time? The “Blickkontakt” with the temple would have been more attractive for priestly families, nevertheless prestige would be assured for them also by an impressive burial cave on the main northern axis to Jerusalem.⁵⁵ Who, then, was buried in the SEC Hypogea? An affluent and powerful family of the gerousia of the Early Hellenistic Jerusalem, with frequent contacts with Alexandria, the rich and emblematic capital of the Ptolemaic empire, is the most fitting conjecture, and, to give some flesh to this hypothesis, why not imagine that Tobias, of “the Tobiad Story” of Flavius Josephus, was buried in the transversal “sarcophagus” of Chamber 4 bis, together with his clever son Joseph, and, the mortal remains of his suicidal grandson Hyrcanus, brought back to his homeland by a pious relative ... his mother?
7.4 Future researches The proposal of dating of the SEC Hypogea to the Early Hellenistic period presents the same weaknesses as any dating of archaeological remains which were not the object of a scientific excavation. Perforce, there is no way out of over-interpretations, since - with the exception of their architectural features - not a single element considered in the study of the SEC Hypogea may be unambiguously verified; furthermore, most of the other burial caves selected for the comparison present exactly the same conditions for their investigation as the SEC Hypogea. Even for the few tombs which were found sealed and professionally excavated in recent times, the dating of their hewing by the material culture retrieved is always fundamentally an interpretation, since the tombs may have been carved in one period, then thoroughly cleared and reused and sealed in another period.⁵⁶ Nonetheless, in addition to a precise documentation and consequently to a better understating of the SEC Hypogea, reputed by the scholars to be a major reference in the landscape of the burial complexes in the Jerusalem area, the present work sheds new light on the evaluation of the elements considered for the dating of the benchtype tombs, while pointing to the mystifying gap between the picture of a prosperous Judahite elite and the total absence of vestiges of the Early Hellenistic Jerusalem. Fortunately, there is still a margin for further scientific excavations and surveys of the SEC Hypogea, which may 55. Cf. Küchler, “Meine Augen”, 164. 56. Cf. Lufrani, “A quelques pas du tombeau des rois de Judée ?”, communication, 17th November 2010.
Future researches
bring new elements for a more refined dating of H1 and H2, and add a piece to the still fragmented puzzle of Early Hellenistic Jerusalem: • The Corridor leading to the south from the Southern Extension of H1, which was unexplored when the Hypogeum was discovered,⁵⁷ may reveal additional elements concerning the transformations during the Byzantine period. • The anthropological analysis of the bones and a scientific excavation of the repositories of both H1 and H2 not yet studied, may confirm or challenge the study carried out by Sheridan. • The bedrock above H1, probably at least partially explored when the Modern Chapel was built, may disclose some vestiges connected to the Hypogeum. 57. Cf. § 1.2.1.
293
• The resumption of the excavations carried out in 2013 by Rosemary Le Bohec and the present writer in the SEC,⁵⁸ where the elevation of a quarry or possibly the façade of a burial cave was discovered only at the end of the dig, may bring to the discovery of another tomb of the Northern Necropolis. • A geophysical survey of the SEC would help to determine the location of soundings in search of other burial caves which may have been hewn on the western cliff of El Heidhemiyeh hill. As we await for further results from the archaeological investigations in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions, a well structured methodology - only sketched in this dissertation - which combines the social setting deduced form the texts with the archaeological evidence, may provide additional information for a better understanding of Early Hellenistic Jerusalem. 58. Cf. § 4.5.3.
Bibliography Abel, F.-M., “Mélanges II. Épigraphie Palestinienne”, RB 24 (1925) 575-82. Abercrombie, J.R., Palestinian Burial Practices from 1200 to 600 BCE, Philadelphia, Ph.D. diss.,University of Pennsylvania, 1979, (unpublished). Abu Raya, R. “The Third Wall”, HA 18 (1996), (Hebrew) 130-4. Abu Raya, R./‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, Nahal Ha-Egoz”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Abu Raya, R./‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, Jebel Mukabbir”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Abu Raya, R./‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Abu ‘Uqsa, H., “A Burial Cave at Horbat ‘Eitayim”, ‘Atiqot 57 (2007), (Hebrew with English summary) 65-79, 76*-8*. ‘Adawi, Z./Abu Raya, R., “Jerusalem, ‘Issawiya’”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. ‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. ‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, Tell el-Ful”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. ‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, East Talpiyot”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. ‘Adawi, Z., “Jerusalem, ‘Isssawiya”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. ‘Adawi, Z./Baruch, Y., “Jerusalem, Nahal Azal”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Adriani, A., La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, Alexandrie, Annuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain (1933-34 - 1934-35) (Alexandria: Whitehead Morris Limited, 1936). Adriani, A., Nécropoles de l’Île de Phaos. I. Section de Ras el Tine. Annuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain 3 (1940-1950) (Alexandria: Sociétè de Publications Egyptiennes, 1952). Ahituv, S., “A Rejoinder to Nadav Na’aman’s ’A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinno’”, IEJ 62 (2012) 223-32. Ahituv, S./Demsky, A. /Goren, Y. /Lemaire, A., “The Inscribed Pomegranate from the Israel Museum Examined Again”, IEJ 57 (2007) 87-95. Albertz, J./Wiggenhagen, M., Taschenbuch zur Photogrammetrie und Fernerkundung (Heidelberg: Wichmann, 2009). Albright, W.F., “The Discovery of an Aramaic Inscription Relating to King Uzziah”, BASOR 44, (1931) 8-10. Albright, W.F., “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus”, JBL 56 (1937) 145-76. Albright, W.F., The excavations of Tell Beit Misrim. Vol I. The Iron Age, AASOR 21 (New Haven: American School of Oriental Research, 1943). Amiran, R., “The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Time of the Monarchy”, in Judah and Jerusalem: The Twelfth Archaeological Convention (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1957), (Hebrew) 65-72.
Amiran, R., Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From its Beginnings tin the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1969). Amit, D., “New data for dating the High-level aqueduct, the Wadi el Biyar aqueduct, and the Herodion aqueduct”, in D. Amit/J. Patrich/Y. Hirschfeld, The Aqueducts of Israel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 46 (2002) 253-66. Amit, D./Wolff, S.R., “An Armenian Monastery in the Morasha Neighborhood, Jerusalem”, in AJR, 1994, 293-8. Amit, D./Yezerski, I., “An Iron Age II Cemetery and Wine Presses at an-Nabi Danyel”, IEJ 51 (2001) 171-93. Anonymous, “Discoveries North of Damascus Gate”, PEFQ 21 (1889) 116-7. Arav, R./Bernett, M., “The bīt hilāni at Bethsaida: Its Place in Aramaean/Neo-Hittite and Israelite Palace Architecture in the Iron Age II”, IEJ 50 (2000) 47-81. Ariel, D.T., “The Stamped Amphora Handles”, in D. BenAmi/D.T., Ariel (ed.s), Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot), Vol I, IAA Reports 52, 2013, 327-37. Ariel, D.T./Shiloh, Y., Excavations at the City of David. Vol.II, Imported stamped amphora handles, coins, worked bone and ivory, and glass, Qedem 30 (Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990). Arkin, Y./Ecker, A., Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Concerns in Developing the Infrastructure Around Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The Ministry of National Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel, 2007). Arnaould, C., “Remarques sur la place et la fonction de la porte de Damas (porte romaine) dans la cité d’Aelia Capitolina”, ZDPV 114 (1998) 179-83. Atik, M./Bell, S./Erdogan, R., “Understanding Cultural Interfaces in the Landscape: A Case Study of Ancient Lycia in the Turkish Mediterranean”, Landscape Research 38 (2013) 222-42. Avigad, N., Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1954), (Hebrew). Avigad, N., “Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem”, IEJ 22 (1972) 193-200. Avigad, N., “Chronique archéologique: Jérusalem; Quartier Juif ”, RB 80, (1973) 576-9. Avigad, N., Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1983), (Hebrew). Avigad, N./Geva, H. “Iron Age II, Strata 9-7”, in H. Geva et Al., Jewish Quarter Excavations I (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000) 44-82. Avigad, N./H. Geva, “Area W – Stratigraphy and Architecture”, in H., Geva et al., Jewish Quarter Excavations I (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000) 131-97. Avi-Yonah, M., “Three Lead Coffins from Palestine”, JHS 50 (1930) 310-2.
296
Bibliography
Avi-Yonah, M., “The Third and Second Walls of Jerusaelm”, IEJ 18 (1968) 98-125. Avi-Yonah, M., “The Byzantine Period”, in NEAEHL 2, 1993, 768-85. Avner, R., “Jerusalem, Ha-Nevi’im Street”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Avner, R., “Jerusalem, the New Gate. Final Report”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Avner, R./Zelinger, Y., “Ketef Hinnom”, HA-ESI 113 (2001) 82*-4*. Avner, R./Zelinger, Y., “A Cemetery, a Quarry and Remains of a Church at Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 80 (2015), (Hebrew) 23*-53*, 141-2. Avner, R./Arbib, K., “New archaeological excavations at the ’Russian Compound’: a contribution to the study of the ’Third Wall’ and the battle for Jerusalem”, in G.D. Stiebel et al. (ed.s), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, vol. 10, (Jerusalem: IAA-HUJ, 2016) 83-95. Avni, G., “The urban limits of Roman and Byzantine Jerusalem: a view from the necropoleis”, JAR 18:1 (2005) 373-96. Avni, G., “The Persian conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.): an archaeological assessment”, BASOR 357 (2010) 35-48. Avni, G., “From Hagia Polis to Al-Quds: The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 392-3. Avni, G./Adawy, Z., “Jerusalem, Sallah ed-Din Street”, HA-ESI 113 (2001) 75*-6*. Avni, G./Adawy, Z., “Excavations on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem, and the Northern Cemetery of Aelia Capitolina”, ‘Atiqot 80 (2015) 45-71. Avni, G./Greenhut, Z. , The Akeldama Tombs. Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1996) 36-46. Avni, G./Baruch, Y./Weksler-Bdolah, S., “Jerusalem, the Old City – Herod’s Gate”, HA-ESI 113 (2001) 76*-9*. Avni, G./Dahari, U./Kloner, A., The necropolis of Bet GuvrinEleutheropolis (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008). Avnimelech, M., “Influence of Geological Conditions on the Development of Jerusalem”, BASOR 181 (1966) 24-31. Ayalon, E./Harpazi-Ofer, S., “A Late Roman Period Burial Cave and Dump at Tell Qasile”, ‘Atiqot 55 (2007), (Hebrew) 29-36, 54-5. Bagatti, P.B./Milik, J.T., Gli scavi del “Dominus Flevit” (Gerusalemme: Tipografia dei PP. Francescani, 1958). Bahat, D., “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, NEAEHL 2, 1993, 786-9. Bahat, D., “The Western Wall Tunnels”, Qadmoniot 101-102 (1994), (Hebrew), 38-48. Bahat, D., Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta Jerusalem, 1996). Bahat, D., Touching the stones of our heritage: the Western Wall tunnels (Jerusalem: Western Wall Heritatage Foundation, 2002). Bahat, D., “Innovations in the Research of the Western Wall Tunnels”, Qadmoniot 133 (2007), (Hebrew) 41-7. Bahat, D./Solomon, A., “Innovations in the Excavations of the Western Wall Tunnels”, Judea and Samaria Research Studies 11 (2002), (Hebrew) 175–86. Barag, D., “The 2000-2001 Exploration of the Tombs of Benei Hezir and Zechariah”, IEJ 53 (2003) 79-95.
Baramki, D.C., “Note on a Cemetery at Karm esh-Shaikh, Jerusalem”, QDAP 1 (1932) 3-9. Baramki, D.C., “Byzantine Remains in Palestine II. A small monastery and chapel outside the ’Third Wall”’, QDAP 6 (1938) 56-8. Barbé, H./Zelinger, Y., “Jerusalem, Nahal Qidron”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Bar-Yosef, O., “Prehistory of the Jerusalem Area”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 149-70. Barkay, G., “On the Location of the Tombs of the later Kings of the House of David”, in M. Broshi (ed.), Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon Binyaminovitz, Studies in History, Archaeology and Geography of Eretz Israel (Jerusalem: Private publication, 1977), (Hebrew) 75-92. Barkay, G., “The Cubit of the Old Standard: An Archaeological Consideration of a Problem in Biblical Metrology”, Sixth Archaeological Conference in Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1979), (Hebrew) 35-6. Barkay, G., “Jerusalem of Old Testament Times – New Discoveries and New Approaches”, BAIAS 5 (1985-1986) 32-43. Barkay, G., “The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?”, BAR 12:02 (1986) 40-57. Barkay, G., “How We Happened to Re-Explore the Caves at St. Étienne”, BAR 12:02 (1986) 29. Barkay, G., Ketef Hinnom: A Treasure Facing Jerusalem’s Walls (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1986). Barkay, G., “The Zedekiah Cave – The archaeological aspect”, Ariel 43 (1986), (Hebrew) 102-7. Barkay, G., “Burial Headrests as a Return to the Womb. A Reevaluation”, BAR 14 (1988) 48-50. Barkay, G., “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem”, Cathedra 52 (1989), (Hebrew) 37-76. Barkay, G., “Jerusalem’s cemeteries in the First Temple Period”, in D. Amit/R. Goren (ed.), Jerusalem during the First Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi - The Israel Exploration Society, 1990) (Hebrew) 102-23. Barkay, G., “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem?”, in Ruth Amiran Volume, Eretz-Israel: archaeological, historical and geographical studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990), (Hebrew) 94-106. Barkay, G., “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem”, TA 19 (1992) 139-92. Barkay, G., “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem”, in AJR 1994, 85-106. Barkay, G., “Tombs and Burial Practices in Judea during the Biblical Period”, in Graves and burial practices in Israel in the ancient period, ed. I. Singer (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, The Israel Exploration Society, 1994), (Hebrew) 96-164. Barkay, G., “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem?”, IEJ 46 (1996) 23-43. Barkay, G., “Caves North of Damascus Gate and the Date of Jerusalem’s Northern Moat”, Cathedra 83 (1997), (Hebrew) 7-26. Barkay, G., “The First-Temple period burial caves north of Damascus Gate and the date of Jerusalem’s northern moat”, Cathedra 83 (1997), (Hebrew) 25-26. Barkay, G., “Three First Temple Burial Caves North of Damascus Gate and the Date of Jerusalem’s Northern Moat”, Cathedra 83 (1997), (Hebrew) 7-26.
Bibliography Barkay, G., “The necropolis of Jerusalem in the First Temple period”, in S. Ahituv/A. Mazar (ed.s), The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2000), (Hebrew) 233-70. Barkay, G., “What’s an Egyptian Temple Doing in Jerusalem?”, BAR 26 (2000) 48-57. Barkay, G., “Who Was Buried in the Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter?”, BAR 39 (2013) 41-51. Barkay, G./Kloner, A., “Burial Caves North of Damascus Gate, Jerusalem”, IEJ 26 (1976) 55-57. Barkay, G./Kloner, A., “Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple”, BAR 12:02 (1986) 22-39. Barkay, G./Kloner, A./Mazar, A., “The Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem during the First Temple Period”, in AJR 1994, 119-27. Barkay, G./Mazar, A./Kloner, A., “The Northern Cemetery of Jerusalem in First Temple Times” Qadmoniot 8 (1975), (Hebrew) 71-6. Barkay, G./Vaughin, A.G./Lundberg, M.J./Zuckerman, B., “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation”, BASOR 334 (2004) 41-71. Barnett, R.D., “The Urartian cemetery at Igdyr”, AnatSt 13 (1963) 153-98. Barstad, H.M., “After the ’Myth of the Empty Land’: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah”, in O. Lipschits (ed.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 3-20. Baruch, Y., “Tell el-Ful”, HA-ESI 111 (2000), p. 62*-4*. Baruch, Y., “Buildings of the Persian, Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods at Khirbat Kabar, in the Northern Hebron Hills”, ‘Atiqot 52 (2006), (Hebrew) 49*-71*, 205-7. Baruch, Y./Eirikh-Rose, A., “Jerusalem, Sanhedriya”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site. Baruch, Y./Ganor, A., “Jerusalem, Khirbat ‘Addasa”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Baruch, Y./Levi, D., “Jerusalem, Qiryat Shemuel”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Baruch, Y./Ganor, A., “Jerusalem, Mar Elias”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site. Baruch, Y./Weiss, D., “Jerusalem, The Western Wall Plaza”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Batz, S., “Wadi Fukin”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Baughan, E.P., Couched in Death: Klinai and Identity in Anatolia and Beyond (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2013). Bautch, K.C./Bautch, R./Barkay, G./Sheridan, S.G., “’The Vessels of the Potter shall be broken’: The Material Culture from a Burial Cave at St. Étienne’s Monastery, Jerusalem”, RB 107:4 (2000) 561-90. Ben-Ami, D./Tchekhanovetz, Y., “Jerusalem, Giv’ati Parking Lot”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Ben-Ami, D./Tchekhanovetz, Y., “Jerusalem, Giv‘ati Parking Lot Preliminary Report”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Ben-Ami, D./Tchekhanovets, Y., “’Then they built up the City of David with a high, strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel’ (I Maccabees 1:33)”, in E. Meiron (ed.), City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 11 (2016) 19*-29*. Ben-Arieh, S./Netzer, E., “Excavations along the ’Third Wall’ of Jerusalem, 1972-1974”, IEJ 24:2 (1974) 97-107. Ben-Arieh, S./Netzer, E., “Where is the Third Wall of Agrippa I?”, The Biblical Archaeologist 42 (1979) 140-1.
297
Ben-Dov, M., “Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods”, NEAEHL 2, 1993, 786. Ben-Eliahu, E., “Origin of Uzziah plaque”, Cathedra 98, (2000), (Hebrew) 157-8. Benoit, P., “L’Antonia d’Herode le Grand et le forum oriental d’Aelia Capitolina”, Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971) 135-67. Benoit, P., “Où en est la question du ‘troisième mur’?” in M. Piccirillo/I. Mancini/E. Testa/B. Bagatti/G.C. Bottini (ed.), Studia Hierosolymitana, Vol. 1(Jerusalem: Franciscan Print Press, 1976) 111-26. Benoit, P., “Activités archéologiques de L’École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem depuis 1890”, (unpublished). Berlin, A.N., “Power and its Afterlife. Tombs in Hellenistic Palestine”, Near Eastern Archaeology 65, (2002) 138-48. Bessac, J.-C., L’outillage traditionnel du tailleur de pierre de l’Antiquité à nos jours (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1987). Betzer, P., “Ein Sarig”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Bieberstein, K., “Blickkontakt mit den Toten”, Archäologie in Deutschland 2 (1997) 12-7. Bieberstein, K./Bloedhorn, H., Jerusalem. Grundzüge des Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, Vol. 1-3 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1994). Biers, J./Terry, J., (ed.), Testament of Time: Selected Objects from the Collection of Palestinian Antiquities in the Museum Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri-Columbia (Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003). Billig, Y., “A Burial Cave of the Second Temple Period in the Arnona Quarter, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006) 154-6. Billig, Y., “Jerusalem, The Jewish Quarter. Final Report”, HAESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Biran, A./Gophna, R., “Tel Halif ”, IEJ 15 (1965) 255. Biscop, J.-L., Deir Déhès Monastère d’Antiochène. Etude architécturale (Beyrouth: IFAPO, 1997). Bloch-Smith, E., Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOT Supplement Series 123 (1992). Bloch-Smith, E., “Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead”, Near Eastern Archaeology 65 (2002) 120-30. Bloch-Smith, E., “Resurrecting the Iron I Dead”, IEJ 54 (2004) 77-91. Bloch-Smith, E., “Death and Burial, Bronze and Iron Age”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology, 2013, 254-62. Bonato, S., “Aspects de l’hellénisation de la Judée : les monuments funéraires des nécropoles de Jérusalem”, Kölner Jahrbuch 32 (1999) 7-31. Bonato-Baccari, S., “Le mausolée en ’opus reticulatum’ de Jérusalem: tombeau d’Hérode ou simple témoin d’un modèle romain?”, Latomus 61 (2002) 67-87. Bozra, E./Palagia, O., “The Chronology of the Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina”, Jahrbuch des Deutchen Archäologischen Instituts 122 (2007) 81-125. Braun, E., “Jerusalem, the Citadel. Archive Report- Final Report”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Bresc-Bautier, G., (ed.), Le cartulaire du Chapitre du SaintSépulcre de Jérusalem, (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1984). Brichto, H.C., “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife”, Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973) 1-54.
298
Bibliography
Brocato, P., “Sull’origine e lo sviluppo delle prime tombe a dado etrusche. Diffusione di un tipo architettonico da Cerveteri a San Giuliano”, Studi Etruschi 61 (1996), 57-93. Broshi, M., “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh”, IEJ 24 (1974, 21-6. Broshi, M., “The Serpents’ Pool and Herod’s Monument. A Reconsideration”, MAARAV 8 (1992) 213-22. Broshi, M., “Iron Age Remains in the Chapel of St. Vartan in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre”, in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 82-4. Broshi, M., “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem”, in M. Broshi, Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 110-20. Broshi, M., “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh”, in M. Broshi, Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 174-80. Broshi, M./Barkai, G./Gibson,S., “Two Iron Age Tombs Below the Western City Wall, Jerusalem and the Talmudic Law of Purity”, Cathedra 29 (1983), (Hebrew) 17-32. Brown, P.R.L., The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Bruno, V.J., “Antecedents of the Pompeian First Style”, American Journal of Archaeology 73 (1969) 305-17. Bryce, T.R., “Lycian Tomb families and their social implication”, Journal of the Economics and Social History of the Orient 22 (1979) 295-313. Bryce, T.R., “Burial Practices in Lycia”, Mankind Quarterly 21 (1980) 165-78. Burgess, I.C./Mithcell, M., “Origin of limestone pavements”, Proceedings of Cumberland Geological Society 5 (1994) 405-12. Burke, S., Delos: Investigating the notion of privacy within the ancient Greek house, PhD Thesis submitted at the University of Leicester, 2000 (unpublished). Burkes, S., Death in Koheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 170, 1999). Burney, C., “Urartian Funerary Customs”, in S. Campbell/A. Green (ed.s), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monographs in Archaeology 51 (1995) 205-8. Burrows, M., “The Byzantine Tombs in the Garden of the Jerusalem School”, BASOR 47 (1932) 28-35. Cahill, J., “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence”, in A.G. Vaughn/A.E. Killebrew (ed.s), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003) 13-80. Caillou, J.-S., Les Tombeaux Royaux de Judée dans l’antiquité. De David à Hérode Agrippa II (Paris: Geuthner, 2008). Carter, C.E., “Ideology and Archaeology in the NeoBabylonian Period: Excavating Text and Tell”, in O. Lipschits (ed.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 301-22. Çevik, N., “New Rock-Cut Tombs at Etenna and the Rock-Cut Tomb Tradition in Southern Anatolia”, Anatolian Studies 53 (2003) 97-116. Chaplin, T., “Discovery at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 8 (1876) 9. Choshen, M./Korach, M., Jerusalem: Facts and Trends 2011 (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2011). Clermont-Ganneau, C., Recueil d’ Archéologie Orientale, Tome VI (Paris: Leroux, 1905).
Clermont-Ganneau, C./Aubrey, S., Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873-1874. Volume I (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1899). Cohen, M./Haiman, M., “Salim. Final Report”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Compte, M.-C., Les reliquaries du Proche-Orient et de Chypre à la période protobyzantine (IVe – VIIIe siècles). Formes, emplacements, fonctions et cultes, BAT 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). Conder, C.R., “Early Christian Topography in Palestine, RockCut Tombs, Kalamon, and the Synagogues of Umm el Amud”, PEQ 8 (1876) 17-20. Conder, C.R., “The Asnerie”, PEFQ 9 (1877) 143-4. Conder, C.R., “Jerusalem”, PEFQ 13 (1881) 201-5. Conder, C.R./Mantell, A.M., “Jerusalem: Newly Discovered Church”, PEFQ 14 (1882) 116-20. Chroniques des premières années du couvent Saint-Étienne de Jérusalem (unpublished), EBAF Archives. Chroniques conventuelles 1896 (unpublished), EBAF Archives. Crace, F.S.A., “The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem”, PEFQ 46 (1914) 29-33. Cross, F.M., “The Cave Inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei”, in J.A. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1970) 299-306. Dagan, Y./Barda, L., “Jerusalem, har Homa”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Dalman, G.H., Jerusalem und sein Gelände (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930). Davis, D./Maddin, R./Muhly, J.D./Stech, T., “A Steel Pick from Mt. Adir in Palestine”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44 (1985) 41-51. De Saucly, F., Voyage en Terre sainte, vol. ii (Paris: Didier et Cie, 1865). De Saucly, F., Jérusalem (Paris: Morel et Cie, 1882). De Tarragon, J.-M., “Cheikh Antoun et son compagnon: deux dominicains de Jérusalem en expédition”, Biblia 32 (2004) 40-3. De Vaux, L., “Découvertes récentes à Jérusalem”, RA 7 (1886a) 371-4. De Vaux, L., “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles entreprises par les R.P. Dominicains dans leur domaine de Saint-Etienne, près de la porte de Damas à Jérusalem”, RA 12 (1888b) 32-60. Dever, W.G., “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kôm”, Hebrew Union College Annual 40 (1969-1970) 139-204. Dever, W.G., “Solomonic and Assyrian Period ’Palaces’ at Gezer”, IEJ 35 (1985) 217-30. Dever, W.G., “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era”, The Biblical Archaeologist 50 (1987) 148-77. Devos, P., “Dédicace de Saint-Etienne à Jérusalem: 439”, Analecta Bollandiana 105 (1987) 265-79. Di Segni, L., “Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia Capitolina”, Liber Annus 64 (2014) 441-51. Dunkel, A., Das heilige Land 46 (1902) 91. Dunkel, A./Hanauer, J.E., “Excavations at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 403-5. Durand, X., Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant JésusChrist. Le dossier syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos (261-252), Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38 (Paris: Gabalda, 1997).
Bibliography Eck, W., “Revision lateinischer Inschriften aus Jerusalem”, ZPE 169 (2009), 213-29. Edelman, D., “The Location and Function of the Towers of Hanan’el and the Hundred in Persian-Era Jerusalem”, ZDPV 127 (2011) 49-74. Edelstein, G./Ussishkin, D./Dothan, T./Tzaferis, V., “The Necropolis at Tell ’Aitun”, Qadmoniot 4 (1971), (Hebrew) 86-90. Eirikh, “Jerusalem, the Slopes of Mount Scopus, Survey”, HAESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Elisha, Y., “Khirbat el-Bira”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site. Empereur,J.Y., A Short Guide to the Catacombs at Kom el Shuqafa Alexandria (Alexandria: Harpocrates Pub., 2003). Empereur, J.Y./Nenna, M.D., (ed.s), Nécropolis I. Etudes alexandrines 5 (Cairo: IFAO, 2001). Eshel, H., “The Late Iron Age Cemetery of Gibeon”, IEJ 37 (1987) 1-17. Fantalkin, A., “The Appearance of Rock-cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation”, in A. Fantalkin/A. Yassur-Landau (ed.s), Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Series 31 (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 18-9 Fantalkin, A./Tal, O. “Judah and its Neighbors in the Fourth Century BCE: A Time of Major Transformations”, in Ro, J.U. (ed.), From Judah to Judea: Socio-economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period, Hebrew Bible Monographs 43 (2012), 134-97. Fuast, A, “Settlement Dynamics and Demographic Fluctuations in Judah from the Late Iron Age to the Hellenistic Period and the Archaeology of Persian Period Yehud”, in Y. Levin (ed.), A Time of Change: Judah and its Neighbors During the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods (London: Continuum, 2007) 23-51. Faust, A., “Did Eilat Mazar find David’s Palace?”, BAR 38 (2012) 47-52. Faust, A./Bunimovitz, B., “The Judahite Rock-Cut Tomb: Family Response at a Time of Change”, IEJ 58 (2008) 150-70. Fedak, J., “Tombs and commemorative monuments”, in F.E. Winter (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Achitecture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006) 89-90. Feig, N., “An Iron-Age II Dwelling Cave on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 67 (2011), (Hebrew) 41-59, 86*-87*. Feig, N./Hadad, S., “Roman Burial Caves at B’billin”, ‘Atiqot 83 (2015) 93-123. Finkelstein, I., “Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (2008) 501-20. Finkelstein, I., “Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: A Rejoinder”, JHS 9 (2010) 2-13. Finkelstein, I., “The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods”, RB 117 (2010) 39-54. Finkelstein, I., “Jerusalem in the Iron Age: Archaeology and Text; Reality and Myth”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, 2011) 189-201. Finkelstein, I., “The ’Large Stone Structure’ in Jerusalem. Reality versus Yearning”, ZDPV 127 (2011) 1-10.
299
Finkelstein, I., “The finds from the Rock-Cut Pool in Jerusalem and the date of the Siloam Tunnel: an alternative interpretation”, Semitica et Classica 6 (2013) 279-84. Finkelstein, I., “History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015”, RivB 63 (2015) 371-92. Finkelstein, I./Herzog, Z./Singer-Avitz, L./Ussishkin, D., “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?”, Tel Aviv 34 (2007) 142-64. Finkelstein, I./Koch, I./Lipschits, O., “The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the ’Problem with Jerusalem”’, JHS 11 (2011) 2-24. Finkelstein, I./Piasetzky, E., “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?”, NEA 74 (2011) 50-4. Fischer, G., Jeremia 1-25 (HThKAT, 2005). Flavius Josephus, War, Thackeray, LCL. Flavius Josephus, Ant., Thackeray, LCL. Fleischer, R., “The Rock-tombs of the Pontic Kings in Amaseia (Amasya)”, in J.M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Oakville CT: Aarhus University Press, 2009) 109-20. Foerster, G., “Architectural Fragments from ’Jason’s Tomb’ Reconsidered”, IEJ 28 (1978) 152-6. Franken, H.J./Steiner, M.L., Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Volume II, The Iron Age extramural quarter on the south-east hill (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). Frevel, C., (ed.), Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Friedman, R.E./Overton, S.D., “Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence”, in A.J. Avery-Peck/J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity IV (Leiden: Handbook of Oriental Studies 49, 2000) 35-59. Galling, K., “Die Nekropole von Jerusalem”, PJB 32 (1936) 73-101. Ganor, A./Kahati, R./Ganor, S., “Jerusalem, Silwan”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Ganor, A./Klein, A., “Jerusalem, Sur Bahir”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Ganor, A./Ganor, S., “A Burial Cave frome the Second-First Centuries BCE near ’En Gedi”, ‘Atiqot 84 (2016), (Hebrew) 65*-78*, 126-7. Ganor, S./Ganor, A., “Kafr Kanna (East). Final Report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site Ganor, S./Ganor, A., “Deir Abu ‘Ali”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Ganor, S./Ganor, A./Kehati, R. “An Iron Age II Burial Cave in the Southern Burial Ground at Tel ‘Etun”, ‘Atiqot 73 (2013), (Hebrew) 1*-9*, 135. Gay, K.A./Corsten, T., “Lycian Tombs in the Kibyratis and the Extent of Lycian Culture”, Anatolian Studies 56 (2006), 47-60. Geva, H., “The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration”, IEJ 34 (1984) 239-54. Geva, H., “History of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem”, NEAEHL 2, 1993, 801-4. Geva, H., “The Roman Period”, in NEAEHL 2, 1993, 758-67. Geva, H., “On the ’New City’ of Second Temple Period Jerusalem: The Archaeological Evidence”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 298-312.
300
Bibliography
Geva, H., “Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View”, Tel Aviv 41 (2014) 141-60. Geva, H./Bahat, D., “Architectural and Chronological Aspects of the Ancient Damascus Gate Area”, IEJ 48 (1998) 223-35. Geva, H./Gutfeld, O., “Jerusalem, the Old City – the Jewish Quarter, the Hurva Synagogue”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Gibson, S., “The Excavations at the Bethesda Pool in Jerusalem. Preliminary Report on a Project of Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis (1999–2009)”, Proche-Orient Chrétien 61 (2011) 17-44. Golani, A., “Jerusalem, Khirbat Sabiha (West)”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Goldfus, H./Arubas, B./Alliata, E., “The Monastery of St. Theoctistus (Deir Muqallik)”, Liber Annus, 45 (1995) 247-92. Gonen, R., “Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Age Period”, BASOR 253 (1984) 61-74. Grabbe, L.L., A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE), Volume 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008). Grabbe, L.L., “Hyparchs - Oikonomoi, and Mafiosi: e Governance of Judah in the Ptolemaic Period”, in L.L. Grabbe/O. Lipschits (ed.s), Judah Between East and West. The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400-200 BCE), LSTS 75 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 73. Grabbe, L.L./Lipschits, O., (ed.s), Judah Between East and West. The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400-200 BCE), LSTS 75 (London: T&T Clark, 2011). Greenberg, R./Keinan, A., Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967-2007 (Jerusalem: Ostracon, 2009). Greenhut, Z./‘Adawi, Z., “Caves from the Iron Age and the Early Roman Period at ‘Ein el-Luza, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 59 (2008), (Hebrew) 21*, 197. Greenhut, Z., “Khirbat Harsis”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site. Greenhut, Z./Zissu, B., “Ramat Razi’el”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site. Greenhut, Z./Zissu, B., “Horbat Gader”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Gregoricka, L.A./Sheridan, S.G., “Food for Thought. Isotopic Evidence for Dietary and Weaning Practices in a Byzantine Urban Monastery in Jerusalem” in M.A. Perry (ed.), Bioarchaeology and Behavior: The People of the Ancient Near East (Gainesville: University of Florida, 2012) 138-64. Gregoricka, L.A./Sheridan, S.G., “Ascetic or affluent? Byzantine diet at the monastic community of St. Stephen’s, Jerusalem from stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes”, J ANTHROPOL ARCHAEOL 32 (2013) 63-73. Gregoricka, L.A./Sheridan, S.G./Schirtzinger, M., “Reconstructing life histories using multi-tissue isotope analysis of commingled remains from st Stephen’s monastery in Jerusalem: limitations and potential”, Archaeometry 59 (2017) 148-63. Greve, A., Sepulkrale Hofarchitekturen im Hellenismus: Alexandria - Nea Paphos - Kyrene, Contextualizing the sacred, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2014). Gunter, A., “Orientalism and Orientalization in the Iron Age Mediterranean”, in B.A., Brown/M.H. Feldman, Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 2013) 79-108.
Gutfeld, O., “The Urban Layout of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem”, n K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, 2011) 327-50. Hachlili, R., Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Hachlili, R., Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Haddad, E., “A Burial Cave from the First–Second Centuries CE and Double-Arcosolia Tombs from the Fourth–Fifth Centuries CE on the Fringes of Horbat Zikhrin”, ‘Atiqot 56 (2007), (Hebrew) 45-57, 74*-5*. Haddad, E., “Modi’in. Final Report”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Hadidi, A., “An Ammonite Tomb at Amman”, Levant 19 (1987) 101-20. Hamilton, B.M., Mamluk Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The World of Islam Festival Trust - British School of Archaeology, 1987). Hamilton, R.W., “Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937-8”, QDAP 10 (1940) 37, 44-5. Hamrick, E.W., “New Excavations at Sukenik’s ’Third Wall”’, BASOR 183 (1966) 19-26. Hamrick, E.W., “The Northern Barrier Wall in Site T. Pp.”, in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. I (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1985) 215-32. Hanauer, J.E., “The Place of Stoning”, PEFQ 13 (1881) 317-9. Hanauer, J.E:, “Remarks on the Supposed Shrine of Cybele Found near the Garden Tomb”, PEQ 56 (1924) 187-91. Harding, G.L., “Two Iron Age Tombs in Amman”, ADAJ 1 (1951) 37-40. Harrison, R., “Hellenization in Syria-Palestine: The Case of Judea in the Third Century BCE”, The Biblical Archaeologist 57 (1994) 98-108. Haspels, C.H.E., The Highlands of Phrygia: Sites and Monuments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971). Hawari, M., “Ayyubid Jerusalem: New Architectural and Archaeological Discoveries”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 453-73. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Volume I, Text (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974). Hennessy, J.B., “Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Damascus Gate 1964-1966”, Levant 2 (1970) 22-7. Henry, O., Tombes de Carie: Architecture funéraire et culture Carienne VIe–IIe siécle av. J.-C. (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008). Hentschel, G., 1 Könige (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984). Hodos, T., Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean (New York: Routledge, 2006). Holladay,W.L.A., A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-32 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Howard, P., Archaeological Surveying and Mapping: Recording and Depicting the Landscape (New York: Routledge, 2007). Humbert, J.B., “Excavation at Saint John Prodromos, Jerusalem”, in D. Amit/G.D. Stiebel/O. Peleg-Barkat (ed.s), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, vol. 5, (Jerusalem: IAA-HUJ, 2011) 22*-47*. Husseini, S.A.S., QDAP 7 (1938) 58. Kadobayashi, R./Kochi, N./Otani, H./Furukawa, D., “Comparison and evaluation of laser scanning and photogrammetry and their combined use for digital recording of cultural
Bibliography heritage”, International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 35.5 (2004) 401-6. Kagan, E.D., “Jerusalem, Sheikh Jarrah”, HA-ESI 124 (2012), Internet Site. Kamlah, J., “Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/Juda. Materielle Befunde, Jenseitsvorstellungen und die Frage des Totenkultes”, in A. Berlejung/A. Krüger/B. Janowski/J. Dietrich (ed.s), Tod und Jenseits im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 257-97. Karageorghis, V., “The Relations between the Tomb Architecture of Anatolia and Cyprus in the Archaic Period”, in E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1978) 361-8. Karageorghis, V., Paleopaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypren 3 (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1983). Katsnelson, N., “The Glass Finds”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), HA-ESI, Internet Site. Keel, O., “The Peculiar Headrests for the Dead in First Temple Times”, BAR 13 (1987) 50-3. Keel, O., Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 1 und 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Kelp, U., “Grave monuments and local identities in Roman Phrygia”, in P. Thonemann (ed.), Roman Phrygia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 70-94. Kenyon, K., Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History (London: Thames and Hudson, 1967). Kenyon, K.,“Excavation in Jerusalem. 1967”, PEQ 100 (1968) 97-111. Kenyon, K., Digging up Jerusalem (London & Tonbridge: Ernest Benn Limited, 1974). Kisilevitz, S./Onn, A./Ouahnouna, B./Weksler-Bdolah, S., “Jerusalem, The Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005-2009”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Kisilevitz, S./Onn, A./Ouahnouna, B./Weksler-Bdolah, S., “Layers of Ancient Jerusalem”, BAR 38 (2012) 36-47, 69-70. Kitchen, K.A., “The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment”, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C., OAW (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000) 39-52. Klein, E., “Khirbat Deir Sallam (East)”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site. Klein, E./Sapir, N., “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site. Klein, E./Distelfeld, N., “El-Bi’na (east)”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site. Klein, E./Ganor, A., “Horbat Ezra”, HA-ESI 128 (2016), Internet Site. Kloner, A., The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second temple Period, PhD dissertation submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, April 1980, (unpublished), (Hebrew). Kloner, A., “A First Temple Period Burial Gave at Sobah”, HA 78–79 (1982), (Hebrew) 71-2. Kloner, A., “The ’Third Wall’ in Jerusalem and the ’Cave of the Kings’ (Josephus War V 147)”, Levant 18 (1986) 121-9.
301
Kloner, A., “Iron Age Burial Caves in Jerusalem and Its Vicinity”, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 19-20 (2001) 95-108. Kloner, A., Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authoritiy Publications, 2001). Kloner, A., Survey of Jerusalem. The North-western Sector (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2003). Kloner, A./Davis, D., “A Burial Cave of the Late First Temple Period on the Slope of Mount Zion”, Qadmoniot 41 (1978), (Hebrew) 16-9. Kloner, A./Davis, D., “A Burial Cave of the Late First Temple Period on the Slope of Mount Zion”, iin Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 107-110. Kloner, A./Zelinger, Y., “The Evolution of Tombs from the Iron Age Through the Second Temple Period”, in C. White/A. Sidnie (ed.s), Up to the gates of Ekron (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007) 209-20. Kloner, A./Zissu, B., The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Knauf, E.A., “Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal”, Tel Aviv 27 (2000) 75-97. Koch, G., Sarkophage der Römischen Keiserzeit (Darmstadt: WBG, 1993). Kogan-Zehavi, E., “A Burial Cave of the Byzantine Period in the Nahalat Ahim Quarter, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006), (Hebrew) 160-1. Köroğlu, K., “New Observations on the Origin of the SingleRoomed Rock-Cut Tombs of Eastern Anatolia”, in M. Alparslan/M. Doğan-Alparslan/H. Peker (ed.s), Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan, VITA, Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol (İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2007) 445-56. Kreutz, B.M., “Mediterranean Contributions to the Medieval Mariner’s Compass”, Technology and Culture 14 (1973) 367-83. Kropp, A.J.M., Images & Monuments of Near Eastern Dynasts, 100 BC- AD 100 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Kuban, Z., Die Nekropolen von Lymra: Bauhistorische Studien zur klassischen Epoche (Wien: Phoibos Verlag, 2012). Küchler, M., “Meine Augen haben ihr Heil gesehen (fast Lk 2,30): Das Mariengrab im Kedrontal als Ausdruck des christlichen Paradoxes vom Glauben aus dem Sehen des Abwesenden”, in D. Böhler/I. Imbaza/P. Hugo, L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker, OBO 214 (Göttingen: Fribourg Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) 160-82. Küchler, M., Jerusalem. Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zur Heiligen Stadt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Küchler, M., Jerusalem. Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zur Heiligen Stadt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). Kuhnen, H.-P., Nordwest-Palästina in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Bauten un Gräber im Karmelgebiet (Weinheim: Acta Humaniora, 1987). Kuhnen, H.P., Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit (München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1990). Irsigler, H., Zefanja (Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder Verlag, 2002).
302
Bibliography
Lagrange, M.-J., “Chronique. Lettre de Jérusalem”, RB 2 (1893) 631-4. Lagrange, M.-J., Saint Etienne et son Sanctuaire à Jérusalem (Paris: Gabalda, 1894). Larché, F./Braemer, F./Geyer, B., ’Iraq al Amir, le château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Vol.II, Restitution et reconstruction. Texte (Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient (IFPO), 2005). Lavi, R., “Jerusalem, Musrara. Final Report”, HA-ESI 124 (2012), Internet site. Leeming, H., Josephus’ Jewish War and its Slavonic Version (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Lehmann, G./Killebrew, A., “Palace 6000 at Megiddo in Context: Iron Age Central Hall Tetra-Partite Residencies and the ”Bit-Hilani” Building Tradition in the Levant”, BASOR 359 (2010) 13-33. Lemaire, A., “Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the NeoBabylonian Period”, in O. Lipschitz/J. Blenkinsopp, Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbraun, 2003) 285-98. Lemche, N.P., “Is the Old Testament still a Hellenistic book?”, in I. Hjelm/T.L. Thompson, Biblical Interpretation beyond historicity. Changing perspective 7 (New York: Routledge, 2016) 61-75. Lenski, N., “Empresses in the Holy Land: The Creation of a Christian Utopia in Late Antique Palestine”, in L. Ellis/F.L. Kinder (ed.), Travel, Communication, and Geography in Late Antiquity: Sacred and Profane (London: Ashgate, 2004) 113-21. Levenson, Y./Emmanuel, S., “Pore-scale heterogeneous reaction rates on a dissolving limestone surface”, preprint submitted to Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (2013) 1-17. Levi, D., “Jerusalem, Binyane Ha-Umma (Southeast)”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Levine, L.I., Jerusalem. Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (New York: Continuum, 1999). Levine, L.I., Jerusalem. Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002). Levy, T.E./Higham, T., (ed.s), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox, 2005). Lewy, Z., “Zedekiah Cave or the Quarries of King Solomon in Jerusalem: A Subsurface Stone Quarry for Building the Second Temple by King Herod”, Geological Survey of Israel (2005), http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/cave358004.shtml Leyerle, B., “Children and Disease in a Sixth Century Monastery”, in L.V. Rutgers (ed.), What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology (Leuven: Peeters, 2002) 349-72. Liddell, H.G./Scott, R./Jones, H.S., A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., revised supplement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Lightbody, D.I., “The Cubit in Iron Age Cypriot Architecture”, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, vol. 2008 (2008) 291-306. Lipschits, O., The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005). Lipschits, O., “Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations”, JHS 9 (2009) 2-30. Lipschits, O., “Between archaeology and the text: a reevaluation of the development process of Jerusalem in the Persian
period”, in M. Nissinen, Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 145-65. Lipschits, O., “Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of the City in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods”, in L.L. Grabbe/O. Lipschits (ed.s), Judah Between East and West. The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400-200 BCE), LSTS 75 (London: T&T Clark, 2011) 163-75. Little, A.M.G., “The Decoration of the Hellenistic Peristyle House in South Italy”, American Journal of Archaeology 39 (1935) 360-71. Liverani, M., Oltre la Bibbia: Storia antica d’Israele (Roma Bari: Editori Laterza, 2005). Livnat, A./Flexer, A./Shafran, N., “Mesozoic unconformities in Israel: Characteristics, mode of origin and implications for the development of the Tethys”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 55 (1986) 189-212. Loffreda, S., “Typological Sequence of Iron Age Rock-Cut Tombs in Palestine”, Liber Annuus 18 (1968) 244-87. Loffreda, S., “The Late Chronology of some Rock-cut Tombs of the Selwan Necropolis, Jerusalem”, Liber Annuus 23 (1973) 7-36. Longley, P.A., Geographic Information Science and Systems (Hoboken; John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, 2015). Lorini, A., Osservazioni sopra un’etrusco lampadario di bronzo rinvenuto recentemente nel territorio di Cortona (Montepulciano: Tipografia Angiolo Fumi, 1844). Lufrani, R., “A quelques pas du tombeau des rois de Judée? Une surinterprétation sous examen”, communication at the international conference “Monuments et Documents: interprétation et surinterpreétation”, organised by EBAF and CFRJ, Jerusalem, 17th November 2010. Lufrani, R., “Have the Tombs of the Kings of Judah Been Found?: A Response. An Answer to Hershel Shanks’s Question”, BAR online Scholar’s Study section, available from 21.09.2011, retrieved form http://www.biblicalarchaeology. org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/ an-answer-to-hershel-shankss-question/. Macalister, R.A.S., “The Rock-Cut Tombs in Wady er-Rababi, Jerusalem”, PEFQ 32 (1900) 225-48. Macalister, R.A.S., “The Rock-Cut Tombs in Wady er-Rababi, Jerusalem”, PEFQ 33 (1901) 145-58, 215-26. Macalister, R.A.S., “El-Edhemîyeh (Jeremiah’s Grotto)”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 129-32. Mackenzie, D., “The Tombs of Beth-Shemesh”, PEFQ Annual 2 (1913) 40-92. Maeir, A.M., Bronze and Iron Age tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: finds from Raymond-Charles Weill’s excavations in 1914 and 1921 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004). Maeir, A.M., “The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem: From the Late Proto- Historic Periods (ca. 5th Millennium) to the End of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200 B.C.E.)”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 170-87. Maeir, A.M./Magness, J./Schiffman, L.H., Go out and study the land’ (Judges 18,2): archaeological, historical and textual studies in honor of Hanan Eshel (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2012). Magen, M., “Excavation at the Damascus Gate, 1979-1984”, in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 281-6. Magen, Y., “Cemetery at Beit ‘Anun, on the Hebron Hills”, Qadmoniot 34 (2001) 53-9.
Bibliography Magen, Y., “Qalandiya - A Second Temple-period Viticulture and Wine-manufacturing Agricultural Settlement”, in Y. Magen/D. T. Ariel/G. Bijovsky/Y. Tzionit/O. Sirkis, The Land of Benjamin (Jerusalem: Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria IAA, JSP 3, 2004) [29]-[144]. Magness, J., Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology circa 200-800 C.E. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Magness, J., “The North Wall of Aelia Capitolina”, in L.E. Stager/J.A. Greene/M. D. Coogan (ed.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, (SAHL1; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000) 328-39. Magness, J., “A Near Eastern Ethnic Element Among the Etruscan Elite?”, Etruscan Studies, Journal of the Etruscan Foundation 8 (2001) 79-118. Magness, J., “Early Islamic Urbanism and Building Activity in Jerusalem and at Hammath Gader”, in J., Haldon (ed.), Money, Exchange and the Economy in the First Century of Islam: An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Debates (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010) 147-63. Magness, J., “Aelia Capitolina: A Review of Some Current Debates about Hadrianic Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 313-24. Magness, J., The Archaeology of the Holy Land. From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Masarwa, A., “Jatt. Final Report”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site. Masarwa, A., “Ar’ara. Final Report”, HA-ESI 119 (2007), Internet Site. Masarwa, A./Barshad, D., “Kafr Qari. Final Report”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Mazar, A., “Iron Age Burial Caves North of the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem”, IEJ 26:1 (1976) 1-8. Mazar, A., “A survey of aqueducts in Jerusalem”, in D. Amit/J. Patrich/Y. Hirschfeld, The Aqueducts of Israel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 46 (2002) 210-44. Mazar, A., “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. Its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution”, in T.E. Levy/T. Higham (ed.s), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox, 2005) 15-30. Mazar, A., “The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the TenthNinth Centuries BCE”, in H.G.M. Williamson (ed.), Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (London: Oxford University Press, 2007) 143-71. Mazar, A., “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy”, in R.G. Kratz/H. Spieckermann (ed.s), One God – One Cult – One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, BZAW 405 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010) 29-58. Mazar, A., “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint”, NEA 74 (2011) 105-11. Mazar„ B./Mazar, E., Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount. The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, Qedem 29, (Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989). Mazar, B./Eshel, H., “Who Built the First Wall of Jerusalem?”, IEJ 48 (1998) 265-8. Mazar, E., The Complete Guide o f the Temple Mount Excavations (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2002).
303
Mazar, E., “The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Second Millennium BCE in Light of the New Excavations in the City of David”, in E. Baruch/A. Faust (ed.s), New Studies on Jerusalem, vol 12 (Ramat-Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 2006), (Hebrew with English abstracts) 21-8, 8*-9*. Mazar, E., The Palace of King David. Excavations at the Summit of the City of David. Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2009). Mazar, E., “The Wall that Nehemiah Built”, BAR 35 (2009) 24-33. Mazar, E., Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem. A Remarkable Archaeological Adventure (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011). Mazar, E., “Les fortifications de Jérusalem à l’époque de la royauté de David et de Salomon”, Pardès 50 (2011) 69-77. Mazar, E., The Discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the Foot of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013). Mazar, E./Horowitz, W./Oshima, T./Goren, Y., “A Cuneiform Tablet from the Ophel in Jerusalem”, IEJ 60 (2010) 4-21. McBirnie, W.S., The Search of the Authentic Tomb of Jesus (Montrose: California, Acclaimed Books, 1975). Merrill, S., “New Discoveries in Jerusalem”, PEFQ 17 (1885) 222-9. Michaelides, D./Mlynarczyk, J., “Tombs PM 2520 an PM 2737 from the Eastern Necropolis of Nea Paphos”, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus (1988) 149-70. Miller, T.S., The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003). Mlynarczyk, J., “Terracotta oil lamps from Qumran: the typology”, RB 120 (2013) 99-133. Montagnes, B., Marie-Joseph Lagrange: Une biographie critique (Paris: Cerfs, 2004). Moran, W., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Murphy-O’Connor, J., “The Garden Tomb and the Misfortunes of an Inscription”, BAR 12 (1986) 54-5. Murphy-O’Connor, J., “Recension to The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Excavations by C.-M. Bennet and J.-B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66, (BAR International Series 519), by Wightman, G., J., Oxford, 1989”, RB 99 (1992) 288. Murphy-O’Connor, J., “Le cult d’Étienne à Jérusalem: l’église Saint-Étienne de l’École Biblique”, Biblia 38 (2005) 27. Murphy-O’Connor, J., The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Murphy O’Connor, J., “Jerusalem”, in The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3 (Nashville, TN: Abingdom Press, 2008). Murphy O’Connor, J., “The Argument for the Holy Sepulchre”, RB 117 (2010) 83-5. Murphy-O’Connor, J., Key to Jerusalem: Collected Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Na’aman, N., “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B. C. E.”, BASOR 304 (1996) 17-27. Na’aman, N., “Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of David”, Biblica 85 (2004) 249-53. Na’aman, N., “A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom”, IEJ 61 (2011) 184-95.
304
Bibliography
Na’aman, N., “Five Notes on Jerusalem in the First and Second Temple Periods”, Tel Aviv 39 (2012) 93-103. Nagar, A., “Jerusalem, Binyane Ha-Umma”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Nagar, A., “Jerusalem, ‘Ir Gannim”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Nagorsky, A., “Netanya, Pardes Ha-Gedud”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Naveh, J., “Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave”, IEJ 13 (1963) 74-92. Negbi, O., “The Necropolis of Biblical Moa”, in S. Abramsky (ed.), The S. Yeivin Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: Qiryat Sefer, 1970) (Hebrew) 358-70. Netzer, E., “Searching for Herod’s Tomb”, BAR 9 (1983) 30-59. Netzer, E., “Herod’s Family Tomb in Jerusalem”, BAR 9 (1983) 52-9. Netzer, E., The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Backer Academic, 2006). Netzer, E./Ben-Arieh, S., “Remains of an Opus Reticulatum Building in Jerusalem”, IEJ 33 (1983) 163-75. Nodet, E., La crise maccabéenne. Historiographie juive et traditions bibliques (Paris: Cerf, 2005). Nodet, E., “Josephus and discrepant sources”, in J. Pastor/P. Stern/M. Mor (ed.s) Flavius Josephus. Interpretation and History, Supplements of the Journal of the Study of Judaism 146 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011) 275-7. Nodet, E., “Editing the Bible: Alexandria or Babylon?”, in T.L., Thompson/P., Wajdenbaum, The Bible and Hellenism. Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Duram: Acumen, 2014) 36-55. Novak, M., “Das ’Haus der Totenpflege’. Zur Sepulkralsymolik des Hauses im Alten Mesopotamien”, Altorientalische Forschungen 27 (2000) 132-54. Nutkowicz, H., L’homme face à la mort au royaume de Juda: Rites, pratiques et representations (Cerfs: Paris, 2006). Ögün, B., “Die urartaischen Gräber in der Gegend von Adilcevaz und Patnos”, in E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology 1 (AnkaraIzmir: Ekrem Akurgal, 1978) 61-7. Olszewski, M.T., “The Orpheus Funerary Mosaic from Jerusalem in the Archaeological Museum at Istanbul”, in M. Şahin (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaic, October 16th – 20th, 2009 (Busra Turkey - Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2011) 655-63. Onn, A./Weksler-Bdolah, S., “Khirbat Umm el-‘Umdan”, HAESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Onn, A./Weksler-Bdolah, S./Bar-Nathan, R., “The Old City, Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Osborne, J.F., “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah”, JNES 70 (2011) 35-53. Pagenstecher, R., Nekropolis. Untersuchungen über Gestalt und Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer Malereien (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devirent, 1919). Palagia, O./Bozra, E.N., “The Chronology of the Macedonian Royal Tombs at Vergina”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 122 (2007) 81-125. Parry, B./Perkins, C., World Mapping Today (Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 2000). Paton, L.B., “The Third Wall of Jerusalem and some Excavations along its Supposed Line”, JBL 24 (1905) 197-211.
Patrich, J., Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995). Peleg, Y., “Beit ‘Ur el-Tahta”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site. Petit, T., “Usage de la coudée dans l’architecture palatiale de Chypre au premier millénaire”, Ktema: Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome Antiques, 25 (2000) 179-83. Petrie, F., “The Tomb Cutter’s Cubit at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 24 (1892) 28-35. Rahmani, L.Y., “Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 3 (1961) 93-120. Rahmani, L.Y., “Jason’s Tomb”, IEJ 17 (1968) 61-100. Rahmani, L.Y., “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs: Part Two”, BA 44: 4 (1981) 229-35. Rahmani, L.Y., “More Lead Coffins from Israel”, IEJ 37 (1987) 123-46. Rahmani, L.Y., “Five Lead Coffins from Israel”, IEJ 42 (1992) 81-102. Rahmani, L.Y., A Catalogue of Roman and Byzantine Lead Coffins from Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1999). Re’em, A., “Horbat Kelah”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Re’em, A., “Jerusalem, the Third Wall. Final Report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Re’em, A., “First Temple Period Fortifications and Herod’s Palace in the Kishle Compound”, Qadmoniot 43 (2010), (Hebrew) 96-101. Re’em, A., “Iron-Age Quarries, Second Temple-Period Installations and Ottoman Watchtower on the Southern Slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 63 (2010) 28-30. Re’em, A./Abu Raya, R., “Jerusalem, Mount of Olives”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Re’em, A./Abu Raya, R., “Jerusalem, ‘Issawiya”, HA-ESI 119 (2007), Internet Site. Re’em, A./‘Adawi, Z./Ilan, T., “Burial Caves from the Second Temple and Byzantine Periods on the Western Slope of Mount of Olives, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006), (Hebrew with English summary) 158-60. Re’em, A./Kahati, R., “Khirbat el-Khamis”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Reich, R., “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem”, in AJR, 1994, 111-8. Reich, R., “The Sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE: Flavius Josephus’ Description and the Archaeological Record”, Cathedra 131 (2009), (Hebrew) 25-42. Reich, R., “Roman Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE: Flavius Josephus’ Account and Archaeological Record”, in G. Theissen et al. (ed.s), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie, Topographie, Theologie: Festschrift für Max Küchler zum 65. Geburtstag, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 70, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) 117-32. Reich, R./Shukrun, E., “The Urban Development of Jerusalem in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.”, in A.G. Vaughn/A.E. Killebrew, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003) 209-18. Reich, R./Shukrun, E., “The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem”, Levant 36 (2004) 211-23. Reich, R./Shukrun, E., “The Excavation of the ’Rock-cut Pool’ near the Gihon Spring, Jerusalem” in E. Baruch/Z. Greenhut/A. Faust (ed.s), New Studies on Jerusalem II (Ramat Gan: Bar-Han University, 2006) 17-21. Reich, R./Shukron, E., “The date of the Siloam Tunnel reconsidered”, Tel Aviv 38 (2011) 147-157.
Bibliography Rengstorf, K.H. (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Unabridged Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Ribar, J.W., Death Cult Practices in Ancient Palestine, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973, (unpublished). Ritmeyer, L., “Locating the Original Temple Mount”, BAR 18 (1992) 24-45, 64-5. Ritmeyer, L., The quest: revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, The Lamb Foundation, 2006). Ritmeyer, L./Ritmeyer, K., Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount (Washington (D.C.): Biblical archaeology society, 2006). Robinson, E., Biblical Researches in Palestine. Vol. I (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1860). Rochelle, D., “Ottoman Jerusalem: The Growth of the City outside the Walls”, in S. Tamari (ed.), Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and Their Fate in the War (Jerusalem: The Institute of Jerusalem Studies/Bethlehem: Badil Resource Center, 2002) 10-29. Rollston, C.A., “A fragmentary cuneiform tablet from the Ophel (Jerusalem): methodological musings about the proposed genre and Sitz im Leben”, Antiguo Oriente 8 (2010) 11-21. Roos, P., Survey of Rock-Cut Chamber-Tombs in Caria: SouthEastern Caria and the Lyco-Carian Borderline. Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 72 (Göteborg: P. Åströms förlag, 2006). Rosenthal, R./Sivan, R., Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection, Qedem 8 (1978). Rupprecht, K., “Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebuseitisches Erbe?”, BZAW 144 (1977) 5-15. Sader, H., “Nécropoles et Tombes Phéniciennes du Liban”, Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea 1 (1995) 15-30. Safrai, Z./Sasson, A., Quarrying and quarries in the land of Israel, in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Elkana, 2001), (Hebrew). Sala, M., L’architettura sacra della Palestina nell’età del Bronzo Antico I-II. Contesto archeologico, analisi, architettura e sviluppo storico (Roma: CMA, Università la Sapienza, 2007). Samellas, A., Death in the Eastern Mediterranean (50-600 A. D.: The Christianization of the East: an Interpretation) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Särkiö, P., “Hilferuf zu Jahwe aus dem Versteck. Eine neue Deutung der Inschrift šr mr aus Hirbet Bēt Lēy”, ZDPV 113 (1997) 30-60. Sartre, M., D’Alexandre à Zénobie: Histoire du Levant antique (IVe siècle av. J.-C.-IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Paris: Fayard, 2001). Sauer, J.A., “Babylonian-Persian Cemetery at Tell al-Mazar”, BA 42 (1979) 71-2. Savignac, M.R., “Inscription romaine et sépultures au nord de Jérusalem”, RB 13 (1904) 82-100. Scheil, V., “Varia, II”, RB 1 (1892) 116-7. Schick, C., “Notes, Mr. Schick’s Work at Jerusalem”, PEFQ 6 (1874) 125. Schick, C., “Neue Funde im Norden von Jerusalem”, ZDPV 2 (1879) 102-12. Schick, C., “New discoveries in the North of Jerusalem”, PEFQ 11 (1879) 198-200. Schick, C., “Neu endtdeckte Felsengräber bei der Grabeskirche in Jerusalem”, ZDPV 8 (1885) 171-3. Schick, C., “Die neu aufgefundenen Felsengräber neben der Jeremiasgrotte bei Jerusalem”, ZDPV 9 (1886) 74-8. Schick, C., “The Newly Discovered Rock-Cut Tombs Close to the Jeremiah Grotto near Jerusalem”, PEFQ 18 (1886) 155-7.
305
Schick, C., “Notes from Jerusalem”, PEFQ 19 (1887) 154-5. Schick, C., “Two cisterns near Jeremiah’s Grotto”, PEFQ 22 (1890) 256-7 Schick, C., “Letters from Baurath Schick”, PEFQ 24 (1892) 9-25. Schick, C., “Gordon’s Tomb”, PEFQ 24 (1892) 120-4. Schick, C., “Excavations on the Rocky-Knoll North of Jerusalem”, PEFQ 25 (1893) 298-9. Schick, C., “Tombs, or a remainder of the Third Wall?”, PEFQ 27 (1895) 30-2. Schick, C:, “Newly Discovered Rock Block with Tombs”, PEFQ 29 (1897) 105-7. Schick, C., “Hill of Jeremiah’s Grotto, called by General Gordon ’Skull Hill”’, PEFQ 33 (1901) 402-5. Schick, C., “Notes to accompany the Plan of Jeremiah’s Grotto”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 38-42. Schick, C., “Notes and News”, PEFQ 34 (1902) 1-9. Schick, R., “Mamluk and Ottoman Jerusalem”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 475-90. Schmitt, E., “Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded ’Death after Death”’ in A.J. Avery-Peck/J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity IV (Leiden: Handbook of Oriental Studies 49, 2000), 87-100. Schoenecke, L., “Ein Felsblock mit Gräbern bei Jerusalem”, MNDPV 3 (1897) 37. Seif El-Din, M./Guimier-Sorbets, A.M., “Les deux tombeaux de Perséphone dans la nécropole de Kom el-Chougafa à Alexandrie”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 121 (1997) 355-410. Seligman, J., “Jerusalem’s Ancient Walls Strike Again - The Knights’ Palace Hotel”, ‘Atiqot 43 (2002) 73-86. Seligman, J., “The Department of Antiquities and the Israel antiquities Authority (1918-2006): The Jerusalem Experience”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, 2011) 125-46. Seligman, J., “The Hinterland of Jerusalem during the Byzantine Period”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 361-83. Séjourné, P.-M., “Chroniques bibliques”, RB 1 (1892) 257-74. Séjourné, P.-M., “La Palestine chrétienne. Découvertes récentes et explorations”, RB 1 (1892) 118-25. Séjourné, P.-M., “Chroniques Palestiniennes”, RB 3 (1894) 627-8. Sheridan, S.G., “’New life the Dead receive’: The Relationship between Human Remains and the Cultural Record for Byzantine St. Stephen’s”, RB 106 (1999) 611. Shiloh, Y., “Excavations at the City of David. Vol.I, 1978-1982, interim report of the first five seasons”, Qedem 19 (1984). Shiloh, Y., “Judah and Jerusalem in the Eight-Sixth Centuries B.C.E.”, in G. Seymour, W. G. Dever, Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (Boston: The Annual of The American Schools of Oriental Research 49, 1989) 97-106. Shiloh, Y./Horowitz, A., “Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Israel”, BASOR 217 (1975) 37-48. Shortland, A., “Shishak, King of Egypt: the Challenges of Egyptian Calendrical Chronology”, in T. Levy/T. Higham (ed.s), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox Publishing, 2005) 43-56.
306
Bibliography
Shukrun, E./Savariego, A., “Jerusalem, the Third Wall (Area C)”, ESI 13 (1995) 78-9. Sklar-Parnes, D.A., “Jerusalem, Salah a-Din Street”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Sielberman, N.A., “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem: archaeology, religious commemoration and nationalism in a disputed city, 1801-2001”, Nations and Nationalism 7 (2001) 487-504. Silberman, N.A., “Archaeology, Ideology, and the Search for David and Solomon”, in in A.G. Vaughn/A.E. Killebrew, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003) 395-405. Sivan, R./Solar, G., “Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988”, in AJR, 1994, 168-76. Smallwood, E.M., The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: a Study in Political Relations (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Smith, R.H., Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirhet Kufin, Palestine (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1962). Solimany, G., “Jerusalem, Giv’at Gonem”, HA-ESI 116 (2004), Internet Site. Solimany, G., “En Lavan”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Solimany, G./Winter, T./De Vincenz, A., “A Burial Cave from the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in Horbat Gores, The Gonen Quarter, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 54 (2006), (Hebrew) 161-3. Solimany, G./Reich, R., “A Burial Cave from the Early Roman Period on Diskin Street, Jerusalem”, ‘Atiqot 65 (2011), (Hebrew) 93-103, 71*-2*. Spronk, K., Beatific afterlife in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 219 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1986). Stark, H., “Mevasseret Zion”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Stavrakopoulou, F.,“Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship”, Biblica 87:1 (2006) 1-21. Steiner, M.L., Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Vol. 3 (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001). Steingraber,S., “New Discoveries and Research in Southern Etruscan Rock Tombs”, Etruscan Studies, Journal of the Etruscan Foundation 3 (1996) 75-104. Stern, E., Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. (Jerusalem: Warminster Teddington House, Aris & Phillips, Israel Exploration Society, 1982). Stiebing,W.H., Uncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 250-1. Stieglitz, R.R., “Classical Greek Measures and the Builder’s Instruments from the Ma’agan Mikhael Shipwreck”, American Journal of Archaeology 110 (2006) 195-203. Storchan, B., “Jerusalem. Sheikh Jarrah”, HA-ESI 128 (2016), Internet Site. Strzygowski, J., “Das neugefundene Orpheus-Mosaik in Jerusalem”, ZDPV 24 (1901) 139-65. Sukenik, E., “An Epitaph of Uzziahu King of Judah”, Tabriz 2/3 (1931), (Hebrew) 288-92. Sukenik, E., “Funerary Tablet of Uzziah, King of Judah”, PEFQ 63 (1931) 217-21. Sukenik, E.L./Mayer, L.A., The Third Wall of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Azriel Press, 1930). Sukenik, E.L./Mayer, L.A., “A New Section of the Third Wall, Jerusalem”, PEQ 76 (1944) 145-51. Sussman, V., “Secular and Religious Life in the Holy Land in the Roman and Byzantine Periods as illustrated on Oil Lamps”,
in L., Chrzanovski (dir.), Nouveautés Lychnologiques (Sierre: LynchoService, 2003) 223-36. Tal, O., “On the Origin and Concept of the Loculi Tombs of Hellenistic Palestine”, Ancient West & East 2 (2003) 288-307. Tal, O., The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine: between Tradition and Renewal (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2006), (Hebrew). Tarhan, M.T., “Recent Research in the Urartian Capital Tushpa”, Tel Aviv, 21 (1994) 25-57. Tawfik, D., “Jerusalem, the Old City. Final Report”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Tawfik, D., “Jerusalem, the Rockefeller Museum. Final Report”, HA-ESI 121 (2009), Internet Site. Theis, C./Van der Veen, P., “Some ’Provenanced’ Egyptian Inscriptions from Jerusalem: A Preliminary Study of Old and New Evidence”, in G. Galil et al., The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Century B.C.E.—Culture and History—Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010, Münster, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 392, Ugarit Verlag, 2012, 509-24. Thomas, Z., “Debating the United Monarchy: Let’s See How Far We’ve Come”, Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 46.2 (2016) 59-69. Thorn, J.C., The necropolis of Cyrene: two hundred years of exploration (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2005). Tobler, T., Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII. IX. XII. et XV (Helsingfors: J. C. Hinrischs’sche Buchhandlung, 1874). Toffolo, M.B., “Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-resolution Radiocarbon Dating”, Radiocarbon 56 (2014) 221-44. Toumazou, M.K./Yerkes, R.W./Kardulias, P.N., “Athienou arcaheological project: Investigations in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, 1990-1995”, Journal of Field Archaeology 25 (1998) 163-82. Toueg, R., “Modi’in”, HA-ESI 127 (2015), Internet Site. Travidendi, “Letter from Africa, by Signor Travidendi the Traveller, to Canova the Sculptor, Palmyra, Dec. 17, 1818”, Atheneum, or, Spirit of the English Magazines, 9 (1821) 144. Triebel, L., Jenseitshoffnung in Wort und Stein Nefesch und pyramidales Grabmal als Phänomene antiken jüdischen Bestattungswesens im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Tufnell, O., Lachish (Tell ed Duweir). III, The Iron Age (London: Oxford University Press, 1953). Turner, G., “The Palace and Bâtiment Aux Ivoires at Arslan Tash: A Reappraisal”, Iraq 30 (1968) 62-8. Turner, G., “The State Apartments of Late Assyrian Palaces”, Iraq 32 (1970) 177-213. Tzaferis, V./Feig, N./Onn, A./Shukron, E., “Excavations at the Third Wall, North of the Jerusalem Old City”, in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 287-92. Tzaferis, V./Amit, D./Sarig, N., “A Byzantine Painted Tomb North of Damascus Gate”, ‘Atiqot 29 (1996), (Hebrew) 71*-5*, 112-3. Tzafrir, Y., “The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map”, in M., Piccirillo, The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1999) 155-64. Ussishkin, D., The Village of Silwan. The Necropolis form the Period of the Judean Kingdom (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993).
Bibliography Ussishkin, D., “The Rock-Cut Tombs at Van and Monumental Tombs in the Near East”, Monograph British Institute of Arhcaeology at Ankara 16 (1994) 253-64. Ussishkin, D., “The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem in the Persian Period”, in O. Lipschits/M. Oeming, Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 147-66. Ussishkin, D., “The Temple Mount in Jerusalem During the First Temple Period: An Archaeologist’s View”, in D. Schloen, (ed.), Exploring the Longue Duree—Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 473-83. Ussishskin, D., “On Nehemiah’s City Wall and the Size of Jerusalem during the Persian Period: An Archaeologist’s View”, in I. Kalimi, New Perspectives on Ezra–Nehemiah. History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012) 101-31. Ussishkin, D., “Was Jerusalem a fortified stronghold in the Middle Bronze Age? — an alternative view”, Levant 48 (2016) 135-51. Ussishkin, D./Woodhead, J., “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992-1993: Second Preliminary Report”, Levant, 26 (1994) 1-48. Van der Veen, P., “When Pharaos Ruled Jerusalem”, BAR 39 (2013) 42-8, 67. Van Pool, T.L./Leonard, R.D., Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology (Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). Vaughn, A.G./Killebrew, A.E., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of biblical Literature, 2003). Venit, M.S., Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Vincent, L.-H., “Une mosaïque byzantine à Jérusalem”, RB 10 (1901) 436-52. Vincent, L.-H., Jérusalem antique, vol. i (Paris: Gabalda, 1912). Vincent, L.-H., “Canalisation byzantine et arabe au nord de la ville”, RB 23 (1914) 426-9. Vincent, L.-H., “Jérusalem, glanures archéologiques”, RB 33 (1924), 431-7. Vincent, L.-H., “Chronique: Garden Tomb, historie d’un mythe”, RB 34 (1925), 401-31. Vincent, L.-H., “Encore la troisième enceinte de Jérusalem”, RB 54 (1947) 90-126. Vincent, L.-H./Abel, F.-M., Jérusalem nouvelle. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, vol. ii, i et ii (Paris: Gabalda, 1914). Vincent, L.-H./Abel, F.-M., Jérusalem nouvelle. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, vol. ii, iv (Paris: Gabalda, 1926). Vincent, L.-H./Steve, A.-M., Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. Recherches d’archéologie et d’Histoire, vol. I (Paris: Gabalda, 1954). Vlachou, V., “Death and Burial in the Greek World”, in ThesCRA Vol. VIII, ad. to Vol. VI (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2012) 363-84. Volynsky, F., “Barqa (North)”, HA-ESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Von Luschan, F.C.H./Koldewey, R., Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, vol. 2: Ausgrabungsbericht und Architektur (Berlin: Spemann, 1898). Von Oppeneimer, M./Langeregger, F./Müller, K./Naumann, R., Tell Halaf 2: Die Bauwerke von Felix Langenegger, Karl
307
Müller, Rudolf Naumann; bearbeitet und ergänzt von Rudolf Naumann (Berlin: W. de Grutyer, 1960). Wagner-Lux, U., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabung unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem in den Jahren 1970 und 1971”, ZDPV 88 (1972) 185-201. Waldbaum, J.C., “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B. C.: The Eastern Perspective”, BASOR 293 (1994) 53-66. Warren, C./Conder, C.R., Survey of Western Palestine (London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884). Wekselr-Bdolah, S., “Jerusalem, The Old City, Mish’ol Qorov”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Weksler-Bdolah, S., “Jerusalem, the Old City – the New Gate”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site. Wekselr-Bdolah, S. “Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls of Jerusalem in Light of New Discoveries”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 417-51. Weksler-Bdolah, S./Onn, A./Ouahnouna, B./Kisilevitz, S., “Jerusalem, the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005-2009. Preliminary report”, HA-ESI, 121 (2009), Internet Site. Wenning, R., “’Medien’ in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Juda?”, in C., Frevel (ed.), Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),109-50. Westgate, R., Greek Mosaics of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 1995, (unpublished). Westgate, R., “Life’s rich pattern: decoration as evidence for room function in Hellenistic houses”, British School at Athens Studies 15 (2007), 313-21. Whitcomb, D., “Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City”, in K. Galor/G. Avni (ed.s), Unearthing Jerusalem. 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011),399-416. Wiegmann, A., “Jerusalem, Tell el-Ful”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site. Wiegmann, A./Tanami, D., “Jerusalem, Ramat Polin”, HA-ESI 126 (2014), Internet Site. Wieseman, D.J., “A Babylonian Architect?”, Anatolian Studies 22 (1972) 141-7. Wightman, G.J., The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem: Excavations by C.-M. Benett and J.B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66 (Oxford: BAR International Series 519, 1989). Wightman, G.J., The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluk, (London: Meditarch, 1993). Wilson, C., Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, (London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1906) 203-4. Wilson, J.M., “Doric Measure and Architectural Design 1: The Evidence of the Relief from Salamis”, American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000) 73-94. Wimmer, S., “Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai”, in S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, II (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990) 1065-106. Winnett, F./Reed, W., The Excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) in Moab, AASOR 36-37 (1964). Winter, F.E., Studies in Hellenistic Architecture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).
308
Bibliography
Yannai, E., “A Burial Cave from Iron Age II and the Early Roman Period North of Tel Hadid”, ‘Atiqot 70 (2012), (Hebrew) 1-20, 79*. Yezerski, I., “Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II-III Judahite Rock -cut Tombs”, IEJ 63 (2013) 50-77. Zahle, J., “Lycian tombs and Lycian cities”, in Actes du colloque sur la Lycie antique, Bibliothèque de l’Institut français d’études anatolienne d’Istanbul 27 (1980) 37-49. Zelinger, Y., “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. Final Report”, HAESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Zelinger, Y., “Jerusalem, ’Zedekiah’s Cave”’, HA-ESI 119 (2007), Internet Site. Zelinger, Y., “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. Final Report”, HAESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Zelinger, Y., “Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. Final Report”, HAESI 122 (2010), Internet Site. Zelinger, Y., “Jerusalem, ’Zedekiah’s Cave”’, HA-ESI 124, (2012), Internet Site. Zilberbod, I., “Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum”, HA-ESI 117 (2005), Internet Site.
Zilberbod, I., “Jerusalem, Knesset Residence”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Zilberbod, I., “Jerusalem, the Old City. Final Report”, HA-ESI 120 (2008), Internet Site. Zilberbod, I., “The Lower Aqueduct”, HA-ESI 123 (2011), Internet Site. Zissu, B., The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. New Discoveries, MA Thesis, Jerusalem, Hebrew Univiversity, 1995, (Hebrew), (unpublished). Zissu, B., “Jerusalem, ‘Ein el-Lauza”, HA-ESI 118 (2006), Internet Site. Zissu, B., “A Burial Cave with a Greek Inscription and Graffiti at Khirbet el-‘Ein, Judean Shefela”, ‘Atiqot 53 (2006) 27-36. Zissu, B./Gass, E., “The identification of biblical Achzib at Khirbet ’Ēn el-Kizbe in the Judean Shephelah, and the origins of Shimon Bar Kokhba”, in A.M., Maier/J., Magness/L.H., Schiffman, “Go out and study the land” (Judges 18,2): archaeological, historical and textual studies in honor of Hanan Eshel (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 377-426. Zwickel, W., “Jerusalem und Samaria zur Zeit Nehemias. Ein Vergleich”, Biblische Zeitschrift 52 (2008) 201-22.