What Are the Stones Whispering?: Ramat Raḥel: 3,000 Years of Forgotten History 9781575064994

Citation preview

What Are the Stones Whispering?

This page left intentionally blank.

What Are the Stones Whispering? Ramat Raḥel: 3000 Years of Forgotten History by

Oded Lipschits, Yuval Gadot, Benjamin Arubas, and Manfred Oeming With contributions by

Efrat Bocher, Boaz Gross, Uri Davidovich, Itamar Taxel, Dafna Langgut, Ran Morin, Dvori Namdar, Omer Sergi, Roi Porat, Liora Freud, Yoav Farhi, Nirit Kedem, Ido Koch, Keren Ras, and Ronny Reich

Winona Lake, Indiana EISENBRAUNS 2017

Cover photos:

Aerial photo of the garden area, with the Persian Period expansion.

Photograph:

Skyview Cover Design: Andy Kerr Layout: Andy Kerr—Eisenbrauns Copyright © 2017 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. http://www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

 

Names: Lipschitz, Oded, author. | Gadot, Yuval, author. | Arubas, Benny, author. | Oeming, Manfred, author. Title: What are the stones whispering? : Ramat Rahel : 3000 years of forgotten history / by Oded Lipschits, Yuval Gadot, Benjamin Arubas and Manfred Oeming. Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016047985 (print) | LCCN 2016048594 (ebook) | ISBN 9781575064987 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781575064994 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Ramat Raòhel (Israel)—Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel— Ramat Raḥel. Classification: LCC DS110.R34 L575 2017 (print) | LCC DS110.R34 (ebook) | DDC 956.94/4—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016047985 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾ ™

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ramat Raḥel—Excavation Staff 2005–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section One: Introductory Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Chapter One: Strategic Location, Natural Surroundings and Processes in Site Formation . . . . . . . . . 11 Chapter Two: The Question of the Site’s Ancient Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter Three: History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Early Research of the Tel and its Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Aharoni’s Excavations: 1954, 1956, 1959–1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Yohanan Aharoni 1919–1976 (Boaz Gross) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Terror in Ramat Raḥel—the 1956 Shooting Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Creative Preservation in the Ramat Raḥel Archaeological Garden (Ran Morin) . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Barkay (1984) and Solimani (2000–2002) Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The New Joint Expedition of the Tel-Aviv and Heidelberg Universities (2004–2010) . . . . . . . . . 28

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center—Late Iron Age to the Early Hellenistic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Chapter Four: Historical Introduction to the First Building Phase– Judah under Assyrian Rule . . . . . 36 Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th Century BCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Ramat Raḥel—Jar Stamp Impression Center for c. 500 Years (Ido Koch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 lmlk Stamp Impressions (Omer Sergi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 “Private” Stamp Impressions (Ido Koch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Ivory Seal of šlm (Son of) klkl—Discovered in the 2010 Excavation Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Concentric Circle Incisions on Jar Handles (Omer Sergi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Iron Age II Architectural Fragments at Ramat Raḥel (Keren Ras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Chapter Six: Historical Introduction to the Second Building Phase– Judah under Egyptian and Babylonian Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Second Building Phase Landscape Design (Nirit Kedem) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 The Royal Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Royal Garden and Ancient Near Eastern Parallels (Boaz Gross) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Water Installations and Conspicuous Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Boundaries of the Building Complex and its Fortifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Inner Courtyard, Eastern Courtyard and Buildings inside the Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Rosette Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles (Ido Koch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Dating the Second Building Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Iron Age Pottery Vessels: Typology, Chronology and Use (Liora Freud) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 v

vi

Table of Contents Elegant Trumpet-Based Krater—Equivalent to the Vessel from the “House of Bullae” in the City of David (Liora Freud) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The King’s Feast: Evidence for Palace Courtyard Ceremonies in the Second Building Phase . . . . . 84 Lion Stamp Impressions and their Significance for Understanding the Babylonian Period in Judah . 88 Three-Dimensional Palace Reconstruction of the Second Building Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Chapter Eight: Historical Introduction to the Third Building Phase– Judah under Persian Rule . . . . . 95 Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 The Persian Period Administrative Center at Ramat Raḥel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Yehud Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 A Persian Period Garbage Pit Containing an Assemblage of yehud Stamped Jars . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Recreation of the Royal Garden Vegetation (Dafna Langgut) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Twilight of the Administrative Center during the Early Hellenistic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 yršlm Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles (Efrat Bocher) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Chapter Ten: Destruction and Oblivescence of the Administrative Center in Ramat Raḥel . . . . . . . . 117

Section Three: From Government Center to Jewish Village—Ramat Raḥel between the Hasmonean Period and the First Jewish–Roman War . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Chapter Eleven: Fourth Building Phase—The Hasmonean and Early Roman Periods . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Second Temple Period Ritual Baths in Ramat Raḥel (Ronny Reich) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 The Southern Columbarium (Uri Davidovich) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The Tyrian Silver Coin Hoard in the Columbarium (Yoav Farhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Section Four: The Rural Settlement—Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Periods to the Days of Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Chapter Twelve: Fifth Building Phase—Late Roman and Byzantine Period Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 130 Rare Hadrian Bulla (Yoav Farhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 The Late Roman Period Graveyard (Keren Ras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Chapter Thirteen: Abbasid to Ottoman Periods (660–1517 CE) (Itamar Taxel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Chapter Fourteen: Coins and Hoards (Yoav Farhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Chapter Fifteen: Subterranean Space Survey in the Southern Ramat Raḥel Hilltop (Uri Davidovich and Roi Porat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Chapter Sixteen: “Landscape Archaeology” in the Western Slopes or Ramat Raḥel (Uri Davidovich) . . 151 Chapter Seventeen: Modern Period—the Story of Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel (Efrat Bocher) . . . . . . . . . . 155 Modern fortifications (Efrat Bocher) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Conclusion: The Ramat Raḥel Excavations, and a Few Thoughts about the Significance of Archaeology for Understanding the History of Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Preface From the very first day, Hol Hamoed Sukkot 5717— September 23, 1956, when Yohanan Aharoni invited the 12th Annual Archaeological Convention of the Israel Exploration Society attendees to see the results of his August and November 1954 excavations on the tell adjacent to Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel, it was already clear to all that this was not just another archaeological site from the First and Second Temple Periods. From the outset it was clear to all that exposing its secrets and gaining an understanding into its historical and political context would make a most meaningful contribution to the investigation of these formative periods in the history of Israel. Today, after four additional excavation seasons by Aharoni under the joint auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Sapienza–Università di Roma (1959–1962), and after six more excavation seasons conducted by the joint Expedition of Tel-Aviv and Heidelberg Universities (2005–2010), it can be said with certainty that no one could have imagined how many secrets are hidden amongst its clods of earth; nor could anyone anticipate the long duration of this site’s importance and significance in the history of Judah. Symbols of power and government such as luxurious buildings, fortifications, royal gardens and water systems, designed to glorify and elevate the stature of the rulers of the land both far away and nearby, were destroyed, and then covered by layers of earth. Time together with human beings erased this place and its contents from collective human memory. Thus it befell that in 1926, when the first settlers elected to settle on that hill, not one of them could have known what glorious history was erased from memory and hidden under their clods of earth. This book presents the reader with the forgotten history of the site, which we uncovered anew through archaeological excavation and historical research. It is important to remember though that true to the very nature of archaeological remains, the resultant picture is never complete. The material world of human beings is colorful and diverse, and it serves as an additional language through which they manifest their spiritual world: thoughts, beliefs, hopes and desires. Unfortunately, only a small part of the material world survives the ravages of time. Buildings collapse and material remains become worn out or utterly disintegrate. This

Fig. 1: Prof. Oded Lipschits (left) and Prof. Manfred Oeming, during the first excavation season in Ramat Raḥel (2005)

leaves us, who study the actions and the spirit of man and care about renewing this country’s history, to be frustrated, as we are left far from achieving a full restoration and understanding. The archaeological enterprise knows numerous deliberations that question to what extent, given its tools, may it use uncovered material culture to restore not only the architectural structures, but also the social structures and political bodies; and to venture even further, to reconstruct world-views and abstract thoughts. Only a very few of our academic partners in uncovering the past are aware of archaeology’s power to contribute towards the restoration of the non-material parts of human history. On the other hand, there are also those who contend that even the mode of design of the simplest material culture is affected by and reflects the world-views of the humans who created and used the objects. In this view, not only does archaeology provide a window into the spirit of man, but in most circumstances it actively participates in bequeathing a clearly defined ideology, or it can engage us in the non-verbal dialogue held between the various segments of that society. 1

2

Preface

Loyal to this approach yet conscious of the limitations of archaeological findings, in this book we use the Ramat Raḥel discoveries to recreate each period in which human activities took place here, as best we could. Nevertheless, just as in the accepted procedure for reconstructing ancient walls on an archaeological site we must show what was here as found and what we reconstruct, in this book we were most careful to delineate for the reader between the actual finds as discovered in the site, and that which represents our suggestions for the multi-dimensional reconstruction of the past. Ramat Raḥel’s origins were laid at the end of the First Temple Period and continued during the Second Temple Period, those periods described in the Bible’s historical and prophetical accounts and when many of these descriptions were actually written. Some of our colleagues argue that archaeological research must be conducted separately from historical research based on written evidence. Others see in the Bible, with all its layers and books, a reliable and objective historical text reflecting the ancient reality exactly as it was, turning to archaeology only to complete the picture and with its help to support the reality built out of the textual reading. We believe that if we wish to study all the dimensions of human history, it is incumbent upon us to use every possible tool, both written texts and material culture—yet only if their credibility is discussed, examined, and their inherent limitations are presented according to accepted scientific principles. Thus we will be able to identify changes, stages and processes of development, and social models which are expressed in the material culture, while at the same time using the biblical descriptions of events contemporary to the finds, and the way they are described therein. Therefore, only a combination of material culture analysis

together with historical analysis of the written sources of biblical literature and other contemporary texts can create a full, complex, and multi-dimensional picture of the Land of Israel during the first millennium BCE. The excavations and ongoing research of Ramat Raḥel acts as a living demonstration for this approach. Its focus is the history of Judah, a vassal kingdom of Assyria from the end of the eighth century through most of the 7th century BCE, a vassal kingdom of Egypt and Babylon during the last third of the 7th century and the beginning of the 6th century BCE, and then as a province under Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian rule, under the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Seleucid Empire, up until the point of the Maccabean Revolt and the establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom; that is, the entire time from 586 to 167 BCE After this historical continuum the nature of the settlement in Ramat Raḥel changes completely. The grand complexes disappear and a village is established which lasts approximately 1,200 years, from the Hellenistic period, continuing through the early and late Roman and Byzantine periods, and ending at some point during the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates. And then the village was abandoned. Various finds testify to farmers and shepherds passing through the place during the second millennium C.E., but it seems that the site was never settled again until Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel was established in the beginning of the twentieth century. In order to reconstruct the history of this site, we decided to employ both the archaeological research of the ancient site at Ramat Raḥel as well as every piece of information that can be drawn from the written sources. The fruits of this effort are presented here before you.

Introduction

Oded Lipschits

The archaeological site at Ramat Raḥel already drew my attention in 1994–1995, when I was collecting the archaeological data for my PhD. It was mainly the architectural findings, which have no parallel in the Kingdom of Judah and the whole region—the rare magnificence, the extraordinary construction quality and the unique concentration of stamp impressions on jar handles—both from the end of the First Temple Period and from most of the Second Temple Period. My walks around the site prompted numerous questions regarding its role and function in these two periods. I felt that many riddles were still hiding among the stones—in spite of the extent of Yohanan Aharoni’s excavations in 1954, 1956, and 1959–1962. My searches through the archaeological and historical literature did not produce satisfactory solutions either. Aharoni’s interpretation, according to which the palace of one of the last Judahite kings of Judah was built in that location (in his opinion—King Jehoiakim), was difficult and problematic. If it was the palace of the latter kings of Judah, why was it built so close to Jerusalem? Why were the quality and style of the buildings so different from what we are familiar with in other sites in the Kingdom of Judah? If this was indeed the palace of the kings of Judah, why was it further used during the Persian period, when there were no kings in Judah? And furthermore—why does Ramat Raḥel have so many finds from the Persian and the Early Hellenistic Periods, when there were no traces of building remains assigned by Aharoni to these periods? In my PhD thesis, submitted in January 1997, and in a number of subsequent articles, I could not present any answers for my numerous questions. I could only emphasize the administrative nature of the place from its establishment at the end of the First Temple Period, through its further existence during the Persian Period and down to the Hasmonean Period. After examining all the administrative Assyrian centers established near capitals of vassal kingdoms, my teacher, Nadav Na’aman, proposed already in 2002 that Ramat Raḥel was established as an Assyrian center in Judah during the time that it was a vassal kingdom. Later, I surmised that Ramat Raḥel was established as a Judahite administrative center under Assyrian rule, and we both believed Ramat Raḥel continued to be, almost without any change, an imperial administrative center in Judah throughout the period of Persian rule.

At the end of the 1990s numerous changes were implemented in the appearance of the archaeological site at Ramat Raḥel, which since 1967 had been abandoned and neglected, and had become the kibbutz’s backyard. After six years of planning, archaeological excavations and preservation and development works, the Ramat Raḥel Archaeological Park opened in 2002 as a joint project of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Jewish National Fund, the Ministry of Tourism and Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel. Site planner Ran Morin, an artist, erected a spiral observation post on the western hillside overlooking the Jerusalem-Bethlehem road, in memory of kibbutz member Yair Angel, killed during his military service. Morin used sculptural elements to symbolize the four corners of the fortress, a unique way to express Aharoni’s interpretation of the Iron Age palace plan in a special blending of original archaeological elements and modern sculptures whose artificial stones ascend to the estimated height of the palace walls, that ”freeze” the moment of collapse. During the development, preservation, erection of sculptures and arrangement of paths, Gideon Solimany conducted small-scale salvage excavations on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (December 2000, November 2001, and August 2002) at three locations: adjacent to the Kibbutz’s water reservoir, the northern side of the palace’s Iron Age courtyard, and the northwestern end of the external courtyard. It became pleasant to walk between the site’s paths, to see the cleaned remains clearly presented before the public, to look at the renewed plans and to read the explanation signs. That is exactly when we came to renew the excavations at the site. In 2002–2003 I stayed with my family in Heidelberg University, Germany, for a research year with the support of the Alexander von-Humboldt Foundation, and as a guest of the Faculty of Theology. My professional relationship with Prof. Manfred Oeming turned rapidly into close friendship, and it was clear to both of us that together we could promote joint fields of interest. I discovered Manfred Oeming to be the “most Israeli” of all the German professors of theology. Besides being a teacher, Biblical scholar and theologian, he had the ability to improvise, and the skill to organize large teams of German students to join excavations. In addition, he was extraordinarily open, and was also able to 3

4

Introduction

Fig. 2: Excavation expeditions of 2005, 2006, 2008; and 2010 staff

recruit donors and raise project funds. As a Protestant pastor he directly connects archaeology to the world of the Bible and to his spiritual experiences with the Old and New Testaments, and contribute to understanding biblical theology One project I worked on during my stay in Heidelberg was a research proposal to the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications in Harvard that supports the publication of past excavations. This proposal included a request to support publication of Aharoni’s excavations at Ramat Raḥel. The purpose was to gather all the finds from the excavation, to locate its field notes, diaries and plans, and to fully utilize the information which could be gleaned from these sources. The attention of numerous scholars was attracted by a large international conference which Manfred Oeming and I held in Heidelberg (July 2003), on the subject of “Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period” (published as a book in 2005).1 Among the conference guests was Nadav Na’aman. When I told him

about the developing relationship between Manfred and myself, the increasingly developing cooperation between our two universities, the joint projects that we both sought, and the research proposal created for the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, Nadav proposed that Manfred and I should renew the excavations in Ramat Raḥel and try to gather new information about this enigmatic site. In reaction to this suggestion Manfred and I looked each other in the eye and the decision was made: The excavations in Ramat Raḥel would be renewed! We both were extremely excited. After a thorough visit at the site, exploring Ramat Raḥel’s paths and examining all the potential excavation possibilities we determined that the excavation would be a joint project of the Archaeological Institute of Tel-Aviv University together with both the Heidelberg University’s Faculty of Theology (Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Seminar) and the school for Jewish Studies (Hochschule für jüdische Studien). However, many obstacles—scientific, organizational and mainly financial—stood

Introduction Introduction between the decision of renewal and the actual commencement of field work. Scientifically, it was clear that we should commence with a thorough study of the site, understand the previous excavations and study the findings, present research questions for which we would like to find answers, and evaluate our chances to find these answers. We consulted with numerous colleagues. The most optimistic were my teachers and colleagues in Tel-Aviv University, Nadav Na’aman and Israel Finkelstein, and my friend from Haifa University, Ronny Reich. After a long tour at the site they gave me their blessings and encouraged me to advance the project. Yet Ephraim Stern from the Hebrew University was pessimistic. He believed that due to the comprehensive excavations executed earlier and the characteristics of this hilly site, not many finds which could change or add to our knowledge remained. In his capacity as Head of the Israel Antiquities Authority License Committee, Ephraim Stern told me a year later that “the only reason I signed your license was because there was not much anyway you could find and not much anyway you could ruin. . . .” Initial meetings with Jucha—Jossef (avi Yair) Engel, the Kibbutz member who promoted the archaeological park’s establishment and built the observation place in memory of his son Yair, led me to understand that Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel itself would be a key partner, a positive force, and a contributing factor for the success of the excavation. Yet the archaeological park had been inaugurated only two years before and Jucha, like other members of Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel, understood that our excavations would require changing and adjusting the site orientation and area. However, they were also captivated by the possibilities of better understanding the past lurking beneath the stones, developing the place for tourists, and increasing its public awareness. I was also welcomed with open arms by the Ramat Raḥel Hotel, and I realized that unlike most other excavations in Israel, those in Ramat Raḥel would have the luxury of excellent hotel accommodations located a short walking distance from the site itself. The fact that I could walk only a few minutes in the heat after a long day of digging, enter an air-conditioned room or swimming pool, enjoy a warm shower, followed by lunch in the hotel dining room, charmed me long before we even commenced with the excavations . . . In addition, the hotel offered a lot of office and storage space, and rooms suitable for the academic activities of lectures and seminars. Hotel Managers Ilan Balulu

5

and Zehava Eliahu who replaced him, helped us with every request, as did the entire hotel staff. Of course, kibbutz members and hotel employees also liked the idea of profiting from over a hundred people staying in the hotel more than one month each year, as well as eating, sleeping, using the hotel’s services and . . . paying for it all. After the excavations were all over, I thought back and concluded that Ramat Raḥel had become my second home, as during 2004–2010 I stayed there for almost a whole year! During these years, my children grew up as partners to the excavation. When the project was completed they could not understand how a summer could go by without excavations in Ramat Raḥel. . . . The team that had just completed planning and building the archaeological garden—the people from the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Ministry of Tourism, the Jewish National Fund and planner Morin— found it difficult to accept the idea that we were about to commence working in the site, conducting excavations there and thoroughly searching through it only a short period after the garden, which looked so good and inviting, was built. They were also bothered by the thought that we came with new ideas and were about to turn around some of the basic concepts of the earlier excavation’s legacy upon which they based themselves in planning the garden, explanatory signs and the walking paths. Nevertheless, once it became clear to them that we were determined to commence excavating, they closely and fully cooperated with us and accompanied all the stages of our work. The Jewish National Fund helped us every year with mechanical equipment and workers to restore the site back into a safe and organized place for hikers and tourists to walk its paths. Also after each excavation season, the Israeli Government Company for Tourism financially helped the further development of the site, its presentation to the public and the requisite safety arrangements. Ran Morin was recruited to work as a full staff member. Together we planned the stages of removing large amounts of excavated earth, organizing the paths and repairing any damaging effects. Together we considered the next steps of developing and presenting the site to the public. From the organizational perspective Manfred and I understood that to manage a large-scale and complex excavation project involving numerous students and volunteers over many years we must find a partner, an experienced archaeologist, capable of helping with

6

Introduction

the field excavation management. The most natural and obvious candidate was, as far as I was concerned, Dr. Yuval Gadot. I knew Yuval when he was still a student, and I appreciated his skills both as a field archaeologist with experience in excavations and surveys, and as someone who had a comprehensive view of history, the relations between archaeology and history, and combining all these with textual research. In the numerous surveys and excavations that he led, Yuval established his position as one of the leading and most important young archaeologists in Israel. He was outstanding in his quiet leadership manner and his excellent interpersonal relations. To me he was clearly the ideal partner for the excavations in Ramat Raḥel. To my great joy Yuval immediately agreed, and we both understood that such a complex site with a long and problematic history of excavations, planned for numerous large-scale excavation seasons, required an additional partner. We knew Benjamin (Benny) Arubas from mutual site visits, scientific conferences and hall conversations. Besides the general agreement in our field that no one understands architecture and stratigraphy better than Benny, and in addition to his measuring and draftsmanship skills, he also brought with him a broad understanding of Second Temple Period archaeology and history, and of the late Roman and Byzantine Periods. Benny immediately agreed and joined the excavation as someone whose job was to manage field measurements and drawings—of both the past and renewed excavations. His defined job was to focus on the stratigraphic understanding and on the architectural analysis of the various elements in the site. To the lead team we added Liora Freud as excavation registrar, office manager and research coordinator. In addition, she was tasked to research, understand and publish the Iron Age and Persian Period pottery. One of our brilliant students, Omer Sergi, helped from the beginning to recruit students and volunteers, organize the academic program, to be the liaison to the Ramat Raḥel Hotel and other coordination logistics. The decision that young students should manage the field excavations in the field and not experienced specialists was a principled one shared by Yuval, Manfred and myself, knowing that consequently this would require all of us to supervise, discipline, educate and raise a new generation of archaeologists during the field work and afterwards, during the research, the processing of the finds and the actual study of the excavation’s materilals. In return for this decision we were rewarded with a vigorous, decisive, and persistent staff,

willing to learn, and repaying us with hard work and a prevailing team spirit, one result of which is this book. A number of team members wrote M.A. theses based on various areas excavated in the site, its types of findings and the results of the excavation. These research studies are some of the most important contributions of the site excavations, an important phase in the education processes of young archaeologists in Tel-Aviv University, as well as in Heidelberg. While financing the excavations, Manfred and I found a real partner in Manfred Lautenschläger, who generously contributed during all the years of excavations and enabled their maintenance at our desired level and scale. His generosity over the years promoted the project during the whole period. We have not only received constant support from the Manfred Lautenschläger Stiftung, yet our various needs which have constantly emerged in the excavation seasons were also fulfilled, as well as his continuous personal encouragement and curiosity to know the details of the excavations and the way the project developed. A number of our excavation seasons received additional important support from Arenson Ltd., from Hans Nussbaum, from the Educational Foundation of the Logos Organization headed by Dr. Bill Kriezy, and from other donors. Over the years about 150 German students excavated alongside the core Israeli-German team, and some were even integrated in the ongoing research. German students and Israeli students excavating, working, and spending many weeks together in Ramat Raḥel became one of the largest and most important German-Israel scientific cooperations. Friendships developed into mutual visits, shared seminars and long stays here and there for the purpose of studying and researching. Manfred Oeming, Manfred Lautenschläger and I found this outcome to be a source of great satisfaction and most rewarding. The highlight of this cooperation was the concluding seminar at the end of August 2010, one day after the last excavation season ended, representing the finish line of the excavations and the opening day of the project’s publication effort. The Israeli team then traveled to Heidelberg for three days of conclusions summations and detailed discussions about the results. Many German students participated in the colloquium, and together we travelled to various sites around Heidelberg, including Speyer and Worms, cities with a glorious Jewish past. The partnership German-Israeli team was augmented by 300 students and volunteers from around

Introduction the world—Australia, Argentina, Canada, United States, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, France, England, Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Tunisia, India, Korea, Japan—and many from Israel. Many students and volunteers came to a number of excavation seasons, and some even came to all of them. Most participated in tours we organized in Jerusalem, in particular, and in Israel, in general, in an academic lecture program about Jerusalem’s history and theology, and topics such as archaeological theories versus field excavations, capped off by social meetings on evenings and weekends. Sometimes the social meetings between the Israeli and foreign students, including the German students, were no less important than the archaeological research itself.

7

The Israeli Tel Aviv University students were the heart of the Ramat Raḥel project, not only in field work, but also in ensuing research carried out in laboratories, libraries and the expedition offices. In the summer field sessions they were joined by European and American students who worked hand-in-hand as equal management partners with the Israelis, acting as the area supervisors during the six excavation seasons—and many have continued on with us to the Lautenschläger Azekah Expedition begun in 2012. This close-knit team became my second family during this long period of excavating, processing information, studying and publication. This common work forms the basis of this book.

Ramat Raḥel—Excavation Staff 2005–2010 Project Directors: Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming Field Director: Yuval Gadot Registrar: Liora Freud 2005 A

Gilad Cinamon Nirit Kedem Shahaf Zach

B1

Boris Babaiev

2006

Architectural analysis: Benjamin Arubas Measurements: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov (2008–2010)

2007

2008

Shahaf Zach Shani Amit

Alla Volvovsky Boaz Gross David Dunn

B3

Boaz Gross Boaz Gross Sharon Napchan Madhavi Nevader David Dunn Konny Kösgen David Dunn Keren Ras Parker Diggory Richard Berendt

Lior Marom Guy Margalit

Gilad Cinamon Lior Marom Shani Rubin Patricia Grandieri

C1 South

Lior Marom Sivan Einhorn Boaz Gross Ido Koch Nirit Kedem Shatil Emanuelov Keren Ras James Boss

C2

Shahaf Zach

Shahaf Zach Shani Amit

C4 D1

Veronica Zltakovski David Dunn

D2

Gilad Cinamon

D3

2010 Keren Ras Yoon Kook-Young

B2-C3

C1 North

2009

Veronica Zltakovski Boris Babaiev David Dunn

Veronica Zltakovski Lisa Yehuda Dana Katz Jacob Wright

Dana Katz

Alla Volvovsky Jennifer Purcell

Alla Volvovsky Assaf Kleiman

Lisa Yehuda Efrat Bocher

Lisa Yehuda Efrat Bocher

Efrat Bocher Yoav Tsur

Ido Koch Jason Radine Lucas Schulte

Ido Koch Donna Laird Carly Crouch

Nirit Kedem Omer Sergi Peter van der Veen

D4

Omer Sergi Omer Sergi Omer Sergi Chris Bodine Chris Bodine Rina Avner Katja Soennecken Andrew Pleffer Andrew Pleffer David Frism

D5

Keren Ras Arian Goren

D6

Nirit Kedem Ido Koch

8

Nirit Kedem Yoav Tsur Lindsey Moat

Omer Sergi Anja Kroschewski Caroline Patterson

Ramat Raḥel—Excavation Staff 2005–2010 Columbarium

Uri Davidovich Roi Porat Boris Babaiev

Terraces

Administrator: Amitai Achiman (2005–2007), Carsten Kettering (2007–2010) Volunteer coordination: Omer Sergi (2005–2010), Gila Yudkin (2007–2009) and Keren Ras (2010) Photography: Pavel Shrago Accompanying researches Survey of subterranean features: Roi Porat and Uri Davidovich Ceramic analysis (Iron Age - Persian Period): Liora Freud

Uri Davidovich Uri Davidovich Deborah Appler

Uri Davidovich Sabine Metzer

Uri Davidovich Deborah Appler

Uri Davidovich Sabine Metzer

9

Ceramic analysis (Hellenistic Period): Oren Tal Ceramic analysis (Byzantine Period—Islamic Period): Itamar Taxel Metal detector and Numismatics: Yoav Farhi Analysis of ritual baths (Miqvaot): Ronny Reich Study of dating of terraces: Naomi Porat Study of pollen grains: Dafna Langgut Study of animal remains: Deirdre Fulton and Assaf Kliemann

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig. 3: Pottery shard, drawing of image sitting on throne. Aharoni’s excavations, Locus 477

Chapter One: Strategic Location, Natural Surroundings and Processes in Site Formation No one disagrees with the statement that one of the most difficult, yet required tasks of the modern scholar in an ancient site, especially one representing a complex and complicated multi-stage settlement, is understanding the construction and destruction processes which shaped it. The scholar must seek to distinguish between the construction layers, destruction and quarrying activities and later intrusive activities, in attempting the restoration of the site’s natural state prior to man’s first intervention with the landscape. Ascertaining this pristine condition is the most difficult to achieve, more than the restoration of other historical periods with architectural remnants. Natural bedrock is the last layer to be exposed by the scientific excavation method progressing from the top, which by definition contains the latest stage, to the earliest stage at the bottom. Only after the excavations are complete can information gathered from the various excavation areas be integrated to create a full picture of the pristine landscape. This reconstruction is extremely important for enabling us today to go back and examine the considerations of the first builders: How did they see this place on its own, and in the context of its surroundings? What were their considerations in choosing where and how to build? Ramat Raḥel’s ancient tell is located on a prominent peak, 818 meters above sea level, halfway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (approximately 4 kilometers from each). One of the highest peaks ranging the city of Jerusalem, it is part of a mountain range which closes on the Valley of Rephaim from the east. This peak is located in the north-western end of the extension which originates in the modern-day Arab village of Zur Baher from the southeast, and is connected to it by a moderate slope. The hill’s slopes facing south, west and northwest are relatively steep and hard to climb; yet those facing east and southeast are a lot more moderate. Composed of soft chalk of the Senonian Menuha formation, coated by hard nari, it has areas containing chert exposures of the Mishash formation. Throughout its history, the exposed local nari rock was the primary raw material used for construction—a fact made evident by the many quarries found at the site. Unlike ancient Jerusalem, which was erected on a hill relatively lower than its surroundings and far from

the main road, Ramat Raḥel was established on one of the most visible and prominent peaks of the whole region south of Jerusalem. It offers a superb view to the north (Mount Zion and modern-day western Jerusalem), to the west (the Rephaim Valley) and to the south (Mount Giloh and Bethlehem). The hill directly controls two of the main roads connecting Jerusalem to other parts of the country: the “King’s Road” leading to Jerusalem from the south—from Beer-sheba, Hebron and Bethlehem; and the road leading west in the direction of Beth-Shemesh, through the Rephaim Valley. An additional parallel road east of the “King’s Road” is marked on British survey maps. Originating 2 kilometers to the north of Ramat Raḥel, it climbed the hill to encircle it from its eastern side. We assume that this easterly road actually preserves the ancient path people used to come here. Ramat Raḥel’s strategic importance was also manifested during the 1948 War of Independence, when it served as the fledgling I.D.F.’s front post in the area, protecting Jerusalem from the Egyptian military lying to the south (and see further below). The only strategic weak point of Ramat Raḥel is its lack of control of the east: the Judean Desert’s outskirts. It thus should come

Fig. 4: The natural hill of Ramat Raḥel prior to commencement of construction activities

11

12

Section One: Introductory Chapters

to Gibeon

Jerusalem

to Valley of Sorek

, Valley of Reph aim Ramat Raḥel

Bethlehem to Valley of Ellah

to Hebron Fig 1: Map of Ramat Raḥel and its vicinity, based on a map prepared by the Palestine Exploration Fund

Adapted 2010 by: Idoon Kochthe British Survey Map (PEF) Fig. 5: Ramat Raḥel’s location placed

Fig. 6: Ramat Raḥel as viewed from the Rephaim Valley

Fig. 7: Ramat Raḥel as seen from Mount Zion

Chapter One: Strategic Location, Natural Surroundings and Processes in Site Formation

13

Fig. 8: View from the City of David towards the ridge of the British High Commissioner’s Residence; Ramat Raḥel lies behind it as shown by the arrow

as no surprise that a small Iron Age fort was found and excavated ca. 2 kilometers east of Ramat Raḥel, which in ancient times served as an eastern defensive outpost of the main center.2 Ramat Raḥel also benefits from its proximity to the fertile Rephaim Valley, with its rich alluvium soil and moderately terraced slopes. This relatively wide valley ensconced amidst a hilly region is historically one of the rich agricultural areas in the Jerusalem landscape and hinterland, vital to the city’s economy. Mounting archaeological data from Ramat Raḥel itself, underscored by the many agricultural installations and small farmsteads found in the region, confirms that those very periods during which the Rephaim Valley flourished agriculturally are the exact same periods that saw significant construction and occupation at Ramat Raḥel. Along with its clear strategic advantage as an observation post sited on a high prominent peak, the location has the distinct feature of being a regional landmark. In other words, the site offers its occupants not only

what can be viewed from it, but also its impactful visibility in space, looking towards it. Palace architecture is always a conspicuous landscape symbol, reflecting the might of the political rule, and broadcasting it through space. In the renewed archaeological research of Ramat Raḥel we examined the spatial visibility of the royal edifice with its garden and tower, displayed on a prominent peak, and found it indeed to be a projecting landmark visible all across the Jerusalem landscape, especially prominent from every viewpoint within the Rephaim Valley. Thus, the royal structure at Ramat Raḥel communicated might and control, visible from the Mount Scopus mountain range to the north; from Nebi-Samwil; from all over Western Jerusalem; from  the King David Hotel ridge in the northwest; from the southern outskirts of Bethlehem, and even from the eastern area of Tekoa and Herodium bordering the Judean desert towards the Dead Sea. It should be noted that the site’s impressive side does not seem to be directed southward, and certainly not

14

Section One: Introductory Chapters

southeastward. Despite this extraordinary level of visibility, our analysis demonstrated that Ramat Raḥel cannot be seen from the city of David ridge, regarded by most scholars as the heart of ancient Jerusalem, nor can it be seen from the Temple Mount. Visual contact between the capital city and Ramat Raḥel is blocked by the ridge commanded by the former British High Commissioner’s Residence, now occupied by U.N. headquarters (UNTSO), overlooking the City of David and the Temple Mount from the south. To demonstrate the seemingly obvious choice of a ruling entity, in stark contrast to the ancient empires, the British Empire decided thousands of years later to build its governmental center on this ridge controlling the city from the south, not only for its military strategic advantage, but as a clear political declaration and ongoing reminder to the denizens of the city of who was in charge (the ridge and the neighborhood are still called “Armon Hanetziv,” literally, the palace or mansion of the Commissioner). Clearly, when choosing this hilltop instead, the project architects were cognizant of its commanding presence in the landscape and were concerned with its spatial communication with the surrounding settlements—and above all Jerusalem, the capital city of the Kingdom of Judah,

traditional seat of the Judahite monarchs and the site of the Temple. It is thus no coincidence that a site was chosen from which the edifice would not be seen from Jerusalem. The decision to build a significant administrative site, clearly chosen for visibility, on a more southerly ridge and not with the ridge immediately to the south of Jerusalem, carries much weight in any discussion of who originally built the site and why. We suggest therefore that the visual concealment from the capital center and Temple is deliberate and must be examined and explained, and it is not an artifact of topographical logistics. The power of the foreign empire is clearly demonstrated and expressed, but wisely not overshadowing the capital, the religious center, and thus the honor of the local regime. Along with the strategic, political and even economic advantages to Ramat Raḥel’s location, it is important to emphasize the outstanding absence of a natural, significant and stable water source in its immediate environs. While domestic water cisterns were exposed throughout the site, clearly a central and more elaborate system was required for gathering and storing rain water for both royal and public buildings erected here throughout the Iron Age, the Persian Period, and probably even the Hellenistic Period.

Chapter Two: The Question of the Site’s Ancient Name The name Ramat Raḥel, meaning the height or plateau of Rachel, was given to the kibbutz established adjacent to this ancient site in 1926. Menachem Ussishkin, the Chairman of the Jewish National Fund at the time, named it due to the location’s excellent view over Rachel’s Tomb, probably following the well-known words of the Prophet Jeremiah: “A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more” (31:15). Yet the site’s ancient name was not preserved in the region’s toponymy, as opposed to many other biblical sites in Israel. Thus nowadays the historical site is called by this modern name alone, Ramat Raḥel, the name of the adjacent kibbutz. The hilltop does carry numerous ancient names, but none indicate its possible name during the Biblical period.3 In the British Survey maps the top of the hill is named Khirbet Abu-Bureiq. The Arabic name given to the eastern part of the mountain range is Marj ed-Deir (“the Plain of the Monastery”) or Marj esh-Sharaqi (“the Eastern Plain”); and the name of its western part, where the ancient tel is located, is Marj el-‘Arabi (“the Western Plain”). In the 1920s Theodor Fast identified ancient remains in the site whose name, according to him, was Khirbet ‘ēlet Ṣāleh. At the foot of the hill, adjacent to Hebron Road, a man-made water cistern with the Arabic name Bir Kadismu, was found; the reservoir is also known and marked on nineteenth-century Palestine Exploration Fund maps by the same name. This preserves the name of the Kathisma Byzantine Church, built at the foot of the tel. Several fifth- and sixth-century sources mention the church’s construction and the reasons for its location. Christian tradition suggests it is where the pregnant Mary rested before setting out on the final leg of her journey to Bethlehem. So on the one hand no name preserves the site’s ancient name, and no identification suggests the preservation of such a name. Yet on the other hand, its location and finds demand its worthiness of the stature of a biblical site. This conundrum led recent scholars to offer various identifications based both on its location vis-à-vis other sites in its surroundings, and on the archaeological information provided by the earlier excavations. All were based on the understanding that Ramat Raḥel’s location places it within the sphere

of Jerusalem’s influence. Therefore, scholars reasoned that the biblical authors who resided in the capital must have been familiar with the place, and consequently, as is the case elsewhere, Biblical traditions from the First and Second Temple periods should have preserved the memory of the ancient site and the surrounding valleys. The first modern scholar who suggested an identification was Benjamin Meisler (Mazar), subsequent to a 1931 survey he conducted which exposed a Second Temple Period Jewish burial cave; a sign of stature befitting an important site. He suggested identifying Khirbet ‘ēlet Ṣāleh with biblical Netophah, based on Old Testament and Babylonian Talmud references to Netophah,4 as well as Byzantine Christian sources. In most of the biblical references Netophah is mentioned as the place of origin for various personages. In addition, as the residents of Bethlehem and Netophah are mentioned together, Meisler assumed that the location of Netopah was not far from Bethlehem.5 However, already at the end of the nineteenth century scholars began identifying Biblical Netophah with Umm Ṭuba, located approximately one kilometer east of Ramat Raḥel—mainly due to the similarity between the two names. Then over the years finds from the late Iron Age, and from the Second Temple and Byzantine Periods were discovered there, to which one can add recent finds from the Zubair ‘Adawi excavation in the village’s lower southeastern parts.6 These discoveries reasonably confirm Umm Tuba’s identification as Netophah, and thus also its identification as the Byzantine “Metofa” cited in the sources of the Church Fathers, which name in turn preserves the earlier biblical name, Netophah.7 Gabriel Barkay suggested identifying Ramat Raḥel with mmšt (perhaps read “Mamshit,” or, in his opinion, “Memshelet”), one of the four administrative locales inscribed on the Judahite lmlk jar handle stamp impressions together with Hebron, Socho and Ziph. Barkay’s identification is based first and foremost on the large number of lmlk jar handles found here, along with additional kinds of administrative stamp impressions. It is also based on Barkay’s reconstruction of Northern Judah that would include mmšt, thus choosing a site that could be equal both in size and in level of importance to the three other locations appearing on the stamp impressions.8 However none of these 15

16

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig. 9: Northern structure in Ramat Raḥel, a view southward

reasons withstand the test of criticism. While the site of Ramat Raḥel has continuously existed from the end of the First Temple Period through to the Hellenistic Period, and would be worthy seemingly of mention in contemporary texts, yet the name mmšt is strikingly missing from the biblical city lists of Judah; despite being located so close to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, where other cities in such close proximity are detailed And unlike Ramat Raḥel where about 250 lmlk stamp impressions were found on jar handles, just a few such handles were found in the three other parallel sites to mmšt . Only 13 handles were found in Hebron, 13 handles in Socho (Khirbet ‘Abad in the Valley of Elah), and no lmlk handles were found in Ziph at all. This very low number of lmlk stamped handles found in the very sites mentioned on them probably indicate that these places were royal estate centers where the jars were filled with regional produce and then sent on to collection centers; but in any case, were not the shipping destinations for the jars.9 In sharp contrast, the large number of stamped jar handles found in Ramat Raḥel indicates that here was a main collection center

for the royal lmlk administrative system, and thus it is very different in nature from the four sites mentioned in the stamp impressions. A geographic consideration should also be raised, as Socho is located in the Judean Lowlands, while Hebron and Ziph are located in the southern part of the Judean hill country. Therefore there is no reason by association with the other sites to look for mmšt in Northern Judah; as it could just as easily be located in any olive oil and wine production center in any region of the kingdom. Of all the suggestions for identifying Ramat Raḥel the most puzzling is that of Lucas Niesiolowski-Spanò, that here lies biblical Ophrah, the city of Gideon and of the Abiezer family.10 The linguistic, historical and biblical foundations of this suggestion are unsound, and it should not be accepted. Manfred Oeming suggested identifying Ramat Raḥel with Bethlehem-Ephrathah.11 A study of late Biblical texts (Ruth 1:2, and maybe also 4:11; 1 Chronicles 2: 50–51; 4: 4) would tend to show that Ephrath-Ephrathah and Bethlehem are two different places, a fact underscoring the difficulty with Oeming’s suggestion. It may be assumed that the name

Chapter Two: The Question of the Site’s Ancient Name Ephrath-Ephrathah was preserved until late periods. Note the following topographic denotations for the 13th day of August found in the Byzantine period Gregorian calendar that consolidated the Church of Jerusalem’s schedule of services and memorial days: “On the way to Bethlehem, on the third mile (using the Roman milestone system), in the village of Bethofor Pago, at Kathisma, at the Church of the Mother of God, a memorial service [will be held] with fasting and dedication.” The mentioning of Bethofor Pago indicates that the village is located very close to the Church of Kathisma (as indicated by the use of the Latin term “Pago”), and may preserve the name of Ephrath-Ephrathah as the name of the village located in Bethlehem’s outskirts. The aforementioned can be strengthened by the variations of the name Pathofor and Bethabra, which are mentioned in other Byzantine calendars. Giovanni Garbini’s suggestion that the Village of Bethofor should be identified with Ramat Raḥel, may be due to a mistake in identifying the Church of Kathisma with the Church of Ramat Raḥel.12 Following the first excavation season in 1954 Aharoni suggested that this was Beth-hakkerem (Heb. ‫ ) ֵּב֥ית ַה ֶ ּ֖כ ֶרם‬of the First and Second Temple periods,13 which Jeremiah (6:1) mentions together with Jerusalem and Tekoa in his prophecy: ”Flee for safety, O sons of Benjamin, From the midst of Jerusalem! Now blow a trumpet in Tekoa, and raise a signal over Beth-hacerem; For evil looks down from the north, and a great destruction.” In his commentary for this verse Hieronymus stated that a place called Beth-charma was located on a mountain between Jerusalem and Tekoa.14 The Septuagint version to Joshua 15, following verse 59, includes a verse that was probably accidentally deleted from the Masoretic text, which includes a site list for the Judean hills’ northern district. One of these places is ‘Karem’, and most scholars agree that it is identical to the name Beth-hakkerem.15 The name Beth-hakkerem appears in the list of the wall builders in the Book of Nehemiah (3:14), and it also was the name of a Judean district during the Persian Period. Furthermore, the characteristics of Ramat Raḥel as discovered in the archaeological excavation seem to suit the nature of Beth-hakkerem in the Persian period very well, and thus support this identification. 16 Aharoni’s identification was deemed strengthened by Genesis Apocryphon (14, XXII), which indicates a geographical proximity between the Beth-hakkerem Valley and Jerusalem.17 The overlap between “the valley of Shaveh” and “the King’s Valley” is mentioned

17

earlier in Genesis 14:17: “Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).” Beth-hakkerem Valley’s proximity to the Temple corresponds also with the text of the Mishnah (Middot 3, 4): “Both the stones of the ramp and the stones for the altar [came] from the valley of Beth-hakkerem.” The King’s Valley is mentioned again in 2 Samuel 18: 18—“Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and set up for himself a pillar which is in the King’s Valley,” and this monument of Absalom is mentioned just after Beth-hakkerem in the Qumran Copper Scroll (X, 5, 12). Flavius Josephus also mentions the King’s Valley as the place to which the King of Sodom arrived in order to meet Melchizedek, the King of Salem (Antiquities A, 179–180). He adds that the King’s Valley lies approximately two stadia from Jerusalem (Antiquities 7, 243).18 There is a close connection between the site’s name and its character as evidenced by the excavations. According to Aharoni, “ . . . an official citadel was built there, which was surrounded by terraced pieces of land and houses of farmers and vine growers. This is Beth-hakkerem, the house near the vineyards, which was surrounded by a settlement of farmers and vine growers.”19 The noun “house” appears as one of the components in Late Bronze and the Iron Age place names. Sometimes it indicates a temple (Bethel, Beth-shemesh, Beth-horon, Beth-dagon); other times it appears together with geographic or agricultural characteristics (Bethlehem, Beth-gader, Beth-harabah, Beth-hashittah, Beth-zur), or with other characteristics (Beth-hoglah, Beth-hanan, Beth-arbel, Bethshean, Beth-jeshimoth).20 The name Beth-hakkerem would fit into the agricultural characteristics category; i.e., a place where vineyards grow. As the palace and the administrative center here were established only at the end of the eighth century or in the beginning of the seventh century BCE, the name Beth-hakkerem could not have been given to the place prior to their construction. Therefore, Lipschits and Na’aman suggested that before this period, the empty hill, where not even one piece of pottery dating back to the construction of the palace was found, was named “Baal-Perazim.” According to the biblical description, the Philistines attacked David immediately after his coronation as the King of Israel. After organizing his army in Jerusalem, David conducted a surprise attack on the Philistines at a place called

18

Section One: Introductory Chapters

“Baal-Perazim” and claimed victory (2 Samuel, 5: 19–21). This victory is implied also in the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah, 28: 21), but there it is called “Mount Perazim,” while deliberately omitting the theophoric part—“Baal.”21 Some scholars believed “Baal-Perazim” to be the name of the citadel overlooking the Rephaim Valley, and that David arrived there in order to prepare for battle. This suggestion raised a number of options with respect to the precise location of the assumed citadel.22 Meisler (Mazar) distinguished between “Baal-Perazim” and “Mount Perazim.” According to him, Baal-Perazim was adjacent to the Well of Kathisma, while he suggested identifying Mount Perazim with the hilltop of Ramat Raḥel, due to its prominent position in the region. In opposition, Aharoni argued that the prominent position in fact strengthens the assumption that the hilltop should be identified with Baal-Perazim.23 However, sites whose names include the theophoric element “Baal” are indeed usually located on a prominent place in the mountain region, a cultic site and not a name of a settlements. Therefore Baal-Perazim should be looked for on a high hill located adjacent to the Rephaim Valley, whose name the author cites to indicate the battle’s location.24 In choosing from a number of identification options, it seems that the Hill of Ramat Raḥel which controls all its surroundings is a natural candidate. As mentioned above, the hill was exposed, empty and prominent up to the end of the 8th century or to the beginning of the 7th century BCE. It would be fitting to be given a name which describes a “breached” open windy place—“Baal Perazim.”25 In conclusion, it can be assumed that up to the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 7th century BCE, the Hill of Ramat Raḥel was known as “Baal Perazim” or “Mount Perazim.” We cannot know whether a cultic site existed anywhere on the hill, although it is possible; and such traditions would prevent settlement establishment at the hilltop until an extremely late period, when it was no longer a revered cultic site. Subsequent to the imperial decision to establish an administrative center near Jerusalem, where the taxes Judah was required to cede to the Assyrian Empire would be collected, the hill of Ramat Raḥel was chosen for the establishment of a new administrative center,

initiated as an alternative to the capital itself which continued to represent the Judahite sovereignty. The construction of an official-administrative center is thus not a natural development but rather resulting from a foreign government’s decision. This location was chosen to promote and control the new development of royal estates in the valleys at its foot and hinterland to serve as a southern agricultural home front, and ensuring Jerusalem’s food supply. It should be remembered that city and sphere of influence of Jerusalem, including the palace, the temple and the royal administration, grew and expanded during the 8th century, and especially later during the 7th century BCE. The establishment of the administrative center and the development of the valley around it can be seen as connected one to the other. On the one hand, they ensured that the sources of supply reached the capital and the palace; and, on the other, they created a mechanism which promised a regular payment of tax to the Assyrian Empire which governed the whole region. Due to the vineyards and orchards which were planted in its close and far vicinity, the place was now appropriately called “Beth-hakkerem.” The meaning of the new name—meant to describe a protected place with luxurious buildings, surrounded by vineyards and orchards, completely contradicted the ancient name “Baal Perazim” / “Mount Perazim,” given to the still natural, empty, breached and open hill. As a historical assumption, based on the archaeological finds, we can reconstruct a large and fortified administrative center that was built at the top of the hill, surrounded by a large garden. Vineyards and plantations were planted on its slopes and in the valley below—which now became known as “the Valley of the King,” seemingly receiving this name thanks to the development of royal agricultural estates in this area, linked directly to the new administrative center established by or for the Assyrian empire on the hilltop. The Genesis Apocryphon (14, XXII), indicating a geographical proximity between the Beth-hakkerem Valley and Jerusalem, would thus relate to this proposed historical connection between the ancient ruling administrative center on the hilltop and the valley of royal estates below.

Chapter Three: History of Research Early Research of the Tel and Its Environs Already in the 19th century Ramat Raḥel’s immediate surroundings were known for the numerous archaeological remains strewn about. Conrad Schick studied the burial caves in the area, 26 and Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Archibald Dickie and Frederick Bliss surveyed the area and documented dozens of sites, agricultural facilities and other features. 27 Fast was the first scholar to be interested in the site itself. In the fall of 1923 he examined a number of water cisterns and documented apparent apertures carved in the rock, probably a columbarium. At the end of 1930, while digging a trench to lay a water pipe for the fledgling kibbutz, the members of Gdud Ha’avoda (Work Battalion) found two ossuaries approximately 200 meters from the ancient site itself. Therefore a salvage excavation was conducted by Benjamin Meisler (Mazar) and Moshe Stekelis from January 15 to March 17, 1931, on behalf of the Israel Exploration Society. Meisler (Mazar) and Stekelis exposed a burial cave from the end of the Second Temple Period which included additional ossuaries, an embossment ornamented with stone capitals, pottery from the late First Temple Period and from the Second Temple Period, and lmlk stamped jar handle.28 At the same time Mazar also investigated the hilltop where he found ancient artifacts scattered over an area of 160 × 90 meters: chiseled stones, parts of capitals, broken pillar pieces, broken pottery pieces, cubes of mosaic and worked slates of white marble. He noted a wall in the northern side of the hill and segments of additional walls in the west. Mazar dated most findings to the Roman and Byzantine periods and others to the Hellenistic Period.

Fig. 10: Chaim Weizmann’s (left) visit in the burial cave exposed by Meisler (Mazar) and Stekelis

Aharoni’s Excavations: 1954, 1956, 1959–1962

Fig. 11: Pottery restoration in Gan Luria, located on the edge of the excavation area

In August 1954 an additional salvage excavation was conducted in Ramat Raḥel on the top of the hill, prior to constructing the Kibbutz’s water reservoir.29 Yohanan Aharoni had just completed his doctoral dissertation that year, and then joined the Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic staff. He was invited to manage the Ramat Raḥel excavation on behalf of

the Antiquities Department and the Israel Exploration Society. For four consecutive months, August to November 1954, unemployed people referred by the Ministry of Labor, assisted by Hebrew University students and staff members working under Aharoni,30 19

20

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig. 12: Cleaning the public bath house mosaic floors northeast of the kibbutz water reservoir, 1960 season

Fig. 13: Excavations north of the kibbutz’s water reservoir, 1960 season

Chapter Three: History of Research exposed remains of buildings from various periods, which included numerous wall segments dated to the Byzantine Period. The most important feature was a segment of a casemate wall, 35 meters in length and oriented from east to west. Foundation trenches enabled the theoretical reconstruction of wall segments, but the main exposed constructed section was built from hewn stones, dressed and laid in a style resembling the luxurious palace walls of Samaria. To the north of this casemate wall Aharoni identified a large courtyard floor made of a finely crushed limestone layer, and covered with fallen stones, of similar quality to the uncovered intact section. According to Aharoni, this proved that the exposed feature was the southern wall of a large and luxurious royal late Iron Age complex. Aharoni also discovered a parallel wall segment in the northern part of the site which he identified and marked as this complex’s northern boundary. Published shortly after the excavation, his plan shows that Aharoni had already marked and defined the late Iron Age compound’s borders in this initial phase of the excavations. The site’s approximate dimensions were as follows: Width from south to north—50 meters, length from west to east—90 meters; total square area—about 1.1 acre (4.5 dunam). A few particular finds helped Aharoni understand the importance and the grandeur of the place. Near the intact casemate wall section an ornamented stone capital (a “proto-Aeolic” or “proto-Ionic” capital, as Aharoni preferred to name it in the early publications, which we now describe as a volute capital) was exposed. Another capital was found nearby, in secondary usage, integrated into a wall dated to the Persian Period. Other finds from this salvage excavation displayed the site’s administrative status and importance during the First and Second Temple Period. Already in this first excavation season, Aharoni found

21

and documented 69 different stamp impressions on jar handles, dating from the Iron Age through to the Hellenistic Period. According to documents we found in Israeli army archives, in the very same year that Aharoni began his excavations, 1954, the IDF commenced fortifying the hilltop overlooking the kibbutz. During these fortification activities the military bunkers and communication trenches hit ancient remains close to the surface.31 A communication trench dug into a wall segment on the northeastern slope exposed a part of a mosaic floor lying just to its west. Had he continued from this point, Aharoni could have exposed the whole outline of the Byzantine period church as well as a street and a row of buildings located to its south. A few months later, the preliminary salvage excavation report depicted the plan of the church’s outline. Aharoni sought to identify it with the Church of Kathisma. As mentioned above, various evidence from the 5th and 6th centuries showed that the church had been built and operated near where various Christian traditions claimed that Maria, mother of Jesus, rested on her way to Bethlehem, at a distance of 3 Roman miles from Jerusalem. The findings from the first excavation season in Ramat Raḥel stirred up many scholars and caused excitement in the public as well. Many years before the excavations in the ancient city of Jerusalem, the City of David and the areas of Judah, Samaria and the Judean Desert captivated the public’s attention and imagination, the striking Judahite royal palace’s architecture and ornamentation, and the numerous findings from the Persian “Return to Zion” and Second Temple periods, had the same effect then. Pursuant to the 1954 excavation season findings, tourism development works were initiated, accompanied by a short excavation season in 1956.

22

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Yohanan Aharoni 1919–1976 Yohanan Aharoni was born on July 7, 1919 in Frankfurt an der Oder, Germany, under the name Hans Joseph Aharonheim. His father, Heinrich Aharonheim, was an attorney, and his mother, Eugenia (Esther), was a teacher. Both were known in their community and were active in the local Jewish Reform movement. In 1933, when Hans Joseph was 14, he decided to immigrate alone to Mandatory Palestine, mainly because of the increasing hostility against Jews in Germany. His mother accompanied him on his journey, and returned to Germany later. He studied for two years in the Hebrew Reali School of Haifa and afterwards moved to the Mikve Israel Agricultural School, where he changed his name from Hans to Yohanan. Yohanan Aharonheim returned to Germany in the spring of 1937 to spend the last days of his sick father together with him. Heinrich Aharonheim died on May 4th that year. Yohanan stayed two additional months in Germany and afterwards returned to Israel. He was followed by his mother and his two younger brothers, Herman (Zvi) and Peter (Michael), who immigrated to Palestine in 1938. After completing his studies in the agricultural school, Yohanan Aharonheim joined Kibbutz Alonim in 1938, was accepted as a full member in 1940, and then became the Jerusalem branch coordinator of Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed (General Federation of Students and Young Workers in Israel). The kibbutz gave him permission to further his education, so he registered in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to study education, literature, Bible and Jewish history. It seems that he participated in these classes mainly as a free listener and not as a graduate student. His studies did not last long, and in 1941, after completing a number of courses, the kibbutz steering committee brought him back to work in the kibbutz. Aharonheim, now Aharoni, remained passionate all this time to return to study, and during this period he published articles in the movement’s newspaper, “Bamaale.” In May 1944, about three years after his return to the kibbutz, Aharoni reassumed his position as the Jerusalem Coordinator of Hanoar Haoved. His new relationship with his future wife Miriam Gross, who studied in the Hebrew University, spurred his return to Jerusalem. Yohanan and Miriam married in the summer of that year. During this year he commenced with his formal university studies and met Prof. Benjamin

Fig. 14: Yohanan Aharoni

Meisler (later Mazar), who also guided the archaeological tours joined by his Hanoar Haoved branch members. Meisler was also the first who gave Yohanan a part-time position in the university, to organize the faculty’s library. In time, Meisler became Aharoni’s mentor. As described in the biography Miriam wrote about her husband (“Yohanan Aharoni: His Life,” Tel-Aviv 1998), Yohanan particularly loved to study historical geography, and even organized and guided numerous trips and tours for his friends and other groups. Another beloved subject was Bible study, which he learned from Prof. Moshe Cassuto. Aharoni excelled in his studies and was highly appreciated by the university lecturers. Following the outbreak of the War of Independence, Aharoni halted his studies and volunteered to help with guiding and teaching holocaust survivors, sent by the British authorities to the detention camps in Cyprus. On his way from Jerusalem to Tel-Aviv he was wounded by gunfire from an Arab ambush. He was a topography teacher in the camps around Nicosia, but he expanded his job description and taught the future

Chapter Three: History of Research Israelis about the Land of Israel as well as Hebrew, the Bible, and history. A short time after Yohanan returned from Cyprus, he and Miriam Aharoni left the kibbutz and moved to Acre. Their sons were born at that time: Haim in April 1949 and Yoav in July 1950. Aharoni was recruited to IDF on November 17, 1948 and stationed in the Geography of Israel Department, where he served for two years. He was released from the army as a lieutenant, after guiding dozens of groups of soldiers and officers, and building the future IDF training program for Israel’s geography. During his military service Aharoni wrote his first book, “This is My Country,” first published in Tel-Aviv in 1952, which continued to appear in edited and emended editions until 1969. After his release from army service Aharoni began working for the Antiquities Department as the District of Galilee Regional Supervisor. During that period he commenced writing and publishing articles, and completed his M.A. degree studies in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. At that time, on Kol Israel radio, he offered the first academic point of view ever provided for the long-standing radio feature, the Bible ‘Daily Chapter’. In his official supervisory capacity he conducted an archaeological survey of the District of Galilee, which would later serve as the foundation for his PhD dissertation dealing with the Israeli settlement in that area; to be titled, ”The Settlement of the Tribes of Israel in the Upper Galilee.” Subsequent to the completion of the Upper Galilee survey, Aharoni was promoted to be Jerusalem District Antiquities Supervisor, and moved there with his family. On November 25, 1953, the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem started to conduct surveys in the Judean Desert caves. Military units were the main workers, due to rumors about Bedouins conducting robbery excavations in the area in order to sell the findings, pieces of scrolls in particular, in the antiquity markets. At the time, the Judean Desert was a wild, unknown, and even dangerous area, which stimulated Aharoni’s imagination and wanderlust as an explorer and travel enthusiast. After the first survey, Aharoni himself led a few additional survey expeditions. Aharoni and Shmaryahu Gutman—who had good connections both in the IDF and on the Jordanian side of the border—worked together for the first time here in these surveys; and later on, in Masada. In 1954, Aharoni submitted his dissertation, and accepted the position of lecturer in the Hebrew

23

University of Jerusalem. The Antiquities Department of the State of Israel and the Israel Exploration Society asked him in that year to conduct a small salvage excavation in the ancient tell of Ramat Raḥel, which was his first independent excavation. Aharoni returned again to the site in 1956. In an infamous tragic incident on September 23, discussed in detail below, he led an Israel Exploration Society conference tour of his excavations. While standing with a group on the water tower’s roof, deadly Jordanian Legion gunfire was directed at Ramat Raḥel. Aharoni returned to Ramat Raḥel in 1959 for four additional excavation seasons, this time in cooperation with an Italian expedition led by Prof. S. Muskatti from La-Sapienza–Università di Roma. While both universities naturally provided professional manpower and volunteering students, most of the workers were unemployed people sent by the Ministry of Labor, along with military units, and Gadna [Israel Youth corps] units. Besides his own excavations at Ramat Raḥel, Aharoni participated in several other archaeological projects in the 1950s. In 1955, he was responsible for the ‘Round Tower’ in Masada’s northern palace, and a year later he himself managed the overall expedition, together with Gutman, returning to the round tower and the water reservoir areas. Most participants were volunteers, his friends from the days of the Galilee and the Judean Desert surveys. During 1955–1958, the largest contemporary archaeological project was carried out in Northern Israel: the Tel Hazor excavations led by Yigael Yadin. This ambitious project was considered the “archaeological academy” for Israeli archaeology. Many of its participants, including Aharoni as field manager, later became the heads and the leaders of the archaeological field in Israel. Yadin and Aharoni became professional and academic rivals, but the arguments between them (mainly about the Israelite conquest of Canaan) extremely enriched Israeli research and academic discussion. The family of Miriam and Yohanan Aharoni expanded during that period, and on April 21, 1958, their third son, Eyal, was born. The 1960s found Aharoni mainly engaged in the Tel Arad excavations. Commencing in February 1962, they were launched concurrent with the establishment of the modern town Arad, in an attempt to provide this planned immigrant settlement with a historical facet and anchor. It was Ruth Amiran who invited Aharoni to conduct this excavation together with her. With the

24

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig. 15: Yohanan Aharoni (right) during the Ramat Raḥel excavations

Fig. 16: Yohanan Aharoni during the Ramat Raḥel excavations

birth of Yuval, his fourth son, in February of that year, and as the excavations in Ramat Raḥel were complete, he gladly accepted the offer. Aharoni was busy with the Arad excavations until 1967. In 1968, Aharoni began teaching in the University of Tel-Aviv, establishing its Institute of Archaeology, and managing it for a decade until his death. He initiated the establishment of modern laboratories to perform research and tests on archaeo-botanical, archaeo-zoological and archaeo-metallurgical finds, and established the Institute’s library for the use of the Department’s students and researchers. In the first volume of the Tel-Aviv Periodical, the new official publication of the University of Tel-Aviv’s Institute of Archaeology, he published the results of the first three seasons of his excavations in Tel Beer-sheba. These excavations, conducted between 1969 and 1976, were the first large-scale project of the Institute, and were run in an educational format, including overseas university students as well. The foreign students came with their teachers, received preparatory lessons in Tel-Aviv University, and embarked on joint tours and seminars with their Israeli peers during the excavations. This method was extremely successful, and became the model for numerous expeditions in Israel and abroad. Among the research areas in which Yohanan Aharoni was outstanding was historical geography. His pioneering book—“The Land of Israel during the Biblical Period: Historical Geography”—was published in Jerusalem in 1962. For numerous scholars this was the book that opened a window into the complex realm of the identification of places and names in Israel, and it remains a standard reference work until today. Next, Aharoni edited and wrote the “Carta Atlas for the Biblical Period,” published in Tel-Aviv in 1964. A study of Aharoni’s documents preserved in the Tel-Aviv University archives show that he aspired to make the field of historical geography an independent department in the Faculty of Humanities, and even created a specific syllabus for it, but it was not materialized. Aharoni served as head of the Institute of Archaeology at University of Tel-Aviv’s until his premature death in 1976, when he was 56 years old. Among his most important publications are his last books, “The Archaeology of Israel” (Haifa, 1978), and the publication of the Arad ostraca (“The Inscriptions of Arad,” Jerusalem, 1976), along with dozens of articles published in periodicals in Israel and throughout the world.

Chapter Three: History of Research

25

Terror at Ramat Raḥel— the 1956 Shooting Incident32 On Hol Hamoed Sukkot 1956, during the 12th Annual Archaeological Convention of the Israel Exploration Society, 500 of its participants were invited to tour Ramat Raḥel to see the excavation’s findings. On Sunday, September 23, 1956, around 4:25 in the afternoon, as groups of visitors toured the site, Yohanan Aharoni stood on the top of the kibbutz’s water reservoir and was explaining the area. Fire suddenly opened up on them from the direction of the Jordanian Legion’s posts, near the Mar-Elias Monastery. Sixteen were injured, and four were killed on the spot: Haya Reem-Fogelson, the well-known architect Jacob Pinkerfeld, Dr. Rudolf Rodberg, and Baruch Shochatman. Joseph Hirsch was badly injured in the incident and passed away a few months later. The incident shook the country. “Blood Is Flowing in Ramat Raḥel,” cried the subtitle in the Maariv newspaper from September 24, 1956, placed above four photographs of wounded people being carried to buses, receiving first aid-care, and lying on hospital beds. Prof. Benjamin Mazar’s words stood at the top of that page: “Amongst the ruins of the past, the symbol of the convention is left contaminated with blood.” Yohanan Aharoni himself described the incident to the reporters: “I stood in the midst of an explanation about the Second Temple Period remains, after we had completed the tour among the Byzantine Period remains. Suddenly we heard a few shots, which were probably fired from machine guns. I shouted over the loudspeaker that everyone should lie flat down on the ground. There was no panic, and the people were quiet. After a short while, they started to descend from the observation post.” The firing lasted about a minute and a half. According to different testimonies, a few long bursts from two machine guns and probably also a few single shots from a rifle were fired. The shots came from the legion’s post, where there was more than one soldier. The people who stood on the observation post above the water reservoir were injured mainly in their lower body parts, and those who stood at the foot of the reservoir were hurt in their upper body parts. The water reservoir was the target of the shootings, and many were injured.

Fig. 17: Sign commemorating the memory of those murdered in the 1956 attack

Prof. Benjamin Mazar, the President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stood that evening on the convention’s stage, and said the following in the presence of the President of Israel and his wife: “In mourning and wrapped in sorrow, we have assembled this evening for the fifth session of the convention. Innocent blood was spilled today in the outskirts of Jerusalem. . . . Our friends were killed by the bullets of wild legionnaires. . . . Scientists who love research assembled in Jerusalem, our capital, in order to see its antiquities, and they were struck with this disaster. We shall not forget the event. We shall dedicate this convention for the memory of those who died. . . . Yet, in spite of the heavy mourning, we shall continue studying, we shall continue with the learning [lit., the Torah].” The Jordanian representatives in the Truce Committee claimed that the shots were fired by a soldier who lost his mind, who was arrested and taken for psychiatric evaluation. Yet the findings of the armistice Committee’s investigation contradicted this claim. It is not clear whether it was a local decision of the legionnaires or, in the words of Donald Weiz, a reporter of the Daily Express: “An attempt by the Arab Legion to eliminate high-ranking officers of IDF, who are all enthusiastic archaeologists.” It turned out that after reinforcing the position, the Jordanians had waited about half an hour until convention participants assembled in the area exposed to their fire. In 2006, in commemoration of 50 years since this tragic event, we conducted salvage excavations at the site entrance, where a memorial garden was erected to perpetuate the memory of those murdered here.

26

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig. 18: Prof. Manfred Oeming cleaning the bunker, near the incised date of the concrete pouring

The results of the 1956 salvage excavations prompted Aharoni to initiate a full excavation expedition, which he successfully launched on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in cooperation with La Sapienza–Università di Roma. The Ministry of Labor referred many unemployed people from Jerusalem and its surroundings as workers, and the IDF sent groups of soldiers and youth from the Gadna (Israel Youth Corps). The university’s own archaeology students and varying numbers of volunteers participated as well. In four wide-scale excavation seasons conducted between 1959 and 1962, Aharoni identified five strata of settlement, which he dated from the late Iron Age to the beginning of the early Islamic Period. The results were published in two volumes entitled “Preliminary Reports,” appearing shortly after the excavations were completed (1962, 1964).33 Here Aharoni described the main findings and his general conclusions, while his University of Rome colleagues—Jovanni Garbini, Antonia Chiaska and Pasqual Testini—added various discussions, mainly regarding the church, the monastery and the public bath house. Levy Y. Rachmani published a description of coins; Moshe Kochavi published details about Second Temple Period burial caves; and Paulo Matthiae wrote about the pottery shard with the drawing of an image sitting in a royal position on a magnificent throne. Only a few finds were fully published with all the details; the pictures were only a representative sample, and the plans were for the most part just general reconstructions and adaptations of the field plans. Pursuant to their definition as preliminary summaries, the reports did not yet include the essential scientific information such as lists of loci, full lists of artifacts,

drawn excavation sections showing stratigraphic layers and architecture, architectural plans, etc. Aharoni himself also considered these reports only as a platform for useful general summaries, and planned to publish a thorough full and final scientific report later. The importance and the uniqueness of the site, despite the preliminary and partial state of publication, meant that Aharoni’s schematic plans, mainly those of the Iron Age, became a foundation stone, quoted in every discussion about the royal architecture of the period. The preliminary, schematic reconstruction proposed by Aharoni for the royal Judahite fortified palace’s plan thus appears in every introductory volume about the archaeology of Israel. The nature of the data’s publication, and the neglected condition and treatment of the finds and their presentation, meant that there were hardly any academic discussions and challenges to the plan, to the proposed stratigraphy, and to the nature and the function of the site in the Kingdom of Judah. It was generally and axiomatically assumed by all that it was the royal palace of the Judahite kings. The research did not address and analyze the placement and function of the site during the Persian Period, nor did it consider the implications of its being the site with the largest number of yehud stamped jar handles found in excavations. Nor was discussion held regarding the connection between the status of the site during the Persian Period relative to its status at the end of the First Temple Period; nor was there any consideration of the issue of its fate

Fig. 19: Site map, from Solimani’s 2000– 2002 excavation publication

Chapter Three: History of Research

27

Creative Preservation in the Ramat Raḥel Archaeological Garden The Ramat Raḥel preservation project began in 1996. The archaeological site was neglected after its excavation was completed in the early sixties of the 20th Century.36 The main purpose of the preservation project was to present the site anew for the general public. We combined preservation and development work with renewed archaeological excavations and with the creation of sculptural elements, so that theories that related to how the site was functioning in the past would become tangible and come to life. Under the project, we presented a unique approach—the approach of “creative preservation,” which sought to frame a current, contemporary and dynamic dialogue between the site and the general public; and, at the same time, to involve and to touch on ethical and cultural issues relating to preservation of the historical memory, using a critical approach.37

Fig. 20: The statue in the southwestern corner

The Hypothesis of the Ruins The hypothesis of the ruins is symbolized through sculptural elements, which interact with the theories connected to the Iron Age fortress. The sculptures stand in the proposed corners of the casemate wall encompassing the royal complex in the late Iron Age (from the 7th to the 6th Centuries B.C.E.). Artificial stones ascend—appearing to defy the law of gravity— to the assumed height of the ancient wall. The statues evoke the memory of building the wall, and at the same time, connect to its destruction and to the hypothetical nature of the archaeological theories related to its existence. The hollow and hanging “stones” convey a double message regarding Aharoni’s theory: They present the theories in a material and visual manner, yet emphasize their theoretical nature as well. They present the approximate borders of the inner fortress from the Iron Age but lead this silhouette of a fortress into the realm of “the poetics of ruins.”38 The uncertainty of the archaeological research enables artistic interpretation with the power to convey a message regarding the suggested theories, while honoring the beauty and the mystery that envelops old sites. The project of the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel raised dilemmas about the connection between the hypothesis of the ruins portrayed on site following Aharoni’s assumed plan, and the new thoughts

Fig. 21: The location of the statues, placed according to Aharoni’s fortress plan

and theories which have emerged lately. For example, should the statues be moved according to the new theories (just as a statue was moved in 2007 to another location in order to enable an archaeological excavation there)? Or perhaps the hypothesis of the ruins should remain faithful to the initial archaeological approach, and thusly convey a message regarding the theoretical nature of the archaeological research, which expresses itself in a continuous change of interpretations and arguments that arise with each excavation season? The future development of the archaeological garden in Ramat Raḥel will continue in the spirit of the “creative preservation,” i.e., the inclusion of the old and new interpretations while at the same time presenting the thrilling nature of scientific research, which will surely provide new theories and approaches.

28

Section One: Introductory Chapters

during the destruction of Jerusalem and its continuing history in the 6th Century BCE (the period of the Babylonian exile). After Aharoni’s last excavation season, and after a few more months of excavation conducted by Meir Ben-Dov in the palace’s southwestern corner, the archaeological site sat abandoned, from the beginning of 1963. Up until 1967 Ramat Raḥel continued to be a center of attraction, mainly because of the spectacular view toward unreachable destinations under Jordanian control, such as Bethlehem and Rachel’s Tomb in the south; the Judean Desert and Herodium to the east; and the Old City of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, in the north. Yet even this status was taken from the site after the Six-Day War opened all of what had been inaccessible for visitation. The archaeological site was neglected, and it became merely the Kibbutz’s backyard.

Fig. 22: Picture albums from Aharoni’s excavations

Barkay (1984) and Solimani (2000–2002) Excavations In 1984, Gabriel Barkay conducted a short excavation season on behalf of the University of Tel-Aviv’s Institute of Archaeology, the Israel Exploration Society, and the Israel Antiquities Authority. Its focus was on five areas: (a) one square (4 × 4 meters) was explored under the church floor in the northeastern corner; (b) another square from Aharoni’s Stratum Va was explored in the palace’s central courtyard; (c) a square south of the southern casemate wall, adjacent to the Kibbutz’s water reservoir; (d) a square on the site’s western slope; (e) a few squares adjacent to the southwestern corner, where it later became clear that it merely penetrated the discarded earth of Aharoni’s excavations.34 At the end of the 1990s, while the site was turning into an archaeological garden, Gideon Solimani conducted small-scale salvage excavations on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (December 2000, November 2001, and August 2002). Three areas were treated in preparation for the development and preservation work, setting up statues, and installing trails: (a) Adjacent to the Kibbutz’s water reservoir; (b) on the north side of the palace courtyard dated to the Iron Age; (c) in the northwestern end of the external yard of the palace complex.35 The Ramat Raḥel archaeological garden was inaugurated in 2002, in the presence of the President of Israel. The site again became a place where it was nice

Fig. 23: Card indices of artifacts, as found in the storerooms of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Mount Scopus campus

to wander along its trails, to look at its antiquities, to enjoy the pleasant breeze that blows there during the day, and to look at the marvelous open view spread at the foot of the hill, almost in any direction.

The New Joint Expedition of the Tel-Aviv and Heidelberg Universities (2004–2010) A final and comprehensive publication of Aharoni’s excavations began to be prepared in 2004, managed by Oded Lipschits and financed by the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications. This effort rapidly became not only a broad academic research project, but took on the character of a detective story. It became increasingly clear that the documents of Aharoni’s excavations in Ramat

Chapter Three: History of Research

Fig. 24: A typical index card

Raḥel had become dispersed in archaeological centers throughout the world, not always properly marked and stored, and kept in worn-out wooden drawers subject to weathering and deterioration for over fifty years. The physical artifacts as well were located in storerooms, collections and museums around the world, oft times turning up in negligent storage conditions, and even when intact, not properly sorted and categorized. First and foremost, the research team sought to reconstruct Aharoni’s method of fieldwork to understand how he recorded the findings. More than a decade after the completion of the Ramat Raḥel excavations, and after Aharoni had already excavated intensively for years in Tel Arad and in Tel Beer-sheba, he, together with his Beer-sheba excavation field managers, published a chapter about methods of keeping records and documentation. Aharoni wrote that this chapter was based on his Arad and Beer-sheba excavation experience and was meant to provide clear guidelines and organized work procedures for an excavation field manager. He noted that the suggested procedures and forms grew out of earlier work and wrote that he had used this method already in Ramat Raḥel in 1954 and in 1959–1962. Thus, based on Aharoni’s excavation methods, it became clear that his documents should consist of architectural field plans, diaries, a daily graphic description of the excavation’s development; photograph albums accompanied by descriptive captions; locus cards that include summaries of every excavation field area; and a detailed card index in which the excavation’s findings were described, drawn and photographed. In the first phase of our investigations, Prof. Ronny Reich of Haifa University found Aharoni’s field plans in two large cardboard folders in one of the Israel

29

Fig. 25: Computerization process of the card indices from Aharoni’s excavations

Antiquities Authority archives. Many of these plans were partial, with many rough sketches. The first step was to sort and meticulously examine them to provide us with all the data possible about the site’s excavation areas. After we had all the relevant drafts and final versions of plans and had extracted all the data possible, we moved to the second phase of computerizing the plans. Producing a computerized plan was urgent not only to build one detailed clear plan out of this whole collection, but was also essential to create a new database for the review and analysis of the site stratigraphy. The plans were copied to tracing paper, scanned, and then the drawn plans were vectorized and entered into a computerized grid, requiring adjustment to scale, distorted by the scanning. This process lasted many months, yet at the end of it we had a computerized plan with all the data produced from Aharoni’s drawings, including the architectural remains, the loci numbers, and the height readings. This computerized plan turned out to be of great value, as it allowed us to distinguish between the architectural finds of the various strata, and to create a detailed plan for each and every stratum in the site. Later, we found Aharoni’s photograph albums, in which he had detailed documentation of the excavation areas and of hundreds of finds unearthed during the various excavation seasons. Prof. Zeev Herzog of Tel Aviv University found these albums mixed in among the Arad excavation diaries, stored in the archaeology institute’s archive. At a later phase, Herzog also found a drawer filled with slides from Ramat Raḥel together with Arad and Beer-sheba excavation material. In addition, dozens of bags containing film were discovered in the institute’s photography archive. Later, we managed to recover the full card index with

30

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig 26 and Fig.27: Work in the storerooms of the Israel Antiquities Authority in Beth-Shemesh

findings from the Ramat Raḥel excavations—thousands of cards, some extant in double, and even triple copies. They were discovered by Benny Sakay, Administrative Manager of Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology on Mount Scopus, together with expedition team member Benny Arubas, sitting in wooden boxes, in a partially open rooftop storeroom. While a beautiful view of Old Jerusalem was indeed seen from the storeroom, the cards’ state of preservation was terrible. After a rapid review of the new discovery, it became clear to us that we had found a double card index set. In the first series, colored cards were used, arranged according to the excavation loci, then arranged in sequential order within each locus. In the second series, white cards were used, categorized according to the type of material: pottery shard, stone, glass, bone etc., and according to a sequential number within each material group. We never found the most important items: the fieldwork loci cards and the graphic daily field diaries, in which the location of each find was described, both on the plan and in text. We knew that without this documentation we would find it difficult to make connections between the architectural plan and the numerous findings.39 When we lost any hope of being able to find the locus cards and the other documentation typical when recording an excavation, we decided to recreate locus cards from the artifact card indices. To this end we created a computerized information base, where for months we typed in all the artifact cards. Eventually more than 5,600 cards were typed up, with each card including many details and a lot of essential information for further research. Miriam Aharoni’s own

Fig. 28: The expedition at work in Area D4

handwriting marked the cards documenting the finds during the excavation and during the processing of the material. They included the number of the locus in which the object was found and its location in the excavation area (square number). Computerizing the cards made it possible for us to collect significant information about the loci. We cross-checked the

Chapter Three: History of Research

31

Fig. 29: The expedition at work in Area D6

Fig. 30: The expedition at work in Area D6

accumulating information with that found in the preliminary reports, and with the locus numbers and the heights marked on the field plans and the photographs. We slowly formed a detailed picture of the excavation findings and the location of each artifact and feature, and actually “returned” the various findings to their original place, as the height of the find, its square number, and locus made it possible for us to reconstruct the excavation in a three-dimensional manner. While it was clear that we had lost valuable information in this retrieval method, this was the only source of information we had, and we could rely only on it while recreating the excavation process of Ramat Raḥel. That is why understanding of Aharoni’s

note-taking method was extremely important for the reliability of our reconstruction. The systematic collection of everything saved from the documentation of Aharoni’s excavations, its cataloging and computerization, now gave us the opportunity to prepare these excavations at last for a full and comprehensive publication. We systematically examined each locus, and according to its location in the plan, its field photographs and its documentation of objects, we determined how certain it was that the finds originating in this locus indeed proved the dating of the stratum to which it had been attributed, and to the human activities that took place in this location. As Aharoni had not clearly distinguished between the loci by today’s methods, we were careful to consistently record the heights necessary in examining the artifact or feature. For example, in the places where Aharoni did not change a locus number, although he disassembled a floor—an action which today clearly requires the separation of loci—we noted the height of the floor, and then divided the finds into two sub-loci: those originating from under the floor and those originating from above it. Based on the results of the stratigraphic processing, we commenced with diligently and selectively building a new ceramic corpus, in three phases. First we examined the pottery charts as published by Aharoni in the preliminary reports, and we chose only those originating in a safe context, taking out all shards of uncertain

32

Section One: Introductory Chapters

or unknown origin from the ceramic corpus. In the second phase we reviewed the card indices of the findings and collected the drawings of each piece of pottery whose origin was in these chosen loci and placed them in the appropriate periods of the corpus. Finally, in the third phase, we went to the Israel Antiquities Authority storerooms in Beth-Shemesh and to other storerooms in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where some finds were kept. There we sorted through broken pieces of pottery while searching in particular for pieces that came from “good” loci in secure contexts and whose drawings we did not yet have. At the end of the process, we integrated the published drawings of the pottery, the unpublished drawings, and those that we now drew ourselves. From all of these together we created updated pottery charts presenting the shards according to context and strata. A similar process was also carried out with respect to the

other material such as jar handles with stamp impressions, coins, stone vessels, glass vessels and more. All findings were resorted, catalogued, and prepared for full publication.40 The actual field work at Ramat Raḥel was also renewed in 2004. The renewed expedition, a result of the cooperation between the Archaeological Institute of Tel-Aviv University and the Faculty of Theology at Heidelberg University, conducted a preliminary underground survey along with small-scale exploratory excavations (2004), followed by six full excavation seasons (2005–2010). With the aid of students and volunteers from around the world, large areas were excavated all over the site and around it. In some cases, Aharoni’s excavation areas were extended, deepened and explored (Areas C2, D3, D4, D5 and D6), and in other cases, excavations were conducted in new areas which had

Fig. 31: Map of Ramat Raḥel excavation areas

Chapter Three: History of Research

33

Table 1: Phases of Construction and Abandonment Construction Phase

Stratum by Aharoni

Period

From

Date

Until

Construction Phase I: Royal Administrative Center under Imperial Hegemony

Vb

Iron Age II

The End of the 8th or the Beginning of the 7th Century BCE

Second Half of the 7th Century BCE

Construction Phase II: Royal Administrative Center under Imperial Hegemony, enclosed by a Garden

Va

Iron Age II— Persian Period

Second Half of the 7th Century BCE

The End of the 4th Century BCE

Persian Period

End of the 6th or the Beginning of the 5th Century BCE

The End of the 4th Century BCE

IVb

Early Hellenistic Period

The 3rd Century BCE

The 2nd Century BCE

IVa

Late Hellenistic— End of the 2nd or the Herodian Period Beginning of the 1st Century BCE

The 1st Century CE (The Great Revolt)

Construction Phase VI: Village

III

Roman Period

Middle of the 2nd Century CE(?)

Uninterrupted Continuation to Construction Phase VIII

Construction Phase VII: Village

IIb

Early Byzantine Period

The 5th Century CE

Uninterrupted Continuation to Construction Phase VIII

Construction Phase VIII: Village. Construction of the Church

IIa

Late ByzantineUmayyad Period

The 6th Century CE

Middle of the 9th Century CE

Construction Phase IX: Farm with agricultural Installations

I

Abbasid Period

The 9th Century CE

The 11th Century CE

Construction Phase III: Expending Construction Construction Phase IV: Imperial Administrative Center? Destruction and Robbery of the Site Construction Phase V: Village

Destruction (?)

Agricultural zone with Installations

Fatimid—Othman The 12th Century CE Period

Military Fortifications and Communication Trenches

not been dug before (Areas A1, B1, B2, B3, C1, C4, D1 and D2). In addition, the subterranean spaces in the site, the agricultural facilities in the near environs of the tell, and the terraces on its slopes were comprehensively surveyed and investigated. To recreate the site’s architectural history during the Iron, Persian and Hellenistic periods, we chose the term “building phase,” which designates processes of architectural development and expansion; rather than the accepted archaeological term “stratum,” which

1947/1948 ,1954

The 19th Century CE 1967

implies processes of building, destruction and rebuilding. In reconstructing the chronological and stratigraphic picture of Ramat Raḥel’s settlement history, in light of the site’s renewed archaeological excavations, we found nine phases of construction and development, and additional phases of destruction, ruins and abandonment. In Table 1, these phases of construction and development are presented in conjunction with Aharoni’s strata numbers.

34

Section One: Introductory Chapters

Fig. 32: The expedition at work in Area C1

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center— Late Iron Age to the Early Hellenistic Period

Fig. 33: Decorated stone capital from Ramat Raḥel

Chapter Four: Historical Introduction to the First Building Phase—Judah under Assyrian Rule In the second half of the 8th century BCE, and especially during the reign of Tiglat-Pileser III (745–727 BCE), the greatest of the Assyrian kings, the Assyrian Empire established its rule from the Iranian Plateau in the East, through the region lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris, reaching as far as the Levant, Syria, and the land of Israel, in the West. The Assyrians conquered, destroyed, and annexed most of the kingdom in this region, turned them into provinces. From the reign of Sargon II (720–705 BCE) on, the annexation process also included two-way deportation of mass populations: large population groups from the conquered kingdoms were deported to areas at the other end of the empire, and dispersed there amidst other peoples; and in their place other population groups were brought in from elsewhere in the empire’s borders to settle the empty vacated areas. The northern Kingdom of Israel was one of the many kingdoms conquered and destroyed as the Assyrians gained control and established these arrangements.

The former kingdom was annexed to the Assyrian Empire and divided into three provinces, part of whose population was exiled. Small kingdoms in the empire’s peripheries managed to survive as semi-independent kingdoms: the Judahite Kingdom, the kingdoms of Transjordan—Ammon, Moab, Edom; and the coastal kingdoms and port cities of Philistia and Phoenicia. The Assyrians avoided annexing the kingdoms of Transjordan and Judah because they were small, with low economic value. The Assyrians exploited the trading Phoenician kingdoms with sea access and the economically and strategically important cities of Philistia located on the way to Egypt. These kingdoms and their local rulers were subjugated to the Empire and continued to exist as vassal kingdoms whose local governmental mechanisms, or political, economic and administrative structures, were retained. The foreign policy of the subjugated king was subject to that of Assyria. He had to help the empire whenever required and to raise the annual tax as instructed.

Fig. 34: The Assyrian Empire in the 7th century BCE

36

Chapter Four: Historical Introduction to the First Building Phase During all its years of existence, Judah was a small kingdom operating on the edges of the large, strong, and rich kingdoms. It occupied mostly mountainous areas (the Benjamin Plateau and the Judean Mountains) or deserts (the Beer-sheba and Arad valleys, the Jordan Valley and the area of the Dead Sea). Main international roads did not pass through it and it did not have access to the sea. Its economics were mainly based on agriculture, which was centered in the low and fertile areas of the plain, the Shephelah. Due to Judah’s insignificant status in the international arena— politically, militarily, and economically—the kings of the Davidic Line adopted a policy of placation and adaptation. During the long history of the kingdom, most of the Judahite kings submitted to foreign rulers and avoided military confrontations that could have risked the well-being of their kingdom. Ahaz, the son of Yotam, who was the king of Judah during the expansion of the Assyrian Empire to Syria and the land of Israel, continued with the policy set by his forefathers. When Assyria appeared on the scene, and became established near the land of Israel, he preferred to submit to it and avoided joining the alliance with the King of Israel and the King of Aram Damascus

37

who rebelled against it (Kings 2, 16:5–9). Thus, Judah was saved from the bitter fate of the Kingdom of Aram Damascus, which was destroyed and annexed to Assyria in 732 BCE, and from that of the Kingdom of Israel, which was destroyed and annexed to Assyria in 722–720 BCE. Judah continued to be Assyria’s vassal kingdom during the whole period of Ahaz’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Hezekiah, his son. The first retreat from the traditional policy of subservience on the part of the kings of Judah, which took place in 705 BCE, proved to undermine the long-standing survival of the kingdom and of the royal family leading it. That year, Sargon II was surprised in battle in southeast Anatolia. His army was defeated, he was killed in battle, and his body was not even buried. This defeat was interpreted as a sign of weakness of the Assyrian Empire. Rebellions occurred throughout the empire and even in its westernmost part, as Judah, the kingdoms of Transjordan, and the coastal cities of Philistia and Phoenicia all rebelled against Assyria. It is possible that Hezekiah himself was one of the rebellion’s leaders (see 2 Kings 18:8). In 701 BCE, the new Assyrian king, Sennacherib, the son of Sargon, arrived in the area leading a large

Fig. 35: Judah on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign

38

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

army. Most rebellious kings preferred to surrender. In contrast Hezekiah, the King of Judah, was from the few kings who did not. Sennacherib’s response was severe: He destroyed most of the cities and agricultural areas of the rebellious kingdom and besieged Jerusalem. Hezekiah surrendered and saved Jerusalem from destruction, but it was the largest crisis in the history of his kingdom. The Judahite plain, the fertile lowlands, which comprised the richest and most important region in Judah’s agricultural economics, were destroyed. The southern valleys of Beer-sheba and Arad were destroyed, eliminating productive trade routes, and the settlement in the Judean Mountains declined significantly, especially in its southern area. Large areas in the plain were torn off of Judah and presented to others, while Sennacherib demanded the payment of high taxes. Decades passed before Judah recovered from the destruction caused by Sennacherib, and even after dozens of years, the kingdom was unable to regain the full economic power and settlement density it had prior to the rebellion. Sennacherib’s policy explains the imperial interest and policy of Assyria, which seemed uninterested in the annihilation of the existing kingdoms and in their annexation to the empire. Their economic value was low, and there was a constant concern that these

areas were prone to invasion by nomadic bands and the accompanying undermining of central rule. Therefore, Sennacherib was satisfied with weakening these kingdoms to the point that they were incapable of mounting any future rebellion, but he typically permitted the local ruling dynasty prevail. Judah’s subjugation to Assyria, which also included an annual tax to the empire and a head-tax of supplied laborers, lasted through most of the 7th century—the monarchies of Menashe and Ammon—and into the beginning of the rule of Josiah. During this period, Assyria reached the peak of its power, as the successors of Sennacherib—Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal—succeeded in establishing a subject dynasty in Egypt as well (the 26th [Saite] Dynasty) and turned Assyria into the only empire in the Ancient East. In academic research, this is termed “the Period of the Assyrian Peace” (Pax Assyriaca). During this time frame, the Assyrians attempted to turn the empire into a single economic and political unit. Judah was but a small part of the powerful Assyrian empire—a small vassal kingdom at its southwestern edge. As such, the status of the kingdom’s administrative center in Ramat Raḥel, where taxes were collected for Assyria, was extremely important under the empire’s rule.

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE) Ramat Raḥel’s hill was rocky and desolate until the end of the 8th century BCE. There is no evidence for human settlement here prior to this period. We can learn about the first building phase at Ramat Raḥel from the numerous finds found under the floor laid during the second building phase, which dates either to the late 8th century or the early 7th century BCE. The structures from the first phase were either integrated into the second building phase or were dismantled down to their foundations. This makes it difficult to recreate their plan and even more difficult to accurately date the time of their initial construction. Aharoni identified very few remains from the first building phase, which he labeled Stratum Vb. In his opinion, most of the architectural elements were simple agricultural terrace walls and residential building walls. What stands out is a casemate wall segment, exposed in the southeastern corner, which Aharoni attributed to the first building phase particularly because it diverged southward and did not follow his reconstructed palace plan. He attributed the palace to

the second building phase, his Stratum Va. Therefore Aharoni contended that this wall segment, along with pottery shards that he dated to the 8th century BCE, and the numerous jar handles with lmlk stamp impressions, all represented the earliest stage in the site’s history and demonstrated its importance even then. The renewed excavations indeed confirmed Aharoni’s determination about the existence of the early phase, but our results show an architectural layout differing from his reconstruction. The dating of the “Western Tower,” which Aharoni had already exposed, and which he integrated into the palace structure plan as part of the second building phase, should now be moved up to the earlier phase. This building is differs significantly in style and in the construction method characterizing the remains of the later royal palace, though the later palace did indeed incorporate these earlier walls during the second building phase. The tower follows the prevailing construction style of Iron Age Judah, with wide walls built from a mixture of fieldstones—limestone, nari, and flint blocks of

Fig. 36: Ramat Raḥel’s first building phase plan (in black)

39

40

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 38: Tower walls, view toward the north

Fig. 37: Connection point between the earlier tower and the attached wall of the second building phase

varying size, large or medium, but all rough and uncut or partly and roughly hewn. The base of these walls is sometimes integrated into the rock outcroppings and sometimes into shallow foundation trenches. This building resembled a fortress or a watchtower, and it stood erect on the hilltop on the spur’s western side while controlling the main road at its foot, both viewing and being viewed from all directions. A

B

B

A

Fig. 39: Plan of the Ramat Raḥel Tower

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE) In its plan and construction style, the watchtower belongs to the fortress network built around Jerusalem in the late First Temple Period, like the fortress that Orah Negbi exposed in the French Hill neighborhood. As at Ramat Raḥel, that fortress also stood erect on French Hill’s high peak, which controls the main road leading from the north into Jerusalem. Similar fortresses were also uncovered in Binyanei Ha’uma (International Convention Center) on the peak of the Givʿat Ram neighborhood, which controls the roads leading from the northwest into Jerusalem, and recently also on the edge of the Zur Baher village about one kilometer east of Ramat Raḥel.41 The Zur Baher and Ramat Raḥel citadels had direct visual contact with one other. It seems that the Zur Baher emplacement served as the rear extension of Ramat Raḥel’s defensive perimeter and that its purpose was to protect the settlement’s main point of vulnerability—the view to the east, the lack of visibility of that frontier, which affected the ability to control the Judean Desert’s edge. The excavators dated its construction to the late 8th century or early 7th century BCE, and apparently it was erected during Ramat Raḥel’s first building phase.

41

Fig. 40: Southeastern wall in Area D2, a view southward

The stratigraphic context of wall segments found in various locations east of the tower show them to be part of buildings that were constructed along the ridge already in the site’s first building phase. The most important evidence for demonstrating this revised dating lies in the southeastern corner (Area D2), where a long segment of the internal wall belonging to “the early casemate wall” was excavated, a continuation of

Fig. 41: Plan of the southeastern wall in Area D2

42

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 42: Southern casemate wall as exposed in Aharoni’s excavations

the wall first exposed by Aharoni in his last excavation season (1962). This wall was discovered buried under a thick white floor, a continuation of the eastern courtyard floor, which Aharoni and we both identified in the excavation areas to its north. This is the only point at the site where it is clearly evident that the white floor, attributed to the second building phase, runs over the wall from the first building phase. Archaeologically, this proves that this buried wall is from the earlier phase’s construction. We therefore understand that this wall was not part of the casemate wall but rather belonged to a large structure that was located on the hill’s southern side. Unlike the tower walls in the west, built with large and unchiseled field stones, the stone walls in the other sections were at least partly built with chisel-hewn stones. Two of the stone walls found here employed the most beautiful hewn stones found at Ramat Raḥel. The hewn wall bordering the palace courtyard from the second building phase also has these well-dressed stones, which was the first wall Aharoni uncovered back in 1954, and it was these high quality hewn stones that convinced him that a unique royal site was hidden in Ramat Raḥel. In 1962, Aharoni excavated near the wall again and exposed additional courses. This excavation clarified that the courtyard floor from the second building phase, Aharoni’s Stratum Va, was built over the hewn stones. Thus, we conclude that the wall preceded the courtyard and should therefore

be attributed to the first building phase, Aharoni’s Stratum Vb. It is interesting to note that near this wall Aharoni found one of the ornamental stone capitals that through the years of excavation became Ramat Raḥel’s trademark (Aharoni first called them “Proto-Ionic Capitals,” and later, “Proto-Aeolic Capitals”). Another wall built with high quality hewn stones is integrated into the southern casemate wall, which Aharoni had already attributed to the early building phase (Stratum Vb). It is notable that hewn stones of excellent quality had already been integrated into this wall’s foundation courses. They were placed in the foundation trench quarried into the flint bedrock, which is sometimes higher than the wall’s foundation stones. The conclusion is that these hewn stones were located under the floor. More evidence for the duration and the importance of the early phase can be found in the numerous pieces of pottery found in the fill layers discovered below the white floor of the second building phase; these shards were especially transported in order to flatten and even out the inner courtyard of the palace. Technically, this fill is attributed to the second building phase, the period of the courtyard floor and its construction. But as Aharoni already perceived, these pottery fragments inside the fill are of vessels belonging to the first building phase, including various bowls, jugs, lamps, cooking pots, and especially the enormous number of hole-mouth jars and the typical cylindrical storage

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE)

Fig. 43: Southern casemate wall as it looks today, view to the west

jars. The buildings south of the inner courtyard display a similar stratigraphic reality, with fragments of many hole-mouth and cylindrical storage jars lying on the bedrock under the floor, similar to the type found scattered all over the site. It seems that they were discarded here or were in secondary usage as infrastructure for the floor but that they were in use in the period preceding the second building phase and the palace construction in the later part of the 7th century BCE. The large quantity of shards indicates the strong presence and strength of the first building phase, beginning with its establishment in the late 8th or early 7th century BCE and certainly at least by the second half of the 7th century BCE. An important find from the fill are lmlk and “private” stamped jar handles and concentric circle incisions. Most significant for chronology is what was not found below the floor: rosette stamp impressions on jar handles were not found in the fill, but only above the floor. This discovery at Ramat Raḥel enables a pivotal chronological and historical conclusion to be drawn—that rosette stamp impressions were introduced later than the other types and only during the

43

second building phase period. They become now a fossil directeur of the later period in the history of the site, as we shall discuss below. Aharoni’s excavation and ours found 224 jar handles with lmlk stamp impressions. Regarding the stratigraphical context, about a third (approximately 70) came from the fill under the inner courtyard floor and from under other buildings from the second building phase—all thus belonging to the first building phase. These stamped handles represent the range of the known typological varieties and can therefore be used to determine the entire sequential chronological continuum of this administrative system. In addition, 5 out of the 18 handles found at Ramat Raḥel with the “private” stamp impressions came from the fill under the second building phase courtyard floor, which means they were part of the context of the first building phase. Aharoni assumed that the lmlk stamp impression system represents the specific period of King Hezekiah and his preparations to withstand the anticipated Assyrian onslaught (the very end of the 8th century BCE), as do other scholars. But as a result of these excavations and further research by our team, today we contend that this administrative system continued to operate around Jerusalem and in the central hill vicinity during the first part of the 7th century BCE. Handles with concentric circle incisions were also found in the same fill under the second building phase floors. These incisions inherited the role of the lmlk stamp impressions and were used in the mid-7th century BCE, proving that the administrative system in Judah continued to develop.42 The pottery shards and other finds from the fill under the second building phase structures are the main key for dating the first phase of the fortress. Thus, most of the pottery discovered in the fill and in the pits, which are securely anchored contextually by their location under the second building phase floor (Aharoni’s Stratum Va), should be dated to the 7th century BCE. Handles with lmlk and “private” stamp impressions found under the second building phase infrastructure indicate that the site was probably already built and functioning at the end of the 8th century, or at least at the beginning of the 7th century BCE. As to the function of the site, the large quantity of these stamped handles, with the lmlk and “private” stamp impressions, and the palace-quality vessel assemblages, indicate that already in this earlier phase the hilltop site functioned as an administrative and governmental center.

44

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Ramat Raḥel—Jar Stamp Impression Center for More Than 500 Years One of the unique characteristics of the Ramat Raḥel administrative center is the large number and the diversity of stamped jar handles, more than 600. The typical elliptical jars were probably used for storing agricultural products, such as wine or oil, and for short-distance transportation from the production site to the collection and storage center. An apparent prototype of these jars was already used in the 9th century BCE, especially in the Shephelah, but the practice of marking jar handles with symbols began only at the end of the 8th century. These marks were made by impressing a stamp on the jar handles before firing them in the furnace, when the clay was still half-dry (“leather-hard”) and soft enough for stamping. The excavated corpus of stamped handles is comprised of: lmlk and “private” stamp impressions, in use ranging from the last quarter of the 8th century to the early 7th century BCE; concentric circle incisions, mid-7th century BCE; rosette stamp impressions, late 7th century to early 6th century BCE; lion stamp impressions, 6th century BCE; yehud stamp

impressions, late 6th century to the middle of the 2nd century BCE; and yršlm stamp impressions, middle to late 2nd century BCE. The appearance of the word lmlk on the ancient stamp impressions, the Aramaic name of the province of Yehud on the large number of stamp impressions from the Persian Period, and, of course, the name of the capital yršlm from the 2nd century BCE stamp impressions, all attest to the direct connection of these jars to the royal administration of the Judahite kingdom, and later, to the provincial administration of the Judean province. This demonstrates an administrative system operating continuously for more than 500 years, and it is also evidence for Ramat Raḥel’s position and centrality in the Judahite (First Temple Period / Iron Age) and Judean (Second Temple / Persian— Early Hellenistic Period) administrations throughout. No other site in Judah, neither during the First Temple nor the Second Temple periods, can compete with the status and stature of Ramat Raḥel. According to Lipschits’ suggested reconstruction,43 at the end of the 8th century BCE, the Kingdom of Judah developed an economic system of agriculturally productive royal estates whose products were mainly wine and olive oil. These products were collected and stored in standard-size storage jars, some of which had royal marks on their handles. This system probably served the kings of Judah for about 150 years, enabling them to efficiently collect agricultural products and monitor production, and whose profits were used to pay taxes to the empires governing Judah and the whole region—Assyria in the beginning, and later, Egypt and Babylon. This system continued to operate even after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah, when Judah existed as a province under the successive rule of the Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid empires, and up to the Seleucid period, for about 400 years.

lmlk Stamp Impressions

Fig. 44: Schematic illustration of stamp impression types dating from the late Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period

Oval storage jars with four handles were already common in the Judean Lowlands since the 9th century BCE. But from the late 8th century on, stamp impressions appear on some handles, all with the word lmlk in paleo-Hebrew script, leading to the reference terms “lmlk stamp impressions” and “lmlk jars.” About 1,400 lmlk handles have been found in provenanced archaeological excavations and surveys since the British

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE)

45

researcher Charles Warren discovered the first one in 1871. We know today of more than 2,000 handles, most found within the Kingdom of Judah’s borders. The word lmlk means “belongs to the King,” which proves that they reflect the royal administrative system, a conclusion supported by their discovery mainly within the Kingdom of Judah’s borders. Recent petrographic research has revealed that they were all manufactured using soil originating in the Judean Shephelah, probably around the Elah Valley, and apparently were made in the same local workshop. The word lmlk usually appears as a caption in the upper section, while two additional features appear under it. A royal symbol sits in the center, which comes in two forms, either a four-winged beetle, probably reflecting Egyptian influence, or a winged sundisk, similar to that appearing in Ancient Near Eastern cultures in general and in the Assyrian culture in particular. It seems that these late First Temple Period symbols represented the local god or the local king in

Fig. 45: lmlk-type storage jar from Lachish

Fig. 47: Four-winged lmlk stamp impression

1

2

Fig. 46: Three-dimensional scan of a lmlk storage jar

Fig. 48: Two-winged lmlk stamp impression

46

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 49: Map showing late 8th century BCE distribution of lmlk stamped handles

Fig. 50: Map showing early 7th century BCE distribution of lmlk stamped handles

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE) the Late First Temple Period and were influenced by similar symbols in neighboring cultures. The second feature is a place name, which usually appears at the bottom of the stamp impression, under the royal symbol, and is one of the following four sites: Hebron, Ziph, Sochoh, and mmšt. Scholars have suggested various explanations for their appearance, but it seems that they represented the points of origin of the agricultural products with which the jars were filled. They were probably royal estates in which agricultural products, mainly wine and oil, were grown and produced. Sochoh is identified in the Elah Valley in the Judean Shephelah; Hebron and Ziph are located in the southern Judean Mountains; and the identity of mmšt (apparently Mamshit) is unknown and could have been located anywhere in the kingdom’s regions. The method of the administrative and economic system that lay behind the stamp impressions can now be generally reconstructed.44 The royal jars (the “lmlk jars”) were manufactured in one central workshop in the Judean Lowlands. Official clerks representing the king stamped a percentage of these jars with the lmlk stamps. Every impression marked the jar’s destination, one of four regional royal estates, to which they were shipped and there filled with wine, oil, or other products, and each estate then sent that produce on to a central collection center. At first, Lachish in the Shephelah was the prime collection center, as evidenced by the large numbers of early lmlk stamped handles found there. They were mainly found in the archaeological destruction layer of the Sennacherib Campaign (701 BCE). After the Shephelah’s destruction, the governmental collection center moved mainly to Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem, where the later stamp impressions, manufactured after 701 BCE, are mostly found, discovered in quantities far exceeding any other sites.45 From the main collection centers a few jars were then distributed to secondary administration centers in Judah, apparently as payment or a special supply for appointed officials, for close associates of the royal family and for military units. Perhaps, as a result of this secondary distribution, there some jars also were privately traded, and single jars were therefore therefore found in the storage rooms of private homes. The emergence of the lmlk jar system close to the period of Judah’s subjugation by the Assyrian Empire, and the fact that the stamp impression system continued throughout the centuries when Judah was a vassal Kingdom of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, and later, Yehud / Judea—a Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic and

47

Seleucid Province—indicate that the jar system was intended to collect a set quantity of wine and oil to serve as Judah’s annual tax payment.

lmlk Stamp Impression Types There are three distinguishing features to note in the royal symbol and text of lmlk stamp impressions: use of the “four-winged” or the “two-winged” symbol; official (lapidary) or the regular (cursive) script; and the place names underneath (Hebron, Ziph, Sochoh, and mmšt). The current accepted typology of the stamp impressions was created by epigrapher André Lemaire in 1981.46 Lemaire divides the four-winged symbol into two main archetypes according to the type of the script, lapidary or cursive. Each type then has four sub-types that follow the four place-names. The twowinged symbol stamp impressions are divided into three different types: (a) the name of the site is written under the symbol; (b) the name of the site is split into two, written on both sides of the “tail” of the symbol; (c) the name of the site is written above the symbol, instead of the inscription lmlk. Like the four-winged stamp impressions, the two-winged types are also sub-divided according to the place-names. Lemaire identified an additional two-winged type with no place name; only the lmlk inscription decorates the top.

Determining the Historical Periods of lmlk Stamp Impression Types The hypothesis that all the lmlk stamp impression jars were manufactured as part of King Hezekiah’s preparations in anticipation of an Assyrian onslaught in 701 BCE has been accepted in research for many years.47 However, a meticulous examination of the distribution of the impressions by types shows that none of the three two-winged types were found in sites destroyed during Sennacherib’s 701 BCE campaign, and they are not present in the hundreds of impressions from Lachish Stratum III. They do appear in hill country sites unaffected by that destruction, or in sites built many years later, during the 7th century BCE. This fact raises the possibility that these types appear only after Sennacherib’s campaign and represent the new phase of the administrative system, at the beginning of the 7th century BCE. If true, it now becomes possible to distinguish between two types of lmlk stamp impressions chronologically: (a) early lmlk stamp impressions, as found in 701 BCE destruction layers, and were thus in use at the end of the 8th

48

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

century BCE; (b) late lmlk stamp impressions, adopted subsequent to Sennacherib’s campaign, and distributed only in the hill country region, as the Shephelah was destroyed. Their date must be only from the beginning of the 7th century BCE onward.48 This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for understanding Judah’s system of administration and economics in the late Iron Age and for Ramat Raḥel’s position in this system.49

lmlk Stamp Impressions from Ramat Raḥel: Implications Ramat Raḥel produced 224 lmlk stamp impressions, placing this small site in third place after the two main cities in Iron Age Judah: Lachish (413 stamp impressions) and Jerusalem (about 300 stamp impressions). Lachish and Jerusalem were the most important and central cities in Judah toward the end of the First Temple Period: Jerusalem was the capital and housed the Temple, while Lachish was the most important administrative city in the Judean Shephelah in the 8th century BCE. That Ramat Raḥel has the next largest number of excavated stamped handles after these two cities serves as additional proof of the centrality of the administrative center in this place, probably initiated after the destruction of Lachish, very early in the 7th century BCE. While the number of jar handles with lmlk stamp impressions is very large, an extremely small number of jar fragments were found—in stark contrast to other sites in Judah where these storage jars are always plentiful. So where did the Ramat Raḥel jars go? A possible answer stems from the administrative center functioning for a long and continuous time without any evidence of destructions, which always “freeze” material culture. It could be that the lmlk storage jars were simply reused again and again on site, or in shipments, until they finally wore out and broke; and the fragments were discarded in all directions.

second name is the father of the first person. Occasionally a title is added. More than 250 “private” stamp impressions are known today, of which 185 were found in provenanced archaeological excavations. The connection between the “private” and the lmlk stamp impressions became clear already in the early stages of research, and the storage jar types are completely identical to each other. It has also been proved that they came from the same workshop.50 One handle with the “private” stamp impression placed next to the lmlk stamp was found in Aharoni’s excavations at Ramat Raḥel,51 while in the Lachish excavations some jars had both the lmlk and the “private” stamp impressions, impressed on different handles.52 A recent study has proved that all the “private” stamp impressions pre-date Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE.53 This datum also corresponds to the fact that the geographical distribution of the “private” stamp impressions is smaller than that of the lmlk stamp impressions; they are found mainly in the Judean Shephelah and usually at sites that were destroyed in that campaign. Out of the 185 stamped handles found in archaeological excavations, only 51 were found in the hill country region, out of which 19 came from Ramat Raḥel. All the personal names on the hill country area handles are identical to those found in the Shephelah and in the settlement layers destroyed in Sennacherib’s campaign. Taking into consideration the special character of the “private” stamp impressions on royal jar handles, their small geographical distribution, their small number in relation to the lmlk stamp impressions (a ratio of 7:1), and the limited duration this system was in use, all lead to the conclusion that what we are seeing is the adaptation of the

“Private” Stamp Impressions The inscriptions in the “private” stamp impression series include two written rows (three rows are rare) with two private names. Often the Hebrew letter Lamed (‫)ל‬, a sign of belonging, appears before the first name; and sometimes it is absent. Occasionally, the word “son” (‫ )בן‬appears in between the two names, but generally not. This term generally means that the

Fig. 51: “Private” stamp impression together with lmlk stamp impression on the same jar handle

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE) royal administrative system of the lmlk stamp impressions in preparation for Judah’s revolt against Assyria. The people whose personal names appear in the stamp impressions were probably either responsible for the collection, or for receiving and distributing supplies, in conjunction with the war effort. After the Assyrian

49

war campaign ended, the kingdom discontinued the use of the “private” stamp impression system which had served under emergency conditions, especially in the Lowlands agricultural region, now destroyed; and then the late-type lmlk stamp impression system commenced operation based in the mountain region.

Table 2: Types of “Private” Stamp Impressions Discovered at Ramat Raḥel Compared to Other Sites “Private” Stamp Impression Excavated in Ramat Raḥel

Identical Stamp Impression (from the Different Stamp Impression with same seal) Identical Name

‫תנחמ‬.‫ו‬/‫אחזי‬ ʿḥzyh/w.tnḥm

Beth Shemesh; Tell en-Naṣbeh

‫יכנ‬.‫ר‬/‫נע‬.‫אליקמ‬ ʿlyqm.n’/r.ykn

Beth Shemesh; Tell Beit Mirsim

‫שחר‬/‫יהוחל‬ yhwḥl/šḥr

Lachish

Lachish, Jerusalem

‫שחר‬/‫ליהוחל‬ lyhwḥyl/šḥr

Jerusalem

Lachish

‫יובנה‬/‫למנחמ‬ lmnḥm/ywbnh

Gibeon; ʿAdullam; Khirbet ʿAbbâd

Beth-Shemesh, Tel Goded

‫ויהבנה‬/‫מנחמ‬ mnḥm/wyhbnh

Beth-Shemesh

Beth-Shemesh, Tel Goded

‫שבנא‬/‫לנרא‬ Lnrʾ/šbnʾ

Beth-Shemesh, Jerusalem, Lachish

‫אלשמע‬/‫לצמח‬ lṣmḥ/’lšm’ ‫אחא‬/‫לשלמ‬ lšlm/ʾḥʾ

Arad; Beth Shemesh; Jerusalem; Debir; Tell Goded

‫מגן‬/‫לתנחמ‬ ltnḥm/mgn

Gibeon; Tell ʿErani; Tekoa

‫מגן‬.‫מ‬/‫לתנח‬ ltnḥ/m.mgn

Beth-Shemesh; Jerusalem; Gibeon

Fig. 52: “Private” stamp impression with the name “‫אלשמע‬/‫( ”לצמח‬L’Zemach Elshama), 2008 excavation season

50

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Ivory Seal of šlm (Son of) klkl— Discovered in the 2010 Excavation Season54 An ivory seal with a name not previously known was exposed under the palace courtyard floor during the last excavation season at Ramat Raḥel (August 18, 2010). Based on the archaeological data of the seal, it may be assumed that it dates to the end of the 8th century BCE or to the first half of the 7th century. The seal is elliptical; its length is 1.4 cm and its width is 1.2 cm, with a hole for a string drilled through its length, so that the stamp owner could hang it around his neck. The two rows of script carry the name šlm / klkl. As in other seals and stamp impressions with two names, it seems that it refers to a man whose personal name was ‫( ׁשַ ּלֻם‬Šallūm) or ‫ׁשּלֵם‬ ִ (Šillēm) and should be interpreted as ‘be sound’, ‘be in (or make) covenant of peace’, ‘compensate’, or ‘pay, reward, replace’. Since the two options of the name are a hypocoristicon of ‫שלמיהו‬, or the like, it is to be interpreted as ‘YHWH has compensated/rewarded’. It is one of the most popular names in Hebrew epigraphy; it appears in many other seals and stamp impressions, the ostraca of Lachish, Arad and Samaria, as well as in the Old Testament and in Neo-Babylonian texts.55 The name in the lower register is ‫ כלכל‬Kalkōl, a hypocoristicon of the name ‫ כלכליה‬/‫כלכליהו‬. The name is derived from the root ‫כלל‬, and its meaning is ‘sustain, feed, support’. It is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (1 Kings 5:11; 1 Chron. 2: 6), and on three other stamp impressions and on a bulla, all of unknown origin found in the antiquities market.56

Fig. 53: Ivory seal from Ramat Raḥel—“‫כלכל‬/‫ ”שלמ‬šlm / klkl

Concentric Circle Incisions on Jar Handles Archaeological excavations and surveys executed within the territory of the Kingdom of Judah have to date exposed about 274 jar handles of lmlk-type jars with two concentric circles around one central point, incised after the jars were fired. A compass-like device or two such devices of different diameters cut into the pot’s surface, and the friction marks from the rotation of the central arm can be seen in the point engraved in the center of the two circles, and the engraving marks of the circles are clearly visible. Usually, the circles were engraved on the flat surface of the handles; in places where the handle was curved or rounded, it is evident that the engraving was unsuccessful and the circle was rendered incompletely. About half of the concentric circles were incised next to a pre-existing lmlk impression stamped on the same handle, and the other half of these incisions were found on lmlk-type jars without a prior stamp impression. These factors together with the limited geographical distribution of the marked jars within the borders of the Kingdom of Judah, show that the concentric circle system is the successor to the lmlk royal administrative system in Judah, probably canceling, replacing, or adjusting the earlier lmlk stamp impression system. In establishing the chronology of the system represented by concentric circle incisions, we have to consider two facts. (1) Most of the concentric circle incisions were found in the Judean hill country, and only a few were found in the Shephelah. This situation reflects the period during which the lowland region was destroyed and disconnected from Judah’s administrative system, during the major part of the 7th century BCE. (2) The geographic distribution of the concentric circle incisions is identical to that of the late lmlk stamp impressions from the 7th century BCE, while completely different from the rosette stamp impression distribution, which replaced these earlier systems during the last third of the 7th century BCE. In light of this accumulated information, the concentric circle incisions should be dated to the period before the rosette stamp impressions—that is, before the last third of the 7th century BCE. Because it is reasonable to assume that the concentric circle incisions were used at the same time or after the late lmlk stamp impressions from the beginning of the 7th century BCE, it is reasonable to assume that they were used during the second third of that century.

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE)

51

Fig. 54: Concentric circle incision on a jar handle

Fig. 55: Concentric circle incision next to a lmlk stamp impression

Unique architectural features support the hypothesis that Ramat Raḥel served as an administrative and government center already in its early stage. Ten decorated volute stone capitals (still called “Proto-Aeolic” by many scholars) were found in Aharoni’s excavations, and fragments of three additional capitals were added by the renewed excavations.57 Special architectural elements that came to light include a series of small carved stone colonettes with palmette capitals which were part of a window balustrade, similar in appearance the windows shown in the well-known ivory reliefs of “the woman in the window” and the stone relief discovered in the Meisler and Stekelis excavations, which included a row of small stone colonettes, identical to those found by Aharoni. All these items probably belonged to the same architectural unit. Aharoni associated this assemblage of architectural items with the magnificent palace, which he dated to the second building phase, his Stratum Va. However, Yigal Shiloh argued that the origin of the capitals was the buildings erected already in the site’s first building phase, Stratum Vb, and that like many of the other construction stones of this stratum, the use of the capitals in Stratum Va was also secondary. Shiloh also based his arguments on dating the early phase to the 9th century BCE, as suggested by Yigael Yadin, as well

as on Yadin’s further suggestion to identify the magnificent palace with the House of Baal constructed by queen Athalia.58 Therefore, Shiloh made the natural comparison between the capitals discovered at Ramat Raḥel and those discovered in the monumental architecture of the contemporary main cities of the Kingdom of Israel—Samaria, Megiddo, Hazor, and Dan.59 While the early 9th century BCE date suggested by Yadin and Shiloh for Stratum Vb at Ramat Raḥel should no longer be accepted, because not even one pottery shard predating the end of the 8th century BCE was found here, nevertheless we do accept their attribution of the capitals to the first building phase. All the evidence shows that even at this early stage Ramat Raḥel had a well-constructed administrative center and that some of its walls were built with nicely hewn stones. Furthermore, all the capitals found at Ramat Raḥel show signs of modification and change, the most striking of which is the deep slot in the capital’s upper section, probably to enable their integration into the second phase building’s roofing. All this strengthens the conclusion that these capitals were then in secondary use. Our conclusion is that a magnificent administrative center was built at Ramat Raḥel already during the first building phase (Aharoni’s Stratum Vb), which had

52

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

no other parallel anywhere in the Kingdom of Judah, and these unique items of monumental architecture were part of this early building. The fortress tower was on its western side, very visible from the valleys around, with several buildings to its east, constructed from hewn stones, with decorated stone capitals, stone colonettes decorating a window or windows, along with other carved stone decorations. The wealth of stamp impressions on storage jars indicates the site’s function: it was a Judahite center for the collection of agricultural products, probably for paying tax to the Assyrian Empire. This early role of Ramat Raḥel in the kingdom’s administration became increasingly well-established during the subsequent stages of its existence. From the archaeological perspective, we cannot determine whether the early administrative center was constructed at the end of the 8th century or at the beginning of the 7th century BCE. Nevertheless, as a historical hypothesis, we can suggest that after the Assyrians destroyed Lachish in Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE), Ramat Raḥel became the alternate collection center for agricultural products produced from the king’s estates.60 This hypothesis is supported by the relatively small number of the early-type lmlk stamp impression (46 handles) prevalent in Lachish Stratum III, which predates the Assyrian destruction of the Shephelah, in contrast to the large number of the late-type lmlk stamp impressions (178 handles) at Ramat Raḥel, which we propose replaced Lachish as the collection center from this point on. After the destruction of the Shephelah, the agricultural areas of Judah were limited to the mountain region. As part of the development of new agricultural areas and royal estates around Jerusalem and in the other regions of the Judean hills—necessary to produce sufficient quantities of wine and oil to continue paying imperial taxes—a new administrative center for the region was built as well, here at Ramat Raḥel, and the agricultural products were collected here. Based on the shards and artifacts found in the fill under the second building

phase palace flooring, the administrative center from the first phase continued to exist at least until the mid7th century BCE and perhaps even longer, toward the beginning of the last third of that century, when the magnificent palace of the second building phase was erected in its place. We can also assume that the magnificent administrative center at Ramat Raḥel was not built so close to Jerusalem by accident, on a site controlling the main roads leading to the city from the south and the west, overlooking the whole area west of Jerusalem and visible from every place around it. Moreover, we can assume that it was deliberate and with forethought that the ridge of Armon Hanatziv was not chosen for the construction of this administrative center, though it controls Jerusalem directly. This ridge physically and visually separates the City of David, the Temple, and the king’s palaces from the newly established administrative center at Ramat Raḥel, Thus, the internal independence of the Jerusalemite elite was left alone; there was no overt interference from the constant presence of an imperial administrative center serving as a daily reminder to Jerusalem of its subordination and vassal status. If our hypothesis is correct, Ramat Raḥel was initially built as a Judahite administrative center under imperial protection, collecting the agricultural products designated for financing the kingdom’s tax payment. It is also possible that the place was also the residence of the imperial Supervisor (qepu in Akkadian) of the vassal kingdom. Representing the great and powerful empire, its architecture was quite extraordinarily magnificent, with a royal garden and exotic plants, and its characteristics were thus strikingly different from the typical construction in Judah during this period. This was only the beginning of the road. For another 500 years, the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel continued to serve as a center to which agricultural products were gathered, mainly in storage jars, some with stamp impressions on their handles.

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE)

Iron Age II Architectural Fragments at Ramat Raḥel Decorated architectural stone objects from the First Temple period were discovered during the many excavation seasons at Ramat Raḥel. Most were unique, with no equivalents found in any other sites in Judah. They were probably in use already during the first building phase for the decoration and embellishment of the gates, windows, walls, and roof of the palace erected at Ramat Raḥel.

Decorated Stone Capitals 61 Since Gottlieb Schumacher discovered the first decorated stone capital at Megiddo in 1903, this type of capital was labeled “Proto-Ionic”; and since the 1950s, they have been called “Proto-Aeolic Capitals.” The origin of both names is in the architecture of Classical Greece. Adding the prefix to their name indicated that

Fig. 56: Different types of decorated stone capitals in the Kingdom of Israel

53

the capitals in the East preceded those in the Classical world and that East influenced West in this matter.62 The decorated stone capitals that were found in the territory of the Kingdom of Israel precede those emerging in the Classical world by centuries, and there are clear differences of style between these two artistic and architectural worlds.63 The stone capitals found in the greater land of Israel also precede those discovered in Phoenicia, where no decorated stone capitals were found at all. Yigal Shiloh considered the decorated stone capitals in Israel as a local development, based on an ancient tradition of ornamentation prevalent in the region. Finkelstein considered these capitals the sole architectural element invented in Israel during the period of the Omride Dynasty and created during the 9th century BCE, along with adoption of northern elements and those known in Israel from earlier periods.64 A total of 24 decorated stone capitals have been discovered in the central cities of the Kingdom of Israel: Samaria (7), Megiddo (12), Hazor (2), and Dan (3). These capitals should be dated to mid-9th century BCE, probably as part of the widescale construction taking place in the kingdom during the Omrides’ reign.65 In addition, it can be assumed they were in continuous use between their introduction until the Assyrian destruction of the kingdom at the start of the last third of the 8th century. Thus,

Fig. 57: Decorated stone capitals in the kingdoms of Judah, Moab and Ammon

54

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 58: Decorated stone capital from Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 60: Decorated stone capital fragments from the renewed Ramat Raḥel excavations

Oculus

Upper Leaf

Abacus Volute Central Triangle Lower Leaf Fig. 61: Schematic illustration of a decorated stone capital with its various components

Fig. 59: Discovering the stone capital in Aharoni’s Ramat Raḥel excavations

this architectural tradition can be considered to be an independent development in the East, and the term volute capital is more accurate, rather than relating it to Greek styles (unless indeed the East influenced the West). In Judah, stone capitals were discovered in Jerusalem and in Ramat Raḥel. In Jerusalem, Kathleen Kenyon found two fragments of the same stone capital in her City of David excavation.66 In marked contrast, a far greater number of capitals and fragments of capitals have been discovered at Ramat Raḥel, 13 in total, 10 from Aharoni’s early excavations, of which 4 are completely intact.67 Lipschits dated these capitals to the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 7th century BCE. He viewed the emergence of this decorative element as an effect of Assyrian rule and influence and identifies this foreign imperial influence as the intermediary between the capitals found in the

main cities in the Kingdom of Israel, destroyed by the Assyrians about a generation earlier, and those found in Judahite government and administrative centers, as well as in Moab and Ammon, all vassal kingdoms under Assyrian rule. And thus, 5 decorated stone capitals were unearthed in Moab, 4 of them in Khirbet al-Mudaybi.68 Two fragments of stone capitals in secondary use were exposed in Ammonite territory near the remains of the Ammonite fortress, east of the Roman temple.69 The form of the stone capitals found at Ramat Raḥel is rectangular, about 1.10 meters long and about 40 centimeters high. Their rear side was not carved, and this shows that the capitals were integrated into the building walls and protruded outward, probably in the palace entrances and gates. The decoration in the stone capital was carved from the inner side as well as in the front side of its width, which included a central triangle, volutes protruding from the central triangle and rounding up outward, an oculus on both sides of the vertex of the triangle, a lower leaf under the volutes and an upper leaf above them, and an abacus closing on the capital from above. There is general acceptance

Chapter Five: First Building Phase (Late 8th / Early 7th century BCE) among scholars that this motif is influenced by the widely-used ancient Near Eastern palm tree motif. Three additional fragments of decorated stone capitals were found during the renewed excavations. The first is small, 17.5 centimeters long and 12.5 centimeters wide, which broke off from the upper central part of a capital; the upper frame and half of the right oculus are clearly visible. The second fragment, 25 centimeters long and 20 centimeters wide, comes from the lower left section, with the lower left leaf and a part of the volute clearly visible. The third comes from the upper left corner; the upper frame and upper left leaf are clearly visible.

55

Fig. 62: Window colonettes as found in the excavations, before restoration Aharoni’s Ramat Raḥel excavations

The Window Balustrade Aharoni’s excavations discovered numerous stone fragments that, when connected together, formed a row of small columns, balusters, or colonettes, with capitals in their upper section.70 It seems that the small columns and the capitals were created separately and were then connected by rods inserted into square apertures in their center. The column bases and their upper parts are wider than the bodies, which are decorated with a design of falling palm tree leafs. Simple in its style, the stone capital has two volutes that extend from an oval center. The rod connecting the capital to the column was inserted in its head. The restored window balusters can be seen today in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and additional fragments are in the Antiquities Authority storage rooms. A stone relief with a similar window balustrade was found during the excavations of Meisler and Stekelis on the slope of the ancient site of Ramat Raḥel.71 Twelve colonette fragments were discovered in our renewed excavations: three fragments of capitals and nine fragments of columns. Most fragments were found in Area C3. The window balustrade elements from Ramat Raḥel are unique, and their equivalents have never been found in any other archaeological excavation. These are the only evidence in the country for the existence of such windows, known only in artistic representations such as ivory reliefs that were probably used for decorating wooden furniture, with the “woman in the window” motif as the central design. These ivory reliefs have been discovered in various ancient Near Eastern sites and were prevalent in Assyria, Syria, the kingdoms of the Phoenician Coast, and the Kingdom of Israel.

Fig. 63: Window colonettes after restoration

Fig. 64: Window balustrade with the pattern of the “Woman in the Window,” similar to carved ivories of the Ancient Near East

Stone Crenelations Additional architectural stone elements exposed in Aharoni’s excavations at Ramat Raḥel are crenelations, chiseled in the form of a step pyramid. 72 The dimensions of the lower step are approximately 54 × 30 × 14 centimeters; the middle step, approximately 33 × 22 × 15 centimeters; and the upper step

56

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 65: Stone crenelation found in Aharoni’s excavations

is approximately 17 × 15 × 10 centimeters. One whole such “pyramid” and at least four more fragments were excavated, restored, and are exhibited today in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Four additional crenelation fragments were discovered during the renewed excavations, including a part of such a stone whose lower and middle step are complete, but its upper step is broken. Such elements have never been discovered in any other site in the land of Israel. The only parallel style is found in the wall embossings decorating the palaces of the Assyrian kings, such as Sargon II in Dur-Sharrukin and Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.

Column Base Fragment An additional architectural fragment that the renewed excavations produced (Area D1) is a rounded

Fig. 66: Column base fragment in secondary use, renewed Ramat Raḥel excavations

column base fragment with circular decoration. This fragment is probably unique in the land of Israel, and it seems that as in the case of the crenelation, its sole equivalent is found in the Assyrian relief decorating the palaces of the Assyrian kings, such as Sargon II in Dur-Sharrukin and Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. These unique stone elements found at Ramat Raḥel are a silent witness to the great magnificence of the palace erected here and to its uniqueness in late First Temple Period royal architecture. That the only equivalents of some elements lie in Assyrian palace decorations reinforces the hypothesis that Ramat Raḥel was established under the rule of the Assyrian Empire, perhaps even under the instruction and the protection of the Assyrians, to serve as an administrative center for their benefit and to reflect their presence.

Fig. 67: Illustration of Assyrian reliefs with column bases and decorated stone capitals

Chapter Six: Historical Introduction to the Second Building Phase– Judah under Egyptian and Babylonian Rule The detailed history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire can be recreated through integrating the biblical description (mainly in the Books of Kings and Jeremiah), the Babylonian sources (mainly the “Babylonian Chronicles”) and the archaeological evidence.73 Nabopolassar (626–609 BCE) was the first king in the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom. He took advantage of Assyria’s weakness to rebel against it with the help of the Medes and started to attack the Assyrian administrative centers located on the Tigris River. The Assyrians were forced to gather large military forces from the whole empire and thus withdrew their army from this western region. Stepping into the military, administrative and political void in the Levant were the kings of the 26th Egyptian Dynasty, who reached a high position under the Assyrians about 50 years earlier and then replaced them as successors.74 Psammetichus I (644–610 BCE) was the king who started to spread his control over Syria and the land of Israel and established rule over the whole region in the 720s BCE.

But Egypt’s political, economic, and military interests focused on the coastal area and the main international roads traveling northward through the land of Israel, and therefore the Egyptian presence felt mostly in the coastal cities, primarily in Ashkelon, which prospered as an international trade center. In contrast, despite implicit sovereignty, Egyptian activities were felt a lot less in the central mountain region and in Trans­jordan. This allowed the smaller kingdoms that survived Assyrian imperial rule to enjoy a period of relative freedom of action. During the reign of Josiah, the son of Ammon (640– 609 BCE), as the Assyrians withdrew from the whole region, Judah reestablished its rule in the Shephelah, as well as in the Beer-sheba–Arad Valley. Josiah took advantage of the newly-gained relative independence to execute a religious-cultic reform in Jerusalem and Judah, with far-reaching political and economic consequences for the reign of the Davidic line (2 Kings 22–23). Nevertheless, it should be noted that Josiah

Fig. 68: Map of the Babylonian Empire

57

58

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

was an Egyptian vassal, who owed fealty to the central government of Psammetichus I. In 609 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II, son and successor of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, embarked on a journey to Harran, leading the Babylonian army to conquer the last stronghold holding out, the last vestiges of the Assyrian Empire. Necho II, the successor to Pssametichus, led his army to Harran to support the Assyrians in their last battle of survival. On his way there, the King of Egypt made political arrangements in the region to tighten the control of his rule before the clash with Babylon. As a part of these arrangements, Josiah, the King of Judah, was required to arrive at Megiddo, one of the capitals of the Empire’s provinces, where he was killed by the King of Egypt (2 Kings 23: 29–30). The Assyrians and the Egyptians were defeated in battle at Harran, and the fate of the Assyrian Empire was sealed. Nebuchadnezzar’s victory definitively erased the Assyrian Empire from history, and its successors, Babylon and Egypt, were now facing each other in a struggle over ruling the ancient Near East. As a result of the defeat at Harran, Necho  II hurried back southward to stabilize his rule in the

region, dismissing Jehoahaz, who had been crowned in the meantime in replacement of his father Josiah. Necho exiled him to Egypt and crowned his brother Jehoiakim instead (2 Kings 23: 33–34). The contest between Babylon and Egypt over rule in Syria and the land of Israel was decided in 605 BCE at the city of Carchemish, located on the Euphrates River. The Babylonian Chronicles show that the army of Egypt was defeated (see also Jeremiah 46:1–13), and within a few weeks, the Babylonian army succeeded in taking control as far as the center of Syria. A year later (604 BCE), the rule of the Babylonians reached the Egyptian border, and all the kingdoms in the region, including that of Judah, surrendered to them.75 Nebuchadnezzar, now King of Babylon, let King Jehoiakim remain on the throne, in spite of his coronation a few years earlier by the Egyptians. This attests to the practicality of Nebuchadnezzar’s policy and to his assumption that whoever was sufficiently intelligent to stay loyal to Egypt would continue to be realistic and would then also be loyal to Babylonian rule. The geopolitical arrangements that prevailed in the whole region during Assyrian rule continued to exist under the rule of Babylon as well. Only Ashkelon, which prospered

Fig. 69: Map of Judah at the end of the First Temple Period

Chapter Six: Historical Introduction to the Second Building Phase as the commercial and economic center under the rule of Egypt and remained loyal to its powerful and physically close neighbor and patron, was punished; Nebuchadnezzar razed it to the ground. In 601 BCE, three years after the onset of Babylonian rule (and compare 2 Kings 24:1), and subsequent to Nebuchadnezzar’s failed attempts to invade and conquer Egypt, the strength of the Babylonian Empire’s power was weakened throughout the region (and compare also Jeremiah 46:13–28). The Egyptians tried to reestablish their power in the Levant, and thus Jehoiakim, the King of Judah, who started as an Egyptian vassal, reverted to Egyptian fealty again. But this Egyptian rule only lasted for a very short period. After the Babylonians began to reestablish their rule in 598 BCE, they embarked on a campaign to reassert their domain also in the land of Israel, and started an offensive against Jehoiakim, the rebellious king of Judah, and his capital, Jerusalem. Jehoiakim died during the Babylonian siege, and his son Jehoiachin came to power. In King Jehoiachin’s three-month reign, concurrent with the Egyptian campaign and lasting only as long, his first and only act was to leave the gates of Jerusalem under siege and surrender to Babylon together with his mother, his ministers, and thousands of his kingdom’s elite. Nebuchadnezzar accepted his surrender in accordance with his practical and placatory policy and did not punish Jerusalem and the Davidic line for their disloyalty. He brought Jehoiachin to exile in Babylon with his courtiers, ministers, and nobles (2 Kings 24), and crowned his uncle Matanya in Jerusalem, whose name he changed to Zedekiah. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar hoped to achieve a solid foundation of peace and loyalty in Jerusalem.76 Yet his actions seemed to be insufficient to create lasting loyalty, and the last eleven years in the history of the Kingdom of Judah under Zedekiah’s reign were a period of turmoil; the defining characteristic of this time was political instability. The Judahites blindly believed in the eternity of Jerusalem, which loosened all restraints, led to an adventurous policy, and correlated to Egyptian attempts to undermine the stability Babylon desired in the small kingdoms in the south of the land of Israel, in Transjordan, and along the Mediterranean coast. As a result of this continuous regional instability and recurring rebellions, in 588 BCE Nebuchadnezzar decided to change his policy and exchanged indirect rule over semi-independent kingdoms for direct rule over what would now become Babylonian provinces with a local Babylonian

59

governor. The result of this decision was the systematic destruction of the local kingdoms that had remained intact throughout the Assyrian expansion into the southern Levant. This entire region was annexed to Babylon, becoming a series of satrapies under direct Babylonian rule. This is the background for the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah in 586 BCE. The Babylonian campaign against Judah was surgically targeted with a three-fold purpose: removing the insubordinate Davidic line from power; destroying Jerusalem its capital; and destroying its religious center, the Temple, which was the focal point of the anti-Babylonian unrest. On their way to Jerusalem, the Babylonians destroyed the cities of the Shephelah and then besieged the capital for a year and eight months. The city was breached and invaded due to the severe famine. The Babylonian forces pursued King Zedekiah, who was caught and brought to justice before Nebuchadnezzar. The punishment of the rebellious king was severe: Zedekiah’s sons were slaughtered in front of him and immediately afterward Nebuchadnezzar “blinded Zedekiah’s eyes.” The walls of Jerusalem were torn down, and all the buildings in the city were burned, including its important symbols: the palace of the Davidic line and the Temple. All the residents of the city and the leaders of the kingdom were exiled to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1–25).77 The Kingdom of Judah was destroyed after it had existed for approximately 400 years. On its ruins a province under direct Babylonian rule was established, with the residents centered in the area of Benjamin to Jerusalem’s immediate north and in the Bethlehem district to its south. Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, a member of a noble Jerusalemite family who had a high status in the kingdom’s leadership, was set up as their leader (2 Kings 25:22–26; Jeremiah 40–41). The center of the new Babylonian rule, the capital of the newly constituted Judahite province, was established in the city of Mizpah. It remained unchanged for about 50 years during Babylonian rule in Judah, until Babylon’s surrender to the army of Cyrus in 539 BCE. It continued under Persian rule into the onset of the “Return to Zion” period, or at least until Jerusalem’s city walls were reconstructed in the middle of the 5th century BCE. Throughout this turbulent period, the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel continued to fulfill the same function it had prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the archaeological discoveries do not indicate a change or a crisis in the history of the site.

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE) The second building phase at Ramat Raḥel provided the site with its current monumental outline and added magnificence unknown at other locations in Judah. This monumentality is not only the result of its use of decorative architectural elements, which, as we have already suggested, had already been employed in the palace in the first building phase and were later included in the renewed plan as well. It is also an expression of the grand vision and broad architectural concept of planning this complex enclave, including its uniform contours, the relationship between its elements, the high quality of the construction, and the wide-scale infrastructure works required. All these actions complemented one another and became integrated with each other, as we will describe below. This second phase of construction required special logistical and practical organization for implementing this vision, and the effect is quite evident in the change of the original appearance of the hill. Installing this broad infrastructure in the second half of the 7th century BCE severely damaged the first building phase,

concealing it from the eye and almost completely erasing its unique style. On one hand, the planners sought to provide the palace with a royal garden on a leveled, uniform surface instead of the western slopes, and to encompass the palace from the west. On the other hand, they were interested in expanding the original palace to include courtyards, additional room units, and walls—all of which would stand on a leveled surface, while built on a slope declining from the fortified tower to the north and east. A high level of logistic planning and performance are evident in the infrastructure required for the achievement of these two goals, which upon close examination meant building against the natural contours of the hill—man against nature. The planners sought to construct an complex of buildings and courtyards oriented from east to west, on a hilltop sloping from the southeast to the northwest. The large amount of material produced during the earthwork, and from removing bedrock to create a sunken garden on the hill’s western side, was planned from the start to become the fill material used for leveling the wide platform needed for the palace units and courtyard. The material was transported and dumped on the northern and eastern slopes to create the necessary broad base for the palace rooms and courtyards, in accordance with the plan for revamping the site and in the desired direction. Just contemplating the sheer scope of the work required to plan the palace construction and adapt (meaning reshape) the natural outline of the hill accordingly, shows the magnificence, the expression of power and will, and the conceptual and physical investment of the second palatial building phase at Ramat Raḥel. Fig. 70: Plan of the second building phase (in black, red and purple) 60

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Second Building Phase Landscape Design

61

The planners of the second building phase at Ramat Raḥel had a clear vision of their construction and infrastructure plan. This vision was absolutely not related to, or rather, not limited or confined by the characteristics of the natural hill, the rock surface, the topographic orientation, and probably not by the pre-existing buildings either, massive though they were. An analysis of the plan indicates their willingness to invest many resources and much human effort to execute the construction plan according to their vision. Yet, the decisions of the planners and the thinkers do not have any functional rationale that we can detect. It seems that they were interested in emphasizing symbolism and sending a message through a renewed design of the site’s landscape, absolutely overriding its natural topography. And thus, the new elements of the administrative center were built on two level plateaus: The garden level was dug into the western side of the high fortress tower, and the palace level was filled and cleared on its eastern side. All this was done in an area of rounded hilly spurs that do not naturally offer straight lines and level plateaus. Moreover, the expansive complex was built from east to west, although it was erected on a hill that had a natural direction from southwest to northeast. Actually, the hill’s natural surface supports construction that follows its topographic orientation, and a lot of effort could have been saved

in the landscape’s design. Yet, following their preset architectural plan, which deliberately disregarded the place’s natural topography, and given their willingness to invest many resources and much effort to adjust the surface to the building’s general plan—all this seems to be part of the message that the planners and builders wanted to convey to their surroundings about themselves and what they represented. Ramat Raḥel’s royal enclave, in its unique location, served as a political landmark that conveyed a message of “overconsumption,” or conspicuous consumption.78 A significant part of the rocky topography to the west had to be quarried to erect this monumental building. Pools, channels, drainpipes, and other installations designed to collect water and move it through the system were built into these quarried sections. The rest of this area was covered by rich garden soil transported from valleys far away, creating an artificial garden and orchard irrigated by reservoirs of rain water, whose beauty could be viewed from afar. Anyone passing on the roads leading from Jerusalem to the south and west, traveling to Bethlehem or to Beth-Shemesh, and anyone who lived on the western and southern sides of Jerusalem, could witness the wonder of the garden and the orchard’s trees located at the top of an exposed hill, literally outstanding in its outline and profile, its colors, and primarily, in its location. The wide-scale changes in the surface were meant to display the supreme power of the ruling elite for all to see, changing the natural conditions of the area and breaking through natural boundaries.

Fig. 71: The natural hill prior to construction activities

Fig. 72: Quarrying of the natural hill, second building phase

62

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

The size of the garden area was about 4 acres. The builders ignored the natural shortage of water of the region and the desert’s edge, and built a sophisticated system to collect rainwater that enabled the creation of this artificial garden. The planners conquered the problem of the site’s rocky, steep topography through excavation and fills. To ensure that nobody could ignore this construction operation, a tall tower was erected on the site’s highest point, at the top of the natural hill, and its square outline completed and accentuated the acute lines of the hilltop’s new design. Thus, the fortified palace atop Ramat Raḥel was built to emphasize to everyone the ability of its builders to overcome natural conditions—to create a paradise in a barren area, and to turn a stony, steep, and uninhabited hill into a flat plateau whose magnificent crown could be viewed from afar. So, who were the elite responsible for this expensive construction endeavor? The analysis of the palace at

Ramat Raḥel shows that it was constructed according to an Assyrian architectural plan, similar to those displayed in the reliefs of the palaces of the Assyrian kings Sargon II at Dur-Sharrukin and Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. In these reliefs, the palace and the tower indeed stand at the top of the hill and are surrounded by a garden, by pools, and by water channels. As mentioned earlier, the architectural elements found at Ramat Raḥel, such as the stone capitals and the crenellation fragments, are also seen in these reliefs. The overall architectural assessment indicates that the Judahite administrative center at Ramat Raḥel was built under the close watch and the encouragement of Assyrian imperial rule. The builders wished to emphasize this place to all people approaching Jerusalem and to create a prominent building overshadowing its surroundings, rivaling in magnificence the kingdom’s capital and temple located a short distance to the north.

Fig. 73: Three-dimensional reconstruction of the second building phase complex, view from the southwest

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Fig. 74: “The stitch”—connection point between the northern casemate wall and the tower

As described above, according to the site’s plan, a leveled area with a rectangular outline was appended east of the western tower, the commanding structure built on the spur’s peak during the earlier stage. In Aharoni’s site plan, the tower appears as an integral part of the fortified palace and is built into the western casemate wall, with the assumption that in the earlier phase there was a point where the southwestern corner was the end of the casemate wall to the tower’s south. Our further excavation proved otherwise, first, because at that point we exposed a plastered pool, a part of the royal garden’s water system from the second building phase. While reexamining the connection point between the northern casemate wall and the tower, a “stitch” was revealed between the casemate wall and the tower’s southern corner, showing that it was an addition. Moreover, an obvious difference in construction material and method now became evident. The construction of the casemate wall is comprised of “headers,” narrow and elongated ashlar slabs, made of nari rock, that were appended on the north to the original corner of the tower. In contrast, the original corner was made of large and unprocessed flint fieldstones, with two rows of stone forming extremely thick walls. Thus, the early-stage fortress tower was integrated into the new and enlarged arrangement that included the casemate wall. Then, the creation of the sunken garden in the second phase effectively isolated the fortress on three sides— south, west, and north—while standing on a kind of cubical rock outcrop in a prominent position, positioned as a feature diverging westward from the rest of the palace grounds.

63

Fig. 75: Artificial cliff rising above the garden area. The tower of the first building phase stood above it.

The Royal Garden The garden lies around the western tower on a lowered and leveled area of approximately 4 acres. In creating a garden to be lower than the palace, the planners sought to turn the tower into a kind of fortified wing, isolated from three sides by about a three-meter-high artificial cliff. They also sought to make the tower even more prominent on the westward surface, facing and overlooking the main road running below it at the foot of the hill.

Fig. 76: Bird’s-eye photograph of the southern garden. Notice the limestone rock surface that was leveled throughout the garden, as infrastructure for the garden soil that was placed above it

64

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center The quarrying activities in the area and the complete removal of the hard nari rock layer from the uppermost natural surface enabled the creation of a leveled, uniform limestone surface, the geological layer below it. After the completion of the quarrying and leveling work, the surface was covered with a 45–55 centimeter-thick uniform layer of brown “chocolate-like” garden soil. This soil layer was discovered over a wide area around the western part of the palace, and it is clean earth, free of stones and of pottery shards, proving that it was well-sifted before it was artificially laid on the clean-cut chalk surface. Into this uniform surface plots and flowerbeds were inserted and integrated into the complex system for storing and transporting water, which included pools, channels, and drainpipes. Fig. 77: The garden soil, average thickness 45–55 cm, placed all over the garden on the leveled limestone surface

The Royal Garden and Ancient Near Eastern Parallels The discovery of the garden added an extremely important layer of understanding to the Ramat Raḥel palace plan and its status. It is the only garden complex found in Judah, though it perhaps has a parallel in a similar complex near the acropolis of Samaria.79 It is also the only garden known in the land of Israel until now whose time precedes the Classical periods. The Akkadian term for “Ornamental Garden” is kirimāhu. The meaning of the word kirûm is a vineyard, an orchard of fruit trees. 80 Textual references for the ornamental use of gardens and orchards are found in Mesopotamian documents dating from the 12th century BCE, so it can be assumed that in Mesopotamia the gardens in general, and the royal gardens in particular, were probably used for ornamentation and pleasure. Our hypothesis is supported by a stone relief found in King Ashurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh. A famous banquet scene was the centerpiece of the Northwest Palace artwork, displaying the king dining at leisure with his wife, in the garden under a grapevine canopy, while the head of the defeated king of

Elam, Teumman, hangs on a tree nearby. It is no co­incidence that the king is portrayed dining in the garden (in celebration of a military victory), as Assyrian texts describe the garden not only as one of the symbols of the king’s might but also of his religious role as the “King-Gardener,” which parallels the king’s functions as military leader and builder and as one who brings order to the chaos of nature. In the Mesopotamian world, the royal garden was used for religious and ritual purposes and even for diplomatic and political needs. In Assyria, the

Fig. 78: Ashurbanipal’s garden banquet relief

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

65

composition and contents of the royal gardens symbolized the breadth of the Empire’s rule and its farflung borders. Assyrian kings insisted on planting and acclimatizing various plant and animal species from all corners of their kingdom. Local rulers subordinate to the Great King copied all facets of his culture, and as a result, the culture of gardens developed among minor rulers as a symbol of power. Their importance continued into the Persian Period, and there were also Greek rulers who copied

the Persian gardens. Thus, for example, Polykrates, ruler of Samos, gathered plants and animals from nearby islands and brought them to his garden to express his control. The Greeks also adopted the Persian name for garden—Partetaš (borrowed in Hebrew as Pardes [an orchard of trees])—which formed the word Parádeisos. The word Parádeisos was borrowed into the Greek language and was used for translating the term in the Greek version of the Bible (the Septua­ gint: “Paradise”).

Water Installations and Conspicuous Consumption

in a short excavation lasting but a few weeks, after the long excavation seasons were completed (apparently in winter 1962–1963). The pool was not published and remained exposed on the surface. In the final plans of Aharoni’s excavations, the pool is thus marked as the southwestern corner of the Iron Age palace,

Because Ramat Raḥel lacks a permanent and regular water source, rainwater (currently averaging 480 millimeters per year) collection became the only life source, and this was extremely important during the hundreds of years of settlement here. Amazingly, the absence of a water source did not discourage the settlers at the site. On the contrary, in different periods, the inhabitants of this hill built installations that consumed large amounts of water: gardens, pools, ritual baths, and even a public bath house—all of which were dependent entirely on the collection and the storage of rainwater. Therefore we should ask: How was the rainwater collected? Was there one subterranean water reservoir in Ramat Raḥel? Were there a few? What caused the water to flow from the reservoir to other areas in the garden? Numerous installations for water collection and accumulation were exposed during Aharoni’s excavations. While most were dated to the Roman and the Byzantine periods, the latter often reused earlier installations, and their large number indicates the size of the rainwater collection system that existed at the top of this hill. The first sign of a sophisticated water system was discovered during Aharoni’s last days of excavation at the site. A covered, plastered water channel was exposed in the southwestern corner of the palace area. A small segment of a plastered pool was discovered next to the channel, but was then misinterpreted by Aharoni as the western end of the southern casemate wall. According to the oral account of Meir Ben-Dov, one of Aharoni assistants, this channel was exposed

Fig. 79: General plan of the water system, second building phase

66

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Southern Water System

Fig. 80: Plan of the southern water system

and the entire palace complex was drawn westward, accordingly. The pool and channel installations were only partly documented, and though they remained exposed and visible for many years, scholars visiting and excavating the site did not pay attention to them. The channel was treated and cleared during Barkay’s excavations (1984), and four excavation squares were exposed on its west side. This excavation stopped about one meter deep into a late fill (partly debris from Aharoni’s excavations) without additional finds. Thus, over the years, Aharoni’s hypothesis became increasingly established, and the corner of the plastered pool was reconstructed in all plans and publications as the southwestern corner of the late Iron Age palace. In 2005, during the first excavation season of the new expedition, the team dedicated energy to expose the various installations that collected, accumulated, and distributed water to various parts of the garden and palace, and especially to those installations integrated into the lowered and leveled garden area. This system operated across the entire royal garden area surrounding the tower fortress. Many parts of this system are archaeologically attributed to the second building phase, and others were built later during the third building phase, added and integrated into the existing system. Distinguishing between the different components and stages is complicated, and the analysis is still ongoing.

Many of the expedition’s efforts focused on the southern garden area, southwest of the palace and below the fortified tower. At the beginning of our excavation, we discovered the constructed and plastered water channel there, whose corner was earlier exposed by Aharoni, and it turned out to be much longer than he had assumed. We then cleaned sections of the pool whose southeastern corner Aharoni exposed. At this point in our work, it now seemed to be a pool and not part of the southern casemate wall, and furthermore, it seemed that the exposed installation segments were only the tip of the iceberg. The problem was that about 3 meters of modern debris covered the entire area above the ancient remains—which we later discovered were modern and recent, a result of the army fortification work of 1954–1956 and from Aharoni’s excavations, especially seasons 1961–1962. So for three whole years, in 2006–2008, we did nothing but clear enormous amounts of earth, about 3,000 cubic meters worth! Only upon removal of this earth did we expose historical layers covering the whole garden area, the most important of which was a lower Hasmonean cover of earth and other materials from the 2nd century BCE and a later Byzantine layer over that (see description below). After careful stratigraphic excavation of these upper layers, we descended further, and the magnificence of the ancient Iron Age garden was revealed to us. The garden’s water system consisted of at least two pools, two well-built water channels, quarried drainpipes, and probably also a subterranean water reservoir. Pool 1 was built by supporting its northern and eastern walls at an edge of the quarried perpendicular rock, formed when the garden was originally dig out, and located opposite the fortified palace walls. During the Byzantine Period, the pool was integrated into a building whose remains were exposed by Aharoni, but neither pool nor building were documented or published. Plaster remained intact on a few walls of this pool, and a drainpipe quarried into the rock, plastered and covered with small stone slabs, exited its southern wall. This drainpipe heads directly southward, toward Channel A (and see below). Pool 2 is the best preserved and most important of the pools discovered anywhere in the ancient garden. Inside, it measures about 7 × 7 meters, and averaged about 105 centimeters high. Although it was built next to the walls of the quarried rock, which could have

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE) been simply plastered to retain the water, all the walls are built of well-chiseled 80–135 centimeter-wide ashlar stones and covered by a few thick layers of gray, stiff, and extremely thick hydraulic plaster, at times reaching 25 centimeters thick. The layers of plaster are continuous from the top of the walls to the floor and the plaster layers were padded extra thick at junctions, creating rounded corners. A section cut into the pool’s floor (see Fig. 82) revealed a podium built of large ashlar stones, set into a large quantity of the same gray mortar-cement from which the floor above them was formed, making an especially stable, hardened and waterproof base. Until now, no evidence has been found for the pool’s water source, to explain how the pool was filled. On the other hand, at least three exits can be seen in its walls. One exit was built in the southern wall. It is unclear how the water flowed out of it and where it went— perhaps directly draining into Channel A, as did the channel of Pool 1. The two additional exits directed water toward the garden’s western area. From the first one, the water flowed downward from the highest level of the pool, in a plastered drainpipe built close to the northwestern corner. A stone gutter cut through the entire length of the northern wall, leading the water in a sharp turn westward to a plastered channel, built in parallel to the pool’s northern wall, until it reached the northwestern corner. The water was transferred from this corner through a stone drainpipe of excellent quality installed into the end of the quarried drainpipe, and the water poured from it into a square stone basin. From the basin, water exited through an opening on its lower, opposite side, and drained downward one

Fig. 81: Pool 2—Excavation work in Season 2007

67

Fig. 82: Pool 2 after cleaning. Note the stone flooring and the thick plaster layer covering it.

Fig. 83: Reconstruction of Pool 2, view to the east

level into another stone drainpipe (Drainpipe 3). This pipe was designed to rest on the upper layer of a high plastered wall built especially for it. A unique step was built at the top of the wall as a base for the continuance of the stone drainpipe, whose parts had since been dismantled and were no longer extant. A few fragments of this drainpipe (or similar thereto) were found spread in the fill layers that covered the garden area, in particular in the northern area. The wall’s entire height was plastered, and thus besides supporting the drainpipe it could also serve to support and counteract potential weakness caused by the deep quarrying into the soft limestone rock. Another exit from the pool was located in its lower level, in the center of the western wall, where again an elongated stone drainpipe was discovered built into and running through the entire width of the pool’s wall, then protruding outside onto the blocks roofing over the channel, on the pool’s west side. How the water continued from this point is not clear, because

68

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 84: Pool 2—Exposing the drainpipes in Season 2006, view to northwest

Fig. 85: Close-up of the stone drainpipe that transferred water from Pool 2, view to the south

the drainpipe was cut off, but it probably continued westward in a series of stone drainpipes, which were also since dismantled. The basin and several drainpipe pieces found at Ramat Raḥel must have been just a very few of the many chiseled channel elements in the extensive water system, exhibiting meticulous design using a white, hard crystalline limestone, probably of the same type from which the architectural decorative items (decorative stone capitals and balustrade colonettes) were made. This type of stone cannot be found nearby and was especially brought here from distant quarries. Using this type of stone indicates that the planners sought to provide not only functionality for the system but also a refined decorative effect. Additional remains of stone drainpipes were discovered in the various excavation areas, mainly in the northern part of the garden.

Fig. 86: Exposing the covered channels near Pool 2, view to the east

If the average pool depth was about 105 centimeters, it should have contained up to 35 cubic meters of water. From the pool’s central location in relation to the garden area, its relatively limited capacity, the manner in which the water exits are distributed and placed at varying levels, we can conclude that its purpose was not accumulation and storage but to serve as a central component of proper water disbursal. The three water exits are visible only on the outer side of the pool, because when the last internal layer of plaster was set, apparently during the Hellenistic Period, their inner openings were sealed. This shows a change in the pool’s purpose and function during the later period, when it served a crushed-lime production process, and indeed it was actually found filled with a thick layer of lime. The lime itself was probably manufactured in the two furnaces excavated near and slightly south of the pool. We surmise from bits of evidence the existence of an additional pool to the west of Pool 2 (Pool 4). Its most important remnant is its northern wall, plastered from top to bottom, and, as described above, it also served as a base for Drainpipe 3. On its western side, the wall ends with a sharp turn southward and a sudden cutoff, which may indicate that a corner once existed there, while a preserved plaster segment on its other end indicates the wall’s northwestern corner. However, if it indeed existed, not much was preserved from its remaining walls except apparent robber trenches and slight foundation remains. It is further unclear how this proposed pool was integrated in the system and whether it was a part of the garden’s original plan.

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Fig. 87: Channel A-C, view from the inside

Covered Channels Two covered channels were discovered in the garden’s southwestern area, and their construction method gives them the appearance of tunnels. They were quarried, wide and deep channels, into the limestone rock of the garden’s lower level. The rock walls were reinforced with smoothly-cut stones from top to bottom, and their surface was covered with gray, thick plaster. Large roof slabs made of nari stone, averaging about 100 × 50 centimeters and 20 centimeters thick, were placed over the walls. All these stones are perfectly cut to fit each other and to cover the width of the channel. Channel A–C, the best preserved of the three channels, was already partly exposed in Aharoni’s excavations but not yet addressed in his preliminary publications. This channel was built along the southern and western edges of Pool 2, abutting the pool walls and circumscribing it from the south and west.

69

Fig. 88: Channel D-E

The channel starts out as a shallow niche cut into the cliff at the bottom of the pool’s southeastern corner and then progresses parallel to the pool’s southern wall in a segment 10 meters long, 50 centimeters wide, and about 1.5 meters deep. The bottom of the channel is about 1.2 meters below the garden soil level, and numerous plaster layers can be seen on its inner walls. The channel’s edges, on which the cover layers were placed, were also plastered, together with Pool 2’s external wall, and thus a smooth, rounded passage was created between the side of the wall and the edge of the channel—evidence of the contemporary construction of the two installations as part of one plan. An opening measuring about 63 × 48 centimeters was built in Channel A–C in the western end of this segment, seemingly designated for the maintenance and cleaning of the channel and perhaps even for pumping water from it. The channel is completely closed from all directions and no other opening that could have

70

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 90: Plan of the northern garden area water system

Fig. 89: Plan of the water channels in the southern garden area

been used for draining into it the channel or pumping from it was found. Once past the southwestern corner of the pool, the channel turns at a straight angle northward along the western wall of Pool 2, continuing in the same construction style and in exactly the same dimensions. The channel progresses for about 6 additional meters, ending near the pool’s northwestern corner. The roof of the last channel segment supports a stone drainpipe emerging from the pool. The channel ends at a built plastered wall that blocks it, where a small industrial pool is installed from a later construction stage, probably from the Hellenistic Period. Here too, as in Pool 1, the change took place when the garden ceased to function as such and was turned into an industrial area for the production of crushed lime. The drainpipe of the now-defunct water system was cut, and a small industrial pool was built here. Channel D–E is located slightly south of Pool 2 and is also cut into the artificially smoothed limestone, after it was quarried and leveled. The channel starts out from a shallow niche cut into the eastern cliffside bordering the garden, progresses westward for about 3 meters, and then turns sharply southwest for about 13.5 meters. Its southern section reaches a rock outcropping bordering the garden on the south, where it ends in a similar shallow niche cut into the rock. This

channel was cut 75–105 centimeters deep under the quarried rock and is about 45–50 centimeters wide. Here, too, the original width of the quarried channel itself was broader. Yet, instead of simply relying on the cut natural limestone, both sides of the channel were reinforced with walls built of ashlars, whose top was niched to insert stone slabs as a reinforcing cover. We found this channel poorly preserved. Most of the roof slabs were dismantled, and only a small amount of plaster remained on its walls. From the few remaining slabs, we learn that their standard size was about 80 × 45 centimeters, and they too were placed into niches on top of the stone walls that reinforced the inner sides of the channel. And, from the plaster remnants we see that this channel also was plastered with thick plaster of a similar consistency as that in Channels A–C. Apparently Channel D–E went out of use even earlier than the rest of the water system, because in the Persian Period a building utilized the southeastern quarried section of the garden.

Northwestern Water System Another system in the garden only came to light in the last two excavation seasons (2009–2010). In addition to the garden soil placed on the smoothed limestone rock, this complex unit north of the tower included a large pool, a quarried and plastered water reservoir, and advanced, complex water transportation systems. Pool 6 sits to the north of where the tower stands on the cliffside, near the northwestern corner of the palace complex. The existence of this pool was suspected even before excavation, after a plastered wall was discovered in this area as well as a drop in the

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

71

Fig. 91: Pool 6—Excavation work during Season 2010

Fig. 92: Southwestern corner and floor of Pool 6, view to the east Fig. 94: Covered Channel F, from the inside

Fig. 93: Entrance to covered Channel F

height of the bedrock. Our suspicions were confirmed when the major part of its outline and three of its corners were exposed during the last excavation season (2010). Some of its walls are well-plastered. Its floor, as in Pool 2, sits on a stone base of flat ashlars laid over smoothed bedrock, with about 12 centimeters of thick plaster laid over it. The pool is 9 meters wide, 13.5

Fig. 95: The possible exit from Pool 6, looking eastward

meters long, and its maximum depth is 2.5 meters, measured between the western pool floor and the plastered western wall’s top. These measurements make its estimated capacity approximately 300 cubic meters, thus the largest pool found at Ramat Raḥel.

72

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

The construction techniques are similar to Pool 2: walls built into the quarried rock, stone foundation for the floor, thick plaster laid from the floor up to the height of the wall and rounded in the corners, and so on. Pool 6 is important also because it imparts a certain symmetry to the western part of the site, as can be seen in the arrangement of the water installations around the central tower: Pool 2 (and perhaps Pool 1 as well) and its surrounding channels lie south of the cliffside and tower, and Pool 6 with its surrounding channels lies to the north. The main difference between Pool 6 and Pool 2 is that Pool 2 was built higher than its surroundings, while Pool 6 is sunk below its environs and thus does not have pipes draining into the garden. The conclusion is that whereas Pool 2 was designed to supply water to a lower area, Pool 6 was used for water collection. This pool’s only possible exit is toward covered Channel F which is partly built under the pool floor, and declines eastward. Covered Channel F, east of Pool 6, is built similar to the other covered southern garden channels that encompass and lie to the south of Pool 2, with quarried walls, reinforced with stone and covered with stone slabs. The channel’s width and height allow a person to conveniently pass through it. It progresses for about 4.5 meters and then is cut off. As mentioned above, its eastern section is built under the floor level of Pool 6. Channel F was connected to Pool 6 with an intriguing stone installation whose nature is not completely clear and features a cone-like plastered hole. This installation may have been designed to regulate or reduce the speed of water flow from the pool to the covered channel. It can be seen only from the inside of the channel. It is not on the pool’s side, where one would expect it to be placed and where we find instead only the pool’s plastered wall. This serves as evidence that an opening in the pool wall was neutralized at a certain stage, cutting it off from the water channel system, and just as in Pool 2, its drainpipes and openings were sealed and plastered at some later time when the pool’s original function changed. Were the pool and the covered channel a part of one unit? The answer to this is unclear. On the surface, it certainly seems that Pool 6 and Channel F were part of the same system. But the possibility exists that covered Channel F may have also preceded Pool 6 and was actually a feature of the first building phase at Ramat Raḥel. Hence, when the pool was constructed as part of the second building phase’s extensive garden works, Channel F was cut off and its usage was discontinued.

Or perhaps, at this stage, the possibly earlier channel was integrated into the new second garden system phase in a method that is not clear to us.

Water Reservoir As described above, the various garden elements and water systems do not comprise a single uniform system with a clear plan, and even now there is more to it than meets the eye. Some parts of the water system indeed irrigated the royal garden and were modified whenever the entire palace complex was revised. Some parts served a central water reservoir, necessary in a site of this size with a palace and luxurious gardens. During the excavation seasons at Ramat Raḥel we named a large area on the northeastern edges of the cliff “the cave.” In this area, where the rock is elevated, on an east–west slope, Aharoni exposed numerous quarried rock installations, including ritual baths, a columbarium, and caves with buried items from the

Fig. 96: Ceiling of the collapsed cave, as found by Aharoni

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Fig. 97: Ceiling of the collapsed cave after cleaning and before removal, view to the south

Fig. 98: Removal of the water reservoir ceiling blocks with a crane, view to the north

Second Temple Period. Enormous stone slabs nearby had collapsed into one central location, proving the existence of a large space underneath them.81 By the 2009 season, the debris accumulating above the cave ceiling after the end of Aharoni’s excavations was cleared, and we excavated the areas near the collapsed ceiling. On its western edges, a stone slab had

73

Fig. 99: Water reservoir after Season 2010 excavation

fallen at a sharp angle to the east, enabling us to find a small opening underneath, and to enter the cave. By excavating, we reached the cave walls and floor, and found them to be well-smoothed and plastered. Further excavation and a partial cleaning of the space led us to the conclusion that its ceiling collapsed during the Roman Period. As it was clear to us that in order to understand this system a more thorough and broader examination was required, in preparation for the last scheduled excavation season, we embarked on a challenging engineering operation. Led by restorer Joshua (Yeshu, “Jesus”) Dray and aided by a huge 250-ton crane, we removed the large stone slabs of the ancient collapsed ceiling, enabling excavation in a section of the exposed space. This excavation was one of the goals of Season 2010. The exposed space, just a small part of the reservoir, allowed us to expose the remains buried and sealed under the stone slabs, which could date the period when the cave was used. These remains were surprising. As mentioned, the space’s walls and floor were found to be plastered, and now the many plaster fragments found in the collapse indicated that the roof had been plastered as well. Because we did not fully complete the cavern’s excavation, at this stage we still do not have any information about the total size of the reservoir, the source of its water’s inflow and outflow, and how people accessed it. Nor did we succeed in assessing how this reservoir worked in conjunction with Channel F or Pool 6. We could not find the physical connection between the reservoir and the water channels from the third building phase—in spite of the physical proximity between all these water installations. While the pottery trapped under the collapsed ceiling did prove that its use was discontinued during

74

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

the Roman Period, we nevertheless assume that the reservoir was first designed, plastered, and used hundreds of years earlier, during the second building phase—and maybe even from the first building phase, whose major structures already justified the need for good infrastructure and water supply. Our assumption of an early date, long before the Roman period, which is now archaeologically proven, is also based on evidence for a quarried and plastered upper opening in the cave ceiling. The position of this opening is exactly in the northwestern corner of the structure from the second building phase, and the characteristics of its plaster and the proximity of the reservoir to the tower to its south are all clear indications of the reservoir’s first period of use. We must admit that, despite the accumulation of new information, the great engineering investment to enable access, and our high hopes before and during the excavations in the water reservoir, many questions remain outstanding about its water sources and how water was conveyed to it and distributed from it. At this stage, although additional elements were discovered and large segments of the water system were exposed, the picture of this system is still fragmentary, and additional components await discovery. It is certainly an early complex and advanced system. Further study and exploration could shed new light on the history of the entire site and on the engineering techniques for water accumulation and supply employed during the late First Temple Period and in the Second Temple Period, with implications applicable elsewhere.

Boundaries of the Building Complex and Its Fortifications As mentioned above, the rectangular enclave—the “palace”—was built east of the garden and the tower. According to Aharoni, it was surrounded by a casemate wall on the north, east, and south, with a courtyard in its center, floored with crushed limestone. The extended area of the renewed excavations allow us to suggest that the fortress perimeter was even wider— both to the east and to the south. Aharoni’s excavations exposed the northern casemate wall, whose outline protruded already on the surface during his 1954 salvage excavations. This wall is made of ashlar stones laid in the typical Iron Age style of headers. Aharoni thought he had exposed the entire length of the wall and even suggested a reconstruction of its western and eastern corners. He interpreted a

Fig. 100: Northern casemate wall, view to the east

small section continuing from the northeastern corner eastward as part of the wall that encircled the entire hilltop. After analyzing the excavation data afresh, we came to doubt this conclusion, and indeed, the new excavations firmly established that this wall section is the casemate wall’s continuation to the east and that its end lies even past Aharoni’s estimated northeastern corner. In the northeast, under the floor of the church that was excavated by Aharoni already in 1954, we exposed the continuation of the northern casemate wall, along with some segments of the wall and other sections and the wall’s robber trenches. It appears that both the inner and outer sides of the casemate wall continued eastward, with various kinds of earth placed between as a construction fill. Our excavation also exposed sections of the eastern wall of the complex, with an entire section extant beneath the church, in the northeastern corner of the site. This wall segment aligns nicely with a wide robber trench to the south, identified and attributed by Aharoni to the Iron Age. The total length of the exposed section of the eastern wall, which includes parts of the wall itself and parts of its robber trench, is about 30 meters.

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Fig. 101: “Corner” of the northern wall in Aharoni’s plan and its continuation eastward past the corner (Square 22/AA–Z)

Fig. 102: Northern casemate wall as exposed under the church

The construction technique here is quite different from the northern casemate wall, with two-meter-wide foundations of huge ashlar stones placed on the natural rock. It is probably a single thick wall, rather than a system of casemate walls, as in the northern part of the palace. Unfortunately, the architectural nature of the corner—that is, the meeting point of the eastern wall and the northern casemate wall, is out of reach under the church. The wall is assumed to have mainly served as an eastern retaining wall for the external courtyard.

Fig. 103: Eastern wall as exposed under the church

75

76

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Aharoni thought that the southern casemate wall bordering the inner courtyard was also the southern border of the palace complex. In the renewed excavations, we found wall sections from the second building phase and perhaps even from the first building phase, built on the bedrock, throughout the entire area south of the southern casemate wall (areas D1 and D6). Thus, it seems that this wall can no longer be considered a free-standing casemate wall. We therefore propose reconstructing an additional palace-like structure sited south of the central courtyard and that the ashlar wall was the purported front wall of the palace, facing the courtyard. Thus, it now seems that the palace complex expanded southward, far beyond what Aharoni reconstructed in his plan.

Fig. 104: Southern frontage wall of the southern casemate wall, as exposed by Aharoni

Inner Courtyard, Eastern Courtyard, and Buildings Inside the Complex The entire inner courtyard at the heart of the rectangular complex was completely exposed by Aharoni. The courtyard is 30 meters long and about 24 meters wide, and its borders are clearly defined. According to Aharoni’s reconstruction, the courtyard was bounded by building complexes on its northern and western sides and the casemate wall to the south. To the east, a building and a connecting passageway stood between it and another courtyard located even farther to the east. The courtyard was built on top of the natural bedrock, which gently declined northeastward. Sections cut beneath the courtyard floor and down to the surface of the natural rock showed that fills were necessary to level the natural rock face. Due to the angular slope, their thickness ranges from 20 centimeters in the western part of the courtyard to as much as one meter or more in the east. Composed of crushed white chalk limestone, the fill contains many pottery shards, including fragments of figurines and other finds, which all represent the material culture here in the historical stage preceding that of the courtyard construction— that is, the first building phase. As mentioned above, the large amount of fill material originates in the widescale earthworks that accompanied the creation of the royal garden in the hill’s western part. Reviewing Aharoni’s plans, with identifications and dating of architectural remains, must be conducted section by section in light of the additional information provided by the renewed excavations and study of the combined material, published and unpublished. This is particularly relevant in the challenging reconstruction

Fig. 105: Wall plan from the second building phase in areas D1 and D6

and historical stages of the inner compounds, which saw extensive use and reconstruction in several periods. The following analysis moves through the plan, explaining Aharoni’s hypothesis and noting suggested changes. According to Aharoni, wall segments found on the courtyard’s western and northern sides are part of the administrative palace structures that stood between the courtyard and the northern casemate wall and between it and the western tower on the summit. He thought that the courtyard floor was bounded by the defensive casemate wall, which doubled as the palace complex boundary, on its southern side. As mentioned above, the renewed excavations proved that an additional building stood on the courtyard’s southern side and used this southern casemate wall; the exterior boundaries were still further out. The site is even larger than could have been anticipated. Aharoni delineated the route of the eastern casemate wall running east of the courtyard and identified and reconstructed

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

77

Fig. 106: Inner courtyard while being exposed by Aharoni, view to the north

Fig. 107: Reconstruction of the slope beneath the inner courtyard

the palace entrance gate at its center, based on a high quality ashlar wall jutting out from the casemate wall’s course and ending with an inward-facing corner, which creates a gap in the line of the outer wall. The pavement of large stone slabs in this space was thus interpreted as the gate’s flooring.

Intensive construction in this particular area in later periods, including a Roman Period public bath house, makes identifying diverse phases and attributing the structures to their correct periods particularly difficult. Nevertheless, an excavation we conducted beneath the paved floor of the proposed gate proved that this

78

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 108: Section cut in the western part of the courtyard. Note the fill material laid over the natural soil

Fig. 110: Section cut in the gate area.

Fig. 109: Inner courtyard—aerial view. Note the location of the outer courtyard on the right

Fig. 111: Test sections in the outer courtyard, Season 2008

paving was laid much later, during the early Roman Period, which means it was probably a part of the public bath house uncovered by Aharoni, not of the Iron Age gate. But we did discover a crushed chalk floor beneath that stone paving, which is a continuation of the inner courtyard’s floor, and this reaches the corner of the ashlar wall that was interpreted by Aharoni as the eastern wall of the complex. Thus, there did indeed exist a passageway from the inner courtyard to the outer courtyard, traversing a complex of walls and buildings. This outer courtyard allows the reconstruction of a much larger palace complex, which together with the other newly found elements must be assessed afresh. The passageway beneath the stone floor is now proved to be associated with an inner gate within the palace complex, while the aforementioned outer courtyard is situated farther east of what Aharoni identified

as the eastern palace border walls. That courtyard progresses about 20 additional meters eastward, reaching the course of the eastern wall we exposed, and it reaches at least another 30 meters southward, touching the second phase floor we exposed, which covered over the earlier first building phase wall. The nature of the eastern courtyard is extremely similar to the inner courtyard, built on a crushed limestone rock fill and containing a large amount of pottery fragments. Our exposure of the courtyard floor over a large area leads us to believe that it occupies about 600 square meters, which makes it not much smaller than the 750-square-meter central courtyard. No walls were discovered on the courtyard and in its surroundings, and no evidence was found for any kind of activity, but we know that it bordered the complex’s outer wall on three sides—north, east, and south. This suggests that

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

79

Fig. 112: Outer courtyard, view to the east

the courtyard served as an outer forecourt regulating entrance to the site, whose walls are so massive that it can be assumed they were used as retaining walls, especially the east wall negotiating the hill’s slope. The construction technique is different from that of the casemate walls (and see discussion below about the 3-D model). It became clear that during the second building phase the dimensions of the fortified palace complex at Ramat Raḥel greatly exceeded those originally reconstructed by Aharoni. The question that arises is whether the entire complex represents a single construction project and vision, or was it built up gradually in various stages? This question mainly pertains to the relationship between the significantly large eastern courtyard and the larger inner courtyard: were both these spaces built at the same time, meant to interface with each other to begin with, and thus requiring a revision in our understanding of the architectural vision of the site’s function and impact? Or was there

indeed a dominant central courtyard, and the core complex gradually extended as needed in two different chronological stages? The material finds in both places, the shards from beneath the courtyard floors, and the stamp impressions on jar handles, in particular, are identical, and do not provide a more precise chronological differentiation. On the other hand, a meticulous reexamination of the wall segments originally unearthed at the complex’s northeastern corner, on Aharoni’s field plan, along with an excavation we conducted to revisit this connection point, revealed that from this point eastward the wall is not only thicker but is also clearly attached to the inner complex’s corner. This fact may show that the eastern courtyard fortification system is actually an extension of the palace and that the entire eastern complex area was later interwoven with the inner complex. Another possibility is that these are simply different technical construction steps within a single building process.

80

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Rosette Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles About forty jar handles bearing rosette stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat Raḥel. These impressions do not include an epigraphic component—only a rosette flower viewed from above, the petals arranged around a central point. The rosette symbol is the third symbol to be chosen by the Judahite administration, after the winged scarab and the winged sun-disk.82 We may assume that the symbol was chosen because it was not known in Judah. But, on the other hand, in Assyria and in Babylon, the rosette was recognized as the symbol of divinity, as well as that of the Assyrian royal family.83 The rosette stamp impressions are generally dated to the last third of the 7th century and the beginning of the 6th century BCE and were a part of Judah’s official administrative system until Jerusalem’s destruction in 586 BCE. Although archaeological research cannot determine exactly when the rosette stamp impression system first appeared, as a historical reconstruction it can be related to and placed at the onset of the last third of the 7th century BCE, during the reign of King Josiah.84 This was a fateful period for the Kingdom of Judah, because during these years Judah reclaimed the territories torn from it after Sennacherib’s campaign and went through processes of demographic, economic, and territorial recovery. Thus, unlike the late lmlk stamp impressions from the early 7th century BCE, and unlike the jar handles with concentric circle incisions, whose distribution were both limited to the hill country regions, jars stamped with the rosette symbol were found in various Judean Lowland sites and farther south in the Beer-sheba–Arad Valley. Despite this wide distribution, Jerusalem and its surrounding areas remained the heart of this new administrative system: more than a third of all rosette stamped handles known to us today were found in

Jerusalem, and a quarter of the known handles were found at Ramat Raḥel. Our analysis shows that no handle stamped with a rosette impression was found in the fill under the palace floor from the second building phase at Ramat Raḥel. Therefore, from the archaeological perspective it is reasonable to conclude that the earlier phase from which the fill was drawn predates the use of the rosette

Type IA8

Type IB8

Type IC8

Type IIA8

Type IIA12

Type IIIA12

Type IIIB12

Type IVA8

Fig. 5 - examplar of the rosette stamped handle typology Fig.(Based 113: Rosette stamp on the find fromimpression Ramat Rahel)types Photo by Pavel Shrago, Drawing by Rodica Pinchas

Fig. 114: Jar handles with rosette stamp impressions found in the Ramat Raḥel excavations

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

81

Fig. 115: Map with rosette jar handles find-spots

jars. We can now also safely suggest from the historical perspective that the second phase construction of the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel, together with

the rosette stamp impression system, were both part of the same late-7th-century BCE reform in the Judahite Administration, at the beginning of Josiah’s reign.

Dating the Second Building Phase

the 7th century BCE. This negative evidence does in fact shorten the possible range of the complex’s construction date, and on this basis we can determine that the second phase building process occurred no later than the 630s BCE. Aharoni attributed the end of Stratum Va to the Babylonian Conquest of 586 BCE, based on what he assessed as a destruction layer in the palace buildings and a layer of ash on the gate’s floor. Our research shows that the vessel cache that apparently represents the destruction did not come from on top of the floor, but rather from underneath it, and that it is identical to the assemblage found in the courtyard fills. In addition, the gate paving and the ash and debris above it should now be dated, as mentioned above, to the

Among the considerations for dating the time range of the palace’s existence during the second building phase—from its erection to its destruction, or until the discontinuance of its use—we need to glean information both from the datable objects discovered in the building foundations below and those found above and on the building floors. Under the room flooring, and particularly in the courtyard fills, were numerous pottery vessels, figurines, and stamped jar handles, practically all of which were typical of late 8th century to early 6th century BCE assemblages. In this regard, it must be noted also what is absent from this repertoire: rosette stamped handles, which were in use not before the last third of

82

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

early Roman Period. Thus, all the discoveries found on top of the second building phase floor actually represent later settlement periods—Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine—and thus do not contribute whatsoever to determining the completion date of this building phase. Combining the results of the renewed excavations with a fresh analysis of Aharoni’s and Solimani’s excavations shows that the palace at Ramat Raḥel was not destroyed at the same time as Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE. Artifacts that can be dated to Babylonian rule in Judah during the 6th century

BCE, continuous use of the palace during the Persian Period, its westward extension, and the continuous functioning of the central courtyard, all serve as evidence of the fact that the function of the building complex as an administrative center continued into the 6th century BCE without any evidence for a gap in its use, and certainly not for its destruction. To determine more precisely the period in which the second building phase functioned requires anchoring the construction date of the third building phase and examining the architectural continuity between the two stages.

Iron Age Pottery Vessels: Typology, Chronology and Use The pottery vessels from the first building phase (Aharoni’s Stratum Vb) represent the founding stage of the site. Shards are found mainly under the palace courtyard flooring, under the rooms bounded by the casemate wall, in some debris and fills in the area of the pools, above the garden soil, in the southwestern side of the site, and in the few foundation trenches of walls that were attributed to the first building phase. A few pottery pieces from this early stage were also found in the eastern area (Areas D4 and D5) and in the quarries located in the northern and western part of the site. It should be noted that mixed caches of Iron Age pottery vessels with fragments from later periods were found all over the hill. The process of reworking Aharoni’s excavation data determined the floor level with certainty in approximately twenty loci from the casemate wall and the palace courtyard. Upon close examination, it seems that most of the pottery vessels from these loci that can be reliably dated to the Iron Age came only from fills or from pits located under the white courtyard floor and under casemate wall rooms, not from on top of the floor level itself. Very few pottery shards from the Iron Age were found above the floor level, all mixed with shards from the Persian Period and later periods. Two exceptional pottery assemblages require special attention. The first, Locus 477, was excavated by Aharoni in 1961, in a building located on the northern side of the inner courtyard. It contained a dump of hundreds of pottery vessels, mostly small bowls. Aharoni interpreted this as evidence of destruction at

Fig. 116: Locus 477 as exposed in Aharoni’s excavations, Season 1961

Fig. 117: Pit under the courtyard floor as exposed in Season 2008

the end of the First Temple Period, and thus, this heap was correlated to the life and material culture above the palace floor. However, a reexamination of the data, and a comparison of the height of the palace floor to

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Fig. 118: Pottery vessel from Pit 14109

Fig. 119: Hole-mouth jars from a room south of the palace courtyard

the find-spot level of the vessels proved that they originated from an accumulation located under the floor. The second pottery assemblage was discovered in the 2008 excavation season. In the inner palace courtyard, we exposed a pit, securely sealed and covered over by its white flooring (Locus 14109), with a concentration of about 60 complete vessels, of striking similarity to those found by Aharoni in Locus 477. Both pottery assemblages included a high percentage of small bowls, of the same typology, usually with their rim folded outward, and small flat bowls, most of which were slipped and wheel-burnished. A few chalices and jugs coated with a dark red slip were also found. The two pits also each contained a few figurines and lmlk stamped handles. The diversity of the vessels proves that these are not domestic assemblages. That they were deliberately stored or buried under the floor in Pit 14109, and that the cache constitutes mostly small bowls and a number

83

of jugs, makes us wonder about the dating, about the nature of the cache, as well as the relationship between the pit and the white floor. Can the cache and its placement be considered evidence for a certain ceremonial activity? And if so, what type of social event led to the burial of these vessels? In addition to the two aforementioned loci, throughout the site many additional pottery vessels from the earlier first building phase were found, of varying types, including bowls, kraters, cooking pots, stands, oil-lamps, and (mainly) hole-mouth jars. Holemouth jars were the most common vessel type discovered at Ramat Raḥel and are found all over the site. The hole-mouth jar is indeed common in historical strata of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, but the quantity here is exceptional. Noteworthy as well is the fact that most jar fragments were discovered in secondary use, in fills under the floors. Most of the bowls found are lightly slipped and wheel-burnished in their inner side. A few bowls are slipped, with dense and shiny wheel-burnishing on both their inner and outer sides. Slipping and burnishing were common in Judah in 8th- and 7th-century BCE layers, becoming less common during the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. Not many of the bowls were densely burnished on both sides, but the very fact of their presence further reinforces establishing the date of the first building phase in the late 8th century or early 7th century BCE. Additional types typical of this early stage found under the floor are the neckless cooking pot, the cooking pot with the widely opened rim and a neck with a ridge in the center, oil lamps with a high base, kraters whose rims are folded outward, jugs, decanters, stands and more—all typical of the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. The types of pottery vessels found on top of the courtyard floor and on the floors of the buildings from the second building phase were similar to those discovered under the floor. This indicates that in spite of the architectural change there is continuity in the pottery types. Nonetheless, on the floor we also discovered new types not appearing in the fills under the floors, such as small bowls without slip and burnish, flat oil lamps, hole-mouth jars with a grooved rim, mortaria, and kraters with wedge impressions. These vessels usually belong to the early Persian Period. Because there is no destruction layer on the palace floor, which stayed in use for a long time after 586 BCE, we did not find “clean” pottery assemblages on

84

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

it of one specific period. Pottery vessels that continued the late Iron Age ceramic traditions were probably used throughout the second building phase, and types that represent new ceramic traditions started to emerge along with them. This phenomenon characterizes the Babylonian Period, which due to its short duration makes it difficult to identify vessel types that are unique to it. Thus, it is not out of the question that the Babylonian period is also represented at Ramat Raḥel in the 6th century BCE and is part of the continuum of a settlement that commenced before the Babylonian period, in the 7th century BCE, and ended after it, in the Persian Period. This conclusion can be supported by the discovery of the lion stamp impressions on jar handles (and see below).

Elegant Trumpet-Based Krater— Equivalent to the Vessel from the “House of Bullae” in the City of David Over the course of excavation seasons at Ramat Raḥel, a few rims of an unfamiliar vessel type were collected from the western excavation areas (C1); they may have belonged to more than one vessel. The rims were discovered in earth debris as part of mixed pottery-shard dumps from the Iron Age, Persian, and Hellenistic Periods. These rim fragments are made of

The King’s Feast: Evidence for Palace Courtyard Ceremonies in the Second Building Phase85 The plan of the palace from the second building phase includes magnificent architectural elements whose purpose was to ensure that the status and power of the ruling elite were visible to everyone. Many architectural elements of the palace were meant to impress those who looked on from a distance and to enhance the impact of the glorious building and its surroundings, seen from the whole area of southern and western Jerusalem. However, we should remember that there was an additional purpose to demonstrating the might of the palace and the power of its ruling elite, no less

brown clay, with a pinkish slip, and with a dense and high-quality wheel-burnish both on the inner and the outer sides. The thick shelf rim has an indentation in its side; the diameter is about 11 centimeters. The only equivalents to these pottery vessels are two elegant trumpet-based kraters found in the “House of Bullae” in the City of David. The Ramat Raḥel fragments are identical to the trumpet base of these kraters in the shape of its grooved rim, in size, and in the external treatment of the slip and burnish on both sides. Kraters of a similar type, but with a regular ringshaped base, are common in Judah and known from various sites, and now we know them also from Ramat Raḥel. The House of Bullae assemblage of pottery vessels is extremely similar to that from Ramat Raḥel, typical of Judah at the end of the 7th century BCE: bowls, decanters, cooking pots, jugs, rosette-stamped jars, a jar similar to the bag-shaped storage jars whose upper side is burnished, hole-mouth jars, and stands. Although the overall assemblage can be called typical, nevertheless these kraters with a trumpet base are extremely rare. Thus, comparing this Ramat Raḥel cache to that from the “House of Bullae” in the City of David underscores the relationship between Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel and also indicates the wealth prevailing in Ramat Raḥel during the second building phase, which is dated to the late First Temple Period.

important—namely, the effect on those invited inside to visit. A palace complex such as this one discovered in Ramat Raḥel was also used as an active social institution at which visitors arrived and in which social events such as feasts and balls were held. On one hand, the purpose of these social meetings was to ensure that the status of the ruler became entrenched; and, on the other, it served to create an internal solidarity among the invitees, who were mostly the respective representatives of the local populations. The shared ceremonial food consumption that took place at such events was extremely important in fulfilling the goals of the palace’s ruling elite, and in our excavations at Ramat Raḥel, we were lucky to find material remains that enabled the reconstruction of such ceremonial

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE) activities, which were held in the central courtyard of the palace. During the various excavation seasons at Ramat Raḥel, we dug a number of test sections under the central courtyard floor in order to understand the construction method employed, to discover items that would help us date it, and to detect early stages covered over when this floor’s infrastructure was laid. In most sections, we found fill layers of the crushed limestone together with various artifacts from the earliest building phase, and under these fill layers we found bedrock. A very different picture was revealed in one excavation square. Instead of the normal fill layers, directly beneath the white courtyard floor was a rounded pit, approximately one and a half meters in diameter and slightly less than half a meter in depth, holding a few tens of broken pots. When the pottery restoration process was completed, it became clear that we had restored almost all of the fragments into complete vessels. This made it clear that these vessels were thrown into the pit whole, rather than being discarded or broken vessels—and therefore this was not a garbage pit. Furthermore, the excavation proved that the pit was dug from the level of the courtyard floor downward, and was later deliberately covered by that same floor. On this basis, we suggest the interpretation of the pit and its contents as the site of a deliberate act of burial ( favissa). A total of 75 complete pottery vessels—60 small bowls, five jugs, three chalices, a cooking pot, a small juglet, and two jars—were counted in the pit. Most of them are tableware or vessels for pouring liquids. The great quantity of small bowls, about 15 centimeters in diameter, is particularly noteworthy. Their depths vary: some are flatter, while others are angular and therefore slightly deeper. In this assemblage, the flat dishes with a shiny dense burnish are particularly outstanding in their beauty. The proportionately large number of bowls within the assemblage is exceptional. In most dumps from residential buildings, bowls comprise 50 percent of the vessel types found, which is a reflection of their proportionate importance and role in domestic usage, but in this buried pit they comprise about 80 percent of the total. The bowls are for individual use and of a type and quality probably designed for ceremonial eating or drinking. Another set of vessels—a decanter, a small juglet, and three regular-size jugs—are intended for pouring liquids. The last vessel group clearly relates to ritual:

85

three chalices that were deliberately damaged by creating a hole in their bases, and one cup-and-saucer fragment. There were also fragments of six clay animal figurines, the kind that characterized Judah in the late Iron Age. In addition to pottery, the pit also contained animal bones, which the expedition’s archaeozoologist, Dr. Deirdre Fulton, studied to identify the type of meat consumed in the ritual. It turned out that the menu included mainly birds of various sizes: songbirds, birds of a more medium size (partridge or pheasant), and even a larger bird (goose?). Apart from the birds, the dinner guests satiated their hunger with the meat of a young goat. It goes without saying that this cache is fundamentally different from any other animal bone assemblage collected from the contemporary residential building floors or the garbage pits. Discovering these buried items and studying the vessels reminded us of a similar cache Aharoni discovered in his excavations at the site. Aharoni attributed that cache to Space 477, a room in the northern palace building, and he assumed the vessels to be part of the Babylonian destruction layer of 586 BCE. However, thorough pottery restoration, examining the excavation’s photographic record together with the artifact card catalog unequivocally showed us that this cache, containing an extremely dense concentration of pottery, was discovered under the room’s floor. With dozens of small bowls, some flat and most slightly rounded, the cache as a whole is extremely similar functionally and typologically to the pit we excavated nearby. A singular item from the pit is the pottery shard with a drawing of a figure sitting on a chair, lifting his hands in a greeting gesture. Certainly its special elegance and potential cultic significance tend to associate it with a ceremonial burial. But while the locus where the piece was found has vessels connected to those buried in what is now Cache No. 477 of buried items, yet because it is not a whole piece and no match was found, we cannot determine with certainty that this piece broke off from one of the buried vessels. We can summarize this topic by stating our conclusion that these two caches should be considered deliberate burial of vessels ( favissae) that were used for ceremonial activities in the central courtyard of the palace and in its wings. The nature of the vessels in these caches implies that they were dishes designated for personal consumption of food and drink at ritual activities. And, these rituals occurred during the same chronological horizon as the courtyard’s construction.

86

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 121: Syntax of movement in the second building phase palace area in Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 120: Drawing on pottery shard, image sitting on a chair, found in Locus 477 of Aharoni’s excavations

Why, of all places, in the courtyard? We can learn about the importance of central courtyards as a location for ceremonies from a spatial analysis of the location—that is, the options available for movement inside and between the palace wings. Such an analysis shows us that movement in the complex was funnel-like, in an east–west direction: the complex entrance was in the southeastern corner and led into an eastern courtyard, which was probably bordered but not fortified and served for entering the palace. A separating wall limited passage between the eastern and central courtyards to a single gate. People probably then passed from the central courtyard on to each of the complex’s wings—southward, northward, and westward. Farther to the west stood the tower, which people could enter only through the built wing located between the tower

and the courtyard. The garden surrounding the tower was the most isolated area in the complex. It seems that the “funnel” was designed to create a hierarchy between the public spaces designated for the masses and the others used only by those of higher status. This is evidence of the hierarchical perception of the space, which creates a deliberate separation between the spaces of the complex and expresses hierarchy also in the right of the visitors or the residents to move from one space to another. Our aforementioned analysis illustrates even more the central courtyard’s importance as the epicenter of all activities carried out in the complex. On one hand, it was separated from the outside by a perimeter wall and a gate, and therefore the passage into it created a clear barrier between people whose entry was approved and those left outside. On the other hand, the courtyard was a public space for activities with numerous participants. From there onward, only people approved by the palace residents or owners could penetrate deeper into the inner spaces of the palace. Therefore, the courtyard indeed was at once a public space, yet one to which entry was restricted, leading to the conclusion that an elite group gathered here for public purposes. It is no wonder, then, that in this courtyard we found interesting evidence for the ceremonial consumption of food and drinks. Now we can try to clarify: what was the purpose of these ceremonial meals? This question can be answered on two different levels, both equally difficult to recreate. The first addresses why the participants of the ceremonial dinner were invited: to the dedication of a new building or a certain construction project, to the celebration of a significant event in the calendar, or perhaps the

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE) marking of a political or a military success? The second level relates to the social significance of the actual holding of the event: what social or political gain was expected by the event’s initiator? To seek to grapple with the two levels of this question, we can get assistance from comparisons about known ceremonial dinners and their political meaning in the ancient Near East and in biblical literature. Among the many examples of feasts and ceremonial dinners in the Ancient Near East, we should mention the description of the feast that appears on the monumental wall reliefs in the palace of Sargon, King of Assyria, where celebrants can be seen sitting at tables with uplifted glasses. Images of the king of Assyria winning the battle appear under the illustration of the dinner guests. The portrayed dinner may have been held to mark his victory in war. Among biblical descriptions of feasts, we can cite that held by Nehemiah to mark the completion of the construction of Jerusalem’s walls (Nehemiah 5: 17–18). The description of the feast and the reasons for holding it illustrate well the arguments about the importance of ceremonial dinners for the purpose of reinforcing the ruler’s status and for the creation of internal solidarity in a developing society consisting of various and diverse groups. Other biblical descriptions of feasts with many participants mark the completion of important construction projects. These feasts were held under the aegis of the Judahite Monarchy or the Judean leadership. Thus, for example, the Passover dinner marking the Second Temple’s consecration is described in Ezra 6:19–20. This description makes it very clear who was invited to the dinner and puts an emphasis on those who were not: “And the children of the exile kept the Passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month . . . and offered the Passover for all the children of the exile, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. And the children of Israel, which were come again out of exile, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land . . . did eat.” Those who had not separated themselves were excluded from the festivities. The feast held by Solomon immediately after the Temple’s consecration is also described in 1 Kings 8:2–5. It is interesting to note that King Solomon is the only one described as holding feasts for political reasons, not because of a building dedication. This is true of the account of the Queen of Sheba’s visit, as well as of the descriptions of the King’s table around which officials dined.

87

Can the biblical descriptions and the Assyrian visual tableaus inform us about the Ramat Raḥel palace courtyard activities? Can we propose suggestions as to the purpose of the feast whose remains were found in the burial pits, and the political goals of its hosts? In our opinion, since the vessels were buried under the courtyard floor or the palace room immediately after the feast, as evidenced by the animal and fowl remains, and based on the stratigraphic archaeological evidence that these ceremonial activities were held commensurate with the complex’s construction, we may assume that what we have before us are remnants of one or more feasts held for its dedication; the assemblages were buried afterward as foundation offerings. Based on this analysis, we can take an additional step and venture to suggest who the feast organizers were: the very same people responsible for the construction of the palace and the complex around it. In previous publications and in this book, we have contended that the Ramat Raḥel palace functioned as a Judahite center under imperial rule and that the second building phase palace complex was built after the Assyrians left and before the Babylonians arrived. Its construction should thus be connected with that turbulent period in which it is almost certain that the Egyptians or their Judahite supporters sought to establish and exercise their restored inheritance. The Kingdom of Judah had relative freedom during this period, though at the end of his reign King Manasseh was an Egyptian vassal, and so too was Josiah during his long years of reign. This is the moment that we contend is the background for constructing this magnificent palace complex. Its construction and festive dedication were designated to establish the status of the ruler and to perpetuate alliances and political borders. The invitees entered through the central courtyard gate and had the pleasure of enjoying their presence, for a limited time, among those whom the king or governor sought to favor. While being amazed by the beauty of the palace and the power of the ruler, the nature of such gatherings is that they engaged in the intrigues of learning who was and who was not invited from among the local elite. The ruler thus intended to convey a clear message to all the participants about his power, which the feast made abundantly clear, and to call on them to show loyalty to their rulers and their representatives, with the benefits attending this kind of participation in inner circle events and the inherent advantages of high-level political connections.

88

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Lion Stamp Impressions and Their Significance for Understanding the Babylonian Period in Judah Out of the entire corpus of approximately 116 jar handles impressed with the lion symbol, 75 were discovered at Ramat Raḥel, 21 in Jerusalem, and only a few have turned up at other sites. Thus, there is no doubt that Ramat Raḥel was the undisputed center of the lion stamp impression system. As in the rosette stamp impressions, the lion stamp impressions consist of a single symbol without an epigraphic element. About 10 different types of stamp impressions are known in this system: the lion paces to the right; to the left; there is a roaring lion; and one special type of lion rears on his two rear feet. Until recently, the accepted date for the lion stamp impressions was the beginning of the Persian Period. However, our reexamination of the data shows that the operation of this system should be dated to the previous period of Babylonian rule, in the early 6th century BCE. This contention is supported by three main facts: (a) The use of one central symbol without a caption continues the rosette stamp impression format, while preceding the transition to stamp impressions with writing alone, and that change occurred at the onset of the Persian Period; (b) a revised typological classification of the system showed that two out of the ten lion stamp impression types (23 handles out of 116) were found only at Ramat Raḥel, and another was discovered only at Ramat Raḥel and at Nebi Samwil—the two administrative sites apparently spared destruction when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem in 586 BCE. We suggest therefore that these two are the early types representing the introduction of the lion stamp impression system; (c) petrographic analyses carried out in the Micro-archaeology Laboratory in Tel-Aviv University showed that the jars with these impressions

Fig. 122: Distribution map of the lion stamped jar handles

were used as an interim type, as the production center of both the jars and their attendant agricultural produce, with their attendant administration and taxes, continued to shift from the Judean Lowland area (probably around the Valley of Elah) to the hill country region around Jerusalem. Whereas all lmlk jars and most rosette jars were manufactured in the Judean Lowlands, only a few rosette jars were manufactured in Jerusalem, which later became the production center of all Persian period yehud jars. Petrographic analyses revealed that the majority of the lion-stamped jars were manufactured around Jerusalem, and only a few were made in the Judean Lowlands. The laboratory can now show a gradual shift, taking place in stages, and that enables the formulation of an historical and chronological narrative. This shift is another line of evidence placing the lion stamp system as the direct successor to the Judahite rosette system of the late First Temple Period and as the predecessor of the yehud stamp impression system introduced at the beginning of the Persian Period—meaning that the lion system was operative under Babylonian rule.86

Fig. 123: Lion stamp impressions on jar handles from the Ramat Raḥel excavations

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

Three-Dimensional Palace Reconstruction of the Second Building Phase Reconstruction of an ancient monument’s appearance involves a kind of daring and risk with respect to the reliability of its accuracy and its compatibility with the existing remains. Usually, archaeological excavations expose only the foundations of walls, and in many cases even this is partial, with more left hidden than revealed. If every reconstruction is considered to be an interpretation, then reconstructing the royal complex of Ramat Raḥel’s second building phase is an extremely problematic interpretation. It must contend with and address the fragmentary nature of the remains, their poor preservation in relation to their original condition, and the fact that the royal complex existed for at least 400 years and with at least three secondary phases of development. In this case, even achieving agreement on the plan’s outline is hard enough. Winning acceptance of an interpretation of its proposed architectural appearance and profile is even more challenging.

89

In spite of these numerous difficulties and gaps of knowledge, we believe that it is important to present a three-dimensional model of the plan of the palace. Three dimensions illustrate the plan and the nature of the buildings more realistically than what can be expressed by a two-dimensional plan. To do this we employed the plans of Benny Arubas and the expertise of architect Roy Albag. We gathered all the architectural data and all possible comparisons to contemporary palaces in the region, and with this in hand we embarked upon our journey. The starting point for our reconstruction effort was that we were convinced from the exposed architectural remains that a sophisticated and well-planned public complex was erected here, expressing an articulate and coherent vision. This being the case, the building and all its components would reflect the planners’ design for its function, and that design would, we assume, be in accordance with the region’s contemporary architectural trends and the characteristics of public buildings with which they were familiar. Actual remnants of building material and architectural remains dictated the reconstruction, rounded out by comparisons with

Fig. 124: Palace reconstruction, view to the northeast

90

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

regional parallels. For example, we assumed that the palace walls were made of stone, and despite the complete absence of mud-brick traces in the excavation, we assumed that the upper storeys were mud brick, which was well known in regional architecture. We presume that there were traces of mud bricks but that they were probably washed and worn away during centuries of reuse, destruction, and abandonment and due to the intrusion of a rural settlement on top. Later on, we reconstructed crenellations at the top of the palace’s external walls. From the size of the stone merlins found in Aharoni’s excavations and in ours, they were decorative items only and were not used for fortification. However, we can assume that placing them in a highly visible position on top of the walls, probably on the side of the wall and the buildings facing into the central courtyard, indicates that they were meant to imitate the real crenellations of the enclave’s fortifications. Crenellations are also known from stone reliefs depicting palaces and luxurious buildings in Assyria during this same period. In tackling the actual reconstruction, again based on the excavation, our starting point was the assumption that the powerful tower of the first building phase was already standing here on the high point of the western hilltop when the second phase commenced. Our 3-D reconstruction assumes that the tower actually

anchored the complex’s development, as reflected in the location determined for the royal garden placed to the west. The garden surrounds the tower on three sides and was significantly lowered to make the tower stand out even more prominently and to isolate the tower from its surroundings. The main central courtyard was built on the tower’s eastern side, with room complexes around it. We cannot know if other buildings east of the tower from the first building phase were also included in the new complex and adjusted to the new plan or whether, perhaps in leveling the square intended for the palace complex to its east, some were covered over. The palace entrance was reconstructed on its southeastern side. In addition to the topographical logic, salvage excavations conducted in the 1930s on the eastern hillside, underneath where the westernmost kibbutz houses were built, revealed stones that probably served as retaining walls for the access road to the complex; some are still visible today. Excavations exposed a man-made glacis between the eastern complex wall and the approximate path of the road. The glacis supported the complex on the north and on the east and separated between the ascending trail and the enclave’s outer walls. Stone walls discovered under the eastern courtyard floor provided the basis for reconstructing the main

Fig. 125: Reconstruction of the inner courtyard, view to the west

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

91

Fig. 126: Reconstruction of the palace and garden, view to the east

entrance gate into the complex here in the southeastern corner of the hilltop, and the visitor would then enter into this large courtyard bordering the eastern palace facade. Supported by retaining walls against the steep angle of the slope, the eastern courtyard was thus a highly visible elevated podium. This vantage point controlled the roads coming from north and south leading up to the site’s entrance and enabled the travelers and residents ascending the hilltop on winding roads to enter the main complex from the stability and confident strength of a leveled and protected plaza, under the watchful gaze of the palace tower. This southeastern entrance courtyard was separated from the main central courtyard by a stone wall whose broad foundations Aharoni had exposed, and their breadth leads us to assume that the wall reached a great height. One extant segment in the middle of this wall was a defensive projection protruding eastward, forming a sharp corner, under which the courtyard floor continued. This is the main basis for reconstructing the gate between the inner and outer courtyards,

assuming that a similar projection also lay to the north of the proposed gate and that both projecting corners were used as watchtowers, rising high above the gate and the wall. The central courtyard’s entrance gate was reconstructed as an arched gate: mud-brick arches were known in Israel already 1,000 years earlier (for example, at Ashkelon and at Dan), and a contemporaneous gate was discovered at Tell Jemmeh. We placed two of the decorated stone capitals in the inner passage on either side of the gate. Remains of the palace itself are very slight and of a fragmentary nature, a phenomenon typical at mountaintop sites because every stage of settlement establishes itself directly on the bedrock, removing and cleaning the vestiges of the earlier stages. Furthermore, they reuse the building stones in their own structures, because prepared construction material was a costly and valuable resource, and this also enabled the new structures to be built easier and faster. We are therefore treating a building phase that was not original but that superimposed itself on an earlier well-built complex, as evidenced by the tower,

92

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

and that had settlements following this clearing and construction pattern for hundreds of years afterward. Such circumstances make it very difficult to discern the formative conditions of the origin of this structure, the dating of and the nature of the building’s architectural design, and the functioning of its components. These all remain extremely uncertain. Therefore, we decided to present two optional models that treat differently the central courtyard’s location and its interface with the buildings surrounding it from the south, west, and north. In the first option, the second building phase at Ramat Raḥel presents a planning-related outlook that in many aspects continues the plan already outlined by Aharoni. The core design was the construction of a rectangular fortified palace complex, surrounded by a casemate wall of approximately 120 × 100 meters. The western quadrant absorbed the preexisting “tower” in its center, symmetrically enclosed by the casemate wall from north and south. The main entrance gate was deliberately placed to the east on an axis directly opposite the quadrant with the dominant tower. From this, we can easily discern and understand the planners’ intention to give the complex a monumental appearance, emphasizing the general orientation of the route running between the gate in the east to the tower in the west. This option results in an inner courtyard of approximately 60 × 50 meters designed for accommodating ceremonies, as articulated above. Surprisingly, despite this role, the courtyard does not lie in the symmetrical center of the complex’s symmetrical route but is instead drawn toward its southeastern corner. Despite slightly minimizing its centrality, this placement may have been designed to enhance the effective use of most of the courtyard area for ceremonies, both enabling ceremonies to take place without interfering with the direct path for passersby from the gate to the tower, and without that traffic interfering with the activities held there, nor requiring the concomitant reduction of the open area dedicated for ceremonies involving many people. Perhaps in this way the planners also sought to provide everyone entering the complex with a broad view over the courtyard, without any connection to the direct route from the main eastern entrance to the more private western wing. In any event, in this plan the courtyard was bordered by the southern and eastern walls, which would explain the high quality ashlar stones on this side, intended to make an impression on the visitors to the courtyard. The other wall segments that did not border

the courtyard and did not have as much of a visual impact and therefore did not require this impressive and beautiful construction. The remaining space left between the courtyard and the northern casemate wall, and between the courtyard and the western tower quadrant, was allocated for the construction of the palace buildings, which served perhaps as secondary residences or as household and administrative wings for the palace staff. Such an arrangement created a hierarchy between the palace components: making the western towerquadrant, surrounded by a garden and isolated deep in the complex, seemingly elevated in its importance above everything else. This is the core plan and concept of the original second building phase. The other buildings found during the renewed excavations on the central courtyard’s southern side and the external southern wall reflect later developments, during which additional wings and buildings were added to this original second-phase center and which developed and refashioned itself into the extended palace complex. The main theoretical weakness of this alternative is that the wide courtyard, which was the central constructed element in the entire complex, is not in its center. The casemate wall passes adjacent to the courtyard from the south, which, despite their evident importance, makes the service and administrative wings to the south side of this wall into external appendages vis-à-vis the entire complex. Yet, perhaps this is proof that the palace complex indeed developed in a number of stages. The second option presented here is based on the assumption that the inner courtyard stood in the very center of the palace complex, surrounded on three sides by administrative buildings. In the first building phase, a few structures stood here, including the tower on the western side, a building on the southern side, and perhaps even a building on the northern side. During the second building phase construction, these earlier structures were incorporated into one palace structure complex built around a central inner courtyard, all of which were surrounded by an external fortification system. In this perspective, the explanation for the high-quality ashlar construction of the courtyard’s southern side (“the southern casemate wall”) indicates that this wall fronts the administrative buildings of the palace. The defensive outer wall on this southern side would be parallel to the northern casemate wall some distance farther away from the courtyard, and this as yet unidentified southern wall

Chapter Seven: Second Building Phase (Late 7th Century BCE)

93

Fig. 127: Reconstruction of the palace and the new building on the north

should be sought in the remains of the walls exposed to the south. The area between the entrance through the magnificent ashlar construction and the presumed southern casemate wall held secondary residences or household and administrative wings, from which there are a few surviving remains left after massive construction here during the Roman, Byzantine, and Ancient Islamic periods. The northern casemate wall enclosed the northern complex. To its south, placed between it and the central courtyard were secondary residential wings or household and administrative wings. Similar to the southern side of the enclave, there would presumably be a parallel entrance through a northern wall bordering the courtyard and which, according to the reconstruction, was also built from magnificent ashlar stones, as in the south. This presumed wall was probably removed during the Byzantine Period, during which a large, well-constructed building was erected on bedrock, exactly on the northern courtyard boundary. The reconstruction suggested in this alternative creates symmetry between the palace’s northern and

southern plan and further emphasizes the centralized location of the courtyard. The main disadvantage of the second alternative is that although the courtyard is centralized, yet the symmetric route between the eastern gate of the courtyard and the western tower lies northward in relation to the courtyard—as opposed to the first alternative in which this axis of symmetry is emphasized and planned as a central architectural element. In the two models suggested here, the tower in the west is the most prominent and important construction element in the entire complex, and it is visible from afar. In the reconstruction of the structure we included stepped windows based both on finding ornamented balustrades here, and on the well-known window model appearing in an Ancient Near Eastern art motif, mainly in carved ivories, of “the woman in the window.” To the south, west, and north of the tower is the sprawling, lush, exotic garden and orchard. Apart from two water pools, channels, and drainpipes, we have no

94

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

hard information about additional installations here and therefore we did not suggest any more elements in the reconstruction. A building that is fundamentally different in its architectural characteristics from the rest of the palace components and diverges from the complex’s uniform architectural format is presented on the complex’s northwestern side. This is an additional wing attached later to the complex, probably during the Persian

Period (the third building phase). One should note that this structure did not stand alone. It was intended to adjoin the second building phase palace complex, and in its construction, the northern area of the garden was damaged. Apparently, this construction was designed to enclose the large pool located here within the fortress and palace enclave, while expanding the capacity of the pool at the expense of forfeiting some garden area.

Chapter Eight: Historical Introduction to the Third Building Phase—Judah under Persian Rule The glorious days of the Babylonian Empire were short. Its rule in the land of Israel was characterized by the destruction of urban centers that had survived the Assyrian conquest of the region, yet with the continuation of the rural settlement and provincial system established during Assyrian rule. The fiery and violent destruction of Jerusalem and other Judahite cities is the most important and clearest archaeological signal remaining from the days of Babylonian rule, but in many respects the material culture throughout Judah continued to exist and develop. It is therefore difficult, and may even be impossible, to provide this short period with clear historical, archaeological, and administrative delineations. The defeat of the Assyrian Empire enabled the development and the strengthening of the Median Kingdom throughout the entire region between the

Iranian Plateau and eastern Anatolia. Cyrus II became increasingly stronger in the southwestern part of Media and also established his status and gained control over the Persian tribes, establishing a tribal union under Median rule, whose capital was in Pasargadae. In 550 BCE, Cyrus rebelled against Astyages, the King of Media, and managed to take over the throne of the great king, crowning himself as the King of Persia and Media. He thus became the leader of an enormous empire ranging from the Iranian Plateau and eastern Anatolia as far as the border of the Kingdom of Lydia. This was only the beginning, as Cyrus did not rest on his laurels, and during the 540s of the 6th century BCE, he consolidated his rule in the Iranian Plateau and in Anatolia. Nabonidus, the King of Babylon, was oblivious to the danger he was facing from his new neighbor in the east and was preoccupied with

Fig. 128: Map of the Persian Empire

95

96

Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

carrying out far-reaching religious and cultic reforms, with the goal of elevating the god Sin to the top of the Babylonian pantheon at the expense of the Babylonian god Marduk. These radical and unprecedented actions worsened the relations between the king of Babylon and the traditional elite in his city, especially the priests. In 539 BCE, when Cyrus attacked the city of Babylon, the former Babylonian empire was too divided and weak to stand against him. According to the Babylonian sources, when Cyrus arrived to the gates of the city of Babylon, its priests opened the gates and invited him in. Cyrus assumed the title “the King of Babylon” and added it to the list of his titles. In one fell swoop, the Babylonian Empire came into Cyrus’s hands and was integrated as a mere province of the wide Persian Empire. A new era thus began in the ancient Near East, as the greatest empire known in the world at that time began its rule. A new era also began for the large Judean community living in the Babylonian Exile and for those still living in Judah as well. The history of this period is

shrouded in fog, and most descriptions of the “Return to Zion” are nowadays considered to be of late origin, reflecting late ideology and aspirations and not accurately reflecting historical realities. These descriptions are therefore subject to historical criticism and doubt, and it is uncertain whether there was a mass return to Judah or whether any significant change occurred in the condition of the Judeans exiles in Babylon. However, Cyrus’s policy was to honor the cultic customs of every people, as expressed in the famous “Cyrus Cylinder,” which he left in the city of Babylon. This policy probably enabled a small group of Judeans to leave the land of exile and immigrate to Jerusalem in order to build the Temple and renew the cult of the forefathers in Jerusalem. Archaeological research allows us to conclude that no more than a few hundred people indeed immigrated to Judah from the Babylonian Exile, and it may be further inferred that the cult in Jerusalem was renewed, but the city was not restored as capital until the days of Nehemiah, in the mid-5th century BCE.

Fig. 129: Map of the Province of Yehud during the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods

Chapter Eight: Historical Introduction to the Third Building Phase The Persian Empire continued expanding during the reign of Cambyses I (530–522 BCE), the son of Cyrus, when Egypt also came under Persian rule. After Cambyses was killed on his way back from Egypt to Persia, Darius I, who was only a member of a secondary branch of the royal family, came to power in his stead (521–486 BCE). If Cyrus was the founder of the Persian Empire and the one who expanded the governed territories of the Achaemenid Empire “from India to Kush,” then it was Darius who laid the foundations for imperial administration, turning the numerous areas that fell into his hands into a unified administrative and political entity. The political, administrative, and cultural reforms of Darius stabilized the position of the Persian Empire for the next two hundred years. The area of the former Babylonian Empire was divided, and this geopolitical unit in the Persian Empire—the satrapy of “Babylon and Across the River”—was comprised of two secondary units, each with sub-province status. This geopolitical reality was maintained for many years, and it may be assumed that the stability in the province “Across the River” also affected the history of Yehud—the small province of Judah based around the Temple in Jerusalem. This reality changed only after King Xerxes I (486–465 BCE) subdued the rebellion in Babylon (482 BCE) and as a result decided to separate the sub-provinces of Babylon and “Across the River,” establishing two independent satrapies with identical status. A notable consequence of this division for local history was that from this point forward the Judean community

97

of Babylon was under a jurisdiction separate from their brethren in Judah. This structure of two provinces remained unchanged until the end of the Persian Empire period. Herodotus also describes the aforementioned geo­political situation in his account covering the middle of the 5th century BCE. After about two hundred years of hegemony over all the territories of the ancient Near East, at the beginning of the last third of the 4th century BCE, the enormous Persian Empire fell into the hands of Alexander, the son of Philip—Alexander the Great. When Darius III, the last Achaemenid King, was murdered in 330 BCE, the Achaemenid Empire came to an end. Throughout the reign of the Persian kings, Judah was a small, isolated, hill country province. The Levant enjoyed a boost of development and prosperity because the Persians cared about and invested in the coastal areas and Egypt. Large cities were established along the coastal road, and maritime trade flourished. Even the military and political struggles in the Mediterranean coastal regions during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE did not hinder this local development. In stark contrast, the hill country region remained peripheral and continued to exist mainly as a rural area based on an agrarian economy. Although development in this region was slow, stability was maintained. With this background, we can examine the further development of Ramat Raḥel as an administrative center in Judah under the aegis of the empire and as a collection center for agricultural products, mainly containers of wine and oil.

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) The Persian Period Administrative Center at Ramat Raḥel

Only sparse architectural remains attributable to the Persian Period were found in all of Aharoni’s excavation seasons at the site. Even if the continuity of the administrative center’s existence and activity postFirst Temple Period could be demonstrated in one area, or even throughout the site, those scant remains could not provide enough data to understand their nature and function, or even their building plan, in the Persian era. The renewed excavations succeeded in exposing numerous and even surprising pieces of evidence that throw a new light on Ramat Raḥel in the Persian Period. In addition to the many artifacts, for the first time, architectural remains of this historical epoch have surfaced, absolutely unique, because elsewhere in Jerusalem and in Judah there is hardly anything. The following rare and extremely important discovery was accidental. In the 2007 season we focused

Already at the outset of excavation at Ramat Raḥel, it was clear that the site remained very active even after the First Temple’s destruction. Great numbers of pottery shards, figurines, and many stamped jar handles dated to the Persian Period were uncovered. Especially noteworthy are the 302 out of 466 yehud stamped handles found here—that is, 65 percent of the total found in Judah, dating to the Persian and the early Hellenistic Period. This clearly indicates that during and following the Persian Period, from the 6th–4th centuries BCE, this administrative center had a central function in Judah: collecting agricultural products, especially containers of wine and oil, apparently as part of the provincial tax paid to the empires.

Fig. 130: Plan of the third building phase in Ramat Raḥel

98

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) our efforts on exposing the borders of the garden surrounding the tower, located on the top of the hill. Using a backhoe, we cut sections to its north and west. Tracking the garden’s borders was easy, as in the two earlier seasons we had acquainted ourselves with the rock surface and the builders’ quarrying-and-fill technique. We were also familiar with the later Hellenistic fill, which covered large parts of the garden after it went out of use. The narrow trenches made it easy to identify the profile of the smoothed limestone and the soil lying on its surface. In one section (section 4) dug north of the tower, which kibbutz members named “Luria Garden,” after

99

identifying the garden soil in the western part of the section, we advanced eastward. We felt that we already knew the place, because slightly to the north, in the first excavation season (2005), we had already dug by hand a section running north–south that almost touched the border of this new mechanically-dug section. About 30 meters to its east, in Area A, we found, during the same 2005 season, Byzantine Period graves penetrating into the earlier garden. However, in that first season we had not yet understood the implications of the garden soil and did not even know of the ancient garden’s existence.

Yehud Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles The use of storage jars with stamp impressions continued during the Persian Period, with the main difference from the preceding periods being the disappearance of iconography. During the two centuries of the Persian rule, containers in Judah carried stamps with inscriptions, usually with the province name Yehud in four letters (yhwd), yhd in deficient spelling in Hebrew, or even yh in two letters, sometimes connected to each other (a ligature) as if one symbol. Only in a few transitional types from the period’s initial phase do we still find vestiges of the late First Temple period stamp tradition, in which the private names of the stamp holders, and sometimes their title pḥw ʾ—“the governor,” in Aramaic, were added.87 We know about 17 different impression types and have discovered dozens of different seals (=sub-types), in the yehud system. The early types of yehud stamp impressions (late 6th–5th centuries BCE) include 12 types (see Figs. 132–133). At this stage, the shape of all the seals was either round or elliptic and generally engraved in the official Aramaic lapidary script, with very few in the cursive Aramaic script. In 9 out of 12, the name of the province, Yehud, appears written in full, the plene spelling (i.e., with the letter “‫ ”ו‬as a vowel inside the word). Three types have the governor’s title in Aramaic (pḥw ʾ ), and two governors are mentioned by name— ʿĂḥîāb (‫ )אחיב‬and Yehôʾezer (‫)יהועזר‬. Nine types carry private names (one has the father’s name as well),

Fig. 131: Handle with yehud stamp impression

Fig. 132: Yehud stamp impressions, early types

seven have a divider of one or sometimes two horizontal lines between the two rows of text. All 12 types strongly resemble the late First Temple period and 6th century BCE “private” style and characteristics, and we can recognize the continuity and the strong link to late Iron Age customs. Yet, the main characteristic of these 12 stamp impression types is that they largely

100 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 133: Yehud stamp impressions, early types (cont’d.)

differ from each other, proving that the administrative system in Yehud was not yet firmly fixed. The middle types of yehud stamp impressions are of three varieties and are represented by numerous seals and a large quantity of impressed handles (see Fig. 134). Dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, their characteristics seem to demonstrate uniformity. Private names have completely disappeared from this group, as has the title “governor.” From now on, the name of the province is spelled in scriptio defectiva— with three letters (yhd) or only two (yh). The seals of this stage display new shapes, mostly rectangular with rounded corners or are round with a surrounding circular frame. Paleographical changes are also recognizable, probably resulting from the influence of Hebrew script. The yehud stamp impressions of the late types (2nd century BCE) include two types (Fig. 135). The seals of the late types are usually round and of low quality. The first type, of which numerous sub-types are known, include the satrapy’s name written in two connected letters (a ligature of yh). The second type includes numerous and different types of round stamp impressions, all with the name of the province in a “defective” three-letter Hebrew spelling (yhd), along with the letter ṭet. The large number of stamped jar handles discovered at Ramat Raḥel reflects its status: it was the most important administrative center during the Persian Period. More than 50 percent of the stamped handles from the early and middle types were found at Ramat

Fig. 134: Yehud stamp impressions, middle types

Fig. 135: Yehud stamp impressions, late types

Raḥel, which proves that it attained its highest status during the entire 300 years of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. On the other hand, the relatively small quantity of stamped handles from the late types discovered at the site reflects the fact that Jerusalem rose in importance during the Seleucid, and especially during the Hasmonean Period, making Ramat Raḥel less important and no longer central in the administration. During the last excavation season (2010), we completed extracting the contents of a pit (Area D1) that included a large variety of early Persian Period vessels. After half a year of restoration, for the very first time, we had complete storage jars with stamp impressions, both on their bodies and on their handles. One restored jar even carried two different yehud stamp impressions on two different handles. And thus, besides examining the handles and their stamp impressions, thanks to this sealed garbage pit in a clear stratified context, we can now, for the first time, also study the vessel shapes, their sizes, and the level of standardization.

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 101

Fig. 136: Plan of mechanically-cut sections, Luria Garden

Fig. 137: Work in a section, westward view

The backhoe advanced eastward, exposing the garden soil, and we almost stopped,, because we felt we knew this area. But we decided to advance a few more meters eastward instead, because we remembered that in 2005, in a square lying just ahead, we had not found garden soil. To our surprise, after 3 or 4 meters farther, the ground surface changed, the garden soil disappeared, and we found an ancient cut quarried 4 meters deep. At the bottom of the narrow section, we identified a solid, well-plastered wall corner. We suddenly realized that we had unintentionally discovered a promising, surprising, and completely unexpected feature, due to an insistence on utilizing accumulated information throughout the excavation. During that 2007 season, we expanded the section into a real excavation area and eagerly awaited the coming season, when we intended to expose it. In two consecutive seasons (2008–2009) of hard and continuous manual excavation work, we exposed the remains of a powerful, massive building. Until this point, there was no evidence for the existence of this massive and magnificent structure of about 600 square meters—or perhaps even more! Its rectangular shape lay on the northwestern side of the palace enclave discovered in the second building phase. As we dug, we detected that a part of this Persian Period building was erected over the royal garden area: its foundation trenches were cut directly into the garden’s smoothed limestone, although the garden soil itself was probably removed before construction. We also came to understand that this building was not designed to stand independently but was a wing added to the existing second building phase complex. The

fortress tower sat elevated and westward of the main palace, on a quarried outcropping meant to isolate the tower from three sides. This new building acted as an extension of the tower area northward. The building was erected on an area lower than the tower. Yet, judging by the thickness and the strength of the walls and the great depth of the foundation trenches, it seems that the building rose to the full height of the tower. Since the building was dismantled and its stones were fully removed in the next building phase, the massiveness of its construction and infrastructure is mainly expressed in the wide, deep foundation trenches of its outer walls. These trenches, after the building’s walls were dismantled, became robber trenches, which are visually recognizable because they were deliberately and completely filled with layers of earth, construction waste, ash, and pottery shards. The foundation trenches, in the shape of the Hebrew letter ‫ ת‬were cut into the already sunken garden (after the removal of the nari-rock in the second building phase) and, after the removal of the garden soil, they were dug into the soft, smoothed chalk surface. They are two-and-a-half to three meters deep and just as wide. The massive walls were built into these foundation trenches as retaining walls. They leaned against one side of the rock-cut trench, while leaving a space between the built wall and the opposite side of the rock. Above ground, they probably functioned as an independent superstructure. The wall segments that are still preserved in the bottom of the trenches pre­ sent a unique construction technique that was heretofore not known in our region until the Roman Period. In this construction technique, which can be defined

102 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center as “semi-casting,” high and even courses of large nari stones were placed with their highly-smoothed side against the cut bedrock and the rough side facing the core of the wall. When a mixture of gray cement was poured into the stone mass in the wall’s core, it became

a strong and solid conglomerate with high concentrations of ash and slaked lime, which gave it extraordinary strength and the quality of poured concrete. In the third building phase, an additional system of water channels joined the second phase channel system. A plastered drainage channel, approximately 30 centimeters wide and reaching a maximum depth of 2 meters, hugs and follows the monumental building walls at their foundation, installed in the space remaining between the aforementioned rock-cut face of the foundation trenches and the lowest courses of built walls set into the trench. This channel starts in the area of the western third phase addition, located slightly south of the building’s connection point with the quarried rock cube’s northwestern corner from the second building phase. This is the position where the tower from the first building phase stands. The new system’s two side walls were well-built into a wide foundation trench of its own, quarried adjacent to the bedrock cliff. Here the drainage channel slides

Fig. 138: Section 4 during work, view to the west

Fig. 139: Corner of the Persian Period building, bottom of Section 4

Fig. 140: Section 4 after extension in Season 2007, view to the east

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 103

Fig. 141: Preparation work for third phase exposure—2008 Season, view to the east

Fig. 142: Persian Period building foundations— aerial photograph, view to the east

diagonally down deep into the foundation trench, and after a short distance, it attaches to the western, the northern, and the eastern walls of the new building, which serve as its inner wall. It continues until the point where the built wall meets the northern cliff face of the fortress enclave, which is from the second building phase. Then the drainage channel turns eastward

Fig. 143: Western wall of Pool 6 as an example for the third building phase construction technique

Fig. 144: Plastered water trench in Area B2

alongside the northern cliff for about 12 additional meters. Here, the foundation trench becomes the channel’s outer wall instead of its inner side. At the spot where the channel turns east, a roofed trench connects from the west (Trench F from the second building phase). Our excavation stopped when we exposed

104 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center an additional turn of this channel, this time to the north. Its final destination is still unclear. As mentioned above, the building was completely dismantled down to its foundations, and very few of its inner elements remained. Until now, floor segments have been found only near its northeastern corner. This floor is also unique in its construction, sitting on a thick gray cement casting approximately 15 centimeters thick, which sits in turn on an infrastructure of thick cut nari blocks. Pool 6, which as we suggested above was built earlier in the second building phase, occupies most of the inner part of the additional wing. Because we did not find the pool’s connection to the drainage channels, we suggested considering Pool 6 as a remnant of the previous building phase that continued to be used in this period. The pool was now surrounded by a fortification wall and thus lay inside the fortified palace grounds, hence detached from the garden area. There is, of course, another option that we should not

dismiss, that Pool 6 was not only built at the same time as the northwestern wing extension in the third building phase but that this water reservoir actually was the reason behind constructing this new wing. Additional evidence for the technique unique in the third building phase was discovered in additional locations at the site but usually as fragmentary remains or as scraps of dismantled buildings. Unique elements attesting to the might of this third phase palace enclave were found in pits quarried into bedrock in the southeastern section (Area D1). Large plaster blocks similar to the northwestern wing’s flooring were found in one pit, while in another to the south (Area D1), many storage jar fragments carried the characteristic 6th-century BCE or 5th-century BCE early Persian Period stamp impressions, either on their handles or on their bodies, and were discarded here after they wore out. It seems that they originated from a nearby central warehouse. This pit is of great importance for the study of the Persian Period: there are few sites in Judah in which varieties of pottery vessels from the 6th century and the early part of the 5th century BCE have been exposed. For scholars of this period, it was always especially frustrating that we did not yet have examples of the jar types that had lion and yehud stamps impressed on their handles. Despite the large numbers of handles recovered in excavations with these stamp impressions, complete vessels from these two systems were not known until this discovery. To complete the picture of the history of Ramat Raḥel in the Persian period, a small building, of very

Fig. 145: Destruction layer in Area C1 South

Fig. 146: Two restored jars from Area C1 South

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 105 similar construction to the northwestern wing’s buildings was exposed in the southwestern garden area. A collapsed layer of stones sealed an assemblage of pottery vessels on the floor: three storage jars and a jug, whose dating indicates that the building was destroyed and abandoned at the end of the Persian Period. The third building phase remnants revealed a surprising development in the settlement history at Ramat Raḥel. The administrative center originally established by the Kingdom of Judah’s central government, probably under Assyrian rule (first building phase), which further developed under Egyptian and Babylonian rule (second building phase), was not destroyed at the same time as Jerusalem. In fact, during the Persian Period, it continued to serve as an administrative center, collecting agricultural products, mainly wine and oil.

Moreover, it seems that when the province of Judah was under Persian rule Ramat Raḥel was the single most important administrative center for tax collection. Only thus can we explain the great numbers of yehud stamped jar handles, more than found at any other site. The central Persian government’s direct involvement here is evidenced by the extent and the power of the construction discovered, which employed an extraordinary quality and unique construction technique for the additional northwestern wing of the palace enclave. The style and the sheer size have no parallel in our region. In this vein, the new discoveries about the garden surrounding the palace add important understanding of the place and position of Ramat Raḥel during the Persian Period.

A Persian Period Garbage Pit Containing an Assemblage of yehud Stamped Jars In spite of the large number of yehud stamped handles dated to the Persian Period discovered at Ramat Raḥel and at other sites in the Province of Judah, not even one complete jar had been discovered—until the renewed excavation. The mystery of the yehud stamped jars was extremely intriguing: What do they look like? How similar are they to the wellknown late First Temple Period stamped jars? What is their size and how uniform is their volume? These questions, which are critically important for understanding the administrative system in the Yehud province, have remained unanswered until now.

Fig. 147: Jar fragments in the pit as excavation begins

Fig. 148: Jar restoration process on the Tel-Aviv University restoration lab table

106 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center To our great joy, during the last two excavation seasons, an assemblage of pottery vessels enabling the initial examination of the yehud stamp impression phenomenon in a broader context came to light at Ramat Raḥel. Although recovered from a garbage pit and not from a domestic context, many complete vessels were found, along with a surprising number of stamp impressions in various places on the jar bodies and handles. Pit 13174 was discovered in Area D1, partially quarried into the rock and partially dug into layers of earth, and its bottom had damaged Iron Age wall segments. The vessels in the pit are of the type that were used during the 6th and 5th Centuries BCE. After a long period of inactivity in or near the pit, in the 1st century BCE it was sealed with a beaten-earth floor during intensive construction work in this area. The uniqueness of the pit is in the enormous amount of pottery shards thrown into it. Already in Season 2007, once we understood that we were excavating a pit with numerous pottery vessels from the Persian Period, we decided to collect every single pottery fragment to extract as much information as possible from the pit, both on the restoration table and in the other Institute of Archaeology laboratories. Indeed, we restored a large number of vessels in the restoration laboratory at Tel-Aviv University. The cleaning process revealed numerous stamp impressions, some on body fragments, which could not have been identified before. These vessels are dated to the third building phase, and they probably come from a nearby storage room. During excavation and pottery washing in the field, 35 jar handles with yehud stamp impressions were discovered, and while cleaning shards and restoring whole jars in the laboratory, the restorers identified five additional stamp impressions on body fragments. This is the largest concentration of stamp impressions ever discovered in one place! Among the storage vessels found in the pit, 15 were complete or almost complete; all had four handles, while eight jars carried stamp impressions. One jar has two handles impressed with two different stamp impressions, and a few have one impressed handle. Six jars have stamp impressions on their bodies; some even have two different stamp impressions on their bodies. Out of a total of 40 stamp impressions found in the pit, 13 were part of the restored jars. Thus, we can state that the mystery of what jar types carried the lion and the yehud stamp impressions is solved. These

vessels recovered from the pit and restored are the storage containers legitimately called the “yehud jars.”

Chronological Implications of Persian Pit “yehud Jars” and Other Pottery Vessels The “yehud jars” from the Persian pit at Ramat Raḥel are very reminiscent of the late Iron Age rosette jars, but the Persian Period influence can already be seen in the quality of the clay, the quality of production, and in the shapes. Many other vessels were found in the pit along with these jars, including small sack-shaped jars typical of the Persian Period. Two main types of bowls were discovered in the pit: rounded and carinated. The kraters are usually deep, with one or two handles, and one of the kraters has a yellow-transparent burnish, which indicates the continuity of the Iron Age production tradition. We were surprised by the cooking pots’ similarity to the extremely common style of late Iron Age cooking pots, although their clay was different from those produced in the Iron Age. It can be established that the pottery vessels found in the pit represent a limited and short period from the first part of the Persian Period, whose close equivalents are found in Eilat Mazar’s excavations in the City of David and in Stratum V at Shechem.

The Stamp Impressions The importance of 40 stamped jar handles found in this pit cannot be underestimated: it is the largest concentration of yehud stamp impressions ever discovered in one place, and particularly important are the 13 stamp impressions appearing on the fully restored jars. In recent years, a thorough endeavor has been underway to create order in the typology and in the consequent chronology of the Iron Age and Persian Period stamp impressions. Because in this assemblage some jars carry more than one stamp impression, the connection between the types and their historical order of appearance can now be examined. Twenty-two yehud stamp impressions, representing about 61 percent of the pit corpus, belong to the early types of the late 6th century/early 5th century BCE, according to the typology of Lipschits and Vanderhooft (2011). Type 6 is prominent among these, in which the name of the province (yehud) was written with four letters and on a single row. This most common of the Early Types has extensive representation at Ramat Raḥel, where 60 stamp impressions out of a

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 107 total corpus of approximately 67 of this type were found; three more were found at Ein Gedi, two in the City of David, and one each at Gezer and at Rogem Ganim. The pit also produced four Type 10 stamp impressions with the name ‫“ ליהעזר‬Belonging to Yehōʾezer,” an important addition to the 17 stamp impressions known of this type heretofore, making 19 stamp impressions of this type found at Ramat Raḥel alone, along with a single stamp impression of this type found at Jericho and one at Rogem Ganim. One jar was impressed with two stamp impressions on two different handles. Those two types were previously understood to be chronologically close, and this is now confirmed with physical evidence. One handle carries a yehud stamp impression from a sub-type where the

province name is written with four letters, and a “Belonging to Yehōʾezer” sub-type stamp was im­ pressed on the other. Seven additional yehud-type stamp impressions of the middle types discovered in the pit, about 19.5 percent of the entire assemblage, are of equal distribution: two Type 13 stamp impressions, two Type 14 stamp impressions, and three Type 15 stamp impressions. All were defined by Lipschits and Vanderhooft as middle types of the 4th and 3rd century BCE. Only one handle from the pit was impressed with the yehud stamp from the late types.

What Was in the Jars? Another big surprise waited for us in the Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute’s Kimmel Center for Archaeological Sciences. Residue analysis was the first step, conducted by Dr. Dvori Namdar as part of the “Reconstructing Ancient Israel: The Exact and Life Sciences Perspective” project financed by the ERC and managed by Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and Steve Wiener of the Weizmann Institute. An initial examination of the level of preservation and the ability to identify the contents of the jars generated positive results. In order to ensure the reliability of the results, we returned to the field for a joint excavation with

Fig. 149: Lion and “private” stamp impressions on a body fragment

Fig. 150: Yehūd Ḥananāh stamp impression on a body fragment

Fig. 151: Two yehud stamp impressions on two different handles of the same jar

108 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center

Fig. 152: The vessel collection from the early Persian Period pit

Kimmel Center scientists to collect additional jar fragment samples, and then carried out additional pottery restoration activities, thus enriching the total assemblage. This time we worked under a strict protocol to prevent contamination of the pottery, which causes partial erasure of the ancient chemical signal. There is no need to explain here how happy we were with Dvori Namdar’s discovery of a preserved signal in nine jars, making it possible to determine their contents. The result of this fascinating study revealed residues that could be attributed to white beeswax and

molecules that could be from yeast activity. It seems that the beeswax degenerated because of the yeast, leading to the accumulation of numerous alcohols in the vessel. Therefore, the reason for the presence of beeswax can be explained in two ways: (1) as a coating to seal the jars from the inside; or (2) the jars contained an alcoholic honey beverage, mead, with the beeswax being an accidental by-product. Wax was inserted into the vessel with the honey simply because the honey could not effectively be totally separated from the honeycomb.

Recreation of the Royal Garden Vegetation88

micro-botanical remains in the garden soil were carried out, but without concrete results, leaving the mystery of the garden’s vegetation intact. It was clear that archaeobotanical tests beyond the ordinary were required to solve the mystery. Because the various garden installations such as the pools and the channels were plastered with a number of layers, a possibility was raised that perhaps one coat of plaster

Discovering the royal garden in our renewed Ramat Raḥel excavations immediately raised the following question: what grew in this special garden, which clearly had much invested in its construction and function? A number of tests to detect macro- and

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 109 was applied in the spring season when the blossoming of the garden was at its peak. The working hypothesis was that, if this were the case, pollen grains might have been carried by the wind and sealed into the wet plaster as it dried. In spite of the slim chances for this scenario, it was decided to invest the effort and take pollen analysis samples. We chose two plaster layers in Pool 2, the most central and the best preserved of all the pools identified in the garden.

Pollen particles are the most durable organic material in nature and can survive as fossils for hundreds and even thousands of years. Each plant has its own typical form of pollen grain, which can be thought of as the plant’s “identity card.” The pollen grains were isolated through a chemical process in the laboratory, then viewed through a light microscope, and finally identified with the help of various pollen characteristics and a collection of contemporary comparative pollen grains (the “Steinhardt Collection” of Tel Aviv

Fig. 153: The two plaster layers from which samples were taken to isolate the pollen grains.

Fig. 154: Citron/Etrog (Citrus Medica) pollen grain extracted from the plaster of Pool 2 in the Ramat Raḥel garden.

110 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center University). The average size of pollen grains is normally several dozen microns (one thousandth of a millimeter). The black ruler below each photo represents 10 microns. A–B = polar view; C–D = equatorial view. The pollen analyses were carried out on two plaster layers in good preserved condition. These plaster layers are part of the later phases of the pool and the garden, dated to the Persian period, and they were not exposed to pollen from later periods, since the pool went out of use in the Early Hellenistic period and was covered by a fill of slaked lime. The first samples from the outer layer was comprised of a typical native Mediterranean maquis/forest taxa, characteristic of the Judean Hill Country, including oak, pine, olive, and typical bushes and weeds. Spring is the only shared blossoming season of all the plants identified in the collection. Therefore, the plastering must have taken place during that season. The second inner plaster layer contained not only the same kind of pollen grains representing the Mediterranean forest as the outer layer but also a unique and surprising collection of fruit trees, ornamental plants, and trees that do not grow wild in the region, but must have been imported from some distance.

Imported Trees The single most surprising find identified in the garden’s pollen grain collection was the citron (Citrus medica, named etrog in Hebrew, a word with a Persian precursor), which is the earliest botanical evidence of this tree in the southern Levant; it apparently arrived from India via Persia. The citron is not mentioned in the Old Testament. The law regarding the four varieties of Sukkot prescribes: “And you shall take for yourself on the first day the boughs of goodly trees. . . .” (Leviticus 23:40). The citron is mentioned by its explicit name only in translations from the 1st century CE and thereafter and, of course, in Talmudic literature. The identification of the citron’s pollen grains in the garden at Ramat Raḥel indicates it was present in the administrative center’s royal garden certainly by the Persian period, at the latest. It seems that a special tree, the citron, which the rulers of the region boasted as a special part of their luxurious gardens, also slowly penetrated into the Jewish tradition. Other imported trees identified in the pollen assemblages at Ramat Raḥel are Persian walnut (Juglans regia), cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani), and birch

(Betula spp.). The Juglans regia originated in northern Iran, northeastern Turkey, and the Caucasus; its Hebrew name (‫´—אגוז‬égôz, again a word with a Persian precursor) appears only once in the Old Testament (Song of Solomon 6:11). The majestic conifer, the cedar of Lebanon, was never a native tree in Israel. Scattered cedar trees are still found in the mountains of Lebanon, northwestern Syria, and in southern Turkey. The genus Betula is widespread in the temperate zone, and its nearest occurrence is in inner and northeast Anatolia. The pollen evidence of these exotic trees in the Ramat Raḥel palatial garden suggests that they were brought by the ruling Persian authorities from remote parts of the empire as a royal extravagance. The grapevine (Vitis Vinifera) and the fig tree (Ficus Carica) should be mentioned among the fruit trees identified in the garden that grow naturally in the region. It is noteworthy that their pollen appeared in the plaster, because the distribution ability of these species is limited: their pollen is not carried by the wind. The domesticated grapevine is usually self-pollinated, and its presence indicates that it probably grew adjacent to Pool 2, from which the samples were taken. The fruit of the fig tree is pollinated by wasps. The pollinated figs may have fallen into the garden’s water pools and water channels, where they decomposed. In similar fashion to the water plants, when the garden’s water was used in preparing the plaster, the fig pollen came with it.

Local Fruit and Ornamental Vegetation Poplar tree pollen grains (Populus Euphratica) were identified. As this tall tree has an intrusive root system that may damage the infrastructure of buildings, we can assume that they were planted at some distance from the palace and in fact might have been used to form a perimeter fence. Willow tree pollen particles (Salix) were also identified, but even under the microscope we could not determine which species of willow it was. Willow (Salix) and poplar (Populus) are common river bank vegetation and therefore probably required irrigation, and to these one can add the presence of pollen belonging to duckweed and water lily (Nymphaea), which were grown in the various pools of the garden for ornamentation. Myrtle (Myrtus Communis) was found here as well. This shrub is common in ornamental gardens due to its pleasant fragrance, its extended flowering season, and the ease of trimming it decoratively. The flowers of the myrtle tree are

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 111

Fig. 155: Re-creation of the garden vegetation at Ramat Raḥel

pollinated by insects, and therefore their pollen grains are not disseminated across long distances. Thus, they too probably grew adjacent to Pool 2. By understanding the pollination mechanisms and additional botanical variables of the various plants identified in the garden, we can suggest what the garden looked like and where the plants grew in relation to Pool 2.

Summary The study of Ramat Raḥel’s garden produced the first evidence in the region of an imperial luxury garden with a variety of species. The unique collection of pollen grains identified here indicates that the local ruler, the palace dweller—most probably the regional representative of the Persian Empire—wanted to boast an ornamental garden for publicity purposes, so that the garden’s visitors and the region’s subjects could see his extraordinary capabilities. He imported trees such as the citron, the cedar of Lebanon, and walnut gathered from all over the empire. He planted trees

requiring irrigation and care, such as the willow, poplar, and grapevine, species that usually grow near water sources. Their presence here clearly indicates that they were irrigated. The citron and walnut tree need irrigation as well, especially in the summer. Considering that Ramat Raḥel borders a semi-arid area, a garden flourishing in such an environment stands out remarkably in relation to its natural surroundings. Thus, the purpose of its existence in this specific region was to present the ruler of the palace as omnipotent: in addition to his ability to govern his subjects, he also could control nature and shape it at his will. Another fascinating fact should be mentioned in closing this chapter on the garden’s vegetation. Three out of the four varieties that, during the Second Temple Period, came to be established as characteristic of Sukkot—the citron, the willow, and the myrtle— have been identified in this unique, luxurious garden. Ramat Raḥel was apparently the first place in the land of Israel and its vicinity where this combination of various plants grew in the same place.

112 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center The scope of construction at Ramat Raḥel during the Persian Period, its unique characteristics, and its power, as well as the nature of the garden and its range of plants, all clearly indicate connect this administrative center to the direct influence and presence of the Persian Empire. While the palace and the garden were constructed already in the earlier second building phase, when Judah was under imperial Egyptian and Babylonian rule, the physical evidence now shows that the site flourished the most under Persian rule, during the third building phase. Proof of this is the large number of stamped jar handles that far exceeds the earlier periods. Moreover, there was no other luxurious and high quality structures in the region of the province in that period. The palace and the garden surrounding it, with large quantities of water flowing freely in a challenging environment, with ornamental plants and an exotic orchard on a highly visible hilltop, must have made a strong impression on all of the travelers on the main hill country highway and on all those residing south and west of Jerusalem. An even stronger impression would be made upon the people who visited the site and saw the luxurious architecture and the magnificent garden up close. The apparent purpose of all this was to express the Persian Empire’s power and its dominion over the world. The land of Israel and its environs during this period saw no equal to the garden and palace at Ramat Raḥel, except perhaps the city of Samaria’s administrative center, probably one of the largest Persian urban and administrative centers in the country, where the remains also point to the existence of an ancient garden.89 As the city of Samaria was the governor’s residence, Ramat Raḥel apparently also had a similar function at this time. We can posit that, during the Persian Period, with the renewal of religious ritual in Jerusalem and the significant weakening of the status of Mizpah, this site became the governor’s place of residence and also functioned as a tax collection center for agricultural products under his auspices. It was already established as a tax collection center at the end of the First Temple Period and, perhaps at that time, it also held the residence of the imperial supervisor of the vassal kingdom, the “qepu,” which would explain the palatial buildings and tower of the first building phase. The tax collection function was probably the same under Babylonian rule, and even after Jerusalem’s destruction when the governor’s place of residence was transferred to Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh). If our identification of Ramat Raḥel with the biblical

“Beit Hakkerem” is correct, which during the Persian Period appears in the list of the “Wall Builders” in Nehemia 3:14 as one of the regional centers in the Province of Yehud, it further proves the importance of this place as a large, important regional administrative center dominating the whole area south of Jerusalem. There were four additional administrative and regional centers alongside Ramat Raḥel / Beit Hakkerem: Mizpah, the center of the northern pelek—the district correlates to the tribal inheritance of Benjamin (evidence for Mizpah’s close connection with Persian rule, continuing its status from under the former Babylonian rule); Jerusalem, the center of the pelek—the district that included the city’s environs and close vicinity and was the high priest’s place of residence; Beit Zur, center of the southern pelek—the district in the southern mountain region where a fortress serving as a regional government center probably existed; and Keʾilah, the only pelek in the Judean lowlands. Ramat Raḥel’s characteristics, as demonstrated now by the archaeological excavations, are well integrated in this system of districts in the Yehud province and provide a solid basis for its identification as Beit Hakkerem. This historical reconstruction also serves to establish an understanding and clarification of the regional centers in the biblical description of Nehemiah’s construction enterprise: each functioned as a seat of government and at the same time was an administrative center serving the district around it. As mentioned above, we assume that the power of the administrative center in Ramat Raḥel and the magnificence of the garden surrounding it indicate that Judah’s governor also resided there, and therefore it naturally became the main collection center for the agricultural products paid as imperial taxes. This scenario offers numerous possible historical reconstructions of the relationship between the provincial governors and representatives of the Persian Empire based in Ramat Raḥel, and between the priests and the exilic community’s representatives who returned to Jerusalem. Various proposals regarding the governor’s position in the management of Jerusalem’s affairs and his connections with the high priest and, of course, regarding Ramat Raḥel’s status and what it represented for the residents of Jerusalem are imaginable. The place and importance of Ramat Raḥel in the history of the period of the “Return to Zion” extends far beyond the mere administration and economy of the province, and its historical significance will definitely be discussed in future studies.

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 113

Twilight of the Administrative Center during the Early Hellenistic Period The nature and the status of the settlement at Ramat Raḥel during the Hellenistic Period are shrouded in fog. This historical era is divided between the earlier period, in which the land of Israel was governed alternatively by the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Dynasties as the middle ground between these two powerful entities to its south and north, and the latter period, which saw the Hasmonean Dynasty establish an independent government based in Judah and controlling many other parts of the country, on both sides of the Jordan. In assessing the finds coming out of the ground in the Ramat Raḥel excavations, it is remarkable that all identification marks of the Hellenistic Period’s first stage that might indicate presence of a central government representative, whether Ptolemaic or Seleucid, are missing entirely. For example, the imported ceramics characterizing this period—mold-made vessels, including well-known oil lamps and the amphorae with Rhodian and other stamp impressions—are notably absent.90 Ptolemaic and Seleucid coins were indeed found but only serve to indicate that the settlement continued to exist during this era; the evidence tells us nothing about the site serving in a governmental role. Architectural components of the classical Hellenistic architectural style are also entirely missing from Ramat Raḥel. It therefore seems likely that during Ptolemaic rule, and certainly in the transition to Seleucid rule, Ramat Raḥel lost its central role to the capital, Jerusalem. Ramat Raḥel functioned again as an administrative center for a short period in the 2nd century BCE. The main evidence for this are the yehud stamp impressions dated to this time, with 33 out of the 144 (23%)

Fig. 156: Robbed wall, eastern area (Area D5)

late-type stamp impressions found in Judah discovered at Ramat Raḥel and 31 out of the 95 (32%) yršlm stamp impressions, which are dated to the 2nd century BCE. Thus, it is clear that Ramat Raḥel functioned again at this time as an administrative center for the collection of agricultural products, but no longer as Judah’s primary administrative center. We find it difficult to connect the temporary revival in the site’s status to the public buildings and the fortifications found here. This problem can be addressed in two ways. (1) Despite the temporary decline in Ramat Raḥel’s status in the 3rd century BCE, the palace building was not destroyed. At least a part of it could have been used during the 2nd century BCE as well. (2) Partial evidence for public construction in the eastern part of the site could be attributed to this chronological stage. Aharoni documented an impressive wall at the east end of the site, which he dated to the early Hellenistic

Fig. 157: Ritual bath: staircase leading to a plastered space, as documented by Aharoni

114 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center Period (Aharoni’s Stratum IVb). He considered it to be a defensive wall, built over the more ancient eastern defensive wall. Our work reexposed both the robber trench of the Iron Age defensive wall and the wall built over it (Area D5), and we succeeded in following this new wall for an additional 25 meters to the north. A floor found close to the wall’s base in the east shows that in this period the wall is not the boundary of the site from this direction, as additional buildings were standing to its east. A similar phenomenon—wide walls built on the plan of earlier walls whose stones were robbed—was also identified in the passageway between the central and eastern courtyards, where Aharoni places the fortress gate. He documented two walls south of the “entrance gate” and stone pavement and dated the paving to the Iron Age, for use in the entrance gate. Aharoni assigned the walls post-dating the Iron Age to a late Roman Period public bathhouse.

A new analysis of the gate area makes it clear that the two walls to the south of the gate are indeed later than the Iron Age; however, they predate the Roman bathhouse. Aharoni documented a staircase leading to a plastered space in the western wall, which is now seen to be a ritual bath built into a preexisting wall. Since the ritual bath, the miqveh, predates the Roman bathhouse, it means that the wall is even earlier. The eastern wall was found to be supporting a sunken, plastered installation. Aharoni dated this installation to the late Hellenistic period. However, it is now clear that this wall also predates the bathhouse. Our excavations clarified that the stone slab flooring is from the time of the two facing walls. We therefore see the entire complex as early Hellenistic (Aharoni’s Stratum IVb). This period is also represented at the site by the late types of yehud stamp impressions and by the yršlm stamp impressions, which are firmly dated to the 2nd century BCE.

yršlm Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles

during this period. This conclusion fits with the sharp change in the nature of the settlement at Ramat Raḥel during the 2nd century BCE. The administrative center with all its luxurious buildings and its royal garden was destroyed and disappeared. A Jewish village was erected on its site, as the excavations indicate by through the numerous finds, many ritual baths, and the columbarium. A Hasmonean fortress may have also been situated near the village. Most of the yršlm stamp impressions were impressed on storage jar handles of a type similar in material and in form to the yehud jars. Nevertheless, not all were

The yršlm stamp impressions on the body or handles of jars have two distinct components: a pentagonal star and five letters in the Hebrew script—yršlm (“Jerusalem”), which appear between the five corners of the pentagram. From the beginning of research into jar handle stamp impressions, the study of the yršlm stamp impressions has been in the shadow of others, possibly because this group was the smallest in number of types and in the number of the actual stamped handles found in excavations, and, furthermore, it was probably in use for the shortest time.91 Today, we area aware of 104 handles carrying the yršlm stamp impression, of which 58 were found in Jerusalem and 33 at Ramat Raḥel. Four additional yršlm stamp impressions were found at small sites around these two centers, and thus we can draw the conclusion that this area of the hill country was the heart of the system that used these stamp impressions, with more than 90 percent out of the total found. The distribution of the stamped handles leads to another conclusion, demonstrating the rise in Jerusalem’s status during the 2nd century BCE, concurrent with the decline in Ramat Raḥel’s power and status as a collection center for the storage jar administration

Fig. 158: yršlm stamp impression

0

1cm

Chapter Nine: Third Building Phase (Late 6th or 5th Century BCE) 115

Kh. Burnat - 1

Tell en-Naṣbeh - 1 Gezer - 2 Tell el-Fûl - 1

Tel Yarmuth - 1 N. Yarmuth - 1

Ḥorvat Alamit - 1

Mamilah - 1 Jerusalem - 61 Crown Plaza Hotel - 1 Bayit Va-Gan - 1 Bethany - 1 Kh. er-Ras - 1 Ramat Raḥel - 34

Azekah - 1

Khirbet Ḥamdan - 1 Marah el-Jumma - 1

0

km

10

Fig. 159: Distribution map of the yršlm stamped jars

discovered on jar handles. In the Jewish Quarter, two yršlm stamp impressions were discovered on a jug, and at Tel Yarmuth one appeared on a cooking pot. In archaeological research, dating the yršlm stamp impression system to the beginning of the Hasmonean period is common—that is, in the second half of the 2nd century BCE. This assessment is now strengthened by the data from the Ramat Raḥel excavations. Typological research divides the yršlm stamp impressions into six main types and two additional sub-types. Because most surviving stamps are of low quality, there may actually be a few additional sub-types. The link between the late-yehud stamp impressions and the yršlm stamp impressions is visually quite obvious. Stamped jars with these impressions were found together in archaeological excavations and surveys in Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel, and other sites. The two systems were probably used simultaneously, or perhaps the yršlm stamp impression system replaced the yehud one. If we follow the first assumption, then each system had a different administrative and design function, at the same given time. If the second assumption is true, the stamp impressions were used concurrently for the same purpose: new jars were manufactured while the older ones were still in service, and the yršlm stamp impressions were introduced just after the beginning of the Hasmonean Period. The yršlm stamp impression system expressed the renewal of Jerusalem’s status and prominence and made it clear that the taxes were now explicitly directed to flow into the city, rather than into the former central administrative center at Ramat Raḥel.

Type A

Type B

Types C-C1

Types D-D1

Type E

Type F

Fig. 160: yršlm stamp impression types

Ancient Hebrew script was again used in the late yehud stamp impressions, in the yršlm stamp impressions, and in contemporary coins, after years of Aramaic being the prevalent, dominant script. The pentagram symbol is typically Hellenistic. Although there

116 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center is no historical or archaeological evidence connecting its presence in Judah to the presence of Pythagorean schools and ideas, we can hypothesize that a protective symbol with the name of the city appearing in Hebrew script was not selected at random, and that the yršlm stamp impressions were chosen deliberately as a symbol combining the west with the east. Understood in this way, the yršlm stamp impressions characterized the spirit of the times, the message, and the material culture that developed during the Hasmonean Period. Although the pentagram symbol does not appear on later Hasmonean coins, it seems that the Hasmoneans adopted the artistic motif of inscribing the letters between the sides of the geometrical shape, as can be seen, for example, in the coins of Alexander Jannaeus. It is interesting to see that the writing tradition continues, but the symbol of the pentagram disappears. Historically, the founding of this yršlm administrative system should be attributed to the days of Simeon the Hasmonean, who rose to administrative, military,

and religious power after his brother Jonathan was killed. He was involved in establishing and strengthening the kingdom, as well as promoting its economic development. As a consequence, we could come to the conclusion that the use of stamped storage jars ceased concurrently with the advent of John Hyrcanus’ coins, which indicated that the taxation system itself, originally created as a response to foreign domination, ceased under the independent local kingdom. Thus, the yršlm stamp impressions represent the last such system known in Judah. After more than 500 years, their function came to an end, and this process ended when Hasmonean independence was firmly established. The administrative center at Ramat Raḥel, which was established as the most important collection center for storage jars, also ceased to exist and disappeared off the face of the landscape. In its place and on its ruins, a Jewish village, one of the many villages surrounding the capital of the Hasmonean Kingdom in Jerusalem, was erected.

Chapter Ten: Destruction and Obsolescence of the Administrative Center at Ramat Raḥel The next chapter of settlement exposed in the Ramat Raḥel excavations marks a drastic change in the site’s historical significance. This change included intensive and unusual activities ending in destruction and obsolescence of the site. After a period of about 500 years, the official architectural complex ceased to exist and was immediately erased from the record. We do not sufficiently understand the historical circumstances behind this, nor do our excavation results contribute to an answer, but it seems reasonable to posit that its cessation relates to political and administrative changes implemented at the time of the establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom. The excavation indicates that the large enclave and all its components underwent a deliberate, concerted

process of dismantling and leveling prior to the following settlement stage, at the end of the Hellenistic Period. This action resulted in the monumental complex’s traces almost completely disappearing from the face of the earth. As a result of this clearing, and maybe even simultaneously with it, a significant change occurred in the nature of the settlement. For the first time, a rural settlement was created at Ramat Raḥel. From that time onward, and in spite of the vicissitudes of time, a rural settlement lasted here for the next 1,000 years. Evidence throughout the site demonstrates the active destruction of the grand, mighty structures of the first, second, and third building phases. Most walls were dismantled, and only a few were incorporated in

Fig. 161: Fill in Area B2, Excavation Season 2008

Fig. 162: Fill above the foundation trenches of a third building phase structure

117

118 Section Two: Government and Administrative Center the foundations of the later buildings. In particular, the western sector of the palace was severely damaged, the walls were thoroughly dismantled, and their stones removed all the way down to the foundation trenches, “robbed” for the use in later construction. The intensity of the deconstruction process is especially marked by the method in which the buildings were dismantled. The buildings that had been added to the complex in the third or second phase, described above, were characterized by walls whose infrastructure lay in extremely wide and deep foundation trenches quarried into the bedrock. After removing the foundation stones from those “robber trenches,” they were systematically and carefully filled with layers of earth, garbage, and construction waste, a huge amount of material that caused the memory of the buildings to completely disappear from the surface of the earth. As mentioned above, the foundations of these buildings were discovered only by accident during the excavations we conducted at the site, because this thorough refilling of the trenches rendered them invisible on the surface, even to trained, experienced eyes. Similarly, the imprint of the royal garden, whose original construction changed the landscape by considerably lowering the surface relative to the palace, was deliberately filled and covered. The garden area was filled with earth and waste approximately 2 meters deep, but not before the trenches, the drainpipes, and other parts of the complex and the impressive water systems of the gardens were disassembled and removed. Only a few parts of this original infrastructure were found in the covering fill and in secondary use in later buildings. The construction waste in these fills is a byproduct of the dismantling process. It includes mainly rubble from dismantled walls, fragments of wall and pool plaster, and blocks of cement removed from the core of the walls. It is striking that, except for a small number of unique decorative items such as fragments of stone capitals, fragments of colonettes, and other remains of architectural items, there are very few stone construction blocks in all these fills. This is a clear indication that the ancient buildings were a very useful ongoing source for construction materials, which were systematically recycled in later buildings. The few architectural elements that were discovered in these construction fills are a mere fraction of what was originally here but nonetheless can still shed light on the original monumental nature of the palace’s structures and its components.

Fig. 163: Fill above the southern garden area (Area C1)

An examination of the large number of pottery shards and coins collected from these fill layers shows that the latest items were from the end of the Hellenistic Period—the rule of the Hasmonean kings (end of 2nd century BCE). It is noteworthy that in most of the western areas of the site we could not find any sign of actual construction activity above the fill. Thus, it seems that the purposes of this fill was not merely construction; it was intended to restore the natural contours of the ground surface that had been changed and disturbed earlier. That strikes us as indicating the real purpose behind such efforts: to deliberately erase from the landscape and from the collective memory the dominant form and features crowning the hilltop and so highly visible throughout the area, thereby erasing the presence and memory of the alien foreign governments that had expressed itself through the royal enclave and its components for centuries. It seems that the perpetrators of this erasure succeeded above all expectations! The new historical conclusions we suggest in this book, adding an unknown chapter to our history almost 3,000 years ago, are only the result of somewhat chance excavations necessitated because of a new settlement in specific circumstances and the sporadic interest of a small group of scholars, or they never would have even been discovered. The reputation and presence of this magnificent royal administrative enclave, so extraordinary in its complexity and extravagance and highly visible beauty, the duration and very fact of its existence, and its proximity and attachment to Jerusalem, never again appeared or were mentioned in the historical sources.

Section Three: From Government Center to Jewish Village— Ramat Raḥel between the Hasmonean Period and the First Jewish–Roman War

Fig. 164: A Hasmonean Period coin

Chapter Eleven: Fourth Building Phase— The Hasmonean and Early Roman Periods Whether the administrative complex was deliberately dismantled in order to obliterate it or not, those who initiated clearing the site of the monumental buildings clearly intended to continue the settlement. This conclusion stems from seeing a new, wide-scale building phase at the site, albeit with completely different architectural attributes. The defining characteristic of this stage is the many plastered installations, ritual baths, and other pools quarried into the bedrock. Found all over the site, they were probably installed for use in the basements and the ground-level floors of buildings erected on or near them. Such installations by nature are typical of Jewish settlements from the late Second Temple Period.92 This fourth stage was damaged by later construction activities in which some buildings were dismantled and a number of walls were reused. Therefore, it is difficult to completely comprehend the settlement’s dimensions and all of its architectural characteristics. However, the number of ritual baths and their wide distribution in the site do indicate the quantity and spread of the residential buildings. The nature of these

Fig. 165: A jug from the late Hellenistic Period

remains and the profusion of artifacts relating to this historical period excavated in and around the installations, or found elsewhere in the site, clearly indicate that the fourth building period settlement follows a rural model that is completely different from what existed here previously. It seems that the emergence of the rural settlement model here at this historical juncture reflects an inevitable reality stemming from the change in Ramat Raḥel’s purpose and status: elimination of all traces of officialdom was necessary in order to erase its earlier central position in favor of the renewed central official status for Jerusalem, which was one of the expressions of Jewish political renewal and independence. The many remains from the time of the Hasmonean rule, alongside evidence that the settlement continued to exist until the Second Temple’s destruction, mean that the new settlement, like many others, was probably erected by the Hasmoneans as part of their intentional policy to strengthen the Jewish settlement and hold on the land of Israel in general, and Jerusalem’s environs in particular. Thus, the settlement history of Ramat Raḥel took a dramatic turn as a result of the political developments arising from the Hasmonean struggle for independence. When the new government institutions in Jerusalem were established, the administrative center in Judah that had operated for many years under foreign rule was no longer needed. Evidence shows that it was during these events that the old administrative center at Ramat Raḥel was destroyed and ceased to function. Its remnants were removed in order to clear the area and prepare it for the establishment of an essentially rural Jewish settlement, which became part of the agricultural periphery around Jerusalem. The numerous pottery shards, stone tools, and coins unearthed during the excavations indicate settlement during the Hasmonean Period (the late Hellenistic Period) and the Herodian Period (the early Roman Period), at least until the First Jewish–Roman War. This means that the Jewish village at Ramat Raḥel existed for almost 200 years, from the Hasmoneans in in the second half of the second century BCE, to Herod’s reign, 37–4 BCE, and through Roman rule. The settlement was probably destroyed around 70 CE during the troubled times of the Jewish revolt against

120

Chapter Eleven: Fourth Building Phase 121 the Romans: numismatic evidence shows no Jewish coins in Ramat Raḥel were dated after the second year of the revolt. Almost the only evidence left to us for determining the size and nature of the settlement are the installations quarried into the bedrock. These include at least 13 ritual baths and two columbarium caves for raising pigeons. The distribution of these installations

indicates that the Hasmonean Period village, established probably during the 2nd century BCE, occupied the entire palace and garden area of the previous phases. The village buildings were erected directly on the bedrock, whereas the ritual baths, columbarium caves,, and other installations were quarried into the bedrock and probably served as the basements of the buildings constructed over them.

Second Temple Period Ritual Baths in Ramat Raḥel

field plans together with the renewed excavation, at least eight more ritual baths were found. Additional quarried installations were partially unearthed, but their exposure is insufficient to confirm their identification as ritual baths. The dating of the ritual baths remains unsolved as well. Although the material culture indicates that the site was in existence between the 2nd century BCE and the First Jewish–Roman War, the recurring use of most installations in later periods

Five plastered installations quarried into the bedrock were already documented in Aharoni’s excavations; yet, at that time, he was unable to interpret them as ritual baths.93 They were identified as such only in the dissertation of the current author and categorized accordingly.94 Between the reexamination of Aharoni’s

Fig. 166: Plan of the ritual baths at Ramat Raḥel

122 Section Three: From Government Center to Jewish Village makes it impossible to determine when they were initially quarried. The distribution of the ritual baths here indicates the settlement’s size and strength. The local conditions forced the residents to quarry a few installations into

the hard flint of the Mishash formation, which crosses the site in broad strips. Thus, for example, in Area D6 in the southern renewed excavation area, twinned ritual baths quarried into flint layers were found, cleared

Fig. 167: Twin ritual baths during excavation in Season 2009

Fig. 169: Bathtub installation in the northern casemate wall

Fig. 168: Entrance to one of the twin ritual baths in Area D6

Fig. 170: The mosaic floor in the mansion

Chapter Eleven: Fourth Building Phase 123 of earth fill, and mapped. This operation was part of a general study of underground spaces conducted in the southern Ramat Raḥel hill by the excavation expedition together with a team from the Cave Exploration Unit of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Geography Department, led by Roi Porat and Uri Davidovich. It seems that the two ritual baths were quarried originally as one unit, with shared access through a single joint corridor. In the northeastern quadrant, Aharoni discovered a ritual bath of relatively extraordinary size, quarried under the floors of the northern casemate wall. After Aharoni’s excavation ended, this bath was filled with earth and therefore is not accessible today, but his field plans show a bathtub quarried in stone, in the immersion pool’s anteroom. This is a feature usually found in the bathing facilities of well-established settlements,, such as Jerusalem and the palaces of Jericho and Masada, and is normally not present in rural settlements. This feature therefore indicates that the Ramat Raḥel settlement was influenced by its proximity to the big city, Jerusalem. Although Aharoni could not offer an interpretation of the installation, he did attribute it to Stratum IVa, which is dated to the Herodian Period.95 The renewed excavation found that the ritual bath is a part of a sizable dwelling with a mosaic floor. The remains of this mansion and a large section of the mosaic floor were discovered during an excavation conducted under the church entrance hall floor, at a distance of only about 5 meters east of the ritual bath.

filled with earth almost to the top, and at its end arrive in another rounded columbarium space (Space C). This discovery meant that the columbarium cave excavated by Aharoni’s expedition in the northern quadrant was not the only one in the late Second Temple Period rural village, nor was it the most complex or primary system of its type here. After the discovery of an additional entrance, it was decided to conduct an organized excavation of the system, which when completed had uncovered an entire underground system of spaces, sometimes used for raising pigeons. Our examination showed that this underground system was in use at least since the Hellenistic Period (perhaps even earlier) and into modern times. It underwent interesting structural and functional changes, especially during the 1st century BCE, the main period in which the underground system was in use and when the columbarium was at the height of its activity. The system included a total of about seven stratigraphic-chronological stages. It seems that the type of rock, a combination of soft chalk of the Menuha

The Southern Columbarium One of the most exciting and intriguing discoveries at Ramat Raḥel was an underground system for raising pigeons—that is, a “columbarium” (columba in Latin means pigeon). This existence of this system here was not previously known. The discovery was possible thanks to a 2006 survey of underground spaces conducted in the southern Ramat Raḥel hill, which early on discovered a small, round, vertical entrance shaft leading down into a rounded space (Space D in the Columbarium Plan). Columbarium niches were arranged in four layers in its quarried walls. In the northern part of this space, above an ancient wall built into it, one could continue crawling a few more meters northward through a space

Fig. 171: Space D in the columbarium immediately after its discovery in Season 2006

124 Section Three: From Government Center to Jewish Village

F C

Fig. 173: The ancient space at the end of Season 2010

A-B

E D

Fig. 172: The columbarium plan

formation and reddish breccia of Mishash formation flint, is responsible for the extreme changes it underwent. The ongoing erosion and crumbling that resulted created many problems for those utilizing this space, forcing them to change its plan from time to time and perhaps even led to their eventually abandoning it. The story of this system begins with a space that was quarried extremely deep, with the base found about 8 meters under the surface. The date of the original quarrying process, its full dimensions, the entrance access way, and even its function are unclear. It may have been a space created in the earliest historical stages, but it might also have been initially quarried during the Hasmonean Period and was designed from the beginning to serve as a columbarium. The two rows of niches found in the uppermost preserved section, about 4.5 meters under the surface, certainly make it evident that its intended use was for raising pigeons. We cannot know if this plan was actually executed, because at a certain stage, probably at the end of the Hasmonean Period, the ancient space went through a significant structural change. The floor was raised by

Fig. 174: Columbarium niches in Space C

Fig. 175: Retaining walls in the central space

over half, reaching to about 4 meters below the surface, and the upper section of the system was redesigned. The reason for this change was probably an attempt to cope with the problematic qualities of the chalky rock in which the space was quarried, with its high

Chapter Eleven: Fourth Building Phase 125

Fig. 176: Space F after neutralization of the niches in its walls, and opening two spaces in its floor

tendency to crack, to rapidly erode, and with an upper layer of hard nari rock too thin to adequately protect the quarried space below. As mentioned above, the revamped columbarium was the operative feature of the main period when the underground space was used. The system consisted of a relatively wide entrance hall (A–B), whose dimensions were 6 × 4 meters, and four attached semirounded chambers, two on the north (C and F) and two on the south (D and E). All the chambers were quarried at a height identical to that of the main hall, except the southwestern one (E), whose floor was, for an unknown reason, raised about 2 meters above the hall’s floor. The system could probably have been accessed by descending on wooden ladders from two small rectangular entrances located in the main hall’s western section. Rows of columbarium niches were quarried into the system’s walls, including the main hall and the secondary chambers. The number of niche

layers changed according to the available height of the space. Chambers C and D, which were found well preserved, included four well-arranged layers with niches of uniformly arched outlines with a height and depth was about 20 centimeters. On the other hand, niches in the main hall’s western and southern walls were laid out in unorganized layers and were of uneven dimensions. Only in its northeastern corner were the masons confronted with an unexpected problem—a pocket of flint conglomerate that only allowed a few niches to be quarried. The loss of potential niches is probably the reason why a wall was integrated into the main space’s eastern section; the wall was composed of roughly refined stones, supported by a retaining wall built into the fills of the lower, older space. Square columbaria niches were built into this wall, which partly separates the two units of the main hall (A in the west and B in the east). The purpose of this wall probably was to increase the number of niches for pigeons in the underground system. In spite of its relative complexity, the columbarium at Ramat Raḥel does not appear to be a real industrial facility. We estimate that the system included about 150 niches during its main period of use, as described above, and this number includes unexcavated parts of the system and niches that were neutralized later (see below, Chamber F). This capacity fits with our assessment that during the 1st century BCE there was a rural agricultural settlement at Ramat Raḥel, and raising pigeons is a helpful component of a farm, producing fertilizer, feathers, another food source, and so on. It does not resemble the Judean Lowland columbaria installations, which have thousands of niches each. These clearly served as industrial pigeon-raising facilities, an industry in the full sense of the word. At a certain stage, probably not long after the revised design of the underground system, another change was implemented, expressed by the construction of retaining walls and a central pillar, designed to support the thin eroded and cracked ceiling. Because of these walls, the use of Unit B was discontinued and many niches were blocked. Nevertheless, this underground space probably continued to function as a columbarium. Possible proof of this may lie in the two low passages inside the walls, which were designed to continue managing the traffic of pigeons and of people between the spaces. Only in the following stage, probably toward the end of the 1st century BCE, did the system cease to be a columbarium for pigeon raising: at this stage, all the

126 Section Three: From Government Center to Jewish Village northwestern Space F niches were neutralized, with clearly evident diagonal pick-axe blows on the space’s walls and floor. Entrances were opened leading into two small spaces: one (G) was a small bell-shaped storage space, empty of any accumulated fill and covered with two thin, flat stone tablets; the other (H) included a low entrance shaft, with a short section branching out eastward, whose quarrying was never finished. Typologically, these changes resemble emergency channeling implemented in underground systems, such as the hundreds of hide-out systems found in Judah from the time of the revolts against the Romans. Perhaps similar preparations took place in the Ramat Raḥel columbarium, although at the moment there is insufficient evidence. A small cooking pot with 15 Tyrian silver coins was hidden in a niche in the main hall’s southwestern corner. This discovery may support the hypothesis about the use of this columbarium cave as a shelter during times of distress. Although the circumstances of this hoard’s placement are unknown, it may reflect times of trouble befalling the rural settlement at Ramat Raḥel at the end of the 1st millennium BCE, perhaps due to the instability in Judah in the last years of King Herod’s reign or as part of the aftermath of his death in 4 BCE. At this stage, the underground system certainly ceased to serve its original purpose. Immediately after the hoard was hidden, the system started to fill with waste thrown into it from the openings. The process of filling the system was gradual but it had begun already in the early Roman period—that is, even before the First Jewish–Roman War and the destruction of the Jewish settlement here. This date is based on the large amounts of pottery shards found in the thick fill accumulated on the hall’s floor and in the secondary spaces, and this accumulation also served as witness to a local

Fig. 177: Stone vessel fragment from the Columbarium

glass industry. The system continued to fill up in later periods as well, until by the Byzantine Period the main hall was completely blocked. The last stage in the system’s history, the key to its discovery (as without it, we would have probably never known about it at all), occurred during fortification works on the hilltop, probably as part of the preparations for the 1948 War of Independence, when the wide, open entrance at the top of Space D was mistakenly breached by the bottom of the central communication trench passing through the southern part of the hill. This entrance, not from the system’s original period of use, is the one through which we entered into the system in the 2006 excavation season, when we initially discovered its secrets.

The Tyrian Silver Coin Hoard in the Columbarium In the 2008 season, a hoard of 15 Tyrian shekels (silver tetradrachms) was found concealed in the columbarium. The hoard was discovered in a small clay cooking pot placed into one of the pigeon-raising niches, a bit above the central space’s floor. Because the coins were minted in Tyre, they are called “Tyrian shekels” in rabbinic literature. One coin dates to 38/37 BCE, and the others range from 22–10 BCE. All the coins are of the same type, displaying the bust of Melqarth-Heracles on the obverse and an eagle standing left above a stylized ram on the reverse. The average weight of each coin is 13.50 grams. In addition to this buried hoard, two additional caches of silver Tyrian coins dated to the late 1st century BCE were found at Qumran and Mount Scopus, and both were probably also buried at this time. However, the Ramat Raḥel hoard differs from those two and from other contemporary hoards because it contains only Tyrian silver coins. During that period, these silver coins were the mainstay of the regional economic system, and it may therefore be argued that this is the normal hidden savings of an individual or family or, perhaps, a “savings hoard” of high-quality coins. Nevertheless, the uniformity of the denomination and the fact that it included only Tyrian silver coins indicate that not only was it a single deposit and not an accumulation over time but it might be related to “the half-shekel coin tax” that every Jewish man brought or sent to the Temple once a year.

Chapter Eleven: Fourth Building Phase 127

Fig. 178: The buried hoard during its discovery

Fig. 180: Some hoard coins after cleaning

Fig. 179: The hoard before cleaning

The coins from Tyre contained an extremely high percentage of silver, and the Tyrian mint was universally trusted not to debase their coinage. This mint’s half-shekel were therefore chosen by the Jewish Sages for use as the official coin for the payment of the tax, at least until the outbreak of the First Jewish–Roman War in 66 CE, when Jewish silver coins of the revolt were minted in Jerusalem. If the purpose of this treasure

was indeed the payment of the tax, 15 coins would pay the tax of 30 men. Based on the latest date on the hoard’s coins, it was definitely not buried before 11/10 BCE. The reason for the burial is unknown. The background may have been a local reason or perhaps even personal, but it can be suggested that the motivation may relate to the instability in the last years of King Herod’s reign and the riots occurring in Jerusalem and its environs upon the king’s death in 4 BCE. Although many reasons can be suggested to explain the hoard’s burial and the failure of its owner to retrieve it, they can be nothing more than hypotheses. It may not have been premeditated and was perhaps done in haste, a hypothesis supported by the following facts. The pot was placed in an open space and not hidden in a more concealed spot; a vessel that took up much more space than the coins themselves was used to bury it; and a jug base was its cover. We assume that the coins were buried in the niche after the cave was no

128 Section Three: From Government Center to Jewish Village longer used for raising pigeons, and therefore the date of the latest coin is probably also the date when the use of the cave came to an end. The owner of the hoard hid the cooking pot with the 15 silver coins and never came back to collect it.

We shall never know who he was, why he hid it, and his reason for not collecting it. The exposure of the treasure 2,000 years later raises many questions and opens a window for further study of the site’s history at the end of the 1st century BCE.

Section Four: The Rural Settlement— Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad Periods until the Days of Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 181: Bronze medallion in the form of a cross

Chapter Twelve: Fifth Building Phase— Late Roman and Byzantine Period Settlements Like other rural settlements in the Jerusalem region, the Second Temple Period village at Ramat Raḥel ceased to exist when the Jewish revolt (66–70 CE) was suppressed and crushed and Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Later site developments have not left us concrete evidence of this destruction, but the numismatic data does: Jewish coins dated to no later than the revolt’s second year mark an abrupt cessation, as the general area continued to exist for several more years; then an extended numismatic gap follows. This serves as pivotal evidence for dating the site’s abandonment. Moreover, considering all the buildings and artifacts unearthed in the various excavations, there is a striking absence of evidence for the existence of a settlement or another Jewish presence that can be related to the period between the two Jewish revolts (70–132 CE) or to that of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE). This last point is extremely important because of the site’s proximity to the famous bastions of the revolt in Herodium to the southeast, on one hand, and to Beitar to the southwest, on the other. One would have assumed that such a strategic hilltop, lying within several hours’ walk of either base, would have been manned by the rebels. This supports the hypothesis that Ramat Raḥel was inaccessible to the rebels because it was located within the borders of the Orina Toparchy, the administrative Roman entity occupying the hill country around Jerusalem. After the city was destroyed, Orina was the administrative structure replacing the late Second Temple Period District of Jerusalem. According to this hypothesis, as a result of the revolt, a peripheral strip ringing Jerusalem was expropriated from the rural Jewish settlement to create an enlarged district subject to direct Roman military rule. Aharoni’s Stratum III is outstanding, with its Roman period structures, including a peristyle villa and a public bathhouse using ceramic bricks impressed with the Tenth Roman Legion stamp. In Aharoni’s opinion, these buildings indicated the central government’s restored grip on the site—in the form of a military camp—because of its strategic location in relation to Jerusalem, now in its new identity as “Colonia Aelia Capitolina.” Aharoni’s preliminary assessment dated this stage to the mid-3rd century CE. However, after analysis of newly acquired data and renewed examination of the original discoveries, this interpretation

and dating can no longer be accepted. The existence of a small bathhouse might be a sign of luxury alone and cannot definitively indicate military presence at the site. Producing construction materials for the public was a Roman army task, as mentioned below, and thus, merely discovering stamped materials in a building does not in any way signify the presence of the Tenth Legion Fretensis. Without any supporting evidence for the remains of military barracks, a military fortress, or any other items of a military nature, we should not reject other interpretations. And because no evidence supports the military hypothesis, the bathhouse remains an isolated installation on the hilltop, with no military context. In our opinion, the bathhouse should be linked to other structures exposed at the site that also should be placed in the Roman period. Some of these buildings are of an agricultural and industrial nature, and others were designed for residence, such as the structure with the peristyle courtyard exposed about 30 meters northwest of the bathhouse. Combining all these elements suggests that at this stage Ramat Raḥel featured a rural Roman villa (the well-known “Villa Rustica” style) with its typical adjacent bathhouse. Thus, it seems that Ramat Raḥel was a part of a new settlement model that developed in the hilly region south of Jerusalem, formed of private estates, such as those excavated in Ein Yael (about 3 kilometers west of Ramat Raḥel) and at Um el-ʿAtzaphir (about 1.5 kilometers to the southeast). Roman bathhouses are part of the complex in both places. These sites were probably the private estates of high provincial Roman government officials or belonged to officers who were Roman army veterans and thus had close relations with the military units stationed in the region. It should be taken into account that the implications of the relatively late date previously suggested for this phase—mid-3rd century BCE—are that this leaves the site unpopulated for almost two hundred years. According to the discoveries in the field and a stylistic and artistic comparative study, we believe that the aforementioned date is unjustified. This type of Roman bathhouse and its mosaics fit just as well about one hundred years earlier. Moreover, since the time fifty years ago when the bricks with the legion’s stamp impressions were first

130

Chapter Twelve: Fifth Building Phase 131 found in the bathhouse exposed at Ramat Raḥel, the brick factory of the Tenth Legion Fretensis itself has now been discovered during excavations around modern Jerusalem’s International Convention Center at the city’s western entrance. This factory manufactured large quantities of bricks and roof tiles with the stamp impressions of the Tenth Legion. An updated typological analysis of these impression types shows that only three out of fifty types known today are represented at Ramat Raḥel, and those three types are not necessarily among the most recent ones. Thus, today it is clear that there is no reason to date them to the second half of the 3rd century CE, and they can be dated to an earlier stage in the 2nd century CE. In this context, we should emphasize that the Legion’s ANTONINIANA impression type, of the brick factory production’s last stage,

dated to the beginning of the 3rd century CE, have not been found in the bathhouse nor at any other location in Ramat Raḥel. Therefore these Legion stamps do not support the late date suggested for the bathhouse. We believe that a date between the two Jewish revolts, that is, between 70–135 CE, is more reasonable for the beginning of this phase in Ramat Raḥel’s settlement history. Thus, it becomes clear that at Ramat Raḥel there was only a short period between the existence of one settlement and another, and it makes sense that this gap was between the two revolts, when the Jewish settlement ceased to exist in this region and the hilltop here had not yet been populated by the new occupants. This hypothesis seems reasonable because during this period the same phenomenon also occurred at other sites around Jerusalem.

Rare Hadrian Bulla In the summer 2006 excavation season, a small bulla of lead was found.96 The bulla is purplish, its diameter is 11 millimeters, and it weighs 0.72 grams. The following three-line inscription appears on its obverse: IMP [H?]ADRIAN [A]VG The bulla’s reverse is smooth, apart from the indentation of the string that sealed the document with this bulla attached. The bulla is slightly broken in its left section, and therefore a few letters are incomplete. In addition, apart from a thin circular line, there is no clear evidence for the standard stamp frame on the bulla. This can be an indication that the stamp was larger than the bulla’s surface area, and therefore the full inscription was not impressed onto the lead. The following restoration can be suggested for the abbreviated inscription on the bulla: Imp(eratoris) [H]adrian(i) or Adrian(i) [A]ug(usti) If this restoration is correct, then the translation of the inscription would be: “(Seal) of Imperator Hadrianus Augustus.” The inscription indicates that the object to which the bulla was attached belonged to the Emperor, or more likely, the object that was sent from one place to another in a container sealed with the bulla was identified as belonging to the Emperor.

Fig. 182: The lead bulla, obverse and reverse

As far as we know, the best parallel to the Ramat Raḥel bulla is one carrying the name of the emperor Trajan. The difference between Trajan’s bulla, which is 30 millimeters in diameter, and the much smaller 11-millimeter Ramat Raḥel bulla, apparently indicates that Trajan’s bulla sealed an official package, whereas the Ramat Raḥel bulla sealed an official letter, probably written on papyrus and sealed with a single seal. Roman imperial lead sealings, especially those with Hadrian’s name, are extremely rare. This is apparently the first of its kind to be found in Israel. Moreover, no other example of this type, with Hadrian’s name,

132 Section Four: The Rural Settlement is known so far from the Roman World. It should be emphasized that although imperial bullae are evidence for imperial shipments, they do not prove the physical presence of the emperor at the find-spot. According to evidence from other places in the Roman Empire, and also based on common sense, it is more reasonable to assume that bullae would be found where they were sent to, not where they were sent from. Therefore, the

discovery of the bulla at Ramat Raḥel may indicate that it was the destination of an official consignment. If so, this is a further indication that indeed, during the 2nd century CE, the site served as a temporary or permanent station for a Roman military unit, or, as we now suggest, as a private estate of a high Roman official, former officer, or a close associate of the Roman provincial authorities.

When did this chapter of the settlement end? Since there was no clear physical evidence, our predecessors sought to use only historical considerations as the basis of their analysis. Naturally, the significant event of the Tenth Legion’s departure at the end of the 3rd century was the logical moment—but only if we accept the initial assumption that this settlement at Ramat Raḥel was indeed of a military nature at this historical moment. In our opinion, first of all, in principle such dating is too circumstantial and unclear to force it on the site’s settlement history without its having a sustainable basis in archaeology. Moreover, in analyzing the single general plan presented by Aharoni, which collected all the late-strata architectural remains (Strata II and III),97 it is impossible to create a reasonable differentiation among the various remains and to secure an acceptable representation of each settlement stratum. It appears that this issue reflects the objective difficulties that Aharoni faced when he attempted to form a continuous series of plans for the various stages according to the stratigraphic data alone. Because the exposed remains were both fragmentary and difficult to definitively attribute to a specific period, Aharoni and his team members were forced to rely excessively on historical considerations. We would like to offer another approach here instead, one that does not require applying the accepted historical division, which is based on geopolitical changes, to every local stratigraphic analysis and suggested identification. A stand-alone examination of the nature of the remains and the way they developed in the region is self-evident seems to reflect the gradual, continuous development of the local community’s life in various areas. If so, judging only by the exposed material culture, no real changes occurred at Ramat Raḥel between the 2nd and the 8th centuries CE. Certainly, at least, there were no changes that justify a strict division into separate settlement layers. Instead, we recreate processes involving natural

growth and sociocultural changes that occurred in the course of generations from the initial establishment of the Roman villa estate until the consolidation of the Christian community on the hilltop and in the area. Nonetheless, it of course remains important to apply stratigraphic diagnoses to the various remains, if only to trace the physical expressions of the changes occurring during the settlement’s history. Pursuant to this, we offer the following scenario. An initial small, family community settled in the place and grew and developed over the years. This development was regularly accompanied by repairs and modifications of existing buildings and by new buildings erected near them. This phenomenon stands out especially in the agricultural facilities exposed in Aharoni’s excavations and in the renewed excavations in the southern part of the site. These excavations exposed a system of insulae that were divided into rooms and yards. As a rule, the agricultural facilities remained in continuous use (with certain changes) for centuries, from the Roman to the Umayyad periods. For example, a rectangular basin was exposed in Area D1, which was probably a part of a wine production installation. There were small stairs on the walls of the pit and a settling pit in its floor whose walls were lined with mosaic pieces. Two square chambers were found on the surface area above the basin’s western wall. It seems that at least one chamber opened into the basin through a drainpipe, but later layers of plaster sealed its opening. The remains of a constructed arch that roofed the basin can be seen on the basin’s eastern side. The stones of this arch were covered with plaster, which, when the installation was in operation, served to cover the basin. Afterward, the use of the grape-pressing device was discontinued, and the plastered basin was deliberately filled with earth and stones. Large stone slabs were placed on the top of the basin and then integrated into the room’s floor, and the facility was converted for the production of olive oil. The olive press facility

Chapter Twelve: Fifth Building Phase 133 included a rounded crushing stone, a screw press, and a constructed, plastered basin with a rounded outline and a stone gutter leading into it. An additional settling basin was exposed by Aharoni about 10 meters to the east of this one. This basin also was first used for wine, but later it too was modified to be an olive press, based on the nearby stones used for crushing, squeezing, and draining. The most complete and intact grape extraction device was discovered under the church floors in the northeastern part of the site. It has three square collection pools, a paved pressing floor and a screw press for extraction emplaced in the floor surface. All these parts were documented in a field plan left by Aharoni but are absent in his publications. When cleaning the pools and mosaic floor, we ascertained that the installation was built inside an insula whose walls were neutralized when the church was founded. Since the wine-press floor made of industrial mosaic stones is

located under the church floor, it therefore precedes it. This change occurred at the end of the Byzantine Period or at the beginning of the Umayyad Period (7th/8th century CE). Because the facility went out of use during the construction of the church, this means that the cessation of wine production was not related to changes in the religious identity of the occupants. Perhaps the gradual conversion of wine production facilities to olive oil production is related to market changes in the local demand for wine and oil after Islam’s dominance of the region (unlike the wine export market, which continued to prosper). The rural nature of the community is also suggested by the existence of a very large late Roman graveyard, which occupies the northwestern part of the hill. The graveyard includes dozens of graves of singles and couples. The buried remains are generally meager, and only small glass bottles, single pieces of jewelry, and iron nails were found.

The Late Roman Period Graveyard In the late Roman Period, the northwestern part of the site was converted into a graveyard, which already had been discovered in Aharoni’s excavations. Moshe Kochavi, who managed the excavations in this part of the site, identified two main types of graves: burial caves and “excavated” or “pit” graves.98 The renewed excavations showed the “excavated” grave to be the most common form of burial. The graves were discovered all over the northern part of the site (Areas A, B1, B2, B3, C2 and C4) and are not oriented in a uniform direction. Some are

Fig. 183: Aerial photograph of the Roman graveyard (the northern complex)

Fig. 184: Exposure of a grave

134 Section Four: The Rural Settlement

813.77

0

Fig. 186: Covering stones of a grave

1m

Fig. 185: Typical section of an excavated grave (Area B2)

aligned from east to west and others from north to south. In general, they are of the same architectural type of burial, with a number of sub-types that differ in the manner of corpse treatment and grave contents. The grave plan consists of a pit excavated in the ground or quarried into the bedrock, of an average length of 170 centimeters and an average width of 0.5 meters. Their depth varies and apparently depends on the particular nature of the surface area and the rock the workmen encountered at each location. The standard plan has an access shaft penetrating the earth or rock and ending in a burial chamber into which the corpse was placed. The burial chamber was separated from the shaft, and the body was sealed in and protected by 3–5 large rectangular covering stones, which were locked into place above the corpse without directly touching it, through a kind of track cut into the rock or by bases that were placed in the lower part of the shaft’s walls. When the grave was excavated into earth, the burial chamber walls were reinforced and lined with stones to support the covering stones. The sub-types are distinguished from each other mainly by the grave’s contents, the positioning of the

Fig. 187: Whole glass bottles, as found in some graves

corpse, and by the number of people buried inside. The excavated graves were most often designed for primary burial and generally meant for a single individual. However, four graves with two corpses each were discovered in the northern part of the graveyard. One body lay on its front with its head facing in one direction, and the other lay above it on its back, with its face in the opposite direction. Most graves at Ramat Raḥel were sealed and still contained the corpse’s skeleton. In the southern part

Chapter Twelve: Fifth Building Phase 135

Fig. 188: Jewelry from graves excavated in Area C4

Fig. 190: Lead coffin and contents

Fig. 189: Iron nails, some still with the wood remnants they were affixed to

of the graveyard (Area C4), the corpses were found with offerings, such as whole glass bottles (2–4 in each grave) and jewelry—for example, gold earrings and iron nails. As opposed to the relative richness of material displayed here, the corpses in the northern part of the graveyard were unaccompanied by objects, without exception, in all of those graves. How can this difference be explained? One possible explanation is the difference in social status: people of higher status were buried in the south, with grave offerings, and poor people were buried in the north. This hypothesis is apparently strengthened by the phenomenon of the double burials, which were found only in the northern part of the graveyard. However, an alternative explanation may stem from a sociological or religious difference in the perception of burial itself. Perhaps this is a consequence of the long period of use of the Ramat Raḥel graveyard and changing mores

over time. According to this explanation, the material modesty of the graves in the northern part of the graveyard is a result of deliberate intent, not born of an economic need. One unique grave should be presented in detail. Three excavated graves quarried into bedrock were found in Area C2, adjacent to the Iron Age western tower’s walls. The contents of one were extraordinary. A lead box was found in it, 80 centimeters long, 50 centimeters wide, and 30 centimeters in depth, containing the teeth of a two-year-old female toddler, as well as gold earrings and very broad-looking iron nails. This burial of a female toddler in an iron coffin is unique in the land of Israel in general and at Ramat Raḥel in particular. Additional graveyards with this kind of dug-out grave have been discovered in other places near Jerusalem, such as, for example, Beit Safafa, slightly south of Ramat Raḥel,99 but also elsewhere in the country such as at Horbat Kosit near Baka el-Gharbiyya, north of Samaria, which proves that this burial style was widespread in the land of Israel during the Roman Period.100 The main data for dating the graveyard at Ramat Raḥel are the glass vessels found in the southern graves of the late Roman Period (3rd–4th centuries CE).101 From a stratigraphic perspective, the southern graves were dug into the architectural infrastructures of the massive expansion carried out during the Persian Period, and some clearly are cut into the garden earth.

136 Section Four: The Rural Settlement Political and sociocultural processes were always in the background, and they definitely had a degree of influence on the gradual changing nature of the settlements and on the population. The Roman Empire’s conversion to Christianity certainly had such influences, expressed at Ramat Raḥel by the appearance of a church in the existing settlement fabric. The church was inserted into the industrial facilities and ancient residences at the northeastern edge of the populated hilltop, apparently taking advantage of the preexisting infrastructure as its foundation. Its plan and design are that of a modest rural church, geared to serve the local population. Aharoni and his colleagues did not divine the true nature of the processes. In their reliance on interpreting historical sources containing church descriptions, they were eager for the possibility of identifying the Ramat Raḥel church with the famous Kathisma Church. This led to attributing an extremely early foundation date to the church—the 5th Century CE—and thus they preferred to characterize the entire constructed area around it as a monastery. The overall settlement area was thus considered to be the Kathisma Monastery and its environs. The real Church of Kathisma was discovered during the 1990s at the foot of the hill below Ramat Raḥel, lying on the main road—at the third Roman mile between Jerusalem and Bethlehem—exactly as it was described in the ancient Christian sources, and it was excavated by an Israel Antiquities Authority expedition.102 In view of this discovery, the circumstances of the construction of the church on the top of the hill, the date of its establishment, its function, and identity and all other remains connected thereto should be reconsidered. Our renewed examinations show that

the church was erected at the end of the 6th century or during the 7th century CE. This dating is based on material remains sealed under the mosaic floor of the church. The finds also indicate that apart from local repairs, modifications, and additions, the settlement’s community life, including the use of the church, continued throughout early Islamic rule without any special interference. In fact, only in the 8th century CE under Umayyad rule do signs of destruction and fire appear in various places at the site. This scenario of destruction implies a sudden termination of the settlement, from which it apparently never recovered, at least not as a Christian settlement. Perhaps the settlement came to a sudden end as a result of that famous, destructive, and all-encompassing earthquake that occurred on January 18, 749 CE.103 Answers to the question of the function and identity of the church and the settlement at Ramat Raḥel can be found in the same Christian sources that had previously been used to identify this church with the

Fig. 191: Rectangular catch basin in Area D1

Fig. 192: Olive press facility built above the basin in Area D1

Chapter Twelve: Fifth Building Phase 137

Fig. 193: Installation under the church floors according to Aharoni’s plan

Church of Kathisma. In the Gregorian calendar, which consolidated the schedule of services and memorial days within the Church of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period, we find the following topographical notations for the thirteenth day of August: “On the way to Bethlehem, on the third mile, in the village of Bethofor, at Kathisma, at the Church of the Mother of God a memorial service [will be held] with fasting and dedication.” This makes it clear that both places— the Kathisma and Bethofor Pago—are located at the third mile, at the side of the road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. As noted earlier, in the past, a great deal of attention was directed toward the mention of Kathisma, as opposed to that of the second place— Bethofor Pago. The Latin term Pago attached to a name usually denotes a village; in our case, it refers to the village closest to the Kathisma Church. Previous researchers of Ramat Raḥel paid no heed to this toponym, probably due to their fixed idea regarding the identity of the Kathisma. Only now, with the discovery of the authentic Kathisma located adjacent

Fig. 194: Agricultural installation under the church floors

to the remains of the extensive settlement at the top of the hill, can it be stated with relative certainly (in the spirit of the words of Pascual Testini of Aharoni’s expedition) that the information given in the historical source “matches perfectly the historical surroundings.” Therefore, there is little room to doubt

138 Section Four: The Rural Settlement the nature of the village, whose name, Bethofor, we now know. To this we can add the variants of Bethofor—Pathofor and Betheabra—both of which are also mentioned in other Byzantine calendars. The fate of the famous neighboring church confirms the date that we suggested for the termination of the settlement, attributing the end of both due to the earthquake recorded in the mid-8th century CE. The excavators of the Church of Kathisma attributed its last building phase to the 8th century CE, during which the church, or at least part of it, was converted into a mosque. This building phase may be the result of the same fate that befell the village located on the adjacent hill. Although the Kathisma located on the main road continued to function in this hybrid state up through the late 9th and early 10th centuries CE, it

is unclear whether it remained under Christian control. From then on, until the 12th century CE, there are no references in historical records regarding the fate of the church. An explanation of the silence of the sources may be hinted at in the description by the pilgrim, the abbot Daniel, who wrote in 1106 CE that the Kathisma and all its surroundings were deserted and in ruins, serving only as a source of building stones for the local Arab population. Thus, the church and its environs descend into the abyss of desolation. Because both places were mentioned together in the sources, and because they disappeared simultaneously, it seems reasonable to assume that the fate of the Church of Kathisma also befell the adjacent village, Bethofor.

Chapter Thirteen: Abbasid to Ottoman Periods (660–1517 CE) The character of Ramat Raḥel after the 7th century CE Islamic conquest, according to Aharoni’s excavation publications, was that of a meager and shortlived settlement that ended by the middle of the 8th century CE.104 The settlement is barely discussed in the initial excavation reports of this stage (Aharoni’s Stratum I), and only a handful of the objects related to it were published, mainly the pottery shards. Jody Magness meticulously reanalyzed the stages of Aharoni’s excavations from the late Roman Period to the early Islamic Period. She also reached a similar conclusion: “Although a number of pottery types continued to exist until the 8th and 9th centuries . . . combined with the absence of the Abassid coins and later ceramic types such as the ‘mefjar’ ware and glazed pottery, point to the abandonment of Ramat Raḥel in about the middle of the 8th century.”105 Magness’s well-reasoned argument relied only on the discoveries published by Aharoni, and, in fact, on the findings that Aharoni chose not to publish and not mention in the excavation reports. This picture completely changed right from the beginning of the renewed excavations, and it is this that encouraged us to meticulously examine the unpublished materials of Aharoni’s excavations. As mentioned above, the combined evidence from Aharoni’s excavations and those of the renewed excavations show that the Ramat Raḥel settlement was

Fig. 195: Glazed bowl with carved decoration (Kerbschnitt) from Aharoni’s excavations

Fig. 196: Room of the complex excavated by Aharoni south of the church

destroyed in the 8th century CE, probably due to the well-known earthquake in the year 749. At this point, it is difficult to determine if the settlement was temporarily vacated because of the earthquake or if some of its residents stayed, but it is quite clear that this disaster terminated the settlement as a prosperous Christian village. The following stage saw a significant decline in the settled area of the site, and changes occur in its plan, and to some extent in its nature, as well. Aharoni’s excavations in the church’s vicinity together with the renewed analysis of the objects show that, after the mid-8th century CE, the church ceased to serve as a public building. Its mosaic floor was partially destroyed and scanty partition walls were built over it. It seems that the plundering of the building stones and the other architectural and liturgical items of the church, including the pillars and their capitals, the parts of the decorative marble screen around the altar and the altar’s cross-shaped base, should also be attributed to this stage. Some were reused for new construction and others were crushed for lime production. The few objects discovered in the church’s vicinity that could be dated and associated for certain to the later remains were only pottery shards, whose date does not precede the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 9th century. These include a jar made of patterned buff ware and a chip-carved, decorated glazed bowl (Kerbschnitt). The excavation of all the rooms and the alley south of the church demonstrated that this area also ceased

139

140 Section Four: The Rural Settlement

B

G

Fig. 198: Building in Area D1, view facing south D

E

Fig. 197: Building plan of Area D1

to function, at least in its original format, after the mid-8th century CE. At least two rooms had their entrances blocked by a stone construction. A kiln was built into one of these rooms, where we assume the limestone and marble construction stones and architectural items removed from the ruined church were burned. Next to it, from the same historical stage is a floor partially made of ceramic shingles, most probably also taken from the church. Some rooms, especially those whose entrances were blocked, held numerous objects, mainly complete and broken pottery vessels, of which the latest dated to the 8th century CE, as mentioned above. These assemblages may show that, after the rooms were abandoned but before they were blocked, other parts of the building were cleared of items that were discarded and placed here, apparently to clear and prepare a few of the building’s wings for reuse, such as for the construction of the lime kiln and perhaps even for temporary residence. Analyses of the material finds and architectural complexes from the Byzantine and Umayyad periods exposed by Aharoni, such as the Byzantine halls and the peristyle structure (the villa) west of the church,

and the residential and industrial buildings to its south, indicate that they were also vacated between the middle and the end of the 8th century or, at the latest, in the beginning of the 9th century CE. In any event, the last stage of their existence left no evidence of intensive and continuous activity, which would have produced many artifacts. The rooms may have been used for temporary residence or as a source for construction stones. Therefore, it seems that at least in the northern area of the site, the settlement was not renewed after the 8th century CE. In other parts of the site, especially in the southeast (Area D1 of the renewed excavation), the renewal of the settlement can in fact be detected. The new excavations at the site exposed for the first

Fig. 199: Clay oil lamp from Area D1

Chapter Thirteen: Abbasid to Ottoman Periods (660–1517 CE) 141

Fig. 202: Glazed bowl (luster ware) from Aharoni’s excavations

Fig. 200: Zoomorphic vessel fragment from Area D1

Fig. 201: Jar handle with Arabic impression from Area D1

time an architectural complex that was mostly built during the Abbasid Period and continued to be used until the end of the early Islamic Period. This complex incorporated the remains of a building and the olive press it housed, which operated from the late Byzantine Period through the Late Umayyad Period. The new building had a large central courtyard paved with

smoothed stone slabs, and was surrounded by rooms, seemingly from all four directions. An entrance was discovered in the southeastern corner leading to an underground space, mostly located under the courtyard and built between ancient walls, roofed by the paved floor and supported by a gable. A small plastered section over the stones and the round entrance imply that the space was used as a water cistern, but perhaps it was for storage. Two rooms lying north and south of the yard were covered by a vault, and their floor was about one meter lower than the courtyard floor. The northern room, and so too another room west of it, were paved with stone slabs similar to those of the courtyard, and the southern room’s floor was made of hard-pressed earth. In this latter room, two stone troughs and three elevated stone shelves perhaps indicate that it was used for some kind of craft or maybe for housing animals. It should be noted that the southern room’s construction finally terminated the use of the ancient olive press there (if this had not occurred earlier). The top of the screw press was cut off to adjust its height to the level of the new floor. The plastered settling pool of the olive press was left unchanged, but it might have been used now for dry product storage. Based on the latest pottery shards discovered under the building’s southern room floor and on the complete absence of glazed ceramics in this complex, the room’s construction—and perhaps the entire building—may be dated to the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 9th century CE, at the latest. A collapse with signs of a conflagration sealed a large quantity of shards on the floor of this room and on the courtyard floor. The latest vessel types discovered in these complexes are dated to the 11th century CE, the Fatimid Period. The cause of building’s destruction is still

142 Section Four: The Rural Settlement unknown but might be the result of one of the severe earthquakes known to have occurred in Israel in the 11th century CE. Whatever the cause, this destruction terminated the permanent settlement in Ramat Raḥel that had lasted continuously from the 8th century BCE. A small fragment of Celadon ware, manufactured in China and dated to the 10th–11th centuries CE, was part of the material remains found in the building’s ruins. As a rule, luxury imported vessels, and those manufactured in China in particular, are extremely rare in typical early Islamic Period rural settlements in Israel, such as that at Ramat Raḥel. A few handles of large jars, apparently from the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries CE and carrying different types of impressions, are worth noting. There are star-like stamp impressions on two handles—an artistic motif that was extremely common during the period under discussion (“The Seal of Solomon,” in Arabic: “Hatam Suleiman”) to which supernatural qualities were attributed. An additional handle carries an impression with an Arabic caption, “Allah Mamun.” This word combination can be interpreted in two ways: (a) “Authentic-Reliable Allah” (in Arabic: Mamun); (b) “Allah [will bless] Mamun.” If the latter possibility is correct, the word “Mamun” is a private name, which can be interpreted either as the name of the potter, as a trademark, or as the name of the intended owner. Two additional handles impressed with the same Arabic caption were discovered in Aharoni’s first excavation at Ramat Raḥel. The combination “Allah Mamun” has not been identified on jar handles discovered at other sites in Israel. These unique jar handles were found together with numerous others with various types of impressions and engravings and most likely can be placed between the late Byzantine Period until the Umayyad Period (from the 6th–7th centuries to the mid-8th century CE). To some degree, they may indicate continuity in the settlement’s ceramics production industry even after the destruction suffered at the end of the Umay­ yad Period and the drastic decline thereafter. Reviewing Aharoni’s excavation objects in the Israel Antiquities Authority storage rooms revealed a few tens of additional pottery pieces from the early Islamic Period, mainly from the 9th–11th centuries CE. These were discovered and gathered from various locations at the site, usually without a clear connection to the architectural remains. It seems that these pieces can be attributed to this period’s small settlement.

Noteworthy among these is a glazed bowl fragment decorated in luster ware, imported from Egypt and dated between the end of the 10th century to the 11th century CE. Like the Chinese Celadon ware mentioned above, the luster ware bowl is also not common in rural sites, especially not in such small settlements as Ramat Raḥel. These luxury pieces indicate the relative wealth of Ramat Raḥel’s residents in the period under discussion, probably thanks to the settlement’s advantageous location next to the main road. The general picture revealed by the Abbasid and Umayyad periods combines change with a certain degree of continuity. After the site’s destruction by the earthquake of 749 CE, it was not fully vacated but did experience a significant decline in its populated area. At the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 9th century CE, there was only one large residential building, uncovered in the southeastern part of the site. It seems that from a medium-sized Byzantine and Umayyad-period village, it was reduced to a single-farm settlement with a commanding view of its surroundings. Furthermore, the Christian community’s residents abandoned it after their church’s destruction in the earthquake and did not reconstruct it. Thus, apparently the site’s new settlers were probably not Christians, although we cannot rule out the possibility that they were of Christian origin or might even have been the descendants of the previous residents, who converted to Islam in the beginning of the Abbasid Period. This scenario may be purely local and does not necessarily reflect the settlement history of the entire Jerusalem region during the early Islamic Period. Evidence for Christian churches and monasteries continuing to exist even after evidence of Umayyad presence was discovered in a few sites in the city and its surroundings. But the general impression is that there was a palpable decline in settlements during the Abbasid and Fatimid periods,106 which may stem from various reasons. The Ramat Raḥel settlement (and apparently many other sites) had a stroke of bad luck: the earthquake damaged it to such an extent that its reconstruction and repopulation to its original dimensions and proportions was impossible or unjustified. It seems that after the 11th century CE destruction a significant settlement gap occurred, evidenced by the almost complete lack of pottery, including shards datable with certainty to the Crusader and Ayyubid Periods (12th–13th centuries CE). The next human

Chapter Thirteen: Abbasid to Ottoman Periods (660–1517 CE) 143

Fig. 203: Glazed Italian bowl from Aharoni’s excavations

presence here did not begin before the 13th century CE and maybe even later, in the Mameluke Period (1260–1516 CE). Only a very few shards and coins scattered throughout the site, uncovered in both Aharoni’s excavations and the renewed work, come from the Mameluke and Ottoman (1516–1917 CE) Periods, without any contemporary architectural context. The pottery types of these periods are mostly local, including tableware, coarse storage jars, and coarse handmade cooking ware, some decorated with

color or with attachments of clay, and glazed bowls. A glazed bowl fragment from northern Italy dating from between the 14th–16th century CE, and a fragment of an imported Italian bowl, probably of the Maiolica di Montelupo type, which originated in Toscana and is dated between the 15th and early 17th century CE, are extremely exceptional. The latter bowl is decorated with multicolored geometric and figurative models (a fish, for example) and is almost unique in the land of Israel. Bowls similar to it published thus far were found only in Nazareth, in the Galilee; and a few examples are known from other areas in the eastern Mediterranean. It would be reasonable to assume that this bowl found its way to Ramat Raḥel through a passer-by (a Christian pilgrim? a merchant?) on the nearby Jerusalem–Bethlehem road below. These finds enable us to suggest that permanent or transitory human activities of an agricultural nature took place in Ramat Raḥel during the Mameluke and Ottoman Periods. Farmers and shepherds from neighboring villages may also have settled at the site from time to time, in addition to people passing through on the Jerusalem–Bethlehem highway who found the hilltop ruins of the site to be suitable for a temporary respite.

Chapter Fourteen: Coins and Hoards Approximately 950 coins were discovered at Ramat Raḥel during the excavation seasons of 2005–2010, mostly by means of a metal detector.107 Adding the 180 coins discovered during Aharoni’s excavations to these makes a total of more than 1,100 coins that tell the site’s story from the 4th century BCE to the 15th century CE, a period of almost two thousand years.108

Persian Period Coins— 4th Century BCE (Fig. 204:1) This group includes three small silver coins and an additional piece of silver that may have been used in ancient trade (Hacksilber). These coins are extremely small, averaging only 8 millimeters in size, and they are exceedingly rare to find in archaeological excavations. The most ancient coin in this group was issued in Sidon in the early 4th century BCE. On one side, it has a bearded figure, identified as the Persian king, standing facing to its right and drawing a bow. The reverse shows the city wall of Sidon topped with three fortified towers. Two additional coins in this group, not well-preserved, are probably of the yehud type and minted in Jerusalem. These coins have the head of Athena on the obverse and an owl on the reverse. The piece of silver weighs half a gram, and it is probably cut from a larger coin to be used as “small change.”

Ptolemaic Dynasty Coins— 3rd Century BCE (Fig. 204:2) This group includes one silver coin and six bronze coins. The silver coin was probably minted during the period of Ptolemy I in the late 4th century BCE and also belongs to the yehud Persian Period coins. Weighing only 0.15 gram, its obverse features the head of Ptolemy I, and its reverse shows an eagle with spread wings. The bronze coins, such as the one seen here, were minted during the reigns of Ptolemy I to Ptolemy IV (304–204 BCE). On one side, they have the portrait of the god Zeus-Amon, and on the other side an eagle and a Greek legend, “of King Ptolemy.” These coins are fairly large, and therefore it was probably easy to retrieve them when they were lost in ancient times. Thus, only a few have been found in archaeological excavations.

Seleucid Dynasty Coins— 2nd Century BCE (Fig. 204:3) Forty coins from the periods of Antiochus III, Antiochus IV, Demetrius I (?), and Antiochus VII were discovered at the site, together covering a period from 223 BCE to around 130 BCE. Most of the Antiochus III coins, struck in the mints of Antioch or Ptolemais, are quite small, with an average size of 10 millimeters, and thick. The obverse of the most common type features the portrait of the god Apollo, and its reverse displays the full image of the god. Most of the Antiochus IV (like the one seen here) and Demetrius I coins are similar to each other, while both are very different from their predecessors’ coins. These coins are flatter and wider, with serrated edges. The portrait of the king is on their obverse, and the Greek legend “of King Antiochus” or “of King Demetrius” is on their reverse, along with a portrait of a goddess whose identity is unclear. Two coins of Antiochus VII, which were probably impressed in Jerusalem at the end of this king’s life, are worth noting. Some scholars consider them to be the first stage of the Hasmonean minting, because it was Antiochus VII who allowed the Hasmoneans to mint coins, thus accepting the government of Simeon the Hasmonean. The obverse of this coin type features the lily, the symbol of Jerusalem since the Persian Period, and its reverse displays an anchor and a Greek legend, “of King Antiochus Euergetes [in Greek: the Benefactor].” A single coin minted in Ptolemais in 125/6 BCE can be added to this group. Its obverse features the heads of Castor and Pollux (the Dioscuri), and its reverse has an eagle, with a Greek legend, “belongs to the people of Antioch in the asylum and holy city of Ptolemais.”

Hasmonean Coins— 2nd–1st Centuries BCE (Fig. 204:4) At least 122 Hasmonean coins were found at Ramat Raḥel. About forty of them are of the type featuring crossed cornucopiae on the obverse and a Paleo-Hebrew legend on the reverse. The legend on many of these coins is unclear, while some feature the names of John Hyrcanus I and of Alexander Jannaeus. Most of the Hasmonean coins are of the type with an eight- or six-pointed star, sometimes accompanied by the paleo-Hebrew legend, “King Jonathan,”

144

Chapter Fourteen: Coins and Hoards 145 on the obverse, and the reverse displaying an anchor, sometimes accompanied by a Greek inscription whose translation is “of King Alexander.” These coins are dated to the period of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE), but some scholars assume that this impression type, the most common of all Jewish coins, continued to be minted and was in circulation during the period of his successors as well. All the coins are either of one prutah or a half-prutah.

Herodian Dynasty Coins— 1st Century BCE (Fig. 204:5) Three coins of Herod the Great (37–4 BCE) and six of his son Archelaus (4 BCE to 6 CE) were discovered at the site. These coins, which were minted in Jerusalem, feature various symbols: cornucopiae, an anchor (on the one seen here), a prow of a ship, and a helmet. They also feature Greek legends whose translation is “of Herod the King” or “of Herod the Ethnarch.” The Tyrian silver hoard discovered in the columbarium is also attributed to this period (see Ch. 11).

Roman Procurators and Prefects, and King Agrippa I—1st Century BCE (Fig. 204:6) This group includes 27 coins from the reigns of the caesars Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, which were probably minted by the Roman Procurators and Prefects Coponius, Marcus Ambivulus, Valerius Gratus, Pontius Pilate, and Antonius Felix, who then ruled Judah. This group also includes 5 coins minted by Agrippa I, in 41/42 CE (like the one seen here). One side features a canopy enclosed by the inscription “of King Agrippa,” and the other side shows three ears of grain and the date. The denomination of all the coins is about a prutah.

Jewish-Roman War and Judea Capta Coins— 1st Century CE (Fig. 204:7) The coins of this group include three prutut: One from the second year of the Jewish–Roman War (67/8 CE) and two additional from the third year of that war. These coins indicate the continuity of the Jewish settlement at Ramat Raḥel apparently until that year—the eve of the siege on Jerusalem. This group also includes two coins of the Judea Capta type. These bronze coins, minted in Caesarea, bearing the name and image of Titus, belong to the large group of coins made of gold, silver, and bronze that the Romans minted in Rome and elsewhere in

order to commemorate their victory over the Jews and over Judah at the end of the first Jewish–Roman War, in 70 CE. These coins usually feature the Latin legend IVDAEA CAPTA (Captured Judea). Two coins from Ramat Raḥel belong to the group minted for local use in the land of Israel, and therefore the legends they feature were translated into Greek for the local population—ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ ΕΑΛΩΚΥΙΑΣ. The coin’s obverse features the portrait of the emperor, and its reverse shows Nike, the Goddess of Victory, who writes on a shield hanging from a palm tree.

City Coins— 1st–3rd Centuries CE (Fig. 204:8) This group includes coins minted during the 1st–3rd centuries CE in the following cities: Sidon (one coin), Caesarea (three coins; one is shown here), Neapolis (two coins), Ashkelon (two coins), and Gaza (one coin). The eroded condition of three additional coins is such that their city cannot be determined. Countermarks of the Tenth Roman Legion appear on one coin from Sidon and on one coin from Ashkelon. These two coins, and perhaps even the remaining city coins, were probably brought here by Roman soldiers living at the site after Jerusalem’s destruction, mainly during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.109

Roman Imperial Coins— 3rd–4th Century CE (Fig. 204:9) In the second half of the 3rd Century CE, when city coin minting ended in Israel, the inhabitants of the region began to use coins from the imperial mints of the East and West. This group includes four coins, minted with the names of Gallienus (267 CE; see the one here), his wife Julia Cornelia Salonina (255–258 CE), Carinus (283–285 CE), and Maxentius (307 CE).

Late Roman Period Coins— 4th–5th Centuries (Fig. 204:10) The architectural and numismatic discoveries show that the most important settlement stage here after the Second Temple’s destruction was that of the Late Roman and the Byzantine Periods. At least 638 late Roman coins were found in Ramat Raḥel, the largest group of coins discovered here. It includes about 278 coins dated to the 4th–5th centuries CE, scattered in different locations, as well as a hoard of 360 coins discovered in the foundations of a building. The hoard find-spot, the low value of the coins, and their

146 Section Four: The Rural Settlement relatively poor condition of preservation together indicate that the hoard’s placement can be attributed to the custom of burying small amounts of money in floors or walls for good luck or as an offering. Thus, this hoard can be considered a foundation offering. Consisting mostly of common 4th century CE coins, and dating no later than the 5th century’s first decade, most feature the portraits of Theodosius I, Arcadius, and Honorius. The coin presented here is less common. Its obverse features the portrait of Aelia Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, who was an important figure in the Eastern Empire. This coin is dated to 400–404 CE and imitates a gold coin whose reverse features Victoria (Nike) sitting and holding a shield decorated with a christogram (an ancient Christian symbol consisting of a combination of the Greek letters X and P). Based on the date of the hoard, and pursuant to the suggestion that it was deposited as a foundation offering, the construction of the building above can be dated to approximately 410 CE.

Byzantine Period Coins—End of 5th/mid-7th Centuries CE (Fig. 204:11) This group includes 44 coins minted between the days of Anastasius I (491–518 CE) and the reign of Constance II (641–661 CE; see the one here), most of them of the large bronze denomination of that period—the follis—whose reverse features the letter “M,” representing the number forty (nummi).

Early Islamic Period Coins— mid-7th / mid-9th Century CE (Fig. 204:12) This group includes 47 coins, with most dating to the Umayyad Period and a few to the Abbasid Period. The reverse of a number of coins features the letter “m” in its cursive form, as well as various Greek legends, which can be attributed to the beginning of the Early Islamic period, prior to Abd al-Malik’s administrative reform in 696/7 CE. From that point on, the administrative language and the legends on the coins changed from Greek to Arabic. The obverses of most coins from the Umayyad period (as the one here) and all the coins from the Abbasid period feature only legends, and no designs at all.

Late Islamic Period Coins— 12th–15th Centuries CE The last group of coins found at Ramat Raḥel consists of one Ayyubid coin, three Mameluke coins,

and one Ottoman coin. These coins show that there was a human presence at the site during the Middle Ages. Yet, the absence of significant architectural remains from this period makes it difficult to determine whether the site was populated, and if so, to what extent.

Table 3: Coins found at Ramat Raḥel Approx. number of coins

Period / Dynasty

4

Persian Dynasty (4th Century BCE)

7

Ptolemaic Dynasty (3rd Century BCE)

41

Seleucid Dynasty (2nd Century BCE)

122

Hasmonean Dynasty (2nd–1st Centuries BCE)

25

Herodian Dynasty (1st Century BCE)

32

Roman Procurators and Prefects, and King Agrippa I (1st Century BCE)

5

Jewish-Roman war, inc. Judea Capta (1st Century CE)

12 4

Early Roman Period: City coins (1st–3rd Centuries CE) Roman Imperial coins (late 3rd-early 4th Century CE)

638

Late Roman Period (4th–5th Centuries CE)

44

Byzantine Period (6th—7th Centuries CE)

47

Early Islamic Period (7th–9th Centuries CE)

5 50 1,116

Late Islamic Period (12th–15th Centuries CE) Unidentifiable Total (including 2010 Season)

Preliminary Conclusions from Coin Analysis The study of the coins discovered both in Aharoni’s excavations and in the renewed excavations leads to a number of conclusions and to a few working assumptions about the site’s history. The Persian Period coins (as well as the jar stamp impressions) indicate that the site was populated, probably by Judeans, during the 4th century BCE, at least in its second half. The coins from the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods also indicate habitation here during the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE but offer no evidence about the nature of the population at the time. These coins were used both by Gentiles and Jews, since no Jewish coins were minted at this time. Yet, the discovery of dozens of yehud stamped jar handles dated to

Chapter Fourteen: Coins and Hoards 147

1

2

3

4

6

5

8

7

10

9

11

12 Fig. 204: Coins from Ramat Raḥel excavations

148 Section Four: The Rural Settlement this period indicates that Ramat Raḥel served a central role in the administration of the Judean provinces. The discovery of dozens of Hasmonean coins, and especially of Alexander Jannaeus, in the fills blocking the water system show that it was probably destroyed during his reign. The Tyrian shekels hoard, the coins of the Herodian Dynasty, and the coins from the 1st century CE show the continuous population by Jews here until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Third-year Jewish revolt coins and the absence of coins from the late 1st century and the early 2nd century CE confirm that the site was abandoned toward the war’s end, probably prior to the fall of Jerusalem. As best as can be determined, Jews did not populate this site from the destruction of the Second Temple until the

founding of the kibbutz, a span of about 1900 years. The Judea Capta and city coins, mainly those featuring the countermarks of the Tenth Legion, indicate a military or officially-sanctioned Roman private presence in the late 1st century and the early 2nd century CE. It seems that the next important stage in the existence of the site commenced during the Late Roman Period (mid-4th century CE), when a Christian community settled here, they continued developing it during the Byzantine Period and into the beginning of the Islamic Period, after which the site was apparently abandoned. It probably saw small-scale agricultural use during the Late Islamic Period and perhaps even during the Ottoman Period.

Chapter Fifteen: Subterranean Space Survey in the Southern Ramat Raḥel Hilltop Similar to other hill-country sites in the land of Israel, one of the outstanding characteristics of Ramat Raḥel during all of its settlement periods is the wide use of bedrock for creating artificial subterranean spaces for various purposes and uses. Many of these spaces had already been studied during Aharoni’s excavations in the northern lower parts of the site, including the columbarium, a ritual bath, a burial cave, and additional subterranean systems, though their nature and context became clear only after the new excavations. Nonetheless, the subterranean spaces in the elevated southern region of the Ramat Raḥel Hill, where the bedrock was exposed in many places, had never been comprehensively studied. During the 2006 excavation season, a thorough study was implemented in order to locate, map, and study subterranean spaces in the southern quadrant. The study was carried out in cooperation with the Cave Research Unit of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Geography Department, headed by Prof. Amos Frumkin, and was led by the authors of this chapter. The permanent team members were Ahikam Amihai (‫ )זכרונו לברכה‬and Matan Avital, and we were joined by students and volunteers from our excavation expedition. The survey area was bounded by Area D1 in the east and Area C1 in the west, the tower’s courtyard in the north and the large parking lot in the south. A total of 12 subterranean spaces were located and studied within the bounds of this area, out of which three were examined in Area D6 after the 2008 season of excavations, as part of the study of the area’s eastern part. In total, there were 3 water cisterns (#1, #8, and #11, in the study’s documentation), 3 ritual baths, one single (#10) and two connected (#2 and #13), and a sophisticated columbarium system (systems #5 and #7). The purposes of five additional spaces are not quite clear, but they seem to have been made for storage, burial, and even residence during various periods. It should be emphasized that most of the spaces discovered were not completely blocked by fill, and therefore they were suitable for use during the periods following the original quarrying process. An example of such modern use was clearly observed in water cistern #8. It seems that during the first half of the 20th century, the early residents of Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel covered the ancient plaster, reinforcing the cistern’s

walls with a uniform, thick layer of dark gray plaster cement. The same applies to Cave #9, which was integrated during the 1950s into the fortification system in the southern hill and converted into a bunker, located at the end of a communication trench. The subterranean spaces in the Ramat Raḥel Hill are particularly important for understanding the size and nature of the site at the end of the Second Temple Period, during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. Because almost nothing remained from this settlement, above the surface of the rock, these spaces are almost the only proof for the size and nature of the site. The ritual baths and columbaria are particularly important for understanding this, because they are certainly dated to this period based on typological considerations: they follow a standard form and layout, and the date can be based on the objects discovered in these facilities, which were found securely “sealed” archaeologically by later accumulations. The existence of parallel subterranean systems in the southern part of the hill clearly shows the spread of the settlement to this part of the site, its rural-agricultural nature, and also proves the Jewish identity of its residents. Three of the surveyed water cisterns tell a different story, which actually belongs to the latest settlement chapters in the site. It seems that the three were first quarried during the Byzantine Period or the Early Islamic Period. This dating is based on the type of hydraulic plaster covering their walls and the crushed or broken pottery shards characteristic of these periods found inside. A coin from the 7th century CE, which is extremely important chronological evidence, was found trapped in the plaster of one cistern. These cisterns apparently indicate the location of the building areas from these periods, and at least one courtyard was also identified in the construction above the rock surface. In the rainwater drainage system leading into the cisterns, there were intentionally plastered gutters and trenches leading to settling basins and small plastered pits near the cisterns, which were used to settle out the silt and prevent its penetration into the cistern. The cisterns are not particularly large, meant for a maximum of approximately 20–25 cubic meters of water, a quantity that seems fitting for household consumption. The use of these water cisterns probably discontinued upon the abandonment of the buildings

149

150 Section Four: The Rural Settlement and their collapse, because without an active drainage system, the water did not drain into the cisterns. The accumulation that was discerned in the bottom of two of the cisterns bears witness to the commencement of this blockage process. It is not impossible that the cisterns continued to be used even after the settlement’s abandonment at the end of the Early Islamic

Period, although the evidence for this is unclear. As mentioned above, one of the cisterns was cleaned out and prepared for use during the last century, and its functionality is clearly evidenced by the clear water filling it nowadays, albeit to a low level, and this water is present even during the summer months.

Chapter Sixteen: “Landscape Archaeology” in the Western Slopes of Ramat Raḥel area that in ancient times was connected to the hilltop site. Parking lots and tennis courts were built on the southern slope, and a dense pine forest was planted there, and these also probably hid evidence of the various uses for which this adjoining area served the early settlements. However, the western slope lying between the site and modern Hebron Road, which follows the ancient central mountain highway, included an area that was open and available for research. In the 2009 season, we chose this slope for a field study using methods taken from the area of research called “Landscape Archaeology.” This entailed a meter-by-meter, thorough field survey of the slope of the site; full documentation of man-made facilities, along with documenting the environmental characteristics of the slope (rock, soil, vegetation); excavating 11 test pits next to agricultural terraces, to determine their method of

Fig. 205: Western slope of the Ramat Raḥel hill— bird’s eye view to the west

From the outset of our renewed research at Ramat Raḥel, it was extremely important for us to understand the site in relation to its environment. We believed that the nature and the function of the Ramat Raḥel site would be better understood if its close environs were studied and by examining the relationship between the site and other natural and human components in its near and distant landscape, including: the site’s location on the land’s watershed, overlooking the Rephaim Valley and the northern Hebron mountains to the west and the Judean Desert to the east; the relationship between the site and the main traffic artery passing below at its base—the “Way of the Patriarchs” connecting Hebron with Bethlehem and Jerusalem; the relationship between the site and adjacent archaeological phenomena and sites, such as the upper Herodian aqueduct leading to Jerusalem, or the Byzantine Church of Kathisma, which adjoins the main road slightly west of the site; and the relationship between the site and the agricultural region around it. All this is a challenge, because most areas near Ramat Raḥel have undergone intensive modern development, particularly during the last fifty years, and only a small undisturbed area was left suitable for research. Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel was built to the east and north of the ancient site. Reports of numerous antiquities scattered around, under, and between the buildings prove that the kibbutz covered a wide 151

Fig. 206: Excavation of a quarried basin in the western slope

Fig. 207: Byzantine wine press

152 Section Four: The Rural Settlement construction and to date them, using archaeological and analytical tools together. The area selected for examination was a moderate slope that declines westward from the Ramat Raḥel Hill. Today, remains of terraces cover most of the surface of the slope, but rocky “islands” protrude on the surface in various places, an indication that these areas are covered by a thin mantle of soil unsupported by the terrace walls. In all of the outcrops located, and in the bottom of the test pits, there is evidence of early human activities in the form of various quarrying actions, most of which are spot extractions to obtain usable construction stones from the hard stone mantle (nari) covering the soft limestone-based slope. Beside the quarries, about 15 quarried-out square or rectangular basins were surveyed, averaging around 50–70 centimeters in length and depth. The nature of these basins, which are not found as densely arranged in nearby slopes, is unclear, and they remain a riddle. One of the most attractive suggestions was to consider them to be the remnants of a “quarried vineyard.” Though an uncommon agricultural method in our area, this suggestion was offered by Adam Zertal to explain similar features discovered in northern Samaria, although the latter are slightly larger and deeper than these.110 Apart from the basins and the quarries, facilities of a more clearly defined nature were also studied in a few individual spots, such as a water cistern, a winepress floor covered by a white, coarse mosaic, and a graveyard with two burial caves dated to the late Second Temple Period. All of these features demonstrate clearly that the exposed bedrock in Ramat Raḥel’s western slope was used intensively for various purposes in early periods. Now it was left to determine whether the current landscape of the slope, consisting mainly of agricultural terrace systems, was created at the same time the rocky outcroppings were used for various purposes or was built up only in a later stage. In order to clarify this issue, 11 test pits were excavated in the agricultural ground trapped behind the terrace walls. Even before this step, while meticulously documenting the surface remains, three types of terraces were identified in the survey area: (a) terraces with a single face, facing outward; their upper section slightly inclining toward the slope; (b) terraces similar to these but whose upper section thickness in effect forms a two-sided wall; (c) perpendicular terraces, solidly built, with two straight sides, each resting on and supported by the bedrock.

Fig. 208: Soil samples (see holes) for dating the terraces by the optical luminescence method (OSL)

Already at this stage of our examination the possibility was raised that the differences between the terraces, besides their construction techniques, might represent three phases of design and construction for the slope’s agricultural landscape. But this hypothesis could not be tested and proved with archaeological tools alone. Mixed ceramics were removed from all the test pits, mostly Roman and Byzantine ware, and a few from earlier or later periods. No complete pottery assemblages were found that would have enabled reliable dating of the terrace construction. The absence of usable evidence of this sort has surfaced in numerous studies carried out in Jerusalem’s agricultural hinterland over the last decade. In fact, it has come to be recognized as the primary obstacle to the effort to date terraced agricultural landscapes, which may be the single most dominant feature in landscape formation and design of the land of Israel’s hill country regions. In order to overcome this problem, we experimented with an analytical tool for dating the terraces. The OSL—Optically Stimulated Luminescence—method can date the “burying” event of certain sediments, including quartz. Thus, this method can be effectively used for dating these terraces, because quartz is found in most soils in the region. During placement of the terrace stones by the original builders, soil with quartz accumulated against the inside terrace wall and thus became “buried” deep under the surface. The OSL test measures the time elapsed since the quartz was last exposed to sunlight by extracting soil from behind the wall in protected conditions, so that current light does not contaminate the results. Dr. Naomi Porat from the Geological Survey of Israel tested about 20 soil samples from the 11 pits, and the results were

Chapter Sixteen: “Landscape Archaeology” in the Western Slopes of Ramat Raḥel 153

Fig. 209: Aerial photograph and plan of the western slope terrace system

extremely satisfactory: they showed clear compatibility with the field observations. The terraces built with different methods and with a different profile were indeed datable scientifically to different periods. It became clear that the terraces built as an inclined wall with only one external face were erected during the second half of the first millennium CE, in the late Byzantine Period, and during the Early Islamic Period. The straight terraces constructed as a two-sided wall were erected during the later centuries of the Ottoman Period. The terraces of the interim type may have been originally built as terraces with only one external side later and underwent structural changes. The OSL method did not provide a conclusive date for this group, and this could explain why. Even more significant than the important contribution for recreating the agricultural activities and the landscape development in the survey, these research

results demonstrate the OSL method’s potential for similar studies in the central hill country region’s agricultural landscapes. Based on dating the terraces, together with the study of the quarried facilities, the conclusion was reached that the current landscape of the western slope of Ramat Raḥel Hill does not represent any single period. It is, instead, an accumulation of different patterns of human activity over time. It seems that for most of the existence of the Ramat Raḥel site, perhaps for well over a millennium until the Byzantine Period, the western slope was not terraced at all and the outcrops were more contiguous than what is exposed today. These outcrops were used for various purposes in the earlier periods, mainly as a source of construction stones, as well as for agriculture (the quarried vineyard?) and burial, among others. The intensive agricultural farming of the slope commenced

154 Section Four: The Rural Settlement only during the Byzantine Period through erecting a system of terraces across its breadth, which is perhaps when the winepress system and the water cistern were built in the center of our survey area. This phase may be connected to the construction of the Kathisma Church to the south, not far away from the western slope research area, or else perhaps to the development of the hilltop rural settlement from this period, where numerous facilities associated with oil and wine production were discovered. This manner of utilization of the western slope has continued until modern times, not necessarily continuously, albeit with significant changes in the terrace systems. The most outstanding change was the construction of a new terrace system placed in the center of the survey area, as if “planted” into the pre-existing system, probably because the ancient terraces in this area wore out to the point that did not permit their reuse. The edges of this system, dated to the Ottoman Period, are well defined by stone fences built along the length of the slope and are built with the two-sided straight terrace walls. These are distinctly evident to people touring

the area or viewing it from above. A unique vegetable garden irrigated by cistern water, mentioned above, conveyed by a plastered trench, may also be attributed to the last phase of the terrace system. There is no doubt that at this stage more ancient terraces were still standing and were also utilized, and they are located outside the new system’s boundaries. The past century represents the last historical phase of the western slope of Ramat Raḥel Hill. During the first half of the twentieth century, the area may have still been used for agriculture, although the aerial photographs and the ground mapping from this period do not provide unequivocal proof. In 1948, this slope became a no-man’s-land on the Israeli-Jordanian border, and then after 1967, the area remained open and unfarmed, apart from occasional plantings of olive and cypress trees. This situation continued until the slope was included in the archaeological park of Ramat Raḥel at the end of the 1990s. A system of trails was paved on the slope, which changed its outline a little, although the original landscape remained intact.

Chapter Seventeen: Modern Period—the Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel Story111 “On a high plateau, 810 meters above sea level, south of Jerusalem, ‘on the road approaching Ephratah, stands Ramat Raḥel. A large building, which resembles a fortress, overlooks the bald hills of the Judean Desert, facing towards the deep winding valleys that lead eastward down to the plains of Jericho and the Dead Sea. And from the south—Rachel’s Tomb, Bethlehem, Beit Jallah, and Beit Sahour with their towers, turrets and monastery domes. Here the cross spread its dominion and rises from above every roof and every tower, and the church bells ring their heavy tones and fill the memory with childhood pictures from there— that step-motherland, amongst the nations. “Jerusalem—a city of two parts joined together”—sprawls to the north. Its neighborhoods are scattered over hills and slopes, and its entirety can be seen from here, ‘as if on the palm of the hand’, including its magnificent mansions, its ancient walls and its stone buildings with their red roofs. And from the west—Arab villages whose houses and huts seem glued to the slopes of the mountains, a profusion of olive trees all around them, and they have an appearance of wealthy settlements.”112 So it was when, on June 4, 1926, the first pioneers of “Yoseph Trumpeldor’s Labor Brigade” pitched their tent camp near the present archaeological site. The Jerusalem Company of the Labor Brigade was established in December 1921. Itzhak Sadeh, who later became Palmach Commander, was among its founders. In the beginning, the company was based in an abandoned factory in the Givat Shaul neighborhood of Jerusalem due to its proximity to nearby quarries. Emanuel Bar Haim recounts that “the place was depressing, a poor and neglected neighborhood near Kfar Lifta, but that location was chosen for the quarries located in the close vicinity, which were the source of our livelihood and our destiny—the conquest of the quarrying industry.”113 As a result of the numerous difficulties, and mainly because of the harsh financial situation, Bar Haim was even thinking about leaving (“what do I have here that I must endure this suffering?”). From the pressure of the difficulties, signs of an initial rift started to emerge, due to ideological disagreements between the Labor Movement’s radical left, which aspired for global rather than Zionist communism, and the right wing of the movement. In 1923, the brigade left these quarters and moved to the Ratisbonne Monastery area in Jerusalem’s

Rehavia neighborhood. The members of the Jerusalem Brigade built the Hadassah Medical Center on Mount Scopus and participated in the construction of the King David Hotel and the Rehavia and Beit Hakerem neighborhoods. The Kibbutz was established in May 1926, when the Brigade received twenty acres from the Jewish National Fund purchased from the Greek Patriarchate. At first, the Kibbutz was named simply “Hahityashvut” (“the Settlement”), and sometime later Menachem Ussishkin suggested the name “Ramat Raḥel”—because of the magnificent view from the adjacent hill toward Rachel’s Tomb, which lies on the outskirts of Bethlehem, just to the south. The Kibbutz members earned their living mainly from working offsite, outside, such as in construction, quarrying, and portage duties in the railway station.

155

Fig. 210: Shavout-Pentecost 1926

Fig. 211: The first hut, 1927

156 Section Four: The Rural Settlement

Fig. 212: The destruction following the 1929 riots

Fig. 213: The kibbutz yard in the 1930s

The Kibbutz purchased 12 bicycles to save travel costs. Herzl Morin, a kibbutz member, talks about their work as porters: “When we began working as porters in the railway station, the competition with the Arab workers was tough. The work was hard and we carried heavy loads of up to 100 kilograms with our bare hands. The standard of living and the housing were low and sometimes we ate only bread and olives.” This work created numerous disagreements with the Arab workers who felt that they were being expelled from their livelihood. But as time went by, both parties reached agreement and worked out a division of labor. In December 1926, the 120-member group split due to ideological reasons, and only 40 people remained. The intensity of the rift can be seen in a letter sent from the National Jewish Fund: “The National Jewish Fund is not bound in any obligation whatsoever to the Left Wing of the Labor Brigade. Our affairs with respect to

the leasing terms of 20 acres will be conducted only with Yehuda Kopelevitz, who is a member of the Right Wing.” The Palestine Riots broke out on August 23, 1929, and Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel, among other settlements, was attacked. The weapons in the Kibbutz included a hunting rifle, a military rifle, and three handguns. The women and children were evacuated to the nearby Talpiyot neighborhood and only 16 men, led by Eliezer Halperin, remained. Bar Haim tells the story: “We patrolled around our area and saw a group of Arabs walking to Zur Baher. We identified 4 Jewish quarry workers in the group, and one of them was Zelig Struman. Apparently, Bedouins and Arabs from Bethlehem and Hebron wanted to lynch them, but Muhammed Jaber from Zur Baher organized the people from his village, prevented it, and led them in peace to his village. In the meantime, shots were fired and we saw that Rachel Yanait’s farm for female laborers went up in flames. A widower, who stood at an observation post on the roof, got up to light a cigarette, and an Arab sniper hit him. He passed away in the hospital. Attempts to call for help were unsuccessful, beside five Hagana members that arrived and urged us to load what we could onto the vehicle and evacuate. At seven-thirty in the morning, from Talpiyot, we saw Ramat Raḥel burning.” After the riots, the members of Ramat Raḥel lived in abandoned buildings in Talpiyot, and a few months later, they returned and started to rebuild the kibbutz. The reconstruction process was rapid, overseen by Yehuda Kopelevitz. Learning from the recent experiences, they built a central building for emergency defense. The national institutions recognized the strategic significance of Ramat Raḥel, and the sum of 5,000 Israeli liras was budgeted for its defense. The kibbutz became one of the Hagana’s important training camps, and hiding places for weapons were built there, which can be seen today in the kibbutz hotel. Hagana leader Shaul Avigdor came to visit the refurbished kibbutz and brought a gift with him—a machine gun. A period of construction and prosperity for the Kibbutz began in the 1930s. Many Zionist Movement leaders came to visit, including David Ben-Gurion, who praised the work of Ramat Raḥel’s members. Authors and intellectuals lectured in the kibbutz, a local newspaper was published, and the members participated in political activities in Jerusalem. Between 1931 and 1936, the cowshed and the chicken coop were built. A large, modern laundry facility providing services to

Chapter Seventeen: Modern Period—the Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel Story 157 municipal institutions and a bakery supplying bread to the kibbutz and the adjacent neighborhoods were also erected. The road from Talpiyot to Ramat Raḥel was completed, and it seemed that the kibbutz had attained the character of an established settlement. During the Arab Revolt (1936–1939), the Kibbutz was attacked from time to time but held its ground. The following is the description of a kibbutz member: “At 10 o’clock at night, numerous shots were fired from Mar Elias. The shooters arranged themselves in a semi-circle and brought concentrated fire to bear on Ramat Raḥel. We fired back, and the shooters left 20 minutes later. It is worth mentioning that the tent dwellers acted wisely by not trying to run out to the central building, but lying flat on the ground until the threat passed.” Sporadic attacks on Ramat Raḥel began at the end of 1947. As a result of the incidents when the settlement and its transportation were shot at, the bus company, “Hamekasher,” reduced the frequency of trips to the kibbutz, and therefore it was determined to armor the three kibbutz vehicles used by the bakery and the laundry facility. Most attacks on Ramat Raḥel came from the Abu-Tor village and from the hill of the Mar Elias monastery, and one attack came from the village Zur Baher. The villager elders called one day after the attack, apologized for it, and claimed it was done without their knowledge. Following these events, the kibbutz began fortifying the grounds, and children were instructed not to wander around in exposed areas. And indeed, the shootings became a daily event and the economy of the kibbutz was damaged thereby, because most people did not go out to work in case they were required to defend their houses. Two days before Passover 1947, two kibbutz members—Yitzchak Zichler and Malka Chutniztki—were killed during a major attack on the kibbutz. During the aforementioned attack, about 50 members were “stuck” in the city because of their work. “When the attack was announced, we were all frightened. We tried to come home, but it was impossible. We knew that the hilly region was vulnerable with no defense force present, and that only female members and a small number of male members remained there. A sign was posted in the dining room: ‘The funeral of the deceased will take place this evening, at five o’clock. Eight members mentioned by name will attend the funeral. The rest—to their posts.’ ” 114 The day after, the kibbutz held the Passover Seder without songs and dances.”

Fig. 214: The destruction after the War of Independence

Fig. 215: The main building after the war

Fig. 216: A view towards Zur Baher

158 Section Four: The Rural Settlement Upon the establishment of the State of Israel, the Hagana planned to capture the areas south of Jerusalem, around Ramat Raḥel, and create a continuum with the city’s core. However, news about the fall of Jewish settlements in Gush Etzion, to the south of the Kibbutz, came on May 14, and a decision was made to immediately evacuate the women and children. “We followed the vehicles which drove alternately, at a certain distance from each other. The trip, which usually last 20 minutes, took four hours. Our children will remember that night forever. Due to a malfunction in the vehicle, and to the flashes of flares and the sound of shootings, we were forced to walk in the desolate neighborhood of Katamon, which was separated into areas by barbed wire fences. The children were evacuated to Jerusalem and afterward to Raanana. That night, in the battle to free the southern part of the city, kibbutz member Amnon Ruchin was killed in the battle over King Allenby Camp. First of all we were charged with performing the last benevolent service to the deceased—Amnon and his two friends, who were killed in the battle of taking the army barracks. We buried their corpses near the graveyard, where it was safe to stay. Shots were fired at us during the burial, but we continued our work.” The Haganah forces succeeded in conquering the neighborhoods of Katamon and Bakʿah, and the Allenby Camp. The connection with Jerusalem was renewed, and Ramat Raḥel was promised that, should the necessity arise, it would receive immediate help.115 On May 18, 1948, the Kibbutz was heavily attacked by mortars from the east—from Zur Baher. The cowshed and the chicken coop went up in flames, and it seemed that the defenders of the kibbutz had not the wherewithal to withstand and to respond to such an attack. On Wednesday, May 19, the cannon bombardment commenced from the west—from the Mar Elias Monastery and the Bethlehem Road. Kibbutz

members reported that the enemy’s armored vehicles were gathered along the entire length of the road. On Thursday, May 20, the kibbutz went through the most intense bombardment yet. The attacks lasted all day, and incendiary bombs were thrown at the kibbutz. The bakery went up in flames and the kibbutz members tried to save the stores of bread and fuel there. Three members of the kibbutz were severely wounded that day. On May 21, the fourth day of battle, kibbutz member Haim Zirlin was sent to the hill called Givat Eliyahu, nowadays the archaeological site, after the connection with the defenders there was cut off, but he did not return, and his body was found that evening. The last battle commenced on Saturday, May 22. The members of Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel desperately requested aid from the Hagana in Jerusalem, and indeed, a soldier was sent with a mortar. The soldier fired shells at Zur Baher, but he left after a short while. The members started to withdraw to the kibbutz’s largest building—the dining room—while hoping that the reinforcement was about to arrive. Bar Haim talks about it: “When I arrived at the dining room, I managed to see only the vehicle which was ready to leave with the last members of the kibbutz. I was yelling desperately and warned them that the road was under bombardment, I saw it myself. But no one listened to me.” A shell hit the vehicle, and eight members were killed. The reinforcement from Jerusalem arrived at that moment, and while the Arabs were busy with plundering, the reinforcement succeeded in recapturing the kibbutz again. Just when it seemed that the victory was won, the Egyptian Army and the Jordanian Legion attacked Ramat Raḥel. The Kibbutz changed hands about six times, until it finally ended in the hands of the Hagana. During the War of Independence, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel lost 16 members, who fell defending the kibbutz and in other battles across the country.

Modern fortifications

stratum, the latest layer of the site, and to document its remains. Evidence for the IDF fortifications in the archaeological site can be found in the following five trenches: The trench encompassing the entire hill and the kibbutz itself; the trench enclosing Area C2 and crossing the southern part of Area B2; the trench crossing Area B1 and Area B3; the trench cutting across Area D6 and

The Ramat Raḥel archaeological site includes numerous modern remains from the 1940s and the 1950s, when the kibbutz was an isolated settlement, surrounded by Arab villages and Jordanian forces on three sides. The renewed excavation expedition decided to consider these remains as an archaeological

Chapter Seventeen: Modern Period—the Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel Story 159 the southern part of Area C1; and the trench lying across Areas D5 and D4. The first trench was excavated along the natural outline of the hill in three directions: south, west, and north. The external circle’s eastern segment surrounds the entire kibbutz, to the west of the border of the archaeological site. Concrete posts looking westward toward the crucial Jerusalem-Bethlehem road were built along this line. The second trench connects to the inner circle through a short trench, excavated in seasons 2007– 2009. This line crosses the southern part of Area C1 and bisects the northern and southern sections of Area D6. An additional extension of this trench leads to Cave 9 and apparently then reconnects to the first trench. This trench, which was excavated by means of mechanical devices, utilized subterranean spaces along its path and includes three guard posts. The third trench, dug in excavation seasons 2005 and 2009, is located in Areas B1 and B3. In Area B3,

the trench turns southward toward an internal fortification line and apparently connects with the southern trenches. The fourth trench surrounds Area C2, tracking the ancient Iron Age quarried route of the citadel and encloses its tower. Three concrete guard posts facing west were built along the trench. This vantage point commands the Rephaim Valley as well as the Jerusalem-Bethlehem road and the villages in this area. The fifth trench is concrete, crossing Area D4 (the church) and stretching from one bunker to the other, which are the only two located in the external circle. The year the concrete was poured—1954—was cast into the northern bunker wall; they face eastward. In examining the fortification plan in the IDF archives and comparing it to archaeological evidence in the field, we can see that the external circle indeed follows the design but that the internal circle differs. It seems that the drawn plans were working drafts, which were altered when it came to the actual construction according to the conditions in the field. The main question is when the fortification took place in the vicinity of the archaeological site, whose modern name is “Givat Eliyahu.” In a thorough investigation carried out by the IDF after the war, Itzhak Sadeh contended the following: “The topographic and geographic conditions of Ramat Raḥel require a tight and strong sectional system of defense. There are so many options for coordinating fire between Ramat Raḥel and Givat Eliyahu and between Ramat Raḥel and Talpiyot, and they are so essential, that the

Fig. 217: A schematic drawing of the kibbutz in the 1950s

Fig. 218: The 1954 fortification plan

160 Section Four: The Rural Settlement

Fig. 219: Sketch of the communication trenches and fortifications, alongside marked site excavation areas

implementation of such a regional firing plan could have decisively changed the face of the battle.”116 Sadeh argued that the Ramat Raḥel defense system required the inclusion of Givat Eliyahu, which would eventually turned out to be an archaeological site, and he rebuked the kibbutz members and the military men for not fortifying this area. Sadeh stated the following about the Kibbutz’s protection plan: “Even if Ramat Raḥel is considered as an independent area to be protected, it is impossible to forfeit the inclusion of Givat Eliyahu in the Ramat Raḥel defense system, and there cannot be any practical reason which would justify that Givat Eliahu was not prepared as a defensive outpost, tightly and tactically integrated into the defense of Ramat Raḥel.”117 The Ramat Raḥel defense plan was divided into two sections: Section A—from the kibbutz gate along its western and southern sides; and Section B—from that gate and along the northern and eastern sides.118 From this description, it is clear that the kibbutz was protected only around its immediate boundaries. Sadeh’s review of the protective posts notes that, while every section included five posts built above ground to overlook their respective surroundings, only two of them were made of concrete and dug into the ground, permitting the defenders to stand partially protected while fighting (Section 3:3, Fig. 220). The assessment does not mention any fortification whatsoever in the

vicinity of the antiquity site on Givat Eliyahu, and it seems that even if there was one, it was insignificant and would not have damaged the archaeological layers. Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel first appeared in the IDF fortification instructions only in 1953, probably due to that year’s border problems. It seems that there is a direct connection linking the increasing tension between Israel and Jordan and the involvement of the border settlements in this tension and the issuing of the March 13, 1953 “Observation Posts Organization” order. Its purpose was “to organize a network of observation posts throughout the country in order to cover the areas which cannot be controlled by the radar, and to use them as a secondary means of warning against the enemy’s airplanes.”119 The plan developed in two stages. In the first, six posts were planned to be constructed, and in the second stage another three were added. The order then states that its purpose is “to organize observation posts throughout the country in order to warn against the military preparations of the enemy.” Because Givat Eliyahu is the highest point in the region, with a commanding view of the main road from Bethlehem to Jerusalem as well as the Beit Jallah area, from which numerous infiltrations had occurred, there is no doubt that a few of the positions had to be built on it. On March 15, 1954, the IDF wrote the fortification order code-named “Homa” (Wall), and Ramat Raḥel

Chapter Seventeen: Modern Period—the Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel Story 161

Fig. 220: Excerpt from Itzhak Sadeh’s security assessment report, 1949

162 Section Four: The Rural Settlement

Fig. 221: Operation “Homa” summation report, 1956

was included in it. That year, M. Nir, an operations officer, wrote a plan of fortifications for Ramat Raḥel. From this point on, during 1954–1956, Ramat Raḥel appeared in numerous orders, in operations, and in documents dealing with country-wide settlement fortifications. Only in 1956 is Ramat Raḥel mentioned in fortifications particularly associated with the city of Jerusalem. A conclusive extensive report of Operation “Homa” was published on August 7, 1956. The purpose of the report was to “summarize the status of the fortifications in the Type A and Type B areas after completion of the [project] execution.” The report mentioned that the planning of areas to be protected commenced in 1949–1950 in order to establish a regional defense system. The report also criticizes the operation’s planning and execution. It seems that many of the settlements that were fortified were not included in the original fortification plans and that the actual fortification plans themselves were incomplete. “If, in earlier years, the various planners would have considered that the moment for actual execution would arrive, its work would have flowed easily without the many tribulations [encountered], and apart from placing arrows on the map, they would have planned all the details required for organizing the work.” In the report’s appendix, there is a note: “The [concrete] casting of two machine gun posts must still be completed in Ramat Raḥel.”120 Out of the combined archival and field data a picture forms that the IDF’s fortification of Ramat Raḥel was carried out in three phases: The first phase took place already in 1948. While according to Itzhak Sade’s

report, there were no fortifications at the site then, yet testimonies of kibbutz members indicate otherwise, that a communication trench ran between the kibbutz grounds and Givat Eliyahu. The external circle connecting that hill to the Kibbutz already existed at that time. The second phase was carried out as a result of the “Homa” plan. The trench and the bunkers in Area D4–D5 should be attributed to this phase. As mentioned above, the year 1954 was stamped into the concrete of one of the bunkers. This may serve to prove the lack of correlation between IDF plans and the remains on the site, since it seems that this fortification line does not connect to the internal circle like the other trenches do, and it also does not correspond with the final plan that was built in the field. The third phase was built in 1956, when Ramat Raḥel was first included in Jerusalem’s fortification orders. The documents from the IDF archive show that, from 1956 on, there was acute urgency in constructing fortifications in Jerusalem and its vicinity. This desperate exigency is reflected in the summation report of Operation “Homa”: “Due to the conditions prevailing in winter 1956, Operation Homa must be implemented immediately.” This atmosphere also fits the contentions of Morris and Golani that there was a desire to utilize the anticipated upcoming war to broaden Jerusalem and its environs from its current vulnerable boundaries. At this stage, most of the site’s fortifications and trenches were built, and the plan prepared by M. Nir in 1954 was changed to take advantage of the Iron Age fortification lines already quarried and built into the ground, thus saving precious time and resources; these were not yet known when the plan was made.121

Chapter Seventeen: Modern Period—the Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel Story 163

Fig. 222: Kibbutz reconstruction in the 1950s

Fig. 223: Agriculture in the Kibbutz in the 1950s

After the War of Independence, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel was left in total ruin. In 1949, a few members returned and commenced reconstruction of the kibbutz living quarters and installations, the farm and orchards, and the chicken coop. A beehive was brought into the Kibbutz, and a vegetable garden was planted as well. On May 29 that year, Moshe Dayan, then Jerusalem Region Commander, wrote a letter in which he emphasized the importance of Ramat Raḥel for the protection of the city and noted its control over the main transportation arteries. Dayan sought to place the whole area from Armon Hanatziv (the Government House) westward into the rebuilding kibbutz’s grounds and stressed that this area must be strengthened and fortified. Another letter was sent from Levi Eshkol, then Settlement Department Head, to then Minister of Labor Golda Meir, requesting help for reconstruction of the Kibbutz and for an additional budget beyond what had already been approved. The first buildings of the renewed kibbutz were erected in the early 1950s. But even before that, a crucial meeting was held, and the members decided to hold a vote on whether they wished to return to Ramat Raḥel, or to move out and start afresh in another Kibbutz. About forty members decided to return to Ramat Raḥel, whereas twenty families decided to leave and to establish a new kibbutz—Ein Carmel, near Atlit on the northern coast. The reconstruction became mired in many difficulties, and part of the promised budget did not arrive. In addition, there was a feeling of distrust in the renewing kibbutz of the parent movement, “Hakibbutz Hameuchad” (United Kibbutz movement, UKM, founded in 1927). Members left, new pioneer groups did not arrive to reinforce the settlement, or came

and left. Arguments broke out among the members, and as a result those members holding shares in the “Hatachana” Transportation Company left the kibbutz. But they also took with them the company shares, which by kibbutz community rules belonged to all the group members. Only after legal proceedings did they reach an agreement with the kibbutz. In the beginning of the 1960s, Shlomo Tamir, a member of Kibbutz Tel-Joseph, took it upon himself to help the kibbutz. He issued a public appeal to wealthy families in kibbutzim to come to Ramat Raḥel’s aid and even succeeded in obtaining a budget to build a new dining room to replace the one destroyed. The main shift in the kibbutz’s fortunes occurred during the Six-Day War, when the kibbutz was heavily bombarded. However, the IDF captured the surrounding area quickly, in the first evening of the war, June 5. This triggered a new situation completely, as the dangerous border encompassing three sides of the Kibbutz vanished overnight. Significant developments began: a hostel with a pool was built, which later became today’s four-star hotel, and small groups of youth from all over Israel started to come to the kibbutz. An additional significant development occurred in 1979 when the kibbutz absorbed a large group of families from South Africa. Today, Ramat Raḥel is no longer the southernmost settlement in the greater Jerusalem region, and it looks like it is a part of the city’s fabric. The kibbutz includes nearly 200 members, many of whom work in Jerusalem. The laundry facility provides services to the kibbutz, to the hotel, and even to municipal institutions. The kibbutz’s educational institutions absorb many children from outside areas, and the kibbutz’s hotel, convention center, sport center, and swimming pool

164 Section Four: The Rural Settlement accommodate thousands of vacationers and hundreds of celebrations and congresses each year. The agricultural division includes groves of cherries, nectarines, grapefruits, pomelos, and oranges. Remnants from the battles of 1948 and 1967 are displayed, with artistic

viewpoints overlooking all of Jerusalem westward and the desert to the east. An important archaeological site is located in the western borders of the kibbutz.

Conclusion: The Ramat Raḥel Excavations, and a Few Thoughts about the Significance of Archaeology for Understanding the History of Judah A complex of buildings was discovered beneath the dirt clods at Ramat Raḥel. This complex existed for hundreds of years, during which Judah was a vassal kingdom under the successive rule of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, and later a province under the successive rule of Babylon, Persia, and the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties. This discovery enables us to shed light on an era that is almost unknown, which occurred between two of the peak periods of independence, whose history was comprehensively described in ancient texts and in modern research: the days of glory of the Kingdom of Judah between its establishment and the period of Hezekiah, on the one hand, and the period of regaining Jewish independence during the Hasmonean Period, on the other. Between these relatively short periods of glory, Judah was under the direct rule of empires for about 500 years. The historical sources and historical research do not tend to consider this long period as a single unit and

separate the First Temple Period from the Period of the Babylonian Exile and the Period of the “Return to Zion.” The biblical description as well as the historical recreations almost ignore the fact that Kings Ahaz, Hezekiah, Menashe, Amon, and Josiah were vassals under Assyria, that Judah changed from a vassal kingdom to a mere province under Babylonian rule, and that not much changed during the transition from the Babylonian rule to the Persian rule and to the reigns of the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid dynasties. Discovering the existence of an imperial Judahite administrative center, built and developed with uninterrupted continuity over hundreds of years, possessing a structure, techniques, and characteristics most of which are unknown anywhere else throughout the territory of Judah, and which for 500 years collected storage jars marked with stamp impressions, prompted us to turn our attention to this long continuous period of imperial rule over Judah.

Fig. 224: A bird’s eye photograph of the archaeological site in Ramat Raḥel

165

166 Section Four: The Rural Settlement This sheds a new light on the end of the First Temple Period and on a large part of the Second Temple Period and opens the opportunity for us to research and inquire how the large empires allowed the Judahite people to continue with their spiritual, religious, and cultic customs in Jerusalem while developing an administrative and economic system that existed in proximity to the Temple and closely supervised their life in Jerusalem. We now understand that for hundreds of years Ramat Raḥel served as Judah’s interface with the imperial rule and that this point of connection enabled the independent Judahite control of Jerusalem and the Temple and the preservation of Jewish identity within the city walls to exist without almost any interference and supervision. As long as the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel existed and functioned, and as long as Judah paid its taxes and retained its loyalty to the respective empire’s rulers, the people’s leaders, the priests, and the sages and scribes could develop the culture, the religion, and the rituals in Judah and were able to work diligently on writing and editing the literature of wisdom, of law, and of prophecy and to preserve identity and historical memory. The destruction of the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel during the Hasmonean Period, when Judah first regained its independence after 500 years,

symbolizes the end of the period of subjugation. It is thus no wonder that from this stage onward the administrative phenomenon of stamp impressions on jar handles disappeared as well. From this point onward, Ramat Raḥel became a rural settlement, existing as such for hundreds of years as a Jewish, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic village. And lo and behold, an archaeological excavation by hundreds of students and volunteers from all over the world, which lasted many years, has now enabled a glimpse into a distant past. The excavation’s results provide researchers of culture, history, Bible, and theology with an opportunity to ask many more questions, most of which could not even have been asked before. The fieldwork at Ramat Raḥel is not complete. We left parts of the garden, the water systems, and the buildings of the administrative center for the excavation of future archaeologists who will come with new questions, improved excavation techniques, and objectives different from those we came with to this hilltop. Archaeologists and historians will interpret the results we present in this book differently; they will have different suggestions and will offer other recreations for the history of this place and its near and far environs. And all this we will gladly welcome.

Endnotes   1. See: Lipschits & Oeming, 2005.

20. Aharoni, 1987, pp. 89–90.

  2. See Eisenberg and De-Groot 2006.

21. Kallai, 1954, p. 290; Na’aman, 1999, p. 148; Lipschits and Na’aman, 2001, pp. 77–79.

  3. For a detailed discussion about the site’s ancient name, see Lipschits and Na’aman, 2011.   4. See: 2 Samuel 23: 28, 29; 2 Kings 25: 23; Jeremiah 40: 8; Ezra 2: 22; Nehemiah 7: 26; 12: 28; 1 Chronicles 2: 44; 9: 16; 11: 30; 27: 13,15, and see also the Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anit, 28, 1.

22. Meisler, 1934, pp. 9–10, with further literature. 23. Aharoni, 1955, p. 149, and Note 4. 24. Na’aman, 1999, pp. 140–141, 144–147. 25. Lipschits and Na’aman, 2001, pp. 77–79.

  5. Meisler, 1934, pp. 10–11. On the other hand, see: Aharoni, 1955, p. 174; Kallai, 1968, p. 829.

26. Schick, 1878, pp. 13–15.

  6. The archaeological finds which were discovered throughout the village of Umm-Ṭuba were published until now only in preliminary publications and in press releases of the Israel Antiquities Authority. See: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_ Eng.aspx?id=4380&mag_id=120.

28. For the Meisler and Stekelis excavation results, see: Meisler, 1934; Stekelis, 1934.

  7. Avi-Yonah, 1963, p.  104; Alt, 1932, pp.  9–12 and Kob 1932, pp. 47–49 suggested to identify Netophah with Khirbet Bad-Faluh. For additional discussion, see Kallai, 1968, pp. 829–830.   8. Barkay, 2006, pp. 41, 43.   9. Lipschits, Sergi and Koch, 2010, pp. 6–7; Lipschits, forthcoming. 10. Niesiolowski-Spanò (2005, p. 483) believes that the connection of Gideon to Ophrah is artificial and literary, and a place by that name never existed in the land of Manasseh. According to him the events described in the book of Judges occurred in a large city with a tower or a fortress, surrounded by a wall, and should be looked for in the Tribe of Judah’s territory. In his opinion, the location of Ophrah is in Ephrathah, close to Bethlehem, and it should be identified with Ramat Raḥel, which was already an important administrative center in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E. According to Niesiolowski-Spanò (ibid, pp. 485–487) an altar for the Ba’al stood at the top of the hill and Gideon destroyed it. 11. This identification is based mainly on an interpretation of Micha 4,14–5,3. Oeming in: Oeming and Lipschits, 2010, pp. 2–3. 12. Garbini, 1962, pp. 199–205.

27. Dickie, 1896, pp. 22–24; Bliss and Dickie, 1898, p.  239; Clermont-Ganneau, 1899, p. 457.

29. In the end a reservoir was not built in the location of Aharoni’s salvage excavations, probably due to the casemate wall’s quality and grandeur. 30. See Aharoni, 1955, pp. 147–174. 31. In his publications, Aharoni did not directly mention the military’s activities, perhaps out of the prevailing security discretion for this border outpost; merely noting that his excavations in the church took place after the mosaic floor’s discovery in “an incidental excavation.” While cleaning some of the military fortifications here during renewed excavations in 2009, a bunker marked with its construction date, “1954,” was found above the church’s apse. 32. See: Lipshits, 2006, pp. 26–28. 33. Aharoni, 1962; 1964. It should be noted that shortly before these two volumes were published in Rome, Aharoni’s partners at Sapienza–Università di Roma published a short book in Italian, in which they expressed opinions and reconstructions slightly different from those published by Aharoni. See Universita di Roma, Il Colle di Rachele (Ramat Raḥel)—Missione Archaeologica nel Vicino Oriente, Centro di Studi Semitici e dell’Antico Oriente, Roma 1960. 34. Barkay, 2006, pp. 34–44.

13. Aharoni, 1956, pp. 152–155; 1962, p. 50; 1964A, pp. 122–124; 1967, p. 170. 14. And see: Loewenstamm, 1954, pp. 84–85. 15. Lipschits and Na’aman, 2001, p. 73.

35. For the excavation summaries, see Solimani and Barzel, 2008. Solimani’s excavations were edited for final publication under the aegis of the renewed excavation project, and will be fully published in Lipschits et al. (in preparation).

16. Lipschits, 2004, pp. 200–202; Lipschits, Gadot, Oeming and Arubas 2014, pp. 77–91.

36. Morin, 2005.

17. Avigad and Yadin, 1957, page XXII, Row 13–14; Fitzmeyer, 1971, p. 174.

38. Diderot, 1767.

18. Aharoni’s suggestion of identification gained the support of numerous scholars. See Williamson, 1985, p. 203; Na’aman, 1991, p. 30; 2001, p. 270; Younker, 1992, pp. 686–687; Hoffman, 2001, p. 222; Lipschits, 2004, p. 249. On the other hand, see: Kallai, 1960, pp. 93–94, n. 44; 1967, p. 331. For the difficulties raised by Kallai against the identification of Ramat Raḥel with Beth-hakkerem, see the detailed reply of Lipschits and Na’aman, 2001, pp. 75–79. 19. Aharoni, 1971, p. 136.

37. Morin, 1999. 39. The 1962 season basket list was found by Yuval Gadot in a bag hidden in the Israel Antiquities Authority archive only after the findings had already been processed. A detailed study of its contents showed us that in most cases we had succeeded in accurately recreating the location of the excavation findings, through the process described of computerizing the card indices with the findings, plans and photographs we found, and crosschecking that information with Aharoni’s preliminary reports. We retrieved only a small amount of information from this list, but had we found it earlier, and of course if we had found the

167

Endnotes 168 Endnotes remaining list and diaries, we would have saved many months of hard work.   40. Lipschits, Gadot and Freud 2016.   41. For the citadel in the French Hill neighborhood, see Barkai, Fantalkin and Tal, 2002; for the citadel in Binyanei Ha’uma, see Arubas and Goldfuss, 2008; for the citadel in Zur Baher, see Eisenberg and De Groot, 2006.

  59. Shilo, 1979, pp. 10, 21; Yadin, 1973, pp. 59–66. For a summary, see Lipschits, 2009, pp. 12–15.   60. Lachish produced 378 early-type lmlk handles as compared to 90 in Jerusalem, 46 in Ramat Rahel and 31 in Beth-Shemesh. See Lipschits, Sergi and Koch, 2010.   61. This chapter is based on the article of Lipschits, 2009.

  42. Lipschits, Sergi and Koch, 2010; 2011; Lipschits, forthcoming.

  62. For a comprehensive study of the history of the decorated stone capitals, see Betancourt, 1977, p. 4; Lipschits, 2009, p. 6.

 43. Ibid.

  63. This hypothesis was well established by Shilo, 1979, pp. 88–91.

 44. Ibid.

  64. Shilo, 1979, p. 90; Finkelstein, 2000, p. 127.

  45. For the definition of the early and late types, see: Lipschits, Sergi and Koch, 2010.

  65. Finkelstein, 2000, pp. 120–121; Lipschits, 2009, pp. 5–8.

  46. Lemaire, 1981.   47. This dating was mainly based on David Ussishkin’s excavations in Lachish and on Nadav Na’aman’s historical interpretation of the results. See: Ussishkin, 1977, pp. 56–57; idem, 2004, pp. 2141– 2142; Na’aman, 1979.   48. Lipschits, Sergi and Koch, 2010.   49. Ibid, 2011.   50. Mommsen, Perlman and Yellin, 1984.   51. Aharoni, 1962, p. 16.   52. Ussishkin, 2004, p. 2143.   53. Lipschits, Sergi and Koch, 2010. Out of the 43 “private” stamp impression types, it is certain that 40 are dated to the late 8th Century BCE: stamped handles belonging to 35 types were found in the Assyrian Campaign destruction layers of 701 BCE, and handles of five additional types were discovered in the undestroyed sites, with personal names that also appear on the other 35 found in the sites destroyed by the Assyrians. Only three names—hwš’m (son of) ḥgy, ḥšy (son of) ’lšm’, and lṣmḥ (son of) ’lšm’—were found only in Jerusalem and in Ramat Rahel, without any equivalent in Lachish Stratum III or in any other Judahite site. As they are only three out of 43 known types, it seems that they are an exception which does not prove the general rule. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that unlike the lmlk stamp impressions, not one handle with a ‘private’ stamp impression was found in an archaeological context securely dated to the 7th Century BCE.   54. For the first publication of the stamp, see Lipschits, 2011B.   55. For the name Šallūm compare, for example, to Kings II, 15:10–16; Jeremiah, 22:11; 32:7; 35;4; Ezra, 2:42; 7:2; 10:24,42; Nehemia 3:12. For the name Šillēm, compare to Genesis, 46:24; Book of Numbers, 26:49. For additional details and comparisons, see Lipschits, 2011B.   56. Avigad and Sass, 1997, No. 148, 217, 348, 489.   57. For the decorated stone capitals, see Lipschits, 2009.   58. According to Kings II, 11:18: “And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal, and brake it down; his altars and his images brake they in pieces thoroughly, and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars” [King James Bible “Authorized Version,” Cambridge Edition] (Link: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline. org/2-Kings-11–18/ )

  66. Kenyon, 1963, p. 16, Table 8: B; ibid., 1967, p. 59, Table 20; Lipschits, 2009, pp. 15–16.   67. Aharoni, 1962, Illustration 11.1, 15.2; Ibid, 1964, Table 16, 42.  68. Mattingly and Pace, 2007, p.  155, 156: 3; Lipschits, 2009, pp. 17–19. An additional capital in secondary use was found in Ein Sarah not far from the capital of Moab in Karak, and see: Donner and Knauf, 1985, pp. 429–430; Herr, 1997, p. 173.   69. Najar, 1999, p. 109; Lipschits, 2009, p. 19.   70. Aharoni, 1964, 56–58, Illustration 38.1, Table 48, 1–2.   71. Stekelis, 1934, p. 26.   72. Aharoni, 1964, 55, Illustration 38.4, Table 44.1.   73. For a detailed description of this period and of Judah’s history in the imperial whirlpool of governments between Assyria, Egypt and Babylon, see Lipschits, 2004, pp. 15–90.   74. Na’aman, 1989, pp. 51–53.   75. See the events of these years reconstructed at Lipschits, 2004, pp. 51–55.   76. For the events of these years reconstructed, see Lipschits, 2001.   77. For a detailed recounting of the destruction period’s history, see Lipschits, 2004, pp. 92–117.   78. About this term and its meaning in the monumental architecture, see Trigger, 1990, p. 124.   79. The report of the second excavation expedition in Samaria describes a similar set of earthworks and architectural features: Leveling a large area near the acropolis, constructing enclosure walls which were integrated with the edge of the quarried bedrock, while creating a clearly delineated closed and separate complex; collecting and bringing excellent agricultural “chocolate-like” soil from the adjacent valleys and laying it on the leveled area (Crowfoot et al., 1966, pp. 11–115). Compare also to the description in the “Samaria” entry in the New Encyclopedia for Archaeological Excavations, Vol. IV, p. 1499.   80. For a general discussion in the topic of “Gardens in the Ancient East,” see Oppenheim, 1965, p. 328–333.   81. Above the surface with the collapsed rocks Aharoni identified a fallen wall that remained almost complete, and had originally supported the ceiling. Aharoni reasoned therefore that the cave ceiling collapse occurred suddenly, sometime between the late Iron Age and the beginning of the Hellenistic Period, perhaps by earthquake, which we are now dating later based on the excavated finds. See: Aharoni, 1964, p. 55.

Endnotes 169   82. We may assume that the concentric circle incision is a schematic version of the winged sun-disk. If so, the craftspeople marking the handles could not create the form of a perfect sun-disk, as the symbol was engraved and not impressed. Therefore, they were satisfied with engraving the most important element in this motif—the sun-disk. This restoration is also based on a glyptic finding from the Ancient Near East, in which circles with one center are seen in the middle of the sun-disk.   83. For an extended discussion of the rosette stamp impressions, see Koch and Lipschits, 2009.   84. On this subject, see: Fulton et. al. 2015.   85. Koch and Lipschits, 2009.   86. See Lipschits and Koch, 2010.   87. For the importance of the yehud stamp impressions in understanding the Persian Period in Ramat Rahel and in Judah, see Lipschits and Vanderhooft, 2011.   88. This chapter is based on the article of Langgut et al., 2013.   89. For this, see a summary in Lipschits, 2006, p. 20; ibid, 2012, p. 75.   90. For these findings, see in detail in Tal, 2007, pp.  276–277, 312–316.   91. This chapter is based on Bocher, 2011; Bocher and Lipschits, 2012.   92. For the ritual baths in Judah, see Reich, 1990.   93. Aharoni, 1964, p. 17.   94. See Reich, 1990.   95. This supplementing chapter is based on the article of Farhi et al., 2010.   96. This chapter is based on the article of Farhi and Lipschits, 2010.   97. Aharoni, 1964, Illustration 1.   98. Kochavi, 1964, pp. 65–83.   99. Kloner and Zissu, 2003, pp. 217–219; Zissu, 1997, pp. 32–40. The site excavators compared this graveyard to the Qumran graveyard, which was identified with the Essene sect; see: Zissu and Moyal, 1994, pp. 142–143.

103. See the discussion of Itamar Taxel, below, Ch. 13. Nevertheless, life in the site was renewed immediately after the earthquake, although only on a small scale, which we will further discuss below. 104. Aharoni, 1964, p. 122. 105. Magness, 1993, pp. 88–118. Buff ware are pottery pieces made of whitish clay, and they were included among the ceramic vessels typical of the early Islamic Period, mainly from the second half of the 8th Century CE. 106. Kloner, 2003, pp. 44–45. 107. This number of coins includes a hoard of 15 Tyrian shekels from the 1st century BCE, a hoard of 360 coins from the late Roman Period (5th century ) and two groups of coins which had probably originated in buried Byzantine hoards of the 7th century CE (9 coins in the first group and 4 in the second group). All the other coins were scattered around the buildings, and in fills all over the site. Most coins could be identified, excluding 50 which were found in bad condition. It should be noted that 80 coins were discovered during the last excavation season (Summer 2010). They are included here in general counting, but not in the detailed chronological discussion. 108. The coins illustrated in Fig. 204 are not to scale. 109. Regarding our suggested date for the founding of the Roman settlement sometime between 70–130 CE, see Ch. 12. 110. A quarried vineyard is an agricultural method detected from the Roman-Byzantine period in Samaria, which is not yet understood. See Zertal, 2000. 111. We thank the archives of Kibbutz Ramat Rahel and of the IDF for their help and for the materials placed at our disposal. 112. Ramat Rahel in Battle, p. 1. 113. Bar Haim, 1972, pp. 46–54. 114. Ramat Rahel in Battle, p. 42. 115. Ibid, p. 327. 116. Itzhak Sadeh, Governmental Military Archive, 469/1958. 117. Ibid.

100. Gorzalczany, 2011, pp. 105*-136*.

118. Ibid.

101. We would like to thank Ruth Jackson-Tal for dating the glass items.

119. Governmental Military Archive, 422/1955.

102. See the summaries of Avner, 2003; idem, 2006.

121. Morris, 1996; Golani, 1998.

120. Ibid, 1034/1965.

This page left intentionally blank.

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. ‘Excavations at Ramath Rahel, 1954: Preliminary Report’, Israel Exploration Journal 6 (1956), pp. 102–111, 137–157. Aharoni, Y. ‘Excavations at Ramat Rahel’, Yedi’ot XIX (1955), pp. 147–174 (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. ‘Excavations at Ramath Rahel, 1954: Preliminary Report’, Israel Exploration Journal 6 (1956), pp. 102–111, 137–157. Aharoni, Y. ‘Excavations at Ramat Rahel (Second Session, 1959)’, Yedi’ot XXIV (1960), pp. 1–47 (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel—Seasons 1959 and 1960, Roma 1962.

Avner, R. ‘The Recovery of the Kathisma Church and Its Influence on Octagonal Buildings’, in: G. C. Bottini, L. D. Chrupcala and L. Di Segni (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures, Archaeological Studies in Honor of Stanislao Loffreda, Jerusalem 2003, pp. 173–186. Avner, R., ‘The Kathisma: A Christian and Muslim Pilgrimage Site, Aram 19 (2007), pp. 541–557. Avner, R.  The Kathisma on the Way between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Qadmoniot 130 (2006), pp.  117–121 (Hebrew). Avner, R. ‘The Kathisma: a Christian and Muslim pilgrimage site’, ARAM 18–19 (2006–2007), pp. 541–557. Barkay, G. ‘Royal Palace, Royal Portrait? The Tantalizing Possibilities of Ramat Raḥel’, BAR 32 (2006), pp. 34–44.

Aharoni, Y. Carta’s Atlas of the Bible (Second revised edition), Jerusalem 1974. Aharoni, Y. ‘Beth Haccherem’, in: Archaeology and Old Testament Study, Oxford 1967, pp. 171–185. Aharoni, Y. ‘Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness’. in: Luriah, B”Z., (ed.). Studies in the Book of Jeremiah, vol. 2, Givatayim 1971, pp.  55–76 (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. Paths and Sites, Tel Aviv 1971 (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (2nd revised ed.), Philadelphia 1987 (Hebrew). Aharoni, M.  Yohanan Aharoni—His Life, Tel Aviv 1998 (Hebrew). Ahituv, S. ‘The Valley of the King’, The Bible Encyclopedia 6, Jerusalem 1972, pp. 296, 299–300 (Hebrew). Alt, A. ‚Das Institut im Jahre 1926‘, Palästina-Jahrbuch 23 (1927), pp. 5–29.

Barkay, G. Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O., ‘A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem’, BASOR 328 (2002), pp. 49–71. Bar-Haim, I. On the Way to Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem 1972. Bar-On, M. Borders in Smoke—Studies in the History of the State of Israel, 1948–1976, Jerusalem 2001. Betancourt, P. P. The Aeolic Style in Architecture: A Survey of its Development in Palestine, the Halikarnassos Peninsula, and Greece, 1000–5000 B.C., Princeton 1977. Bliss, F. J. and Dickie, A. C. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894– 1897, London 1898. Bocher, E. The yršlm Stamp Impressions from the Early Hellenistic Period (Unpublished MA Thesis), Tel Aviv University, 2012 (Hebrew). Bocher, E. and Lipschits, O. ‘The Corpus of yršlm Stamp Impressions—The Final Link’, Tel Aviv 40 (2013), pp. 99–116. Clermont-Ganneau, C. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874, London 1899.

Alt, A. ‚Das Institut im Jahre 1931‘, Palästina-Jahrbuch 28 (1932), pp. 5–47. Arubas, B., and Goldfus, H. ‘The Site at Binyanri ha-Uma and Its Role in the Settlement Network Surrounding Jerusalem’, Eretz-Israel 28 (2008), pp. 14–20 (Hebrew).

Cornelius, I., “Revisiting the seated figure from Hirbet Salih/Ramat Rahel”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 131 (2015) pp. 29–43.

Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Haʾuma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, The Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks and A Byzantine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Small Finds. Portsmouth, Rhode Island (2005).

Garbini, G. ‘Sul nome antico di Ramat Rahel’, RSO 16 (1961), pp. 199–205. Dalman, G. ‚Die Exkursionskarte von Jerusalem und Mitteljudäa‘, ZDPV 37 (1914), pp. 348–370.

Avigad, N. and Yadin, Y., A Genesis Apocryphon, Jerusalem 1956.

Dalman, G.  Jerusalem und sein Gelande (Schriften des Deutschen Palastina-Instituts 4), Gütersloh 1930.

Avi Yonah, M. historical Geography of the Land of Israel, Jerusalem 1963.

Davidowich, U., Porat, N., Gadot, Y., Avni, Y., and Lipschits, O. ‘Archaeological investigations and OSL Dating of

Bibliography

Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M. and Sukenik, E. L. The Buildings at Samaria (Samaria-Sebastea No. 1), London 1966.

171

172 Bibliography Terraces: The Case of Ramat Rahel, Israel’, Journal of Field Archaeology 37(3) (2012), pp. 192–208.

Herr, L. ‘The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations’, Biblical Archaeologist 60 (1997), pp. 114–151, 154–183.

Dickie, A. C. ‘Report on Tombs Discovered near Sûr Bahir’, PEFQS (1896), pp. 22–24.

Hoffman, Y. Jeremiah—Introduction and Commentary, Tel Aviv 2001.

Diderot, D. Salon de 1767, Oxford 1983.

Kallai, Z., The Northern Boundaries of Judah from the Settlement of the Tribes until the Beginning of the Hasmonean Period, Jerusalem, 1960 (Hebrew).

Donner, H. and Knauf, E. A. ‘Ghor es-Saf et Wadi el-Kerak (1983)’, RB 92 (1985), pp. 429–430. Eisenberg, E. and De Groot, A. ‘A Tower from the Iron Age near Ramat Rahel’, in: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z., and Faust, A. (eds.). New Studies on Jerusalem 11, Jerusalem 2006, pp. 129–133 (Hebrew with English summery). Elitzur, Y. Ancient Toponyms in the Land of Israel: Preservation and History, Jerusalem 2009. Farhi, Y., Gadot, Y., Davidovich, U. and Lipschits, O. ‘The Ramat Raḥel Hoard of Tyrian Sheqels’, Israel Numismatic Studies 17 (2010), pp. 59–76. Farhi, Y. and Lipschits, O. A Unique Bulla from the Ramat Raḥel Excavations Bearing the Name of Hadrian. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 170 (2009), pp. 295–298. A Hebrew version of the paper was published in: Baruch, E., Levi-Reifer, A. and Faust, A. (eds.), New Studies in Jerusalem 15. Ramat-Gan (2010), pp. 169– 174. (Hebrew, with English Summary on pp. 16–17). Fast, T. ‚Neugefundene Schalensteine‘, ZDPV 47 (1924), pp. 242–244. Finkelstein, I. ‚Omride Architecture‘, ZDPV 116 (2000), pp. 114–138. Fitzmeyer, J. A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 1971. Freud, L., ‘Re-Examination of the Iron Age Pottery from Ramat Rahel’ (Unpublished MA Thesis), Tel Aviv University, 2011 (Hebrew). Fulton, D. N., Gadot, Y., Kleiman, A., Freud, L., Lernau, O., and Lipschits, O., ‘Feasting in Paradise: Feast Remains from the Iron Age Palace of Ramat Raḥel and their Implications’, BASOR 374 (2015), pp. 29–48. Gadot, Y., Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., “Tieferes Verstehen. Erwägungen zur Epistemologie der Archäologie am Beispiel der Ausgrabung von Ramat Rahel (Jerusalem),” Trumah 18 (2009), pp. 33–55. Ginsberg, H. L. ‘MMŠT and MṢH’, BASOR 109 (1948), pp. 20–22. Golani, M. There will be a War in the Summer: the Way to the Sinai War, 1955–1956, vol. I, Tel Aviv 1998.

Kallai, Z., The Tribes of Israel: A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible, Jerusalem, 1967 (Hebrew). Kedem-Shimon, N., Changes in the Architecture and Site Formation at Ramat Rahel between the Iron Age and the Hellenistic Period (Unpublished MA Thesis), Tel Aviv University, 2010 (Hebrew). Kenyon, K. M. ‘Excavations in Jerusalem, 1962’, PEQ 95 (1963), pp. 7–21. Kenyon, K. M. Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History, London 1967. Kob, K. ‘Netopha’, PJB 28 (1932), pp. 47–54. Kob, K. ‘Noch einmal Netopha’, ZDPV 94 (1978), pp. 119–134. Koch, I. and Lipschits, O., The Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Rosette Stamped Jar Handles. Cathedra 137 (2010), pp.  7–26 (Hebrew). In English: The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period. ZDPV 129 (2013), pp. 55–78. Kochavi, M. ‘The Burial Caves of Ramat Rahel, 1962 Season’, in: Y. Aharoni, Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1961 and 1962, Roma 1964, pp. 65–83. Kloner, A., Archaeological Survey of Israel, Survey of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Sector, Introduction and Indices. Jerusalem 2003. Kloner, A., and Zissu, B., The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem (2003), (Hebrew). Langgut, D., Gadot, Y., Porat, N. and Lipschits, O. ‘Trapped Pollen Reveals the Secrets of Royal Persian Garden at Ramat Rahel (Jerusalem)‘, Palinology 37(1) (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2012.736418 Lemaire, A. ‘Classification des estampilles royales Judeennes’, Eretz-Israel 15 (1981), pp. 54–60. Lipschits, O. ‘ “Jehoiakim Slept with his Father . . .” (II Kings 24: 6)—Did He?’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 4 (2001), pp. 1–27.

Gross, B. Gardens in the Ancient Near-East and the Garden at Ramat Rahel (Unpublished MA Thesis), Tel Aviv University, 2012 (Hebrew).

Lipschits, O. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: The History of Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake 2005.

Hauer, C. E., ‘Jerusalem, the Stronghold and Rephaim’, CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 571–578.

Lipschits, O. ‘Blood in Ramat Rahel’, Etmol 187 (2006), pp. 26–28 (Hebrew).

Bibliography 173 Lipschits, O. ‘The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon’, Cathedra 131 (2009), pp. 5–24 (Hebrew). An English Version in: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds., The Fire Signals of Lachish—Studies on the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: Text and Artifacts Relating to Ancient Israel, Offered in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake: IN (2011), pp. 203–225. Lipschits, O. ‘ “Here is a man whose name is ṣemaḥ” (Zechariah 6: 12)’, Eretz Israel 30 (2011), pp. 283–289 (Hebrew). An English version was published in: Davies, P. and Edelman, D. eds., The Historian and the Bible: Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe (LHBOTS series 530), London (2010), pp. 124–136. Lipschits, O. Judah under Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Rule—A New Look at Its History and Administration in Light of the Stamped Jar Handles, Jerusalem (forthcoming) (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. ‘Ein Privatsiegelabdruck aus Ramat Rahel‘, in: I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt and J. Wörle (eds.), Berührungspunkte. Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65, Geburtstag (AOAT 350), Münster 2008, pp. 491–498. Lipschits, O. ‘Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an “Empty Land” ’, in: B. Kelle, F. R. Ames, and J. L. Wright (eds.), Interpreting Exile: Interdisciplinary Studies of Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, SBL’s Ancient Israel and Its Literature series, Atlanta 2011, pp. 57–90. Lipschits, O. ‘The Ivory Seal of šlm (Son of) klkl, Discovered at Ramat Rahel’, Israel Exploration Journal 61(2) (2011), pp. 162–170. Lipschits, O., and Gadot, Y.  Ramat Rahel and the Emeq Rephaim sites—Links and interpretations. in: Amit, D. and Stiebel, G. D. (eds.). New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Religion, Collected Papers, vol. II. Jerusalem 2008, pp. 88–96 (Hebrew).

Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Langgut, D. ‘The Riddle of Ramat Rahel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian Period Edifice’, Transeuphratene 41 (2012), pp. 57–79. Lipschits, O., and Koch, I., (eds.). New Studies in the Research of the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah (Booklet of Abstracts), Tel Aviv University (2010). Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona-Lake 2005. Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., Gadot, Y. and Arubas, B. ‘Ramat Rahel 2005‘, Israel Exploration Journal 56(2) (2006), pp. 227—235. Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., Gadot, Y. and Arubas, B. ‘The 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons at Ramat Rahel’, Israel Exploration Journal 59(1) (2007), pp. 1–20. Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., Gadot, Y. and Vanderhooft, D. S. ‘Seventeen Newly Excavated YEHUD Stamp Impressions from Ramat-Rahel’, Tel-Aviv 34 (2007), pp. 74–89. Lipschits, O. and Na’aman, N., ‘From ‘Baal Perazim’ to ‘Beth-Haccherem’—On the Ancient Name of Ramat-Rahel’, Beth-Miqra 56: (2011), pp. 65–86 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. ‘Royal Judahite Storage Jars: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions’, Tel Aviv 37 (2010), pp. 3–32. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. ‘Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for the Study of the History of Late Monarchic Judah’, Tel Aviv 38(1) (2011), pp. 5–41. Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. ‘The Growing Corpus of Yehud Stamp Impressions: New Finds and New Research’, Tel Aviv 34(1) (2007), pp. 3–11. Lipschits, O., and Vanderhooft, D.  S., ‘Jerusalem in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Light of the Yehud Stamp Impressions’, Eretz Israel 28, Jerusalem (2007), pp. 106–115 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O., and Vanderhooft, D. S., ‘40 Unpublished yehud Stamp Impressions from Aharoni’s Excavations at Ramat Rahel’, Eretz Israel 29 (2009), pp. 248–269 (Hebrew).

Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. Ramat Rahel and its Secrets. Qadmoniot 138 (2009), pp. 58–77 (Hebrew).

Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Stamp Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah, Winona Lake 2011.

Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. ‘Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel’, NEA 74(1) (2011), pp. 2–49.

Lipschits, O., Vanderhooft, D. S., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. ‘24 New Yehud Stamp Impressions from the 2007 Excavation Season at Ramat-Rahel’, Maarav 15(1) (2008), pp. 7–25 (and Plates in pp. 97–103).

Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L. Ramat Rahel III: Final Publication of Aharoni’s Excavations. (The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology—Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). Winona-Lake 2016.

Lipschits, O., Vanderhooft, D. S., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. ‘Twenty-Seven New Yehud Stamp Impressions from the 2008 Excavation Season at Ramat-Rahel’, Maarav 16(1) (2010), pp. 7–28.

174 Bibliography Loewenstamm, S. E. ‘Beth Hakkerem’, Biblical Encyclopedia 2, Jerusalem 1954, pp. 84–85.

Oppenheim, A.  L. ‘On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24 (1965), pp. 328–333.

Magness, J. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield 1993.

Reich, R., Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Jerusalem (1990), (Hebrew).

Maisler, B. ‘Ramat Rachel and Kh. Salah’, Qobetz 3 (Mazie Volume), 1935, pp. 4–18 (Hebrew). Marom, L. The Garden and the Water System—Area C1 in Ramat Rahel Excavations (2005–2007) (Unpublished MA Thesis), Tel Aviv University, 2010 (Hebrew). Mattingly, G. L. and Pace, J. H. ‘By Way of the Karak Plateau’, in: T. E. Levy et al. (eds.), Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, London and Oakville 2007. Mommsen, H., Perlman, I. and Yellin, J. ‘The Provenience of the lmlk Jars’, Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984), pp. 89–113. Morin, R. ‘Creative Preservation: The Development of an Artistic Approach to the Preservation and Presentation of the Past’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 3 (1999), pp. 191–201. Morin, R. ‘”Creative Preservation” in the Recently Opened Archaeological Garden at Ramat Rachel, Jerusalem’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 7(1) (2005), pp. 56–62. Morris, B., The Wars on the Borders of Israel 1949–1956, Tel Aviv 2006. Na’aman, N. ‘Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the LMLK Stamps’, Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979), pp. 61–86. Na’aman, N. ‘The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah’, Tel Aviv 18 (1991), pp. 3–71. Na’aman, N. ‘Baal Toponyms; Baal-Gad; Baal Hamon; Baal Hazor; Baal Hermon; Baal Judah; Baal Meon; Baal-Perazim; Baal-Shalisha; Baal-Tamar’, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden 1999, pp.  140–141, 144–47, 148–149, 151–152. Na’aman, N. ‘An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel?’, Tel Aviv 28 (2001), pp. 260–280. Najjar, M. ‘’Ammonite’ Monumental Architecture’, in: B.  Macdonald and R.  W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon, Leiden 1999, pp. 103–112. Niesiolowski-Spanò, L. ‘Where Should One Look for Gideon’s Ophra?’, Biblica 86 (2005), pp. 478–493. Oeming, M. and Lipschits, O., “Israel, Ramat Rahel: Neue Funde aus der Zeit der Perser.” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 61 (2011) 72 Oeming, M. and Lipschits, O. ‚Die Rätsel von Ramat Raḥel‘, Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 2 (2010), pp. 2–9.

Reich, R., ‘On the Assyrian Presence at Ramat Raḥel’, Tel Aviv 30 (2003), pp. 124–129. Schick, C. ‚Mitteilungen aus Jerusalem‘, ZDPV 1 (1878), pp. 11–23. Sergi, O., Karasik, A., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. ‘The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer Generated Typology and Its Archaeological and Historical implications’, Tel Aviv 39(1) (2012), pp. 64–92. Shiloh, Y.  The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11), Jerusalem 1979. Simons, J.  Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old-Testament, Leiden 1959. Solimany, G., and Barzel, V., ‘Ramat Raḥel’, Hadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120 (2008), http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_ Eng.aspx?id=793&mag_id=114. Soennecken, K. 2006, Ramat Rachel in the Byzantine Period, publiziert im Internet: http://kiho-wuppertal-bethel.academia.edu/KatjaSoennecken/Papers/1123889/Ramat_ Rachel_in_the_Byzantine_Period_master_thesis_ (last 21.9.2016) Stekelis, M. ‘A Jewish Tomb-Cave at Ramat Rachel’, Qobetz 3 (Mazie Volume) (1935), pp. 19–40 (Hebrew). Tal, O. ‘Eretz-Israel during the Hellenistic Period: An Archaeological Perspective’, Qadmoniot 133 (2007), pp. 2–14. Trigger, B. C. ‘Monumental architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behavior’, World Archaeology 22 (2) (1990), pp. 119–132. Ussishkin, D. ‘The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars’, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 28–60. Ussishkin, D. ‘The Royal Judean Storage Jars and Seal Impressions from the Renewed Excavations’, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), 4 (Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22), Tel Aviv 2004, pp. 2133–2147. Weber, C., In Eden und darüber hinaus (BVB 24), Münster 2014, 215–240. Williamson, H. G.M. Ezra, Nehemiah (World Biblical Commentary 16), Waco 1985.

Bibliography 175 Yadin, Y. et al. Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavation, 1955, Jerusalem 1958. Yadin, Y. ‘The “House of Baal” in Samaria and in Judah’, in: Aviram, J. (ed.), Eretz Shomron: The Thirtieth Archaeological Convention September 1972, Jerusalem 1973, pp. 52–66. Younker, R.  W. ‘Beth-Haccherem’, ABD 1 (1992), pp. 686–687. Zertal, A. The Survey of the Hill Country of Manasseh vol. 3—From Nahal ‘Iron to Nahal Shechem, 2000, Tel Aviv and Haifa (Hebrew).

Zissu B. Field Graves at Beit Zafafa: Archaeological Evidence for the Essene Community? in: Fayst, A. (ed.). New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Second Conference. Ramat—Gan 1997 pp. 32–40. (Hebrew). Zlatcowski, V. The Administrative Center in Ramat Rahel during the Iron Age and the Persian Period in light of the Analysis of the Distribution of the Finds from Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962) (Unpublished MA Thesis), Tel Aviv University, 2010 (Hebrew).

List of Figures Fig. 1: Prof. Oded Lipschits (left) and Prof. Manfred Oeming, during the first excavation season in Ramat Raḥel (2005) Photograph: Jucha—Jossef (avi Yair) Engel

Fig. 13: Excavations north of the kibbutz’s water reservoir, 1960 season Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 14: Yohanan Aharoni

Fig. 2: Excavation expeditions of 2005, 2006, 2008; and 2010 staff

Photo: Aharoni’s family

Photograph: Pavel Shrago

Fig. 3: Pottery shard, drawing of image sitting on throne. Aharoni’s excavations, Locus 477 Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 4: The natural hill of Ramat Raḥel prior to commencement of construction activities Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 5: Ramat Raḥel’s location placed on the British Survey Map (PEF) Source: the Palestine Exploration Fund (Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition)

Fig. 15: Yohanan Aharoni (right) during the Ramat Raḥel excavations Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 16: Yohanan Aharoni during the Ramat Raḥel excavations Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 17: commemoration sign to the memory of those murdered in the 1956 attack Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 18: Prof. Manfred Oeming cleaning the bunker, near the incized date of the concrete pouring Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 19: Site map, from Solimani’s 2000–2002 excavation publication

Fig. 6: Ramat Raḥel as viewed from the Rephaim Valley

Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Source: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail. asp?id=793&mag_id=114

Fig. 7: View from the City of David towards the ridge of the British High Commissioner’s Residence/UN

Fig. 20: The statue in the North-Eastern Corner Photograph: Ran Morin

Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 8: View from the City of David towards the ridge of the British High Commissioner’s Residence; Ramat Raḥel lies behind it as shown by the arrow Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 21: The location of the statues, placed according to Aharoni’s fortress plan Plan: Ran Morin (based on Aharoni’s plan of the site)

Fig. 22: Picture albums from Aharoni’s excavations Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 9: Northern structure in Ramat Raḥel, a view southward Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 23: Card indices of artifacts, as found in the storerooms of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Mount Scopus campus Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 10: Chaim Weizmann’s (left) visit in the burial cave exposed by Meisler (Mazar) and Stekelis

Fig. 24: A typical index card

Source: unknown (from Aharoni’;s archive, Tel Aviv University)

Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 11: Pottery restoration in Gan Luria, located on the edge of the excavation area

Fig. 25: Computerization process of the card indices from Aharoni’s excavations Source: Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 12: Cleaning the public bath house mosaic floors northeast of the kibbutz water reservoir, 1960 season Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Figs. 26–27: Work in the storerooms of the Israel Antiquities Authority in Beth-Shemesh, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Photograph: Oded Lipschits

List of Figures

176

List of Figures 177 Fig. 28: The expedition at work in Area D4 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 29: The expedition at work in Area D6 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 30: The expedition at work in Area D6 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 31: Map of Ramat Raḥel excavation areas Source map: Skyview. Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 32: The expedition at work in Area C1 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 33: Ornamented stone capital from Ramat Raḥel Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Image processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 34: The Assyrian Empire in the 7th Century BCE Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 35: Judah on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 36: Ramat Raḥel’s first building phase plan

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 37: Connection point between the earlier tower and the attached wall of the second building phase Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 38: Tower walls, view towards the north Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 39: Plan of the Ramat Raḥel Tower

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 40: Southeastern wall in Area D2, a view southward Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 41: Plan of the southeastern wall in Area D2

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 42: Southern casemate wall as exposed in Aharoni’s excavations Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 43: Southern casemate wall as it looks today, view to the west Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 44: Schematic illustration of stamp impression types dating from the late Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period Drawing: Rodica Pinchas, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 45: lmlk-type storage jar from Lachish

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 46: Three-dimensional scan of a lmlk storage jar Imaging: Avshalom Karasik

Fig. 47: Four-winged lmlk stamp impression

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 48: Two-winged lmlk stamp impression

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 49: Map showing late 8th Century BCE distribution of lmlk stamped handles Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 50: Map showing early 7th Century BCE distribution of lmlk stamped handles Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 51: “Private” stamp impression together with lmlk stamp impression on the same jar handle Fig. 52: “Private” stamp impression with the name “/‫לצמח‬ 2008 ”,‫ אלשמע‬excavation season Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Drawing: Rodica Pinchas, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 53: Ivory seal from Ramat Raḥel—“‫כלכל‬/‫ ”שלמ‬šlm / klkl Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 54: Concentric circle incision on a jar handle Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

178 List of Figures Fig. 55: Concentric circle incision next to a lmlk stamp impression

Fig. 67: Illustration of Assyrian relief with column bases and decorated stone capitals

Fig. 56: Different types of decorated stone capitals in the Kingdom of Israel

Fig. 68: Map of the Babylonian Empire

Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Source: Lipschits, O. 2009. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. Cathedra 131: 5–24 (Hebrew).

Fig. 57: Decorated stone capitals in the kingdoms of Judah, Moab and Ammon Source: Lipschits, O. 2009. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. Cathedra 131: 5–24 (Hebrew).

Fig. 58: Decorated stone capital from Ramat Raḥel

Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 59: Discovering a stone capital in Aharoni’s Ramat Raḥel excavations Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 60: Decorated stone capital fragments from the renewed Ramat Raḥel excavations Source: Lipschits, O. 2009. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. Cathedra 131: 5–24 (Hebrew).

Fig. 61: Schematic illustration of a decorated stone capital with its various components Source: Lipschits, O. 2009. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. Cathedra 131: 5–24 (Hebrew).

Fig. 62: Window colonettes as found in the excavations, before restoration Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 63: Window colonettes after restoration

Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 64: Window balustrade with the pattern of the “Woman in the Window,” similar to carved ivories of the Ancient Near East Source: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M., ‘Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel’, NEA 74(1) (2011), pp. 2–49.

Fig. 65: Stone crenellation found in Aharoni’s excavations Source: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 66: Column base fragment in secondary use, renewed Ramat Raḥel excavations Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Drawing: Rodica Pinchas, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php)

Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 69: Map of Judah at the end of the First Temple Period Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 70: Plan of the second building phase

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 71: The natural hill prior to construction activities

Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 72: Quarrying of the natural hill, second building phase Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 73: Three-dimensional reconstruction of the second building phase complex, view from the southwest Imaging: Roy Albag

Fig. 74: “The stitch”—connection point between the northern casemate wall and the tower Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 75: Artificial cliff rising above the garden area Photograph: Skyview

Fig. 76: Bird’s-eye photograph of the southern garden Photograph: Skyview

Fig. 77: The garden soil

Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 78: Ashurbanipal’s garden banquet relief

Source: I. Ziffer, 2005, ‘From Acemhöyük to Megiddo: the Banquet Scene in the Art of the Levant in the Second Millennium BCE’, Tel Aviv 32, fig. 26

Fig. 79: General plan of the water system, second building phase Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

List of Figures 179 Fig. 80: Plan of the southern water system

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 81: Pool 2—Excavation work in Season 2007 Photograph: Skyview

Fig. 82: Pool 2 after cleaning

Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 83: Reconstruction of Pool 2, view to the east

Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 84: Pool 2—Exposing the drainpipes in Season 2006, view to northwest Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 85: Close-up of the stone drainpipe which transferred water from Pool 2, view from the south Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 97: Ceiling of the collapsed cave after cleaning and before removal, view to the south Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 98: Removal of the water reservoir ceiling blocks with a crane, view to the north Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 99: Water reservoir after Season 2010 excavation Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 100: Northern casemate wall, view to the east Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 101: “Corner” of the northern wall in Aharoni’s plan, and its continuation eastward past the corner Drawing: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 102: Northern casemate wall as exposed under the church Photograph: Skyview

Fig. 86: Exposing the covered channels near Pool 2, view to the east

Fig. 103: Eastern wall as exposed under the church

Fig. 87: Channel A-C, view from the inside

Fig. 104: Southern frontage wall of the southern casemate wall, as exposed by Aharoni

Photograph: Oded Lipschits Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 88: Channel D-E

Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 89: Plan of the water channels in the southern garden area Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 90: Plan of the northern garden area water system

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 91: Pool 6—Excavation work during Season 2010 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 92: Southwestern corner and floor of Pool 6, view to the east Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 93: Entrance to covered Channel F Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 94: Covered Channel F—from the inside Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 95: The possible exit from Pool 6—eastward Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 96: Ceiling of the collapsed cave, as found by Aharoni Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Photograph: Skyview

Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 105: Wall plan from the second building phase in areas D1 and D6 Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 106: Inner courtyard while being exposed by Aharoni, view to the north Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 107: Reconstruction of the slope beneath the inner courtyard Drawing: Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 108: Section cut in the western part of the courtyard Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 109: Inner courtyard—aerial view Photograph: Skyview

Fig. 110: Section cut in the gate area

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 111: Test sections in the outer courtyard, Season 2008 Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 112: Outer courtyard, view to the east Photograph: Skyview

180 List of Figures Fig. 113: Rosette stamp impression types

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Drawing: Rodika Pinchas, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 114: Jar handles with rosette stamp impressions found in the Ramat Raḥel excavations Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 115: Map with rosette jar handles find-spots Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 116: Locus 477 as exposed in Aharoni’s excavations, Season 1961 Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 117: Pit under the courtyard floor as exposed in Season 2008 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 118: Pottery vessel from Pit 14109

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 119: Holemouth jars from a room south of the palace courtyard Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 120: Drawing on pottery shard, image sitting on a chair Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 121: Syntax of movement in the second building phase palace area in Ramat Raḥel Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition. Adaptation: Yuval Gadot

Fig. 122: Distribution map of the lion stamped jar handles Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 123: Lion stamp impressions on jar handles from the Ramat Raḥel excavations Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 124: Palace reconstruction, view to the northeast Imaging: Roy Albag

Fig. 125: Reconstruction of the inner courtyard, view to the west Imaging: Roy Albag

Fig. 126: Reconstruction of the palace and garden, view to the east Imaging: Roy Albag

Fig. 127: Reconstruction of the palace and the new building on the north Imaging: Roy Albag

Fig. 128: Map of the Persian Empire Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 129: Map of the Province of Yehud during the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods Source map: ArchAtlas: Archaeological Atlas Project (http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/Home.php) Processing: Ido Koch, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 130: Plan of the third building phase in Ramat Raḥel

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 131: Handle with yehud stamp impression

Photograph: Pavel Shrago. Drawing: Rodica Pinchas, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 132: Yehud stamp impressions, early types Drawing: David S. Vanderhooft

Fig. 133: Yehud stamp impressions, early types (cont’d.) Drawing: David S. Vanderhooft

Fig. 134: Yehud stamp impressions, middle types Drawing: David S. Vanderhooft

Fig. 135: Yehud stamp impressions, late types Drawing: David S. Vanderhooft

Fig. 136: Plan of mechanically-cut sections, Luria Garden

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 137: Work in a section, westward view Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 138: Section 4 during work, view to the west Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 139: Corner of the Persian Period building, bottom of Section 4 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 140: Section 4 after extension in Season 2007, view to the east Photograph: Oded Lipschits

List of Figures 181 Fig. 141: Preparation works for third phase exposure—2008 Season, view to the east Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 142: Persian Period building foundations—aerial photograph, view to the east Photo: Skyview

Fig. 143: Western wall of Pool 6 as an example for the third building phase construction technique Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 144: Plastered water trench in Area B2

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 145: Destruction layer in Area C1 South Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 146: Two restored jars from Area C1 South

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 147: Jar fragments in the pit as excavation begins

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 148: Jar restoration process on the Tel-Aviv University restoration lab table Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 149: Lion and “private” stamp impressions on a body fragment Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 150: Yehūd Ḥananāh stamp impression on a body fragment Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 151: Two yhwd stamp impressions on two different handles of the same jar Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 152: The vessel collection of the early Persian Period pit Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 153: The two plaster layers from which samples were taken to isolate the pollen grains. Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Adaptation: Dafna Langgut

Fig. 154: Citron (Citrus Medica) /Etrog pollen grain, extracted from Pool 2s plaster in the Ramat Raḥel garden Photograph: Dafna Langgut

Fig. 155: Recreation of the garden vegetation in Ramat Raḥel Drawing: Nirit Kedem, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 156: Robbed wall, eastern area (Area D5)

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 157: Ritual bath—staircase leading to a plastered space, as documented by Aharoni Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 158: yršlm stamp impression

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 159: Distribution map of the yršlm stamped jars

Drawing: Ido Koch and Efrat Bocher, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 160: yršlm stamp impression types

Drawing: Rodica Pinchas, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 161: Fill in Area B2, Excavation Season 2008

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 162: Fill above the foundation trenches of a third building phase structure Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 163: Fill above the southern garden area (Area C1)

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 164: A Hasmonean Period coin

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 165: A jug from the late Hellenistic Period

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 166: Plan of the ritual baths in Ramat Raḥel

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 167: Twin ritual baths during excavation in Season 2009 Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 168: Entrance to one of the twin ritual baths in Area D6 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 169: Bathtub installation in the northern casemate wall Photograph: Oded Lipschits

182 List of Figures Fig. 170: The mosaic floor in the mansion.

Fig. 187: Whole glass bottles, as found in some graves

Fig. 171: Space D in the columbarium immediately after its discovery in Season 2006

Fig. 188: Jewelry from graves excavated in Area C4

Fig. 172: The columbarium plan

Fig. 189: Iron nails, some still with the wood remnants they were affixed to

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 173: The ancient space at the end of Season 2010 Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 174: Columbarium niches in Space C Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 175: Retaining walls in the central space Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 176: Space F after cancellation of the niches in its walls, and opening two spaces in its floor Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 177: Stone vessel fragment from the Columbarium

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 190: Lead coffin and contents

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 191: Rectangular catch basin in Area D1

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 192: Olive press facility built above the basin in Area D1 Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 178: The buried hoard during its discovery

Fig. 193: Installation under the church floors according to Aharoni’s plan

Fig. 179: The hoard before cleaning

Fig. 194: Agricultural installation under the church floors

Photograph: Oded Lipschits Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 180: Some hoard coins after cleaning

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 181: Bronze medallion in the form of a cross

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 182: The lead bulla, obverse and reverse

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 183: Aerial photograph of the Roman graveyard (the northern complex) Photo: Skyview

Fig. 184: Exposure of a grave

Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 185: Typical section of an excavated grave (Area B2) Drawing: Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 186: Covering stones of a grave Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Drawings: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 195: Glazed bowl with carved decoration (Kerbschnitt) from Aharoni’s excavations Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 196: Room of the complex excavated by Aharoni south of the church Photo: Aharoni’s Expedition to Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 197: Building plan of Area D1

Drawing: Benjamin Arubas and Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 198: Building in Area D1, view facing south

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 199: Clay lamp from Area D1

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 200: Zoomorphic vessel fragment from Area D1

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

List of Figures 183 Fig. 201: Jar handle with Arabic impression from Area D1 Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 202: Glazed bowl (luster ware) from Aharoni’s excavations Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 203: Glazed Italian bowl from Aharoni’s excavations Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 204: Coins from Ramat Raḥel excavations

Photograph: Pavel Shrago, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

Fig. 205: Western slope of the Ramat Raḥel hill—bird’s eye view to the west Photo: Skyview

Fig. 206: Excavation of a quarried basin in the western slope Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 207: Byzantine wine press Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 208: Soil samples (see holes) for dating the terraces by the optical luminescence method (OSL) Photograph: Oded Lipschits

Fig. 209: Aerial photograph and plan of the western slope terrace system Photo: Skyview

Fig. 210: Shavout-Pentecost 1926 Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 211: The first hut, 1927 Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 212: The destruction following the 1929 riots Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 213: The kibbutz yard in the1930s Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 214: The destruction after the War of Independence Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 215: The main building after the war Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 216: A view towards Zur Baher Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 217: A schematic drawing of the kibbutz in the 1950s The IDF Archive

Fig. 218: The 1954 fortification plan The IDF Archive

Fig. 219: Sketch of the communication trenches and fortifications, alongside marked site excavation areas Source: The IDF Archive. Adapted by Shatil Emanuelov, Ramat Raḥel expedition

Fig. 220: Excerpt from Itzhak Sadeh’s security assessment report, 1949 The IDF Archive

Fig. 221: Operation “Homa” summation report, 1956 The IDF Archive

Fig. 222: Kibbutz reconstruction in the 1950s Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 223: Agriculture in the Kibbutz in the 1950s Archive, Kibbutz Ramat Raḥel

Fig. 224: A bird’s eye photograph of the archaeological site in Ramat Raḥel Photo: Skyview