DOCSLIB.ORG

85 the FORTIFICATIONS of JERUSALEM in the BYZANTINE PERIOD the Roman Colony of Aelia Capitolina Was Founded in the 2Nd Century A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
85 the FORTIFICATIONS of JERUSALEM in the BYZANTINE PERIOD the Roman Colony of Aelia Capitolina Was Founded in the 2Nd Century A ARAM, 18-19 (2006-2007) 85-112.S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH doi: 10.2143/ARAM.18.0.2020723 85 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH1 (Israel Antiquities Authority) The Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina was founded in the 2nd century AD over the remains of the Second Temple period Jewish city of Jerusalem.2 The Roman city mostly ignored the remains of the Jewish city and made no use of the ruined fortifications, known as the First Wall, the Second Wall and the Third Wall of the Second Temple Period (Jewish War, V.136, 142-149). The only exception was a segment of the western wall, where the tenth Roman Le- gion was stationed (Jewish War, VII. 1-4). It is widely accepted that like many other Roman cities during the Pax Romana (Ward-Perkins 1984:191, Gregory 1982:44, Mazor 2004:23-109), the new-founded colony of Aelia Capitolina was unwalled and her limits were marked by monumental, free-standing city gates (Avi-Yonah 1976; Geva 1993a; Tsafrir 1999a:136; Bahat 1990; Mazor 2004:109-119). Previous fortifications that existed in many of these cities were deliberately ruined or allowed to fall into disrepair during the Pax Romana, enabling the cities’ limits to expand beyond their older walls. Such is the case, for example in Caesarea Maritima, Scythopolis, Tiberias, or Gadara.3 Disorders in the Empire during the third century resulted in an extensive forti- fied construction that walled many cities (Johnson 1983; Lander 1984). Al- though the construction of walls characterized the endangered western half of the Roman Empire, fortifications were occasionally built in the eastern part of the Empire as well, especially around cities located near the limes, such as 1 This paper is part of my Ph.D. dissertation written under the supervision of Prof. Yoram Tsafrir of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. The paper represents the initial phases of my re- search. Therefore, my conclusions should be regarded as provisional. I would like to thank Dr. Shafiq Abouzayd for providing me the opportunity to present and discuss my research. Particular thanks are extended to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir, Dr. Lea Di-Segni, Hillel Geva, and Dr. Gideon Avni for the most helpful and encouraging discussions and commentaries. My thanks to Dr. Lilly Gershuny who read the text and improved its linguistic appearance. 2 For summaries of Aelia Capitolina’s remains and its city plan, see Vincent and Abel 1914:1-88, Tsafrir 1999a, Geva 1993a. Many scholars suggested reconstructions for the city plan of Aelia Capitolina, see for example Germer-Durand 1892; Eliav 2003; Magness 2000, Bar 1993 (Hebrew); Avni 2005. 3 For Caesarea Maritima see Lehmann 1994 and references there, for Scythopolis see Tsafrir and Foerster 1997; Mazor 2004:24-53, for Tiberias see Hirschfeld and Foerster 1993, For Gadara see Bührig 2001; Meynersen 2001:427-429 and references there. 06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 85 06-26-2007, 17:41 86 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD Bostra (Sarte 1985:89), Adraa (Plaum 1952:307-330 ), or Palmyra (Browning 1979:13-52, Segal 1981:5).4 The accepted view associates the construction of Jerusalem’s Late Roman fortifications with the departure of the Tenth Roman Legion during the reign of Diocletian and suggests that ca. 300 AD, a city wall in the route of the present-day Ottoman city wall, was built around the circuit of Aelia Capitolina (Hamilton 1952, Avi Yonah 1953:147, Tsafrir 1975:17-19, 1999:140-141, Bahat 1990, Wightman 1993:200-222). The wall was expanded to incorporate Zion, in the mid fifth century (according to this suggestion), probably by the Empress Eudocia who then resided in Jerusalem. Another opinion (Geva 1993a:761-762, Wilkinson 1990:90, 2002:51-53, 314, map 11; Weksler- Bdolah 2003:112-113) proposes that Aelia Capitolina remained unwalled throughout its existence and that Jerusalem was surrounded with a wide circuit wall, which enclosed the present-day old city of Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the City of David and the Ophel only at a later date. According to this proposal, the construction of the wall was probably related to the christianization of the city (Geva 1993b:771-772). The earliest realistic representation of Jerusalem appears on the Madaba Map, where it is depicted as an oval-shaped city surrounded by a wall (Avi Yonah 1953, 1954, Tsafrir 1975:331-343; 1999b:342-351; 1999c; Kuhnel 1987:89-93). The wall encloses the present-day Old City of Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the City of David and the Ophel. Seventeen square towers are integrated into the course of the wall, and another 5-6 towers may be reconstructed in the ruined part of the mosaic (Tsafrir 1999b:345). Three main arched city gates are incorporated into the city wall, in the north, east and west. Another two smaller, square-shaped gates are illustrated in the southern ends of the main colonnaded streets. Avi Yonah (1953:147) and Tsafrir (1999b:346) suggested to identify them with the southern gates of the Roman Aelia Capitolina, which remained as inner gates after the expansion of the city in the Byzantine era. The Madaba representation of the mid sixth century sets a terminus ante quem for the construction of the Late Roman – Byzantine city wall. Many segments of the ‘Late Roman – Byzantine’5 city wall are known around the circuit of the Old City of Jerusalem (Fig. 1:1-12). They were ex- posed below the courses of the present day Ottoman Wall in the north and the west, around Mt. Zion in the south and along the City of David and the Ophel in the east.6 Geva (1993b:770-772) summarized the finds and pointed to the architectural similarity of all wall segments. He interpreted them as a Byzan- 4 For the recent debate relating the walls of Gerasa see Kehrberg & Manley 2001;2002;2003, Seigne 1992:341, Kraeling 1938) 5 The term ‘Late Roman – Byzantine' is used here to represent the third to fifth centuries CE. 6 For a recent summary and references to all known segments see my previous work (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:10-86). In this paper, only the published wall segments are discussed. 06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 86 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 87 tine wall, probably of the Constantinian age. In this paper I would like to dis- cuss in detail the mode of the wall’s construction and its probable date. Com- paring the remains from Jerusalem to other Late-Roman fortifications suggests that the wall reflected a period of prosperity in the history of Jerusalem as well as a probable involvement of the imperial government in Jerusalem. It sup- ports the view that connected the construction of the wall to the status and im- portance of Jerusalem after its christianization. However, I would like to pro- pose dating the wall between the late fourth, and the mid fifth centuries, as opposed to the previously suggested Constantinian age (Geva 1993b:771- 772). A segment of the internal face of the wall (10 m long) was exposed below the courses of the Ottoman wall ca. 100 m east of Herod’s Gate (Figs. 1:1,2-4; Avni, Baruch and Weksler-Bdolah 2001).7 The wall was preserved about 6 m high. The foundation of the wall (ca. 8 m below surface) was laid upon several flat stones and not directly upon bedrock. It was not possible to determine the nature of these stones due to the narrow size of the probe and the immense depth at the bottom of the dig. The wall’s foundation consisted of one course of medium-sized fieldstones overlaid by nine leveled, homogeneous courses of drafted limestone ashlars (Fig 2). The first course above the foundation in- cluded a long, shallow smooth faced plinth course. The second course con- sisted of three, smooth faced ashlars, whereas the third, fourth, fifth and sixth courses comprised reused Hasmonean blocks the faces of which had margins along four sides and a central protruding boss (Fig. 3). Some of these blocks, however, were set along their narrow sides (heads), which were not dressed. The seventh course was built of the same smooth-faced ashlars as the second course, albeit somewhat higher. The eighth and ninth courses (Fig. 4) used re- cut Herodian large blocks (ca. 1 m high and 1.70-2.00 m wide). Their faces had drafted margins along two or three sides, but never along four sides, as in the original Herodian blocks, and the central boss was flat and shallow. The ninth course of the Late Roman–Byzantine wall was regularly overlaid with the smaller rectangular stones of the Ottoman wall. Some stones in the eastern part of the ninth Late Roman – Byzantine course were, however, missing. A narrow drainage channel was constructed there above the wall’s eighth course, sealed under the cemented foundation of the Ottoman wall (Fig. 2). The drain- age channel was obviously built when the wall was no longer in use, or when some reconstruction took place, following its destruction. The wall was wide at its foundation, tapering upward. Its seven lower courses were laid in a stepped manner, so that every course was set back in 7 The excavation was carried during 1998 under the direction of Dr. Gideon Avni, and Yuval Baruch of the IAA, with my participation as Area B’s supervisor. The plans were drafted by the surveying unit of the IAA, and the photos taken by Sando Mendrea. I’d like to thank Dr. Gideon Avni, and Yuval Baruch for the permission to present the finds here.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel and Judah: 18. Temple Interior and Dedication
    Associates for Scriptural Knowledge • P.O. Box 25000, Portland, OR 97298-0990 USA © ASK, March 2019 • All rights reserved • Number 3/19 Telephone: 503 292 4352 • Internet: www.askelm.com • E-Mail: [email protected] How the Siege of Titus Locates the Temple Mount in the City of David by Marilyn Sams, July 2016 Formatted and annotated by David Sielaff, March 2019 This detailed research paper by independent author Marilyn Sams is one of several to follow her 2015 book, The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth. Her book was inspired by a desire to prove (or disprove) Dr. Ernest Martin’s research in The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot. Ms. Sams wrote a second book in 2017, The Jerusalem Temple Mount: A Compendium of Ancient Descriptions expanding the argument in her first book, itemizing and analyzing 375 ancient descriptions of the Temple, Fort Antonia, and environs, all confirming a Gihon location for God’s Temples.1 Her books and articles greatly advance Dr. Martin’s arguments. David Sielaff, ASK Editor Marilyn Sams: The siege of Titus has been the subject of many books and papers, but always from the false perspective of the Jerusalem Temple Mount’s misidentification.2 The purpose of this paper is to illuminate additional aspects of the siege, in order to show how they cannot reasonably be applied to the current models of the temple and Fort Antonia, but can when the “Temple Mount” is identified as Fort Antonia. Conflicts Between the Rebellious Leaders Prior to the Siege of Titus A clarification of the definition of “Acra” is crucial to understanding the conflicts between John of Gischala and Simon of Giora, two of the rebellious [Jewish] faction leaders, who divided parts of Jerusalem 1 Her second book shows the impossibility of the so-called “Temple Mount” and demonstrate the necessity of a Gihon site of the Temples.
    [Show full text]
  • The Walls of Jerusalem
    Palestine Exploration Quarterly ISSN: 0031-0328 (Print) 1743-1301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypeq20 The Walls of Jerusalem C. W. Wilson To cite this article: C. W. Wilson (1905) The Walls of Jerusalem, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 37:3, 231-243, DOI: 10.1179/peq.1905.37.3.231 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/peq.1905.37.3.231 Published online: 20 Nov 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 13 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypeq20 Download by: [UNSW Library] Date: 23 April 2016, At: 06:55 231 THE 'VALLS OF JERUSALEM. By Major-Gen. Sir C. W. WILSON, K.C.B., l).C.L., F.R.S. 1. General Remarks; 2. The City Walls in A.D. 70. 1. Gene"'alRernarks.-Before attempting to investigate the questions connected with the ancient walls of Jerusalem, some consideration of the general principles that governed the construction of fortifica- tions in early times is not only desirable, but necessary. Jerusalem was strongly fortified at all periods of its· history, but there is .no reason to suppose that there was anything unusual in the trace and construction of its walls. The defences of Jebus could not have differed greatly from those of other Canaanite cities; the walls of David and his successors, which Nehemiah restored, ,vere constructed probably in accordance with Phrenician systems of fortification; and the citadels and ,valls built ·by Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa were almost certainly Greek or Greco-Roman in character.
    [Show full text]
  • The Upper Kidron Valley
    Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies Founded by the Charles H. Revson Foundation The Upper Kidron Valley Conservation and Development in the Visual Basin of the Old City of Jerusalem Editor: Israel Kimhi Jerusalem 2010 Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies – Study No. 398 The Upper Kidron Valley Conservation and Development in the Visual Basin of the Old City of Jerusalem Editor: Israel Kimhi This publication was made possible thanks to the assistance of the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, San Francisco. 7KHFRQWHQWRIWKLVGRFXPHQWUHÀHFWVWKHDXWKRUV¶RSLQLRQRQO\ Photographs: Maya Choshen, Israel Kimhi, and Flash 90 Linguistic editing (Hebrew): Shlomo Arad Production and printing: Hamutal Appel Pagination and design: Esti Boehm Translation: Sagir International Translations Ltd. © 2010, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies Hay Elyachar House 20 Radak St., Jerusalem 92186 http://www.jiis.org E-mail: [email protected] Research Team Israel Kimhi – head of the team and editor of the report Eran Avni – infrastructures, public participation, tourism sites Amir Eidelman – geology Yair Assaf-Shapira – research, mapping, and geographical information systems Malka Greenberg-Raanan – physical planning, development of construction Maya Choshen – population and society Mike Turner – physical planning, development of construction, visual analysis, future development trends Muhamad Nakhal ±UHVLGHQWSDUWLFLSDWLRQKLVWRU\SUR¿OHRIWKH$UDEQHLJKERU- hoods Michal Korach – population and society Israel Kimhi – recommendations for future development, land uses, transport, planning Amnon Ramon – history, religions, sites for conservation Acknowledgments The research team thanks the residents of the Upper Kidron Valley and the Visual Basin of the Old City, and their representatives, for cooperating with the researchers during the course of the study and for their willingness to meet frequently with the team.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Jerusalem
    THE HISTORY OF JERUSALEM 1 Prepared by Ilana Epstein and Simon Goulden, US Living & Learning, May 2015/אייר תשע"ה Biblical quotations are from www.mechon-mamre.org 2 In its long history Jerusalem has been: . Destroyed at least twice . Besieged 23 times . Attacked 52 times . Captured and recaptured 44 times 3 Chalcolithic Period • The first settlement was established near the Gichon Spring 4 Middle Bronze Age The Book of Bereshit 14:18, mentions a city called Salem, which mefarashim (commentators) such as the Ramban (d. 1270) identifies as Jerusalem, ruled by King Melchizedek, probably a title, which means "my king is zedek", where Zedek is believed to refer to the word righteous, or perhaps “The Righteous King”. According to one Midrash, Jerusalem was founded by Abraham's forefathers Shem and Eber. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread 18 יח ּומַ לְכִּ י- קצֶדֶ מֶ לְֶך שָׁ לֵם, הוֹצִּ יא םלֶחֶ וָׁיָׁיִּן; וְ הּוא כֹהֵ ן, לְאֵ ל עֶלְיוֹן. and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. 5 Middle Bronze Age 2220 -1550 BCE • c.1700 BCE - the Binding of Isaac takes place on Mount Moriah. Mefarashim have often interpreted the location of the mountain to be Jerusalem And they came to the place which God had told him 9 ט וַיָׁבֹאּו, אֶ ל- ַהָׁמֹקוםֲ אֶשרַ ָאמר-לוֹ ָׁהֱאִֹּלהים, וַיִּבֶ ן ָׁשם ַאְבָׁרָׁהם of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the אֶ ת- ַהִּמְזֵבַח , וַיַעֲרְֹך אֶ ת- ָׁהֵעִּצים; וַיַעֲקֹד, אֶ ת- ִּיְצָׁחק ְבֹנו , ַוָׁיֶשםֹאֹתו wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on עַל- ַהִּמְזֵבַח , ִּמַמַעל ָׁלֵעִּצים.
    [Show full text]
  • Resources for the Study of Islamic Architecture Historical Section
    RESOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF ISLAMIC ARCHITECTURE HISTORICAL SECTION Prepared by: Sabri Jarrar András Riedlmayer Jeffrey B. Spurr © 1994 AGA KHAN PROGRAM FOR ISLAMIC ARCHITECTURE RESOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF ISLAMIC ARCHITECTURE HISTORICAL SECTION BIBLIOGRAPHIC COMPONENT Historical Section, Bibliographic Component Reference Books BASIC REFERENCE TOOLS FOR THE HISTORY OF ISLAMIC ART AND ARCHITECTURE This list covers bibliographies, periodical indexes and other basic research tools; also included is a selection of monographs and surveys of architecture, with an emphasis on recent and well-illustrated works published after 1980. For an annotated guide to the most important such works published prior to that date, see Terry Allen, Islamic Architecture: An Introductory Bibliography. Cambridge, Mass., 1979 (available in photocopy from the Aga Khan Program at Harvard). For more comprehensive listings, see Creswell's Bibliography and its supplements, as well as the following subject bibliographies. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND PERIODICAL INDEXES Creswell, K. A. C. A Bibliography of the Architecture, Arts, and Crafts of Islam to 1st Jan. 1960 Cairo, 1961; reprt. 1978. /the largest and most comprehensive compilation of books and articles on all aspects of Islamic art and architecture (except numismatics- for titles on Islamic coins and medals see: L.A. Mayer, Bibliography of Moslem Numismatics and the periodical Numismatic Literature). Intelligently organized; incl. detailed annotations, e.g. listing buildings and objects illustrated in each of the works cited. Supplements: [1st]: 1961-1972 (Cairo, 1973); [2nd]: 1972-1980, with omissions from previous years (Cairo, 1984)./ Islamic Architecture: An Introductory Bibliography, ed. Terry Allen. Cambridge, Mass., 1979. /a selective and intelligently organized general overview of the literature to that date, with detailed and often critical annotations./ Index Islamicus 1665-1905, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripta Judaica 11-1-Łam.Indd
    What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt? 93 ABBREVIATIONS AE – L’Année Épigraphique, Paris. CIIP – H.M. Cotton, L. Di Segni, W. Eck et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae, vols. 3, Berlin – New York. CIL – Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. SEG – Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden – Boston. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, M.J. David, J., Tepper, Y. (2013): Legio. Excavations at the Camp of the Roman Sixth Legion in Israel, Biblical Archaeology Review 39. Abramovich, A. (2011): Building and Construction Activities of the Legions in Roman Palestine 1st-4th Centuries CE, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Haifa, Dept. of Archaeology, Haifa ( in Hebrew). Applebaum, S. (1989): Tineius Rufus and Julius Severus, in: S. Applebaum, Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times. Historical and Archaeological Essays, Leiden: 118-123. Avi-Yonah, M. (1970-71): The Caesarea Porphyry Statue Found in Caesarea”, IEJ 20: 203-208 [= For an Hebrew version, see: Avi-Yonah, The Caesarea Porphyry Statue, Eretz Israel 10 (1970): 50-52]. Birley, A.R. (2003): Hadrian’s Travels, in: L. de Blois et al. (eds.), The Representation and Perception of Roman imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Im- pact of Empire (Roman Empire c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476), Rome, March 20-23, 2002, Amsterdam: 425-441. Bowerscock, G.W. (1982): rev. of A. Spijkerman, The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia, Jerusalem 1978, Journal of Roman Studies 72: 197-198. Bowersock, G.W. (1983): Roman Arabia, Cambridge, Mass. Bowersock, G.W. (2003): The Tel Shalem Arch and P. Nahal Heer/Seiyal 8, in: P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decapolis Again – Further Notes on the Meaning of the Term
    ARAM, 23 (2011) 1-10. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.23.0.2959648 THE DECAPOLIS AGAIN – FURTHER NOTES ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM Prof. YORAM TSAFRIR (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) It may seem that little can be added to the long-standing discussion of the term “Decapolis”. Still, I believe that there is now room for some reconsidera- tion. I began to deal with the Decapolis while attempting to write a history of Bet Shean, or Scythopolis, as reflected by the results of the Hebrew University’s excavations on the site.1 For the first time we have substantial, though limited, information on the plan and urban structure of Scythopolis in the early Roman period, before it was reshaped at the peak of the Pax Romana in the mid second century CE. It has become clear that the town was highly decorated, adorned by temples, a theatre and houses with mosaic pavements, even at that early stage of its foundation. The archaeological discoveries of our work were pre- sented by Benny Arubas at the ARAM meeting in November 2008.2 The most prominent renovation took place at some time after Gabinius (57-54 BCE) had returned the town to its former (Hellenic) citizens, when a new city centre and residential quarters were built in the basin of Nahal Amal (Arabic Wadi Asi) to the west, southwest and south of Tel Bet Shean. The ancient mound, once the site of the entire town of Bronze Age and Iron Age Bet Shean and of the early stages of Hellenistic Scythopolis, now became the acropolis of the newly built Scythopolis.
    [Show full text]
  • Yoram Tsafrir, Leah Di Segni and Judith Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea- Palaestina
    BOOK REVIEWS 191 Yoram Tsafrir, Leah Di Segni and Judith Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea- Palaestina. Maps and Gazetteer, with contributions by Israel Roll and Tsvika Tsuk. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994, pp. χ + 263. This is a remarkable publication which consists of two major elements: a series of maps and a Gazetteer. While the latter is a remote descendant of Μ. Avi-Yonah's Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Jerusalem 1976), the former are part of the series of maps of Roman provinces, the Tabula Imperii Romani, but they are far supêrior to any of those published so far. The two elements, gazetteer and maps, are to be used in conjunction, for all the sites on the maps are to be found in the gazetteer. The reverse is not true, for the gazetteer also includes entries on unidentified sites or sites of un­ certain identification. In this respect it represents a step forward in relation to Avi- Yonah’s Gazetteer which supplied only one identification in every case, sometimes with a question mark, but leaving no further room for doubt or alternatives. It is im­ portant to note that the compilers have given us generous measure in every respect. The gazetteer provides full references to literary sources of the Hellenistic, Roman and (Early) Byzantine periods and the basic map (1:1,000,000) includes Sinai in addi­ tion to all of Palestine. Besides this map, laid out according to the usual model of maps in the series, there are several others: a set of two containing all of Palestine proper on a scale of 1:250,000 and two others, on a scale of 1:400,000, showing the distribution of ancient churches and synagogues respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jews in Seventh-Century Palestine
    The Jews in Seventh-Century Palestine Averil Cameron There can be few more powerful experiences for a historian of the seventh cen­ tury AD than a first visit to Jerusalem. In the Old City, the large paved area cleared in front of the Wailing Wall, which incorporates the stones remaining from Herod’s Temple, backs on to old houses leading to the Haram al-Sharif, on which stands the Umayyad Bayt al-Maqdis, with its great dome dominating the whole city. On the opposite side of the cleared space, right up against the wall of the Temple, are the excavated remains of massive Umayyad buildings, probably an administrative centre. Looking over the Old City from one of the hills which ring Jerusalem, the first thing one notices, apart from the walls, is the Dome of the Rock. In comparison, Constantine’s Church of the Anastasis is almost hidden from view at street level, and has to be pointed out with some difficulty, even to someone looking across from the vantage point of one of the hills. The extensive and carefully targeted building works undertaken in Jerusalem after 1967 remind us of similar and earlier transformations of the urban land­ scape of Jerusalem. One of the most far-reaching of these moments of cultural transformation from my present perspective came in the 320s AD, when Con­ stantine the Great made Jerusalem into a central place of Christian worship and pilgrimage. The seventh century provided several comparable occasions, first in the aftermath of the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in AD 614, then with the triumphant return
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology and Geography
    Benjamin Isaac Between the Old Schiirer and the New: Archaeology and Geography In the introduction to his History of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ, Schiirer states that his aim was to write a history 'fur den Christlichen Theologen', rendered in the revised version as 'the New Testament Scholar'. The justification for this undertaking, he asserts, is that the Gospels can only be understood when seen in the context of contemporary Jewish thought. Here he saw Pharisaism as the ruling trend, which he characterized disapprovingly as 'legalism'. Pharisaism had defeated the opposing hellenising tendencies in the Maccabean Wars, and as a result, 'Die Schriftgelehrten regieren nun das Volk', i.e. a branch of the religious establishment had become politically dominant. Schiirer was interested in both in- ternal Jewish religious developments and in the political situation. A secular his- torian working in the late twentieth century might translate this, saying that the central question to be posed for Jewish society in Judaea 'in the age of Jesus Christ' is how it changed in the process of becoming, first of all part of the Hel- lenistic world, and then part of the Roman Empire. Two elements which would interest present-day historians are what are now often termed 'political control' and 'acculturation'. The latter is often called 'Romanization' in the north-western provinces1. Leaving aside the question of whether this is an appropriate concept for the north-west, it is clear that we cannot use it in the Roman East, for the peoples living there became part of an integrated Roman empire, without under- going a process of cultural change comparable with that which occurred in Gaul and Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • From Destruction to Preservation
    3 From Destruction to Preservation When Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, visited Jerusalem in 1898, he was repelled by “the musty deposits of two thousand years of inhumanity, intol- erance and foulness” in the “reeking alleys” of the Old City. He vowed that the first thing the Zionists would do when they got control of Jerusalem would be to tear most of it down, building an “airy, comfortable, properly sewered, new city around the holy places.”1 Similarly, when East Jerusalem and the Old City were captured by Israel in 1967, David Ben-Gurion (the founder of the State of Israel and the first prime minister of the country), then a member of Knesset, called for the demoli- tion of the walls of Jerusalem because they were not Jewish and thus threatened to disrupt the visual continuity of Israeli control.2 Though neither Herzl’s nor Ben Gurion’s vision or goal was realized, massive and deliberate destructions of material legacies occurred following the UN Parti- tion Plan of 1947. During the period of Jordanian rule of the Old City and East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, numerous synagogues and other Jewish institu- tions, particularly in the Jewish Quarter, were abandoned, neglected, or demol- ished.3 Then, in June 1967, immediately following the armistice that concluded the Arab-Israeli War, all inhabitants of the Mughrabi Quarter near the Western Wall were evacuated, and the historic district was razed to create room for a wide, open plaza that would be joined to the Jewish Quarter.4 Additional destruction occurred throughout the Jewish Quarter.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 REFERENCES Abel M. 1903. Inscriptions Grecques De
    1 REFERENCES Abel M. 1903. Inscriptions grecques de Bersabée. RB 12:425–430. Abel F.M. 1926. Inscription grecque de l’aqueduc de Jérusalem avec la figure du pied byzantin. RB 35:284–288. Abel F.M. 1941. La liste des donations de Baîbars en Palestine d’après la charte de 663H. (1265). JPOS 19:38–44. Abela J. and Pappalardo C. 1998. Umm al-Rasas, Church of St. Paul: Southeastern Flank. LA 48:542–546. Abdou Daoud D.A. 1998. Evidence for the Production of Bronze in Alexandria. In J.-Y. Empereur ed. Commerce et artisanat dans l’Alexandrie hellénistique et romaine (Actes du Colloque d’Athènes, 11–12 décembre 1988) (BCH Suppl. 33). Paris. Pp. 115–124. Abu-Jaber N. and al Sa‘ad Z. 2000. Petrology of Middle Islamic Pottery from Khirbat Faris, Jordan. Levant 32:179–188. Abulafia D. 1980. Marseilles, Acre and the Mediterranean, 1200–1291. In P.W. Edbury and D.M. Metcalf eds. Coinage in the Latin West (BAR Int. S. 77). Oxford. Pp. 19– 39. Abu l’Faraj al-Ush M. 1960. Al-fukhar ghair al-mutli (The Unglazed Pottery). AAS 10:135–184 (Arabic). Abu Raya R. and Weissman M. 2013. A Burial Cave from the Roman and Byzantine Periods at ‘En Ya‘al, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 76:11*–14* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 217). Abu Raya R. and Zissu B. 2000. Burial Caves from the Second Temple Period on Mount Scopus. ‘Atiqot 40:1*–12* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 157). Abu-‘Uqsa H. 2006. Kisra. ‘Atiqot 53:9*–19* (Hebrew; English summary, pp.
    [Show full text]