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 research. 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 exposed 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 discuss 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 supports the view that connected the construction of the wall to the status and importance of Jerusalem after its christianization. However, I would like to propose 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 included a long, shallow smooth faced plinth course. The second course consisted 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 recut 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 drainage 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.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 87 06-26-2007, 17:41 88 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

relation to the course it overlaid, whereas the upper two courses were laid vertically one above the other. The small finds in the earthen fills, which abutted the wall, enabled to de- fine the approximate dates of the wall’s construction and destruction. A thin plastered floor abutted the top of the foundation course and reflected the wall builders’ surface. The latest diagnostic potsherd that was sealed below the plastered floor was from a Rouletted Bowl of Form 1 (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:70, pl. 1:2) dating from the late third to the fifth centuries (Magness 1993: Rouletted Bowls Form 1), and suggesting that the wall’s construction occurred sometime between the late third and the fifth centuries. The earthen fills above the plastered floor were lying stratigraphically, reflecting the con- tinuous existence of the wall after its construction until the mid eighth century at the latest. The latest finds in the fill that abutted the upper part of the preserved wall, prior to its destruction, were dated to the first half of the eighth century, at the most. Those included a basin (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:80, pl. 6:9) dating from the sixth to the early eighth century (Magness 1993: Arched – Rim Basin Form 2A ), a juglet (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:80, pl. 6:19) dating from the late third to the early eighth century (Magness 1993: Jugs and Juglets Form 6A), Fine Byzantine Ware bowl and jug (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:82, pl. 7:1,7) dating from the mid sixth to the early eighth centuries (Magness 1993:FBW Bowls Form 1A, FBW Jugs Form 1B), and a bowl (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:82, Pl.7:2) dating from the last quarter of the seventh to the mid eighth centuries (Magness 1993: Rouletted Bowl Form 4:1).The fill that sealed the drainage channel, postdated the wall’s destruction. It contained some Early Islamic vessels from the ninth-tenth centuries, such as a mono- chrome glazed bowl (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:84, pl.8:1) similar to de-Vaux and Steve (1950, Pl. A:9), and a seventh to ninth/tenth century storage jar (Weksler-Bdolah 2003:84. pl.8:8) similar to (Magness 1993:SJ Form 7). It is therefore possible to suggest that the wall was built some time between the late third and the fifth centuries, and was used continuously until the mid eighth century CE. Its partial destruction in the mid eighth century may be related to the 749 earthquake, known from both historical accounts and archaeological records (Tsafrir and Foerster 1989). Hamilton’s Sounding B (Fig. 1:2; Hamilton 1944:26-35, Fig. 13; Tsafrir 1975:228-230; Magness 1993:33-34) revealed ten courses of the external face of the Late Roman – Byzantine city wall, preserved ca. 6 m below surface. The lower two courses consisted of field-stones that were used to level the bedrock, together with reused ashlars. The foundation, built upon bedrock, was overlaid by eight courses of smooth-faced limestone ashlars and Hasmonean blocks in secondary use, arranged in leveled courses, similar to the mode of construction seen in the Herod’s gate excavation (above). Hamilton suggested dating the wall’s construction to the late third to early fourth century, based on

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 88 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 89

three cooking pots that were found on the surface of the wall’s builders (Ham- ilton 1944:31, Fig 16:7). The finds in Fill A, which was sealed below the builder’s surface, predated the construction of the wall, dating to the first century CE, whereas Fill B, above the surface of the wall’s builders was dated to the fourth to fifth centuries, and Fill C which abutted the upper four courses of the wall, was dated to the sixth to eighth centuries (Hamilton 1944:29-35). Hamilton’s Sounding C (Fig. 1:3) was located around the northern and western faces of the first tower, west of Herod’s Gate (Hamilton 1944:35-53, Figs. 17-19; Tsafrir 1975:230, Magness 1993:34-36). It became evident that the Ottoman wall and tower superposed the remains of a Late Roman – Byzan- tine wall and tower. The wall was founded on bedrock, above a hewn drainage channel. An inscribed tombstone of a Tenth-Legion soldier in secondary use, which was one of the channel’s covering stones, was dated between 70 and 175 CE (Avi-Yonah 1939:54-57, Avi-Yonah 1968:125, Footnote no. 124), setting a terminus post quem for the construction of the wall. The wall’s foundation consisted of four field-stone courses, 1.25 m high (Hamilton 1944:Fig 18 ii, section zz), overlaid with four smooth-faced ashlar blocks. The lowest course above the foundation consisted of a long, shallow plinth course set back 0.5 m in relation to the foundation. Above it were three leveled courses, each set back 0.1-0.2 m in relation to the underlying course. The tower jutted 7 m northward of the wall’s face. Three ashlar courses were exposed at the base of the tower above bedrock. The lower course was a shallow plinth course (0.25 m high), with two courses of reused Herodian blocks above it. Despite the significant difference between the wall’s and tower’s mode of construction, they were considered by Hamilton to be contemporaneous. The latest finds within the fills (a,b,c,d) that were cut by the wall’s and tower’s foundation trench (e), (Hamilton 1944:Fig. 20) were dated to the Late Roman – Byzantine period (third to fifth centuries CE) and Hamilton stated that “such exceptions are enough to confirm that the construction of the wall took place in the Late Roman or Early Byzantine times” (Hamilton 1944:45). The fills above a,b,c,d – fills z, n, were dated to the fourth and fifth centuries (Hamilton 1944: Fig. 21-23). Remains of an impressive gate, with three entrances shaped as a triumphal arch were unearthed below Damascus Gate, Jerusalem’s northern gate. The triumphal arch was flanked on either side by a massive polygonal tower. The western tower’s western façade and the city wall abutting it were partly exposed by Hamilton’s Sounding A (Fig 1:4; Hamilton 1944:1-21, Figs. 2-5, Tsafrir 1975:221-228; Magness 1993:30-33), whereas the eastern façade of the triumphal arch was partially revealed in Hamilton’s Sounding D (Fig 1:5; Hamilton 1944:21-26, Fig 2 (ii)). Hennessy and Bennet, under the auspices of Kenyon’s expedition to Jerusalem exposed the large area in front of the gate in the 1960s (Fig 1:5; Hennessy 1970, Wightman 1989); Magen cleared the inte-

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 89 06-26-2007, 17:41 90 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

rior of the two towers and a section of the paved square inside the gate’s structure (Fig 1:6; Magen 1994). Hamilton tentatively suggested dating the gate structure to the second century, to the time of Hadrian. This proposal was supported by the findings in Hennesy’s section ZII against the eastern tower (Wightman 1989:5-19, Magness 1993:38-40), as well as by the shape of the triumphal arch and its abutting towers, and is widely accepted among scholars today (Tsafrir 1999a: 136-139; Geva 1993:761-762;, Geva and Bahat 1998:226-231; Magen 1994:286; Mazor 2004:113-116). The freestanding gate, it is thought, was integrated in the wall later.8 Hamilton’s Sounding A (Fig 1:4) was along the western face of Damascus gate’s west tower, and along the wall that abutted it (Hamilton 1944:1-21, figs. 2-10). The sounding descended 10 m below surface, but did not reach bedrock. Ten courses of the tower and twelve courses of the wall were exposed. Most of the tower’s blocks and the wall’s two lowest courses had margins along four sides and a big, central, smoothed boss, and Hamilton considered them as Herodian blocks in secondary use. Some of these blocks had margins along two sides only. The upper courses of the wall consisted mainly of the smooth-faced ashlars, as observed in other segments of the wall. Some stones of Hasmonean origin in a secondary use were also incorporated in the wall and tower. Hamilton thought the two lowest courses of the wall and the tower were contemporary, due to their similar mode of construction. He could not date them, since bedrock was not reached, and no foundation trench was detected, yet, he considered the fills that accumulated at the bottom of the sounding (9.40 m – 7.50 m below datum) to be later than the construction of both wall and tower, and dated them to the late third-early fourth centuries CE. Therefore, he suggested the second century CE as the construction date for wall and gate tower, probably by Hadrian. Magness examined the pottery published by Hamilton, and distinguished two ‘layers’ of fills: A late third – early fourth century fill at 9.40-8.35 m below datum, and a fourth – fifth century fill above it, at 8.35 – 7.50 m below datum (Magness 1993:31-32). The similarity between the finds in the lower two meters of Sounding A, which were evi- dently above the wall builder’s surface, and the finds above the wall-builder’s surface in Hamilton’s Sounding B, C and in Herod’s Gate Area B, imply, in my opinion, a similar date of construction for all wall segments. Hennessy’s Section ZII against the northern face of the Damascus Gate’s eastern tower (Fig 1:5), found that the tower was built above a rough stone foundation laid on natural bedrock. A plinth course above the foundation was composed of reused drafted ashlars cut down to size (Wightman 1989:35, Fig. 4, Pl. 75), above it were the massive ashlars of the tower’s superstructure, that were set back in relation to the plinth’s face. The tower’s building blocks 8 Hennesy and Kenyon believed the gate was of an earlier, Second Temple Period date (Hennesy 1970, Kenyon 1974:239-243).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 90 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 91

had margins along four sides or less (Wightman 1989: Fig. 17), and contrary to Hamilton, Wightman thought they were in primary use. Wightman noticed the towers’ similar mode of construction to other segments of the wall, and especially to the tower exposed in Hamilton’s Sounding C (Wightman 1989:35- 36). Another segment of the Late Roman – Byzantine city wall was excavated ca. 250 m west of the Damascus gate (Fig. 1:7).9 Six courses of the wall were exposed below surface. The lowest course rested on bedrock, the second course was set back 0.2 m in relation to the lower course, and the upper four courses were laid vertically above it. All courses were composed of smooth ashlars and Hasmonean blocks in secondary use. A block dressed with two bosses, was integrated in the third course. No foundation trench was noticed, and the wall was assigned a Byzantine date, due to its mode of construction; and the early fourth to early eighth century date that was given to the finds in the fills that abutted the wall. . Another segment of the Late Roman – Byzantine wall was revealed in the citadel, near the present Jaffa gate (Fig. 1:8; Johns 1950: 152-158, Figs. 19, 20:3-5, 23:Wall 14, Pl. XLVIII:1,2; Geva 1983:67, Pl. 6A, 1994:163-164). Wall 14 abutted the northern wall of the Second Temple Herodian ‘David’ tower. The lower plinth course (0.4 m high) was founded on earthen fill, 2.0 m above bedrock. The second course consisted of reused Herodian blocks, 1 m high, and was set back 0.15 m in relation to the plinth course. The third course (0.5 m high) was set back 0.3 m relative to the second course, the fourth course (1 m high) was set back 0.4 m relative to the third course, and the fifth course (1.05 m high) was set directly above the fourth. Some of the stones were reused Herodian blocks with margins along three or four sides and a smooth boss, and some had smoothed faces. Jones dated the wall as a late third-early fourth centuries, while Geva suggested a somewhat later date within the fourth century (Geva 1994:164). South of David’s Tower, the Late Roman – Byzantine wall followed the route of the Hellenistic, Second Temple period ‘First Wall’, integrating, like its predecessor, rectangular towers within its route. A segment of the Late Ro- man-Byzantine wall and two towers were exposed south of David tower, in the citadel (Fig. 1:9; Sivan and Solar 1994:172-173, Geva 1983:67, 1994:164). South of the citadel, in the Armenian Garden, Tushingham exposed 10 m along the interior face of the wall (Fig. 1:10; Tushingham 1985:60-107). The wall was founded on bedrock, cutting the remains of the Hellenistic ‘First

9 The excavation, by David Turler, Alon de-Groot and Giora Solar of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums took place at 1979. A preliminary report was published at Hadashot Arkheologiyot [Archaeological Newsletter], 69-71, 1979: 56-57 [Hebrew]. I would like to thank Alon de-Groot for showing me the plans and sections of the wall segment, and the permission to describe it here.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 91 06-26-2007, 17:41 92 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

wall’. Eleven courses of ashlars were uncovered below the Ottoman courses. Some of the stones were reused Hasmonean ashlars and others were flattened, sometimes with wide, shallow margins along four sides. The courses were laid vertically one upon the other and not in a stepped manner as known from other segments. Tushingham dated the construction of the wall to the second half of the sixth century (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 26.10-12, 14-24; 63.6), but Magness suggested a later date, probably within the eighth century, based on the Early Islamic potsherds that were found in the wall’s foundation trench (Magness 1991:80-81). Magness’s suggestion accords well with the mid eighth century’s phase of reconstruction, identified along the northern wall (above). ‘Tushingham’s wall’ might therefore be part of the wall’s reconstruction following the mid eighth century earthquake. The Late Roman – Byzantine city-wall is also known around the slopes of Mt. Zion in the south (Fig. 1:11), and the Ophel in the east (Fig. 1:12). Around Mount Zion, 200 meters along the wall were exposed (Fig. 1:11; Bliss and Dickie 1898:1-131, Kenyon 1974:269, Pl. 6).10 The wall followed the remains of the Hellenistic “First Wall”, and in some places it was built above the courses of the ‘First Wall’, separated from the earlier remains by an earthen fill. The foundation of the wall consisted of fieldstone courses, above which square drafted stones, arranged in regular courses, were set. Most of the stones that were used for the wall had smooth faces, but Hasmonean blocks, with margins along their four sides and protruding bosses, were used as well. Stones with margins along their four sides and two bosses, were rare. The “Mount Zion Wall” used the same mode of construction as identified else- where: the courses above the foundation were set back in relation to the course they overlaid, and the wall was wide at its base, and tapered as it rose higher. Five rectangular towers were positioned along the wall and two gates were integrated within its course. Bliss and Dickie identified four phases of occupa- tion in the southwestern gate (Gate N, Bliss and Dickie 1898:16-20, Pl. II) and considered them all Byzantine. This gate was re-excavated in the 1980s (Pixner et. al 1989:86-88), and the excavators affirmed its Byzantine date, although they suggested it was originally built in the Hellenistic period and integrated later in the Byzantine wall. The second, southeastern gate, near the pool of Siloam, was similar to the southwestern gate in its shape and also dated to the Byzantine period by Bliss and Dickie (Bliss and Dickie 1898:87-92, Pl. X). Kenyon re-excavated the gate and confirmed its Byzantine date (Kenyon 1974:269, Pl. 6). Another segment of the wall, 250 m long, was investigated in the Ophel (Fig 1:12; Warren and Conder 1884:157-158, 227-228). The wall abutted the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount and was named the Ophel Wall. The 10 The remains were thoroughly discussed by Tsafrir (1975:205-232, 1999b:289-291) and also described by Geva (1993b).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 92 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 93

Ophel Wall was re-examined by Kenyon (Kenyon 1968), B. Mazar and E. Ma- zar (Mazar and Mazar 1989). The lower courses of the Ophel wall were built of fieldstones, arranged in leveled courses. Above them were courses of smooth faced ashlars, together with reused Hasmonean blocks, and some reused stones with margins along four sides and two protruding bosses. The upper course of the wall consisted of reused Herodian blocks, 1.20 m high. The courses were laid one above the other in the ‘stepped’ manner. Five rectangular towers were integrated within the course of the wall. On the whole, it was impossible to date precisely the remains of the Mount Zion-Ophel wall, as Warren’s excavations in the 1860s and Bliss and Dickie’s excavations in the 1890s emphasized the architectural remains, and neglected the small finds in the earthen fills on both sides of the wall. The new excavations in Mount Zion’s gate N (Pixner, Chen and Margalit 1989:86), and in the Ophel (Mazar 1995) shed, however, some light on this issue, suggesting a Byzantine date for both of them.

DISCUSSION

The wall’s mode of construction around its circuit looks similar. It usually overlaid Second Temple period remains, bedrock or earthen fills. Its foundations were built of medium-sized, fieldstones arranged in leveled courses that served to level the surface upon which the wall was built; it varied consider- ably in the number of courses according to the local topography and stratigraphy. The wall above the foundation was built of limestone ashlar blocks, arranged in leveled courses. Some of the blocks, were originally pre- pared for the wall, as indicated by their smooth faces and medium size (height ca. 0.50-0.70 m, length ca. 0.7-1.40 m, Fig. 3). Others were reused Hasmonean blocks or recut Herodian blocks. The Hasmonean blocks were somewhat smaller. They were characterized by faces with margins along four sides and a central protruding boss. The recut Herodian blocks (Fig. 4) were the largest (height ca. 1 m and length ca. 1.7-2 m). Their faces had margins along two or three sides and the central boss was flattened. Based upon their monumental size and shape, it is assumed that these blocks originated in the ruins of King Herod’s monumental buildings and were cut and ‘reduced’ to fit their new setting, therefore having margins only along two to three sides, instead of all four sides. In rare cases double-bossed blocks were used as well. The lower courses of the wall were laid in a stepped manner so that every course was set back in relation to the course it overlaid, whereas the upper courses of the Wall were laid vertically one above the other.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 93 06-26-2007, 17:41 94 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

The similarities and the contemporary dating of all wall segments, supports their interpretation as parts of a single wide circuit wall, that was constructed some time between the late third or early fourth and the fifth centuries CE. Also the fact that no remains of this wall are known to date below the southern line of the Ottoman wall, makes the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s Byzantine wall as built in two phases, less viable. It is important to note, however, that some differences between the wall segments in the north and in the south do exist, and that these differences were explained in the past as reflecting the construction of the wall in two major phases. One difference is the use of mortar between the stones along some wall segments in the south, whereas no mortar was used in the north. Also, the smooth faced ashlar stones are somewhat higher in the north (0.5 m height, averagely), than in the south (0.35- 0.5 m height). Yet, I would suggest interpreting these differences as local vari- ations in the mode of construction, rather then reflecting different chronological phases. The course of the Late Roman – Byzantine city wall enclosed the area of present-day Old City of Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the City of David and the Ophel. It was probably dictated by surface topography. During its construction remains of the Second Temple Period fortifications were utilized, and,in fact, dictated parts of the route. In the north, between the Damascus Gate and Herod’s Gate the ‘Late Roman-Byzantine’ wall overlapped the route suggested as the line of the Second Wall (Avi-Yonah 1968:124, Fig.6). In the west, north of ‘David’s Tower’, it followed a segment of a wall documented at the end of the 19th century and suggested as the route of the Second or Third Wall (Merrill 1886:23-24, Schick 1887, Vincent 1902, Vincent and Steve 1954:96-98, Geva 1981:64, Seligman 2002). The Second Temple remains may have been integrated later into the Late-Roman – Byzantine wall (Johns 1950:157-158, Tsafrir 1975:74-78). South of ‘David’s Tower’, and around Mt. Zion, City of David and the Ophel, it overlapped the route of the First Wall. Some of the old fortifications were literally incorporated into the Late Roman-Byzantine Wall, such as David’s Tower and the Eastern Wall of the Temple Mount. The integration and usage of older fortifications within new lines of fortifications is a well known fact. In Jerusalem, for example, the Hasmonean ‘First Wall’ of the Second Temple period, followed the course of Hezekiah’s wall of the First Temple period, integrating parts of the older fortification within its route (see, for example, Geva 2000:134, 206, areas W, X-2). Many sections along the Ottoman City Wall of Jerusalem were built directly above, or somewhat aside the remains of wall segments and towers from various periods, ranging in date from the Second Temple period, Late Roman – Byzantine period and Medieval period.11 A similar phenomenon has been 11 Remains of Second Temple-period fortifications are known along the Ottoman wall south of Jaffa Gate (Johns 1950, Geva 1994, Broshi and Gibson 1994). The eastern wall of the

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 94 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 95

documented in Italy, where fortifications in many towns were reconstructed in the third century incorporating gates and segments of older walls (Ward- Perkins 1984:192). It seems, however, that the Late Roman – Byzantine wall’s circuit was not only dictated by the remains of older fortifications, but rather influenced by the extent of the city at the time of its construction. The wide perimeter of the wall, which unified Aelia Capitolina and Christian Zion, suggests that Zion was already important, developed and settled, when annexed to Jerusalem, and the date of the wall must therefore postdate the rebuilding of Zion. As the archaeological remains in Mount Zion,12 Ophel (Mazar 1969:165), Tyropeon Valley (Crowfoot 1929; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929:73-81), and areas H and K in the City of David (Magness 1992:162), were usually dated from the fourth century onwards, it is possible to suggest that the wall was not built prior to the mid fourth century. The dating of the wall to the Early Byzantine, Constantinian Age (Geva 1993a) is less plausible, since the wall was wider than the city limits at that time. The builders of the wall made extensive use of Hasmonean and Herodian ashlars in a secondary use, and to a lesser extent of blocks that their faces were dressed with two protruding bosses. Some architectural fragments of distinctly classical carving, in secondary use, were exposed in the core of the wall in Mount Zion (Chen et al. 1994:80). The extensive use of spolia characterized the Late Antiquity buildings in Jerusalem, as in many other cities. Monumen- tal buildings of classical design (temples, civic monuments, entertainment buildings, city walls and other) were ruined due to lack of maintenance, earth- quakes and other reasons. The ruined buildings were sometimes treated as quarries and were torn apart for the reuse of their masonry (Ward-Perkins 1984:206-207) The ruins of the Second Temple period Jerusalem became a source of building materials to the builders of Roman Aelia Capitolina, and later to the builders of Byzantine Aelia. Except for the pragmatic usage of the older fortifications as a source for building materials, it had been suggested in

Herodian Temple Mount was also integrated into the circumference of the Ottoman Wall. Late Roman-Byzantine-Early Islamic remains were exposed mainly below the courses of the northern and western Ottoman line (see above), and Medieval remains are known almost everywhere below the Ottoman courses: in the northeastern corner of the present Ottoman Wall, (see Herod’s Gate excavations Area A, Avni, Baruch and Weksler-Bdolah 2001), in Zahal Square, around the northwestern corner of the present wall (Bahat and Ben Ari 1972), and between the northwestern corner of the wall and the Jaffa Gate (Weksler –Bdolah 2001, Goldfus 1984, Reich and Shukron 1995). South of the present Jaffa Gate, the present Citadel enclosure is of Medieval date (Johns 1950, Geva 1994, Sivan and Solar 1994), and its western wall was integrated into the Ottoman circuit. Medieval fortifications are known also south of the citadel along the western line of the present wall (Broshi and Gibson 1994), and along the southern line of the Ottoman Walls (Broshi and Gibson 1994; Ben Dov 1994; Broshi and Tsafrir 1977; Seligman 2001) 12 For a summary of the findings in Zion see Tsafrir 1975:49-87, 182-277; 1999:159-161, 287-291, 310-321.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 95 06-26-2007, 17:41 96 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

the past to view the extensive secondary use of classical building materials as a symbol of the victory of Christianity over its predecessors while maintaining its Classical heritage (Tsafrir 1998, Ward-Perkins 1984:203-228, Ward-Perkins 1999, Wharton 1995, Saradi-Mendelovici 1990). In Jerusalem, Christianity rivaled the memory of Judaism, more than it competed paganism, as ex- pressed, for example, by the transformation of the Temple Mount traditions to the site of the Holy Sepulchre (Wharton 1995:98-99), and also by the Chris- tian response to the Jewish attempt of rebuilding the Temple in the time of Julian (Wharton 1995:103-104, footnote 128). The construction of the Late Roman-Byzantine city wall while using stones from the ruined Temple Mount, or from other Second Temple period Jewish buildings may therefore be interpreted as symbolizing the victory of Christianity over Judaism.13 Moreover, the integration of monumental Herodian stones in the walls, attest to the lesser importance of the Herodian monuments in the time of the wall’s construction, and probably also to an explicit imperial permission to reuse them, as other- wise it would have been prohibited.14 Indeed, the wall was built ca. 300 years after the destruction of the Jewish city, and it might be argued that the builders of the wall used the abundant stones without recognizing them as “Jewish”. However, their selective choice in spolia of Second Temple Period origin only, suggests, to my opinion, that their choice was done on purpose, reflecting their struggle with the Jewish heritage of Jerusalem. The extensive use of spolia in Late Antiquity buildings and especially in city walls, was also explained as a constructive solution for a rapid removal of ruined buildings, caused by earthquake (see for example, Aphrodisias, Ratte 2001:126, Erim 1986:50-54, Roueche 1989:44). This possibility also existed in Jerusalem that had probably suffered a severe earthquake in 363 CE. The earthquake was described in historical documents, as the letter of Cyril (Brock 1976:103, Brock 1977), or the testimony relating the earthquake and fire that destroyed Julian’s Temple foundations;15 however, no substantial archaeological finds attest to its occurence. The lack of findings can be interpreted in one

13 Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica, Heikel 1913:140-141,III) describes the Late Roman public buildings that used the Jewish Temple’s stones (Tsafrir 1975:95-96). The builders of the Late Roman – Byzantine city wall could therefore find Herodian stones also in the ruins of pagan buildings. 14 The example from Qatania (Cassiodorus, Variae, Fridh and. Halpron 1973:96,iii.49), where the emperor’s permission was requested to use the ruined amphitheatre’s building materials for the reconstruction of the city walls, indicates that the usage of spolia was not spontaneous in Late Antiquity. Ruins had a legal status and a special imperial decree was required in order to use them. Permission was granted or denied taking into consideration their state of preservation, their location, their symbolic significance and their beauty (Ward-Perkins 1984:206-218). 15 For the accounts of Theodoret of Cyrrus, and Sozomen see: Historia ecclesiastica, PG, 82, 1112D-1113A; trns. Blomfield Jackson, Theodoret of Cyrrus, Historia ecclesiastica, A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2,3, New York 1892, reprinted 1985, and also: Sozomen, Ekklesiastikes historias, PG, 67, 1281D-1285C, and also,Wharton 1995:103-104.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 96 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 97

of two ways: either the 363 earthquake was not as destructive as indicated by the historical documents and therefore cannot be recognized, or that the city wall was built later than the earthquake, using the abundant ruins as building materials. Yet, as most of the reused stones in the wall originated from structures that were destroyed ca. 300 years prior to the construction of the wall, there seem to be no connection between the construction of the wall and the 363 CE earthquake, and the wall’s construction was not initiated by the need to clear the city from ruins. Nevertheless, the lack of archaeological evidence relating to the earthquake in the wall’s structure, suggests that the wall was, indeed, built after the year 363. The wall’s construction is careful and précise all around its circuit. The stone courses are leveled and arranged according to the size and texture of the stones, thus creating a unified homogenous appearance. It is obvious that the wall was built of carefully selected stones. Smooth-faced blocks, Hasmonean stones, Herodian blocks and double-bossed stones only were used for the fac- ing of the wall, whereas other carved masonry was used for the core. Some- times older blocks were reshaped to fit their new setting. The monumental appearance of the wall was created, however, not only by its beauty, but also by the fact that the space immediately around the wall, both inside and out, was left vaccant of buildings. Nowhere, along the wall, remains of abutting structures were noted, thus verifying the legal status of city walls and gates as ‘res sanctae’- holy things, which could not have become the ob- ject of private ownership (Johnson 1983:62-63). The meticulous construction of the Late Roman – Byzantine wall in Jerusa- lem, as well as its overall shape shows that it was not built in haste or in war times, but was rather planned in advance, and aimed at reflecting the prosperity, the high status and wealth of the city at the time of construction. The idea that walls, in addition to defending the city, demonstrated aesthetic beauty that impressed the observers, and mirrored the status of the city, has already been brought up (Gregory 1982: 56-57, Walmsley 1996:147). Aphrodisias walls, for example, which were built in the second half of the fourth century, in all likelihood, reflected the prosperity of the provincial capital, more than its inse- curity (Ratte 2001:125). The white marble coating of the gates’ towers of Rome was aesthetic and not tactic (Lander 1984:296), and Claudian’s expres- sion “Fear creating beauty”16 associated with the walls of Rome ca. 400 CE, points to both roles of city-walls in Late Antiquity. There are also examples of walls that were erected in a most impressive fashion despite the urgency in their construction (Gregory 1982:57); the former opinion, that suggested ‘panic building’ for the third century walls,

16 Claudian, de VI consulato Honorii 11. 529-534, ‘And fear was the worker that advanced the beauty’ (Di-Segni, per. com.).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 97 06-26-2007, 17:41 98 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

seems no longer tenable (Johnson 1983:116). It can be thus concluded that no explicit correlation exists between the form of the wall and the circumstances of its construction. Another aspect to consider is the funding resources for the wall and its im- plications. Although no building inscriptions from Jerusalem are as yet known, the involvement of imperial and provincial authorities in the construction of the wall might be suggested. The establishment and maintenance of city walls is well documented in the Roman Law (see Ward-Perkins 1984:63, and references to Codex Theod. there), in epigraphic finds (Di Segni 1995:330-332; Di-Segni 1999:150-152), and in historical documents. It is widely accepted that construction of walls in Late Antiquity was regularly funded by the emperor, or the provincial governor, not by city funds or private patronage (Liebeschuetz 1972:132-136, Johnson 1983: 59-60). Sometimes, however, the funding was the permission granted to the city to use some of its civic budget or civic taxes for building projects, as Cod. Theod. 15.1.33,395 implies (Sperber 1998:123, note 9). Construction of city walls in Late Antiquity, must therefore be a sign of the status of the city and its imperial importance. Relat- ing the reconstruction of the wall in Jerusalem to the Empress Eudocia (below), suggests, therefore, an imperial involvement in the funding of the Late Roman – Byzantine wall. The reason for Jerusalem’s importance was, most probably, religious, and must have derived from its christianization. Appar- ently, the wall’s construction was part of the building activities in Jerusalem in the fourth and fifth centuries, and was affiliated with the rise in the status of the city after its christianization. According to modern scholars, city walls were erected ca. 400 CE around important cities of Palestine, such as the provincial capitals of Palestina Prima and Palestina Secunda, Caesarea Maritima (Lehmann 1994), and Scythopolis (Tsafrir and Foerster 1997:102; Mazor 2004:28), and also in Palestina’s Tertia Aila (Parker 2003:332). This may be connected to the administrative reorganization of Palestine around 400 CE, possibly also to security problems. Perhaps, Jerusalem too, at that time, beginning to flourish and undergoing urban development under the impact of Christianity, followed suit. The data obtained from historical sources17 seem to confirm the dating of the wall’s construction between the late fourth and the mid fifth century. In “The Life of Peter the Iberian”,18 John Rufus clearly stated that Jerusalem was

17 I would like to thank Dr. Leah di Segni who translated and thoroughly discussed with me the various sources discussed below. 18 The account was probably written in the sixth century CE by John Rufus, and preserved in two versions: the Syriac, and the Georgian which is much shortened, and seems to be less reli- able. The Syriac version was published and translated by Raab (1895), some phrases were also translated into Hebrew by A. Horvitz (Tsafrir 1975:37-38; 1999: 303), and by Bitton-Ashkelony (1999:108). The Georgian version was translated by Lang (1956,1976:57-80).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 98 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 99

un-walled at the time of Constantine: “This holy city Jerusalem having received rebuilding from Constantine the Christian king, and being still at the beginning poor in men and without wall, its first wall having been destroyed by the Romans, there were altogether few houses and inhabitants in it”19 The Pilgrim of Bordeaux,20 Egeria21 and Paula,22 visited Jerusalem in the course of the fourth century. Their reports reflect the emergence of Jerusa- lem’s sacred topography, the construction of churches in holy places, and the development of a special liturgy.23 The pilgrims’ acquaintance with the limits of the city is obvious. The pilgrim of Bordeaux left Jerusalem to climb Zion,24 Paula ‘entered Jerusalem’,25 and ‘passing on, she climbed Zion’26 Jerusalem was entered and left, sometimes through a city gate, as described by Egeria.27 It appears that the city domain was well defined and marked by city gates, or some other means. A circuit wall was not mentioned in any of these accounts, most likely, I would suggest, because no such wall existed at that time. Indeed, it is possible to argue that the circuit wall was not important, and therefore not described by the pilgrims, but such a claim ignores the considerable significance of city walls in Late Antiquity. Furthermore, the reference of the writers to segments of older walls and ruined gates encountered in Zion and near the Silwan pool,28 indicate they did pay attention to fortifications, and considered

19 Translated from the Syr. Version (Raabe 1895:32, ch.27), according to Tsafrir (1975:37- 38; 1999(b):274-275,303). Tsafrir doubted the credibility of Rufus’ testimony, but I would suggest accepting it, as it resembles the information obtained from other fourth century accounts (below). Also, the difference that was emphasized by John Rufus, between the un-walled city in the times of Constantine, and the existence of ‘holy walls’ in Jerusalem when Petrus the Iberian ar- rived at the city around 437/438 CE, (below) sustains his testimony. The Georgian version states: “At this time, the Holy city of Jerusalem was still lacking in inhabitants, as well as being deprived of walls, since the former walls had been destroyed by the Romans….” (Lang 1956, 1976:65-66), implying, that Jerusalem was deprived of walls when Peter the Iberian visited Jeru- salem (i.e. 437/438 CE). 20 Itinerarium Burdigalense:Geyer et Cuntz 1965:1-26, the text was translated and discussed by Tsafrir 1975:32-34, 91-94 (Hebrew); Wilkinson 1981:123-147; Limor 1998:30-34 (Hebrew) 21 Franceschini and Weber 1965:27-90;, the text was translated and discussed by Wilkinson 1981:122-147; Limor 1998:88-114 (Hebrew) 22 Epistulea 108, Hilberg (ed) 1910-1918:314-316; the text was translated and discussed by Wilkinson 2002:79-92; Tsafrir 1975:113 (Hebrew); Limor 1998:142-143 (Hebrew) 23 For detailed studies see Wilkinson 1981, 2002; Limor 1998, 1999; Hunt 1982; Tsafrir 1975, 1999b, and references there. 24 Item exeuntibus Hierusalem, ut ascendas Sion,… (Geyer et Cuntz 1965:16,592); Moreo- ver, as you leave Jerusalem to climb Sion… (Wilkinson 1981:157,592) 25 “… ingressa est Hierosolymam,…” (Hilberg 1910-1918:314,9.1); “… She passed on her left the tomb of Helena, Queen of Adiabene …. And entered Jerusalem, “ (trans. Wilkinson 2002:83,9.1) 26 Hilberg 1910-1918, trans. Wilkinson 2002:83,9.3 27 Franceschini and Weber 1965:80, 36.3, 86, 43.7; trans. Wilkinson 1981:136, 36.3; 142,43.7 28 For the wall near the pool of Siloam see the Pilgrim of Bordeaux: “… in ualle iuxta murum est piscine,…” (Geyer et Cuntz 1965:16, 592.1), “…beside the wall, the pool called Siloam…” (Wilkinson 1981:157); For the wall of Sion, see the Pilgrim of Bordeaux: “Intus autem intra murum Sion” (Geyer et Cuntz 1965:16, 592.5); trans. “Inside Sion, within the wall…” (Wilkinson 1981:157). Ruined gates are mentioned by Jerome: “…non eas portass,

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 99 06-26-2007, 17:41 100 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

them important even if they were destroyed. It is reasonable to assume, that if a circuit wall had existed when they visited Jerusalem in the fourth century, they would not have failed to mention it. Moreover, the description and reference to the city walls in the fifth-century accounts (once the walls were already built), supports the assumption that Late Antiquity city walls were not ignored. The walls of Jerusalem were first mentioned by Eucherius, in his letter to Faustinus, written in the first half of the fifth century: “The site of the city is almost forced into a circular shape, and is enclosed by a lengthy wall, which now embraces Mount Zion, though this was once just outside…” (Wilkinson 2002:94, v125.3).29 The description fits Jerusalem as portrayed in the Madaba Map, and provides a terminus ante quem for the construction of the circuit wall before Eucherius’ death. Yet, the arrival of Peter the Iberian in Jerusalem, ca. 437 – 438 CE, may set an earlier terminus ante quem for the construction of the circuit wall, relying on John Rufus’s narrative: “…When they had reached the outskirts of the holy city of Jerusalem which they loved, they saw from a high place five stades away the lofty roof of the holy church of the Resurrection, shining like the morning sun,30 and cried aloud, ‘See, that is Sion the city of our deliverance!' They fell down upon their faces, and from there onwards they crept upon their knees, frequently kissing the soil with their lips and eyes, until they were within the holy walls (Syriac: ‘shure qaddishe’) and had embraced the site of the sacred cross on Golgotha…”.31 As the usual sense of ‘shura’ in Syriac is ‘city walls’, the description seems to reflect the existence of city walls in Jeru- salem when Petrus entered the city 437–438 CE.32

quas hodie cernimus in fauillam et cinerem dissolutas, sed portas, quibus infernos non praeualet, per quas credentium ad Christum ingreditur multitudo…” (Hilberg 1910-1918:315,9.3), trans. “… not meaning the gates we see now, which have been reduced to dust and ashes…” (Wilkinson 2002:83,9.3) 29 The account (Fraipont 1965:237-243) was translated and interpreted by Tsafrir 1975:132- 134 (Hebrew); Limor 1999:159-160 (Hebrew), Wilkinson 2002:94-98. It is widely accepted to relate the account to Eucherius, bishop of Lion, who died between 449–455 CE, but the formula ut fertur in the title of Fraipont’s edition implies that at least in the editor’s eyes, the account may not be authentic. 30 Coming from Constantinople by foot, Petrus and his escorts could have reach Jerusalem from the west, north or east, depending on the route they used. Their first sight of Jerusalem, while standing on a high place, may hint on the way they used. The sight of the Church of the Anastasis, and opposite it the Church of Ascention, on top of Mount of Olives, is stated in the Syriac version (Bitton-Ashkelony 1999:107-108). The Georgian version mentions the Church of Resurrection only (Lang 1956,1976). The description suggests their viewpoint was a high place northwest of the present day Old City of Jerusalem (maybe near the present “Russian com- pound”), and their entrance, in accordance, was through the western, or the northern gates. Yet, they could view these churches from the Mount of Olives itself, had they come from the Jericho road, and enter the city from the eastern gate, accordingly. 31 The Georgian version (Lang 1956, 1976:54) is somewhat shorter, but very close to the Syriac version (Raabe 1895:40, ch.37; Bitton-Ashkelony 1999:107-108). 32 According to Prof. Sebastian Brock and Dr. Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, the Syriac expres- sion “shure qaddishe” (Holy walls) usually refers to city walls. However, we cannot exclude the

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 100 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 101

A number of accounts from the sixth century attest to the involvement of the Empress Eudocia in the rebuilding of the walls in Jerusalem, under the influ- ence of a verse from Psalms 51 (v. 18): ‘Let it be thy pleasure (éudokía in the Septuagint) to do good to Sion, to build anew the walls of Jerusalem’ (Cassiodorus,33, Antoninus of Placentia,34 Chronicon Paschale,35 Malalas,36 and see also Hunt 1982:221-248). The accounts state that Eudocia enlarged the city and surrounded its circumference with better walls, renewed the walls to a better state, or renewed the whole circuit of the Jerusalem walls. Modern scholars suggested interpreting these statements as reflecting Eudocia’s renewal of the ancient wall around Zion (the Second Temple period’s ‘First Wall’ ), therefore naming it ‘Eudocia’s wall’,37 whereas, the ancient accounts clearly attribute the enclosing of the whole city and the renewal of the whole circuit of walls to Eudocia. Attributing the whole line of fortifications to Eudocia suggests its probable dating between 437/438, her first pilgrimage to Jerusalem,38 or 444, her second arrival at Jerusalem, and Eucherius’s death at some time between 449 and 455 CE.39 This, however, contradicts John Rufus’s testimony, if by ‘holy walls’ he meant the city walls of Jerusalem. The archaeological record, too, seems to favour an earlier date for the construction of the walls, in the late fourth century, or early fifth century at the most, rather than the mid fifth century.40 If we accept such a dating (i.e., late fourth – early fifth centuries CE), the attribution of the wall to Eudocia in the historical

possibility that John Rufus, by saying ‘Holy walls’ meant the precinct walls of the Holy Church of Resurrection, or the Second Temple period wall of the Temple Mount visible to the travelers that were coming to Jerusalem from the Jericho road, or the remains of the Second Temple period ‘Zion wall’ mentioned by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (above). 33 Exp. In.Ps. 50 (CC 97, 468) 34 Geyer 1965:1.c. confusing her name 35 Dindorf 1832: 585 36 Dindorf 1831:357-8 37 C. Schick was the first who identified the Zion wall unearthed by Bliss and Dickie, with the wall built around 440 AD by the empress Eudocia (Bliss 1894:254). His suggestion was com- monly accepted, see Dalton 1895:28, Avi Yonah 1976:621-622, Tsafrir 1975: 21,132-135, 1999:287-295. Bliss suggested two phases in the development of the Byzantine walls around Mount Zion: First, about the beginning of the fifth century AD, a wall was built to protect the great church (Holy Zion), not including the pool of Siloam within its precinct. Then, at about 450 AD, Eudocia rebuilt the wall (named by Bliss “upper wall”) around Zion and the pool of Siloam (Bliss and Dickie 1898:307-309, 321-323). 38 The suggestion of attributing Eudocia’s initiative to her first pilgrimage around 438, was made by Dr. Leah di-Segni who suggested comparing it with the enlargement of Antioch’s wall due to Eudocia’s endeavours (Joh. Mal: Dindorf 1931:14:346-57; Evagrius: Bidez and Parmentier 1898:1.20; Holum 1982:117-118). 39 Dalton (1895:28) dated the rebuilding of the walls of the city by Eudocia between 438 to 454 AD. 40 The pottery assemblage characterizing the surface of the wall builders, consisted mostly of local ware, dated from the late third to the fifth century CE, thus enabling to relate the wall with Eudocia. Yet, the lack of imported ware, that is usually more abundant in assemblages from the fifth century, onwards, suggested the wall was build prior to the fifth century. I would like to thank Prof. Jodi Magness personal communication of this comment.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 101 06-26-2007, 17:41 102 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

sources may be explained either in the sense of restoring the existing wall, or confusion in the tradition. As the first account which related Eudocia with the wall’s reconstruction was written about a century after her death, there may have been some uncertainty with regard to her life and deeds.41 The reigning of three subsequent Byzantine empresses with almost similar names in the course of the fifth century: Eudoxia, Arcadius’s wife, Eudocia, Theodosius II wife, and Eudoxia, Theodosius II’s daughter, undoubtedly caused confusion, as seen in coins (Boyce 1954), and legends (Drake 1980:148-155). Oddly enough, Cassiodorus and Antoninus of Placentia, in telling the story, give the name of the empress as Eudoxia, although they identify her as Theodosius II’s wife. Might the wall been initiated by Eudoxia, and falsely attributed to Eudocia?42

SUMMARY

Despite the differences between the northern and the southern segments of the wall (see above), their overall similarity suggests that the whole circuit of the wall was build in a single phase, unifying within it Roman Aelia Capitolina and Christian Zion. The free-standing city gates, which marked the previous limits of Roman Aelia Capitolina in the north, east and west were probably integrated into the course of the wall once it was built43, whereas the southern gates were left as free-standing monuments in the center of the Byzantine city. The archaeological finds near the wall suggest dating its construction between the late third or early fourth century, and the fifth century CE. I would like to propose a date between the late fourth and the mid fifth century for the wall’s construction. My proposal relies on the wall’s wide circumference, which suits the size of the city at that time, and also on the wall’s characteris- tics, which suggest it was built by Christians, in a period of stability and prosperity as existed in Jerusalem after its Christianization. The lack of evidence of the 363 earthquake in the wall’s structure, suggests it was built after the earth-

41 Malalas, for example, (see Holum 1982:114), not always distinguished between authentic history and a popular memory of events. 42 Empress Eudoxia married Arcadius at 395 CE, she was proclaimed Augusta at 400 CE and died at 404 CE. Eudoxia was involved in the Holy Land, and was portrayed as a devoted sup- porter of Christianity in the Imperial Court (Holum 1982:48-78). She had supported Phorphirius, who received an imperial edict to destroy the pagan temple of Zeus Marnas in the city of Gaza and later funded the church that was built on top of it (Marc le Diacre, Gregoire and Kugener 1930; see also Tsafrir 1998:202-204). The church was even dedicated Eudoxiane in her memory. An inscription incised on the pedestal of a statue that was unearthed in the city of Scythopolis says: ‘Artemidorus set up a golden (statue of) Eudoxia, the queen of all earth, visible from every place in the country’ (Tsafrir 1998:217), indicating her appreciation in Palestina Secunda’s capital. 43 For the identifications and discussions relating these gates, see Tsafrir 1978, 1999b:285.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 102 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 103

quake, hence, supporting a late fourth century date. Also the construction of walls in other important cities at that time may have encouraged the erection of walls around Jerusalem. This date is also supported by historical accounts. The city walls of Byzantine Jerusalem reflected, in my opinion, the high status, wealth and prosperity of Jerusalem after its Christianization.

REFERENCES

ADAJ – Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan BA Biblical Archaeologist CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel HA–ESI Hadashot Arkheologiot, Excavations and Surveys in Israel IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology PEFQSt. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarternaly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarternaly QDAP Quarterly of the Departmaent of Antiquities of Palestine RB Review Biblique SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan SWP The Survey of Western Palestine ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deuschen Palastina-Vereins

Avi-Yonah M. 1939. Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Jerusalem and Beisan. QDAP 8: 54-61. Avi-Yonah M. 1953. The Madeba Mosaic Map. In: Eretz-Israel, Archaeological, His- torical and Geographical Studies, Jerusalem, Vol. 2:129-156 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1968. The Third and Second Walls of Jerusalem in the New Testament Age. IEJ 18:98-125. Avi-Yonah M.(ed.) 1976. Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, and the Byzantine Period. In: The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 610-626. Avni G., Baruch Y. and Weksler-Bdolah S. 2001. Jerusalem, The Old City – Herod’s Gate (A-2877). HA–ESI 113: 76-79. Avni G. 2005. The Urban Limits of Roman and Byzantine Jerusalem – A View From the Necropolis. JRA 18(1):373-397. Bahat D. 1990. The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. New-York, p.61. Bahat D. and Ben-Ari M. 1972. Excavations in Zahal Square. Qadmoniot 19-20:118-119 (Hebrew). Bar D. 1993. The Southern Boundary of Aelia Capitolina and the location of the Tenth Roman Legion’s Camp. Cathedra 69:37-56. Ben-Dov M. 1994. Excavations and Architectural Survey of the Archaeological Remains Along the Southern Wall of the Jerusalem Old City. In: H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jeru- salem Revealed. Israel Exploration Society. Pp. 311-320. Bidez J. and Parmentier L. (eds.) 1898. Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica, London.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 103 06-26-2007, 17:41 104 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Bitton-Ashkeloni B. 1999. The Pilgrimage of Peter the Iberian. Cathedra 91:97-112 (He- brew). Bliss F.J. 1894. Second Report on the Excavations of Jerusalem. PEFQSt 27: 243-257. Bliss F.J. and Dickie A.C. 1898. Excavations in Jerusalem 1894-1897. London. Boyce A. 1954. Eudoxia, Eudocia, Eudoxia: Dated Solidi of the Fifth Century. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 6:136. Brock S.P. 1976. The rebuilding of the Temple Under Julian: A New Resource. PEQ 108: 103-107. Brock S.P. 1977. A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple. BSOAS 40:267-286. Broshi M. and Tsafrir Y.1977. Excavations at the Zion Gate, Jerusalem. IEJ 27:28-37. Broshi M. and Gibson S.1994. Excavations Along the Western ans Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. In: H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Israel Explo- ration Society. Pp. 147-155. Browning I. 1979. Palmyra. London. Bü hrig C. 2001. Some Aspects of the Monumental Gate extra muros of Gadara from the Late Roman Period seen in its context of Urban development. SHAJ VII:547-552. Chen D., Margalit S. and Pixner B. 1994. Mount Zion: Discovery of Iron Age Fortifica- tions Below the Gate of the Essenes, in: Geva, Hillel (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Re- vealed, Jerusalem, Pp. 76-81. Crowfoot J.W. 1929. Excavations in the Ophel, 1928, Preliminiary Report to December 8. PEFQSt. : 9-16. Crowfoot J.W. and Fitzgerald G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusa- lem. APEF 5. London. Dalton J.N. 1895. Note on the First Wall of Ancient Jerusalem and the Present Excava- tions. PEFQSt. 28: 26-29. Di Segni L. 1995. The involvement of Local, Municipal and Provincial Authorities in Urban Building in Late Antique Palestine and Arabia. In: J.H. Humphrey (ed), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Some Recent Archaeological Research, JRA Sup- plementary Series 14: 312-332 Di Segni L. 1999. Epigraphic Documentation on Building in the Provinces of Palaestina and Arabia, 4th – 7th c. In: J.H.Humphrey (ed), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 2, Some Recent Archaeological Research, JRA Supplementary Series 31:149-178. Dindorf L. (ed.) 1831. John Malalas, Chronographia. Bonn. Dindorf L. (ed.) 1832. Chronicon Paschale. Bonn. Drake H.A. 1980. The Legend of Constantine and Eudoxia: Sources, Date, Significance. In: T. Orlandi (ed.) Eudoxia and the Holy Sepulchre, A Constantinian Legend in Coptic, Testi Documenti per lo Studio dell’antichita LXVII. Milano. Pp. 132-158. Eliav Z.Y. 2003. The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina: A new View from the Perspec- tive of the Temple Mount. In: P. Schäfer (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt aganst Rome, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 100. Tübingen. Pp. 241-278. Erim K. 1986. Aphrodisias, City of Venus Aphrodite.London. Franceschini E. and R. Weber (eds.) 1965. Itinerarium Egeria. In: Itineraria et alia geographica CCSL 175. Turnhout. Pp. 27-90. Fraipont I. (ed.) 1965. Eucherius, De situ Hierosolymae, epistola ad Faustinum Presbyterum. In: Itineraria et alia geographica, CCSL 175. Turnhout. Pp. 235-243. Fridh A.J. and J.W. Halpron (eds.) 1973. Cassiodorus, Variae. CCSL 96. Germer-Durand J. 1892. Aelia-Capitolina. RB 1:369-387. Geva H. 1981. The Tower of David - Phasael or Hippicus?, IEJ 31:57-65.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 104 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 105

Geva H. 1983. Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1979-1980 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 33:55-71. Geva H. 1993a. Jerusalem, The Roman Period. In: E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2: 758-766. Geva H. 1993b. Jerusalem, The Byzantine Period, The City Wall. In: E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeologi- cal Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2: 770-772. Geva H. 1994. Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1976-1980. In: H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Israel Exploration Society. Pp.156-167. Geva H. (ed.) 2000. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem,conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982, Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem. Geva H. and Bahat D. 1998. Architectural and Chronological Aspects of the Ancient Damascus Gate Area, IEJ 48:223-235. Goldfuss H. 1984. Jerusalem, Jaffa Gate, in: ESI 3:53-55. Geyer P. (ed.) 1965. Antonini Placentini itinerarium, in: Itineraria et alia Geographica, CCSL 175. Turnholt. Pp. 127-153. Geyer P. and O. Cuntz (eds.) 1965. Itinerarium Burdigalense. In: Itineraria et alia Geographica. CCSL 175. Turnholt. Pp. 1-26. Gregoire H. and M.A. Kugener (eds.) 1930. Marc le Diacre, Vie de Porphyre évêque de Gaza, Paris. Gregory E.T. 1982. Fortifications and Urban Design in Early Byzantine Greece. In: R.L. Hohlfelder (ed) City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantine Era. East European Monographs, No. CXX, Byzantine Series 1. New-York. Pp. 43-64. Hamilton R.W. 1944. Excavations Against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937-8. QDAP 10: 1-54. Hamilton R.W. 1952. Jerusalem in the fourth century. PEQ 84: 83-90. Hennessy J.B. 1970. Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Damascus Gate, Jerusa- lem, 1964-1966. Levant 2:22-27. Heikel I. A. (ed.) 1913. Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, GCS. Hilberg I. (ed.) 1910-1918. Hieronymus, Epistolae, CSEL 55 .Vienna. Pp. 305-351. Hirschfeld Y. and Foerster G.1993. Tiberias. In: E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds.)The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 4: Pp. 1470-1473. Holum K.G. 1982. Theodosian Empresses, Women and Imperial Dominion in Late An- tiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Hunt E.D. 1982. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, AD 312-460. Ox- ford. Johns C.N. 1950. The Citadel, Jerusalem. A Summary of Work Since 1934. QDAP 14:121- 190. Johnson S. 1983. Late Roman Fortifications, London. Josephus, the Jewish War, with an English translation by H.St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Clas- sical Library 210, Camberidge and London. Kehrberg I. and Manley J. 2001. New Archaeological Finds for the Dating of the Gerasa Roman City Wall. ADAJ 45: 437-446. Kehrberg I. and Manley J. 2002. The 2001 Season of the Jarash City Walls Project: Preliminiary Report. ADAJ 46: 197-204. Kehrberg I. and Manley J. 2003. The Jerash City Walls Project (JCWP) 2001-2003: Report of Preliminiary findings of the Second Season 21st September – 14th October 2002. ADAJ 47: 83- 86.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 105 06-26-2007, 17:41 106 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Kenyon K. 1968. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1967. PEQ 100: 97-109. Kenyon K. 1974. Digging up Jerusalem. London& Tonbridge. Kraeling C.H. 1938. Gerasa – City of the Decapolis. New Haven: The American Schools of Oriental Research. Kuhnel B. 1987. From the Earthly to the Heavenly Jerusalem, Representations of the Holy City in Christian Art of the First Millenium. In: Romische Quartalschrift fur christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 42. Supplementheft Lander J. 1984. Roman Stone Fortifications Variation and Change from First Century A.D. to the Fourt. BAR International Series 206, Oxford. Lang D.M. (ed. And trns.) 1956, 1976. A Militant Ascetic: Peter the Iberian, Bishop of Mayuma by Gaza, in: Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints, Selected and translated from the original texts, second edition, revised, Oxford. Pp. 57-80. Lehmann C.M. 1994. The Excavation of Caesarea’s Byzantine City Wall, 1989. In: W.G. Dever (ed.) Preliminiary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el- Umeiri, The Combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan, AASOR 52: Ann Arbor, Mich.: The American School of Oriental Research. Pp. 121-131. Liebeschuetz J.H.W.G. 1972. Antioch, City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford. Limor O. 1998. Holyland Travels, Christian Pilgrims in Late Antiquity. Jerusalem (He- brew). Limor O. 1999. Christian Pilgrims in the Byzantine Period. In: Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem, The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Jerusalem. Pp. 391-416 (Hebrew). Magen M. 1994. Excavations at the Damascus Gate, 1979-1984. in: H. Geva (ed) An- cient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem. Pp. 281-286. Magness J. 1991. The Walls of Jerusalem in the Early Islamic Period. BA 54:208-217. Magness J. 1992. Byzantine and Medievel Pottery from Areas A2 and G. In: De Groot, A. and D.T. Ariel (eds.) City of David Excavations Final Report III, Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume III, Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports. Qedem 33, Jerusalem. Pp.164-187. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology circa 200-800 CE, JSOT/ASOR Mono- graph Series No. 9. Sheffield. Magness J. 2000. The North Wall of Aelia Capitolina. In: L.E. Stager, J.A. Greene and M.D. Coogane (eds.). The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond. Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer.Eisenbrauns. Pp. 328-339. Mazar B. 1969. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem.In: Eretz–Israel 9. Pp. 161-174 (Hebrew). Mazar E. 1995. The Ophel Wall in Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. In: Z.Safrai and A. Faust (eds.) The First Conference on Recent Innovations in the Study of Jerusa- lem, The Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University. Pp. 48-63 (Hebrew). Mazar E. and B. Mazar 1989. Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount. Qedem 29. Jerusalem. Pp. 3-12, Pls. 3-7. Mazor G.2004. Free Standing City Gates in the Eastern Provinces During the Roman Imperial Period. Ph.D. Thesis, Submitted to the Senate of Bar Ilan University. Ramat- Gan. (Hebrew). Meynersen F.S. 2001. The Tiberias Gate of Gadara (Umm Qays). Reflections concern- ing the Date and its Reconstruction. ADAJ 45:427-432. Merrill S. 1886. Recent Discoveries at Jerusalem. PEFQSt :23-24. Parker S.T. 2003. The Roman Aqaba Project: The 2002 Campaign, ADAJ 47:321-333.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 106 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 107

Pixner B., Chen D. and Margalit S. 1989. Mount Zion: The Gate of the Essenes Re- excavated. ZDPV 105:85-95. Plaum H.-G. 1952. La fortification de la ville dÁdraha dÁrabie, 259/260 – 274/275, dáprès des inscriptions récemment découvertes. Syria 29: 307-330. Raabe R. 1895. Petrus der Iberer. Leipzig. Reich R. and Shukron E. 1995. Jerusalem, Mamilla. ESI 14:94-95. Ratte C. 2001. The Urban Development of Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. In: D. Parrish (ed) Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos. JRA Supplementary Series 45. Pp. 116- 147. Roueché C. 1989. Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. London. Saradi-Mendelovici H. 1990. Christian Attitudes Toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries. DOP 44: 47-61. Sartre M. 1985. Bostra des origins à lÍslam, Paris. Seigne J. 1992. Jérash romaine et byzantine: développement urbaine d'une ville provinciale orientale. In: S. Tell (ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan IV. Amman. Pp. 331-341. Schick C. 1887. Notes from Jerusalem. PEFQSt.:218-221. Segal A. 1981.Tadmor/Palmyra. Qadmoniot 53-54: 2-14 (Hebrew). Seligman J. 2001. Yet Another Medieval Tower and Section of Jerusalem's Ancient Walls (Armenian Patriarchate Road). Atiqot 42:262-276. Seligman J. 2002. Jerusalems Ancient Walls Strike Again: The Knights Palace Hotel. Atiqot 43:73-85. Sivan R. and Solar G. 1994. Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988. In: H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem. Pp. 168-176. Sperber D. 1998. The City in Roman Palestine. New York & Oxford. Tsafrir Y. 1975. Zion – The South Western Hill of Jerusalem and its Place in the Urban Development of the City in the Byzantine Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1978. The Gates of Jerusalem in the Account of Muqadassi – New Identifica- tions on the Basis of Byzantine Sources. Cathedra 8:147-155 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1998. The Fate of Pagan Cult Places in Palestine: The Archaeological Evi- dence with Emphasis on Bet Shean. In: H. Lapin (ed.) Religious and Ethnic Com- munities in Later Roman Palestine. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Cul- ture, The Joseph and Rebecca Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies, University of Maryland V. Bethesda. Pp. 197-218. Tsafrir Y. 1999a. The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina. In: Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem, The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Jerusalem. Pp. 115-166 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1999b. The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Pe- riod. In: Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem, The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), Jerusalem. Pp. 281-352 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1999 c. The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map. In: Piccirilo & Eugenio (eds.) The Madaba Map Centenary 1897 – 1997, Travelling Through the Byzantine Umayyad Period. Proccedings of the International Conference Held In Amman. 7- 9 April 1997. Jerusalem. Pp. 155-164. Tsafrir Y. 2000. Procopius and the Nea Church in Jerusalem. An Tard 8:149-164. Tsafrir Y. and Foerster G. 1989. On the Date of the ‘Sabbatical Year Earthquake’. Tarbiz, A Quarterly for Jewish Studies, 58 (no. 3-4):357-362. Tsafrir Y. and Foerster G. 1997. Urbanism at Scythopolis-Bet Shean in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries. DOP 51: 85-146.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 107 06-26-2007, 17:41 108 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

Tushingham. A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. I. Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill. Pp.60-107. Vaux R. de- and Steve A.M. 1950. Fouilles a Qaryet el-´Enab Abu Gosh, Palestine. Paris. Vincent L.H. 1902. La deuxie’me enceinte de Jerusalem. RB 11:31-57. Vincent L.H. and F.-M. Abel 1914. Jerusalem - Recherches de topographi, d’archeologie et d’histoire, II: Jerusalem nouvelle, Paris. Vincent L.H. and M.-A. Steve. 1954. Jerusalem de l’Ancien Testament - Recherches d’archeologie et d’histoire, I, Paris. Walmsley A. 1996. Byzantine Palestine and Arabia: Urban Prosperity in Late Antiquity. In: Christie and Loseby (eds.), Towns in Transition, Urban Evolution in Late Antiq- uity and the Early Middle Ages. Scholar Press, England. Pp.126-158. Ward-Perkins B. 1984. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages, Urban Public Build- ing in Northern and Central Italy AD 300-850. New York. Ward-Perkins B. 1999. Re Using the Architectural Legacy of the Past, Entre Ideologie et Pragmatisme. In: G.P. Brogiolo and B.Ward-Perkins (eds.) The Idea and Ideal of the Town Between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Leiden, Boston, Köln. Pp. 225-244. Warren C. and Conder C.R. 1884. The Survey of Western Palestine. Jerusalem. London. Pp. 157-158, 227-228, Pl. V, XI. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2001. Jerusalem, The Old City Walls. HA–ESI 113:79-80. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2003. The Fortifications of Jerusalem During Late Roman, Byzan- tine and Early Islamic Periods (3rd/4th to 8th cent.). Unpublished M.A. thesis, Insti- tute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Wharton A.J. 1995. Jerash and Jerusalem. In: Refiguring the Post Classical City, Dura Europus, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenn., Cambridge. Pp. 64-104. Wightman G.J. 1989. The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. BAR International Series 519.Ox- ford. Wightman G.J. 1993. The Walls of Jerusalem from the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Syd- ney. Wilkinson J. 1981. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land (revised edition). Jerusalem and Warminster. Wilkinson J. 1990. Jerusalem Under Rome and Byzantium. In: K.J. Asali (ed.) Jerusa- lem in Histor. London 75-104. Wilkinson J. 2002. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusaders, Warminster.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 108 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 109

1. Map of Byzantine Jerusalem (after Tsafrir 2000: Fig. 1) 1. Herod’s Gate, Area B 2. North Wall, Hamilton 1944, Sounding B 3. North Wall, Hamilton 1944, Sounding C 4. Damascus Gate, Hamilton 1944, Sounding A 5. Damascus Gate, Hamilton 1944, Sounding D; Hennesy 1970, Section Z II 6. Damascus Gate, Magen 1994 7. North Wall, Turler, De Grot and Solar 8. Citadel, Wall 14, Johns 1950, Geva 1983 9. Citadel, Sivan and Solar, Geva 1983 10. Armenian Garden, Tushiungham 1985 11. Zion Wall, Bliss and Dickie 1898 12. Ophel Wall, Warren

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 109 06-26-2007, 17:41 110 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

2. Jerusalem, Herod’s Gate, Area B, interior face of Late Roman – Byzantine city wall of Jerusalem

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 110 06-26-2007, 17:41 S. WEKSLER-BDOLAH 111

3. Jerusalem, Herod’s Gate, Area B, interior face of Late Roman – Byzantine city wall. Lower courses of city wall (courses 4-7)

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 111 06-26-2007, 17:41 112 THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERUSALEM IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

4. Jerusalem, Herod’s Gate, Area B, interior face of Late Roman – Byzantine city wall. Upper courses of city wall (courses 8-9)

06-8819_Aram 18-19_05_Weksler 112 06-26-2007, 17:41