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.