The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of its Destruction, 70 C.E.: A View from Hanyon Givati

61

The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of Its Destruction, 70 c.e.:

A View From Hanyon Givati

Doron Ben-AmiIsrael Antiquities Authority

P.O. Box 586 Jerusalem 91004, Israel

[email protected]

This article deals with an architectural complex dating to the Early Roman period recently unearthed in Jerusalem. The complex, which consists of a large edifice and a purification annex, featured solid dates that mark both its phase of foundation as well as its demise. Accordingly, its construction is dated to the first century c.e.; the scores of coins found buried in the destruction layer inside the building date its end to the time of the First Jewish Revolt in the year 70 c.e. This striking complex makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the urban layout of the Lower City of Jerusalem on the eve of its destruction. In the numerous excavations conducted in the past 100 years throughout the Lower City, no building constructions of large scale dating to the Early Roman period were uncovered. This was the reason behind the widely accepted view of the Lower City as a rather poor neighborhood, lacking wealthy structures. However, ex-cavations carried out in recent years in Jerusalem seem to have succeeded in modifying this opinion.

Yana TchekhanovetsIsrael Antiquities Authority

P.O. Box 586 Jerusalem 91004, Israel [email protected]

introduction

In the course of the salvage excavations in the Gi-vati Parking Lot (Hanyon Givati) at the City of David, a large architectural complex dating to the

Early Roman period was unearthed.1 This complex consists of a monumental building and a large purifi-cation annex which extends to the north of the building (fig. 1). The stratigraphical setting at the site shows that the complex covered the remains of the Helle-nistic period below, and in turn was covered by the

1 The project was conducted as salvage excavations on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and financed by the Elad As-sociation. This paper could not have been written without the con-siderable contribution of the team members: S. Behar, S. Cohen, D. Gutreich, F. Kobrin, M. Krakovsky, N. Nissim Ben-Efraim, A. Shatil, D. Tanami, and A. Zilberstein (area supervision); T. Sagiv and A. Peretz (field photography); “Sky-View” (aerial photogra-phy); V. Essman, M. Kipnis, M. Kunin, and Y. Shmidov (surveying); N. Zak (plans); D. Vinblat (drawing of pottery and stone vessels); S. Cohen (plates); and C. Amit (photography of finds). The abece-dary inscription was photographed by G. Laron.

remains of the Late Roman period above. It appears that chronological gaps separate the building from both periods (i.e., Hellenistic and Late Roman peri-ods). While the remains of the Hellenistic settlement (second–first centuries b.c.e.) suggest a short time gap separating it from the Early Roman complex, the Late Roman occupation (late third century c.e.) was built at least two centuries after the destruction of the Early Roman complex.

The more the remains of this structure were re-vealed, the more it became evident that they belonged to a spacious architectural complex extending across a large part of the excavation area. The numismatic finds uncovered in the destruction layer inside the building date its end to the time of the First Jewish Revolt in the year 70 c.e.

the building

The building includes a large, impressive edi-fice of which only the northeastern part has been

62 BEN-AMI AND TCHEKHANOVETS BASOR 364

Fig. 1. An aerial view of the excavation, looking north.

63A VIEW FROM HANYON GIVATI2011

revealed to date (fig. 2). The eastern wall of the build-ing (Wall 940), more than 14 m of which have been exposed, rises to a height of more than 5 m and is approximately 1.5 m thick. It is built of large, roughly dressed fieldstones, some of which are hundreds of kilograms in weight. The walls of this structure were so massive that the foundations of the Roman-period walls that were dug to a great depth at a later date utilized them as solid foundations for the impressive mansion that was built in this area.

Due to the building’s location on the eastern slope of the Tyropoeon Valley, the depth of its foundations varied considerably, especially on the east–west axis. This is clearly reflected in the foundations of Wall 940 in the east, which are higher than those of the set of walls in the west. Simultaneously, some retain-ing walls were built (Walls 1306, 1309, 1311, 1314, and 1327) in order to moderate and stabilize the Ty-ropoeon’s eastern slope. This possibly explains why Wall 940, which bounded the building on the east, was massively built and thus functioned also as a retain-ing wall. These measures prove that in the time when the Early Roman complex under discussion was con-structed, the Tyropoeon Valley was still a prominent feature in the topography of Jerusalem.

The building was preserved to a height of at least two stories. The basement level was covered with vaults made of neatly worked, white rectangular lime-stone. The bottom courses of the vaults survived in situ, while the rest of the vaults’ masonry was found inside the heaps of collapse that resulted from the building’s destruction (below). The interior portion of the basement level indicates it was divided into elon-gated halls oriented in a northwest–southeast direction (fig. 3). So far, we have exposed the eastern part of three of these halls (Loci 740, 760 and 783) and the beginning of a fourth (Locus 770), although the pos-sibility that additional halls are situated to the south should not be ruled out. Some of these long halls were further divided by means of partition walls into vari-ous rooms, as indicated in the northern hall.

The northern hall (Locus 740) is the narrower among the building’s halls excavated so far. About 2.5 m wide, it is bounded by Wall 922 on the north and Wall 952 on the south. These two long walls, the northern of which is more than 8 m long, extend far-ther west beyond the western boundary of the excava-tion. Wall 953 divides the eastern part of this long hall into two rooms. So far, only the eastern room has been exposed (Locus 740); the beginning of the room on the west has been clearly noted, but not yet excavated. The

two adjacent halls in the south (Loci 760 and 783) are of equal width; both are 3.8 m wide and are separated by Wall 958. The beginning of a fourth hall (Locus 770) has been noted in the southwestern corner of the excavation area.

The basement-level walls were coated with gray plaster, typical of water installations in this period. But unlike the gray hydraulic plaster which prevented the trickling of water, the purpose of the plaster on the basement walls was to prevent moisture on this floor. The clear dominance of storage jars among the pottery assemblage found in this context and the gray plaster on the walls suggest that the basement halls served for storage (below).

The floors of the building’s second story were con-structed atop the vaults that roofed the basement. Re-mains of plaster were noted on the walls of this story too. Unlike the gray plaster on the basement floor, the plaster on the upper living floor was white. The re-mains of colored frescoes, adorned in shades of red, yellow, and green with thin black lines, which were discovered in the building debris, demonstrate that the walls were decorated in “masonry style.”

A large niche (Locus 742), ca. 1 m wide and 1.5 m high, was found in Wall 940 (fig. 4). The plaster in the niche is several layers thick. The remains of ash spots on the plaster testify to the fire that occurred in this part of the building. Apparently, the niche was fur-nished with wooden shelves (Geva 2006: 50–52). A square hole was hewn in one of the massive stones placed in the southern face of the niche. No parallel hole was found in the opposite side of the niche.

Column drums and shafts, parapets and capitals, and other architectural elements found incorporated as spolia within the wide Late Roman foundations that were built directly above the ruined Early Roman spa-cious building were probably all decorative elements adorning the structure (fig. 5).

the purification annex

Adjacent to the northern side of the building were a number of plastered water installations: Loci 702, 704, 714, 719, 728, 2025, 1689, and 2042. These installations constituted part of a large purification annex that was an integral unit of the building. The maximum size of this annex could not be estimated, since parts of it are still buried under the Late Roman remains. Nevertheless, the installations excavated so far give a reasonable understanding of its layout and characteristics.


Fig. 2. Plan of the spacious building and its purification annex.


Fig. 4. The northeastern part of the building upon its exposure. Note niche Locus742 in the eastern wall; view looking east.

Fig. 3. Three halls inside the building. Note the rectangular stones of the vaults and the breach in Wall 958, looking southeast.


Three of the installations are ritual baths (miqvaʾot)—Loci 704, 719, and 2042. Given the simple fact that the bedrock, a few meters below, re-mains hidden, the miqvaʾot were apparently dug into the ground rather than quarried in the bedrock, as is the case with most of the ritual baths discovered in Jerusalem (Reich 1990: 47–48).

The walls of these water installations were built of fieldstones. Miqvaʾot 704 and 719 in the south had their walls treated with the gray plaster typical of the Early Roman period. Miqveh 704 is partly covered by a massive Late Roman foundation wall that was built over its eastern part. The entrance to this miqveh was in the west. The threshold and the socket stone for the door’s pivot were found in situ. The impressions of three of its stairs were preserved on the miqveh’s southern and northern walls. Miqveh 704 had a rect-angular water cistern (Locus 702) attached to it on the east. This water cistern was built against the build-ing’s northern wall (Wall 922), using the latter as its southern face. It measures 2.80 × 2.60 m2 and was excavated to its plaster floor, which was reached at a

depth of ca. 2.5 m. The walls were perfectly preserved, as was the fine gray plaster covering them.

The northern wall (Wall 951) of Miqveh 704 was shared with a second miqveh—Locus 719. Only the eastern part of the latter was excavated. This includes the remains of two of its lower stairs and the immer-sion pool. Immediately above the immersion pool of Miqveh 719 and parallel to it, a rectangular bath (Locus 714), measuring ca. 2.70 × 0.8 m, was found. The walls of the bath, coated with a thick, coarse plas-ter, were preserved to a height of 0.3 m. It is most likely that both Miqveh 719 and Bath L714 received their water supply from Water Cistern 702. Similar baths next to miqvaʾot were discovered in Herodian and later contexts (Avigad 1983: figs. 145, 160, 163, 175–76; Netzer 2001: 35, 159, ills. 47, 220–21, pls. 5, 7; Geva 2006: 38–40).

Like the two other miqvaʾot, Miqveh 2042, located ca. 10 m to the north of Miqveh 719, was also dug into the earlier strata. It was lined with stone walls coated with several layers of gray hydraulic plaster. Five of the stairs leading down to the immersion pool were

Fig. 5. Column drums incorporated as spolia within Late Roman walls built directly above the ruined Early Roman spa-cious building; view looking north.


exposed in their entirety. The pool itself is located be-yond the eastern boundary of the excavation area. The southern wall of the miqveh was shared with a large water cistern located to its south—Locus 1689 (fig. 6). The two were connected by a stone channel—Locus 2025. Cistern 1689 was renovated in the Late Roman period, when its walls were rebuilt and plastered with hydraulic plaster. A series of stone arches covered by large stone slabs formed the renovated cistern’s roof.

It is worth noting that an additional miqveh was discovered by Kathleen Kenyon in the course of her excavations in Area M, a few meters to the east of the ritual baths described above. This ritual bath was later turned into a water cistern (Kenyon 1964–1965: 13, pl. 6:A).

Except for Cistern 1689, which was renovated in the Late Roman period, all the other water installa-tions uncovered in this unit lacked any trace of roof-ing. Naturally, being placed in a separate unit outside the structure and not underneath it (as was usual with

many of the miqvaʿot in Jerusalem), these ritual baths had no need of the vaulted roof typical of other ritual pools of the period. These installations might have been covered with roofs made out of organic material (Wood 1984; Galor 2003). The excavations at the Jew-ish Quarter in Jerusalem, Jericho, Masada, and Arbel provide examples of ritual baths that were integrated into the living floor of houses (see Reich 1990: 74–80 and references therein).

The concentration of many ritual baths in a large residential dwelling is a known phenomenon in Jeru-salem at the close of the Early Roman period. A similar situation was observed in the large-scale excavations in the Upper City (Reich 1990: 94–101) and at the foot of the Temple Mount (Ben-Dov 1982: 150–53). Although the total number of miqvaʾot unearthed to date in the Lower City is significant, they are usually built singly (individually). Most of these ritual baths were rock-hewn and were turned into water cisterns in later periods (Reich 1990: 230–42).

Fig. 6. Miqveh 2042 on the right. Water Cistern 1689 is located to its south; view looking northwest.


Fig. 7. Pottery types from the spacious building: bowls and cooking ware. See table 1 for descriptions.


the ceramic assemblage

The monumental building has yielded a rich ce-ramic assemblage that includes nearly 900 indicative vessel fragments. Unfortunately, very few complete vessels were discovered, and these were mainly of small forms. The pottery discussed below originated in the following contexts: on the floors of the northern and central halls of the lower story (Loci 740, 760); in the collapse of the higher floors (Loci 687, 707, 713, 720, 721, 736, 738, 739, 749); inside the various water installations located in the northern annex—i.e., Miqvaʾot 704 and 719, Water Cistern 702, and other installations such as Locus 714 and Locus 728.

The Early Roman pottery assemblage presents a rich repertoire of the typical first-century c.e. ves-sels of local manufacture found in Jerusalem and other Jewish sites throughout the country (figs. 7–10; tables 1–4). The significance of this analysis should be viewed in the light of the total absence of final re-ports on the Early Roman pottery from excavations in the Lower City (the City of David hill). Notably, the assemblage presented here shows the homogeneous character of the Jerusalem ceramic repertoire at the end of this period. Apparently, the Early Roman pot-tery of the Lower City is not different from that found in other parts of contemporary Jerusalem. Similar as-semblages were reported from the Upper City—for instance, in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva

2003; 2010; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006) and in the Armenian Gar-den (Tushingham 1985). Most of these are local vessel types that can be compared with numerous parallels excavated in well-stratified contexts.

Imported vessels are almost totally absent from the current assemblage. Among the imported types, amphorae (fig. 10:5–6) are present in relatively high numbers; because of their high quality, they remained in use for a long period of time. Parallels to the Italian “Republican” type (fig. 10:5) dated to the Late Helle-nistic and Herodian periods, up to the first century c.e., were discovered in the City of David (Ariel 1990: 83) and the Jewish Quarter (Ariel 2003: Types A4–A14; Finkielsztejn 2006: Types A17–A19). Parallels to a Koan or Pseudo-Koan amphora (Type Dressel 4), frag-ments (fig. 10:6) from Late Hellenistic and Herodian contexts, including complete vessels, were found in the City of David (Ariel 1990: pl. 2.8) and the Jewish Quarter (Ariel 2003: pl. 6.4:17; Finkielsztejn 2006: pl. 6.1:A4). With the exception of a few isolated Eastern Sigillata fragments, the assemblage from the Givati Parking Lot is extremely poor in imported pottery.

Nevertheless, the assemblage includes a respect-able quantity of locally manufactured luxury wares: numerous fragments of “Jerusalem painted bowls” (fig. 7:6–8), a molded lamp with floral decoration (fig. 10:9), elegant jugs (fig. 8:6), and miniature bottles (fig. 8:18, 19) and cups (fig. 8:20). In this respect, the local

Table 1. Bowls and Cooking Ware from the Spacious Building, Illustrated in Figure 7

No. Vessel Locus Reg. No. Description1 Bowl 740 8347/132 Bowl 738 8968/133 Bowl 702 7718/114 Bowl 702 7663/185 Bowl 760 8360/96 Bowl 702 8756/7 Red paint7 Bowl 760 8488/4 Black paint8 Bowl 702 7710/11 Brown paint9 Bowl 702 7408/1010 Cooking pot 713 7515/411 Cooking pot 740 8347/312 Cooking pot 736 7948/313 Cooking pot 721 7614/714 Cooking pot 702 8756/615 Casserole 713 7399/816 Casserole 687 7095/217 Casserole 738 8000/518 Cooking jug 702 8701/13


Fig. 8. Pottery types from the spacious building: flasks, jugs, juglets, and miniature vessels. See table 2 for descriptions.


pottery from the building resembles the assemblages discovered at the Upper City (in the Jewish Quarter) and at Masada. It differs from the modest character of the pottery assemblages unearthed in the Jerusalem pe-riphery—e.g., Binyanei Haʾuma (Berlin 2005: 45–50; figs. 14–19, not production), Khirbet Kaʾkul (Seligman 2006: 1–74; figs. 17–20), or Khirbat ʿAdasa (Khalaily and Avissar 2008: 96–99, fig. 5). It thus appears that the insignificant quantity of imported wares, together with the richness of the local pottery, reflects the traditional, conservative tendencies of the Lower City inhabitants (Berlin 2005: 52–54, and references therein).

Quantitative analysis of the ceramic finds clearly shows the absolute domination of storage jars in the assemblage, approximately 40% of the total number of identified vessels. Many of the storage jar types in ur-ban Judaean sites dated to the end of the Early Roman period are well known (for discussion and references, see Geva 2003: 121). Nevertheless, the extremely high percentage of jars discovered in this architectural complex is outstanding. Second in popularity after storage jars are the cooking vessels. Cooking pots, casseroles, and cooking jugs account for about 25% of the assemblage. In general, the pottery assemblage can be divided into three major, partly overlapping groups:

1. Vessels that were mainly characteristic of the sec-ond and first centuries b.c.e. (the Hasmonaean pe-

riod). This group includes simple, shallow bowls with incurved rim (fig. 7:1); cooking pots with high, concave (fig. 7:10) or high, straight neck (fig. 7:11); fusiform unguentaria (fig. 8:13–16); storage jars with thickened, everted (fig. 9:1) or square rim (fig. 9:2); and folded lamps (not illustrated). This group is represented by 213 indicative fragments.

2. Vessels that appeared in the first century b.c.e. in the Herodian period and continued in use dur-ing the first century c.e. In terms of quantity, this group is the largest of the three and contains 388 indicative fragments. It is represented by shallow bowls with incurved rim and carinated body (fig. 7:2); bowls with incurved rim folded outward (fig. 7:3); shallow bowls with infolded rim (fig. 7:5); deep bowls with a groove under the rim (fig. 7:9); ledge-rim (fig. 7:16) and carinated casseroles (fig. 7:17); cooking jugs with triangular rim (fig. 7:18); flasks (fig. 8:1); table amphorae (fig. 8:2); jugs with everted rim (fig. 8:3, 4); juglets with cup-shaped rim (fig. 8:8); juglets with everted rim (fig. 8:9) and ledged rim (fig. 8:12); storage jars with collared rim (fig. 9:3–7) and with ridged neck (fig. 9:8–14); and wheel-made knife-pared lamps (fig. 10:7, 8).

3. Vessels typical of the second part of the first cen-tury c.e., often found in the destruction layers of 70 c.e. or even in later assemblages dated to the first third of the second century c.e. This group

Table 2. Flasks, Jugs, Juglets and Miniature Vessels from the Spacious Building, Illustrated in Figure 8

No. Vessel Locus Reg. No. Description1 Flask 739 8321/92 Jug 702 8701/303 Jug 713 7515/74 Jug 738 8068/195 Jug 702 7619/136 Jug 702 7662/12+

7714/197 Jug 707 7300/38 Juglet 702 8701/199 Juglet 702 7710/3910 Juglet 721 7655/1211 Juglet 702 6970/1412 Juglet 739 8128/413 Unguentarium 736 7741/1814 Unguentarium 713 7399/715 Unguentarium 702 7055/116 Unguentarium 702 7055/12 Red paint17 Unguentarium 720 7997/218 Min. bottle 721 7666/119 Min. bottle 720 756520 Min. cup 702 7663/10


Fig. 9. Pottery types from the spacious building: storage jars. See table 3 for descriptions.


is represented by the following types: deep bowls with everted rim (fig. 7:4); “Jerusalemite painted bowls” (fig. 7:6–8); cooking pots with triangular (fig. 7:12) and ridged triangular rim (fig. 7:13) and short-neck cooking pots (fig. 7:14); closed (fig. 7:15) and carinated casseroles (fig. 7:17); cooking jugs (fig. 7:18); “gray” jugs (fig. 8:6); wide jugs with everted rim (fig. 8:7); miniature bottles (fig. 8:18, 19) and cups (fig. 8:20); ridged-neck storage jars (fig. 9:8–14); large storage jars with everted rim and ridged neck (fig. 10:1, 2); wide-mouth stor-age jars with everted rim (fig. 10:3) or with inner ledged rim (fig. 10:4); and molded lamps with flo-ral decoration (fig. 10:9). The “destruction layer” pottery group, numbering 140 fragments, repeats the types known already from the Herodian period, with the introduction of certain new vessel types and wares.

It should be noted that despite the presence of these three groups of pottery, the spacious building does not present a period of long, continuous use. According to the stratigraphic picture, the building and its northern wing were built simultaneously and functioned for a relatively short period of time. No signs of long-term use of the building were discerned: floor levels were not raised, and only minor changes were carried out in the basement floor. The destruction of the building in 70 c.e. provides a terminus ante quem for the finds uncovered within. Therefore, the pottery assemblage as a whole represents the last phase of the building usage prior to its destruction (see Geva 2010: 120). Soundings performed beneath the floor level in the

southern hall of the building (Locus 783) exposed pottery types dated to the first century c.e.

Among the different types of vessels uncovered in the destruction layer of the building, the presence of later types, such as storage jars with ridged neck base, wide-mouthed jars, Jerusalem painted bowls, and wheel-made knife-pared and molded lamps with floral decoration, is significant. These types are widely considered as chronological pegs for the second part of the first century c.e. Their appearance together with a variety of vessels belonging to the above-mentioned pottery groups suggests that the entire assemblage was in use simultaneously until the year 70 c.e.

This phenomenon is also reported from the Jewish Quarter excavations, where the pottery of Stratum 2 contains parallels to the earlier vessel types, such as the simple or carinated shallow bowls with incurved rim or with incurved rim folded outside; deep bowls with everted rim; jugs with everted rim; juglets with a cup-shaped rim; long-neck juglets; and piriform un-guentaria (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 114, pl. 4.13). A similar picture is known from Masada, where the early types, which originated in the Zealots occupa-tion level, contained shallow bowls with incurved rim and carinated body; cooking pots with a high concave neck; cooking pots with triangular, simple or ridged rim; “Herodian” flasks; jugs with everted rim; juglets with cup-shaped rim; juglets with ledged rim; storage jars with thickened, everted or square rim; storage jars with a short, flat or slightly concave collared rim; stor-age jars with a short neck with a ridge at the base and a thickened round rim or with a simple straight rim; or a variant of the same type with a long neck (see Bar-Nathan 2006: 45, 47, 51–52, 102, 104, 116, 129, 158–60, 191).

Interestingly, certain types of vessels survived even after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 c.e. and continued to appear, together with later types, in occupation levels of the Bar-Kochba revolt, such as in the last phase at Aroer, (Hershkovitz 1992: 317–18). These include deep bowls with everted rim; cooking pots with triangular rim; jugs with everted rim; cup-shaped rim juglets; storage jars with a long ridged neck and slightly thickened rim or the type with a flat ledge rim.

The excavation of the current assemblage, which originated in a well-stratified context, updates the list of earlier types that remained in use until the year 70. Similarly, the latest types in this sealed assemblage—i.e., storage jars with a ridged neck base; wide-mouthed jars; Jerusalem painted bowls; wheel-made

Table 3. Storage Jars from the Spacious Building, Illustrated in Figure 9No. Vessel Locus Reg. No.

1 Jar 736 7948/52 Jar 738 8068/33 Jar 736 7949/44 Jar 702 6949/45 Jar 707 7205/76 Jar 721 7724/87 Jar 734 7949/108 Jar 749 8350/39 Jar 720 7997/310 Jar 702 7663/111 Jar 736 7878/112 Jar 707 7205/413 Jar 738 8068/414 Jar 739 8004/5


Fig. 10. Pottery types from the spacious building: storage jars, amphorae, and lamps. See table 4 for descriptions.


knife-pared and molded lamps with floral decora-tion—are of chronological significance since they date the whole corpus of vessels as being in simultaneous use until the year 70 c.e. The assemblage emphasizes the longue durée of the earlier types, known also from other large-scale excavations at Masada and at the Jewish Quarter.

the stone artifacts2

More than 150 stone (chalk) artifacts dated to the Early Roman period were scattered in the debris ac-cumulated in the spacious edifice. Stone vessels were very popular in Jewish settlements throughout the country, from the Galilee to the Judaean Desert, in-cluding the Lower City of Jerusalem, from the middle of the first century b.c.e. to the first century c.e. (Ca-hill 1992). The widespread use of these chalk vessels is largely explained as a direct outcome of the Jewish regulations and laws of purity (Magen 2002; Gibson 2003; Amit 2010). Accordingly, during the Second Temple period, the purity laws played a major role in daily life; the Jewish laws emphasize the fact that stone vessels do not acquire impurity.

The stone vessels found in this architectural com-plex include a large variety of types that were man-ufactured by both lathe-turning and hand-carving techniques (see Amit 2010: 56–61).

Bowls (fig. 11:1–4; table 5) come in a wide range of shapes and sizes. Few depict inner division (fig. 11:2–3); other bowls are decorated with lathe-incised lines on the vessel’s exterior (fig. 11:4). Many mug frag-ments were found (fig. 11:5). They all share common characteristics—i.e., flat, rough bases, straight walls,

2 We would like to express our gratitude to N. Nissim Ben-Efraim and A. Zilberstein who analyzed and prepared the stone artifacts for the final publication of the first volume of the Givati Parking Lot excavations.

pointed rims, and vertical handles with a rectangular profile. Chisel marks are visible all over the vessels.

Numerous fragments of large stone jars (qalals) were found (fig. 11:6–8). These large stone contain-ers dominate the chalk vessel assemblage, consti-tuting about 40% of the chalk vessels uncovered in this context. The most popular qalal rim form is the quadrangular profiled rim decorated on the outside by three horizontal ridges (fig. 11:6). The triangular rim is also popular. Some triangular rims bear various hand-carved decorations under the rim (fig. 11:7–8), the most common being the fluted frieze (fig. 11:8).

The high percentage of qalals among the stone ves-sels in the building supports the idea that the building cellars served for storage. This assumption is further evidenced by the clear dominance of storage jars in the pottery assemblage found in this building (above).

Interestingly, a relatively large number of stone scale weights—13—were found in the complex (fig. 11:9–12). They are all characterized by a squat cylin-der or drum shape and slightly convex faces (fig. 12).

Several stone scale weights had a metal increment added to the stone for recalibration purposes (fig. 11:9, 10). According to Reich’s comprehensive research, the stone scale weights of the Early Roman period can be separated into four weighing systems in chronological succession. The earliest weighing system (I) is dated by him to the second half of the first century b.c.e., and the latest (IV) was in use from the second quarter of the first century c.e. until the destruction of Jeru-salem in 70 c.e. (Reich 2006: table 18.16). The stone scale weights from our building may be assigned to all four weighing systems, although weights belonging to system IV clearly dominate. The weight in figure 11:11 bears incisions in the form of a palm branch/grain spike. This motif appears on several stone scale weights found in other excavations in Jerusalem and is also depicted on one weight from Qumran (Lemaire 2003: 358, no. KhQ 2115; see also Reich 2006: 347).

The large quantity of scale weights found in the building, together with the clear dominance of storing vessels, indicates that the weights must have played an integral part in the weighing and storage activity that took place here during the later part of the Early Roman period.

Several fragments of tabletops were found, all char-acterized by a rectangular stone slab with a smooth upper face and rough bottom (fig. 11:13, 14).

destruction

The entire complex became the object of intentional demolition that brought about its end. This was clearly

Table 4. Storage Jars, Amphorae, and Lamps from the Spacious Building, Illustrated in Figure 10

No. Vessel Locus Reg. No. Description1 Jar 720 7985/12 Jar 736 7878/23 Jar 721 7724/124 Jar 702 7055/35 Amphora 740 8360/16 Amphora 734 7949/27 Lamp 702 8756/238 Lamp 702 8701/109 Lamp 702 7662/13 Mold-made


Fig. 11. Stone vessels from the spacious building. See table 5 for descriptions.


Table 5. Stone Vessels from the Spacious Building, Illustrated in Figure 11No. Vessel Locus Reg. No. Technique

1 Bowl 740 8233 Hand carved2 Bowl 721 7730 Hand carved3 Bowl 736

76079838418

Lathe-turned exterior; hand-carved interior

4 Bowl 702 7692 Lathe turned5 Mug 736 8054 Hand carved6 Qalal 740 8130 Lathe-turned exterior; hand-carved interior7 Qalal 699 6212 Lathe-turned exterior; hand-carved interior8 Qalal 736 8014 Lathe-turned exterior; hand-carved interior9 Weight 759 8521 Hand carved; recalibrated10 Weight 718 7442 Hand carved; recalibrated11 Weight 740 8260 Hand carved; palm branch incision12 Weight 739 8099 Hand carved13 Rounded tabletop 740 8174 Lathe turned14 Rectangular

tabletop700 7303 Hand carved

Fig. 12. Stone scale weights. Few display metal increment added to the stone for recalibration purposes.


evident in the building: the enormous fieldstones were toppled from the inside walls of the structure, collaps-ing the vaults of the basement story. The floors of the halls were also caved in along with the vaults. The vault stones were discovered together with those of the walls, all of them lying in a jumble in the destruc-tion layer that came to rest on the basement floor. Frag-ments of pottery and stone vessels were discovered in large amounts, spread over the entire area of the building.

Almost all loci excavated in the spacious building had coins dating to the last 30 years before the city’s destruction (fig. 13).3 These include coins of “year two” and “year three.” The latest coins are the coins of “year four” of the First Jewish Revolt. A high pro-portion of the latter were found in the excavations. According to D. T. Ariel, almost as many coins of “year four” were found (20) as those of “year two” (25). The ratio of “year two” to “year three” to “year four” coins is 1.25 : 0.3 : 1. Chronologically, the “year four” coins

3 The numismatic readings were carried out by D. T. Ariel, to whom we are deeply thankful.

(69/70 c.e.) point to the date of the destruction of the spacious building. Altogether, the coins collected from the bulding and from its northern purification annex date its final destruction to the year 70 c.e.

Sometime prior to the destruction, the people inside the building, who sensed the impending danger around them, found shelter inside its basement halls. They breached narrow openings in the walls of the building, two of which were discovered in the course of exca-vations. One is located in Wall 958, which separates Halls 760 and 783; the other is in the building’s north-ern wall, separating it from the purification annex in the north. The breach in the south cuts through the wall and the white, dressed rectangular stones in the lower courses of the vault (fig. 14). These narrow breaches provided an exit route for the building’s occupants via the basement level and could be easily camouflaged when necessary. Although the building is not yet fully exposed, it appears that the main entrance was located in its western wall, facing the principal street running close by. This entrance was most probably blocked to prevent access into the building, simultaneously with the other measures of desperation taken by its occu-

Fig. 13. Revolt coins found in the destruction layer.


pants close to the building’s destruction in the year 70 c.e.

The abecedary inscription found in the building is another example of measures taken to combat the de-spair felt by the inhabitants hiding in the underground floor of this complex prior to the catastrophe, and of their efforts to save themselves from the unavoidable end (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2008). The inscrip-tion bears the first six letters of the Greek alphabet. It is incised on a body fragment of a large stone vessel, most likely a lathe-turned chalk qalal, one of the many stone vessel fragments found in mass quantities in the destruction layer within the spacious building.

The inscription features two lines of letters: the first consists of a double alpha and beta, and the second bears the first six letters of the Greek alphabet, from alpha to zeta, covered by diagonal incisions creating a net pattern (fig. 15).

Reading: AABB ΑΒΓΔΕΖ

Most scholars interpret abecedary inscriptions as scribal exercises (Demsky 1977; Lemaire 1978; Hes-

trin and Dayagi-Mendels 1979; Millard 1985). As claimed elsewhere, the considerable number of these alphabetic scripts clearly points to their magical char-acter (Dornseiff 1922: 158–68, 163: no. 14; 165: no. 28; 166: no. 1; 168: no. 9; Patrich 1989: 235–39). While there is little doubt that some may have served as scribal exercises, others reflect the sacred power of the alphabet and the belief that letters could protect those seeking refuge from an inescapable attack by the enemy (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2008 and references therein). However, these attempts by the occupants to save themselves proved of no avail, since the entire building became the object of intentional demolition that brought about its end.

discussion

Following the exposure of this striking edifice from the end of the Early Roman period, questions arise re-garding its function and identification (see appendix).

The 19th-century scholars were the first to map out the borders of Jerusalem as Josephus described them (especially JW 5.4), and they were followed by many others. Common to all of these reconstructions is the

Fig. 14. The narrow breach in Wall 958, looking north.


relative consistency in the location of the city’s prin-cipal buildings. This consistency stands out even more in all that relates to the reconstruction of the Lower City. Restricted in size, the Lower City was populated with residential buildings at the end of the Second Temple period (see below).

Until recently, the archaeological data concern-ing the Early Roman period in the Lower City was meager. The primary characteristics of the building remains of the period excavated in the Ophel included mostly rock-hewn miqvaʾot and water cisterns. Only very fragmentary remains of private dwellings were encountered (Macalister and Duncan 1926).4

The excavations carried out by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald discovered “the great gateway, flanked by walls of great thickness,” dated by the excavators to the Bronze Age and up to the Hellenistic period (Crowfoot 1928: 11–15). However, the stratigraphical and chronological attribution of this structure is prob-lematic. It is very possible that these finds should be

4 The stratigraphic attribution of some of the remains is incor-rect. For an attempt to draw a clear picture of the Early Roman stratum, see Mazar 2009.

interpreted not as city fortifications, but as the remains of another monumental structure dated to the Early Roman period.

Excavations by Bliss and Dickie in the southern part of the Lower City during the 19th century exposed a part of the Siloam Pool and a stepped street lead-ing north, toward the Temple Mount (Bliss and Dickie 1898: 140–64). Later on, other parts of this paved street were discovered by the expeditions of Johns (Reich and Shukron 2009: 37–45) and Kenyon (Ken-yon 1974: 22, pls. 7, 100).5

Despite the large number of excavations conducted throughout the Lower City, no monumental remains of private buildings such as those excavated in the Upper City were found. This is the reason behind the widely accepted view of the Lower City as a rather poor neighborhood, lacking wealthy structures except for those built by the royal family from Adiabene.

In recent years, excavations carried out in the Lower City seem to have succeeded in modifying this opinion. A large dwelling complex was discovered in

5 For a review of other small-scale excavations in the City of David, see Reich and Shukron 2008.

Fig. 15. The Greek abecedary inscription.


the southern part of Tyropoeon, close to the Siloam Pool. Originally three stories high, this building con-tained a number of rock-hewn rooms and was dated by the excavator to the first century c.e. (Greenhut 2011). Both its size and architectural characteristics suggest the high social status of its residents. The rediscovery by Reich and Shukron of the wide street originally un-covered during the excavations of Bliss and Dickie (above) further emphasizes the change in the layout of the Lower City in the first century c.e. Apparently, in this time the street, which originally was nothing but a simple road, was rebuilt on a much wider scale and turned into an impressive paved, stepped street with a drainage tunnel under it (Reich and Shukron 2007; Shukron and Reich 2007).

It thus appears that in the first century c.e., the Lower City experienced clear changes in its lay-out, with large-scale building activity which turned it into a vivid neighborhood. This phenomenon can be explained by the general economic prosperity of Jerusalem in this time, which was, in turn, a direct outcome of the expanding phenomenon of pilgrimage to the Temple. In this regard, one can speculate on the identity of the new residents of the Lower City. It is possible that constantly growing communities of Diaspora Jews moved to Jerusalem in the first century c.e. (Safrai 1974: 184–216; Levine 1998: 51–55) and decided to settle down in this area, simply because the traditional elite neighborhoods in the Upper City no longer had reserves of free space.

appendix: the spacious building in light of the

josephus descriptions

The discovery of the large architectural complex excavated recently at the Lower City of Jerusalem naturally raises questions regarding its possible his-torical setting. The descriptions of Josephus, who witnessed the events that transpired in the country in general and Jerusalem in particular, remain the most important source for any attempt at reconstructing the urban layout of the city on the eve of its destruction in the year 70 c.e. (JW 5.4). The most impressive build-ings in the Lower City, those built by the members of the royal family from Adiabene (JW 4.9.11; 5.6.1; 6.6.3), were foreign to the general landscape of the area—so much so that they became landmarks in Jose-phus’ description of the events that took place on this hill on the eve of the destruction.

The Kingdom of Adiabene, or Hadyab in Talmudic literature, was located in northern Mesopotamia. It is identified with modern Iraqi Kurdistan. Since no Par-thian documents regarding this Hellenistic kingdom survive, most of the geographical and historical infor-mation comes from classical sources (Strabo 11.503; 16.736, 16.742; Pliny Hist. nat. 5.66; 6.25, 6.28, 6.41, 6.44, 6.114; Josephus AJ 20; Tacitus Ann. 12; and Ptol-emy 6.1.2). The first monarch of the Adiabene King-dom that we know of is Izates I, who reigned toward the end of the first century b.c.e. His son, Monoba-zus I, and daughter Helena, married each other and ruled the Adiabene Kingdom in the early part of the first century c.e. Two sons, Izates II and Monoba-zus II, were born to them. In the year 30 c.e., a power struggle broke out in the kingdom among the courtiers, following the death of Monobazus I (Neusner 1964: 60–63; Teixidor 1967; Sellwood 1985: 277–78). At its conclusion, Izates II, who was the younger of the two brothers, seized control of the throne. Izates II was the first member of the royal family to convert to Judaism. Shortly thereafter, his mother, Helena, followed in his footsteps and also became a proselyte to Judaism (AJ 20.2–4). The proselyte kings retained the strong con-nection with Judaea. Izates sent five of his sons (the grandsons of Helena) to Jerusalem to learn the Hebrew language and the laws of the Torah (AJ 20.3.4).

In the year 46 c.e., Helena decided to make a pil-grimage to the Temple in Jerusalem (Josephus AJ 20.2.6; mNaz. 3.6) to complete her conversion with the appropriate thank offerings. At the time, the resi-dents of the city were suffering from a severe famine that caused many deaths. Helena decided to assist the starving people of the city and sent messengers on her behalf to Alexandria, from whence boats were sent with wheat, and to Cyprus, from whence she had dried figs brought for the city’s inhabitants. At the same time, her son, King Izates II, also sent aid to the city’s starving inhabitants (AJ 20.2.5–6). During the follow-ing years, Helena and her sons continued to help the residents of Jerusalem and even offered donations for the Temple in Jerusalem (mYom. 3:10).

People who renovated objects in the Temple and were praised for their acts are noted in the Mishnah within the framework of the religious laws regarding the work of the high priest in the Temple on Yom Kip-pur. Helena and her son Monobazus are among those mentioned: “. . . the king Monobazus made all the handles of the utensils used on the Day of Atonement — of gold. Helen, his mother, made a golden candela-brum over the temple-gate. She likewise made a tablet


of gold, whereon was inscribed the section about an adulteress woman” (mYom. 3:10).

With the death of Helena and Izates in about the year 60 c.e., the convert queen was interred in a royal tomb that she and her sons prepared beforehand, lo-cated a distance of 3 furlongs north of the city (JW 5.2.2; 5.3.3; 5.4.2; AJ 20.4.3). The tomb is mentioned by the Greek author Pausanias in the second century c.e. (Descr. Graeciae 8.16.3) and by Byzantine church fathers of the fourth century—Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2.12.3) and Jerome (Ep. 108.6). From the 16th cen-tury on, the funeral monument appears again in the descriptions of Jerusalem as “The Tomb of the Kings of Israel” (see Schick 1897: 182–88). A large staircase hewn in the rock leads to a spacious courtyard. The monumental facade of the tomb itself is decorated by floral reliefs; the three pyramidal roofs forming the up-per part of the monument did not survive.

This tomb was first excavated in 1863 by de Saulcy, when fragments of ossuaries, three decorated sarcoph-agi, and two sarcophagus lids were found. On one of the sarcophagi were two inscriptions: “צדן מלכתא ” and Inside it were the remains of a woman ”.צדה מלכתה“dressed in a garment adorned with gold. Among the other artifacts recovered from the tomb were coins, jewelry, ceramic, glass and alabaster vessels, and other finds (de Saulcy 1865: 310–45; 1882: 224–41; see also Cohen 1947; Kloner and Zissu 2003: 133–36). The funeral complex was recently explored by schol-ars from the École Biblique (Anonymous 2010: 9–10).

When the Judaean Revolt broke out, members of the monarchic family, who were opposed to any strug-gle against Rome on their own territory (AJ 20.3.4), took an active part in the war, from its first days until the very end. Josephus mentions among the most val-iant fighters Monobazus and Kenedeus (“the kinsmen of the King Monobazus,” JW 2.19.2), Chagiras, son of Nabateus (JW 5.11.5), and finally, the sons and broth-ers of King Izates, who are reported to have been cap-tured and taken to Rome as hostages at the end of the war (JW 6.6.4). According to Neusner, beside the wish to help Jerusalem, the Adiabenians had pragmatic rea-sons to participate in the Jewish War—that is, to try

to position themselves as potential candidates for the Judaean throne in case of the revolt’s success (Neusner 1964: 60–66).

Helena and her sons erected large buildings in the Lower City. Among them are Helena’s “palace,” the court of King Monobazus (JW 5.6.1; 6.6.3), and Graphty’s “palace” (JW 4.9.11). These buildings were apparently the most prominent structures that stood in the Lower City. From the various descriptions by Josephus, most scholars engaged in reconstructing the city as it was at the end of the Second Temple period have concluded that the edifices identified with the building activity of the Adiabene royal family should be reconstructed in the Lower City (Avi-Yonah 1956: 317; 1976: 598–610; Bahat 1973: 13; Finley 1977: 226; Stern 1984: 172; Levine 1998: 233). This is also the basis for Avi-Yonah’s reconstruction of the large edifices in this part of the city in his model of Jerusa-lem at the time of the Second Temple.

The possibility that the impressive architectural complex excavated in the northwestern part of the Lower City should be identified with the building ac-tivity of the Adiabene royal family is mere speculation. The size of the building, the dimensions of its impres-sive walls, and the architectural wealth—fresco deco-rations, fragments of architectural decor, and the large purification wing with its numerous installations— indicate beyond a doubt that this was indeed a promi-nent landmark in the urban landscape of Jerusalem. In this regard, the absence of northern (Parthians) char-acteristics in the building should come as no surprise. Throughout the centuries, the newcomers who settled in Jerusalem adopted the local building tradition. The presence of foreign elements within the Jerusalemite population is attested mainly by the historical docu-mentation, certainly not by architectural features. The finds in the building also must be viewed against this background. The turmoil of events that shocked the city prior to its final destruction in 70 c.e. may explain the absence of luxurious items. Hopefully, further ex-cavation planned for this area will provide substantial evidence for the determination of its historical setting.

references

Ancient

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. (Historia Ecclesiastica)Jerome, Ep. (Epistolae)

Josephus, AJ (Antiquitates Judaicae)Josephus, JW (Bellum Judaicum)Pliny, Hist. nat. (Historia Naturalis)Strabo (Geographica)


Tacitus, Ann. (Annales)Pausanias (Graeciae Descriptio)Ptolemy (Geographica)

Modern

Amit, D.2010 The Manufacture of Stone Vessels in Jerusalem

and the Galilee: Technological, Chronological, and Typological Aspects. Michmanim 22: 49–66 (Hebrew), 35*–36* (English summary).

Anonymous2010 Achèvement des traveaux archéologiques au

Tombeau des rois, Jérusalem. Nouvelles de Jérusalem (École biblique et archéologique française) 86: 9–10.

Ariel, D. T.1990 Imported Stamped Amphora Handles. Pp. 13–98

in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 2: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

2003 Imported Amphora Fragments from Area A. Pp. 224–30 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nah-man Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Avigad, N.1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Nelson.

Avi-Yonah, M.1956 Archaeology and Topography of Jerusalem in

the Time of the Second Temple. Pp. 305–19 in Sepher Yerushalayim, Vol. 1, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Jerusalem: Bialik (Hebrew).

1976 Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Pp. 598–610 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. M. Avi- Yonah. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Bahat, D.1973 Carta’s Historical Atlas of Jerusalem: A Brief

Illustrated Survey. Jerusalem: Carta.Bar-Nathan, R.

2006 Masada. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports, Vol. 7: The Pottery of Ma-sada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Ben-Ami, D., and Tchekhanovets, Y.2008 A Greek Abecedary Fragment from the City of

David. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140: 195–208.

Ben-Dov, M.1982 The Dig at the Temple Mount. Jerusalem: Keter

(Hebrew).

Berlin, A.2005 Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second

Temple Period. Pp. 29–60 in Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Conven-tion Center (Binyanei Haʾuma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, The Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzan-tine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Small Finds, ed. B. Arubas and H. Goldfus. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 60. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Bliss, F. J., and Dickie, A. C.1898 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London:

Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.Cahill, J. M.

1992 The Chalk Assemblages of the Persian/Helle-nistic and Early Roman Periods. Pp. 190–274 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 3: Stratigraphi-cal, Environmental, and Other Reports, ed. A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Cohen, M.1947 The Tombs of the Kings. Tel Aviv: Dvir (Hebrew).

Crowfoot, J. W.1928 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 60: 9–27.Demsky, A.

1977 A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of the Judges and Its Implications for the History of the Alphabet. Tel Aviv 4: 14–27.

Dornseiff, F.1922 Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie. 2nd ed. Stoi-

cheva 7. Leipzig: Teubner.Finkielsztejn, G.

2006 Imported Amphoras. Pp. 168–79 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusa-lem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 3: Area E and Other Studies, Final Re-port, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Finley, M. I., ed.1977 Atlas of Classical Archaeology. London: Chatto

& Windus.Galor, K.

2003 Plastered Pools: A New Perspective. Pp. 291–320 in Khirbet Qumrân et ʿAin Feshkha, Vol. 2: Etudes d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie, ed. J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, Series Archaeologica 3. Fribourg: Academic.

Geva, H.2003 Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. Pp.

113–75 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the


Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2006 Stratigraphy and Architecture. Pp. 1–78 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 3: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2010 Early Roman Pottery. Pp. 118–53 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusa-lem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 4: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Geva, H., and Hershkovitz, M.2006 Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Ro-

man Periods. Pp. 94–143 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Con-ducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 3: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Geva, H., and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R.2003 Local Pottery from Area A. Pp. 176–91 in

Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Gibson, S.2003 Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from

Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment. Pp. 287–308 in One Land—Many Cultures: Ar-chaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Lof-freda OFM, ed. G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and L. D. Chrupcala. Collectio Maior 41. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

Greenhut, Z.2011 A Domestic Quarter from the Second Temple

Period on the Lower Slopes of the Central Val-ley (Tyropoeon) Pp. 257–93 in Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Re-search, ed. G. Avni and K. Galor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Hershkovitz, M.1992 Aroer at the End of the Second Temple Period.

Eretz-Israel 23 (Avraham Biran Volume): 309–19 (Hebrew).

Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels, M.1979 Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period, Hebrew,

Ammonite, Moabite, Phoenician and Aramaic. From the Collections of the Israel Museum and the Israel Department of Antiquities and Muse-ums. Trans. I. Pommerantz (from Hebrew). Jeru-salem: Israel Museum.

Kenyon, K. M.1964– Excavations in Jerusalem, 1963. Palestine Ex-1965 ploration Quarterly 96: 7–18.1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London: Benn.

Khalaily, H., and Avissar, M.2008 Khirbat ʿAdasa: A Farmstead of the Umayyad

and Mamluk Periods in Northern Jerusalem. ʿAtiqot 58: 91–122 (Hebrew), 69*–71* (English summary).

Kloner, A., and Zissu, B.2003 The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second

Temple Period. Jerusalem: Yad Izkhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew).

Lemaire, A.1978 Abécédaire et exercises d’écolier en épigraphie

nord-ouest sémitique. Journal asiatique 266: 221–35.

2003 Inscriptions du Khirbeh, des grottes et de ʿAin Feshkha. Pp. 341–88 in Khirbet Qumrân et ʿAin Feshkha, Vol. 2: Etudes d’anthropologie, de phy-sique et de chimie, ed. J. B. Humbert and J. Gun-neweg. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, Series Archaeologica 3. Fribourg: Academic.

Levine, L. I.1998 Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or

Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington.Macalister, R. A. S., and Duncan, J. G.

1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 4. London: Committee of the Palestine Explora-tion Fund.

Magen, Y.2002 The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple

Period: Excavations at Hizma and the Jerusa-lem Temple Mount. Judea and Samaria Publica-tions 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Mazar, E.2009 The Palace of King David: Excavations at the

Summit of the City of David, Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007. Jerusalem: Shoham Aca-demic Research.

Millard, A.1985 ʿBGD. . .—Magic Spell or Educational Exer-

cise? Eretz-Israel 18 (Nahman Avigad Volume): 39–42.

Netzer, E.2001 Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho:

Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. 1: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusa-lem: Israel Exploration Society.

Neusner, J.1964 The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism: A New

Perspective. Journal of Biblical Literature 83: 60–66.

Patrich, J.1989 Refuges juif dans les gorges du Wadi Mukhmas.

Revue biblique 96: 235–39.


Reich, R.1990 Miqwaʾot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in

Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mish-nah and Talmud Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

2006 Stone Scale Weights of the Late Second Temple Period from the Jewish Quarter. Pp. 329–88 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 3: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Reich, R., and Shukron, E.2007 The Rediscovery of the Central Drainage Chan-

nel of the Second Temple Period along the Tyropoeon Valley. Pp. 25–32 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, ed. J. Patrich and D. Amit. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew).

2008 The History of the Archaeological Excavations in the City of David (1867–2007). Pp. 13–41 in City of David: Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 3: The 9th Annual Conference, ed. E. Meiron. Jeru-salem: Megalim (Hebrew).

2009 Johns’ Excavations of the Paved Road up the Tyropoeon Valley in Jerusalem. Pp. 37–45 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region 3, ed. D. Amit, G. D. Stiebel, and O. Peleg-Barkat. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew).

Safrai, S.1974 Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of

Israel. Pp. 184–215 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, Vol. 1, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Saulcy, F. de1865 Voyage en Terre Sainte, Vol. 2. Paris: Didier.1882 Jérusalem. Paris: Morel.

Schick, C.1897 The (So-Called) Tombs of the Kings at Jeru-

salem. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 29: 182–88.

Seligman, J.2006 Jerusalem, Khirbat Kaʿkul (Pisgat Zeʾev H):

Early Roman Farmsteads and a Medieval Village. ʿAtiqot 54: 1–73.

Sellwood, D.1985 Adiabene. Pp. 277–78 in Encyclopedia Iranica,

Vol. 1, ed. E. Yarshater. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda.Shukron, E., and Reich, R.

2007 Recently Discovered Remains of the Stepped Street that Ascends from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple Mount. Pp. 13–25 in City of David: Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 2, ed. E. Meiron. Jerusalem: Megalim (Hebrew).

Stern, M., ed.1984 The History of Eretz Israel, Vol. 4: The Roman-

Byzantine Period: The Roman Period from the Conquest to the Ben Kozba War (63 bce–135 ce). Jerusalem: Keter (Hebrew).

Teixidor, J.1967 The Kingdom of Adiabene and Hatra. Berytus

17: 1–11.Tushingham, A. D.

1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

Wood, B. G.1984 To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in

Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256: 45–60.

The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of its Destruction, 70 C.E.: A View from Hanyon Givati

Documents

Transcript of The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of its Destruction, 70 C.E.: A View from Hanyon Givati