One of my side interests that I’ve not pursued much beyond occasional reading is the history of the land of Israel in the 20th century.  This includes the time of the British Mandate and the birth of the state of Israel.  My photo projects have always been aligned with courses I have taught—namely, the subjects of historical geography and archaeology, both inside and outside the land of Israel.  But as I worked on the creation of photo collections from the American Colony, I saw a worthy set of photos about this important period of history.  Thus the Early 20th-Century History CD strays beyond the bounds of “Bible places,” but many, like me, find that their interest in biblical history naturally leads to the dramatic events of recent years.

One reason for this interest is simply that these realities are part of your world when you’re in Israel and Jerusalem in particular.  Zion Gate is of interest not only because it leads to Mount Zion with the “tomb of David” and “Upper Room,” but also because of its pockmarked exterior caused by fighting in the War of Independence of 1948.  Everything has a story, and these stories explain why things are the way they are.

One story I’ve heard and repeated came more to life for me when I saw the photo below.  The King David Hotel was bombed by Jewish terrorists in 1946 and ninety-two people were killed.  The hotel was quickly rebuilt and no signs (that I know of) exist.  I always had trouble envisioning it, and understanding what was meant that a “wing” of the hotel was destroyed.

Attack on Hotel King David on Monday, July 22, 1946, mat12970

King David Hotel after bombing, July 22, 1946

Rather than describe the story myself, I prefer to quote a brief portion from Martin Gilbert’s wonderful book, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century.  If you have any interest in Jerusalem itself, or in the modern history of Israel, I highly recommend this book.  Gilbert writes:

Hatred of the British had been inflamed among these two groups [Irgun and Stern Gang] by the refusal of the British to allow survivors of the concentration camps into Palestine.  The Jewish terrorists, who included two future Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, believed that by “blood and fire” they could drive the British out of the country, and establish a Jewish State.  Their most devastating attack was made on 22 July 1946, when members of the Irgun, disguised as Arabs, brought explosive charges in milk-churns into the hall outside the Regence Cafe in the basement of the King David Hotel.  Above the cave, the south wing of the hotel, five floors in all, was being used as the British administrative headquarters.  An anonymous woman telephoned the switchboard operator at the hotel to say that the hotel must be evacuated as there would be an explosion “in a few minutes.”  Her warning was ignored.
At 12.37 the explosives went off.  Five floors and twenty-five rooms collapsed into rubble.  Ninety-two persons in the wing were killed: Britons, Arabs and Jews.  Among the dead were military and civilian officials, soldiers, clerks, typists, cleaners, drivers and messengers.  The British dead included the Postmaster-General of Palestine, G. D. Kennedy, a veteran of the retreat from Mons in 1914.  One of the Arabs killed, Jules Gress, a senior assistant accountant with the Secretariat, was a Catholic.  He had been an officer in the Turkish army in the First World War, when he was taken prisoner by the British.  While at his bank that morning he had asked to be served quickly, so as not to be late for a Secretariat meeting.  Commented the Palestine Post: “He hurried back to his duty and his death.”
[…]
The Jewish Agency denounced what it called “the dastardly crime” perpetrated by a “gang of desperadoes,” and called upon the Jews of Palestine “to rise up against these abominable outrages” (172-73).

If, like me, you knew only sketches of the story, perhaps now the picture is clearer.

Share:

From the Jerusalem Post:

Fifteen policemen were lightly wounded in their attempt to restore order on the Temple Mount after Arab youths emerging from Friday prayers started hurling rocks down onto those worshiping at the Western Wall. Having restored calm with the use of stun grenades, police left the Temple Mount compound in cooperation with the waqf to allow older worshipers to leave. […] The repeated clashes in Jerusalem follow Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s announcement incorporating the Cave of the Patriarch’s in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem onto Israel’s list of national heritage sites.

The full article is here.  The Haaretz article is similar, but adds this statement:

The clashes later calmed when adult Muslim worshippers dispersed the young stone throwers.

Share:

Last week Eilat Mazar announced the discovery of a massive wall in Jerusalem dating from the time of Solomon.  Unfortunately, the information was communicated on location in a press conference, and it has been difficult to figure out what exactly she said.  It seems that ambiguity served her well, for it apparently disguised some important details, such as the fact that most of what she announced she had previously excavated, announced, and published in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.  Whatever she discovered in the brief excavation of 2010 either was not announced, not reported, or identical to what she has previously reported.

There are other problems.  One concerns the definition of terms.  What you think of as a “wall” is what Mazar calls the exterior of two buildings, one of which she (but few others) believes is a gate. 

Perhaps these buildings served as the defensive line of the city.  Perhaps she found a new section in 2010 that is a city wall.  But if you’re thinking she found a wall line like at Megiddo, Lachish, Hazor, Dan, or other places in Jerusalem, then you’re mistaken.

Another problem is that her previous publications give the sense that she is changing her interpretation to fit a more biblical narrative and date without new data to support this conclusion. 

My friend Danny Frese has compared her publications of the site and we think they suggest that her analysis of the data owes more to what she would like to find than what she has found. 

Concerning Building C, “The Gatehouse,” she wrote in 1980s about a fill under the floor of the south chamber.  The fill held about 50% EB and MB sherds; the latest pottery found in the fill was “from the Iron II” (1987: 62). More specifically:

There was also a small quantity of wheel-burnished sherds [in the fill] which indicate a date sometime in the ninth-seventh centuries B.C.E. (ibid.).

She notes two particular sherds from the fill that are from distinctive bowls which appear in the 10th and 9th centuries (1989: 20).

The ceramic data as presented above do not enable precise determination of the time of construction [of the gatehouse], which must be cautiously defined as between the 9th and 7th centuries B.C.E. (1989: 20).
Unfortunately the finds in the locus [in the south chamber] are extremely scanty and do not permit a more accurate dating than between the 9th and 7th centuries (1989: 59).

But in 2006, she wrote concerning the two sherds from distinctive bowls mentioned above:

Bowls of this type have been studied extensively and date mainly to the 10th century, continuing into the 9th century BCE. The ceramic data were insufficient to provide a more precise determination within the terminus post quem [earliest] time frame for the construction of Building C (2006: 783-84).

In other words, the evidence for dating the gate to the 10th century are two sherds that were also in use in the 9th century.

Concerning Building D, “The Royal Building,” she wrote in 1989 about the dating of the lower floor, beneath which was:

an intact black juglet of the type characteristic of the 10th and 9th centuries B.C.E. The juglet was found hidden between stones of one of the foundation walls of the room, as if it had been placed there intentionally by the builders as a sort of private foundation deposit. On the basis of the pottery finds, including the juglet, the time of the laying of the lower floor, and hence also of the entire building, can be determined as the 9th-early 8th centuries B.C.E. (1989: 60).

But in 2006, with no additional excavations having occurred since 1989, she wrote about the black juglet:

It was found hidden, as though placed there intentionally by the builders as a construction offering of sorts. The juglet appears to be characteristic of the 10th century BCE; there are clear differences between this early type of juglet and its later 8th-century form, examples of which were also found in the excavations on the eastern slope of the Western Hill. Unless further research conducted on the typology of black juglets indicates otherwise, it seems clear that the early type with the straight neck, ovoid body, and button base, like the example found in the Ophel, is characteristic first and foremost of the 10th century BCE (2006: 784).

The question we ask: what changed?  Distinguishing between pottery of the 10th and 9th centuries has not been clarified in the intervening years.  If anything, the debate has only intensified.  Yet Mazar concludes in her 2006 article:

A new understanding of the finds from the excavations of the monumental fortification line in the Ophel has enabled its dating to as early as the 10th century BCE (2006: 75).

The “new understanding” was a reinterpretation of a juglet to an earlier date without any supporting evidence.  That allows the entire “gate complex” to be dated to the 10th century.  And suddenly you can publish an article entitled “The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem.”

Given her press conference announcement, we presume that she found new material in her 2010 excavations that confirm her earlier conclusions.  Her case would be more compelling, however, if it didn’t appear that she had a pre-determined outcome. 

Sources Cited:
Mazar, Eilat. “Ophel Excavations, Jerusalem, 1986.” Israel Exploration Journal 37.1 (1987) 60-63.
Mazar, Eilat and Benjamin Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1989.
Mazar, Eilat. “The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem.” Pp. 775-86 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday.  Edited by A. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Share:

You never know what will start a riot in Israel.  In this case, it was the government’s adding two historical sites to a list of 150 that should be restored.  Today Israeli police forces entered the Temple Mount in order to remove 20 masked protesters who were throwing objects at tourists.

G. M. Grena notes that BAR has posted a good photograph of the Qeiyafa Ostracon.

Egypt has announced the discovery of a large red granite head of Pharaoh Amenhotep III in his mortuary temple on Luxor’s West Bank. 

Tom Powers has followed up the “Under the Temple Mount” post here with some beautiful watercolors of the same areas on his blog.

If you’re looking for more reaction to Eilat Mazar’s “10th century” “wall” announced last week, take a look at this roundup by John Hobbins.  I expect to post more on the matter this coming week.

Today is Purim and in honor of this festive holiday, the Israel Antiquities Authority has posted an online exhibit of “Masks, Rattles and Purim Customs.” Some images are available in high resolution here (zip).

Share:

I want to return to a recent post on the 360 degree views in Jerusalem.  There are some images here that I did not notice or note carefully before, including Solomon’s Stables, the Well of the Souls, and the passageway of the Double Gate. 

First, go to the Al Aqsa tour.  Counting the images from the left, #6-8 show Al-Marwani Mosque, built a decade ago inside the area known traditionally as “Solomon’s Stables.”  You can see the Herodian masonry in the columns. 

#9 is the Well of the Souls, the cave underneath the Dome of the Rock. 

#10-11 were taken inside the passageway of the “Double Gate.”  If you look up you can see the beautifully carved (but now plastered over) domes from Herod’s time. 

These are really extraordinary images of places that are very difficult for non-Muslims to access.  The limited captions on the website do not explain what you’re seeing.  Leen Ritmeyer has a nice screenshot showing the domes.

Share:

A.D. Riddle has pointed me to a chapter that Eilat Mazar published a few years ago entitled “The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem” (full bibliographic data below).

It includes a diagram similar to the one published on Hebrew U’s Facebook page yesterday.  I’ve added labels in English.

Mazar_wall_diagram Mazar’s diagram with English labels added (original here)

My impression in reading Mazar’s chapter is that yesterday’s press conference was mostly a re-statement of the conclusions of her 2006 article, which was based on her excavations in the 1980s.  In short, she argues that Building C is a four-chambered inner gatehouse which may have been an entrance into a royal palace.  She notes that its dimensions are “virtually identical” to those of palace Gate 1567 at Megiddo VA-IVB.  With regard to date, she states that “the ceramic data were insufficient to provide a more precise determination within the terminus post quem time frame for the construction of Building C.”

She found two floors in Building D, the later of which was laid “no earlier than the 8th century.”  She believes an intact black juglet was placed under a foundation stone as a “construction offering” and dates the building to the 10th century. 

She concludes in part:

Based on the finds sealed below the floors of Buildings C and D, the construction of the fortification complex in the Ophel should be dated to the 10th century BCE.  This date corresponds to the biblical passage announcing that King Solomon built a defensive wall around Jerusalem.  There is no reason to assume that someone other than Solomon constructed or reconstructed the Ophel fortification line at some time during the 10th-9th centuries BCE.

It sounds as if Mazar has found more evidence in her recent excavation that confirms her previous conclusion that this fortification system dates to the time of Solomon.  I don’t believe that her previous conclusions met with much enthusiasm from the scholarly community; we’ll see how the archaeologists evaluate her new material.

The bibliographic data for this publication is as follows:

Mazar, Eilat. 2006 “The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem.” Pp. 775-786 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday.  Ed. A. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

This two-volume work is available from Eisenbrauns.

Share: