I am personally very interested in Jerusalem in the Old Testament period (aka First Temple period), so I’m going to indulge myself by writing yet again on a third article (of four total) from that era in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018. This article is also by Eilat Mazar, and it is entitled “The Royal Quarter Built by King Solomon in the Ophel of Jerusalem in Light of Recent Excavations (2009-2013).”

As before, I am handicapped by not being able to show you the diagrams and archaeological photos in the article. There really are some spectacular views, without overgrown weeds, faded placards, or some tourist who just won’t move out of your way! But my goal in these brief summaries is to give you a sense for what they’ve found, along with a pointer to where you can read more.

Let’s start with a definition: the Ophel, according to this article, is the area between the City of David (to the south) and the Temple Mount (to the north). I’m not so sure that this is how the Bible uses the term (cf. 2 Chr 27:3; 33:14; Neh 3:26-27; 11:21), but that’s how it is used here. If you want to see these discoveries in person, you need to go to the “Southern Temple Mount Excavations,” later renamed the “Jerusalem Archaeological Park” (as if there is only one), and marked by the Davidson Center near the entrance.

This article focuses on Mazar’s work on the southern end of the excavation area (just north of the modern road that takes buses to the Western Wall). Here she found some monumental architecture which she dates to the time of Solomon. In fact, four of the five buildings date to the time of Solomon, with the fifth from the time of David. She writes, “One gets the impression that the construction of buildings in the Ophel ended during the third quarter of the 10th century BCE.”

Building I she identifies as “the Far House,” proposing that it served King David and his allies when he fled from Absalom (2 Sam 15:17). The NASB translation reads, “The king went out and all the people with him, and they stopped at the last house.” Mazar writes, “The features of bayt ha-merhaq [the far house] as described in the Bible match in date and location those of the early structure in the Ophel and it is possible that they are the same building.” I think I would have more confidence in that conclusion if we had other buildings from this time period to compare it with (and thereby determine that this in fact was the “farthest” one), but we don’t.

Building II was a fortress-tower even further than the “far house,” but she dates it to a few decades later. She estimates its size at 50 by 40 feet, though much of the structure has not yet been uncovered.

But she thinks it fits with a description in Nehemiah 3:27 of “the great projecting tower.”

Building III is the gatehouse and casemate wall. Other archaeologists aren’t so sure that this was a gatehouse (only a portion of the structure was preserved), but if it is, this is the only known gatehouse from Jerusalem prior to the “Middle Building” mentioned in the Babylonian conquest description of Jeremiah 39.

Building IV is the “Straight Wall” and it has a length of more than 100 feet, with a width of 8 feet.

Nehemiah mentions a portion of the wall that is called “straight” (Neh 3:25), and Mazar believes that she has found it.

Building V is the casemate wall, also built during the time of Solomon, as one of the elements in “the wall of Jerusalem” (1 Kgs 3:1). So Mazar has found this as well.

This is all truly fascinating, especially given the almost complete lack of material elsewhere in Jerusalem from the time of David and Solomon. My advice, though, to someone who has identified so much is to stop digging before you run out of biblical names to associate with your discoveries.

Share:

A seal impression was recently discovered in the City of David that reads “belonging to Adonijah, the royal steward.” The inscription dates to the 7th century, the period when Jerusalem was ruled by Manasseh and Josiah. The royal steward was the king’s “chief of staff,” and this position is mentioned in Isaiah 22:15 in reference to Shebna.

There is some question about whether this might be the same individual who was buried in the “tomb of the royal steward” in the Silwan necropolis opposite the City of David.

Also of interest is the fact that this man had the same name as David’s son who attempted to seize the throne before his father had died (1 Kgs 1). The Times of Israel reports:

The most famous Adoniyahu occurs some 300 years before this newly attested Adoniyahu, and is a son of King David and Haggit. He is called both Adoniya and Adoniyahu.
There are two other notable Adoniyahus recounted in the Bible. One, a Levite, appears during the reign of Jehoshaphat (circa 870–849 BCE), who is recounted in Chronicles. The other noteworthy Adoniyahu is found during the rule of Nehemiah, which occurs during the Persian era of the Second Temple period circa 465-424 BCE.

Perhaps next time the Times reporter can look up the English spelling of the name so that English readers will more readily understand. (Many other news reports perpetuate the same problem, making me think that these stories are simply regurgitated, without the necessary care.)

For the full story, including photos and a video, see The Times of Israel.

HT: Joseph Lauer

Share:

Eilat Mazar excavated the palace of David. That’s what she claims, and it’s an amazing possibility to consider.

Mazar summarizes her excavations of the summit of the City of David in a chapter in the new Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018. I told you last week that if you wanted fewer questions and more answers, you would prefer Mazar’s excavation report to Reich and Shukron’s.

The chapter proceeds through the excavation chronologically beginning with the earliest periods. But the discoveries were very limited from all of the pre-Iron periods, and so I am going to skip right over them in this summary. The lack of early evidence in this area may indicate that this area was outside of Jerusalem until the time of David.

As with all of the articles in this book, we are treated to some great photos. This article also has three fantastic plans that help you see what Mazar is explaining. The main feature is the “Large Stone Structure.” This is what Mazar (and others) believes is the palace of David. Or more precisely, she considers it to be “a new significant addition to the already existing Canaanite-Jebusite Palace-Fortress or Mezudat Zion; an addition built by King David during his initial rule in Jerusalem.” So I interpret that to mean that this is David’s pre-Hiram residence. (In another study I’m working on, I reject the notion that David built a pre-Hiram residence, but that’s another discussion.)

Just how “large” is this “Large Stone Structure”? Unfortunately the excavation area was limited and the building extends beyond the edges in several directions. But the outer eastern wall is 20 feet wide, and a portion of it stands on a rock cliff that was chiseled to a height of 22-25 feet. Kathleen Kenyon discovered a royal (proto-Aeolic) capital just below this, but Mazar did not find any more in her area.

A quarried channel discovered behind the Stepped Stone Structure (which is the large foundation of the Large Stone Structure, readily visible in “Area G)” dates to the early Iron Age IIA (= time of David), and Mazar identifies this with the tsinnor mentioned in 2 Samuel 5:8, by which David’s men conquered the city.

Did I mention how much I like the color diagrams?

The finds of later periods were not quite so impressive, and it’s surely disappointing that none of the royal treasures escaped the greedy hands of the many plunderers of Jerusalem. But we can note a few discoveries in brief:

  • A wall possibly constructed ahead of Shishak’s invasion
  • A Hebrew seal impression with the name of Jehucal son of Shelemiah son of Shevi (cf. Jer 38:1)
  • The wall built by Nehemiah
  • A seal inscribed slmt that may have belonged to Shlomit the daughter of Zerubbabel (1 Chr 3:19).

Much of this material has appeared before in news reports and BAR articles, but this article provides a single summary that pulls it all together in a convenient fashion, with great illustrations.

Share:

In a nutshell, Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018 is a summation of the results of a couple dozen excavations all over Jerusalem. Each article is written by the excavator(s), with the result that you feel like you’re standing at the site, getting the final synopsis of what they discovered. The volume is loaded with photographs and diagrams.

My intention is to summarize a few of these articles in upcoming posts. There are four articles from the “Old Testament” period (Bronze and Iron Ages), and today’s post is about the first one.

Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron excavated in the City of David for 14 years (1995-2008), and their chapter on “Recent Discoveries in the City of David” focuses on two subjects: (1) the rock-cut pool and (2) the Gihon Spring fortifications. Both of these are in close proximity to each other, and both of them have proven quite difficult to understand.

The Rock-Cut Pool was not a pool, but its walls chiseled into the bedrock at a height of [oops – the article doesn’t even say; I’ll guess 20 feet] are amazing. But holes in the bedrock, even really large ones, do not tell stories, and so the excavators focus all of their attention on what they found inside the “pool,” which necessarily dates to a period later than the “pool’s” earliest use.

What did they find inside the pool? (1) Lots of pottery, mostly from around 825-750 BC, which was tossed in from the surrounding area when someone built (2) a house. Yes, this seems like a strange place to build a house, but someone did. The excavators compared it to the house of Ahiel in Area G.

(3) Fish bones. A lot of fish bones. And strangely enough, this is the only place in Jerusalem where they have found lots of fish bones. Of the 10,600 fish bones, they identified 14 different fish families, but the favorites on Jerusalem dining tables were Sparidae (porgies) and Mugilidae (mullets). All of these were obviously imported, and a study of their size indicates that only small fish were transported, possibly because of the need to package them for transport up into the hill country by donkey.

(4) About ten seals and scarabs as well as fragments of more than 170 seal impressions. Because they were from an earlier period than the collection found in Area G, they did not have inscriptions in any Semitic languages. A few had Egyptian inscriptions. And there were some cool decorations such as boats, fish, sphinxes, and palmettes. The archaeologists believe that an administrative center existed near the Rock-Cut Pool. (5) An ivory pomegranate with a dove perched on top.

The archaeologists believe that these finds point to ties with Phoenicia, a proposal which corresponds with the presence of Queen Athaliah (the daughter of a Phoenician princess). The article only hints at the possibilities here, but the date seems to line up.

The second major subject of the article is the Gihon Spring fortifications. The main point of this discussion is that the Pool Tower is not a tower but a fortified passageway. Now this passageway is very impressive, with its northern wall preserved to a height of 25 feet! They traced the parallel walls for 75 feet before they had to stop because of modern obstructions. The problem is that the excavators cannot figure out what this (obviously expensive) fortification did, and they seem to conclude that it went out of use before it came into use, being replaced by a subterranean equivalent known as “Warren’s Shaft.” All of this they date to the Middle Bronze Age.

The authors are honest, and I appreciate that. Here’s a sample paragraph that reflects their wrestling with the difficulties:

The key question is: How did those drawing water reach the place above the northeastern corner of the Rock-Cut Pool? Did they descend from the city between the two parallel walls, or perhaps through the subterranean tunnel (of the Warren’s Shaft complex), to emerge from it at the eastern end of those two walls, and then turn south toward the deepest part of the Rock-Cut Pool? Were these routes perhaps in use at different periods of time? We have no stratigraphic data that might point to such a sequence of phases of use and they should, therefore be interpreted based upon contemporary logic.

I’m not too impressed with the use of logic in archaeological interpretation, but it’s nice that they don’t pretend that they have evidence that they don’t.

I’ll conclude where they conclude, with what I see as an astonishing admission of our lack of knowledge about the most basic question of them all: where was the city of Jerusalem at this time?

Answer: the city may have been north of these fortifications. Or it may have been south. The fortified passageway may be in the southeastern corner of the fortified urban area, or it may have been in the northeastern corner. I guess I’m just glad that the Kidron Valley is on the east side of their excavation, or we probably wouldn’t even know if this was the eastern or western side of the city!

If you like a little bit more certainty (or a lot!) in your archaeology, check back next week for my summary of Eilat Mazar’s excavation of the palace of David.

Share:

Excavations under a house in northern Israel have revealed what may be the largest wine factory from the Crusader era.

Archaeologists have discovered an arrowhead from the Roman siege of Jotapata in AD 67.

A i24News video shows the “pilgrim road” leading from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple Mount of Jerusalem.

“Archaeologists working in the buried Roman city of Pompeii say they have uncovered a ‘sorcerer’s treasure trove’ of artefacts, including good-luck charms, mirrors and glass beads.”

A new exhibit about a 4th-century synagogue mosaic floor has opened in the Archaeological Museum of Aegina. Aegina is a Greek island not far from Athens.

“Anchors Aweigh: Seaports of the Holy Land” is a new exhibit opening on Tuesday at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem.

Preliminary images of seven (alleged) Dead Sea Scroll fragments owned by the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are now online. (The link looks unusual, but it works.)

Lubna Omar provides a personal perspective as a Syrian archaeologist unable to protect her country’s heritage.

A guy passionate about ancient Egypt and baking used ancient yeast to bake a loaf of bread.

Egyptian authorities transferred a 90-ton obelisk of Ramses II from Zamalek to El Alamein.

The Oriental Institute is celebrating its 100th anniversary.

Carl Rasmussen shares photos of the largest altar in the world.

I always like the photos that Wayne Stiles includes with his posts, and this week is no different with his reflections on Abraham’s faith.

Matti Friedman writes a helpful review of Jodi Magness’s new book on Masada.

Did you know there are four long distance hiking trails in Israel? They range in length from 37 miles to 637 miles.

HT: Agade, Joseph Lauer, Alexander Schick, Ted Weis

Share:

Archaeologists excavating on the Western Hill of Jerusalem (aka the modern “Mount Zion”) have announced the discovery of a destruction layer from the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

The discovery is of a deposit including layers of ash, arrowheads dating from the period, as well as Iron Age potsherds, lamps and a significant piece of period jewelry – a gold and silver tassel or earring.

Despite what you might expect, archaeologists working in Jerusalem over the years have not found an abundance of material from this destruction, probably because it has been disturbed by later inhabitation. Shimon Gibson and his team date this material to the Babylonian destruction on the basis of context.

The team believes that the newly-found deposit can be dated to the specific event of the conquest because of the unique mix of artifacts and materials found — pottery and lamps, side-by-side with evidence of the Babylonian siege represented by burnt wood and ashes, and a number of Scythian-type bronze and iron arrowheads which are typical of that period.

The arrowheads are similar to those discovered at the “Israelite Tower” on the north side of ancient Jerusalem in a destruction context from the Babylonian invasion. Because the excavation site is inside the city walls, it is unlikely to be a dumping area.

“It’s the kind of jumble that you would expect to find in a ruined household following a raid or battle,” Gibson said. “Household objects, lamps, broken bits from pottery which had been overturned and shattered… and arrowheads and a piece of jewelry which might have been lost and buried in the destruction.”

“Frankly, jewelry is a rare find at conflict sites, because this is exactly the sort of thing that attackers will loot and later melt down.”

“I like to think that we are excavating inside one of the ‘Great Man’s houses’ mentioned in the second book of Kings 25:9,” Gibson speculated. “This spot would have been at an ideal location, situated as it is close to the western summit of the city with a good view overlooking Solomon’s Temple and Mount Moriah to the north-east. We have high expectations of finding much more of the Iron Age city in future seasons of work.”

The full press release is here, and the story is reported by numerous outlets, including The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, and Haaretz (premium).

Jerusalem from the south, with excavation area circled


Area of Mount Zion excavations (in 2016)

Share: