Jerusalem in Brief (No. 4)
An Iron Age II tomb discovered in the Old City, a shadowy photo of a rock-cut canal, and a happy 230th birthday to Edward Robinson
If you find this newsletter valuable, consider upgrading to a paid subscription and receive unique Jerusalem-related benefits.
New excavation analysis
A large number of salvage excavations are conducted in Jerusalem and published annually by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Several stand out each year for their important contributions to the history of the city. This section reviews one such excavation that uncovered a burial chamber from the time of the Judahite monarchy (Iron Age II) near the center of the Old City. It was directed by David Gellman in January 2019 and published in November 2020. We unpack some key questions about the excavation below.
Where were the excavations located?
They took place at Dar al-Consul (“The house of the consul”), so named because the Prussian Consulate was located in this building for several decades beginning in 1856. The property was later acquired by the Franciscans. A number of renovations took place in the ground-floor and its upstairs housing units in coordination with the UN and al-Quds University. Additional excavations took place in other areas of the complex. Many archaeological finds revealed during the process were incorporated into the building, which was opened on Nov 9, 2021.
Dar al-Consul is located in the area between the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Austrian Hospice on ‘Aqabat al-Takiyeh (see map above). Geographically speaking, this is situated north of the Transversal Valley and on the eastern slopes of the Northwestern Hill that descend toward the Central Valley (al-Wad). Pedestrians can clearly feel the descent as they walk ‘Aqabat al-Takiyeh from west to east. The Roman Cardo Maximus (today’s Khan ez-Zeit) ran just west of Dar al-Consul. The back of one shop from the Cardo even seems to have been revealed in the building.
What was uncovered?
Remains from several periods were uncovered in this excavation, but we will focus on a burial cave dating from the time of Judahite monarchy (Iron Age II). Readers who are familiar with other family tombs from this period will know that they typically consisted of three burial benches hewn out of bedrock in a U-shape (see the report for photos). On these benches the dead were interred for primary burial until their bodies decomposed. Interestingly, some limited human remains were found on two of the benches at Dar al-Consul in apparently undisturbed soil. As is usually the case in Iron Age II, a hollow chamber was hewn below one of the benches as a repository. Here the bones of the dead would be collected for secondary burial. This also made space for other deceased members of the family on the burial benches. Details about the contents of the repository are not provided in the report.
How are the finds interpreted?
Very often, extended discussions or interpretations are not offered in short salvage excavation reports. Gellman likewise only presents the features of the tomb and his rationale for dating it to the Iron Age. I have not been able to locate a discussion of this tomb in his other articles, but perhaps he will offer one in the future.
How do these finds impact the history of Jerusalem?
During the time of the Judahite Monarchy (Iron Age II), Jerusalem’s necropolis surrounded the city on all sides. The most well-known portion was located to the east, in today’s Silwan village. The so-called Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter, the Tomb of the Royal Steward, and others are found in this area. The most ornate and well-cut tombs from this period are located north of Damascus Gate on the grounds of the École Biblique. Many Iron Age tombs were hewn in the Hinnom Valley along the line of the western Old City wall down to the more well-known Ketef Hinnom tomb complex. Scholars will typically argue that the extent of Jerusalem’s necropolis during the 7th and early 6th centuries BCE provides a frame for the zenith of the fortified city prior to its destruction by Babylon in 586 BCE.
The tomb uncovered in Dar al-Consul stands out for its geographical location. As far as I know, this is the only undisputed Iron Age II tomb that has been revealed within the confines of the Old City.1 I believe the find can be brought into conversation with two discussions about the size of Iron Age Jerusalem.
The first is the course of Jerusalem’s northern fortification line during this period. Many scholars simply reconstruct this portion of the wall on an east-west line from the area of today’s Jaffa Gate to the Chain Gate (Bab as-Silsile). This includes Avigad’s Wall and other Iron Age fortifications that were uncovered during the reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter. On this understanding, the wall would have run into the western side of the Temple Mount.
Other scholars take a different view, that, in the area east of Avigad’s Wall, the fortification line looped to the north and connected with the northwest corner of the Temple Mount. (Some who take this view understand the later construction of what Josephus would call “the Second Wall” as simply a reconstruction of this earlier line. I have written about the Second Wall here and here). It seems that active tombs were not typically included in Judahite cities, so we can probably safely assume their presence indicates an area outside the city. As far as I can tell, the location of the tomb at Dar al-Consul sits outside both proposed lines, and thus, does not support one over the other.
We should also discuss the tomb at Dar al-Consul in the context of possible extramural suburbs in Jerusalem during the Iron Age II. In the past, some scholars have taken what Gabriel Barkay termed a “super-maximalist” view (1985:476). This understanding of Jerusalem during the 8th-early 6th centuries BCE assumes that the city included northern extramural suburbs. These suburbs would have been located in the northern fourth of today’s Old City. The presence of a tomb in this area suggests it was part of Jerusalem’s necropolis and may not have been inhabited to any significant degree.
Note: The statement that this is the only Iron Age II tomb uncovered within the Old City is incorrect. Please see a correction here.
Jerusalem visualized
This is one of several fascinating images captured by French photographer Auguste Salzmann during his trip to Jerusalem in early 1854. His collection of photos, which was published in three volumes in 1856, are among the earliest taken of Jerusalem. Interestingly, Salzmann traveled to the city partly at the behest of Ferdinand de Saulcy, who believed that photographs might support his controversial views about Jerusalem’s history (Solomon-Godeau 1981:97). De Saulcy would later excavate at the Tomb of the Kings north of Damascus Gate.
In an article that evaluates Salzmann’s contribution to early photography, Abigail Solomon-Godeau notes that he tended to front objects and eliminate the horizon. In certain cases, such as the photo shown above, he presents passageways as dark voids hidden in shadow. About this photo, she observes:
“…Salzmann's inventive and sophisticated use of shadow is particularly evident. Here the space is dramatically simplified through the use of contrasting light and shadow areas almost to divide the image into quadrants. It is…almost impossible to derive any information about the canal which is the ostensible subject of the photograph—where it goes, how it has been cut, even exactly where it is.” (1981:103)
It is unclear why Salzmann felt this unusual view was worthy to be captured. Perhaps similar angles exist in other early photographic collections of Jerusalem, but I have never seen any like it. This photo was taken at the southern termination of the Southeastern Hill looking west. In this location, there is a thick and prominent outcropping of limestone, part of which can be seen at the top. It looms over Birket al-Ḥamra (the Red Pool), a flat area out of view to the left that has now been removed by heavy machinery.
What appears to be a wall on the left is rather debris that accumulated against the face of the hillside over millennia. The setting at the southern outlet of the Central Valley, so named because it descends through the center of Jerusalem, contributed to this thick deposit. The top left corner shows limestone terraces of the Western Hill (modern Mount Zion) in the distance. This clipping of the Western Hill feels incidental but gives a glimpse of its bare eastern slopes. Some visitors to Jerusalem during this time found this state of the hill lamentable.
The subject of the photograph is the bedrock channel and void into which we stare at the center. The channel leads westward toward the Byzantine-era Pool of Siloam and nearby outlet of the Siloam Tunnel. Scholars have debated the date and function of this channel which is known in the literature as “Channel IV.” On its west side, the channel connects with the Byzantine Pool of Siloam and outlet of the Siloam Tunnel. For this reason, it has often been described as an overflow channel. On the east side it connects with the southern portion of Channel II, a Canaanite (Middle Bronze Age) channel that was later extended southward during the Iron Age. This channel carried water from Jerusalem’s perennial spring southward prior to the hewing of the Siloam Tunnel.
In a 1995 article, David Ussishkin argued that the Siloam Tunnel was originally longer than we know it today, stretching from its current exit point through the area shown in this photograph. In this case, later hewing away of the bedrock would have exposed part of the tunnel in this area, accounting for the awkward shape of the overhanging bedrock as we see it today. Although an interesting idea, as far as I know, it has not been followed by any scholars (I remember seeing a recent paper that addressed Ussishkin’s idea, but I have not been able to relocate it). The more common view is that Channel IV was dug during the Roman Period in order to bring water from the Siloam Tunnel into the Pool of Siloam (Reich, Shukron, and Lernau 2007:166). How and where the Siloam Tunnel diverted its water when it was first cut during the time of the Judahite Monarchy is not known.
Salzmann’s photo provides both a unique view of this channel in the mid-19th century and an opportunity to reflect on how it has been interpreted since.
Turn back the clock
This week in April includes several touchstone anniversaries in the life of Edward Robinson:
Born on April 10, 1794 (he would have just turned 230)
Entered Jerusalem for the first time April 14, 1838
Visited his famous arch on April 16, 1838
Read more about the discovery of Robinson’s Arch here and Robinson’s debate with George Williams here.
Paid Supporters
The next livestream will take place on June 25 from 8:00-9:30pm. Paid subscribers will receive a link beforehand.
Benjamin Mazar believed he had found 9th century BCE tombs west of Robinson’s Arch that had later been reshaped into mikve’ot. However, he doubted this interpretation in the final report (1989:54-55). It remains possible that Jerusalemites could have buried their dead on the Western Hill prior to the time that it became included in the city in the 8th century BCE, but there is no undisputed evidence for this yet.
Enjoy this post?
Show your appreciation by leaving a tip as low as the price of a cup of coffee. Less than 1% of readers do this, and it makes an enormous difference.
Follow Approaching Jerusalem
View the newsletter archive and follow Approaching Jerusalem on social media for archaeological stories, upcoming lectures, and other Jerusalem-related news, resources, and analysis.