![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The article reviews the chrono-stratigraphy of the City of David ridge—the site traditionally considered as the location of Bronze and Iron Age Jerusalem. Several scholars have recently challenged this conventional view, arguing that the southeastern hill became part of the city only in the 8th century BCE. Five stratigraphic anchors are discussed in detail, including the finds from Kenyon’s Section A, remains surrounding the Gihon Spring and the stratigraphic sequence in Area E. These, as well as remains excavated in Area G and the ‘Ophel’, show that at least three Iron II construction phases need to be taken into account, the earliest probably dating to before the middle of the 8th century BCE.
Notes
1 The function of the architectural elements will not be discussed here.
2 We use here the term ‘Ophel’ as a geographical designation, acknowledging the fact that there is no clear understanding of the biblical term (and see Franklin Citation2014).
3 Reich and Shukron Citation2004: Fig. 1 noted this additional segment in various plans. They do not however discuss its stratigraphic significance.
4 Steiner’s examination of Wall 1 and the ‘cobbled street’ led her to determine that there was no ‘vanished wall’, and that in fact the ‘cobbled street’ abuts the outer face of Wall 1, making the two contemporary.
5 If Wall 108 is earlier than Wall 3, as argued by Reich and Shukron, then four clear phases are discernible here.
6 The dating of Wall 108 will be discussed further in regard to its relation to Structure 2482 (Anchor 2 below). The inner face of Wall 1 was not sufficiently exposed and therefore there is no pottery assemblage that can help determine its date independently.
7 Contra Ussishkin Citation2016: 11, who doubted the validity of this material for dating.
8 One of the authors (Gadot) is currently conducting a joint field operation with the D-REAMS Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, aimed at radiocarbon dating the different strata in Area E. Initial results will be published shortly.
9 Ussishkin (Citation2016: 8) argued that the only Iron Age fortification on the eastern slope is Wall 501, dated to the Iron IIB according to pottery in the fill behind it (Reich and Shukron Citation2008). In the same breadth Ussishkin says, regarding Wall 3 (2016: 3), that such a fill ‘can serve as a terminus post quem for dating the wall but not more.’ Note that Wall 501 was not found south of Area J and hence its function should be interpreted with caution (Gadot Citation2014).
10 Tunnel VIII is actually the second part of the system; earlier it had been fed water by Tunnel VI (Vincent Citation1911; Gill Citation2012).
11 The idea that Channel II was a minor building project (Ussishkin Citation1995) is unacceptable. The channel was quarried for a distance of approximately 400 m. This would have required significant effort and organizational skill.
12 As the Iron Age remains from these areas were only partially published, the discussion below is limited to the accepted phases, without delving into debated elements or absolute dating.
13 The evidence presented above also has implications for Jerusalem of the Middle Bronze Age.
Architectural remains that unequivocally date to this period include the buildings constructed against Wall 285 in Shiloh’s Area E. Whether Wall 285 served as a fortification or revetment wall, it clearly indicates a certain level of urban planning and ability to organize communal building activities. Despite the 14C dates beneath the spring tower, the option that during the Middle Bronze the spring was fortified, with access provided through the fortified passage, and that a water system was cut (i.e., Channel II) should not be dismissed.