Jerusalem: capital city created in stone and in imagination

Ann E. Killebrew

Jerusalem, in stone and imagination, is unique as a holy city of the world's three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The city's Late Bronze Age name in the Amarna Letters (URU salim and variants) implies (for some, but not all, scholars) an association with (an obscure god) Shalim, perhaps an astral deity.

Though often envisioned in art and literature as the “center of the world,” physical Jerusalem throughout much of its history was modest in territorial and demographic size (Figure 20. ι). According to the modern “demographic definition” of a city, many of Jerusalem's cities would not qualify as an urban center. Estimating the size of Jerusalem's population through the ages is particularly challenging. This is due in part to the relatively limited excav­ated areas of most tell sites in general, and of Jerusalem's mound in particular, and damage by later building activities such as Herod's monu­mental structures, which often reached bedrock, destroying earlier occupa­tion levels. Additionally, many Bronze and Iron Age Levantine cities tended to be administrative, political, and religious centers, lacking substantial domestic quarters, with most of the population residing in the countryside. Lastly, demographic coefficients (people per hectare) used to calculate ancient population size vary wildly, ranging from 100 to 1,000 people per hectare, which is complicated further by the inability to know with any certainty the percentage of the site that served as living quarters.^[389]

At first glance, Jerusalem's location on the crest of the southern Levant's remote central hill country also defies conventional wisdom regarding the development of a city. Jerusalem is not situated on a major trade route nor did it ever serve as an important manufacturing or production center.

Figure 20. ι Suggested settlement size of Jerusalem from the Bronze through Byzantine periods (graphics: Brandon Olson; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

Figure 20.2 Topography and settlement size of Jerusalem during the Bronze and Iron Ages (graphics: Glynnis Fawkes; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

situated at this location due to its close proximity to Jerusalem's main water source, the Gihon Spring (Figure 20.2).

As part of the southern Levant, Jerusalem shared the general fate of this fragmented geographic region - located on the fringes of the great empires of the Old World, it never experienced full-blown independent state forma­tion or the development of large, densely populated urban centers that characterize the great empires of the Near East. However, as a ritual focal point for millennia, location and function are key to Jerusalem's creation and continued significance today. Within this cultural, historical, and symbolic landscape, Jerusalem has emerged as one of the most revered and intensely examined cities in the world.

The many cities of Jerusalem

Primary sources

The most relevant primary texts describing the physical features of Jerusalem's cities discussed below include the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, Roman and Late Antique Jewish sources (especially Josephus and, to a lesser degree, the Talmud), and Christian writings (especially Church Fathers, monks, and pilgrims). The sixth-century ce Madaba Mosaic Map that showcases Jerusalem at its center is particularly invaluable for reconstructing the basic city plan and location of key structures in Byzantine Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is one of the most extensively explored ancient cities, and archaeology provides much of our most relevant primary information regarding the physical features of Jerusalem's cities in the past. The earliest remains of Jerusalem are located south of the Old City walls beneath the modern village of Silwan (the ancient “City of David”; Figures 20.ι and 20.2).

During the Iron Age and subsequent periods, Jerusalem expanded to the north and west, an area now covered by the present-day Old City and its immediate surroundings (Figure 20. ι and 20.2).^[391]

Canaanite Jerusalem (Middle and Late Bronze periods) AlthoughJerusalem was inhabited during the fourth and third millennia bce, evidence for its first fortified settlement dates to the Middle Bronze II period and was significant enough to be mentioned in the Execration Texts as one of Egypt's enemies. During most of the second millennium bce, independ­ent city-states, each with its own local ruler, characterized Middle and Late Bronze Age urban society. Jerusalem is no exception and is typical of these second millennium bce urban centers that served as regional administrative, political, economic, and/or cultic centers for a rural hinterland where the majority of the population resided.

Three separate archaeological expeditions, directed by Kathleen Kenyon, Yigal Shiloh, and Ronny Reich/Eli Shukron, have uncovered noteworthy segments of the Middle Bronze IIB fortification system in the City of David that were first constructed in the eighteenth century bce. However, when this city wall went out of use is no less important and is key to our discussion of Jerusalem's cities. Excavations have revealed two city walls, one built on top of the other: an earlier Middle Bronze IIB wall and a second, but separate, Iron IIC (late eighth-seventh centuries) wall that often reused sections of the earlier fortifications.

Unlike the impressive and unambiguous archaeological evidence for Jerusa­lem in the Middle Bronze IIB-C periods, the excavated record for Jerusalem during the Late Bronze through Iron IIA periods is ambiguous and fraught with controversy. Our most important source of information regarding Jerusalem during the Late Bronze II period is a group of Amarna Letters documenting correspondence between the Egyptian pharaoh and Abdi-heba, the local ruler of Jerusalem, indicating that Jerusalem was significant to New Kingdom Egypt. Although Margareet Steiner has suggested that Jerusalem was modest in size, perhaps serving as a small Late Bronze Age fortress, Jane Cahill has argued that Jerusalem was a more significant settlement during the fourteenth and thir­teenth centuries bce. Regardless of the view one accepts, there is very little physical evidence for the Late Bronze Age Jerusalem ruled by Abdi-heba mentioned on numerous occasions in the fourteenth-century bce Amarna archives.^[393]

Jebusite and Davidic Jerusalem (Iron I and Iron IIA periods)

Debate surrounding twelfth- to ninth-century Jerusalem has only intensified during recent years.

Figure 20.3 General view of the Stepped Stone Structure (photograph: Ann E. Killebrew; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

for excavation are below modern structures in the Silwan Village or located below Islamic monuments on the Haram al-Sharif, where tradition holds that King Solomon built the First Temple. Lastly, although Jerusalem has been extensively excavated, very few final excavation reports have been published.

Central to the debate surrounding the nature of twelfth- to ninth-century Jerusalem is the interpretation and dating of the Stepped Stone Structure, a large public structure that is a dominant feature of the Iron Age city of Jerusalem (Figure 20.3). The majority of excavators of the City of David, including Kenyon, Shiloh, Steiner, and Eliat Mazar, have dated its construc­tion to the tenth (or tenth/ninth centuries) bce. The only detailed docu­mentation and final excavation report for the Stepped Stone Structure appears in Steiner's final report of Kenyon's excavations. She concludes that the terracing system, upon which the stone mantle of the Stepped Stone Structure rests, was constructed during an earlier period, possibly the Late Bronze Age. Based on this evidence, Steiner concludes that Jerusalem served as a regional administrative center during the tenth/ninth centuries bce. Based on Shiloh's excavations of this massive rampart, Jane Cahill dates the Stepped Stone Structure several hundred years earlier, to the twelfth century BCE or to the “Jebusite” (Iron I) period. Cahill concludes that the terracing system and mantle were constructed together, and that this rampart went out of use in the tenth century when a four-room house was constructed

follows, I will use the conventional chronology for the twelfth-ninth centuries bce. For an overview of the various interpretations, see Killebrew, “Biblical Jerusalem,” pp. 339-43 and bibliography there.

into the mantle.^[395] On the basis of remnants of domestic architecture, Cahill posits that tenth-century Jerusalem was larger than previously envisioned, though remarkable for its lack of public structures that one would expect based on the biblical account of Jerusalem during the United Monarchy. Although some of the most significant structures, including Solomon's Temple, theoretically could have existed on the archaeologically inaccessible Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif compound, the missing strata dating to periods predating the ninth/eighth centuries bce in the Southern Wall excavations seem to reinforce the view that Jerusalem was a relatively small administrative center during the tenth/ninth centuries bce.

The most recent findings relevant to this discussion are the results of Mazar's excavations (2005-8) in the area directly behind, and above, the Stepped Stone Structure. These include the foundations of what appear to be a large public structure, which she termed the Large Stone Structure. According to Mazar, this structure dates to the tenth century, was con­structed together with the Stepped Stone Structure, and may form part of a palace complex contemporary with the reigns of David and Solomon. Although several leading scholars have challenged Mazar's interpretation, if correct, her findings lend credence to the interpretation that tenth-century Jerusalem served as a regional, albeit modest, administrative center.^[396]

Jerusalem - capital of the southern Kingdom of

Judah (Iron IIB-C periods)

Jerusalem dramatically changed during the eighth century bce, coinciding with abundant archaeological and textual evidence testifying to its signifi­cance as a major cultic and urban center with a large residential population, perhaps for the first time in the city's history. During this time, Jerusalem rapidly grew and expanded westward to include the western hill where today's Jewish Quarter is located (Figures 20.ι and 20.2). In the City of David, Kenyon's and Shiloh's excavations show that the eastern slope served as a residential quarter of mixed neighborhoods of affluent and poorer families during the later eighth and seventh centuries bce.^[397]

Modest domestic structures dating to “before the eighth century” through the end of the Iron Age have been recently documented in the Giv'ati Parking Lot in Silwan Village, to the west of Mazar’s excavations. Equally significant are the excavations by Reich and Shukron on the eastern slopes of the City of David, where they uncovered additional sections of the so-called extramural residential quarter that are in fact enclosed by previously unknown eighth- to seventh-century outer fortification walls. This lower wall, down slope from the main city wall, marks additional expansions of late Iron II Jerusalem. Continuing northward, excavations south of the Temple Mount have revealed that biblical Ophel flourished mainly during the eighth and seventh centuries bce. A similar picture is emerging to the west of the Temple Mount. During recent excavations adjacent to the Western Wall Plaza, Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn have uncovered Late Iron Age remains including remnants of structures, prob­ably four-room houses, and an alley constructed on top of the natural bedrock and remnants of a quarry. To the west of the Temple Mount, excavations in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter provide indisputable evidence of Jerusalem’s rapid expansion at the end of the eighth century bce. They uncovered residential structures and discovered the western fortification system constructed in the late eighth century bce that comprises a monu­mental city wall (the “Broad Wall”) and tower. These excavations are evidence for a Late Iron Age Jerusalem that closely corresponds to the biblical account’s portrayal of the city’s centrality and importance during the period following the Assyrian destruction of Samaria and the northern Kingdom of Israel.^[398]

The dramatic increase in the number of rock-cut family burial tombs dated to the eighth and seventh centuries bce is an additional indicator of Jerusalem's importance, growth in population, and increased prosperity.¹¹ Archaeological surveys in Jerusalem's hinterland have documented an increase in the number of small settlements, including tells, fortified sites, villages, structures, agricultural installations, towers, and concentrations of sherds. This provides further evidence for the importance of Jerusalem during the Iron IIC period, which met its destruction at the hands of the Babylonians in 586 bce.

Early Second Temple period Jerusalem

(Persian and early Hellenistic periods)

The reign of Cyrus the Great of Persia, conqueror of Babylon and the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, marks the beginning of the Persian period in the region. His edict, which allowed peoples, including the Judeans, exiled by the Babylonians to return to their homelands is celebrated in II Chronicles 36:22-33; Ezra 1:1-8; and Isaiah 44:28. According to the biblical account (Ezra 6:15-18), the second temple was built and rededicated in 515 bce. In the mid-fifth century, Nehemiah initiated extensive building activities, including the restoration of Jerusalem's city walls (for example, Nehemiah 2:3; 12:27-43). Although the Bible provides a detailed description of the reconstruction of Jerusalem during the Persian period, few archaeo­logical remains have been attributed to this period, giving rise to questions regarding the reliability of the biblical account. Although most scholars interpret the scant archaeological remains as an indication of a very modest Jerusalem, Mazar recently announced that she had found evidence for the building activities of Nehemiah. During her excavations in the City of David, she has proposed redating the Northern Tower and W. 27, previ­ously interpreted as Hellenistic, to the Persian period based on artifacts

Alexander Onn, Briggite Ouahnouna, and Shua Kisilevitz, “Jerusalem, the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005-2009: Preliminary Report,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121 (2009), accessed February ιι, 2012, www.hada- shot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=i2i9&mag_id=ii5; and Nahman Avigad, Dis­covering Jerusalem (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), pp. 23-60.

¹¹ David Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom, Inna Pommerantz (trans.) (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993); Itzhak Eshel and Kay Prag (eds.), Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Vol. iv (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 209-20; and Ronny Reich, “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighbourhood, Jerusalem,” in Hillel Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Excavations, 1993-1999 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), pp. iii-i8.

below the tower, which Mazar dates to the late sixth/early fifth centuries bce, contemporary with the reign of Nehemiah.^[399]

King Herod’s Jerusalem

(late Hellenistic-early Roman periods)

During the Hellenistic period, Jerusalem gradually expanded. Then, coincid­ing with the incorporation of Palestine within Rome's imperial sphere, the city quickly developed into a major urban center. Under King Herod (37 BCE—4 CE), the city underwent massive reconstruction and expansion. In the first century ce, Jerusalem reached its greatest territorial extent until modern times (Figures 20.1 and 20.4, lower image). Herod's monumental buildings have left their imprint on Jerusalem's landscape and topography; remnants are still visible today. Most noteworthy is Herod's renovation of the Second Temple, one of the “wonders” of the Roman world, serving as the religious, administrative, and economic focal point of his kingdom and a pilgrimage center for Jewish worship and sacrifice. Archaeological excavations and Josephus' descriptions of the first-century ce city allow for detailed recon­structions of Herod's Jerusalem (Figure 20.4, upper image).

Since 1967, large-scale archaeological projects, especially the multi-year southern and western wall excavations and Jewish Quarter excavations, as well as numerous smaller excavations in Jerusalem and its vicinity have transformed our understanding of Herod's Jerusalem. More recently, salvage excavations have uncovered additional impressive remains dating to the late Second Temple period. In the Giv'ati Parking Lot, a large architectural complex consisting of two main units including storerooms, living quarters, and miqva’ot indicates that this area of the City of David had an impressive residential quarter, containing a mansion that may have belonged to the family of Queen Helena of Adiabene. Other noteworthy discoveries include the remains of the Siloam Pool reservoir and a Herodian-period street and drain that connected the Temple Mount and Pool of Siloam (Figure 20.5).

Figure 20.4 Suggested reconstruction of Jerusalem during the Second Temple period. Upper: model of Jerusalem at the Israel Museum (photograph: Ann E. Killebrew). Lower: plan of Jerusalem (graphics: Glynnis Fawkes; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

Figure 20.5 View of Herodian-period drain (photograph: Ann E. Killebrew; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

This may be the type of drain, or actual drain, used by Jewish residents attempting to escape Jerusalem during the Roman conquest and destruction ofJerusalem in 70 ce as described by Josephus (Jewish War 7.215).^[400]

Aelia Capitolina (late Roman period)

Following the destruction by Titus' legions, Josephus describes the devasta­tion ofJerusalem as so total that “nothing was left that could ever persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation” (Jewish War 7.1.1). Over a half-century was to pass before the Emperor Hadrian declared his intention in 130 ce to reestablish a Roman colony, named Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Second Temple Jewish Jerusalem. Only after brutally subduing the Second Jewish Revolt in 135 ce and the expulsion of Jews from Judah did construction actually begin. The city plan was typical of Roman towns of the time with an urban grid centered on a north-south road (cardo) and east-west way (decumanus). A triple-arched gate, visible today under the present-day Damascus Gate, was located in the north of the city; however, the city was not fortified. Temples to Jupiter and Venus/Aphrodite were constructed in the newly planned city. Additional features included a forum, located at the junction of the main cardo and decumanus. The Tenth Legion was stationed in the Upper City (Western Hill), in the southwestern quad­rant of the city. Recently a bathhouse has been discovered in the modern- day Jewish Quarter that is attributed to the activities of this Roman legion. Although few archaeological remains have been excavated from this period, Aelia Capitolina's typical Roman city plan formed the basic foundations for a city that shaped Jerusalem for centuries, outlines of which are still visible in Jerusalem's Old City today.^[401]

Jerusalem - a city of Christian pilgrimage (Byzantine period) Following the visit of the Empress Helena in the early fourth century ce, which heralded the beginning of Christian pilgrimage, Jerusalem (or Aelia as it continued to be referred to during the Byzantine period) regained its sacred status. Both contemporary texts and archaeology confirm that the general plan of Byzantine Jerusalem follows the architectural layout of Aelia Capitolina (Figure 20.6, lower image). One of the earliest accounts of the fourth-century city is recorded by the Bordeaux Pilgrim, who visited Jerusa­lem in c. 333 ce. He describes numerous Christian monuments, including the “basilica of the Lord” (Church of the Holy Sepulchre) that was being constructed by Constantine on the foundations of the Temple to Venus/ Aphrodite. Prior to the arrival of Christianity in Jerusalem, the Tenth Legion had moved out of Jerusalem, providing a large area for the construction of churches, monasteries, hostels, and other religious structures. Although there is an abundance of Byzantine period writings on Jerusalem, the vast majority deal with the role of important individuals in the development of the Christian nature of the city. Secular matters and the daily life of Jerusalem's inhabitants were of little interest to these authors. Over 250 sites dating to the Byzantine period have been excavated or identified in Jerusa­lem. The vast majority of these remain unpublished thus greatly limiting our ability to reconstruct daily life in Byzantine Jerusalem.¹⁵

An indispensable source for Byzantine Jerusalem is the depiction of the city on the Madaba Map, a sixth-century ce mosaic that is located in the Church of St. George in Madaba, Jordan (Figure 20.6, upper image). This mosaic presents a detailed map of Christian sites in the Holy Land, which was apparently used by pilgrims as a guide. Jerusalem is located in the center of the map, indicating the city's centrality as the “omphalos” (navel) and most holy city of the world. The map depicts Jerusalem's city wall with twenty towers, four gates (including St. Stephen's/Damascus Gate), colonnaded roads, including the cardo, and forty buildings. Many of the

War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (Tiibingen: Mohr, 2003), pp. 241-78; and Klaus Bieberstein, “Aelia Capitolina,” in Zeidan Kafafi and Robert Schick (eds.), Jerusalem before Islam (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007), pp. 134-68, and bibliography there. See most recently Jodi Magness, “Aelia Capitolina: A Review of Some Current Debates about Hadrianic Jerusalem,” in Galor and Avni (eds.), Unearthing Jerusalem, pp. 313-24.

¹⁵ For a brief summary, see for example Robert Schick, “Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period,” in Kafafi and Schick, (eds.), Jerusalem before Islam, pp. 169-88, and bibliography there. See most recently Oren Gutfeld, “The Urban Layout of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem,” in Galor and Avni (eds.), Unearthing Jerusalem, pp. 327-50.

Figure 20.6 Suggested reconstruction of Jerusalem during the Byzantine period. Upper: Jerusalem as depicted on the Madaba Map (graphics: Glynnic Fawkes). Lower: plan of Jerusalem (graphics: Glynnis Fawkes; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

structures indicated on the map have been identified with buildings either described in contemporary sources or uncovered during archaeological excavations. Also noteworthy is what is not portrayed - the Jewish Temple Mount, which remained in ruins. There is a general consensus among scholars that this map does represent the physical reality of Jerusalem during the Byzantine period (Figure 20.6).

First and foremost Byzantine Jerusalem was a city of pilgrimage, whose main function was devoted to the “cult of holy places.” As the center of Christendom, the city developed a very international character, hosting pilgrims from all over the world, both rich and poor, who stayed for varying amounts of time. Churches and monasteries and an infrastructure for accommodating the large numbers of Christian travelers seeking a religious experience dominated the city. Although greatly damaged during the short­lived Persian conquest of 614 ce, the city was renovated after the end of Sassanian occupation in 628. On the eve of the Islamic conquest, Jerusalem remained largely as it was depicted in the Madaba Map.

Bayt al-Maqdis/al-Quds (early Islamic period)

As a result of the Muslim conquest of Palestine, Jerusalem's administrative control was transferred to the Umayyad caliphs in 638 ce. The major transformation of the city from the spiritual capital of Christianity to an Islamic holy site renamed Bayt al-Maqdis (house of holiness), and later more commonly al-Quds, was the main focus of the renovation activities by the Caliphs Abd al-Malik and Walid of the Temple Mount, an area that had been in ruins for centuries. Their projects included the erection of the Dome of the Rock, the oldest standing Islamic structure in the world today, and the al-Aqsa Mosque. The Dome of the Rock, which forms the heart of the Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary), was constructed over the rock (Sakhra) where later tradition holds that Muhammad ascended to heaven accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel. This area of bedrock is also believed by many to be the location of the Holy of Holies in the First and Second Temples. The function of the Dome of the Rock has been a topic of debate. It is noteworthy that its octagonal plan with a rotunda closely resembles commemorative Byzantine churches, most notably the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, suggesting that the Dome of the Rock may have been a com­memorative structure. Others, such as Oleg Grabar, have proposed that the monument intentionally employed biblical connotations and a Christian- Byzantine architectural vocabulary to impose (or superimpose) Islam's presence in Jerusalem, a city holy to Jews and Christians. More recent interpretations have proposed that the construction of the Dome of the

Figure 20.7 View of the Umayyad-period administrative/palace structure as presented in the Jerusalem Archaeological Park (photograph: Ann E. Killebrew; copyright: Ann E. Killebrew).

Rock represented Abd al-Malik's attempts to model his sovereignty on the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, both esteemed in early Islam.^[402]

The most important archaeological discovery dating to the Umayyad period is a complex of buildings situated to the west and south of the Haram al-Sharif. These include what appears to be a large administrative structure and/or palace built out of huge ashlar stones from destroyed Second Temple and Byzantine public structures (Figure 20.7). These monumental buildings probably stood several stories high and included many facilities such as a sophisticated sewerage system and bathhouse. With the exception of these structures, Umayyad building activities on the Temple Mount, and later texts dealing with the first centuries of Islam, little is known about Jerusalem during the early Arab period.^[403]

Under Umayyad rule, it is likely that Jerusalem's Christian institutions continued to flourish and the city's general plan and population remained largely unchanged as per the capitulation agreement, which prohibited the use of Christian buildings for Islamic purposes during this period.^[404] What is clear is that the ambitious building projects on the former Temple Mount and the impressive administrative complex represent efforts to sanctify Jerusalem in Islamic tradition and to establish Umayyad political authority. Umayyad rule in Jerusalem left an indelible mark on the city - and still today the iconic Dome of the Rock symbolizes the multi-layered and enduring sanctity of Jerusalem.

Conclusions

For much of its contested 5,000-year history, Jerusalem has served as a central locale and crossroads for diverse populations and cultures. Biblical tradition holds that from its earliest history, this city was sacred, and it remains so today. As a result, Jerusalem has been created and recreated in stone and in imagination countless times throughout its existence. Jerusalem provides an excellent case study of multiple overlaid cities - each distinct in size, city plan, economic/political structure, and population, and each created in unique historical circumstances, cultural contexts, and ideological frameworks. Though lacking many of the criteria usually associated with the establishment of a city, what unifies these different Jerusalems over time is the belief in the sanctity of this specific geographic and physical location. In the case of Jerusalem, sanctity and ideology supersede more practical considerations that often determine a city's foundation, functioning, and development.

FURTHER READINGS

Bahat, Dan, The Carta Jerusalem Atlas, Third Updated and Expanded Edition, Jerusalem: Carta, 2011.

Barkay, Gabriel, and Amos Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12/2 (March-April 1986), 22-39.

Benvenisti, Meron, City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem, Maxine Kaufman Nunn (trans.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Cahill, Jane M., “Jerusalem in David and Solomon's Time: It Really Was a Major City in the Tenth Century bce,” Biblical Archaeology Review 30/6 (November-December 2004), 20-31 and 62-3.

Galor, Katharina, and Gideon Avni (eds.), Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Geva, Hillel (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982, Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew Uni­versity of Jerusalem, 2000, Vols. ι-ιv.

Gutfeld, Oren, Jewish Quarter Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982, Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012, Vol. v.

Irshai, Oded, “The Christian Appropriation of Jerusalem in the Fourth Century: The Case of the Bordeaux Pilgrim,” Jewish Quarterly Review 99 (2009), 465-86.

Kafafi, Zeidan, and Robert Schick (eds.), Jerusalem Before Islam, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007.

Levine, Lee I. (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York: Continuum, 1999.

Mayer, Tamar, and Suleiman Ali Mourad (eds.), Jerusalem: Idea and Reality, London: Routledge, 2008.

Mazar, Eilat, Discovering the Solomonic City Wall in Jerusalem: A Remarkable Archaeological Adventure, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011.

Reich, Ronny, Excavating the City of David Where Jerusalem’s History Begins, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2011.

Reich, Ronny, and Eli Shukron, “Light at the End of the Tunnel,” Biblical Archaeology Review 25/1 (January-February 1999), 22-33 and 72.

Ritmeyer, Leen, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Carta, 2006.

Rosen-Ayalon, Miriam, The Early Islamic Monuments of al-Haram al-Sharif: An Iconographic Study, Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989.

Steiner, Margreet L., “The Evidence from Kenyon’s Excavations in Jerusalem: A Response Essay,” in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera­ture, 2003, pp. 347-63.

“The ‘Palace of David’ Reconsidered in the Light of Earlier Excavations: Did Eilat Mazar Find King David’s Palace? I Would Say Not,” The Bible and Interpretation (2009), accessed February 18, 2011, www.bibleinterp.com/articles/palace_2468. shtml.

Ussishkin, David, “Big City, Few People: Jerusalem in the Persian Period,” Biblical Archaeology Review 31/4 (July-August 2005), 26-35.

Vaughn, Andrew G., and Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Wasserstein, Bernard, Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.