flll!J1 ~~ fllp 1r1Yil ~ ._ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Faculty of Humanities Institute of Archaeology ISRAEL .ANTIQUITIES .AUTHORITY Jerusalem Region eoo Tel-Aviv University The Faculty of Humanities Institute of Archaeology ......... • ~ 11 nll!l1 MoriahThe Jerusalem Development Co )I::I.IJil D'llill New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region Collected Papers Volume XIV Editors: Yehiel Zelinger Orit Peleg-Barkat Joseph (Joe) Uziel Yuval Gadot Jerusalem 2021 Jerusalem-En Book.indb 1 05/09/2021 16:03:30 2* Editors Yehiel Zelinger Orit Peleg-Barkat Joseph (Joe) Uziel Yuval Gadot Languge Editors Joseph (Joe) Uziel Rachel Kudish-Vashdi Editors of Excavation Reports Viviana Moskovitch Galit Samora-Cohen Typesetting, Layout and Production Hagar Maimon, Ira Bendersky Cover Reconstruction of the Royal Mansion from the First Temple Period at Armon Ha-Naẓiv (Drawing: Shalom Kveler, City of David Archive). English cover: Marble Colonnette and Capital from the Royal Mansion at Armon Ha-Naẓiv (Photography: Shai Halevi). © 2021, The Israel Antiquities Authority POB 586, Jerusalem 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-744-7 Printed at Digiprint Zahav Ltd. 2021 Jerusalem-En Book.indb 2 05/09/2021 16:03:30 3* CONTENTS 9 15 Editorial Excavations and Conservation Projects in the Jerusalem Region, 2019–2021 Yehiel Zelinger and Avi Mashiach THE WALLS OF JERUSALEM IN THE IRON AGE 1* 39 17* “And You Counted the Houses of Jerusalem and Pulled Houses Down to Fortify the Wall” (Isaiah 22:10): The Fortifications of Iron Age II Jerusalem in Light of New Discoveries in the City of David Filip Vukosavović, Ortal Chalaf and Joe Uziel The Fortifications of the Eastern Slopes of the City of David in Area A and J: A Reappraisal Efrat Bocher The End of a Myth: The Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem in the Archaeological Discourse Dieter Vieweger, Jennifer Zimni and Katja Soennecken THE ROYAL LANDSCAPE OF JERUSALEM 55 77 101 39* The Arnona Rujum: Preliminary Archaeological and Historical Thoughts Nathan Ben-Ari, Neria Sapir, Liora Freud and Oded Lipschits A Royal Mansion from the First Temple Period at Armon Ha-Naẓiv Yaakov Bilig, Liora Freud and Efrat Bocher Remains of Tapeworms from Iron Age II at Armon Ha-Naẓiv Dafna Langutt and Yaakov Bilig Revisiting Mount Gerizim: The Foundation of the Sacred Precinct and the Proto-Ionic Capitals Eran Arie THE TEMPLE MOUNT WALLS AND GATES 113 129 65* Jerusalem-En Book.indb 3 Under Construction: On the Access to the Temple Mount during Its Expansion Tehillah Lieberman, Johanna Regev, Elisabetta Boaretto and Joe Uziel Conservation Survey of the Western Wall’s Ashlars Yehonatan Tzahor, Yosef Vaknin, Yael Kalman and Dorit Tsipshtein Ground Penetrating Radar Imaging of the Western Wall Uri Basson 05/09/2021 16:03:30 4* WATER IN AND TO JERUSALEM 149 New Discoveries in the Architectural, Hydrological and Chronological Research 187 “Go Wash in the Pool of Siloam” (John 9, 7): The Siloam Church and Its Place in of the Biar Aqueduct to Jerusalem Azriel Yechezkel, Yoav Negev, Amos Frumkin and Uzi Leibner the Urban Framework of Byzantine Jerusalem Ari Levy, Ortal Chalaf, Moran Hagbi and Nahshon Szanton CULTURAL CONNECTIONS IN THE ART OF JERUSALEM AND ITS VICINITY 89* East and West Meet at King Herod’s Theater: The Stucco Decoration of the 119* New Archaeological Study of the Armenian “Birds Mosaic” Chapel in Jerusalem 143* 213 Reception Room above the Theater at Herodium Naama Lena Sharabi Amit Re’em, Ghaleb Abu Diab, Jacques Neguer, Yossi Nagar, Elisabetta Boaretto and Yana Tchekhanovets A Unique Terracotta Artifact from Moẓa Produced in a Military Roman Workshop Shulamit Terem, Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Anna Eirikh-Rose, Rifka Ben Chelouche and Uzi ‘Ad A Stone Cross (Hatchkar) from Excavations in the Armenian Garden and Its Cultural and Historical Importance Rina Avner and Father Arshak Gezira ISLAMIC JERUSALEM AND JUDEA 231 Urban Development west of the Temple Mount/Haram esh-Sharif: A View from 249 Between Crusaders and Ayyubids: New Discoveries Along the Eastern Wall of 165* the Western Wall Plaza Excavations Barak Monnickendam-Givon, Ortal Chalaf, Tehila Sadiel and Michael Chernin Jerusalem Amit Re’em, Michael, Chernin’ Johanna Regev, Elizabetta Boaretto and David Yeger Pastoralists Communities(?) and Villages: The Spatial Distribution of Mamluk Settlement in the Shephelah Kate Raphael ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CONSERVATION REPORTS 289 Jerusalem-En Book.indb 4 Hiding Complexes from the Early Roman Period on the Southern Bank of Naḥal Arza Daniel Ein Mor 05/09/2021 16:03:30 5* 309 Excavations at Gloria Hotel, near Jaffa Gate Jerusalem: Building Remains from 325 Pottery from the Iron Age to the Byzantine Period from Gloria Hotel, Jerusalem 193* 199* 219* 337 225* Jerusalem-En Book.indb 5 the Early Roman, Late Byzantine, Crusader–Ayyubid and Ottoman Periods. Annette Landes-Nagar Deborah Sandhaus Stamped Tiles of Legio Decimae Fretensis from Gloria Hotel, Jerusalem Benjamin J. Dolinka The Islamic Pottery from Gloria Hotel, Jerusalem Benjamin J. Dolinka The Glass Vessels from Gloria Hotel, Jerusalem Brigitte Ouahnouna Marble Statue Base from Gloria Hotel, Jerusalem Lihi Habas A Typology of Lime-Based Plasters from Iron Age II until the Byzantine Period in Jerusalem and Its Vicinity Aliza van Zuiden and Yotam Asscher 05/09/2021 16:03:30 6* List of Contributors Ghaleb Abu Diab, Israel Antiquities Authority galeb@israntique.org.il Efrat Bocher, Center for Ancient Jerusalem and Bar-Ilan University Ortal Chalaf, Israel Antiquities Authority Michael Chernin, Israel Antiquities Authority Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Israel Antiquities Authority Benjamin, J. Dolinka, Israel Antiquities Authority Daniel Ein-Mor, Israel Antiquities Authority Anna Eirikh-Rose, Israel Antiquities Authority Liora Freud, Tel-Aviv University Amos Frumkin, Hebrew University Father Arshak Gezira, Independent Scholar Lihi Habas, Hebrew University Moran Hagbi, Israel Antiquities Authority Yael Kalman, Israel Antiquities Authority Anette Landes-Nagar, Israel Antiquities Authority Dafna Langgut, Tel-Aviv University Uzi Leibner, Hebrew University Ari Levy, Israel Antiquities Authority Tehillah Lieberman, Bar-Ilan University Oded Lipschits, Tel-Aviv University Avi Mashiach, Israel Antiquities Authority Barak Monnickendam-Givon, Israel Antiquities Authority ortalca11@gmail.com michaelc@israntique.org.il anatcowein@gmail.com sherd_boy@hotmail.com danieleinmor@gmail.com analexrose@gmail.com freudliora@gmail.com amos.frumkin@mail.huji.ac.il Frarshakuni@yahoo.com habaslihi@gmail.com moranhb@gmail.com yaelk@israntique.org.il anetlandes@gmail.com dafna.langgut@gmail.com leibner1@gmail.com ari_levy@hotmail.com tzil613@gmail.com lipschit@tauex.tau.ac.il avimashi@gmail.com barak.monnickendamgivon@mail.huji.ac.il Uzi ‘Ad, Israel Antiquities Authority Eran Arie, Haifa University Yotam Asscher, Israel Antiquities Authority Rina Avner, Israel Antiquities Authority Uri Basson, Israel Antiquities Authority Nathan Ben-Ari, Israel Antiquities Authority Rifka Ben-Chelouche, Israel Antiquities Authority Yaakov Bilig, Israel Antiquities Authority Elisabetta Boaretto, Weizmann Institute of Science Jerusalem-En Book.indb 6 ad@israntique.org.il earie@univ.haifa.ac.il yotama@israntique.org.il rinaav@israntique.org.il ubasson@gmail.com nathanba@israntique.org.il rifka.pfister@hotmail.com yaakovbilig@gmail.com Elisabetta.Boaretto@ weizmann.ac.il efratbocher@hotmail.com 05/09/2021 16:03:30 7* Yossi Nagar, Israel Antiquities Authority Yoav Negev, Israeli Caving Club Jacques Neguer, Israel Antiquities Authority Brigitte, Ouahnouna, Israel Antiquities Authority Kate Raphael, Hebrew University Amit Re’em, Israel Antiquities Authority Johanna Regev, Weizman Institute of Science Tehila Sadiel, Israel Antiquities Authority Deborah Sandhaus, Israel Antiquities Authority Neria Sapir, Israel Antiquities Authority Lena Naama Sharabi, Hebrew University Katja Soennecken, German Protestant Institute of Archaeology Nahshon Szanton, Israel Antiquities Authority Yana Tchekhanovets, Ben-Gurion University Shulamit Terem, Israel Antiquities Antiquity Dorit Tsipshtein, Israel Antiquities Authority Yehonatan Tzahor, Israel Antiquities Antiquity Joseph (Joe) Uziel, Israel Antiquities Authority Yosef Vaknin, Israel Antiquities Authority Dieter Vieweger, German Protestant Institute of Archaeology Filip Vukosavović, Israel Antiquities Authority Azriel Yechezkel, Hebrew University David Yeger, Israel Antiquities Authority Yehiel Zelinger, Israel Antiquities Authority Jennifer Zimni, German Protestant Institute of Archaeology Aliza van Zuiden, Israel Antiquities Authority Editors Yuval Gadot, Tel-Aviv University Orit Peleg-Barkat, Hebrew University Joseph (Joe) Uziel, Israel Antiquities Authority Yehiel Zelinger, Israel Antiquities Authority Jerusalem-En Book.indb 7 yossi@israntique.org.il negevy@gmail.com negeur@yahoo.com brigitte@israntique.org.il kate.raphael@mail.huji.ac.il reem@israntique.org.il johanna.regev@gmail.com tehilas@israntique.org.il debby.reen@gmail.com neria@israntique.org.il naama.sharabi@mail.huji.ac.il soennecken@bai-wuppertal.de nahshon.sz@gmail.com yanatchk@gmail.com shulamit.terem@gmail.com doritt@israntique.org.il tzahory@israntique.org.il joeuziel@gmail.com yossiv@israntique.org.il vieweger@bai-wuppertal.de filiprvm@gmail.com azriel.ye@gmail.com davidye@israntique.org.il yehiel@israntique.org.il zimni@bai-wuppertal.de alizavanz@gmail.com ygadot@gmail.com orit.peleg@mail.huji.ac.il joeuziel@gmail.com yehiel@israntique.org.il 05/09/2021 16:03:30 Revisiting Mount Gerizim: The Foundation of the Sacred Precinct and the Proto-Ionic Capitals Eran Arie Introduction The 1983–2003 excavations at Mount Gerizim, directed by Y. Magen, uncovered the remains of a large compound, defined as a sacred precinct due to its architecture and finds. Although the final report has not yet been published, several preliminary reports are available (Stern and Magen 2002; Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004; Magen 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010). Magen distinguished between two stratigraphic phases in the precinct: an early phase, dated to the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (fifth– early second century BCE),1 and a later, short-lived phase that existed for only several decades until its final destruction around 110 BCE by John Hyrcanus. Until now, the fifth-century BCE dating of the early phase, which was considered revolutionary as according to Josephus the temple of Gerizim was constructed with the permission of Alexander the Great (Kartveit 2009:23–24), had almost never been challenged. The early phase of the precinct and its finds were systematically discussed in the last two decades (e.g., Stern and Magen 2002; Magen 2008: esp. pp. 97–170 and Pls. 1–9; Kartveit 2009:206–216, 2012; Lipschits 2011:207; Zangenberg 2012:402– 409; Knoppers 2013:120–134). Almost all scholars dealing with this phase were convinced of its construction date in the Persian period.2 However, the discovery of three fragments of Proto-Ionic capitals, traditionally dated to the Iron Age, posed difficulties on this dating. Stern and Magen (2002:55–56) suggested that the capitals were brought from a nearby destroyed Iron Age temple, probably from Shechem, 1 2 At the end of the fourth century BCE, after the destruction of Samaria by Alexander the Great, a city developed around the precinct. All the finds from the buildings of this city are dated to the Hellenistic period and hence are not relevant to the present discussion. Mor (2011) defined only one phase for the precinct, which he claimed was during the days of Alexander the Great (confirming the date of the temple’s erection according to Josephus). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 39 05/09/2021 16:04:10 40* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem symbolizing the continuous cultic tradition of the Northern Kingdom of Israel on Mount Gerizim. Lipschits (2011:207) accepted the Iron Age dating of the capitals, although he believed that they could have originated from any monumental building in Shechem, not just its temple. Zangenberg (2012:401–403) also believed that the capitals dated to Iron Age, though he explained their appearance at Mount Gerizim as evidence for an Iron Age monumental building on site. He claimed that such a building predated the Persian-period sacred precinct and is still to be located. In any event, in his preliminary publication, Magen (2008:153) changed his opinion and concluded that the capitals should be dated to the Persian period, relating to the early phase of the precinct. My interest in the chronology of the early phase of the precinct arose while noting some obstacles in the publication of the Proto-Ionic capitals (see below).3 Also, it appeared that some of the pottery published by Magen as Persian, should be re-dated to the Iron Age. This paved the way to reevaluate the finds from the early phase of the precinct and propose the late Iron Age as its date of construction. Naturally, this has far-reaching historical implications concerning the new population brought by the Assyrians to Samaria and the relations between the Samaritans and Judahites before and during the Persian period. The Architecture Magen (2008:103–122) discussed the different architectural components of the sacred precinct separately (western, northern, eastern and southern), as well as their development in the Hellenistic phase. He proposed a reconstruction for the entire precinct in its early phase (Magen 2008: Fig. 185); however, his maximalist suggestion appears to include elements that were not exposed in the excavations. These elements, which comprise the eastern and southern gates and the eastern staircases, were probably added to Magen’s reconstruction to fit the literary sources describing the Jerusalem Temple, while comparing the two compounds (see also Magen 2009). The current reevaluation of the remains is based on Magen’s general understanding of the stratigraphy and the schematic plan published in his preliminary reports (Fig. 1).4 When considering the archaeological evidence, it is clear that only the 3 4 I was then curator of the Iron Age and Persian period in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, and it is a great privilege to thank the Israel Museum for serving as my second home for so many years. Unfortunately, the archaeological features were not given numbers, hence, they are referred Jerusalem-En Book.indb 40 05/09/2021 16:04:10 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 41* Fig. 1. Schematic plan of the early phase of the sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim (after Magen 2008:13). outer belt of the precinct survived, while the inner parts (where the temple was probably located) were completely destroyed due to severe damage caused by the construction of a Byzantine church. This belt consisted of a wall made of fieldstones and fragments of several smaller features that were understood to be a building (east of the gate, though only wall fragments survived; Fig. 1:1) and two courtyards (on the northwestern and southwestern corners of the precinct; Fig. 1:2, 3 respectively). The wall was 1.3–1.5 m thick and mainly survived in the western and northern sections to here with the names given by Magen. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 41 05/09/2021 16:04:10 42* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem (Fig. 1:4). Additional walls in the eastern part of the precinct remain enigmatic (Fig. 1:5), although Magen assumed that another gate was located in that part of the site. The main feature related to the early phase is the northern, six-chamber gate of the precinct (Fig. 1:6). This well-built gate, 15 m wide, was connected to the northern wall. Its outer part was damaged in later periods, so its overall length could not be determined. Two additional towers could have been located on its northern, exterior side. According to Magen (2008:117), its size and location indicate beyond doubt that this was one of the sacred precinct’s main points of entry. In his description of the gate, Magen identified its Iron Age construction tradition; however, he believed that this was meant to imitate the gates of the Jerusalem Temple as rendered in the Book of Ezekiel 40:6–8. Nine other six-chamber gates were found in Israel and Transjordan: Ḥaẓor X–IX (Yadin et al. 1989:30–44, Plans VIII–XII); the compound in Jezreel (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997:10–17, Fig. 5; Finkelstein 2000:116–117; however, see also Ben-Tor 2000:9–11, for the reconstruction of this gate as a four-chamber gate); Gezer VIII (Yadin 1958; Ussishkin 1990:74–77; Finkelstein 2000:119–120; 2002:284–285); the city gate of Lachish Levels IV–III (Ussishkin 2004a:631–644, Figs. 12.12, 12.18; Ganor and Kreimerman 2019); the gate of Palace C in Lachish Level III (Ussishkin 2004b:815–828, Fig. 14.53); Megiddo IVA (Ussishkin 1980; others affiliated the gate with Stratum VA–IVB, e.g., Yadin 1960, 1970:84–89; Finkelstein et al. 2019); Ashdod VIII–VI (Dothan and Porath 1982:19–41, Plans 6, 12; Ussishkin 1990:77–82; Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001:242–246); Tel ‘Ira VII (Finkelstein and Beit-Arieh 1999:69–73); and Khirbat el-Mudeyine eth-Themed (Daviau 2006:17–19). These gates were the subject of many investigations due to their dating and historical implications, but today one can surmise that they were constructed during Iron IIA (Ḥaẓor Jezreel, Gezer, and the city gate of Lachish) or Iron IIB (Megiddo, Ashdod, Palace C gate at Lachish, Tel ‘Ira and Khirbat el-Mudeyine eth-Themed). The latest gates of this type were destroyed during the Assyrian conquests, whether in 732 BCE in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Megiddo IV) or during Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah in 701 BCE (Tel ‘Ira VII and the two gates at Lachish). It is important to note that to date, there is no Persian-period parallel for a sixchamber gate. Several gates from the Persian period were uncovered in Israel. The better examples are from Dor Area B1 (Sharon 1991:106–107; Stern 2000:132– 134, Fig. 79) and two examples from Lachish I (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 112; Ussishkin 2004a:657–660, Fig. 12.47). At Dor, the two-chamber gate that was built during the seventh century BCE, after the Assyrian conquest of the city, was still in use during most of the Persian period. At Lachish Level I, the gate was built atop the ruined gate Jerusalem-En Book.indb 42 05/09/2021 16:04:10 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 43* of Level II in a similar plan, though narrower. It is important to note that its entrance was direct, without any chambers. Worth noting is the main entrance to the Persianperiod residency at Lachish, which is almost identical to the Level I gate (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 119). An additional Persian-period gate, or passageway, was uncovered at Tel Megadim on the Phoenician coast. It is completely different from the other gates and was probably a narrow postern that could be blocked easily whenever needed (Broshi 1993:1003). Based on the Iron Age and Persian-period gates discussed above, the dating of the northern six-chamber gate at Mount Gerizim to the Persian period would distinguish it chronologically from its Iron Age IIA–B parallels. Therefore, morphologically, this gate would fit much better in Iron Age II (see below). The Proto-Ionic Capitals Two almost complete limestone Proto-Ionic capitals (Stern and Magen 2002: Figs. 1, 2), and an additional small fragment of a similar capital (Stern and Magen 2002: Fig. 3), were uncovered in fills on the eastern slope of the site, below the Hellenistic steps leading to the temple. The capitals were affiliated with the earliest phase of the precinct. Before relating to their date, an in-depth reevaluation of the capitals is offered hereby. Stern and Magen (2002:52) presented a thorough study of the two almost complete capitals and dealt with their motifs. According to their interpretation (Fig. 2), while one of the capitals (No. 10025; hereafter, Capital I) is adorned with two volutes, the other exhibits two palmettes (No. 10540; hereafter, Capital II).5 Stern and Magen further distinguish between the two capitals based on their other motifs. The central emblem of Capital I was defined as a group of five ‘feathers,’ related to the palmette motif, and on the upper part of that capital, Stern and Magen observed seven aurei, the head of whom was cut away after it went out of use. The central part of Capital II bears a similar palmette, although in a more schematic manner, on which three steps, or an ‘abacus’, were placed. According to the authors, it ran along the entire width of the capital and was cut away when the stone was modified for secondary use. Several new observations call for a new interpretation of the capitals.6 Almost 50 Proto-Ionic capitals were uncovered in Israel and Jordan (Shiloh 1979: Table 5 6 Even though the term palmette was used, the intention is the Cypriote hybridized ‘tree of life’, e.g., Lightbody 2011:241–243, and further discussion below. Only after my reconstruction of Capital II had crystalized—while I was responsible for its restoration at the Israel Museum—I learned that Norma Franklin held the same view, which Jerusalem-En Book.indb 43 05/09/2021 16:04:10 44* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Fig. 2. Capitals I (left) and II (right) as originally published (after Stern and Magen 2002: Figs. 1, 2; with permission of Staff Officer of Archaeology of Judea and Samaria). 2; Lipschits 2011), all comprising two volutes; none portray a palmette motif. The closest examples of the latter motif were found in Cyprus (where it is occasionally termed a hybridized ‘tree of life’), although they are completely different from the Mount Gerizim capitals (e.g., one from Golgoi is referred to by Stern and Magen 2002: Fig. 6, and see other examples in Hermary 1989:470–471; Lightbody 2011: Fig. 1; Hermary and Mertens 2014:338–340). Moreover, when comparing the two capitals from Mount Gerizim to each other, it seems that both have the same droplike emblem in their central part. These two observations hint that Capital II was incorrectly published, and it should be turned 180 degrees to its original position.7 When doing so, one can immediately discern the very similar form and design of the two capitals. 7 she had already presented orally. It was a great pleasure to note that our views correspond, and she was informed about this publication. Lipschits (2011: Fig. 2) presents Capital II in the correct way, but he omitted its lower part for reasons that are unclear. Moreover, he does not relate to the changed position in the text (see also Baran 2013: Fig. 11). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 44 05/09/2021 16:04:12 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 45* Each of the capitals (Figs. 3–6) portray two volutes, and above their center, an upper emblem of a five-petaled palmette appears (only part of it was preserved on Capital II). The lower part of each capital is different. Capital II has a complex motif of six geometrical shapes: an upside down drop-like form, two rhombi, and three triangles (Figs. 5, 6). In contrast, the lower part of Capital I, which was poorly preserved, can be reconstructed as the rounded bottom portions of two volutes, in the center of which is an upside down drop-like motif (Figs. 3, 4). The five-petaled palmette and the ‘drop’-like form are popular in seventh–sixth-century BCE monumental capitals in Greece and Turkey (Betancourt 1977: Figs. 16, 25, 29, 32, 41; Pls. 29, 41, 49; Cook and Nicholls 1998:195–196; Baran 2013: Fig. 6). Contemporary parallels for this design are found in both monumental iconography (e.g., Betancourt 1977: Pl. 16) and small objects (e.g., Betancourt 1977: Pl. 43; Merhav 1980). Although only the upper part of Capital I was preserved, its lower portion could be reconstructed based on Capital II. Hence, it is now possible to reconstruct a complete capital, based on the evidence from both objects (Figs. 4, 6). The upper part was adorned with seven rectangles with rounded corners. As opposed to Stern and Fig. 3. Capital I, max. height 53.5 cm, width 83 cm, depth 22.5 cm (Drawing: E. Stark). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 45 05/09/2021 16:04:12 46* New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem | Fig. 4. Capital I after reconstruction (SOAJS collection, Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Andrei Vainer). Fig. 5. Capital II, max. height 55 cm, width 81.5 cm, depth 21 cm (Drawing: E. Stark). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 46 05/09/2021 16:04:13 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 47* Fig. 6. Capital II after reconstruction (SOAJS collection, Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Andrei Vainer). Magen, I believe that these may represent degenerated aurei that never had a head. After observing these rectangles on Capital I, it is clear that this is their original form. Hence, they never included any other figure atop their rounded corners. It also seems that contra Stern and Magen, the bottom part of Capital II never ran along the entire width of the capital; rather, it was originally made to hold the free-hanging volutes (from its left and right sides, as for example in the specimen from Thamassos; Shiloh 1979: Pl. 18: 2, 3). This can be noted in the original carving signs on the capital that encircle the volutes. The appearance of these three steps in the lower part of ProtoIonic capitals is frequent on other examples (e.g., Betancourt 1977: Figs. 13, 52, Pls. 2, 16, 43, 65, 66; Shiloh 1979: Figs. 16, 18, 20, 23, 33, 42, 54, 60, 61, 67). The two capitals were reconstructed in the restoration laboratories of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (Figs. 7, 8), allowing for their complete display in their original form. After reconstruction, the dimensions of the two capitals appear very similar (Capital I: Height 72 cm, Width 99 cm; Capital II: Height 75 cm, Width 108 cm). In light of the similar dimensions of the capitals, and our new understanding of their shape, it is now clear that Magen’s reconstruction (2008: Fig. 272) of the capitals as situated in a double gate (as the two capitals from Ḥaẓor, cf. Shiloh 1979: Fig. 14) should be neglected. The fact that the capitals were carved on only one side, coupled with their rather short depth, suggests that they were positioned on top of pilasters and never stood on free pillars. They may have either been positioned within an entryway, or decorated an area with engaged pillars topped by capitals (for a different suggestion, see Franklin 2011:134–139). Once they went out of use, both capitals from Mount Gerizim were converted into a stepped block of stone, possibly to be used as crenellations. The edges of the volutes of both capitals were removed; Jerusalem-En Book.indb 47 05/09/2021 16:04:14 48* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Fig. 7. Gluing Capital II in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (Photography: E. Arie). Fig. 8. Reconstruction of Capital I by V. Uziel, using a wooden mold in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (Photography: E. Arie). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 48 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 49* however, while the bottom of Capital I was cut, Capital II was turned upside down and its top was removed. This coincidence gave us the unique opportunity to reconstruct the entire appearance of both capitals. After understanding the capitals’ form, a question remains concerning their date. In their early publication of the capitals, Stern and Magen (2002:55–56) did not exclude a Persian-period date, but rather preferred another interpretation. They assumed that the three fragments may be dated to the Iron Age and suggested that they were brought from a nearby Israelite sanctuary at Shechem. Later, Magen (2008:153) rejected this interpretation and argued that the capitals must be dated to the Persian period. He explained the lack of such objects in other Persian-period sites by the fact that such capitals continued to be in use along the Phoenician coast after the end of the Iron Age. However, it seems that the Phoenicians continued using such capitals in the Hellenistic, rather than in the Persian period (Betancourt 1977: n. 83, the most famous of which originate from the temple of Umm el-‘Amed). This gap may be explained by the fact that only wooden capitals were manufactured in Phoenicia until the Hellenistic period (Betancourt 1977:46). Although fifth–fourthcentury BCE stone capitals were found outside the Southern Levant (e.g., in Cyprus and the Punic colonies; Shiloh 1979:37–41), it appears that they did not exist in the Southern Levant. Thus, a late Iron Age date for the capitals is preferable. Moreover, I believe that the capitals were manufactured especially for the use in the sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim, and hence, there is no reason to believe that they were brought from a nearby Iron Age site. Therefore, in contrast to the excavators’ opinion, who maintained that there was no architectural phase in the sacred precinct of Mount Gerizim that can be dated to the Iron Age, two important elements—the gate and the Proto-Ionic capitals—can be unequivocally dated to the late Iron Age. Pottery The published pottery assemblage from the earliest phase of Mount Gerizim is quite limited, consisting of less than one hundred examples, almost solely sherds (Magen 2008: Pls. 1–6). There is no doubt that most of this material is indeed dated to the Persian period as stated by Magen (2008:167–168). The pottery plates were accompanied by references to Persian-period parallels, mostly from the hill country. However, one should note the following methodological challenges in Magen’s pottery report: Jerusalem-En Book.indb 49 05/09/2021 16:04:16 50* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem 1. Most of the sites chosen for parallels are multi-layered (Tell Balâtah, Bethel, Ramat Raḥel, Tell el-Fûl, Gezer, Tell el-Ḥesi and Tel Mevorakh). Hence, sherds from the Persian-period strata of these sites may also be earlier. 2. Some of these sites were excavated a long time ago in rather problematic excavation methods (e.g., Bethel and Tell el-Fûl). Thus, the finds should not be used for finetuned dating. 3. Although the parallels cited in the Mount Gerizim publication were attributed to the Persian period, they actually came from Iron Age contexts, for example, the Holyland Hotel bowl (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 5:6), parallel to Magen 2008: Pl. 3:17, is actually dated by Ben-Arieh to the Iron Age and not to the Persian period (see also Magen 2008: Pl. 1:16 and its Gezer equivalent). 4. Some of the cited “parallels” are clearly not similar to the examples from Mount Gerizim. For instance, Magen 2008: Pl. 1:16 cannot be compared to the suggested Holyland Hotel example (Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:7). 5. It seems that since most of the parallels provided by Magen originate from the hill country, the coastal plain Phoenician pottery that was uncovered at Gerizim was not identified (see below). 6. Many sherds from Gerizim were not given any parallels (e.g., Magen 2008: Pl. 1:4, 7, 9, 18). Considering these issues, I suggest treating the pottery assemblage from the earliest phase of Mount Gerizim differently. Using Magen’s publication, I have traced several pottery vessels that can be exclusively dated to the late Iron Age. The dating is mainly based on complete vessels that were uncovered in secure contexts. Moreover, the geographic scope of the sites from which parallels are provided was broadened and then divided into two stratigraphic and chronological horizons: the early dating to Iron IIC and the later dating to the Persian period, which was used as a control group to verify that these ceramic types did not appear in the Persian-period strata. The following Iron IIC strata were used for comparison (from north to south): Tyre I (Bikai 1978: Pl. I); Akhziv D6–D4 (Yasur-Landau, Press and Arie 2016: Figs. 6, 8, 10); Kabri E2 (Lehmann 2002); Keisan V–IV (Briend and Humbert 1980: Pls. 23–47; Chambon 1980; Salles 1980); Tell Far‘a (North) VIIe (Chambon 1984: Pls. 45–62); Meẓad Ḥashavyahu (Fantalkin 2001); Tel Miqne/‘Eqron IC–IB (Gitin 2012: Figs. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 50 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 51* 7–9); Lachish II (Zimhoni 2004:1799–1806, Figs. 26.44–26.56); late seventh-century BCE Ashqelon (Stager, Master and Schloen 2011:53–121); Tel Baṭash II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pls. 31–75); City of David Area E, Stratum 11–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Figs. 4.11–4.23); ‘En-Gedi V (Yezerski 2007: Pls. 1–11); ‘Arad VII–VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Figs. 41–49); Tel ‘Ira VI (Freud 1999: Figs. 6.61–6.63, 6.98–6.106); and Ḥorbat ‘Uza III (Freud 2007). The following Persian-period strata were used for comparison (from north to south): Tel Kisan 3 (Nodet 1980; Briend and Humbert 1980: Pls. 18–21); Shiqmona 7–5 (Elgavish 1968: Pls. 32–35, 40, 43, 48–61, 66); Persian-period Dor (Stern 1995); Tel Mevorakh VI–IV (Stern 1978:26–45); Persian-period Naḥal Tut Site VIII (Alexandre 2006: Figs. 48–53, 60–63); Tel Mikhal XI–VI (Singer-Avitz 1989); Persianperiod Apollonia-Arsuf (Tal 1999:93–185); Persian-period Tel Ya‘oz (Segal, Kletter and Ziffer 2006: Fig. 7–12; Fisher, Roll and Tal 2008: Figs. 14, 29); Shechem V (Lapp 2010:19–39, Pls. 2.1–2.15); Qadum (Stern and Magen 1984); City of David Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012); Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem, Upper layer (Ben-Arieh 2000: Figs. 6–18); ‘En-Gedi IV (Stern 2007:198–227); and Tell el-Ḥesi V (Bennett and Blakely 1989:139–230; Figs. 138–163). It is important to note that Magen stated that “as there was no break in settlement in this area in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods, many vessels fashioned in the style current in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE continued in use in the Persian-period. This may explain the presence in Persian-period Samaria assemblages of a few fragments that are reminiscent of Iron Age vessel types” (Magen 2008:167– 168). However, as mentioned above, I believe that one can trace fossiles directeurs that enable differentiating between the Iron IIC and the Persian-period ceramic horizons. Noteworthy is a recent study by Freud (2018) that succeeded in defining several types that are dated to the rather short Babylonian period. The following sections present the forms of bowls and cooking pots from Magen’s publication that are clearly earlier than the Persian period (Fig. 9). Each is accompanied by some examples of Iron IIC parallels. Bowls Fig. 9:1 (Magen 2008: Pl. 1:16): This Medium-sized carinated bowl with a long overhanging rim represents one of the most characteristic pottery types of the ceramic tradition of the Phoenician sites. Parallels: Kabri E2 (Lehmann 2002: Figs. 5.76:16, 17, 21, 24); Tel Kisan 5 (Briend and Humbert 1980: Pls. 39:1–7; 40:1–5); Dor A-9 (Gilboa 1995:3, Type BL 5). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 51 05/09/2021 16:04:16 52* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem a a  a  a  9£17 6 ~n j;_~ ~I 11 0 I 10cm I Fig. 9. Iron Age II pottery from the early phase of the sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim (after Magen 2008; prepared by N. Evron). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 52 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 53* Fig. 9:2, 3 (Magen 2008: Pls. 1:18, 4:16): Bowls of this type, which have an inner carination and a long oblique ledge-like rim, are another Phoenician hallmark of the end of the Iron Age throughout the Mediterranean basin (Chambon 1980:168; Gilboa 1995:2–3). Parallels: Tyre I (Bikai 1978: Pl. 1:7–11); Kabri E2 (Lehmann 2002: Fig. 5.76:5–6); Tel Kisan 5 (Briend and Humbert 1980: Pls. 38; 43:13); Dor A-9 and B-6 (Gilboa 1992:22–23, Type BL2; 1995: BL3-BL4, Fig. 1.3:4–6); late seventh-century BCE Ashqelon (Stager, Master and Schloen 2011: Fig. 5.34–5.35). Fig. 9:4 (Magen 2008: Pl. 2:15): These slightly carinated delicate bowls with folded rims are very common in many sites during Iron IIB–C. Parallels: Meẓad Ḥashavyahu (Fantalkin 2001:57, Type B11); Miqne/‘Eqron IC–IB (Gitin 2012: Fig. 7:1); Lachish II (Zimhoni 2004: Fig. 26.55:24–26, 28); City of David Area E, Stratum 11–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012:64, Type B8b1); ‘En-Gedi V (Yezerski 2007:87–88, Type B 1.II, Pl. 1:9–36); ‘Arad VII–VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Figs. 43:19–23; 47:9–10); Tel ‘Ira VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.100:5–6); Ḥorbat ‘Uza III (Freud 2007:78, e.g., Fig. 3.26:4). Fig. 9:5–7 (Magen 2008: Pls. 2:17; 4:15; 5:16): Flat bowls with straight walls (also known as dishes or plates) are well-known throughout Iron IIB–C in the Southern Levant. Parallels: Tel Miqne/‘Eqron IC–IB (Gitin 2012: Fig. 7:2); Lachish II (Zimhoni 2004: Figs. 26.52:10, 26.54:1–2, 8); Tel Baṭash II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:49– 50, Type BL15); City of David Area E, Stratum 11–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012:60, Type B6, e.g., Fig. 4.11:1); ‘Arad VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 48:1); Tel ‘Ira VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.100:2); Ḥorbat ‘Uza III (Freud 2007: Fig. 3.34:1). Fig. 9:8 (Magen 2008: Pl. 3:15): Bowls with a thickened triangular inverted rim likely continue into the Persian period (e.g., Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:10, although this may be a residual sherd). However, the red slip on the example from Mount Gerizim, which does not appear during the Persian period, is an indication of the Iron Age date of this bowl. Parallels: ‘En-Gedi V (Yezerski 2007: Pls. 3:13); ‘Arad VII (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 43:25); Tel ‘Ira VII–VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.68:5). Fig. 9:9, 10 (Magen 2008: Pl. 3:16, 17): Bowls with a convex ledge rim projecting outward continue into the Persian period as well (e.g., Ben-Arieh 2000: Fig. 6:1). However, one of the examples from Mount Gerizim, which is red-slipped (Magen 2008: Pl. 3:17), securely dates to Iron II. Parallels: Meẓad Ḥashavyahu (Fantalkin 2001:54–56, Type B5, Fig. 23:5*); Tel Baṭash II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 64:12); ‘En-Gedi V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 3:17); Tel ‘Ira VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.102:9); Ḥorbat ‘Uza III (Freud 2007: Fig. 3.46:22). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 53 05/09/2021 16:04:16 54* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Fig. 9:11, 12 (Magen 2008: Pls. 4:11; 5:14): Slightly carinated heavy bowls with a folded rim with a triangular cross-section are characteristic of the entire Iron II, both in northern and southern Israel. Parallels: Tell Far‘a (North) VIIe (Chambon 1984: Pl. 56:14); Meẓad Ḥashavyahu (Fantalkin 2001: Type HB 1, Fig. 24:1); Tel Baṭash II (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001:39, Type BL13, e.g., Pl. 64:18); City of David Area E, Stratum 11–10 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012:63–64, Type B8a, e.g., Figs. 4.18:1; 4.22:4). Fig. 9:13 (Magen 2008: Pl. 5:15): Parallels for this type of bowl, with a thickened everted rim, are rare; however, its red slip supports an Iron Age date. Parallels: Tel Baṭash II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 64: 18); Tel ‘Ira VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.68: 8). Cooking Pots Fig. 9:14 (Magen 2008: Pl. 1:9): This cooking pot has an inverted wall and a flat rim. Parallels: Kabri E2 (Lehmann 2002: Fig. 5.85:7); Tel Kisan 4 (Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 34:2a). Fig. 9:15 (Magen 2008: Pl. 3:6): This type of cooking pot, with an inverted stance and a stepped rim, is manufactured in large quantities during Iron IIB, but also appears during the early phase of Iron IIC. Parallels: Tell Qudadi (Fantalkin and Tal 2015: Figs. 98, 99); Dor A-9 and C-2 (Gilboa 1995: Figs. 1.5:12; 1.9:19, 20). To conclude, contra Magen’s dating of the rather limited assemblage that he published, the pottery seems to indicate that not all of the sherds from the earliest phase of the Mount Gerizim precinct are from the Persian period. In fact, almost 20% (15 of 89 sherds and vessels) of the local pottery published by Magen should be redated to Iron IIC (see below for absolute chronology). Theoretically, this pottery could be residual in its context and therefore may predate the precinct. However, when considered with the six-chamber gate and the Proto-Ionic capitals, it provides additional evidence that the compound was founded in the Late Iron Age. Other Chronological Clues Coins Magen (2008:168) states that 72 Persian-period coins were uncovered in the precinct.8 He interpreted these findings as another clue for the dating of the early 8 The exact archaeological context of the coins was not published and hence, one cannot refer to this issue for better dating the precinct’s elements. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 54 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 55* phase of the Mount Gerizim precinct to the Persian period. But while these coins can surely be used as evidence for the use of the early phase in Gerizim during the Persian period, can they really serve as terminus post quem for this phase as suggested by Magen? Less than ten coins from the sixth century BCE were found in modern Israel (Gitler and Tal 2006: Tables 1.1–1.2). The earliest coin from Gerizim was dated to 480 BCE (Magen 2008:168). It thus appears that it is one of the earliest coins in Israel. The lack of earlier coins from the sixth century BCE at Gerizim does not necessarily attest to the construction date of the precinct in the fifth century BCE, but rather, to the rarity of these coins in the region. Naturally, in most of the sixth-century BCE sites in the Southern Levant, no coins were found. Hence, the Persian-period coins from Gerizim do not refute the possibility that the precinct was built earlier. Radiocarbon Dating Eleven 14C samples were published from the Mount Gerizim precinct. All of them originated in contexts affiliated with the later use of the early phase of the precinct, dated by Magen to the Late Persian and Ptolemaic periods, c. 450–200 BCE (Magen 2008:169, Table 1). In any event, since the publication is only a preliminary report, the exact context of each sample is difficult to understand. While most of the calibrated dates of the samples are indeed from the timeframe referred to by Magen, Sample Nos. 1 and 2 in Table 1 can reflect much earlier dates. Sample 1 is dated to 760–390 BCE and Sample 2, to 810–540 BCE. As most of the published samples (10 out of 11), Samples 1 and 2 were taken from charcoal, and their dates may be understood as reflecting the ‘old wood effect.’ However, if the Gerizim precinct was founded earlier than the Persian period, these two 14C samples might be another hint for its early date. The Date of the Earliest Phase of the Sacred Precinct and Its Historical Implications Magen dated the pottery assemblage of the initial phase of the sacred precinct at Mount Gerizim to the Persian period, and thus claimed that its construction occurred during the fifth century BCE (Magen 2008:168). However, as shown above, several pieces of evidence suggest that the earliest precinct was constructed in the late Iron Age. This includes the architectural design of the six-chamber gate, the three Proto-Ionic capitals (two complete and an additional fragment), the earliest pottery retrieved from the site and possibly two radiocarbon dates. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 55 05/09/2021 16:04:16 56* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Since the latest six-chamber gates uncovered in the Southern Levant were found in destruction layers dated to Iron IIB, the Mount Gerizim gate points to this date for the construction of the earliest phase of the precinct. However, as showed above, the pottery is dated to Iron IIC; hence, it seems logical to assume that the construction of six-chamber gates continued into Iron IIC. As the ceramic traditions of Iron IIB continue into the seventh century BCE (e.g., Tell Qudadi; Fantalkin and Tal 2015:188– 190), the earliest possible date for the compound should be placed in Iron IIC, c. 670–650 BCE. Naturally, the Iron IIC pottery traditions did not cease in 586 BCE, but rather continued into the sixth century BCE, and should be dated to c. 550 BCE or maybe even later. Hence, the pottery from Gerizim can be dated to a chronological range of a century, c. 650–550 BCE. Even if the construction of the earliest precinct in Mount Gerizim occurred late in this sequence (though the architecture of the gate probably attests that it should be dated earlier), the new date suggested here precedes Magen’s chronology by several decades. One should take into consideration that the new dating of the foundation of the precinct at Mount Gerizim seems very logical when considering the historical evidence regarding the Babylonians, who kept Samaria and did not harm this province (Knoppers 2013:121–122). This is surely the reason for the sequent use of the precinct from the seventh century BCE into the Persian period. In former historical reconstructions, it was difficult to understand where the main cultic center of Samaria was during the Babylonian period, and why the Persian Empire granted permission to build a temple in a new place with almost no cultic tradition as opposed to their ordinary religious policy. What may be the historical implications of the new high date (650–550 BCE) of the construction of the sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim? I believe three reasonable historical reconstructions can be suggested: 1. The precinct was built in the second half of the seventh century BCE as an independent center for the new population brought by the Assyrians; 2. It was constructed around 600 BCE after King Josiah’s reform and the dismantling of the temple at Bethel (e.g., Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009:45); 3. The sacred precinct at Gerizim was erected after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to fill the cultic gap following the annihilation of the Temple. The third option seems least probable to me as it does not explain why a major temple on the former lands of Northern Israel was erected at a new site, with no prior cultic Jerusalem-En Book.indb 56 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 57* tradition. According to the two first options, during the late Iron Age, two Yahwistic temples coexisted in Jerusalem and Gerizim. However, their fates were different. The Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE (and later re-erected in the Persian period), while the Gerizim temple was in use continuously for c. 450 years, from 650/600 BCE to the early Hellenistic period (early second century BCE). This new historical reconstruction may reflect on the Judahite-Samaritan conflict. Much was written about the reasons for the endless struggles between the Samaritans and the Judahite returnees to Zion (e.g., Knoppers 2013:135–168; Hensel 2018). However, due to the new dating of the foundation of the Mount Gerizim precinct, a new interpretation may be suggested. While the Judahite exiles saw the destruction of their cultic center in Jerusalem, the Gerizim temple survived the Babylonians. Hence, from 586–515 BCE, Mount Gerizim became the only main Yahwistic temple in the former territory of Israel and Judah. As such, it probably attracted many worshippers who experienced the collapse of the Kingdom of Judah as a major cultic crisis. Its continuous use during the Babylonian period into the Persian period probably made it a threat to the Judahite exiles who returned to Zion and tried to revalidate the cult in Jerusalem. Aknowlegments This research was supported by the Krauthammer Cathedra for the Land of Israel and Archaeology Studies at Bar-Ilan University. I would like to thank H. Hizmi, director of the Staff Officer of Archaeology of Judea and Samaria (SOAJS), Y. Zionit, former curator of the SOAJS, I. Finkelstein from Tel Aviv University, B. Zissu from Bar-Ilan University and H. Gitler and A. B. Ashenberg from the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, for their kind help and support. I am also grateful to V. Uziel, P. Recanati, A. Kedem and A. Vainer from the restoration laboratory of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, for their hard work in reconstructing the two Proto-Ionic capitals. Bibliography Alexandre Y. 2006. Naḥal Tut (Site VIII): A Fortified Storage Depot from the Late Fourth Century BCE. ‘Atiqot 52:131–189. Baran A. 2013. A New Aeolic Style Pilaster Capital from Karia. In G. Kökdemir ed. Orhan Bingöl‘e 67. Yaș Armaǧani” A Festschrift for Orhan Bingöl on the Occasion of his 67th Birthday. Ankara. Pp. 53–65. Ben-Arieh S. 2000. Salvage Excavations near the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 40:1–24. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 57 05/09/2021 16:04:16 58* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Bennett W.J. and Blakely J.A. 1989. Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V) (Publications of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi 3). Winona Lake. Ben-Tor A. 2000. Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 317:9–15. Betancourt P.P. 1977. The Aeolic Style in Architecture: A Survey of Its Development in Palestine, the Halikarnassos Peninsula, and Greece, 1000–500 B.C. Princeton. Bikai P.M. 1978. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster. Briend J. and Humbert J.-B. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archeologica 1). Fribourg. Broshi M. 1993. Megadim, Tel. In E. Stern ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 3. Jerusalem. Pp. 1001–1003. Chambon A. 1980. Le Niveau 5. In J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert eds. Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cite phénicienne en Galilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1). Fribourg. Pp. 157–179. Chambon A. 1984. Tell el-Far’ah I: L’Âge du Fer (“Mémoire” 31). Paris. Cook J.M. and Nicholls R.V. 1998. Old Smyrna Excavations: The Temples of Athena. Athens. Daviau M.P.M. 2006. ḪirBethel-Mudēyine in its Landscape: Iron Age Towns, Forts, and Shrines. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 122:14–30. De Groot A. and Bernick-Greenberg H. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 12–10 (Iron Age IIB). In A. De Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh VIIB: Area E; The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem. Pp. 57–198. Dothan M. and Porath Y. 1982. Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M (‘Atiqot [ES] 15). Jerusalem. Elgavish J. 1968. Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona: The Levels of the Persian Period (Seasons 1963–1965) (Field Report No. 1). Haifa (Hebrew). Fantalkin A. 2001. Meẓad Ḥashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv 28:3–165. Fantalkin A. and Tal O. 2015. Tell Qudadi: An Iron Age IIB Fortress on the Central Mediterranean Coast of Israel (with References to Earlier and Later Periods). Final Report on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Excavations Directed by E.L. Sukenik and S. Yeivin, with the Participation of N. Avigad (Colloquia Antiqua 15). Leuven. Finkelstein I. 2000. Omride Architecture. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 116:114– 138. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 58 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 59* Finkelstein I. 2002. Gezer Revisited and Revised. Tel Aviv 29:262–296. Finkelstein I., Adams M.J., Hall E. and Levy E. 2019. The Iron Age Gates of Megiddo: New Evidence and Updated Interpretations. Tel Aviv 49:167–191. Finkelstein I. and Beit-Arieh I. 1999. Area E. In I. Beit-Arieh ed. Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 31). Tel Aviv. Pp. 67–96. Finkelstein I. and Singer-Avitz L. 2001. Ashdod Revisited. Tel Aviv 28:231–259. Finkelstein I. and Singer-Avitz L. 2009. Reevaluating Bethel. Zeitschrift des deutschen PalästinaVereins 125:33–48. Fisher M., Roll I. and Tal O. 2008. Persian and Hellenistic Remains at Tel Ya‘oz. Tel Aviv 35:123– 163. Franklin N. 2011. From Megiddo to Tamassos and Back: Putting the “Proto-Ionic Capitals” in its Place. In I. Finkelstein and N. Na‘aman eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake. Pp. 129–140. Freud L. 1999. The Iron Age. In I. Beit-Arieh ed. Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 31). Tel Aviv. Pp. 189–289. Freud L. 2007. Iron Age Pottery. In I. Beit-Arieh ed. Ḥorvat ‘Uza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv 77–121. Freud L. 2018. Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and the Persian Period: Jerusalem and Its Environs. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Ganor S. and Kreimerman I. 2019. An Eighth-Century B.C.E. Gate Shrine at Tel Lachish, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381:211–236. Gilboa A. 1992. The Pottery Assemblage of Dor during the Assyrian Occupation Period. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Gilboa A. 1995. The Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age Pottery and the Chronology of the Iron Age Assemblages. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report I B: Areas A and C; The Finds (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 1–49. Gitin S. 2012. Temple Complex 650 at Ekron: The Impact of Multi-Cultural Influences on Philistine Cult in the Late Iron Age. In J. Kamlah ed. Temple Building and Temple Cult Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010) (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41). Wiesbaden. Pp. 223–256. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 59 05/09/2021 16:04:16 60* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Gitler H. and Tal O. 2006. The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: A Study of the Earliest Coins of Palestine (Collezioni Numismatiche 6). Milan. Hensel B. 2018. Das JHWH-Heiligtum am Garizim: ein archäologischer Befund und seine literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Einordnung. Vetus Testamentum 68:73–93. Hermary A. 1989. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre: Sculptures (Musée du Louvre). Paris. Hermary A. and Mertens J.R. 2014. The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Stone Sculpture. New York. Kartveit M. 2009. The Origin of the Samaritans (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 128). Leiden. Kartveit M. 2012. The Second Temple and the Temple of the Samaritans. In J. Frey, U. SchattnerRieser and K. Schmid eds. Die Samaritaner und die Bibel—The Samaritans and the Bible: Historische und Literarische Wechselwirkungen (Studia Judaica 70; Studia Samaritana 7). Göttingen. Pp. 67–80. Knoppers G.N. 2013. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. Oxford. Lapp N.L. 2010. Shechem IV: The Persian-Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balâṭah (ASOR Archaeological Reports 11). Boston. Lehmann G. 2002. Iron Age. In N. Scheftelowitz and R. Oren eds. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20). Tel Aviv. Pp. 178–222. Lightbody D.I. 2011. Signs of Conciliation: The Hybridised “Tree of Life” in the Iron Age City Kingdoms of Cyprus. Cahiers du Centre d’Etudes Chypriotes 41:239–250. Lipschits O. 2011. The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant. In I. Finkelstein and N. Na‘aman eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake. Pp. 203–225. Magen Y. 2007. The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence. In O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers and R. Albertz eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake. Pp. 157–211. Magen Y. 2008. Mount Gerizim Excavations II: A Temple City (Judea and Samaria Publications 8). Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2009. The Temple of YHWH at Mt. Gerizim. Eretz-Israel 29:277–297 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 291*). Jerusalem-En Book.indb 60 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 61* Magen Y. 2010. Bells, Pendants, Snakes and Stones: A Samaritan Temple to the Lord on Mt. Gerizim. Biblical Archaeology Review 36/6:26–35. Magen Y., Misgav H. and Tsfania L. 2004. Mount Gerizim Excavations I: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2). Jerusalem. Mazar A. and Panitz-Cohen N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem 42). Jerusalem. Merhav R. 1980. The Palmette on Steatite Bowls in Relation to the Minor Arts and Architecture. Israel Museum Journal 16:89–106. Mor M. 2011. The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan Governors– Again. In J. Zsengellér ed. Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics (Studia Judaica 66; Studia Samaritana 6). Göttingen. Pp. 89–108. Nodet É� . 1980. Le Niveau 3 (Période Perse). In J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert eds. Tell Keisan (1971– 1976): Une cite phénicienne en Galilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1). Fribourg. Pp. 117–129. Salles J.-F. 1980. Le Niveau 4. In J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert eds. Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cite phénicienne en Galilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1). Fribourg. Pp. 131–156. Segal O., Kletter R. and Ziffer I. 2006. A Persian-Period Building from Tel Ya‘oz (Tell Ghaza). ‘Atiqot 52:1*–24* (Hebrew; English summary). Sharon I. 1991. The Fortifications of Dor and the Transition from Israelite-Syrian Concept of Defence to the Greek Concept. Qadmoniot 95–96:105–113 (Hebrew). Shiloh Y. 1979. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11). Jerusalem. Singer-Avitz L. 1989. Local Pottery of the Persian Period (Strata XI–VI). In H. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 8). Minneapolis–Tel Aviv. Pp. 115–144. Singer-Avitz L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29:110–214. Stager L.E., Master D.M. and Schloen J.D. 2011. Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century B.C. Winona Lake. Stern E. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976) 1: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period (Qedem 9). Jerusalem. Stern E. 1995. Local Pottery of the Persian Period. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report I B: Areas A and C; The Finds (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 51–92. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 61 05/09/2021 16:04:16 62* | New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem Stern E. 2000. Dor: Ruler of the Seas; Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast. Jerusalem. Stern E. 2007. En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem. Stern E. and Magen Y. 1984. A Pottery Group of the Persian Period from Qadum in Samaria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253:9–27. Stern E. and Magen Y. 2002. Archaeological Evidence for the First Stage of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim. Israel Exploration Journal 52:49–57. Tal O. 1999. The Persian Period. In I. Roll and O. Tal eds. Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations I: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 16). Tel Aviv. Pp. 83–222. Tufnell O. 1953. Lachish III (Tell ed Duweir): The Iron Age. London. Ussishkin D. 1980. Was the “Solomonic” City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon? Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 239:1–18. Ussishkin D. 1990. Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries B.C. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:71–91. Ussishkin D. 2004a. Area GE: The Inner City-Gate. In D. Ussishkin ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv. Pp. 624–689. Ussishkin D. 2004b. Area PAL.: The Judean Palace-Fort. In D. Ussishkin ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv. Pp. 768–870. Ussishkin D. and Woodhead J. 1997. Excavations at Tell Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 24:6–72. Yadin Y. 1958. Solomon’s City Wall and Gate at Gezer. Israel Exploration Journal 8:80–86. Yadin Y. 1960. New Light on Solomon’s Megiddo. The Biblical Archaeologist 23:62–68. Yadin Y. 1970. Megiddo of the Kings of Israel. The Biblical Archaeologist 33:66–96. Yadin Y., Aharoni Y., Amiran R., Ben-Tor A., Dothan M., Dothan T., Dunayevsky I., Geva S. and Stern E. 1989. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Forth Seasons of Excavations, 1957– 1958. Jerusalem. Yasur-Landau A., Press M.D. and Arie E. 2016. Rethinking Tel Achziv: An Iron II Architectonic and Ceramic Sequence from Southern Phoenicia. Tel Aviv 43:192–224. Yezerski I. 2007. Pottery of Stratum V. In E. Stern ed. En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961– 1965). Jerusalem. Pp. 86–132. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 62 05/09/2021 16:04:16 Revisiting Mount Gerizim | 63* Zangenberg J.K. 2012. The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim: Observations on the Results of 20 Years of Excavation. In J. Kamlah ed. Temple Building and Temple Cult Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010) (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41). Wiesbaden. Pp. 399–418. Zimhoni O. 2004. The Pottery of Levels III and II. In D. Ussishkin ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv. Pp. 1789–1899. Zuckerman S. 2012. The Pottery of Stratum 9 (The Persian Period). In A. De Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh VIIB: The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem. Pp. 31–56. Jerusalem-En Book.indb 63 05/09/2021 16:04:16