The article is dedicated to one of the less studied aspects of the Byzantine–Early Islamic period transition: the recycling of valuable materials—marble and bronze—as reflected in the archaeological findings discovered during the salvage excavations at the Givati Parking Lot site in Jerusalem. In the course of the work, a portion of one of the major streets of Byzantine Jerusalem was exposed, which once served as an important pilgrimage route of the city. During the Umayyad period the street was severely damaged, and the entire area was turned into an industrial zone. Of special interest are the raw materials used in the industrial installations discovered during the excavations. These include precious imported marble veneers and fragments of liturgical furniture, which had been used as raw material for lime production in a large limekiln constructed on the original course of the Byzantine street; and scraps of bronze fragments of liturgical vessels, some decorated with crosses, which were discovered together with metal slags, pottery crucibles, and fragments of production waste, all testifying to the presence of a small-scale metallurgical workshop at the site.

INTRODUCTION

This article is dedicated to one of the less studied aspects of the Byzantine–Early Islamic period transition, as reflected in the archaeological findings discovered during the salvage excavations at the Givati Parking Lot site in Jerusalem.1 In the course of the work, a portion of one of the major streets of Byzantine Jerusalem was exposed, running from north to south along the Tyropoeon Valley toward the Pool of Siloam. During the Umayyad period the street was severely damaged, some of its slabs were removed, and a series of walls and plaster floors were built over it, turning the entire area into an industrial zone. Of special interest are the raw materials used in the industrial installations discovered during the excavations. These include precious imported marble veneers and fragments of liturgical furniture, which had been used as raw material for lime production in a large limekiln constructed on the original course of the Byzantine street.

A second category of finds includes scraps of bronze, as well as lead fragments of liturgical vessels, some decorated with crosses, which were discovered together with metal slags, pottery crucibles and fragments of production waste, testifying to the presence of a small-scale metallurgical workshop at the site. The phenomenon of reuse and spoliation of valuable materials and artifacts has become the subject of extensive study in recent decades, but it seems that the phenomenon of Early Islamic “recycling” is less well known and deserves special attention.

FINDS AND THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Excavations at the Givati Parking Lot (Fig. 1), located on the eastern slope of the Tyropoeon Valley in close proximity to the historical nucleus of ancient Jerusalem (the “City of David”), and some 30 m south of the Ottoman wall around Jerusalem's Old City, have revealed architectural remains from the Iron Age II (ninth century B.C.E.) to the Abbasid period (ninth–tenth centuries C.E.). The excavations have exposed a large area, totaling 0.5 hectares.2 

FIG. 1.
Givati excavations. Aerial photo: Skyview.
FIG. 1.
Givati excavations. Aerial photo: Skyview.

Byzantine paved street

One of the most dominant layers exposed at the site dates to the Byzantine period, specifically to the fifth to early seventh centuries C.E. (Fig. 2). This layer, represented by three stratigraphic phases, includes an impressive complex, probably administrative in character, discovered in the northern part of the area, two additional buildings in its southern part, and agricultural terrain with a thick layer of garden soil retained by terrace walls.3 On the west, the Byzantine administrative building and the garden were flanked by the paved street which is the focus of this study (Fig. 3).

FIG. 2.
Byzantine period remains at Givati excavations, general plan.
FIG. 2.
Byzantine period remains at Givati excavations, general plan.
FIG. 3.
Byzantine paved street on the left, administrative building in the background; remains of late Roman structure in the foreground. View to the north. Aerial photo: Skyview.
FIG. 3.
Byzantine paved street on the left, administrative building in the background; remains of late Roman structure in the foreground. View to the north. Aerial photo: Skyview.

This wide north–south street measures ca. 5.5 m between the curbstones. Parts of this same street were exposed in the 1920s to the south,4 and recently also to the north.5 All told, 120 m of the street are known archaeologically today. Its continuation farther north supposedly runs parallel to the western wall of the Temple Mount, between the wall and the Eastern Cardo.6 Following the topography, the street slopes significantly southward: the elevation difference between the northern and southern excavated sections is nearly 5 m. The street is paved with flagstones of various sizes (0.4 x 0.4 m–0.8 x 1 m), smoothed from use, laid perpendicularly to the north–south axis of the street (Fig. 4). No traces of grooves left by wheels, no notches against slipping, and no game boards or other intentional marks were found. Curbstones delineated the sidewalks of the street, which were paved with rather smaller stones. Under the pavement a few sections of drainage channels were discovered that once served the buildings constructed east and west of the street, and connected to the major drainage running from north to south. Other sections of the street discovered to the south and to the north of the Givati excavations bear similar characteristics. The numismatic material discovered under the flagstones permits the pavement to be dated to the days of Justinian's rule (a coin generally dated to 527–567;7 a nummus of Justinian dated to 534–539;8 and fifth–sixth century coins).9 

FIG. 4.
Byzantine paved street. Photo: Tsila Sagiv, IAA.
FIG. 4.
Byzantine paved street. Photo: Tsila Sagiv, IAA.

The sections of the street so far revealed represent one of the principal thoroughfares of Byzantine Jerusalem,10 which served as an important pilgrimage route connecting the sanctuaries of the city center in the north to the Pool of Siloam in the south. The Pool of Siloam as a venerated Christian site, the place of the Healing of the Blind (John 9.1-12), is first mentioned in pilgrimage descriptions of Jerusalem in the fourth century;11 however, the first to mention a church at the site is the Pilgrim of Piacenza, ca. 570.12 

The remains of the church explored at the site have been dated to two periods: an early phase from the fifth century and a later phase to the sixth century C.E.13 It seems that during Justinian's reign, as part of the program of imperial patronage directed towards the city of Jerusalem, the Pool of Siloam was transformed into an important memorial shrine, one of the stations for major liturgical celebrations, and the whole area between the pool and the city center was turned into a thriving pilgrimage area.14 A series of shops were built along the paved street, discovered by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald,15 which supplied the needs of the numerous passersby, whose steps smoothed the hard limestones of the pavement. Additional testimony of pilgrim movement along the street was discovered in the Givati excavations, where a complete miniature box carved of bone was unearthed, adorned on the inside with two icon paintings.16 

Using the classification recently proposed by Michele Voltaggio,17 we may safely include the Byzantine street running along the Tyropoeon Valley on a list of “liturgical streets” of the Holy City, built on the higher parts of the slope, linking the holy sites and covering certain segments of pilgrim routes.

End of the Byzantine period and Early Islamic changes

It seems difficult to propose a single, unequivocal explanation for the end of Byzantine structures built along the paved street. The large administrative building discovered in the Givati Parking Lot met a violent end, precisely dated by a large hoard of unused gold solidi of Emperor Heraclius, minted between 610 and 613 and sealed under the debris of a ruined structure.18 The hoard therefore provides a rare opportunity to determine an absolute dating of the building's destruction to the Persian invasion of Jerusalem in 614 CE.

It is possible that parts of the street went out of use in different times. The destruction layer locally exposed directly above the paved street (Fig. 5) should be dated to the second half of the seventh century.19 This impressive collapse, located at the southern end of the Givati excavation, contained ashlars and numerous profiled architectural fragments, probably originating from a monumental structure located east of the street.20 Hagbi and Uziel discovered a similar layer of collapse, although leveled off in a later period, above the northern fragment of the street.21 During this leveling operation, some of the ashlar stones were thrown into an underground cistern which went out of use at the end of the Byzantine period. To the south, Crowfoot and Fitzgerald's excavations presented no clear picture of destruction—neither debris, nor a clear collapse layer, nor significant complete pottery vessels were found. However, based on the historical narrative, the excavators ascribed the end of the Byzantine layer to the Persian conquest of 614 and, based on a number of Arab-Byzantine imitative coins (641–668), proposed that the area was briefly resettled thereafter.22 

FIG. 5.
Collapse layer above the street's pavement. Photo: Asaf Peretz, IAA.
FIG. 5.
Collapse layer above the street's pavement. Photo: Asaf Peretz, IAA.

Sometime during the Early Islamic period the entire large area exposed in the Givati excavations witnessed dramatic changes and was turned into an industrial zone no longer devoted to domestic purposes.23 The Byzantine street running along the Tyropoeon Valley went completely out of use as a major city artery and was significantly narrowed. Some of the street's pavement slabs were damaged or entirely removed. No buildings of any kind were constructed along it other than a few carelessly built walls and fragmentary preserved plaster floors, mainly associated with a large lime kiln discovered in the northwestern part of the excavated area, or with a small-scale metallurgical workshop discovered in the southwest. It is important to stress the ephemeral nature of this new industrial enterprise: during the later stages of the Umayyad period, prior to the renewed Abbasid building activity at the site, the entire area was abandoned and was covered by thick layers (0.5–0.8 m) of alluvium.

Lime production

A large rounded lime kiln, ca. 5 m in diameter and preserved to a height of ca. 2 m, was constructed against the wall of the destroyed Byzantine administrative building (Fig. 6). It was built of ashlars, probably taken from the ruined Byzantine building; due to exposure to the intense fire the stones had lost their original form and merged together. The inner face and floor of the kiln were covered with an orange clay coating to protect the walls from the intense heat.24 On the top, the kiln was covered by a heap of whitish limestone debris resting on a layer of dark ash, the result of the last use in the kiln. As noted, a few carelessly built walls associated with the kiln complex were also discovered.

FIG. 6.
Early Islamic limekiln. Photo: Tsila Sagiv, IAA.
FIG. 6.
Early Islamic limekiln. Photo: Tsila Sagiv, IAA.

Northwest of the kiln, the Byzantine street slabs were entirely removed and some of the nearby Byzantine building's walls were razed, leaving in their place heaps containing a large quantity of limestone and marble chunks (Fig. 7). These heaps no doubt served as raw material for lime production. This was where the largest concentration of marble finds was discovered in secondary deposition: the kiln itself and the associated piles of raw material—gravel and larger stone pieces intended to be burned—contained 160 marble fragments. Of these, only seven were of the colored marble sort; and the remaining 153 fragments are of the white and grayish sorts of Proconnesian marble. The analysis of the finds25 indicates that they included mainly fragments of opus sectile floors, wall veneers, and fragments of liturgical furniture taken from richly decorated structures.

FIG. 7.
Stocks of raw material discovered near the limekiln. Photo: Tsila Sagiv, IAA.
FIG. 7.
Stocks of raw material discovered near the limekiln. Photo: Tsila Sagiv, IAA.

Marble as a raw material for the production of high-quality lime was known to the Romans (Vitruvius, De arch. II.5), but it seems that such production became more common in Late Antiquity. A similar phenomenon has been documented in Rome,26 where during the ninth–tenth centuries the Forum Traiani was turned into a source of raw material for calcararii (lime burners) and sassori (masons). The discovery of marble use in Early Islamic and later lime kilns has been reported from various excavation sites in the region.27 The only report from the Jerusalem area of a concentration of raw material for lime production near a kiln, however, comes from the nearby excavations of B. Mazar, conducted at the foot of the Temple Mount and dated by the latter to the post-Fatimid phase.28 

The proximity of both of these known marble concentrations in Jerusalem does not seem to be random. The large concentration of marble finds discovered in and around the lime kiln, built on the original course of the Byzantine street, may possibly be explained by the need for high-quality plaster for the large construction projects in Umayyad-period Jerusalem. The Early Islamic buildings on and around Haram al-Sharif reused large quantities of Roman and Byzantine marble decoration from the city of Jerusalem.29 It is plausible that some of the best marble in the city could have found secondary use in the nearby mosques and palatial structures, while the more poorly preserved or smaller fragments were simply burned in kilns or recycled as regular building material.

Small-scale metallurgical workshop

In the southern part of the Givati excavation, on the course of the Byzantine street, a long, narrow wall was constructed, built of well-dressed ashlars and clearly in secondary use. A series of plaster floors covering the original Byzantine pavement of the street and its eastern sidewalk was found abutting the wall on the west and east (Figs. 8a and 8b). Further north, Hagbi and Uziel observed a similar transformation of the Byzantine street during the Umayyad period.30 In the Givati excavations, the most interesting find from the level of the Umayyad plaster floors was a small-scale metallurgical workshop that had operated on that spot: numerous copper-alloy and lead fragments of Byzantine objects, some decorated with crosses, were discovered here, together with metal slags, production waste, and fragments of pottery crucibles31 (Figs. 9, 10). No proper furnace was found,32 indicating that production was by means of the simplest mode—clay casseroles and animal-hide bellows.33 On the plastered floors, on which large quantities of ash were found, fragments of liturgical implements were also discovered.34 These included swinging censers for incense burning or lighting polycandela with cross-adorned chains and calyx-shaped hooked hangers and a personal cross pendant (Fig. 11). Liturgical vessels of this type, generally dated to the sixth–seventh centuries, have been reported from a number of local archaeological sites35 and are mainly known from museum collections.36 The copper-alloy objects apparently served as scrap for local craftsmen, who recycled them for a new, unknown use.37 

FIG. 8A.
Early Islamic wall and series of plaster floors built above the street layer. Photo: Asaf Peretz, IAA.
FIG. 8A.
Early Islamic wall and series of plaster floors built above the street layer. Photo: Asaf Peretz, IAA.
FiG. 8B.
Early Islamic wall built above the street, after the removal of plaster floors. Photo: Asaf Peretz, IAA.
FiG. 8B.
Early Islamic wall built above the street, after the removal of plaster floors. Photo: Asaf Peretz, IAA.
FIG. 9.
Metal scrap and production waste from a small-scale metallurgical workshop. Field photo.
FIG. 9.
Metal scrap and production waste from a small-scale metallurgical workshop. Field photo.
FIG. 10.
Pottery crucibles fragments. Photo: Clara Amit, IAA.
FIG. 10.
Pottery crucibles fragments. Photo: Clara Amit, IAA.
FIG. 11.
Fragments of liturgical vessels and a cross pendant. Photo: Clara Amit, IAA.
FIG. 11.
Fragments of liturgical vessels and a cross pendant. Photo: Clara Amit, IAA.

According to the stratigraphic position of the loci and the pottery and numismatic readings, the archaeological context of the finds should be dated to the late sixth to the first half of the seventh centuries. Additional dating may be provided by the personal cross pendant, for which nearly a dozen parallels from this region are known and generally dated to the sixth–seventh centuries (for example, crosses from urban contexts in Caesarea and Jericho;38 additional parallels have been reported from the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Europe).39 Based on a detailed typology of cross pendants from the necropoleis of the Crimea,40 our type can be precisely dated to the last quarter of the sixth to the first half of the seventh centuries.

Another, much larger assemblage of copper-alloy artifacts should be mentioned in association with metal recycling in Jerusalem during the period of Byzantine–Islamic transition. That assemblage was discovered by B. Mazar's excavation of a large Byzantine structure in Area XV of the Ophel, just few dozen meters northeast of the Givati site (Fig. 12).41 Based on an historical approach and archaeological deduction, that structure was dated to an unclear stage in the Byzantine period (fifth or sixth century); significant changes in its plan were dated to the middle of the sixth century, and its destruction was ascribed to the Persian invasion of 614. The metal hoard discovered there included various copper-alloy objects, among them metal parts of a wooden (?) box, a large processional or altar cross, and lamps.42 

FIG. 12.
Location map, showing the Givati excavations and the Ophel area.
FIG. 12.
Location map, showing the Givati excavations and the Ophel area.

The metal artifacts discovered in the structure were initially interpreted by M. Ben-Dov as unconnected to the original complex, but rather to one of Jerusalem's magnificent churches, from which it had been brought to the site as a trophy in the post-Byzantine period.43 But during preparation of the final report on this building, its interpretation changed and it was identified as the Monastery of Virgins, known from Byzantine sources.

A critique of this identification is beyond the scope of this article. Still, it should be noted that the proposed new identification has led to reinterpretation of both the structure characteristics and finds.44 The finds of Christian character, i.e. liturgical marble furniture fragments and copper alloy crosses (“bronze,” according to the obsolete terminology of the publication), were assigned to a hypothetical second-story chapel. In fact, of the entire impressive assemblage of metal artifacts, only the large cross45 can be described securely as property belonging to a church or other ecclesiastic institution. All the rest—the clasps and lock for the wooden box,46 a lamp,47 doorknockers,48 and a dragon figure (lamp-holder?)49 may have belonged to any wealthy household, private or public.

Thus it seems that the metal finds originated from various structures, not necessarily from the building where they were discovered, and it was their diverse character that led the archaeologist Meir Ben-Dov to interpret them as trophies of some sort brought to the site.50 However, in light of recent finds from the Givati excavation, the Ophel metal hoard can be explained as the result of metal scavenging, dated to the post-Byzantine period, after the structure had already been abandoned.

The hypothesis of systematic re-melting of older metal materials in Late Antiquity was proposed a decade ago by Enrico Giannichedda,51 who listed the objective conditions favorable for such recycling (preserved technical knowledge, closure of government-owned mines, contacts with new people with different traditional techniques, the mobility of craftsmen, and the simplicity of their tools), but noted the lack of relevant and secure archaeological findings. Based on the medieval examples, Giannichedda assumed52 that the archaeological evidence for recycling should include evidence that metal objects had been robbed from ancient monuments and hoarded, as well as possibly broken and bent for reuse.53 It appears that for late antique Jerusalem, these signs of metal hoarding and recycling are now well attested.54 

DISCUSSION

Who was to blame?

Although some of the marble revetment may have originated either from ecclesiastic or secular buildings, during the Byzantine period luxurious imported marble was known to have been mainly used for the decoration of churches and administrative buildings of high-ranking authorities.55 The quantity and variety of decoration and material suggests that these elements were not included in a single structure, but had been used at a number of different sites. Certain fragments may have originated from the Byzantine administrative building, or even in earlier, late Roman structures discovered at the Givati site, while others may have decorated nearby structures.

The presence of marble liturgical furniture and metal paraphernalia in the assemblages opens up the possibility for speculation regarding their origins. A few churches are known from the historical sources to have been located in the immediate vicinity of the Givati site: to the south, a church by the Pool of Siloam; to the west, the churches on Mount Zion—Holy Zion, Penitence of St. Peter, and the Nea; to the north, the Church of St. Sophia, or Pretoria, located not far from the Temple Mount. There were also numerous Christian structures to the east, on the slopes of Mount of Olives.56 The discoveries of some of these ecclesiastic complexes were reported from archaeological excavations.57 It should be stressed here that all the churches uncovered were found almost totally lacking their architectural décor or metal accessories—frames, pipes, clamps, grills, et cetera; indeed, they were most likely stripped and reused in later periods.

It is not easy to establish who was responsible for the massive displacement of the church décor. Byzantine law, both civil and canon, strictly prohibited alienation of church property, both real estate and movable. The Justinian codex repetitae praelectionis of 534 (1.2.21) strictly banned the sale or other disposition of sacred vessels or vestments, with the only exception being for the redemption of captives. A similar position was expressed by the early church fathers, although some insisted that vessels to be alienated must be broken and melted within the sacred precincts of the church.58 Formal adoption of this law was proclaimed by the Church only in the eighth century, under the growing pressure of Islamic conquests. The iconoclast Council of Hieria (the “Headless Council,” 754) prohibited the robbery of churches or the alteration of holy vessels, vestments, cloth, or anything dedicated to divine service under the pretext of destroying images. The decree of the Second Council of Nicea (787) threatened the excommunication of any bishops, other clerics, or laity who used sacred vessels for common purposes. The Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869–870) declared that “no bishop is permitted to sell the sacred vessels or other valuables belonging to his Church except the case specified by the ancient canons, namely, when it is necessary for the redemption of captives.”59 

It would be careless of us to presume that canon and civil law was always followed, and therefore to date Byzantine marble spolia solely to the Early Islamic period. In fact, in the Givati excavations, decorative Byzantine marble elements, including chancel screen fragments, were found in secondary use or simply discarded, not only in the Early Islamic period, but also in Byzantine layers.60 For example, the layers of Byzantine agricultural terraces revealed over 70 marble artifacts, and dozens more were discovered in Byzantine construction fills. Apparently the reason marble was neglected or reused was not necessarily for ideological or other significant reasons. Marble panels imported from afar may have reached their destination incomplete, or they may have been damaged during installation. Other examples of reuse of church marble, presumably pre-Islamic, were reported from the region.61 We may assume similar circumstances for metal reuse.

According to accumulated textual and archaeological data, the de-Christianization of Palestine was a gradual, slow process that took nearly two centuries.62 The final exclusion of the Palestinian Christian population from the Byzantine-oriented cultural sphere, the abandonment of churches, followed by their massive robbing, the prohibition of public display of crosses, and other restrictions against Christians63 would all develop only during the Abbasid period. The intentional, “ideological” destruction of church marble décor and liturgical vessels in seventh-century Jerusalem seems, therefore, most improbable. Rather, the archaeological evidence appears to be part of a phenomenon of “pragmatic recycling,” lacking any ideological motifs.

City transformation

The archaeological picture of the Byzantine–Early Islamic transition in Jerusalem remains a highly debatable and complex issue. Once regarded as a definite break in the long development of the Roman and Byzantine city, it is now more commonly considered a prolonged, gradual process.64 Moreover, according to the archaeological record emerging from the excavations of Jerusalem, the metamorphosis of the urban settlement during this period of transition seems to be characterized by great diversity.65 

In the case described here, one of the principal streets, once an important pilgrimage artery of Jerusalem, practically ceased to exist, temporarily giving way to essential industrial needs of the city. Elsewhere in Jerusalem, this phenomenon was also noted in the Byzantine colonnaded streets, mainly the two cardines crossing the city from north to south. Archaeologically, this process is best reflected in the Eastern Cardo, which was significantly narrowed during the Early Islamic period,66 and to a certain extent also in the Western Cardo, where the sidewalks were sealed and turned into shops.67 Similar processes have been documented in Caesarea,68 Beth Shean69 and other Decapolis cities,70 and other large urban centers in the region.71 

The changes in urban development observed during the recent excavations in the Givati Parking Lot mark a definite turning point in the long continuity evident throughout the Late Roman and the Byzantine eras. These changes are characterized by rapid transformation of the public space into an industrial zone following the destruction and abandonment of residential and administrative structures once located in the area. Presumably, these changes must be viewed against the larger political and cultural background of Jerusalem in the second half of the seventh century C.E., with the construction of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as the large Umayyad palatial complex south of Haram al-Sharif. According to Donald Whitcomb,72 the eastern and southeastern parts of Jerusalem underwent major changes, and a new Muslim city came into being there alongside the Christian city. The increase of industrial activity, first seen during the Umayyad period, would soon become a major characteristic of Early Islamic urban development.73 This phenomenon is well attested elsewhere in the region in the Abbasid city of Ramla.74 

New archaeological data from the Givati excavations attests to the decline of an important pilgrimage route in early seventh-century Jerusalem and the recycling of church marble décor and liturgical metal vessels. It seems that now we can pose the same queries as in the past, recognizing that the answers are not as unequivocal as once believed. Did the political and religious changes affect the city's layout? How quickly did these changes occur? What was their impact on the Christian population of Jerusalem? Hopefully the evidence presented here will help refine our understanding of complex processes related to the Byzantine–Islamic transition.

This research was made possible due to a generous Shvidler Grant for archaeological study of Jerusalem and its region, awarded by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2017.
1.
Salvage excavations under the direction of D. Ben Ami and the author were conducted in 2007–2017 on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), financed by El'Ad Association; with the assistance of S. Bechar, H. Ben Dov, S. Dan-Goor, D. Gutreich, S. Hirshberg, F.B. Kobrin Campos, M. Krakovski, N. Nissim Ben-Efraim (Salvadori), G. Roccabella, N. Rom, N. Sharabi, A. Shatil, O. Bejarno Souroujon, D.Tanami and A. Zilberstein (area supervisors), D.T. Ariel and G. Bijovsky (numismatics), N. Nehama (administration), V. Essman, M. Kunin, M. Kipnis and Y. Shmidov (surveying and drafting), R. Brin and N. Zak (drafting), T. Sagiv, A. Peretz and M. Dinstein (field photography), C. Amit (studio photography), Sa‘id Amlle (metal detecting), I. Reznitsky (coins and metal finds cleaning), all of IAA. Aerial photos were provided by Skyview. Archaeometallurgical study of the finds was performed by N. Yalom-Mak of Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
2.
Doron Ben Ami, Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52) (Jerusalem, 2013).
3.
Doron Ben Ami D. and Yana Tchekhanovets. Jerusalem, Givati Parking Lot. Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122 (2010): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1377&mag_id=117 (accessed 10 January 2018); for the continuation of the garden eastward, see Joe Uziel, “Jerusalem, City of David (A),” Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125 (2013): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2306&mag_id=120 (accessed 10 January 2018).
4.
John W. Crowfoot and Gerald W. Fitzgerald, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 5, 1929), 41.
5.
Moran Hagbi and Joe Uziel. “Jerusalem, City of David (B),” Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel 127 (2015): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=23807&mag_id=122 (accessed 10 January 2018); Moran Hagbi and Joe Uziel, “Jerusalem: City of David, the Byzantine Street,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129 (2017): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=25185&mag_id=125 (accessed 10 January 2018).
6.
Dan Bahat, “The Physical Layout,” in The History of Jerusalem. The Early Islamic Period: 638–1099, ed. J. Prawer (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1987), 32–79 at 41–43 (Hebrew); Yuval Baruch and Ronny Reich, “Some Notes on the Eastern Cardo of Jerusalem,” in New Studies on Jerusalem 9, ed. E. Baruch, U. Leibner and A. Faust (Ramat Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 2003), 147–160 at 154 (Hebrew).
7.
Crowfoot and Fitzgerald, Excavations, 117.
8.
Donald T. Ariel, “The Coins of the Byzantine Stratum,” in Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot), Vol. II, ed. D. Ben Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets (Jerusalem: IAA Reports, forthcoming).
9.
Moran Hagbi and Joe Uziel, “The Hill of the City of David during the Byzantine Period: A View from the Byzantine Street,” in City of David Studies in Ancient Jerusalem 10, ed. E. Meiron (Jerusalem: Megalim Institute, 2015), 41–53, at 45 (Hebrew).
10.
Yoram Tsafrir, “Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period,” in The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods, 70–638, eds. Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai, (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999), 281–352, at 295–300, 321–323 (Hebrew); Oren Gutfeld “The Urban Layout of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem,” in, Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, eds. K. Galor and G. Avni (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 327–350; Hagbi and Uziel, “The Hill.”
11.
Barbara Baert “Lavit et venit videns: The Healing of the Blind Man at the Pool of Siloam,” in Visual Constructs of Jerusalem, eds. B. Kuhnel, G. Noga-Banai and H. Vorholt (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 23–34.
12.
For discussion of the sources, see Michele Voltaggio, “Hagia polis Hierosolyma: Birth and Development of Jerusalem Christian Topography,” Temporis Signa 7 (2012), 107–123, at 112–115.
13.
Frederick J. Bliss and Archibald C. Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem, 1884–1897 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1898), 178–210, Pl. XVIII.
14.
Voltaggio, “Hagia Polis Hierosolyma,” 112–115.
15.
Crowfoot and Fitzgerald, Excavations, 51.
16.
Yana Tchekhanovets, “Miniature Diptych from Jerusalem,” Bizantinische Zeitschrift 107/2 (2014), 893–902.
17.
Voltaggio, “Hagia Polis Hierosolyma,” 107–123.
18.
Gabriela Bijovsky, “A Single Die Solidi Hoard of Heraclius from Jerusalem,” Mélanges Cecile Morrisson. Traveaux et Memoirs, 16 (Paris: College de France 2010), 55–92.
19.
The latest identifiable coin discovered between the collapse stones is a rare imitative dodecanummium attributed to the mint of Fustat in Egypt, dated to the second half of the seventh century. The author wishes to thank G. Bijovsky of IAA for identification of numismatic finds.
20.
The structure itself was excavated and dismantled by the IAA expedition of R. Reich and E. Shukron in 2003–2005. However, their brief report states that “no traces of destruction were found, and the area appears to have been abandoned at the end of the phase” (Ronny Reich, “The Giv'ati Parking Lot,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 5, ed. E. Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2008), 1807–1808, at 1808.
21.
Hagbi and Uziel, “City of David (B).”
22.
Crowfoot and Fitzgerald, Excavations, 53, 54.
23.
Ben Ami and Tchekhanovets, “Givati Parking Lot.”
24.
Yizhar Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 84, and further bibliography therein.
25.
Yana Tchekhanovets, “Spoils and Spolia: Large Marble Assemblage from Givati Excavations, Jerusalem,” Liber Annuus 66 (2016), 269–300.
26.
Roberto Meneghini, “Il foro ed i mercati di Traiano nel medioevo attraverso le fonti storiche e d'archivio,”Archeologia medievale 20 (1993), 79–121, at 90.
27.
John W. Crowfoot, Kathleen Kenyon and Eliezer L. Sukenik, The Buildings of Samaria. (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942), 139; Muhammad M. Khadija, “Lime Kilns,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 16 (1971), 107–109, at 109; Moshe Fischer, Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade (Konstanz: Universitaetsverlag, 1998), 290; Yosef Spanier and Avi Sasson, Lime Kilns in Eretz Israel: Seminar in Memory of Shmuel Avitsur, (Jerusalem: Ariel, 2001; Hebrew); Joseph Patrich, “The Architectural Evolution of the Late Antique Revenue Office at Caesarea Maritima,” in Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honor of Leah Di Segni, ed. G.C. Bottini, L.D. Chrupcała and J. Patrich (Milan: Edizioni Terra Sancta, 2014), 63–87, at 67, Fig. 6c; 69, Fig. 8.
28.
Benjamin Mazar, The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969), 21, pl. II: 2.
29.
Michael Greenhalgh, Marble Past, Monumental Present: Building with Antiquities in the Mediaeval Mediterranean (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), 59–166, 171–172, 282, 283; For sources see Andreas Kaplony, The Haram of Jerusalem 324–1099. Temple, Friday Mosque, Area and Spiritual Power (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 85, 101, 533, 681, 686.
30.
Hagbi and Uziel, “Jerusalem, City of David (B)” Hajbi and Uziel, “Jerusalem: City of David, the Byzantine Street.”
31.
R.F. Tylecote, “Metallurgical Crucibles and Crucible Slags,” in Archaeological Ceramics, eds. J.S. Olin and A.D Franklin (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1982), 231–244; Justine Bayley and Thilo Rehren, “Towards a Functional and Typological Classification of Crucibles,” in Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, eds. S. Niece, D. Hook and P. Craddock (London: British Museum, 2007), 449–459.
32.
The possibility of one or several furnaces located outside the borders of the excavated area cannot be overruled.
33.
Henry Hodges, Artifacts: An Introduction to Early Materials and Technology (London: John Baker, 1976), 64–79.
34.
Beatrice Caseau, “Objects in Churches: The Testimony of Inventories,” in Objects in Context, Objects in Use: Material Spatiality in Late Antiquity, eds. L. Lavan, E. Swift and T. Putzeys (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 552–580.
35.
Shoham and Yatir: Y. Israeli Y. and D. Mevorah, The Cradle of Christianity (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 2000), 98; Jericho: Leonid Belyaev, Byzantine Jericho: Excavations after a Century (Moscow: Indrik, 2016), 296–297, no. B-6.
36.
British Museum: Ormonde M. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East in the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography of the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1901), no. 529, Pl. XXVI; Hermitage: Vera Zalesskaya, Monuments of Byzantine Applied Arts, 4th – 7th Centuries. Catalogue of the Hermitage Collection (St. Petersburg: Hermitage Museum, 2006), nos. 228, 265–267 (Russian).
37.
Deep gratitude should be expressed to G.D. Stiebel of Tel Aviv University for his generous help in identification of the metal finds, as well as valuable consultation.
38.
Joseph Patrich and Kate Rafael, “The Jewelry,” in J. Patrich, Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima. Areas CC, KK and NN. Final Report. Vol. I: The Objects (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2008), 419–431, nos. 40–45; Belyaev, Byzantine Jericho, 299, no. E-203.
39.
For discussion, see Alexander Musin, “Archaeology of Private Devotion in the Tradition of the Christian East and West,” in Christian Iconography of East and West, ed. T. G. Bugakova (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2006), 163–222 (Russian).
40.
Elzara A. Khairedinova, “Early Medieval Crosses from the South-Western Crimea,” in Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, ed. B. Bohlendorf-Arslan and A. Ricci (Istanbul: Phoibos Verlag, 2012), 417–440, Fig. 5.1–2, Type 3.
41.
Benjamin Mazar, “The Archaeological Excavations near the Temple Mount,” in Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974, ed. Y. Yadin (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1976), 25–40, at 36.
42.
Eilat Mazar, The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar. Final Reports. Vol. II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Jerusalem: Qedem 43, 2003), Pl. I.1–2, 4.
43.
Meir Ben-Dov, The Dig at the Temple Mount (Jerusalem: Keter, 1982), 267–270 (Hebrew).
44.
Mazar, The Temple Mount, 65–67.
45.
Mazar, The Temple Mount, 24, Pl. I.1:8.
46.
Mazar, The Temple Mount, Pl. I.1:7.
47.
Mazar, The Temple Mount, Pl. I.2:2.
48.
Mazar, The Temple Mount, Pls. I.2:3, I.4:1.
49.
Mazar, The Temple Mount, Pl. I.4:2.
50.
Ben-Dov, Temple Mount, 267–270.
51.
Enrico Giannichedda, “Metal Production in Late Antiquity: From Continuity of Knowledge to Changes in Consumption,” in Technology in Transition, A.D. 300–650, eds. L. Lavan, E. Zanini and A. Sarantis, (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 187–209, at 190, 196.
52.
Giannichedda, “Metal Production,” 196.
53.
For metal hoards from post-Roman Britain see Robin Fleming, “Recycling in Britain after the Fall of Rome's Metal Economy,” Past & Present 207/1 (2012): 3–45.
54.
To add, a jewelry mold dated to the Early Islamic period was discovered in proximity to Givati excavations; two were found in the City of David: Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom, “Two Jewelry Molds,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 III, ed. A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel (Jerusalem: Qedem 33, 1992), 275–278, at 277, Photo 225; and three on the Mount Zion: Magen Broshi, “Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion”, in Jerusalem Reveled, ed. Y. Yadin (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1976), 57–60, at 60.
55.
See, for example, Patrich, “Architectural Evolution.”
56.
For discussion see Yoram Tsafrir and Gideon Foerster, “Urbanism at Scythopolis-Bet Shean in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51(1997): 85–146; Voltaggio, “Hagia Polis.”
57.
Bliss and Dickie, Excavations, Pl. XVIII; Germer-Durand, “La maison de Caïphe et l'église Saint-Pierre à Jérusalem,” Revue Biblique 11 (1914): 71–94, 226–246; Oren Gutfeld, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T): Final Report (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012).
58.
For detailed discussion see Isambard Brunel, “Alienation of Church Property,” in Encyclopedic Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Vol. I, eds. W. Smith and S. Cheetham (London: John Murray, 1908; reprint: New Delhi 2005), 50–55; Marlia Mundell Mango, “The Monetary Value of Silver Revetments and Objects Belonging to Churches, A.D. 300–700,” in Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium, ed. S. Boyd and M. Mundell Mango, (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1992), 123–136.
59.
Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 15. H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937), 157–176. Fordham University, Medieval Sourcebook: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const4.asp (accessed 10 January 2018).
60.
Tchechanovets, “Spoils and Spolia.”
61.
For Pella, see J. Basil Hennessy, Anthony W. McNicoll, Timothy F. Potts and Alan G. Walmsley, “Preliminary Report on a Second Season of Excavation at Pella, Jordan,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 25 (1981): 267–309, and contra, Lihi Habas, “Contribution of Archaeological Finds from Jerusalem to the Dating of the Destruction of Christian Symbols,” in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 7, ed. G.D. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami and Y. Gadot (Tel Aviv: IAA, 2013), 61–81, at 63.
62.
Robert Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule (Princeton: Darwin Press, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 2, 1995); Milka Levy-Rubin, “Changes in the Settlement Pattern of Palestine Following the Arab Conquest,” in Shaping the Middle East: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the Age of Transition, 400–800 C.E., ed. K.G. Holum and H. Lapin (Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 2011), 155–172; Gideon Avni, The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 331–337; and various studies in Shaping the Middle East: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the Age of Transition, 400–800 C.E. ed. K.G. Holum and H. Lapin (Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 2011); Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides: peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, ed. A. Borrut, M. Debié, A. Papaconstantinou, D. Pieri, J.-P. Sodini (Turnholt: Brepols, 2011).
63.
Schick, Christian Communities, 132–134, 163–167.
64.
Avni, The Byzantine–Islamic Transition, 29–30.
65.
However, some of the variations in the archaeological record may be explained by methodological difficulties of past excavations. For discussion, see Avni, The Byzantine–Islamic Transition, 6–17.
66.
Yuval Baruch and Ronny Reich, “Renewed Excavations in the Umayyad Building III: A Preliminary Review,” in New Studies on Jerusalem 5, ed. A. Faust and E. Baruch (Ramat Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies,1999), 128–140 (Hebrew); Yuval Baruch and Ronny Reich, “Some Notes on the Eastern Cardo of Jerusalem,” in New Studies on Jerusalem 9, ed. E. Baruch, U. Leibner and A. Faust (Ramat Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies), 147–160, at 149 (Hebrew); Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Alexander Onn, Brigitte Ouhanouna and Shua Kislevitz, “Jerusalem: The Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005–2009,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121 (2009): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1219&mag_id=115 (accessed 10 January 2018).
67.
Gutfeld, Jewish Quarter Excavations.
68.
Joseph Patrich, “Caesarea in Transition: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Zone (Areas CC, KK, NN),” Kenneth G. Holum and Hayim Lapin, in Shaping the Middle East: Christians, Jews and Muslims in an Age of Transition, 400–800 CE, ed. K.G. Holum and H. Lapin (Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 2011), 33–64.
69.
Tsafrir and Foerster, “Urbanism,” 85–146; Gaby Mazor, “The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Periods: The Israel Antiquities Authority Excavations,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 5, ed. E. Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2008), 1623–1636.
70.
Alan G. Walmsley, “Vestiges of the Decapolis in North Jordan during the Late Antique and Early Islamic Periods,” ARAM 4/1–2 (1992), 343–355.
71.
For a list of sites with evidence of commercial and industrial encroachment in the city centers and bibliography, see Luke Lavan, “Polis to Emporion? Retail and Regulation in the Late Antique City,” in Trade and Markets in Byzantium, ed. C. Morrison (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012), 333–378, at 376–377.
72.
Donald Whitcomb, “Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City,” in: Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, eds. K. Galor and G. Avni (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 399–416, at 414, Fig. 13.
73.
Alan G. Walmsley, “Regional Exchange and the Role of the Shop in Byzantine and Early Islamic Syria-Palestine: An Archaeological View,” in Trade and Markets in Byzantium, ed. C. Morrisson (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012), 311–330.
74.
Oren Gutfeld, “Ramlah,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109 (1999): 65*–67*; Gideon Avni and Oren Gutfeld, “Ramla,” The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 5, ed. E. Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2008), 2007–2010; Gideon Avni, Miriam Avissar, Yuval Baruch and Hagit Torgë, “Ramla,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120 (2008): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=788&mag_id=114 (accessed 10 January 2018); for a summary see Gideon Avni, “Continuity and Change in Urban Centers of Palestine during the Early Islamic Period: the Cases of Jerusalem and Ramla,” in Shaping the Middle East, eds. K.G. Holum and H. Lapin (Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 2011), 115–134.