The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea (Jerusalem) - Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM ET ORBIS ANTIQUUS
Series Archaeologica 7
RICCARDO LUFRANI
The Saint-Etienne Compound
Hypogea (Jerusalem)
Geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics:
A comparative study and dating
VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GÖTTINGEN
2014
Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus
Series Archaeologica 7
In collaboration with the foundation “Bibel und Orient” of the University of Fribourg/Switzerland
edited by Martin Ebner (Bonn), Max Küchler (Fribourg), Peter Lampe (Heidelberg),
Stefan Schreiber (Augsburg) and Jürgen Zangenberg (Leiden)
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Riccardo Lufrani
The Saint-Etienne Compound
Hypogea (Jerusalem)
Geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics:
A comparative study and dating
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
With 217 mainly colored figures
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek:
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage
and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Typesetting by Massimiliano Dominici
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com
ISSN 2566-7254
ISBN 978-3-647-57311-3
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
to my mothers Assunta and Eugenia
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Presentation of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chap. 1 History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.1 The SEC Hypogea and their adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts: general presentation 17
1.2 First descriptions of the SEC Hypogea: retracing the state of the hypogea at their discovery . . 20
1.2.1 Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.2.2 Hypogeum 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.3 Recent studies on the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.3.1 The Barkay-Kloner survey in 1974-1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.3.2 Kloner’s “Cave of the Kings”hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.3.3 Anthropological study of the bones in Repository 4 - Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1.4.1 The adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . 53
1.4.2 The first descriptions of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1.4.3 The recent studies on the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chap. 2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.1 Methodology of the outline of the topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea 57
2.2 Methodology of the geological and the measurement surveys, and 3D modeling . . . . . . . . 59
2.3 Methodology of the comparison of the architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.3.1 The criteria for the selection of the burial caves compared with the SEC Hypogea . . . . 63
2.3.2 The burial caves considered and selected for the comparison with the SEC Hypogea . . 63
2.3.3 The database of the burial caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.3.3.1 The layouts of the database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.3.3.2 The calculations of the units of measurement: long or short cubits? . . . . . . . 69
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
8 Contents
Chap. 3 Broad topographical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.1 Topographical and archaeological evolution of the Jerusalem area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.1.1 The Bronze Age (3500-1200 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.1.2 The Iron Age (1200-586 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.1.3 The Babylonian and the Persian Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.1.4 The Hellenistic Period (332-37 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.1.5 The Roman and Byzantine Periods (37 BC-638 AD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.1.6 From the Early Islamic to the Ottoman Period (638-1917 AD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.2 The necropolises of Jerusalem from the Iron Age II to the Byzantine periods . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.1 The Iron Age – Neo-Babylonian necropolises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.2 The Hellenistic and Early Roman necropolises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.2.3 The Late Roman – Byzantine necropolises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.3 Use of the bench in burial caves in Jerusalem and its adjacent regions from the Iron Age II to the
Early Roman periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Chap. 4 Adjacent topographical and archaeological contexts of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.1 Area [102] 321 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.1.1 321a: A number of Byzantine Cist Tombs and four Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.1.2 321b: Five Byzantine Cist Tombs, a Monolith and a Burial Cave . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.1.3 321c: Fifteen Pit Tombs and a Vaulted Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1.4 321d: Schmidt Institut Hypogeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.1.5 321e: Tomb found in 1875 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.1.6 321f: Sultan Suleiman Street Tombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.1.7 321g: A Rock-hewn Burial Cave transformed into a Cistern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.2 Area [102] 322 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2.1 322a: Herodian Mausoleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2.2 322b: Byzantine – Early Islamic remains near the Bus Station, Nablus Road . . . . . . . 124
4.3 Area [102] 323 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.3.1 323a: Damascus Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.3.2 323b: Two cist tombs and a Cooking-Pot burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.4 Area [102] 324 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.4.1 324a: Garden Tomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.4.2 324b: Roman Agricultural Installation and Caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.4.3 324c: El Heidhemiyeh Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.4.4 324d: Northern Moat of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.4.5 324e: Jeremiah’s Grotto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.4.6 324f: Zedekiah’s Cave / Solomon’s Quarries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.5 Area [102] 325 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Contents 9
4.5.1 325a: SEC Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.5.2 325b: SEC Hypogeum 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.5.3 325c: Saint Stephen Basilica, Byzantine tombs, cisterns, mediaeval church, the ‘Asnerie’
and other remains under Nablous Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.5.4 325d: Late Bronze Age Egyptian Sanctuary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.5.5 325e: Roman Vault, Roman Inscriptions, Mosaic Floor and Byzantine Tomb near Sa’ad
and Sa’id Mosque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.6 Area [102] 326 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.6.1 326a: Rock-hewn Tomb 1, Tomb 1a and a Cave in the White Sisters’ Monastery Garden 152
4.7 Area [102] 330 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.7.1 330a: The Sukenik/Mayer Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.7.2 330b: Four (?) Byzantine Monastic Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.8 Areas [102] 336, [102] 337 and [102] 338 in the Archaeological Survey of Israel . . . . . . . . . 167
4.8.1 336: White Mosaic Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.8.2 337a: “Birds” Mosaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.8.3 337b: “Orpheus” Mosaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.8.4 338: Leger’s Pool (Lacus Legerii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Chap. 5 The SEC Hypogea: geological, architectural and archaeological characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5.1 Geological characteristics of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5.1.1 General description of the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5.1.2 Geological aspects of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.1.3 Hewing of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
5.2 Architectural features and material culture of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
5.2.1 Architectural features of Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
5.2.2 Architectural features of Hypogeum 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.3 The material culture discovered in Hypogeum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
5.3.1 The Metal Box found in the Main Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
5.3.2 Two fragments of lead coffin found in Chamber 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5.3.3 A Late Roman coin found in the Main Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
5.4.1 The geological features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
5.4.2 The architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
5.4.3 The material culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
5.4.4 General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
10 Contents
Chap. 6 The SEC Hypogea in context: comparative analysis of the architectural feature . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.1 The tombs selected for the comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.2 The comparison of the architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6.2.1 Dimensions, proportions and units of measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6.2.2 Access to the burial complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.2.3 Benches and parapets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
6.2.4 Headrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.2.5 Right-angled cornices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.2.6 Rock-cut “sarcophagi” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.2.7 Openings in the ceilings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.2.8 Parietal decorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.3 Summary and concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Chap. 7 The social setting of Jerusalem at the Early Hellenistic period and the dating of the SEC Hypogea . . 287
7.1 Jerusalem and its necropolises in the Early Hellenistic period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
7.2 The dating of the SEC Hypogea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
7.3 Who was buried in the SEC Hypogea ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
7.4 Future researches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Introduction
Acknowledgments Jerusalem, for her help in the research in the archives
and the storerooms of the museum; to Rina Avner and
Roie Greenwald for generously sharing their in- forma-
The present dissertation was the occasion for exchange tion on the excavations in Nablus Road in 2013-2014; to
with a great number of people, and I do apologise if I won’t Eli Shukrun for the drawings of and information about
be able to remember all. My thanks and my gratitude to his excavations between Nablus Road and Route one, in
Prof. Max Küchler for having encouraged me to write Jerusalem; to Jacqueline Dentzer-Feydymore for her valu-
this dissertation and for having guided me with wise and able expertise on the Hellenistico-Roman decorations
valuable advice to its achievement; to the sadly missed in the tombs; to br. Jean-Michel de Tarragon op and br.
br. Jerry Murphy O’Connor op, who was an enthusiastic Jean-Baptiste Humbert op for the first photographic ses-
reader of the first chapters of this dissertation; to the for- sion of the hypogea; to the archaeologists of reference
mer director and the present vice-director of the École for the Hypogea, Elisabeth Bloch-Smith, Amos Kloner,
biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem (EBAF), and Gabriel Barkay, for sharing with me their expertise
br. Hervé Ponsot op and br. Olivier-Thomas Venard op, on several subjects related to the Iron Age II tombs; to
for the warm support to my work; to Ruth Anne Hender- the brethren of the Dominican Priory of Saint-Hyacinth,
son op for the patience, the speed and the accuracy with in Fribourg, Switzerland, where I was always cordially
which she spotted the smallest mistake in this disserta- welcomed during several study sessions; to Bernadette
tion and watched over the Britishness of my English (if Schwarzen Küchler for the warm hospitality she granted
there is any mistake left, it is definitely my responsibil- to me every time I meet Prof. Küchler at their home. For
ity); to Jean-Sylvain Caillou, Rosemary Le Bohec, Maura the financing of the activities linked to this dissertation
Sala, and François Larché, expert archaeologists, whose I thank the EBAF, the Dominican Priory of Saint Albert
advice helped me to better assess and organise my work; the Great, in Fribourg, the Dominican Roman Province
to Emmanuel Moisan who, during his period under my of Saint Catherine of Siena, and the Department of Bibli-
direction at the EBAF in 2012-2013, realised the 3D mod- cal Study of the Faculty of Theology of the University of
els of a number of tombs that we surveyed together; to Fribourg, Switzerland.
Gérard Massonat, for the geological survey of the tombs
that he kindly carried out for the completeness of this
dissertation; to Mohammad Abo Zainah who assiduously List of abbreviations
and valuably assisted me in a number of surveys of tombs
and in several archaeological sites in the region; to Abed AJR Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Israel Explo-
Farraj for assisting me in the survey of the southern and ration Society, 1994
eastern necropolises of Jerusalem; to Lionel Mochamps
and Michele Bommezzadri for the reconstructions of AB Analecta Bollandiana
the access to Hypogeum 1; to sr. Sabina Rojek f.m.m., of AWE Ancient West & East
the White Sisters’ Monastery of Jerusalem, for giving me ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
the possibility to carry out the surveys on their burial Jordan
cave; to Bernd Mussinghoff, director of the Jerusalem
AntOr Antiguo Oriente
office of the Deutscher Verein vom heiligem Lande, for
granting me the access to the Schmidt Institut under- AOF Altorientalische Forschungen
grounds to survey the Hypogeum, and to a cistern under AnatSt Anatolian Studies
the Paulushaus; to Yuval Baruch, chief archaeologist of BA Biblical Archaeologist
the IAA for the Jerusalem area, who was always ready to
provide me with the information I may have needed on BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological So-
the excavations in Jerusalem and for the survey of Hy- ciety
pogeum 1 carried out with the metal detector in July 2013; BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
to Alegre Savariego curator of the Rockefeller Museum, Research
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
12 Introduction
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Presentation of the study
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift grave:
thou hast kept me alive,
CIIP Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae-Palaestinae that I should not go to the pit.
CollLat Collection Latomus (Psalm 30:3 KJV)
EtrStud Etruscan Studies, Journal of the Etruscan
Foundation
“Mother-city” of many,¹ Jerusalem, with its long history
HA Hadashot Arkheologiyot and unique place in the imagination of the people, is a
HA-ESI Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Sur- crucial and complex object for the biblical studies, in
veys in Israel which the archaeology, together with the epigraphy, the
HThR Harvard Theological Review ancient languages and the geography, plays a major role.²
In an ancient city like Jerusalem, where the numerous
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal series of constructions, destructions and reconstructions
IHC Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum often obliterated most of the remains of the buildings of
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual previous periods³, the tombs, especially the burial caves,
which are better preserved from the disruptions of the his-
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
torical vicissitudes, may disclose information otherwise
JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen In- inaccessible.⁴
stituts In 1885, a large hypogeum⁵ was discovered at the Saint-
JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Étienne Compound,⁶ the domain acquired only two and
JESHO Journal of the Economics and Social History a half years before by the Dominicans on the western
of the Orient slope of El Heidhemiyeh hill, about 250 m north of the
JFA Journal of Field Archaeology 1. “Erst wenn die Kinder dieser Stadt, die Juden, die Christen
und die Muslims, den Reichtum ihrer Traditionen teilen und
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology sich mit ihrem gemeinsamen kanaanäisch-israelitischen Erbe
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament versöhnen, kann Jerusalem eine reife Metropolis, eine »Mutter-
stadt« sein, deren Faszination auch Charme hat, deren Verehrer
JSP Judea and Samaria Publications (Series) auch Liebhaber sind und deren Vergangenheit nicht ohne
Zukunft ist”, M. Küchler, Jerusalem. Ein Handbuch und Stu-
MNDPV Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen dienreiseführer zur Heiligen Stadt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Palaestina-vereins Ruprecht, 2007), vii.
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology 2. “[Le Père Lagrange] avait pour projet d’éclairer l’étude de la
Bible par une connaissance scientifique du milieu humain où
NEAEHL New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava- elle a été vécue, parlée, écrite. S’il y a une histoire du salut,
tions Holy Land il y a aussi une géographie du salut. La Bible a en Palestine
un “Sitz im Leben” qui éclaire singulièrement son message.
PEFQ Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly State- Dieu a parlé aux hommes d’un certain pays, avec les langues
ment (1869-1936) de leur temps, selon la culture de leur temps. Il s’agissait donc
d’étudier la géographie de la Terre sainte, l’histoire ancienne
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly du Proche-Orient, les langues orientales, l’archéologie, l’épigra-
PJB Palästinajahrbuch phie”, P. Benoit, “Activités archéologiques de L’École biblique
et archéologique française de Jérusalem depuis 1890”, (unpub-
RB Revue Biblique lished).
3. For example the energetic building program of Herod the Great,
RDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities which wiped out most of the remains of the Hellenistic period
Cyprus (cf. O. Lipschits, “Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts
and Interpretations”, JHS 9 (2009) 2-30, on p. 5).
QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of
4. “The importance ascribed to the handling of the dead in
Palestine Jerusalem and the care taken to bury them in caves are an
SAHL Studies in the Archaeology and History of the advantage for archaeological research. Most of the graves had
been covered overs and disappeared over the centuries; only the
Levant extensive development activities which took place in Jerusalem
StEtr Studi Etruschi in the last century uncovered them - mostly accidentally - and
made it possible for us to study them”, A. Kloner/B. Zissu, The
TA Tel Aviv Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Leuven:
Peeters, 2007).
ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum
5. Hereafter “Hypogeum 1”, abbreviated in “H1”.
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 6. Hereafter abbreviated in “SEC”.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Presentation of the study 13
Jerusalem Ottoman wall.⁷ Among the researchers who a research on the hypogea. The first results of his research
reconnoitred Jerusalem from the second half of C19 in challenged Kloner’s hypothesis, and were presented at the
search of archaeological vestiges connected to the bibli- international conference held at the EBAF in November
cal history, this discovery aroused enthusiastic interest, 2010,¹⁹ followed by the publication of an article on the
which resulted in the first descriptions and drawings of Scholar’s Study Section of the Biblical Archaeology Review
H1.⁸ After the unearthing of a second large hypogeum⁹ in 2011.²⁰ Since then, the present writer carried out
at only fifty metres north of H1, in their monumental several surveys of the SEC Hypogea, achieved in 2014.
work on the history of Jerusalem, the two eminent Do- The academic community largely integrated the SEC
minican scholars Louis-Hugues Vincent and Felix-Marie Hypogea into the Iron Age II C period, even though, as
Abel proposed to date the two burial complexes of the for most of the burial caves in the region, their dating is
SEC to the Hellenistic or Roman period.¹⁰ based essentially on the presence of burial benches, and
This dating remained unchallenged until the survey of they “are not regular burial caves as found at the end of
1974-75, carried out by the reputed Israeli archaeologists the Iron Age”.²¹
Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner.¹¹ Since the first publi- If it is attested that in the Judean region this form of
cations of the results of their studies,¹² the two hypogea burial became the standard pattern during the Iron Age
are often cited in the academic literature as the largest II period,²² this constitutes only the terminus post quem
magnificent burial caves in the region dating to the end for the hewing of the SEC Hypogea.
of the Judahite kingdom.¹³ In the sustained debate on the The sustained archaeological activity in Jerusalem and
archaeology and the history of the Iron Age period in the region during the forty years that have passed since
the region,¹⁴ no serious catalogue, typology or chronol- the survey of Barkay and Kloner brings valuable new
ogy of tombs can ignore these two burial complexes of evidence for the study of the SEC Hypogea and the history
Jerusalem.¹⁵ of Jerusalem in general.
Developing an embryonic hypothesis which circulated In the frame of the improved knowledge of the broad
in the archaeological milieu in Jerusalem,¹⁶ in an article and adjacent archaeological contexts, the new surveys of
published in 1986 Amos Kloner ventured to guess who the SEC Hypogea, coupled with the systematic study of
was buried in these lavish burial complexes: the Judahite the comparison with other burial caves, provide new and
king Manasseh and his successors.¹⁷ better-founded results for the dating of these and other
Teaching the Topography of Jerusalem and the similar burial caves in the region.
Southern Levant since 2008 at the École biblique et The outcome of the present writer’s study and the pro-
archéologique française de Jérusalem,¹⁸ located in the posal of a dating of the SEC Hypogea constitute the object
SEC, the present writer was naturally solicited to engage in of this dissertation, organised in a text volume (Volume
1) and an illustrations volume (Volume 2) as follows:²³
7. Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Etienne et son Sanctuaire à Jérusalem The history of the research on the SEC Hypogea since
(Paris: Gabalda, 1894), 106. the discovery of H1 in 1885 is presented in Chapter 1; the
8. For the list of the publications concerning the discovery of H1
see § 1.2.1.
first descriptions and drawings of the tombs provide valu-
9. From now “Hypogeum 2”, abbreviated in “H2”. able information on the state of the two SEC Hypogea at
10. Cf. L.-H. Vincent/F.-M., Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle. Recherches de their discovery (§ 1.2), while the recent studies on H1 and
topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, vol. ii, iv (Paris: Gabalda, H2 (§ 1.3), since the survey of Gabriel Barkay and Amos
1926), 784, 786 Kloner, proposed the dating to the Iron Age II C period,
11. Cf. G. Barkay, “The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?”,
BAR 12 (1986) 40-57, on p. 50. and confirmed the reutilisation of the two burial caves
12. Cf. Cf. G. Barkay/A. Mazar/A. Kloner, “The Northern Ceme-
tery of Jerusalem in First Temple Times” Qadmoniot 8 (1975), 19. Cf. R. Lufrani, “A quelques pas du tombeau des rois de Judée?
(Hebrew), 71-6, and cf. G. Barkay/A. Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs Une surinterprétation sous examen”, communication at the inter-
from the Days of the First Temple”, BAR 12 (1986), 22-39. national conference “Monuments et Documents: interprétation
13. Cf. Barkay/Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs”, 22 et surinterpreétation”, organised by EBAF and CFRJ, Jerusalem,
14. For an updated bibliography on the debate on the chronol- 17th November 2010.
ogy of the Iron Age in the Levant see M.B. Toffolo, “Absolute 20. Cf. R. Lufrani, “Have the Tombs of the Kings of Judah
Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Been Found?: A Response. An Answer to Hershel Shanks’s
Ages: High-resolution Radiocarbon Dating”, Radiocarbon 56 Question”, BAR online Scholar’s Study section, available from
(2014), 221-44. 21.09.2011, retrieved form http://www.biblicalarchaeology.
15. The long list of publications which include the SEC Hypogea org / daily / biblical-sites-places / biblical-archaeology-sites /
in catalogues, typologies and/or chronologies is presented in an-answer-to-hershel-shankss-question/
note 373 of Chapter 3. 21. Kloner, “The Third Wall”, 129.
16. Cf. L.Y. Rahmani, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and 22. Cf. J.F. Osborne, “Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench
Tombs: Part Two”, BA 44 (1981) 229-235, on p. 233. Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah”, JNES 70
17. Cf. A. Kloner, “The ’Third Wall’ in Jerusalem and the ’Cave of (2011) 35-53, on p. 35.
the Kings’ (Josephus War V 147)”, Levant 18 (1986), 121-9. 23. The “illustrations” volume presents the plans, sections, maps,
18. Hereafter abbreviated in “EBAF”. tables and photos to which reference is made in the text volume.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
14 Introduction
during the Byzantine times, as the anthropological study framework (§ 3.2). If the evolution and reutilisation of
of Susan Guise Sheridan demonstrates. The summary the necropolises of Jerusalem can be easily drawn from
presented in § 1.4 concludes the Chapter. the Iron Age II period until the Byzantine period, a major
The methodology used in this dissertation is described blind spot is observed for the Early Hellenistic period,
in Chapter 2. Referring to the updated literature on the characterised by the absolute lack of remains, either of
history and archaeology of Jerusalem and the Archaeo- tombs, or of material culture, even in the burial caves
logical Survey of Israel,²⁴ the Jerusalem area, its outskirts, dated to the Iron Age II period and reused in the Neo-
and the adjacent context of the SEC Hypogea are defined, Babylonian, Persian and Late Hellenistic periods, where
and the methodology introduced of the surveys of sev- no findings dated to the Early Hellenistic period were
eral sites carried out by the present writer in Jerusalem retrieved (§ 3.2.1 and § 3.2.2).
(§ 2.1), of the geological survey of H1 and H2 realised Moreover, this analysis points out the surprisingly large
by the geologist Gérard Massonat in 2011, and of the distance from the northern line of the city wall of the
measurements and the photogrammetric survey of the northern necropolis dated by the mainstream scholars
SEC Hypogea carried out by the present writer and the to the Iron Age II (600 m), and of the Late Hellenistic
topographer-engineer Emanuel Moisan in 2012-2013 northern necropolises (1000 m).
(§ 2.2). The methodology of the comparison of the archi- Finally, the analysis of the evolution of the use of the
tectural features of the SEC Hypogea (§ 2.3) is introduced burial bench in the region shows that tombs with this
by the definition of the criteria for the selection of the architectural feature, typical of the Iron Age II burial
tombs to compare (§ 2.3.1), followed by the population of practice in the Judea region, continued to be hewn in the
tombs considered for the selection, for the regions stretch- Jerusalem area at least until as late as the Early Roman
ing form the Levant to the Central Mediterranean, and period (§ 3.3).
the period comprised between the Iron Age II and the The investigation of the context of the SEC Hypogea
Byzantine period, and the list of the twenty-two burial moves its focus then from the broad to the adjacent topo-
caves selected according the chosen criteria (§ 2.3.2). The graphical and archaeological context, which is the object
successive Section (§ 2.3.3) presents the methodology of Chapter 4. Delimited according to the topographical
used to constitute the database of the twenty-four tombs and archaeological criteria,²⁵ and organised in ten ar-
compared (the two SEC Hypogea plus the twenty-two eas,²⁶ the zone of about 20 ha around the SEC Hypogea is
tombs selected), of the calculations of the comparison, thoroughly analysed, and its archaeological remains, still
and of the estimations of the units of measurements (long visible or definitively lost, are presented. This Chapter
or short cubits) used in the hewing of the tombs. also reports the results of new research carried out under
The object of Chapter 3 is the study of the broad topo- the direction of the present writer: three surveys respec-
graphical and archaeological framework of the Jerusalem tively at the Schmidt Institut, the Garden Tomb and the
area, which constitutes the first step of the necessary con- White Sisters’s Monastery, completed by the excavations
textualisation of the SEC Hypogea. The evolution of the at the SEC in 2013.²⁷ Finally, the unpublished prelimi-
urban area of Jerusalem is analysed, with particular atten- nary reports of two large excavations directed by Rina
tion to the layout of the city and the size of its population, Avner and Roie Greenwald in 2013-2014 in the area of
from the Bronze Age period to the end of the Ottoman Nablus Road are also presented, completing the detailed
rule (§ 3.1). For the Early Hellenistic period (C4-2 BC), and up-to-date picture of the remains in the area.²⁸
this analysis spots a major incongruence between the These analyses allow us to draw a precise outline of
extent of the scant archaeological remains of building, the evolution of the area where the SEC Hypogea were
and the large number of stamped handles of Rhodian carved: if an Iron Age II necropolis was hewn in this
jars found in the south-eastern hill, consistent with the area, no other tomb was realised and no building activ-
literary sources which portray Jerusalem as ruled by a ity was carried out until the Byzantine period, with the
High Priest and an affluent gerousia, well integrated in exception of the Early Roman construction with opus reti-
the international landscape; furthermore, at the dawn of colatum in area [102] 322,²⁹ since the planned northern
the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty, the city wall encom- suburb encompassed by the unfinished Third Wall was
passed the same size as that of the city of the Iron Age II never realised;³⁰ similarly, no remains of a road, paved or
C period, implying that there was a large city to protect
with fortifications (§ 3.1.4). 25. Cf. § 2.1.
The study of the necropolises of Jerusalem from the 26. Numbered according to the ASI: [102] 321, [102] 322, [102]
Iron Age II period to the Byzantine period completes the 323, [102] 324, [102] 325, [102] 326, [102] 330, [102] 336, [102]
337, and [102] 338, presented in § 4.1 to § 4.8.
analysis of the broad topographical and archaeological
27. Presented respectively in § 4.1.4, § 4.4.1, § 4.6.1 and § 4.5.3.
28. Cf. § 4.5.5.
24. Cf. http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx. 29. Cf. § 4.2.1.
Hereafter abbreviated “ASI”. 30. Cf. § 4.9.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Presentation of the study 15
not, was found during the excavations of 2013 in Nablus in § 5.3. The summary of the chapter is presented in § 5.4.
Road, implying either that the urban layout of Ælia Capi- The comparison of the architectural features of the SEC
tolina proposed by Magness 2000³¹ and supported by Hypogea and of twenty-two other selected burial caves,
Avni 2005³² was never completed, or that the cardo was listed and synthetically presented in § 6.1, is the object of
placed in a different location. Chapter 6. While the dimensions, proportions and the
Finally, according to the mainstream dating of the units of measurement of the twenty-four tombs compared
burial caves in Jerusalem, from the Iron Age II period show no indications for the dating, as presented in § 6.2.1,
until the Late Roman period, i.e. during seven centuries, the study of the accesses to the burial caves, as pointed
from C6 BC to C3 AD, no burials were realised in the area out above, indicates a dating to a period subsequent to
north of the Damascus Gate. The Chapter is completed the Iron Age II (§ 6.2.2), while the others architectural
with the summary presented in § 3.4. features, namely the benches and parapets (§ 6.2.3), the
The detailed description of the SEC Hypogea is re- headrests (§ 6.2.4), the right-angled cornices (§ 6.2.5), the
ported in Chapter 5. After the general description of the rock-cut “sarcophagi” (§ 6.2.6), and the openings in the
geological material in § 5.1.1, the results of the geological ceilings (§ 6.2.7) specify at most the terminus post quem
survey of the SEC Hypogea are presented in § 5.1.2. The starting from the Iron Age II period. Together with the
survey shows that H1 and H2 were carved in the meleke presence of a vestibule, the only other feature which can
limestone of the exposed Turonian layer of the eastern provide an indication for the dating of the SEC Hypogea is
Jerusalem area, following the main orientations of the the pattern of the parietal decorations in the Main Cham-
local fracturing, and exploiting some of the features of ber of H1. In fact, the “zone system” of the parietal decora-
the rock to delineate several architectural elements, such tions of the Hellenistic tombs in Alexandria, recognised
as lintels, doorjambs, and corners of the burial chambers. by Adriani,³⁴ may be applied to the decorations of the
The analysis of the hewing of these burial caves, presented Main Chamber of H1, shifting the accepted dating of the
in § 5.1.3, highlights the use of the iron pick, followed by SEC Hypogea to two or three centuries earlier, namely
the smoothing of practically all the surfaces of the tombs, to C3-2 BC (§ 6.2.8). The Chapter is completed by the
and the sequence of the operations of carving, which im- summary in § 6.3.
plies a complex and difficoult technique, starting form Chapter 7 concludes the dissertation with the outline
the bottom and hewing upward. of the social setting of Jerusalem in the Early Hellenistic
Thanks to the continued presence at the site during period, based on the textual and archaeological evidence
the surveys carried out from 2011 to 2013, and to the in § 7.1, showing how an affluent and internationally
3D models of the tombs, which provide full informa- engaged Jerusalemite elite ruled a repopulated Jerusalem,
tion on the burial caves and make it possible to reach which continued to develop during a long period of peace
parts which are impossible or disruptive to access, while and integration in the commercial and political net of the
producing virtual views which disclose information oth- Hellenistic word,³⁵ until the Maccabean Revolt, which
erwise impossible to attain, the very detailed descriptions sparked in 167 BC.³⁶
of H1 and H2 was drawn, and are presented in § 5.2.1 and As suggested for their “oikos” plan, typical of the Hel-
§ 5.2.2. The thorough study of the architectural features lenistic hypogea,³⁷ and for the parietal decorations found
of the SEC Hypogea, coupled with the information de-
duced from the first descriptions and drawings analysed 34. Cf. A. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, Alexandrie,
in Chapter 1, provides a number of important results, the Annuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain (1933-34 - 1934-35) (Alexan-
most important for the dating of the tombs being the pos- dria: Whitehead Morris Limited, 1936), 113.
35. The Judahites “enjoyed a long peaceful period through much
sible reconstruction of a vestibule in H1, and possibly also of the third and the beginning of the second century. There
in H2, since no vestibules are attested in the burial caves may have been some military campaigns in Palestine even after
of the Iron Age II period.³³ As for the material culture the treaty resulting from Ipsus in 301 BCE. But the area seems
retrieved in H1, the Metal Box which disappeared in 1885 to have been free from major conflict for many decades until
the time of the Fourth Syrian War, around 220 BCE. A further
soon after its discovery, together with the two fragments interruption came a couple of decades later with the Seleucid
of lead coffin and a bronze coin found during the survey of conquest of Syro-Palestine in 200 BCE. Jerusalem was definitely
July 2013, confirm the reutilisation of this hypogeum dur- affected by fighting at this time. But then things calmed once
ing the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, as reported more for a quarter of a century”, L.L. Grabbe, A History of the
Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. The Coming of
the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE), Volume
31. Cf. J. Magness, “The North Wall of Aelia Capitolina”, in L.E. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008), 335.
Stager/J.A. Greene/M. D. Coogan (ed.), The Archaeology of 36. Cf. L.I. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City in the Second
Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, SAHL1 Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 328-39. Publication Society, 2002), 78-82.
32. Cf. G. Avni, “The urban limits of Roman and Byzantine 37. Cf. R. Pagenstecher, Nekropolis. Untersuchungen über Gestalt
Jerusalem: a view from the necropoleis”, JAR 18 (2005), 373-96. und Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer
33. Cf. § 6.2.2. Malereien (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devirent, 1919), 97-167.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
16 Introduction
in H1, similarly attributable to the Hellenistic period,³⁸ tacts with the fashionable capital of the Ptolemaic empire,
the SEC Hypogea may be dated to the Early Hellenistic Alexandria, from where they may have borrowed the style
period with a certain degree of assuredness, as demon- of the decorations of their houses and their tombs: indeed
strated in § 7.2. the Tobiads correspond to this portrait, as hypothesised
This dating of H1 and H2 and other similar burial com- in § 7.3.
plexes of the Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem, i.e. the Finally, the review of the possible future research on
Schmidt Institut Hypogeum, Tombs 1 and 2 at the White the SEC Hypogea completes this study, listing the scien-
Sisters’ Monastery, and Cave 2 at Sultan Suleiman Street, tific excavations and surveys which can be carried out in
elucidates the puzzling absence in Jerusalem of any re- the SEC, while encouraging the development of a more
mains of burials - tombs or material culture - dating to the systematic methodology, merely sketched in this disser-
Early Hellenistic period, and at the same time it explains tation, which combines the social setting with the archae-
why this area was not used for burials during the Late Hel- ological evidence, as proposed in § 7.4.
lenistic period, when the loculi practice was introduced, The dating of the SEC Hypogea and of other similar
since the family owners of the tombs may have used their tombs in the region to the Early Hellenistic period, in
hypogea in later periods too, while the carving of loculi matching the social setting of Jerusalem outlined by the
in these burial caves was not always possible because of literary sources and by the material culture retrieved in
their plans.³⁹ the south-eastern hill, brings new elements both for the
The “Blickkontakt” hypothesis proposed by Bieberstein understanding of the evolution of Jerusalem in that pe-
suggests that the sacerdotal families would have preferred riod and for the dating of the bench-type burial caves in
to be buried in tombs with a “sight-contact” with the Tem- the region, which by this time demands a general recon-
ple Mount, while, for the aristocratic families, a location sideration.
along a major route to Jerusalem, possibly in their agri- Furthermore, the renewal of the research on the influ-
cultural domain, would have better satisfied the display ences of Ptolemaic Egypt on the biblical redaction may
of their prestige.⁴⁰ profit from the elements brought into the discussion by
This consideration leads to conjecture on who may the new dating.⁴¹
have been buried in the SEC Hypogea, and to the draw-
ing of the portrait of a family of the elite of Jerusalem
during the Early Hellenistic period, which had close con- 41. Cf. E. Nodet, “Editing the Bible: Alexandria or Babylon?”, in
T.L. Thompson/P. Wajdenbaum (ed.s), The Bible and Hellenism.
Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Du-
38. See above in the text. ram: Acumen, 2014), 36-55 and N.P. Lemche, “Is the Old Tes-
39. Cf. § 7.2. tament still a Hellenistic book?”, in I. Hjelm/T.L. Thompson,
40. Cf. K. Bieberstein, “Blickkontakt mit den Toten”, Archäologie in Biblical Interpretation beyond historicity. Changing perspective
Deutschland 2 (1997), 12-7. 7 (New York: Routledge, 2016), 61-75.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
Chapter 1
History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
A few months after the 6th or 7th of May 1885, date discovery of H1 in 1885 to the descriptions of both hy-
of the discovery of the “Great Hypogeum” of the Saint- pogea in 1926, period of transition to the “modern ar-
Etienne Compound,¹ the American clergyman, diplomat chaeology” (§ 1.2),⁹ and from the Barkay-Kloner survey
and archaeologist Selah Merrill² published its first de- in 1974-5¹⁰ to the anthropological study of Gergoricka
scription and plans.³ In the following years, other arti- and Sheridan,¹¹ which is the more recent publication on
cles on the newly discovered burial cave were published, the SEC Hypogea (§ 1.3), followed by the summary of
reporting valuable information on the state of the hy- Chapter 1 (§ 1.4) and the conclusion (§ 1.5).
pogeum, H1, at the time of the unearthing. A second
hypogeum, H2, similar in plan and size to H1, was dis-
covered in an unknown date, but anyway before 1926, 1.1 The SEC Hypogea and their adjacent
when, for the first time, Louis-Hughes Vincent and Felix- topographical and archaeological contexts:
Marie Abel described.⁴ Since then, no archaeological in-
vestigation of the SEC Hypogea was carried out, until the general presentation
study by Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner in 1974-1975,⁵
followed by the anthropological study of the human re- The two SEC Hypogea are hewn in the Turonian meleke
mains in the Repository 4 of H1, conducted by Susan limestone¹² in the western cliff of El Heidhemiyeh hill,
Guise Sheridan between 1995 and 1997.⁶ about 300 meters north of Damascus Gate, at the begin-
In this Chapter are presented the adjacent topograph- ning of the Jerusalem Central Valley (the Tyropoeon Val-
ical⁷ and archaeological contexts of the burial caves ley), along the main road linking Jerusalem to the north,
(§ 1.1),⁸ the presentation of the researches carried out nowadays called Nablus Road.¹³
on the SEC Hypogea, in chronological order, from the Since at least the Iron Age II C, the area comprised
between to the south the Ottoman northern section of
1. Cf. L. De Vaux, “Mémoire relatif aux fouilles entreprises par les the Jerusalem Wall, to the east the El Heidhemiyeh hill,
R.P. Dominicains dans leur domaine de Saint-Etienne, près de to the west the small hill on the western side of the Cen-
la porte de Damas à Jérusalem”, RA 12 (1888 B) 32-60, on p. 33.
tral Valley, and to the North the northern section of the
2. Cf. “Merril, Selah”, The New International Encyclopaedia, vol.
XIII 1911, 349. “Sukenik-Mayer Wall”¹⁴ has been exploited for quarry-
3. Merrill claims to have visited the tomb before the renovation
and construction had begun, immediately after the work of 9. The modern scientific approach in archaeology appeared be-
clearing was completed, on 1st July 1885. Cf. S. Merrill, “New tween the two World Wars, and this passage constitutes the
Discoveries in Jerusalem”, PEFQ 17 (1885) 222-229, on p. 227. criteria of the split into two sections, namely § 0.1.2 and § 0.1.3,
4. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 784-6. of the review of the literature on the SEC Hypogea. For a presen-
5. The authors give three different pieces of information about tation of the passage to modern archaeology, see W.H. Stiebing,
their survey in the SEC: their survey started in November 1974 Uncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford
(cf. G. Barkay/A. Kloner, “Burial Caves North of Damascus University Press, 1994), 250-1.
Gate, Jerusalem”, IEJ 26 (1976) 55-57, on p. 56; in 1973 they 10. Cf. note 5.
visited for the first time the SEC Hypogea (cf. G. Barkay, “How 11. L.A. Gregoricka/S.G. Sheridan, “Ascetic or affluent? Byzantine
We Happened to Re-Explore the Caves at St. Étienne”, BAR 12 diet at the monastic community of St. Stephen’s, Jerusalem
(1986) 29; the survey was carried out in 1974-1975 (cf. Barkay, from stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes”, J ANTHROPOL
“The Garden Tomb”, 50). ARCHAEOL 32 (2013) 63-73.
6. Cf. § 1.3.3 12. Cf. M. Avnimelech, “Influence of Geological Conditions on the
7. In this dissertation the term “topography” is used in its broader Development of Jerusalem”, BASOR 181 (1966) 24-31, on p. 27.
and traditional sense, namely the study of the details of a site, 13. Cf. L.-H. Vincent, Jérusalem antique, vol. i (Paris: Gabalda,
including its geomorphology, its natural and artificial features, 1912), 45.
as well as the history and the culture related to it. 14. The “Sukenik-Mayer Wall”, in the recent Israeli literature,
8. The detailed presentation of the topographical framework of is known as “The Third Wall”, from Flavius Josephus’ War
the burial caves is the object of Chapter 4. 5,147-159. Since there are two different interpretations of the
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113Riccardo Lufrani: The Saint-Etienne Compound Hypogea, Jerusalem
18 History of the research on the Saint-Étienne Compound Hypogea
ing activities, burials and orchards,¹⁵ the first residential activities grow in the area,²⁰ along with the discoveries of
constructions dating only to the middle of C5 AD, when archaeological remains.²¹
the Empress Eudoxia built an impressive Basilica and the The adjacent topographical and archaeological con-
annexed monastery complex on the supposed site of the texts of SEC Hypogea are schematically presented in fig-
stoning of Saint Stephen.¹⁶ ure 1²² where the sites are numbered according to the
After the Sassanid destructions of 614, a small church system of the Archaeological Survey of Israel, used in
and several constructions related to the hosting of pil- Kloner 2001.²³ Only part of the archaeological sites of the
grims were built on the site of the Eudocian Basilica area considered are located in the map.²⁴
and Monastery.¹⁷ This small church was destroyed by Hereafter the most relevant archaeological remains in
the Christians in 1187, fearing that Saladin could use it the area classed by major periods:
as a high point to attack the Walls of Jerusalem.¹⁸ The site
continued to be used for hosting the pilgrims, but pro- • Iron Age II²⁵
gressively the connection with the martyrdom of Saint (321): two Iron Age II burial caves in Sultan Suleiman
Stephen was lost and in C15 replaced with the eastern Street; monumental Iron Age II (?) burial
tradition, connected to the Greek Church in the Cedron complex under Schimdt School, Nablus Road;
Valley.¹⁹ Solomon’s Quarries;
Only in the second half of C19, with the new expansion
(324): Garden Tomb rock-hewn burial initially cut in
of Jerusalem towards the North and the easing by the
Iron Age II (?);
Sublime Porte of the property laws, did new construction
(325): SEC Hypogea Iron Age II (?)
remains of this Wall, namely the Flavius Josephus “Third Wall”
and a Wall built by the insurgents of the First Jewish Revolt (326): White Sisters’ rock-hewn tomb Iron Age II (?);
before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, we prefer to use the • Roman²⁶
neutral denomination “Sukenik-Mayer Wall”, from the names
of the first archaeologists that excavated the remains between (321): Late Roman cist tombs on the slope on Sultan
1925-1927 and in 1940 (cf. S. Ben-Arieh/E. Netzer, “Excava- Suleiman Street; Solomon’s Quarries;
tions along the ’Third Wall’ of Jerusalem, 1972-1974”, IEJ 24
(1974) 97-107, on p. 97). For a detailed status quaestionis on (322): Herodian mausoleum, with opus reticulatum,
the matter, refer to Küchler, Jerusalem, 978-83. between Nablus Road and Ha-Nevi’im Street;
15. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 944.
16. For the location of the Eudocian Basilica, see Vincent/Abel, (323): fortifications of Damascus Gate;
Jérusalem nouvelle 743-765. Murphy-O’Connor 2005 suggests (330): Sukenik/Mayer wall on Naomi Kiss Street;
that probably the traditional location of the stoning of Saint
Stephen was dictated more by the topography – a large and flat • Byzantine²⁷
surface suitable for the construction of a great Basilica – than
by the supposed oral tradition on the stoning (cf. J. Murphy- (321): Byzantine cists tombs on the slope on Sultan
O’Connor, “Le cult d’Étienne à Jérusalem: l’église Saint-Étienne Suleiman Street; 100 North-East of Damascus
de l’École Biblique”, Biblia 38 (2005) 27. Küchler 2007 does Gate five Byzantine cists tombs; Solomon’s Quar-
not agree with Lagrange and Vincent/Abel 1926 on which tra-
dition on the site of the stoning of Saint Stephen is the most ries;
ancient, claiming that the eastern one is the oldest (cf. Küch- (323): Damascus Gate fortifications;
ler, Jerusalem, 971), but still he considers the Saint-Etienne
compound the site of the Eudocian Basilica (cf. ibid. 970). (324): Garden Tomb reused in Byzantine times;
17. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 973-4. Lagrange notes that accounts of
the Sassanid destruction neither mentions on the ruins of Saint 20. Cf. D. Rochelle, “Ottoman Jerusalem: The Growth of the City
Stephen Basilica have been found in the literary sources (cf. outside the Walls”, in S. Tamari (ed.), Jerusalem 1948: The Arab
Lagrange, Saint Etienne, 81-3). The Sassanid destruction was Neighbourhoods and Their Fate in the War (Jerusalem: The In-
not as systematic as currently assumed and it is possible that stitute of Jerusalem Studies/Bethlehem: Badil Resource Center,
some of the building of the Saint Stephen’s complex survived 2002), 11-3, 18.
to the 614 AD conquest (cf. G. Avni, “The Persian conquest of 21. Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 953-78.
Jerusalem (614 C.E.): an archaeological assessment”, BASOR 22. For the criteria of the delimitation of the zone as the adjacent
357 (2010) 35-48; in this sense, it is interesting to note that the framework of SEC Hypogea see § 2.1, while for the detailed list
neighbouring monastery, excavated in 1990-1992, continued of the archaeological remains of the zone refer to Chapter 4.
to be in use until C9 AD, cf. V. Tzaferis/ N. Feig/A. Onn/E. 23. The number between brackets are the survey numbers of the site
Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall, North of the Jerusalem map [102] of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (cf. A. Kloner,
Old City”, in AJR 1994, 290). The site is mentioned for the burial Survey of Jerusalem. The North-eastern Sector (Jerusalem: Israel
of the ten martyrs beheaded by the Arabs in 638 and buried Antiquities Authoritiy Publications, 2001), 102*-10*).
in the new oratory built for the occasion by the Jerusalem’s 24. The sites are differentiated according their historical periods
Patriarch, the burial of saint Tarachus, Probus and Andonic, and identified by different colours of the spots, while the kind
and the presence in 808 in the modest oratory of two presbyters of remains (tombs, fortificatons, etc...) are marked with abbre-
and 15 lepers (cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, viations explained in the legenda annexed to figure 1.
753-6, 763-4). 25. Blue dots in figure 1.
18. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 757. 26. Red dots; Early Roman brown dots in figure 1.
19. Cf. Vincent/Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle, vol. ii, iv, 759-60. 27. Orange dots in figure 1.
© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525573112 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647573113You can also read
