• Fig. 2 - Map of Iron Age Jerusalem
  Fig. 2
  
  Map of Jerusalem showing the possible location of the supposed mound on the Temple Mount, the City of David and the line of the Iron IIB-C city-wall.
  
  Finkelstein et. al. (2011)
  from Finkelstein et. al. (2011)
• Map of Jerusalem at the
  Map of Jerusalem at the end of the First Temple period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  end of the First Temple period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem at the
  Map of Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  end of the Second Temple period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Roman period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Roman period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Byzantine period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Early Arab period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Early Arab period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Crusader period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Crusader period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

• Fig. 2 - Map of Iron Age
  Fig. 2
  
  Map of Jerusalem showing the possible location of the supposed mound on the Temple Mount, the City of David and the line of the Iron IIB-C city-wall.
  
  Finkelstein et. al. (2011)
  Jerusalem from Finkelstein et. al. (2011)
• Map of Jerusalem at the
  Map of Jerusalem at the end of the First Temple period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  end of the First Temple period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem at the
  Map of Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  end of the Second Temple period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Roman period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Roman period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Byzantine period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Early Arab period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Early Arab period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
• Map of Jerusalem in the
  Map of Jerusalem in the Crusader period
  
  Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  Crusader period from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

• General plan of the peristyle
  Fig. 1
  
  General plan of the peristyle building
  1980-89
  
  Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets (2013)
  building from Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets (2013)

• General plan of the peristyle
  Fig. 1
  
  General plan of the peristyle building
  1980-89
  
  Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets (2013)
  building from Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets (2013)

• 3D reconstruction of Jerusalem
  Jerusalem Museum model of Herod’s Jerusalem – south side – area of excavations is marked in yellow
  
  Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
  with Givati site circled in yellow from BibleWalks.com

• 3D reconstruction of Jerusalem
  Jerusalem Museum model of Herod’s Jerusalem – south side – area of excavations is marked in yellow
  
  Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
  with Givati site circled in yellow from BibleWalks.com

• from Cytryn-Silverman (2013)

Cytryn-Silverman (2013:167) described the unglazed and glazed wares retrieved in the latest strata of occupation in Area M1 (Strata IV–I), associated with the Early Islamic period. Cytryn-Silverman (2013:167) noted that the absence of relevant numismatic evidence does not allow for refined chronological nuances between the strata (apart from one coin of Heraclius, all the datable coins recovered from the loci presented here date to the late Hellenistic–Early Roman periods; see Chapter 11). Cytryn-Silverman (2013:180) discussed the potential significance of the site

The study of the Islamic pottery from Area M1 is potentially of considerable importance for the understanding of urban development in this part of Jerusalem under Islamic rule. The Giv‘ati Parking Lot site is located very close to the monumental complex of Umayyad buildings adjacent to the Temple Mount, and more specifically, almost immediately to the south of Building II, interpreted as the dār al-imāra (‘the government house’; for a summary of the finds from the Temple Mount excavations by B. Mazar and M. BenDov, see Ben-Dov 1982:293–321; Bahat 1996:70–73; Rosen-Ayalon 1996:393–395). It is also located within the perimeter of the fifth-century walls of Eudocia (Mazar 2007), but outside the alleged contracted course of the city walls (from at least the Fatimid period onward); thus, the pottery analysis is potentially informative for the process of the contraction of the city boundaries.

Due to the limited exposure of Early Islamic remains in Area M1 in the 2007 excavation season (most of the remains of Strata IV–I were excavated and removed during the 2003 season; see Chapter 1), few secure loci associated with this period were excavated. Therefore, a cautious approach is demanded when analyzing the ceramic finds. While the meager results from Area M1 do not shed any light on a relationship with the nearby Umayyad building complex, they may, however, assist in determining the chronology of the contraction of the city’s southern perimeter. The pottery provides a mid-ninth-century date as the terminus post quem for the erection of the building in Strata IV and III (see Fill 672 under Floor 664 for the earliest date for Stratum IV, and fills within Installation 646 and on Floor 667 for the earliest date for Stratum III), while the end of the ninth–early tenth centuries is the latest date for Stratum III. Stratum II should be dated to the early tenth century. The many pits in Stratum I filled with similar pottery assemblages indicate a general abandonment of the area during the tenth century. Could this abandonment have resulted from the area’s exclusion from the fortified city boundaries? Most of the historical discussions dealing with the contraction of the southern city wall have centered mainly on the description of the gates of Jerusalem written by al-Muqaddasī in 985 (Ahsan al-Taqasīm, 167; Best Divisions, 152–153).³⁸ While Bahat proposed that the Jerusalemite geographer referred to an expanded city perimeter (encircled by Eudocia’s wall, which included Mt. Zion and the pool of Silwan; Bahat 1996:43–44), Tsafrir suggested a contracted city area, in which the new southern wall was erected over the old track of the Aelia Capitolina wall (Tsafrir 1977:155; see also Gil 1997:650–651, §847). Wightman also believed that alMuqaddasī described a contracted city, but in his view that process took place much earlier than suggested by Bahat and Tsafrir. If Bahat is correct, “the reduction in Jerusalem’s area took place sometime around the end of the tenth century [i.e., after al-Muqaddasī’s description; KCS] or the beginning of the eleventh [i.e., following the earthquake of 1033; KCS]… (Bahat 1996:44).³⁹ Bahat also noted Vincent and Abel’s proposal that Eudocia’s wall was abandoned by orders of the Fatimid caliph al-‘Azīz (975–996 CE), in view of the raid by the Byzantine emperor Johannes Tzimikes in the environs of Jerusalem in 975 CE (Bahat 1996:43).⁴⁰ If Tsafrir is correct, the fortified city area contracted even earlier, between 870⁴¹ and 966.⁴² Wightman, on the other hand, viewed the abandonment of Eudocia’s wall as a gradual process (Wightman 1993:235–236), beginning as early as the Umayyad period, and hastened toward its end, under Marwān II (r. 127/744–132/749–750).⁴³

The pottery results unfortunately do not enable a clear-cut conclusion as to which wall al-Muqaddasī referred to. On the other hand, the presence of late ninth–early tenth-century wares underlying the building activity of Strata IV and III (supposedly built within the city limits) would seem to rule out Wightman’s interpretation (unless this was an extra-muros quarter, which would suit the concept of the rabad mentioned by al-Muqaddasī), and to undermine Tsafrir’s, as it allows little time for any major building activity to take place after the late ninth century and 966 CE. Still, the results hint that the city’s contraction happened before the end of the tenth century.⁴⁴

The meager finds postdating the tenth century from Area M1—a few wares from the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries and the late seventeenth–eighteenth centuries—are testimony to the continuous exclusion of this area from the urban milieu.

Footnotes

38 Although al-Muqaddasī’s work was published at the end of the tenth century, his description of Jerusalem most probably refers to the middle of that century, when he still lived there (according to his biography, he was born in Jerusalem in 946 and left in 966). My thanks to Amikam Elad of the Dept. of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies of The Hebrew University for elucidating this important detail on the chronological framework of al-Muqaddasī’s work.

39 Elsewhere, Bahat argued that Eudocia’s wall still existed in 1033 (Bahat 1996:57). This view has also been supported by Prawer, who proposed that the works were undertaken sometime between 1033 and 1063 (Prawer 1984:312). This dating, nevertheless, does not match the present archaeological results.

40 Vincent and Abel write: “Recouvrer les provinces orientales perdues par Héraclius, délivrer les Lieux saints, cette partie du programme de nicéphore Phocas faillit être remplie par son successeur Jean Zimiscès qui exécuta un raid audacieux en 975 jusqu›aux environs de Jérusalem, au moment où la domination fatimite était à peine assise dans ces contrées.

Cette vive alerte dut engager, pensons-nous [underline by KCS], le calife el-‘Aziz qui venait de succéder à Mou‘izz, à rendre plus forte la Ville sainte en abandonnant la ligne, trop développée au sud, du rempart d’Eudocia” (Vincent and Abel 1926:939–940).

Prawer (1984:312) strongly disagreed with Vincent and Abel’s view, by stressing that nicéphore Phocas never got close enough to Jerusalem to constitute a threat to the city. Prawer also believed that if such a great work had taken place around 968 CE, it would have been reflected in alMuqaddasī’s description. However, see n. 38 above, that 968 would have been after he left Jerusalem. The main flaw in Vincent and Abel’s proposition is its purely deductive nature, lacking any clear historical sources to corroborate it.

41 Bernard the Monk’s description of Jerusalem in 870 still refers to Jerusalem’s expanded boundaries (Tsafrir 1977:157–158; Bahat 1996:43).

42 The year 966 would, in fact, be too late if one assumes that if al-Muqaddasī had been an eye-witness to such an important event, it would be somehow reflected in his work. Therefore, the range 870–946 seems more plausible.

43 Wightman refers to both Marwān’s measures against cities that rebelled against his rule by destroying their fortifications, and to the earthquake of the mid-eighth century.

44 In should be noted, nevertheless, than in his recent doctoral dissertation, Omar Abed-Rabo claims for a clear post-1033 date for the contraction of the southern city wall, most probably during the 1060s (Abed-Rabo 2012:195–200). His dating, while convincing according to the historical evidence brought forward, is not endorsed by the current results. However, future research on the pottery from the other areas in the Giv‘ati Parking Lot may yield finds of the eleventh century and throw some new light onto this complex urban topic.