Haram esh-Sharif - Jerusalem

Name Tables

Transliterated Name	Language	Name
Haram esh-Sharif	Arabic	الحرم الشريف‎
Temple Mount		‎
Jerusalem's holy esplanade		‎
Har haBayīt	Hebrew	הַר הַבַּיִת‎

Transliterated Name	Language	Name
Al-Aqsa Mosque		‎
Jāmiʿ al-Aqṣā	Arabic	جامع الأقصى‎
al-Muṣallā al-Qiblī	Arabic	المصلى القبلي‎
al-Masjid al-'Aqṣa	Arabic	لمسجد الاقصى‎ ا‎

Transliterated Name	Language	Name
Dome of the Rock		‎
Qubbat aṣ-Ṣaḵra	Arabic	قبة الصخرة‎

History of Al Aqsa Mosque

from Rutenberg and Levy
some earthquake date assignments are incorrect

The al Aqsa, the third most sacred mosque in the Muslim religion (after Mecca and Medina), was constructed at the southern side of Temple Mount at the end of the 7th and early 8th century. It is a traditional stone masonry building. Damaged in the 710 and 713/14(?) EQs, and destroyed in the 749 (746 -748?) EQ, it was rebuilt in 758. It was again damaged due to poor construction and/or EQs in 771 and 774, and then rebuilt on a new plan in 780. It was again damaged in 859, 1033, following which extensive rebuilding took place in 1035, including the cupola that still stand to this day. In 1060 the roof of al Aqsa collapsed. The Crusaders who occupied Jerusalem in 1099 turned it into a royal palace, and part of it was given to the Templars. During that period some internal changes took place and several wings were added. No EQ damage to the al Aqsa was reported until 1927. However, the British, who occupied Palestine in 1917, found the mosque, and also other building in Temple Mount, in a state of total neglect and on the verge of collapse. Restoration work started in 1924 most probably saved the building from total collapse in the 1927 EQ. The damage from the 1927 event was extensive (Fig. 7), and necessitated the continuation of the restoration. Following a minor EQ in 1937 extensive restoration took place during 1938-1942, involving demolition of the eastern longitudinal walls and arcades. Old columns were replaced by new marble ones imported from Italy. Following arson in 1969, the mosque was severely damaged, and restoration work was completed only in the mid 1990's. Stabilization of the mosque's foundations by massive concreting in the underground voids adjacent to the Ancient al Aqsa (or the Double Gate) - located under the mosque - was carried out in the 1970's, and its extensive excavations and restoration of took place in the 1990's. A detailed description of the mosque can be found in Hamilton's monograph (1949).

History of the Dome of the Rock

from Rutenberg and Levy
some earthquake date assignments are incorrect

After the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 the Muslims embraced the sanctity of Temple Mount, and built the original al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, both at the late 7th and early 8th century. The octagonal building dates from the early 9th century. It is covered by two practically independent wooden domes: an external one of an elliptical shape recently covered by gilded copper sheets, and internal one of circular shape, with circa one metre space between the two to allow inspection and maintenance. Whereas the present ornamented internal dome dates from the early 11th century, the external one, built to protect the former, is recent. After the reoccupation of Jerusalem by the Arabs in 1187 the dome was refurbished. The building is considered to be an architectural gem by most experts.

The structure was severely damaged by the 749 (746-748?) EQ. Renovation started in the 780's and apparently completed by Mamoun in 813. Some damage to the dome, or just the fall of its candelabra, was reported following the 1060 EQ. The dome was damaged again in 1068. The 1546 M_L = 7 EQ caused the collapse of the dome. As already noted, the British found the Dome of the Rock in a state of neglect, and restoration work started in 1924. It is difficult to estimate the effect of the 1927 EQ on the building. One press report stated that the Dome of the Rock was badly shaken and many repairs of recent years were made useless.

Jerusalem - Introduction Webpage

from Jerusalem - Introduction - click link to open new tab

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Drawings, Sections, and Photos

Maps

Fig. 1.11 Plan of early

Figure 1.11

Plan of early Islamic Jerusalem

(after Whitcomb, “Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City”)

Whitcomb (2016)

Islamic Jerusalem from Whitcomb (2016)

Aerial Views

Normal Size

Aerial photo of Umayyad structures

Air view of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount, during excavations

Yadin et al (1976)

adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) during excavations from Yadin et al (1976)
Umayyad structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif in Google Earth

Umayyad structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Umayyad structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif on govmap.gov.il

Umayyad structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Magnified

Aerial photo of Umayyad

Air view of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount, during excavations

Yadin et al (1976)

structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) during excavations from Yadin et al (1976)

Plans and Drawings

Haram esh-Sharif (aka Temple Mount)

Normal Size

Plan of Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount)

Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount)

Yadin et al (1976)

from Yadin et al (1976)

Magnified

Plan of Haram esh-Sharif

Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount)

Yadin et al (1976)

(aka Temple Mount) from Yadin et al (1976)

Umayyad Structures

Normal Size

Plan of Umayyad structures

Plan of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount

Yadin et al (1976)

adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) from Yadin et al (1976)
Fig. 1 - Plan of Building 2

Fig. 1

Plan of Building 2 in Jerusalem (after Mazar and Ben-Dov 1971), with the areas excavated in 1962–63 by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the Joint Expedition superimposed.

Prag (2000)

from Prag (2000)
Fig. 9 - Reconstruction of

Fig. 9.

Reconstruction of Haram and surrounding buildings (after Bahat 1989: 82-83).

Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)

area south of Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) in the Umayyad period from Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)
Isometric reconstruction of

Isometric reconstruction of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount

Yadin et al (1976)

Umayyad structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) from Yadin et al (1976)
Fig. 2 Reconstruction of

Fig. 2

Reconstruction of the Administrative Center

(M. Ben-Dov)

Lassner (2017)

Umayyad Structures from Lassner (2017)
Fig. 3 Cross-section of the

Fig. 3

Cross-section of the Umayyad Palace

(M. Ben-Dov)

Lassner (2017)

Umayyad Palace from Lassner (2017)

Magnified

Plan of Umayyad structures

Plan of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount

Yadin et al (1976)

adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) from Yadin et al (1976)
Fig. 1 - Plan of Building 2

Fig. 1

Plan of Building 2 in Jerusalem (after Mazar and Ben-Dov 1971), with the areas excavated in 1962–63 by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the Joint Expedition superimposed.

Prag (2000)

from Prag (2000)
Fig. 9 - Reconstruction of

Fig. 9.

Reconstruction of Haram and surrounding buildings (after Bahat 1989: 82-83).

Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)

area south of Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) in the Umayyad period from Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)
Isometric reconstruction of

Isometric reconstruction of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount

Yadin et al (1976)

Umayyad structures adjacent to Haram esh-Sharif (Temple Mount) from Yadin et al (1976)

Al-Aqsa Mosque

Normal Size

Reconstruction of Al Aqsa Mosque

Reconstruction of original el-Aqsa mosque, 8th century C.E.

Yadin et al (1976)

in the 8th century CE from Yadin et al (1976)

Magnified

Reconstruction of Al Aqsa

Reconstruction of original el-Aqsa mosque, 8th century C.E.

Yadin et al (1976)

Mosque in the 8th century CE from Yadin et al (1976)

Dome of the Rock

Fig. 7 Reconstruction of the

Fig. 7

The Dome of the Rock

(K. A. C. Creswell)

Lassner (2017)

Dome of the Rock from Lassner (2017)

Stratigraphic Section

from Mazar (1969)

Fig. 4.

Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level).

JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring

Mazar (1969)

Photos

Plate II/5 Stratum A1 of

Plate II/5

The paved street and the all of the Omayyad building (stratum A 1)

Mazar (1969)

the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount - paved street and Umayyad Building - from Mazar (1969)
Plate II/6 Stratum A1 of

Plate II/6

The foundation of the pavement to the left of the gate of the Omayyad building (stratum A 1)

Mazar (1969)

the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount - foundation of the pavement to the left of the gate of the Umayyad Building - from Mazar (1969)
Plate II/7 Stratum A1 of

Plate II/7

The pavement and the plastered water channel (stratum A 1)

Mazar (1969)

the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount - pavement and the plastered water channel - from Mazar (1969)

Phasing

Ard el-Khatuniyye adjacent to and south of Temple Mount and the southern terminus of the Western Wall near Robinson's Arch (possibly Dar al-Imara)

Stratigraphic Section

from Mazar (1969)

Fig. 4.

Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level).

JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring

Mazar (1969)

Stratigraphic Table

from Mazar (1969)

Strata	Period	Description
A8
A7		After the Seljuk conquest of Jerusalem in 1071 CE ?
A6	Arab	Fatimid
A5	Arab	Fatimid
A4	Arab	Fatimid
A3	Arab
A2	Arab	Post Umayyad
A1	Early Arab	Umayyad
B1 - B4	Byzantine
R1 - R2	Roman
H	Herodian	the period from Herod the Great to the destruction of the Second Temple

Stratum A1 Earthquake - mid-8th century CE

Stratigraphic Section

from Mazar (1969)

Fig. 4.

Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level).

JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring

Mazar (1969)

Discussion

References

Notes by JW

Mazar (1969) concluded that stratum A1 ended with an earthquake which destroyed a large Umayyad Building south of Temple Mount about a generation or two after its construction. The earthquake was said to have collapsed its walls and columns and produced a considerable pile of rubble. They correlated the earthquake with one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes. They further noted that there were partial repairs during the Abbasid period (second half of the 8th century A.D.) and that the paved street and the gateway of the building continued to be used in stratum A2, and the water system was modified drastically.

Ben Dov (1985:275-276) examined artifacts from a sewage canal that collected refuse from before the building was destroyed. In the canal, he found pottery (Khirbet Mafjar ware) dating to the first half of the 8th century CE. Ben Dov (1985:321) reports archaeoseismic evidence from the earthquake including cracked walls, warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors. All this evidence would have come from Building 2 immediately S of Haram esh-Sharif - according to Prag (2000:245).

Ben-Dov in Yadin et al (1976:97-101) reported the following:

So far, six enormous buildings have been found, comprising a single complex. The plan of the largest of them, building II, closely resembles those of the palaces of the Omayyad period in this country, in Transjordan and in Syria.

... The stratigraphic picture and the finds confirm this dating. Beneath the floors of the building and beneath the associated streets - houses, installations and channels came to light together with an abundance of finds including much pottery and thousands of coins, and stamped roof-tiles of the Byzantine period — all from late in that period. In the stratum above the building-complex, which was destroyed in a natural catastrophe and not rebuilt (see below), remains of a very meagre settlement of the 9th century C.E. were found amongst the ruins. The complex had been equipped with a broad, well-planned sewer network, which remained unknown to the people of the meagre settlement. Various finds came to light in this sewer network, which relate to the latest phase of its use, including complete pottery vessels of "Khirbet Mefjer ware", and coins of the 8th century C.E. This was a most important archaeological discovery, for it is the first time large structures of the Omayyad period (660-750 C.E.) were found outside the Haram esh-Sherif.

... At the end of the Byzantine period, a residential quarter lay adjacent to the walls of the Temple Mount, which appear to have towered to their full height at that time. This quarter included public buildings, and private houses of one and two storeys, with open areas between utilized for gardening. The Parthian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 C.E. also left its imprint here. The Southern Wall was especially damaged, a large breach having been forced. During the Byzantine reconquest, and early in the period of the Arab conquest, no significant changes seem to have taken place in this area, occurring only under the Omayyad caliphs, who established an extensive religious centre in Jerusalem. Of this project we had known only of the structures within the Haram: the Dome of the Rock, el-Aqsa mosque and other smaller monuments. We now know that the large breach in the Southern Wall was repaired by the planners of the entire Omayyad complex, and that the "Double Gate" in its present form was also built by them.

The six structures uncovered were planned as a complex in conjunction with the Temple Mount. As noted, the outstanding structure is building II, which we have defined as a palace. This definition is based largely on the evidence of a bridge which had connected the roof of building II with el-Aqsa mosque, spanning the street running along the Southern Wall and enabling direct access from the roof of the building into the mosque. It is assumed that the place was erected by the Caliph el-Walid I (705-715 C.E.).

... The existence of a second storey in building II is indicated by the level of the abovementioned bridge, as well as by a system of drain-pipes lying within the walls, leading to the central sewers beneath the groundfloor-level. There seem to have been various installations in this upper storey, such as kitchens and toilets.

... The five other buildings around building II have only incompletely been excavated, and thus their full study remains for the future.

... From among the plethora of finds from these buildings, we may note the large number of architectural fragments — capitals, friezes, architraves and balustres, as well as fresco fragments and some stucco-work. Among the many pottery types of this period, most notable are the zoomorphic and glazed vessels, which already began making their appearance in this country at this time. Many gold, silver and bronze coins have come to light, mostly struck at Ramla and Jerusalem ("Aelia", on the coins), and some from Damascus. Glassware, metal objects and bone implements also were found.

The building-complex was destroyed by a heavy earthquake, traces of which can still be observed. This was the disastrous quake of 747/748 C.E. which hit Jerusalem especially hard; Talmudic literature denotes this catastrophe as the "quake in the sabbatical year".

The area was not renewed in its former plan after the disaster, and the rise of the Abbasids put an end to Omayyad aspirations for Jerusalem. Not only were no renovations or construction carried out here, but the ruins became a huge quarry, a source for building stone for anyone needing such material. In the 11th century it served as a cemetery, indicating that the immense complex which had stood here was entirely forgotten. The history of the site in Abbasid through Ottoman times reflects its wretched state. From time to time, ripples of activity were felt here, but the few structures which rose over the ruins were of a private nature, and the area never recovered its former splendour.

Prag (2000:245) reports that according to Ben-Dov (1976: 101; 1985: 276), on the evidence from the contents of the drains, the palace was destroyed in the great earthquake of A.D. 749.

Zimni-Gitler in Lichtenberger and Raja (2025)

Al-Haram al-Sharif

from Zimni-Gitler in Lichtenberger and Raja (2025:168-169)

The earthquake damage in and around the area of the al-Haram al-Sharif is well documented by historical sources and by archaeological evidence. The area (Fig. 10.1 no. 1) experienced massive remodelling at the beginning of the Umayyad period, when the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, as well as Umayyad buildings (Fig. 10.1 no. 2) located south of the religious edifices were built.⁹

Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence that can be gathered from the Holy Sanctuaries — the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock — is limited.⁹ Therefore, the study of the written accounts is an essential source for investigating the extent of the architectural damage in this area. For instance, it is described by al-Wasiti that the al-Aqsa Mosque suffered severe damage from an earthquake in the middle of the eighth century AD.¹⁰ He tells that in the days of the reign of Caliph al-Mansur (AD 754–775), the eastern and western portions of the mosque fell due to an earthquake in the year AH 130.¹¹ As a consequence, Caliph al-Mansur ordered the mosque’s restoration. Since no money was available for this, it is also known from the description of al-Wasiti, that the gold and silver plates decorating the mosque’s gates were to be stripped off, and dinars and dirham were to be coined from them.¹² Moreover, he also stated that shortly afterwards another earthquake hit the mosque, which was then restored by the caliph’s successor, Caliph al-Mahdi.¹³

Furthermore, in the tenth century AD the writer al-Muqadassi wrote about the earthquake damage in the mosque: he described that the earthquake destroyed most of the building, except for the corner around the mihrab.¹⁴

South of the Mosque complex, several buildings were constructed during the Umayyad period. Those are interpreted as administrative centres,¹⁵ whereas one of these buildings (‘Building ii’) stands out as a possible ‘Umayyad palace’.¹⁶ According to the excavators, this complex shows clear archaeological evidence of damage by the 749 earthquake. The damage is described as “cracked walls and warped foundations, fallen columns and sunken floors.”¹⁷ The archaeological material also provides evidence for the dating of this destruction: a sewage channel within one of the buildings was blocked shortly before the building went out of use. The material found there was interpreted as Khirbet Mafjar Ware, dating to the first half of the eighth century AD.¹⁸

Footnotes

9. Only reports of earlier investigations are available (Hamilton 1949; Grafman and Rosen-Ayalon 1999).

10. It needs to be kept in mind that the dating of the described earthquake damage cannot be clarified with certainty.

11. al-Wasiti, Fada'il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, no. 137, p. 92; referring to AD 747/748 according to Karcz 2004, 780.

12. al-Wasiti, Fada'il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, no. 137, p. 92. Here, it is debatable whether al-Wasiti refers only to the Mosque itself or the entire Haram al-Sharif area (Elad 1995, n. 77).

13. al-Wasiti, Fada'il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, no. 256, p. 92. For a suggestion of the archaeological layout of these rebuilding measures see Küchler 2007, 226–34. G. Le Strange assumes the year AD 770–771 for the visit of Caliph al-Mansur, whereas others suggest that this visit already took place in AD 758 (Elad 1995, 40; Küchler 2007, 228).

14. al-Muqadassi, The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions, trans. by B. Collins, p. 276.

15. Rosen-Ayalon 1989, 8.

16. Ben-Dov 1985; Rosen-Ayalon 1989, 8–11.

17. Ben-Dov 1985, 321.

18. Ben-Dov 1985, 2–20; however, this chronology by the early excavators was doubted by J. Magness who redates the construction date of these buildings as well as doubting their damage from the 749 earthquake due to ceramic evidence supporting the buildings’ existence throughout the Abbasid period (Magness 2010, 153). However, in the author’s opinion, the damage described by the excavators does suggest that a destructive event, such as an earthquake, occurred in these buildings, resulting in the described architectural remains.

Magness (2010)

Introduction

from Magness (2010:147)

Excavations by Israeli archaeologists in the years following the 1967 Six-Day War revealed a series of monumental structures around the southern end of Jerusalem's Haram ash-Sharif (Temple Mount). The existence of these structures indicated that the Umayyad period was characterized by a previously unrecognized degree of prosperity and building activity. In this paper I reevaluate the evidence for the chronology of these buildings. I suggest that, contrary to the excavators' reports, the buildings continued in use through the Abbasid period, perhaps until the earthquake of 1033. Next I analyse the final report on the excavations at Hammath Gader, where a monumental Roman bath complex supposedly was destroyed and put out of use by the earthquake of 749. I conclude that the bath complex continued in use with evidence of substantial repairs and alterations through the Abbasid period, until it was destroyed, apparently in the earthquake of 1033. Both sites demonstrate intense activity and occupational continuity through the early Islamic period, with no significant decline in the Abbasid period. I end with a consideration of how coin evidence has contributed to the misdating of associated archaeological remains.

The Early Islamic Structures South and Southwest of al-Haram Ash-Sharif

from Magness (2010:147-153)

Excavations directed by the late Benjamin Mazar and by Meir Ben-Dov after 1967 brought to light a series of monumental early Islamic buildings around the southern and western sides of Jerusalem’s Haram (see Figure 7.1).¹ The largest (Building II), located south of the Haram, measures approximately 96 x 84 m and has outer walls that are 2.75–3.10 m thick.² It consists of a central open courtyard encircled by a peristyle and surrounded by rows of elongated rooms on all four sides. The rooms measure between 17–20 m long by 4–8 m wide. Square piers at regular intervals along the long walls supported a system of vaults.³ The excavators suggested that staircases on four sides of the complex (in narrow passages between the rooms on the north and south sides on the one hand, and the east and west sides on the other) provided access to a second-story level. Each story was at least 6.5 m high. The main gate was located in the middle of the east side of the building, and others were located in the middle of the west and north sides. A bridge on the north side at the second-story level provided access directly to the al-Aqsa mosque. The building was served by a sophisticated system of gutters and drainage channels for rainwater and waste.⁴

A second building (III) located immediately to the west of Building II has a similar plan consisting of elongated rooms around a central peristyle courtyard. A row of six elongated rooms is located in the southeast corner of the building, while large square piers in the southwest corner supported a system of arches and vaults. The main gate was in the middle of the east side (directly opposite the west gate of Building II), and other gates were located in the middle of the north and west sides, as in Building II. Like Building II, Building III was equipped with a sophisticated drainage system.⁵

Renewed excavations conducted since 1995 by Ronny Reich and Yaakov Billig, and by Yuval Baruch, have revealed that Building III is larger than Mazar and Ben-Dov thought, measuring ca. 75 x 75 m. It extends as far as the line of the Cardo along the bottom of the Tyropoeon Valley, which Baruch and Reich suggest separated the administrative or government quarter from the civilian part of town.⁶ Baruch and Reich excavated four elongated rooms in the southeast corner of Building III (C–F) that have square piers at regular intervals as in Building II. They note that these rooms contained deliberately dumped fills. In some cases the fills were dumped in conjunction with the raising of the walls, and in other cases they were dumped after the walls were finished. In other words, the elongated rooms represent foundations that were filled with dumped material in order to level the area.⁷

In Buildings II and III, the lower parts of the walls of the elongated rooms were constructed of a concrete mixture consisting of stone and grey lime mortar. This mixture was poured into a wood form or scaffolding. The upper parts of the walls were constructed of large roughly cut stones, with small stones between them, held together by grey mortar containing much charcoal. The walls were not plastered.⁸

Mazar and Ben-Dov uncovered part of a third building (IV) to the north of Building III, west of the Haram and opposite Robinson’s Arch. It differs in plan from the other two buildings, having two large courtyards surrounded by rows of square piers but no elongated rooms.⁹ In my opinion elongated rooms were used to create the foundations in areas where the bedrock is very deep and steeply sloping, whereas square piers were employed in areas where the bedrock was close to the contemporary ground level.¹⁰ Ben-Dov describes this technique as follows: “Sometimes the terrain was exceptionally low, making it necessary to build foundation walls and cover them with fill.”¹¹ Building IV incorporates the remains of a Roman legionary bath house, which seems to have remained in use as a bath house.¹²

Mazar and Ben-Dov noted that all three buildings had been robbed out, leaving only small sections of the walls and a few patches of floors surviving at or above ground level.¹³ Baruch and Reich also found little evidence of floors in Building III.¹⁴ Much of the robbing seems to have occurred in the Fatimid period (eleventh century).¹⁵ Most of the floors on the ground story of the buildings were of stone. Because the flagstones were laid on a layer of terra rosa, Ben-Dov suggests they represent temporary floors that were meant to be replaced with mosaics.¹⁶ In some places patches of mosaics were preserved, mostly of large white tesserae with no design or simple designs.¹⁷ In Building IV a pavement of large square polished flagstones was preserved.¹⁸ Small colored tesserae (some of glass) found in the fills in the buildings probably come from wall or ceiling mosaics.¹⁹ Fragments of wall paintings were also found in the fills.²⁰

Mazar and Ben-Dov dated the buildings to the Umayyad period based on the following considerations: (1) the buildings directly overlie houses from the end of the Byzantine period; (2) the plans of the buildings resemble Umayyad palaces and fortified enclosures such as those at Khirbet al-Mafjar and Khirbet al-Minya; (3) they dated the finds from the drainage channels in the buildings to the Umayyad period.²¹ Specifically, Mazar and Ben-Dov attributed the construction of these buildings to al-Walid (705–15), the son of ‘Abd al-Malik (685–705). They suggested that the Bab al-Walid, a gate in the Haram mentioned by al-Muqaddasi, should be identified with the gate leading from Building II to the south end of the Haram.²² If they are correct, this gate was still functioning in the tenth century.

According to Mazar and Ben-Dov the buildings were destroyed in the earthquake of 747/48.²³ Because there were no signs of collapse (that is, no piles of stones associated with the collapse of the walls) and few surviving floors, the excavators concluded that construction halted before completion of the project: “The ambitious building program inaugurated in the days of ‘Abd al-Malik was never fully consummated, so that several details of the Omayyad buildings — including the final flooring — were never completed.”²⁴

In all of the buildings the excavators found evidence of later reoccupation, which they associated with squatters, including later walls that incorporated spolia and abutted the original walls, creating rooms that had no relationship to the original building plan. The floors associated with this reoccupation lay at a higher level than the original floor level.²⁵ In Building III Baruch and Reich found mosaic floors, some with simple designs, at a higher level, which they associated with this later reoccupation.²⁶ Elsewhere Baruch and Reich describe lime or chalk floors with ovens, thin walls, channels, and pits.²⁷ Mazar and Ben-Dov, and Baruch and Reich, dated the reoccupation of these buildings to the Abbasid period (late eighth to ninth century) based on the associated finds.²⁸ Specifically, Baruch and Reich describe the associated finds as including “glazed pottery and large quantities of animal bones, especially sheep.”²⁹ After this brief reoccupation the buildings were abandoned and robbed out.³⁰

According to Mazar and Ben-Dov, this grandiose Umayyad building project was abandoned before the earthquake of 747/48 due to economic decline.³¹ The unfinished buildings were brought down by the earthquake, which Ben-Dov says caused cracked or warped foundations and walls, fallen columns, and sunken floors.³² With the fall of the Umayyads and rise of the Abbasid dynasty the following year the center of power shifted to the east, leaving Syria and Palestine a backwater. As Ben-Dov puts it, “the rabid prejudice of the ‘Abbasid caliphs and the historians under their patronage ... went far out of their way to obliterate all reference to anything Omayyad.”³³ “Hence the role played by the ‘Abbasids in the area around the Temple Mount ranged from abstaining from building activity to outright, deliberate destruction, and the stratum dating from their reign is essentially a negative one from an archaeological viewpoint. Actually, it is not a stratum in the strict sense of the word, but rather evidence of the destruction caused to the Omayyad buildings.”³⁴ Even Paul Wheatley repeats the standard trope describing ‘Abbasid neglect of Jerusalem.³⁵

It is difficult to evaluate the excavators’ proposed chronology as no final excavation reports have been published. Nevertheless, in my opinion the available archaeological evidence points to a different sequence of events. First, Baruch and Reich mention finding Umayyad coins in the foundation level fills in Building III. These include a group of coins discovered inside the foundations of the courtyard’s peristyle wall, the latest of which dates to ca. 730.³⁶ This indicates that construction of these buildings was still underway during the reign of Hisham (assuming the project was initiated by al-Walid I), not surprising given the scale of the undertaking. Second, the signs of damage described by Ben-Dov (cracked walls and warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors) could have been caused by a later earthquake, perhaps that of 1033, which apparently damaged the al-Aqsa mosque as well (as a result the number of gates into the mosque was reduced).³⁷ It was apparently after this earthquake (of 1033) that the city walls were rebuilt, along the lines preserved today, with the south wall of the Old City overlying the early Islamic buildings.³⁸ The robbing activity apparently occurred after this.³⁹

I also question the excavators’ conclusion that the buildings were unfinished (Ben-Dov describes them as “shells”) when construction stopped.⁴⁰ If this were the case, we would not expect the plumbing system to have been functioning. However, according to Ben-Dov, the sewage system, which included drainage pipes from the second-story level, was blocked with occupational debris and refuse.⁴¹ This material, which “dated to the final years of the building’s [II] existence,” included buff ware vessels described by Ben-Dov as “light-colored and decorated with molded designs characteristic of ‘Khirbet Mafjar ware’.”⁴² Other pottery found in the drainage channels and in association with the main occupation of the palaces included zoomorphic vessels and “chamber pots” glazed on the inside in dark green or dark brown. The presence of mold-made buff ware and glazed pottery indicates that the main phase of occupation continued at least into the ninth century.

The evidence reviewed here suggests the following chronology and sequence. The buildings were constructed in the latter part of the Umayyad period. Even if the project was initiated by al-Walid I, work continued at least through the reign of Hisham. Elsewhere I have suggested that the fortification walls of Jerusalem were repaired by Hisham.⁴³ Contrary to the excavators’ conclusion, construction of the buildings around the Haram seems to have been completed, at least to the point where the plumbing system was fully functioning, including at the second-story level. It is not clear whether the earthquake of 749 caused significant damage. However, the ceramic evidence indicates that occupation continued well into the Abbasid period. This scenario is supported by Mazar and Ben-Dov’s identification of the Bab al-Walid as the gate leading from Building II to the south end of the Haram, which, if they are correct, was still functioning in al-Muqaddasi’s time.⁴⁴ However, around this time or soon afterward the buildings were abandoned and began to collapse, and some of the original floors and parts of the walls were robbed out.⁴⁵ This was followed by a brief phase of reoccupation by a different population. Although this occupation is poorer than the original phase, the presence of mosaic floors indicates that the inhabitants were not squatters. I propose dating this occupation phase to the tenth to early eleventh century. The earthquake of 1033 may have caused the damage noted by Ben-Dov, after which time the buildings were abandoned permanently and the remaining walls and floors were robbed out.

Footnotes

1 I am not concerned here with the function of these buildings, which are usually referred to as “palaces.” The excavators designated the buildings with Roman numerals (II–IV). All dates refer to the Common Era unless otherwise indicated.

2 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36 (the same report was published in Ben-Dov 1971b); Ben-Dov 1985: 297 (where the dimensions are given as 94 x 84 m).

3 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36.

4 Ben-Dov 1971a: 37; Ben-Dov 1985: 294, 307–8.

5 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38; Ben-Dov 1985: 312.

6 Baruch and Reich 1999: 131, 140.

7 Baruch and Reich 1999: 131, 136 and Fig. 1b; Ben-Dov 1973: 85.

8 Baruch and Reich 1999: 132 and Figs. 5, 9; Ben-Dov 1973: 83–4; Ben-Dov 1985: 309.

9 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38–9.

10 Ben-Dov 19716: 37 and 1985: 309 notes that the foundations of Building II were up to nine meters deep.

11 Ben-Dov 1985: 309 (describing Building II).

12 Ben-Dov 1985: 316–17; on 288 he notes that the buildings of Aelia Capitolina must have remained standing until the end of the Byzantine period.

13 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35; Ben-Dov 1971b: 35.

14 Baruch and Reich 1999: 132.

15 Ben-Dov 1971b: 35; but on p. 38 he says that the pottery and coins from the robbers’ trenches of the walls of Building II indicate that the robbing activity occurred in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, apparently at the time the Crusader city wall was built.

16 Ben-Dov 1985: 311.

17 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38–9; Baruch and Reich 1999: 132.

18 Ben-Dov 1971a: 39.

19 Ben-Dov 1971a: 39.

20 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36–7; Ben-Dov 1985: 294–5, 304.

21 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36.

22 Ben-Dov 1971a: 39; Le Strange 1965: 94.

23 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38; earthquake now redated to 749: Tsafrir and Foerster 1997: 136 n. 227.

24 Ben-Dov 1985: 312.

25 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35.

26 Baruch and Reich 1999: 132.

27 Baruch and Reich 1999: 139.

28 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35, 39; Baruch and Reich 1999: 139.

29 Baruch and Reich 1999: 139 (my translation from the Hebrew).

30 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35, 37–8.

31 Ben-Dov 1985: 312.

32 Bcn-Dov 1985: 321. Baruch and Reich 1999: 135, also claim to have found evidence that the construction of Building III was never completed.

33 Ben-Dov 1985: 293.

34 Ben-Dov 1985: 323.

35 Wheatley 2001: 297.

36 Baruch and Reich 1999: 139.

37 For this earthquake see Stacey 2004: 8; Le Strange 1965: 23; Bahat 1990: 82 attributes the destruction of the palaces to this earthquake.

38 Bahat 1993: 786, who describes the earthquake of 1033 as the worst to hit Jerusalem. In contrast see Wheatley 2001: 297.

39 See Ben-Dov 1985: 321.

40 Ben-Dov 1971b: 35, 37; Ben-Dov 1985: 307–8.

41 Ben-Dov 1985: 276.

42 Ben-Dov 1985: 319–20.

43 Magness 1992.

44 In fact, Bcn-Dov 19716: 40, suggests that the northern wing of Building II was inhabited until the 10th century, in order CO account for al-Muqadasi's reference to the Bab al-Walid.

45 Ben-Dov 1971b: 35, describes "a dump of walls and ceilings" in the 1.5 meter thick layer separating the original floors from the later floors above. However, Reich and Baruch 1999: 135, note an absence of evidence of building collapse on top of the original floor level.

Building II Earthquake - 1st half of the 11th century CE

Discussion

References

Magness (2010)

Introduction

from Magness (2010:147)

Excavations by Israeli archaeologists in the years following the 1967 Six-Day War revealed a series of monumental structures around the southern end of Jerusalem's Haram ash-Sharif (Temple Mount). The existence of these structures indicated that the Umayyad period was characterized by a previously unrecognized degree of prosperity and building activity. In this paper I reevaluate the evidence for the chronology of these buildings. I suggest that, contrary to the excavators' reports, the buildings continued in use through the Abbasid period, perhaps until the earthquake of 1033. Next I analyse the final report on the excavations at Hammath Gader, where a monumental Roman bath complex supposedly was destroyed and put out of use by the earthquake of 749. I conclude that the bath complex continued in use with evidence of substantial repairs and alterations through the Abbasid period, until it was destroyed, apparently in the earthquake of 1033. Both sites demonstrate intense activity and occupational continuity through the early Islamic period, with no significant decline in the Abbasid period. I end with a consideration of how coin evidence has contributed to the misdating of associated archaeological remains.

The Early Islamic Structures South and Southwest of al-Haram Ash-Sharif

from Magness (2010:147-153)

Excavations directed by the late Benjamin Mazar and by Meir Ben-Dov after 1967 brought to light a series of monumental early Islamic buildings around the southern and western sides of Jerusalem’s Haram (see Figure 7.1).¹ The largest (Building II), located south of the Haram, measures approximately 96 x 84 m and has outer walls that are 2.75–3.10 m thick.² It consists of a central open courtyard encircled by a peristyle and surrounded by rows of elongated rooms on all four sides. The rooms measure between 17–20 m long by 4–8 m wide. Square piers at regular intervals along the long walls supported a system of vaults.³ The excavators suggested that staircases on four sides of the complex (in narrow passages between the rooms on the north and south sides on the one hand, and the east and west sides on the other) provided access to a second-story level. Each story was at least 6.5 m high. The main gate was located in the middle of the east side of the building, and others were located in the middle of the west and north sides. A bridge on the north side at the second-story level provided access directly to the al-Aqsa mosque. The building was served by a sophisticated system of gutters and drainage channels for rainwater and waste.⁴

A second building (III) located immediately to the west of Building II has a similar plan consisting of elongated rooms around a central peristyle courtyard. A row of six elongated rooms is located in the southeast corner of the building, while large square piers in the southwest corner supported a system of arches and vaults. The main gate was in the middle of the east side (directly opposite the west gate of Building II), and other gates were located in the middle of the north and west sides, as in Building II. Like Building II, Building III was equipped with a sophisticated drainage system.⁵

Renewed excavations conducted since 1995 by Ronny Reich and Yaakov Billig, and by Yuval Baruch, have revealed that Building III is larger than Mazar and Ben-Dov thought, measuring ca. 75 x 75 m. It extends as far as the line of the Cardo along the bottom of the Tyropoeon Valley, which Baruch and Reich suggest separated the administrative or government quarter from the civilian part of town.⁶ Baruch and Reich excavated four elongated rooms in the southeast corner of Building III (C–F) that have square piers at regular intervals as in Building II. They note that these rooms contained deliberately dumped fills. In some cases the fills were dumped in conjunction with the raising of the walls, and in other cases they were dumped after the walls were finished. In other words, the elongated rooms represent foundations that were filled with dumped material in order to level the area.⁷

In Buildings II and III, the lower parts of the walls of the elongated rooms were constructed of a concrete mixture consisting of stone and grey lime mortar. This mixture was poured into a wood form or scaffolding. The upper parts of the walls were constructed of large roughly cut stones, with small stones between them, held together by grey mortar containing much charcoal. The walls were not plastered.⁸

Mazar and Ben-Dov uncovered part of a third building (IV) to the north of Building III, west of the Haram and opposite Robinson’s Arch. It differs in plan from the other two buildings, having two large courtyards surrounded by rows of square piers but no elongated rooms.⁹ In my opinion elongated rooms were used to create the foundations in areas where the bedrock is very deep and steeply sloping, whereas square piers were employed in areas where the bedrock was close to the contemporary ground level.¹⁰ Ben-Dov describes this technique as follows: “Sometimes the terrain was exceptionally low, making it necessary to build foundation walls and cover them with fill.”¹¹ Building IV incorporates the remains of a Roman legionary bath house, which seems to have remained in use as a bath house.¹²

Mazar and Ben-Dov noted that all three buildings had been robbed out, leaving only small sections of the walls and a few patches of floors surviving at or above ground level.¹³ Baruch and Reich also found little evidence of floors in Building III.¹⁴ Much of the robbing seems to have occurred in the Fatimid period (eleventh century).¹⁵ Most of the floors on the ground story of the buildings were of stone. Because the flagstones were laid on a layer of terra rosa, Ben-Dov suggests they represent temporary floors that were meant to be replaced with mosaics.¹⁶ In some places patches of mosaics were preserved, mostly of large white tesserae with no design or simple designs.¹⁷ In Building IV a pavement of large square polished flagstones was preserved.¹⁸ Small colored tesserae (some of glass) found in the fills in the buildings probably come from wall or ceiling mosaics.¹⁹ Fragments of wall paintings were also found in the fills.²⁰

Mazar and Ben-Dov dated the buildings to the Umayyad period based on the following considerations: (1) the buildings directly overlie houses from the end of the Byzantine period; (2) the plans of the buildings resemble Umayyad palaces and fortified enclosures such as those at Khirbet al-Mafjar and Khirbet al-Minya; (3) they dated the finds from the drainage channels in the buildings to the Umayyad period.²¹ Specifically, Mazar and Ben-Dov attributed the construction of these buildings to al-Walid (705–15), the son of ‘Abd al-Malik (685–705). They suggested that the Bab al-Walid, a gate in the Haram mentioned by al-Muqaddasi, should be identified with the gate leading from Building II to the south end of the Haram.²² If they are correct, this gate was still functioning in the tenth century.

According to Mazar and Ben-Dov the buildings were destroyed in the earthquake of 747/48.²³ Because there were no signs of collapse (that is, no piles of stones associated with the collapse of the walls) and few surviving floors, the excavators concluded that construction halted before completion of the project: “The ambitious building program inaugurated in the days of ‘Abd al-Malik was never fully consummated, so that several details of the Omayyad buildings — including the final flooring — were never completed.”²⁴

In all of the buildings the excavators found evidence of later reoccupation, which they associated with squatters, including later walls that incorporated spolia and abutted the original walls, creating rooms that had no relationship to the original building plan. The floors associated with this reoccupation lay at a higher level than the original floor level.²⁵ In Building III Baruch and Reich found mosaic floors, some with simple designs, at a higher level, which they associated with this later reoccupation.²⁶ Elsewhere Baruch and Reich describe lime or chalk floors with ovens, thin walls, channels, and pits.²⁷ Mazar and Ben-Dov, and Baruch and Reich, dated the reoccupation of these buildings to the Abbasid period (late eighth to ninth century) based on the associated finds.²⁸ Specifically, Baruch and Reich describe the associated finds as including “glazed pottery and large quantities of animal bones, especially sheep.”²⁹ After this brief reoccupation the buildings were abandoned and robbed out.³⁰

According to Mazar and Ben-Dov, this grandiose Umayyad building project was abandoned before the earthquake of 747/48 due to economic decline.³¹ The unfinished buildings were brought down by the earthquake, which Ben-Dov says caused cracked or warped foundations and walls, fallen columns, and sunken floors.³² With the fall of the Umayyads and rise of the Abbasid dynasty the following year the center of power shifted to the east, leaving Syria and Palestine a backwater. As Ben-Dov puts it, “the rabid prejudice of the ‘Abbasid caliphs and the historians under their patronage ... went far out of their way to obliterate all reference to anything Omayyad.”³³ “Hence the role played by the ‘Abbasids in the area around the Temple Mount ranged from abstaining from building activity to outright, deliberate destruction, and the stratum dating from their reign is essentially a negative one from an archaeological viewpoint. Actually, it is not a stratum in the strict sense of the word, but rather evidence of the destruction caused to the Omayyad buildings.”³⁴ Even Paul Wheatley repeats the standard trope describing ‘Abbasid neglect of Jerusalem.³⁵

It is difficult to evaluate the excavators’ proposed chronology as no final excavation reports have been published. Nevertheless, in my opinion the available archaeological evidence points to a different sequence of events. First, Baruch and Reich mention finding Umayyad coins in the foundation level fills in Building III. These include a group of coins discovered inside the foundations of the courtyard’s peristyle wall, the latest of which dates to ca. 730.³⁶ This indicates that construction of these buildings was still underway during the reign of Hisham (assuming the project was initiated by al-Walid I), not surprising given the scale of the undertaking. Second, the signs of damage described by Ben-Dov (cracked walls and warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors) could have been caused by a later earthquake, perhaps that of 1033, which apparently damaged the al-Aqsa mosque as well (as a result the number of gates into the mosque was reduced).³⁷ It was apparently after this earthquake (of 1033) that the city walls were rebuilt, along the lines preserved today, with the south wall of the Old City overlying the early Islamic buildings.³⁸ The robbing activity apparently occurred after this.³⁹

I also question the excavators’ conclusion that the buildings were unfinished (Ben-Dov describes them as “shells”) when construction stopped.⁴⁰ If this were the case, we would not expect the plumbing system to have been functioning. However, according to Ben-Dov, the sewage system, which included drainage pipes from the second-story level, was blocked with occupational debris and refuse.⁴¹ This material, which “dated to the final years of the building’s [II] existence,” included buff ware vessels described by Ben-Dov as “light-colored and decorated with molded designs characteristic of ‘Khirbet Mafjar ware’.”⁴² Other pottery found in the drainage channels and in association with the main occupation of the palaces included zoomorphic vessels and “chamber pots” glazed on the inside in dark green or dark brown. The presence of mold-made buff ware and glazed pottery indicates that the main phase of occupation continued at least into the ninth century.

The evidence reviewed here suggests the following chronology and sequence. The buildings were constructed in the latter part of the Umayyad period. Even if the project was initiated by al-Walid I, work continued at least through the reign of Hisham. Elsewhere I have suggested that the fortification walls of Jerusalem were repaired by Hisham.⁴³ Contrary to the excavators’ conclusion, construction of the buildings around the Haram seems to have been completed, at least to the point where the plumbing system was fully functioning, including at the second-story level. It is not clear whether the earthquake of 749 caused significant damage. However, the ceramic evidence indicates that occupation continued well into the Abbasid period. This scenario is supported by Mazar and Ben-Dov’s identification of the Bab al-Walid as the gate leading from Building II to the south end of the Haram, which, if they are correct, was still functioning in al-Muqaddasi’s time.⁴⁴ However, around this time or soon afterward the buildings were abandoned and began to collapse, and some of the original floors and parts of the walls were robbed out.⁴⁵ This was followed by a brief phase of reoccupation by a different population. Although this occupation is poorer than the original phase, the presence of mosaic floors indicates that the inhabitants were not squatters. I propose dating this occupation phase to the tenth to early eleventh century. The earthquake of 1033 may have caused the damage noted by Ben-Dov, after which time the buildings were abandoned permanently and the remaining walls and floors were robbed out.

Footnotes

1 I am not concerned here with the function of these buildings, which are usually referred to as “palaces.” The excavators designated the buildings with Roman numerals (II–IV). All dates refer to the Common Era unless otherwise indicated.

2 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36 (the same report was published in Ben-Dov 1971b); Ben-Dov 1985: 297 (where the dimensions are given as 94 x 84 m).

3 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36.

4 Ben-Dov 1971a: 37; Ben-Dov 1985: 294, 307–8.

5 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38; Ben-Dov 1985: 312.

6 Baruch and Reich 1999: 131, 140.

7 Baruch and Reich 1999: 131, 136 and Fig. 1b; Ben-Dov 1973: 85.

8 Baruch and Reich 1999: 132 and Figs. 5, 9; Ben-Dov 1973: 83–4; Ben-Dov 1985: 309.

9 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38–9.

10 Ben-Dov 19716: 37 and 1985: 309 notes that the foundations of Building II were up to nine meters deep.

11 Ben-Dov 1985: 309 (describing Building II).

12 Ben-Dov 1985: 316–17; on 288 he notes that the buildings of Aelia Capitolina must have remained standing until the end of the Byzantine period.

13 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35; Ben-Dov 1971b: 35.

14 Baruch and Reich 1999: 132.

15 Ben-Dov 1971b: 35; but on p. 38 he says that the pottery and coins from the robbers’ trenches of the walls of Building II indicate that the robbing activity occurred in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, apparently at the time the Crusader city wall was built.

16 Ben-Dov 1985: 311.

17 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38–9; Baruch and Reich 1999: 132.

18 Ben-Dov 1971a: 39.

19 Ben-Dov 1971a: 39.

20 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36–7; Ben-Dov 1985: 294–5, 304.

21 Ben-Dov 1971a: 36.

22 Ben-Dov 1971a: 39; Le Strange 1965: 94.

23 Ben-Dov 1971a: 38; earthquake now redated to 749: Tsafrir and Foerster 1997: 136 n. 227.

24 Ben-Dov 1985: 312.

25 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35.

26 Baruch and Reich 1999: 132.

27 Baruch and Reich 1999: 139.

28 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35, 39; Baruch and Reich 1999: 139.

29 Baruch and Reich 1999: 139 (my translation from the Hebrew).

30 Ben-Dov 1971a: 35, 37–8.

31 Ben-Dov 1985: 312.

32 Bcn-Dov 1985: 321. Baruch and Reich 1999: 135, also claim to have found evidence that the construction of Building III was never completed.

33 Ben-Dov 1985: 293.

34 Ben-Dov 1985: 323.

35 Wheatley 2001: 297.

36 Baruch and Reich 1999: 139.

37 For this earthquake see Stacey 2004: 8; Le Strange 1965: 23; Bahat 1990: 82 attributes the destruction of the palaces to this earthquake.

38 Bahat 1993: 786, who describes the earthquake of 1033 as the worst to hit Jerusalem. In contrast see Wheatley 2001: 297.

39 See Ben-Dov 1985: 321.

40 Ben-Dov 1971b: 35, 37; Ben-Dov 1985: 307–8.

41 Ben-Dov 1985: 276.

42 Ben-Dov 1985: 319–20.

43 Magness 1992.

44 In fact, Bcn-Dov 19716: 40, suggests that the northern wing of Building II was inhabited until the 10th century, in order CO account for al-Muqadasi's reference to the Bab al-Walid.

45 Ben-Dov 1971b: 35, describes "a dump of walls and ceilings" in the 1.5 meter thick layer separating the original floors from the later floors above. However, Reich and Baruch 1999: 135, note an absence of evidence of building collapse on top of the original floor level.

Stratum A1 Earthquake - mid-8th century CE

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Collapsed Walls Collapsed and Fallen Columns Cracked Walls Warped foundations Sunken floors Partial Repairs Debris	Plan of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount Yadin et al (1976) Fig. 1 Plan of Building 2 in Jerusalem (after Mazar and Ben-Dov 1971), with the areas excavated in 1962–63 by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the Joint Expedition superimposed. Prag (2000) Fig. 9. Reconstruction of Haram and surrounding buildings (after Bahat 1989: 82-83). Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)	Fig. 4. Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level). JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring Mazar (1969)	Mazar (1969) concluded that stratum A1 ended with an earthquake which destroyed a large Umayyad Building south of Temple Mount about a generation or two after its construction. The earthquake was said to have collapsed its walls and columns and produced a considerable pile of rubble. They correlated the earthquake with one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes. They further noted that there were partial repairs during the Abbasid period (second half of the 8th century A.D.) and that the paved street and the gateway of the building continued to be used in stratum A2, and the water system was modified drastically. Ben Dov (1985:275-276) examined artifacts from a sewage canal that collected refuse from before the building was destroyed. In the canal, he found pottery (Khirbet Mafjar ware) dating to the first half of the 8th century CE. Ben Dov (1985:321) reports archaeoseismic evidence from the earthquake including cracked walls, warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors. All this evidence would have come from Building 2 immediately S of Haram esh-Sharif - according to Prag (2000:245). The building-complex was destroyed by a heavy earthquake, traces of which can still be observed. This was the disastrous quake of 747/748 C.E. which hit Jerusalem especially hard; Talmudic literature denotes this catastrophe as the "quake in the sabbatical year". The area was not renewed in its former plan after the disaster, and the rise of the Abbasids put an end to Omayyad aspirations for Jerusalem. Not only were no renovations or construction carried out here, but the ruins became a huge quarry, a source for building stone for anyone needing such material. - Ben-Dov in Yadin et al (1976:97-101)

Building II Earthquake - 1st half of the 11th century CE

Magness (2010:147-153) suggests that some of the seismic effects assigned by original excavators to a mid-8th century earthquake could have been caused by the earthquake(s) of 1033/4 CE

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Collapsed Walls Collapsed and Fallen Columns Cracked Walls Warped foundations Sunken floors Partial Repairs Debris	Plan of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount Yadin et al (1976) Fig. 1 Plan of Building 2 in Jerusalem (after Mazar and Ben-Dov 1971), with the areas excavated in 1962–63 by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the Joint Expedition superimposed. Prag (2000) Fig. 9. Reconstruction of Haram and surrounding buildings (after Bahat 1989: 82-83). Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)	Fig. 4. Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level). JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring Mazar (1969)	Mazar (1969) concluded that stratum A1 ended with an earthquake which destroyed a large Umayyad Building south of Temple Mount about a generation or two after its construction. The earthquake was said to have collapsed its walls and columns and produced a considerable pile of rubble. They correlated the earthquake with one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes. They further noted that there were partial repairs during the Abbasid period (second half of the 8th century A.D.) and that the paved street and the gateway of the building continued to be used in stratum A2, and the water system was modified drastically. Ben Dov (1985:275-276) examined artifacts from a sewage canal that collected refuse from before the building was destroyed. In the canal, he found pottery (Khirbet Mafjar ware) dating to the first half of the 8th century CE. Ben Dov (1985:321) reports archaeoseismic evidence from the earthquake including cracked walls, warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors. All this evidence would have come from Building 2 immediately S of Haram esh-Sharif - according to Prag (2000:245). The building-complex was destroyed by a heavy earthquake, traces of which can still be observed. This was the disastrous quake of 747/748 C.E. which hit Jerusalem especially hard; Talmudic literature denotes this catastrophe as the "quake in the sabbatical year". The area was not renewed in its former plan after the disaster, and the rise of the Abbasids put an end to Omayyad aspirations for Jerusalem. Not only were no renovations or construction carried out here, but the ruins became a huge quarry, a source for building stone for anyone needing such material. - Ben-Dov in Yadin et al (1976:97-101)

Stratum A1 Earthquake - mid-8th century CE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls Collapsed and Fallen Columns Cracked Walls (penetrative fractures in masonry blocks) Warped foundations Sunken floors (Anthropic compacted stratum) Partial Repairs Debris	Plan of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount Yadin et al (1976) Fig. 1 Plan of Building 2 in Jerusalem (after Mazar and Ben-Dov 1971), with the areas excavated in 1962–63 by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the Joint Expedition superimposed. Prag (2000) Fig. 9. Reconstruction of Haram and surrounding buildings (after Bahat 1989: 82-83). Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)	Fig. 4. Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level). JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring Mazar (1969)	Mazar (1969) concluded that stratum A1 ended with an earthquake which destroyed a large Umayyad Building south of Temple Mount about a generation or two after its construction. The earthquake was said to have collapsed its walls and columns and produced a considerable pile of rubble. They correlated the earthquake with one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes. They further noted that there were partial repairs during the Abbasid period (second half of the 8th century A.D.) and that the paved street and the gateway of the building continued to be used in stratum A2, and the water system was modified drastically. Ben Dov (1985:275-276) examined artifacts from a sewage canal that collected refuse from before the building was destroyed. In the canal, he found pottery (Khirbet Mafjar ware) dating to the first half of the 8th century CE. Ben Dov (1985:321) reports archaeoseismic evidence from the earthquake including cracked walls, warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors. All this evidence would have come from Building 2 immediately S of Haram esh-Sharif - according to Prag (2000:245). The building-complex was destroyed by a heavy earthquake, traces of which can still be observed. This was the disastrous quake of 747/748 C.E. which hit Jerusalem especially hard; Talmudic literature denotes this catastrophe as the "quake in the sabbatical year". The area was not renewed in its former plan after the disaster, and the rise of the Abbasids put an end to Omayyad aspirations for Jerusalem. Not only were no renovations or construction carried out here, but the ruins became a huge quarry, a source for building stone for anyone needing such material. - Ben-Dov in Yadin et al (1976:97-101)	VIII+ V+ and VIII+ VI+ IX+ (not from EAE Chart) VI+-VII+ n/a n/a

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224). Warped foundations suggest a higher intensity (IX+) but, without photos or detailed descriptions, I am unsure if this reflects true foundation damage.

Building II Earthquake - 1st half of the 11th century CE

Magness (2010:147-153) suggests that some of the seismic effects assigned by original excavators to a mid-8th century earthquake could have been caused by the earthquake(s) of 1033/4 CE
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls Collapsed and Fallen Columns Cracked Walls (penetrative fractures in masonry blocks) Warped foundations Sunken floors (Anthropic compacted stratum) Partial Repairs Debris	Plan of Omayyad structures adjacent to Temple Mount Yadin et al (1976) Fig. 1 Plan of Building 2 in Jerusalem (after Mazar and Ben-Dov 1971), with the areas excavated in 1962–63 by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the Joint Expedition superimposed. Prag (2000) Fig. 9. Reconstruction of Haram and surrounding buildings (after Bahat 1989: 82-83). Whitcomb in Galor and Avni (2011)	Fig. 4. Section E 6, cutting through the street some 5 m east of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount (lowest height 715 m above sea-level). JW: 5 m west of the SW corner of Temple Mount and not the same as Warren's shaft in the City of David next to the Gihon spring Mazar (1969)	Mazar (1969) concluded that stratum A1 ended with an earthquake which destroyed a large Umayyad Building south of Temple Mount about a generation or two after its construction. The earthquake was said to have collapsed its walls and columns and produced a considerable pile of rubble. They correlated the earthquake with one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes. They further noted that there were partial repairs during the Abbasid period (second half of the 8th century A.D.) and that the paved street and the gateway of the building continued to be used in stratum A2, and the water system was modified drastically. Ben Dov (1985:275-276) examined artifacts from a sewage canal that collected refuse from before the building was destroyed. In the canal, he found pottery (Khirbet Mafjar ware) dating to the first half of the 8th century CE. Ben Dov (1985:321) reports archaeoseismic evidence from the earthquake including cracked walls, warped foundations, fallen columns, and sunken floors. All this evidence would have come from Building 2 immediately S of Haram esh-Sharif - according to Prag (2000:245). The building-complex was destroyed by a heavy earthquake, traces of which can still be observed. This was the disastrous quake of 747/748 C.E. which hit Jerusalem especially hard; Talmudic literature denotes this catastrophe as the "quake in the sabbatical year". The area was not renewed in its former plan after the disaster, and the rise of the Abbasids put an end to Omayyad aspirations for Jerusalem. Not only were no renovations or construction carried out here, but the ruins became a huge quarry, a source for building stone for anyone needing such material. - Ben-Dov in Yadin et al (1976:97-101)	VIII+ V+ and VIII+ VI+ IX+ (not from EAE Chart) VI+-VII+ n/a n/a

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224). Warped foundations suggest a higher intensity (IX+) but, without photos or detailed descriptions, I am unsure if this reflects true foundation damage.

References

Articles and Books

Baruch, Y., and Reich, R. 1999 Renewed Excavations at the Umayyad Building III. Pp. 128-40 in New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference, Dec. 23,1999, ed. A. Faust and E. Ba- ruch. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. (in Hebrew)

Ben-Dov, M. 1971 The Omayyad Structures near the Temple Mount. Pp. 37-44 in The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount: Second Preliminary Report 1969-70 Seasons, ed. B. Mazar. Jerusalem.

Ben-Dov, M. 1976 The Area South of the Temple Mount in the Early Islamic Period. Pp. 97-101 in Je- rusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974, ed. Y. Yadin. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ben-Dov, M. Broshi, M., and Tsafrir, Y. 1977 Excavations at the Zion Gate

Ben-Dov, M. 1983 Jerusalem's Fortifications: The City Walls, Gates and the Temple Mount. Tel-Aviv: Zemorah- Bitan. [Hebrew]

BEN Dov, M. (1985): In the shadow of the Temple, Keter, Jerusalem.

BEN Dov, M. (2002): Historical atlas of Jerusalem, Continuum, London. - site specific archeoseismic evidence is not presented.

Ben-Dov, M. 1993 Jerusalem Fortifications and Citadel: Eighth to 11th Centuries. Pp. 793-95 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2, ed. E. Stern,Ben-Dov, M.

Broshi, M., and Gibson, S. 1994 Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Pp. 147-55 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Galor, K. and G. Avni (2011). Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 years of archaeological research in the Holy City, Penn State Press.

Gevaʿ, H. (2019). Ancient Jerusalem revealed: archaeological discoveries, 1998-2018, Israel Exploration Society.

Grabar, O., Al-Asad, M., Audeh, A., Nuseibeh, S. (1996). The shape of the holy: early Islamic Jerusalem. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press.

Hamilton, R. W. (1944) Excavations Against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937—8. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 10: 1-54.

Lewinson-Gilboa, A. and Aviram, J. (1994). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1994 Excavations and Architectural Survey of the Archaeological Remains along the Southern Wall of the Jerusalem Old City. Pp. 311-20 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Lassner, J. (2017). Medieval Jerusalem: Forging an Islamic City in Spaces Sacred to Christians and Jews. United States: University of Michigan Press.

Magness, J. (1991). "The Walls of Jerusalem in the Early Islamic Period." The Biblical Archaeologist 54(4): 208-217.

Magness, J. (2010) 'Early Islamic Urbanism and Building Activity in Jerusalem and at Hammath Gado. ; in J. Haldon (ed.), Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Debates (Burlington: Roudcdgc), pp. 147-63.

Mazar, B. (1969) The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, EI 9 (1969), pp. 161-174, ref.p. 173 (Hebrew).

Mazar, B. (1969) The excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem (Jerusalem, 1969), 20

Mazar (1975) The Mountain of the Lord. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. p. 269

Mazar, E. and B. Mazar (1989). "Excavations In The South Of The Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem." Qedem 29: III-187.

Mazar, B. (1971). The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Near the Temple Mount — Second Preliminary Report, 1969—70 Seasons / החפירות הארכיאולוגיות ליד הר-הבית: סקירה שנייה, עונות תשכ"ט—תש"ל. Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies / ארץ-ישראל: מחקרים בידיעת הארץ ועתיקותיה, י, 1–34. (in Hebrew)

Mazar, E. (2007) The Ophel Wall in Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. Pp. 181-200 in The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968-1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports, vol. 3: The Byzantine Period. Qedem 46. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University.

Prag, K. (2000) Umayyad Building II in Jerusalem in ICAAANE - Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Volume 2 22-26 May 2000, Copenhagen ed. Ingolf Thuesen

Rosen-Ayalon, M. (1989) 'The Early Islamic Monuments of Haram-al-Sharif: An Iconographic Study' , Qedem, 28: 1-73. - at JSTOR

Rutenberg, A. and Levy, R. Damage Assessment: Some Comments on Seismicity in Israel, Performance Assessment & Damage to Historic Monuments in Jerusalem - report from PROHITECH - WP2 Technion-Israel Institute of Technology - open access at archive.org

Sharon, M. (2009) "Shape of the Holy." SO 107 : 38-51.

Tsafrir, Y. (2000) Procopius and the Nea Church in Jerusalem. An Tard 8: 149-64.

Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2001 Jerusalem, The Old City Walls. Hadashot Arkheologiot / Excavations and Surveys in Israel 113: 79*-80*.

Weksler-Bdolah, S. (2003) The Fortifications of Jerusalem During Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (3rd/4th to 8th cent.). M.A. thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. [Hebrew]

Weksler-Bdolah, S. (2005) Jerusalem, the New Gate. Excavations and Surveys in Israel: 117

Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2006 The Old City Walls of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Corner. Atiqot 54: 95-119 [Hebrew]; 163-64 [English summary].

Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2006-7 The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. Aram 18-19: 85-112.

Weksler-Bdolah, S., 2007 Reconsidering the Byzantine Period City Wall of Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 28: 88-101. [Hebrew]

Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2011 The Fortification System in the Northwestern Part of Jerusalem from the Early Islamic to the Ottoman Periods. Atiqot 65: 105-30 [Hebrew]; 73*-75* [English summary].

Weksler-Bdolah, S. forthcoming Jerusalem, Kikar Zahal's tunnel. Hadashot Arkheologiot.

Wellhausen, J. (1973): The arab kingdom and its fall, Curzon Press, London, pp. 592.

Whitcomb, D. (2011) 'Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City' , in K. Gator and G. Avni (eds), Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), pp. 311-30.

Whitcomb, D. (2016) “Notes for an archaeology of Muʿāwiya: material culture in the transitional period of believers.” In A. Borrut and F. M. Donner, eds. Christians and Others in the Umayyad State. (2016). United States: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Wightman, G.J. (1993): Walls of Jerusalem, Mediterranean Archaeology Studies Suppl. 4 (Med. Arch Univ. Sydney), p. 331.

Yadin, Y. and R. Grafman ed. (1976). "Jerusalem revealed : archaeology in the Holy City, 1968-1974." Yale University Press and the Israel Exploration Society

Zimni-Gitler, J. (2025) Chapter 10. Traces of the AD 749 Earthquake in Jerusalem: New Archaeological Evidence from Mount Zion , in Lichtenberger, A. and Raja, R. (2025) Jerash, the Decapolis, and the Earthquake of AD 749, Brepolis