Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.)

Chapter 9: The Urban Configuration

313 Chapter 9 The Urban Configuration Jerusalem reached an unprecedented size physically and demographically by the middle first century C.E. In fact, it was only at the end of the nineteenth century that the city again attained-and then surpassed-these dimensions.1 In the last two centuries of the Second Temple period, Jerusalem tripled in size, reflecting in no small measure the city's enhanced stature as the religious center ofthe Jews, whose numbers and geographical dispersion were unparalleled in antiquity. Together with the monumental Herodian buildings and others erected thereafter, the city gained an international reputation. Writing in the middle of the first century, Pliny the Elder describes Jerusalem as "the most famous, by far, of the cities in the East,"2 and Tacitus refers to it as the capital of the Jews with "a Temple possessing enormous riches."3 Geographical Expansion Following the dramatic expansion ofthe city westward to Mount Zion under the early Hasmoneans, there was little incentive to expand farther in that direction. The Hinnom Valley to the immediate west of Mount Zion and the hard stone in the area farther west, which was unsuitable for building, were the primary obstacles calculated to discourage city planners from moving in that direction. A northerly direction-with its more conducive topography and suitable stone for building-provided a much more attractive option for the inevitable growth of 1. EJ, IX: 1447-1466. See also Avi-Yonah, "Jerusalem," 206-249. 2. Natural History 5, 70. 3. Histories 5.8,1 (GLAJJ, II: 28). 314 .;.........,..r......, --Qo,ooon- ~""'"",,OI · <;-..phM.'jValley of Hlnnom Figure 75. Jerusalem in the Second Temple period. -i____ .........., " ,,\ THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. \ \ \ \ \ ,\ , 1 1 1 _Of · I _J_, 1 1 ..._ 1 ,.... \ =-1 '" 1 the city. The Second Wall, possibly built by Herod, added almost 40 percent (approximately 60 acres) to the city's area, thus bringing the entire walled area to about 225 acres. The rapid growth continued at least into the fifth decade of the first century, when Agrippa I found it necessary to initiate the construction of what Josephus termed the "Third Wall" (Fig. 75). However, this project was thwarted by the Roman government and was completed only some twenty-five years later by the rebels at the outbreak of the revolt.5 The area enclosed by this new enceinte was enormous; it doubled the size of the city, which now encompassed some 450 acres. 4. War 2.11, 6, 218; 5.4, 2, 151-154, and Ant. 19.7, 2,326-327; see also above. 5. War 5.4, 2, 155. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 315 The concomitant population growth may have been the result of natural biological factors, but there can be little doubt that the religious attraction ofJerusalem at this time was at a peak, and people streamed to the city-as pilgrims or future residents -because of the presence of its magnificent Temple.6 The Third Wall As noted, by the reign of Agrippa I, Jerusalem was deemed ready for another enceinte that would incorporate more land. The area within the Second Wall, built some time in the previous century, was now considered inadequate, as many people were now living north of the First and Second Walls: "This wall was built by Agrippa to enclose the later additions to the city, which were quite unprotected; for the town, overflowing with inhabitants, had gradually crept beyond the ramparts."7 The resultant wall, doubling the size of the city, is persuasive evidence for the significant growth in Jerusalem's population.8 Josephus offers a detailed and historically important description of the course of this wall: The third (wall) began at the tower of Hippicus, whence it stretched northwards to the tower Psephinus, and then descending opposite the monuments of Helena (queen ofAdiabene and daughter of king Izates), and proceeding past the royal caverns it bent round a comer tower over against the so-called Fuller's tomb and joining the ancient rampart terminated at the valley called Kidron. This wall was built by Agrippa to enclose the later additions to the city, which were quite unprotected; for the town, overflowing with inhabitants, had gradually crept beyond the ramparts. Indeed, the popUlation, uniting to the hill [on which the Upper City lay] the district north ofthe Temple, had encroached so far that even a fourth hill was surrounded with houses. This hill, which is called Bezetha, lay opposite Antonia, but was cut off from it by a deep fosse, dug on purpose to sever the foundations ofAntonia from the hill and so to render them at once less easy of access and more elevated, the depth of the trench materially increasing the height of the towers. The recently built quarter was called in the vernacular Bezetha, which might be translated into Greek as New Town. 6. Little is known regarding any overall planning for the city, divisions into smaller administrative subsections , building controls, services, public order, and the repair and maintenance of public areas. For these and other questions of a municipal nature in Rome, about which we are far better informed, see O. Robinson, Ancient Rome. 7. War 5.4,2, 148-149. 8. It should be noted that the northern line of this wall was not dictated by topographical considerations. The wall was not extended to afford greater defensive capabilities but rather to accommodate the needs of the city's population. 316 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Seeing then the residents ofthis district in need of defense, Agrippa, the father and namesake of the present king [i.e., Agrippa II, king in the northern areas in the days ofJosephus], began the above-mentioned wall; but, fearing that Claudius Caesar might suspect from the vast scale of the structure that he had designs of revolution and revolt, he desisted after merely laying the foundations.9 Indeed the city would have been impregnable, had the wall been continued as it began; for it was constructed of stones twenty cubits long and ten broad, so closely joined that they could scarcely have been undermined with tools of iron or shaken by engines. The wall itself was ten cubits broad, and it would doubtless have attained a greater height than it did, had not the ambition of its founder been frustrated . Subsequently, although hurriedly erected by the Jews, it rose to a height oftwenty cubits, besides having battlements of two cubits and bulwarks ofthree cubits high, bringing the total altitude up to twenty-five cubits. Above the wall, however, rose towers, twenty cubits broad and twenty high, square and solid as the wall itself, and in the joining and beauty of the stones in no wise inferior to a temple. Over this solid masonry, twenty cubits in altitude, were magnificent apartments, and above these, upper chambers and cisterns to receive the rain-water, each tower having broad spiral staircases. Of such towers the Third Wall had ninety, disposed at intervals of two hundred cubits; the line of the middle wall was broken by fourteen towers, that of the old wall by sixty. The whole circumference of the city was thirty-three furlongs [same as stades, each approximately two hundred yards].\O For all his detail, Josephus omits here any mention of the wall's gates. Elsewhere he notes "the Women's Towers" (quite possibly referring to a gate) that stood opposite the funerary monuments of Helena to the north.ll A major controversy was waged in the latter half of the twentieth century between Israeli and British archaeologists over the precise course of the Third Wall (Fig. 76). The former adopted a maximalist position, assuming that the Third Wall ran parallel to the wall of the Old City, five or six hundred yards north of it; the latter, following Vincent,12 adopted a minimalist stance, claiming that the wall essentially followed 9. Josephus offers several other reasons from the work stoppage. Earlier in War, 2.11,6,218-219, he remarks that work on the wall ceased owing to the king's death; in Antiquities 19.7,2,326--327, the Roman governor Marsus reported Agrippa's activities to Claudius, and the emperor, suspecting a possible revolt, ordered the king to desist; according to Josephus, "Agrippa thought it best not to disobey ." Whatever the reason, or combination thereof, in each case we are told that had the project been completed, the city would have been made impenetrable. See also Tacitus, Histories 5.12, 2 (GLAJJ, II: 30), who states: "they had bought the privilege of fortifying their city, and in time of peace had built walls as if for war." 10. War 5.4,2-3, 147-159. For a detailed discussion of this passage, see Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 459-503. 11. War 5.2,2,55. 12. Vincent, "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (1)," 516--548, "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (2)," 80--100, 321-339, and "Encore la troisieme enceinte," 90--126. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 317 Figure 76. Maximalist (left) and minimalist (right) reconstructions of the line of the Third Wall. the course of today's Old City wall. According to the British view, therefore, flrst-century Jerusalem was considerably smallerY Each side of the dispute relies largely on archaeological data for proving its claims and countering the opposing view; although detailed, the literary evidence (which we cite above) is nevertheless given to differing interpretations and thus plays a distinctly secondary role in these deliberations. To review all the arguments and counterarguments offered in this controversy would require a small monograph in itself. The pivotal factor in this debate is the remains ofa wall excavated in 1925-1927 by Sukenik and Mayer, and a halfcentury later by Netzer and Ben-Arieh; altogether, some 850 yards out of a probable total of 1,200 (stretching from the presumed spot of the Psephinus Tower in the west to the Qidron Valley in the east) have been exposed.14 There is some debate whether these remains are, in fact, as monumental as Josephus' rather exuberant description, but all assessments date them to the period of the 66-70 revolt. In this context, they seem to best fit Josephus' account of the course of the Third Wall. Thus the "maximalist" placement of the wall appears to be the most convincing . Alternative explanations regarding these remains (a fourth wall built by the rebels; remains of the dike erected by the Romans to prevent escape, etc.) are far less persuasive. Their proponents either invent an unattested fourth wall or suggest a solution that largely ignores the remains themselves (a dike). The wall clearly faces north (as attested by the towers standing there) and the stone foun13 . Following Sukenik and Mayer, Third Wall, the Israeli position has been put forth by Avi-Yonah, "Third and Second Walls," 98-125, followed again by Ben-Arieh and Netzer, "Excavations along the Third Wall,'" 97-107, and Shanks, "Jerusalem Wall," 46-57. For the British position, see Kenyon, "Excavations in Jerusalem," 88, and Jerusalem, 166; Hennessy, "Preliminary Report," 22-24; and Hamrick, "Third Wall," 18-22, "Fourth Wall," 262-266, and "Northern Barrier Wall," 215-232. See also Wightman, Walls ofJerusalem, 159-181. 14. NEAEHL, II:744--745. The existence of this wall was first noted in the nineteenth century by American archaeologist E. Robinson, Biblical Researches, 465-467. 318 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. dations are much more substantial than any Roman dike would require, especially when compared to the one discovered at Masada.15 Thus, by a process of elimination , it is eminently clear that we are dealing with a sturdy wall built for defensive purposes, and this could only be the Third Wall described by Josephus.16 Topography The physical contours of Jerusalem consist of hills or, more often, ridges divided by deep valleys. In his famous description of the city on the eve ofTItus'siege, Josephus notes the following: The city was fortified by three walls, except where it was enclosed by impassable ravines, a single rampart there sufficing [i.e., on the east, south, and west]. It was built, in portions facing each other, on two hills separated by a central valley , in which the tiers of houses ended. Of these two hills, that on which the Upper City lay was far higher and had a straighter ridge than the other; consequently, owing to its strength it was called by King David-the father of Solomon, the first builder of the Temple-the Stronghold, but we called it the Upper Agora. The second hill, which bore the name ofAkra and supported the Lower City, was like a hog's back. Opposite this was a third hill, by nature lower than Akra, and once divided from it by another broad mvine. Afterwards, however, the Hasmoneans, during the period of their reign, both filled up the mvine, with the object of uniting the city to the Temple, and also reduced the elevation of Akra by leveling its summit, in order that it might not block the view of the Temple. The Valley of the Cheesemakers (the Tyropoeon Valley), as the mvine was called, which, as we said, divides the hill of the Upper City from that ofthe Lower, extends down to Siloam.... On the exterior , the two hills on which the city stood were encompassed by deep ravines, and the precipitous cliffs on either side of it rendered the town nowhere accessible.17 It is clear from this text that by Josephus' time the common assumption was that Davidic Jerusalem extended westward and included Mount Zion. Today we know that this was not the case and that David's Jerusalem lay to the east, in what 15. There is also the fanciful position once advanced by Vincent, "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (2)," 80-100, 321, 339, and "Encore 1a troisieme enceinte," 90-126, that this wall is part of the fortifications Bar-Kokhba built after having captured Jerusalem. This explanation is unsubstantiated, as it is generally agreed today that the city was never taken by Bar-Kokhba. 16. Also at issue is the fact that the lowest courses at the side of the Damascus Gate appear to date from the first century C.E. The minimalists assume that this gate was part of the Third Wall; the maximalists , generally following Avi-Yonah, include these remains and the assumed gate in the course of the Second Wall. Ma'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan," 53-54, suggests that these courses, in fact, were not part of a gate at all but rather of a triumphal arch erected by Agrippa I. 17. War 5.4, 1, 136-141. See Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 36-59. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 319 Josephus calls the Lower City; only under Hezekiah did it expand westward and include Mount Zion. Already in Josephus' day, this First Temple expansion was presumed to have taken place in the Davidic-Solomonic era. This description seems generally clear enough, with the one main exception being the reference to a third hill, lower than the Akra (or the Lower City, in Josephus' parlance) and divided from it by a ravine. This has been interpreted as referring to either the Temple Mount or a hill north ofthe Upper City (or agora). The latter explanation appears the more reasonable of the two; a small valley, often referred to as the Cross Valley, ran from the Citadel area (or Jaffa Gate) eastward toward the Temple Mount. The area to its north was once a hill and is roughly equivalent to the Christian Quarter of today's Old City; it seems that this is the site referred to by Josephus. As a result of this rather sharply divided urban topography,18 the various areas of the city were clearly separated from one another; between them were undoubtedly commercial and public spaces that lined the valley's streets. It seems that each neighborhood developed along different lines owing to its unique topographical features, its location within the city, and the particular popUlation that resided there.19 Some areas appear to have been more homogeneous than others, although firm conclusions are elusive?O Despite the fact that we have a relatively considerable amount of literary and archaeological material relating to Jerusalem's neighborhoods, the data are very uneven, and some quarters are far better documented than others.21 We will discuss the two most important and best-documented Jerusalem neighborhoods-the Lower and Upper Citiesbeginning with the oldest part of the city, referred to by Josephus as the Lower City and, at times, the Akra.22 The Lower City The Lower City is a difficult quarter to defme in terms of its ambience and residents , not because of any dearth of information but rather because what we have 18. The Tyropoeon Valley clearly divided the western and eastern ridges, each of which was further divided by a smaller valley; the Cross Valley cut across the western ridge, while the Saint Anne (or Bezetha) Valley ran north of the Temple Mount in an east-west direction. 19. See Laurence, "Local Identity," 38-50. 20. See Wallace-Hadrill, "Elites and Trade," 249-264, and Perring, "Spatial Organisation," 273-293. 21. For an attempt to reconstruct part of the street grid of Herodian Jerusalem on the basis of today's Old City streets, see Wilkinson, "Streets of Jerusalem," 118-136. 22. The western boundary of this neighborhood is not entirely clear. Whether it basically followed the Tyropoeon Valley or included part of the eastern slope of Mount Zion (and if so, how much?) is impossible to determine. Avi-Yonah is probably correct in assuming the latter alternative, which finds expression in the model of Jerusalem at the Holyland Hotel. 320 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. is so diverse and contrasting. We know of four different types of buildings in this part of the city (Fig. 77). First, Jerusalem's hippodrome was almost certainly located somewhere in this quarter.23 Built by Herod, we can assume that this institution continued to function throughout the first century.24 Josephus makes it quite clear that the building was located south of the Temple and in close proximity to it,25 although no archaeological remains that might be associated with such an institution have as yet been revealed.26 Because a Roman hippodrome was a large building, ranging in length from 300 to 550 yards, its placement along this ridge was problematic. It was for this reason that Avi-Yonah, in his Holyland Hotel model, opted for a solution that placed the hippodrome partly on the western part of the ridge and partly in the central Tyropoeon Valley (see Fig. 46 in Chapter 5). Whatever may have been its location, it is clear that the hippodrome constituted a dominant presence in this area; it was a monumental institution in its own right and especially imposing within the relatively restricted area ofthe Lower City. Whether such a building was placed there owing to the proclivities of those already residing in the neighborhood is impossible to determine. If indeed there is some sort of correlation between the building and the immediate population, then there was probably a large percentage of middle- and lower-class citizens in the area. The hippodrome's competitions were rooted in hoary antiquity (according to Roman legend, the first chariot races were held by Romulus soon after Rome's founding in 753 B.C.E.) and were known to attract boisterous fans. From Late Antiquity we read of riots and wanton destruction accompanying these activities. The organized clubs lfactiones) that sponsored the various competitors in Rome (''Reds,'' ''Whites,'' "Greens," and "Blues") were often responsible for such behavior .27 The extent of the disruptions in the first century, and in the East, is unknown.28 Pliny the Younger exhibited the utmost disdain for the time wasted in the hippo23 . See Chapter 5. 24. Such an assumption has often been questioned, either because it was difficult for some to believe that the Jewish inhabitants of the city would have tolerated its continued presence after Herod's death or because Josephus never mentions it after 4 B.C.E. Neither of these considerations is particularly compelling. As we have seen, and will see, the composition of Jerusalem's inhabitants was far from homogeneous, and the more acculturated population continued to dominate the city's political and social life down to the revolt. The absence of any reference by Josephus is noteworthy but far from decisive. By now it is quite clear that the historian was guided by his political agenda; with rare exception, if an institution or office did not playa role in the events that he wished to relate, it would never appear in his writings. The first and only mention of the hippodrome by Josephus occurs in these very circumstances. 25. Ant. 17.10,2,255. 26. On the fragments found in the Temple Mount excavations (not far from where Avi-Yonah suggests that the hippodrome once stood) that have been interpreted as remains of stone theater seats, see Reich and Billig, "AGroup of Theatre Seats," 175-184. 27. Cameron, Circus Factions, 74-153,271-296. 28. Ibid., 56-{i2, 201-205. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION Figure 77. The Lower City viewed from the south (Holyland Hotel model). Figure 78. Queen Helena's palaces in the Lower City viewed from the east (Holyland Hotel model). 321 drome and the boorishness of its spectators.29 Undoubtedly, some of the thrill in this spectator sport involved the chariots making dangerous turns, leading to innumerable accidents.30 We have no way of knowing how much this type of competition, and the audience it drew, affected this part of the city. One of the most memorable events of this period was the arrival in Jerusalem of Helena, queen of Adiabene (a kingdom in Mesopotamia), and the building of a series of palaces in the Lower City in the 40s and 50s (Fig. 78). She and the rest of her royal family had recently converted to Judaism, an event noted in detail by Josephus and mentioned in rabbinic literature as welpl Of the royal family, which included her husband, Monobaz, and their two sons, Jzates and Monobaz, Helena herself was the most active in Jerusalem. She lived in the city for a considerable period oftime, took a Nazirite vow on several occasions,32 made generous donations to the Temple,33 supplied the local population with grain from Alexandria and dried figs from Cyprus in times of famine,34 and built a monumental tomb for her family north ofthe citi5 as well as her palace in the center ofthe Lower City.36 As noted, other members of her family also erected palaces in the Lower City; Monobaz and Grapte (identified as a relative of Helena's son, King Jzates) are specifically noted.37 29. Letters 9, 6. 30. Pliny the Elder, Natural History 28, 72. 31 . Ant. 20.2-4, 17-96, and Genesis Rabbah 46, 11 (ed. Theodor and Albeck, 467-468), See Schiffman, "Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene," 293-312. 32. M Nazir 3, 6. 33. MYoma 3, 10. 34. Ant. 20.2,5,51-52. 35. Ibid., 20.4, 3, 95-96. 36. War 6.6, 3, 355. 37. Ibid., 4.9, 11,567; 5.6, 1,252-253. The term aule (noted in paragraphs 252-253) probably refers to a palace or residence of Monobaz, and not a courthouse as assumed by Thackeray in LCL, III:279. See War 2.15, 5, 328, and Life 12, 66. 322 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Figure 79. The Theodotos inscription. Several large buildings were discovered south of the Temple Mount. One is located about fifty yards south of the western Huldah Gate (also referred to as the Double Gate); remains of a large cistern and a plastered pool were found, and the building appears to have been built in the Hellenistic era. Some ninety yards south of the eastern Huldah Gate (sometimes referred to as the Triple Gate) a two-story building was discovered. Each of these structures has been identified with one or another of the Adiabene palaces.38 The Theodotos inscription, attesting to the presence of a synagogue in the Lower City, was discovered in 1913-1914 in a cistern in the southeastern part of this neighborhood (Fig. 79). Named after the head of the synagogue and its principal donor, the inscription attests to a multiroomed complex that provided for the educational and religious needs of a community, living quarters for pilgrims from abroad, and water installations.39 The fact that pilgrims would lodge in this synagogue complex indicates that there was a constant flow of Diaspora Jews to and from the building, with the main route heading northward through the Lower City to the Huldah Gates and the Temple Mount. The significance of such a presence lies not only in the size of this particular hostel but also in the possibility that other, similar, institutions existed in the vicinity as well (see Acts 6:9 and below). A number of tombs are attested in this part of the city, two of the most famous ones belonging to Huldah the prophetess and King David. Rabbinic literature notes that these tombs remained within Jerusalem despite the prohibition against burial within the city limits that was intended to prevent its defilement by the dead;40 each of these tombs had an underground tunnel that ostensibly funneled impurities into the nearby Qidron Valley. The Bible notes explicitly the burial of 38. B. Mazar, "Herodian Jerusalem," 236-237, and Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 155. 39. See Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 54-56, and below. On the water reservoirs located in this area, see Adan, 'The 'Fountain of Siloam'and 'Solomon's Pool,'" 92-100. 40. T Bava Batra I, 11 (ed. Lieberman, 131-132). THE URBAN CONFIGURATION Figure 80. The tomb of the prophetess Huldah near the Temple Mount's southern gates (Holyland Hotel mOdel). 323 David in "the City of David," which in his day was located exclusively in this area (l Kings 2:10), and Avi-Yonah, in the Holyland Hotel model, placed Huldah's tomb near the Temple's southern gates, which he assumed were named after the prophetess owing to the proximity of her sepulcher (Fig. 80). According to Vitae Prophetarum41 (one of the apocryphal books written apparently in the first century C.E.), there were tombs of other kings ofJudah in this area, as well as that of the prophet Isaiah. Vitae also mentions tombs of priests to the east, perhaps a reference to the Qidron Valley tombs (Absalom's tomb, Zechariah's tomb, and the Bnei Hezir tomb). Finally, Eusebius42 notes that James, brother of Jesus, was buried at the foot of the Temple wall (possibly near the southeastern comer) after his execution in 62, which would place it in the vicinity of Huldah's tomb. The presence of the four types of buildings noted above offers a variegated picture of the Lower City. Anyone of them might have set the tone for the entire area, but all four certainly created a dynamic and diverse ambience. We do not know where these buildings were located or how they might have related to one another. Thus one can only speculate as to their respective importance in shaping the life of the Lower City. The western part of the Lower City was traversed by the Tyropoeon Valley, the main artery of the city. Beginning in the north, perhaps near the present-day Damascus Gate, this valley ran southeastward to the Dung Gate that stood adjacent to the Siloam Pool. This thoroughfare was undoubtedly the focus of much commercial activity, as it passed through the area enclosed by the Second Wall with its many commercial enterprises (see below), skirted the Temple Mount to the west where many stores and stalls were found,43 and wound up at the Dung 41. At 1, 8. 42. Ecclesiastical History 2, 23, 18. 43. See R. Reich and Billig, "Excavations near the Temple Mount," 345-346. 324 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Figure 81. The Hasmonean Palace showing the stoa and open area of the Xystus in the lower left corner. Gate where there were wool stores.44 Parts of this street dating from the first century C.E. have been revealed in the Temple Mount excavations; the street may have been colonnaded in the style ofRoman cities, and it was here that craftsmen and shopkeepers greeted pilgrims bringing their first-fruit offerings.45 This area is perhaps the one referred to in rabbinic literature as ''the lower marketplace."46 At the very northern end ofthe Lower City, adjacent to where the First Wall met the Temple Mount,47 stood the Xystus, a building the precise character and function of which remain an enigma (Fig. 81). The term "Xystus" usually refers to a gymnasium of sorts, often with a large open area. As such, it might also have served as a meeting place for a large crowd. The reference to a colonnade adjacent to the Hasmonean palace might indicate such a complex.48 If so, then Jerusalem boasted a kind of gymnasium in Herodian and post-Herodian times for athletic exercises and as a meeting place. It is possible that this building (like the Hasmonean palace above it) had already been erected in the Hasmonean era, perhaps in the same place where Jason and the Hellenizers built a gymnasium in 175 B.C.E.; however, we know very little about the location ofJason's gymnasium, apart from the fact that it was ''beneath the citadel [i.e., Akra]."49 If the Ptolemaic Akra was intended, as seems probable, it would place the gymnasium north or west of the Temple Mount, conceivably in the area of the Xystus. Such an identi44 . M 'Eduyot 1, 3. According to one rabbinic source, both the trade of weaving and the location of the Dung Gate were considered degrading (T 'Eduyot 1, 3 led. Zuckerrnandel, 455]). On this and other professions as reflected in rabbinic literature, see Aberbach, Labor, Crafts and Commerce, 159-240. 45. M Bikkurim 3, 3. 46. For example, T Sanhedrin 14, 14 (ed. Zuckerrnandel, 437). 47. War 6.6,2,325; 8, 1,377. 48. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189. Speculating that the Xystus was located on the main intersection of the city (where the Tyropoeon Valley Street intersected the Cross Valley Street), Ma'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town·Plan," 51, suggests that the Xystus was, in fact, the city's forum. 49. See 2 Mace. 4, 12. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION Figure 82. The bouleuterion in Priene. 325 fication can be regarded only as speculative at this point. Whatever the case, the Xystus clearly included a large open space intended for major public gatherings,50 and it was here that Jerusalemites were summoned to hear Agrippa IT's plea for peace. Below the Xystus, and also in close proximity to the First Wall, stood the bouleuterion, where Jerusalem's city council (boule) presumably met (Fig. 82).5' The only archaeological remains that have been discovered may relate to the bouleuterion. Deep under the present level of the Western Wall plaza, and almost directly beneath Wilson's Arch (built, as we see it today, some time in the early Middle Ages), are the remains of what was once a well-built room; stone blocks in the lowest courses of several of its walls had been finely molded, and parts of what may well have been an original flagstone floor are likewise in evidence. While no stratigraphy of the room has been ascertained, it seems to fit well into a Herodian context, given the other remains in the area. This room may conceivably be the remains of the bouleuterion mentioned by Josephus.52 In addition to the above buildings and the main thoroughfare, it must be remembered that the majority of the residents in the Lower City were native Jerusalemites or Judaeans who took up residence there. This quarter in particular became one of the hotbeds of the revolutionaries; at an early stage it sheltered the most extreme faction, which presumably found sympathy and support among the indigenous population. The Sicarii leader Menahem found refuge in the Lower City after having been driven off the Temple Mount by his adversaries. Eventually, he and his next in command were murdered there.5 3 50. See Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 180, who indeed interprets the term "Xystus" as referring to "a structure with a broad, stone-paved plaza in its center." 51. On this institution as part of the local polis, see Chapter 7. A10n, Jews, Judaism, 55-56, however, assumes that the city's boule did not meet here but rather in theTemple precincts, in the Chamber of the Bouleutin as it is referred to in a number of rabbinic traditions. 52. The room has often been referred to as the Masonic or Hasmonean HaIl; the former term is a British designation , and the latter has no archaeological or literary basis. See Bahat, "Western Wall Tunnels," 178-179. 53. War 2.l7, 9, 441-448. 326 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Thus, besides the Adiabene royalty and the Theodotos synagogue, the Lower City was the hub ofrevolutionary activity. The contrast between a recent and pious convert such as Helena, and someone like Menahem, whose group was responsible for the deaths of many Jews whom it considered traitors, could hardly be more striking. Yet, the Lower City was home to both. It appears that this area, the oldest in Jerusalem, was undergoing a significant measure of gentrification in the first century C.E. and perhaps even earlier, under Herod, judging by the Theodotos inscription. The indigenous popUlation was being supplemented in part by wealthy Diaspora Jews, such as Helena and her retinue from the East and those from the West who availed themselves of the Theodotos synagogue's facilities and perhaps other such institutions. We cannot determine why such Diaspora Jews were attracted to this neighborhood. Was it the availability of land, its low cost, proximity to the Temple, or something else?54 Whatever the reasons, these newcomers probably succeeded in shaping the ambience of the area in significant, if not easily defmable, ways.55 The Upper City Of all the sections ofJerusalem, the Upper City, located on Mount Zion to the west ofthe Lower City, appears to have been more homogeneous (Fig. 83). It was there that Jerusalem's aristocratic, priestly, and wealthy classes lived, and the institutions located in this district were calculated to serve their needs. The palaces and residences ofJerusalem's leadership circles were invariably to be found there, and Herod established himself in this area in the middle 20s, as did the procurators who subsequently occupied his palace.56 In the middle first century, Agrippa II significantly enlarged the Hasmonean palace that already stood on this hill, affording the king a clear view of the Temple and Temple Mount.57 According to Christian tradition, the house of the High Priest Caiaphas was located nearby, and excavations at the proposed site have uncovered frescoes depicting birds and architectural designs (Fig. 84).58 Although the accuracy of this identification is questionable, it is nevertheless quite likely that many, if not most, of the high priests resided in the area. Josephus notes that the house of the High Priest Ananias, burned by the 54. Proximity to the Temple was undoubtedly a factor in the location of the Theodotos synagogue and may have also influenced the Adiabene royal family. 55. In Pompeii and Herculaneum as well, there was a mixed popUlation of rich and poor, luxurious and squalid, living alongside one another; see Wallace-Hadrill, "Elites and Trade," 249-264. 56. Benoit, "Pretoire," 530-550. This is what happened in Caesarea as well; Herod's palace became the residence of the Roman governor (Ant. 15.9,6,331, and Acts 23:35). 57. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189-190, and War 2.17, 6, 426. 58. Broshi, "Excavations in the House of Caiaphas," 57-58. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 327 Figure 83. A panoramic view of the Upper City (Holyland Hotel model). Figure 84. The palace of the High Priest Caiaphas (Holyland Hotel model). revolutionaries, was situated near the palace of Agrippa and Berenice, which certainly was located in the Upper City.59 Because of its prime location, high on a hill overlooking the Temple Mount, it is clear why the wealthy preferred such a location. Moreover, proximity to the political, social, and religious leadership was undoubtedly an additional attraction for the prestige it offered. Fortunately, an opportunity arose following the Six Day War in 1967 to excavate part of the Upper City's residential quarter. The 59. War 2.17, 6,426. On the tendency in certain Roman towns toward socially exclusive neighborhoods , in contradistinction to recent studies on Pompeii and Herculaneum (see above), see Perring, "Spatial Organisation," 273-293: "[in] those Roman towns which had an administrative role, the elite groups were generally able to maintain control over space and .. . according to the town's status , location and date, there was a broad change in emphasis from strategies of inclusion to ones of exclusion" (274-275). 328 Figure 85. A Herodian villa in the Upper City. THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Figure 86. The main hall of a villa in the Upper City. with stucco ornamentation on walls and ceiling. results were most illuminating and, in certain cases, dramatic and even sensational . Although we have had occasion to discuss these unusual fmds from the perspective of Hellenism in Herodian Jerusalem, we will focus at present on the finds that tell us about the residents themselves. The homes ofthe aristocratic and priestly families in the Upper City offer us a glimpse into the material culture, social values, and cultural as well as religious life of these families.60 The way in which these Jerusalemites built their houses, their sizes and plans, the kinds of furniture and utensils used, how the rooms were decorated , and the small finds discovered therein confirm that this was the residential quarter of the city's social and economic elite (Fig. 85). These were all family dwellings, some of which, although built in close proximity, had spacious interiors with a large number ofrooms arranged around a courtyard-not unlike the residential quarters and villas in other parts ofthe Roman world.61 Some ofthe buildings are well preserved, with walls reaching a height of three meters (Fig. 86). Evidence for the existence of second stories has been found, as well as of basement levels that often included storerooms, cisterns, and ritual baths. Many of these houses encompassed hundreds of square meters, and one particularly large house measured approximately six hundred square meters on the ground floor alone!62 60. For the fullest discussion of these finds and those noted below. see Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 83-191. For some of the archaeological remains, see Geva, ed., Jewish Quarter Excavations, passim. 61. See Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 99, 102-103. Nevertheless, there were some significant differences , at least in regard to the house plans of Pompeii; for instance, the Jerusalem homes lacked a peristyle courtyard, an Italian-type atrium, and a triclinium. See Dickman, "Peristyle," 121-136. 62. The dimensions of this mansion compares favorably with other villas in the East, though they are dwarfed by the extravagant mansions of Pompeii, such as the House of the Faun; see Zanker, Pompeii, 34--41, 194-196. For a chronological survey of Pompeiian homes of different sizes (categorized as houses and villas) from the Tufa period (200-80 B.C.E.) down to the earthquake of 79 C.E., see L. Richardson, Pompeii. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION Figure 87. A room in a Herodian villa in the Upper City. 329 The walls of these dwellings were covered with white plaster and, sometimes , frescoes. Some were decorated with stucco that often imitated architectural details such as dressed stones. The floors, located mainly in the vicinity of water installations, were paved with mosaics containing geometric and floral patterns, the most common of which bore a rosette design (Fig. 87). These water installations were basically of two types: cisterns holding water intended for drinking, washing, and laundering, and others designated as ritual baths. The absence offigural art and the presence of an extraordinary number of cisterns that seem to be best interpreted as ritual baths indicate the religious punctiliousness ofthese residents. The priestly background of many, a status requiring frequent immersion to remain in a state of ritual purity, would easily explain the large number of such baths. Of particular interest is the fact that these miqva'ot are of a different variety than those discovered at Masada or described in rabbinic literature. They may be best categorized as Sadducean versions of a miqveh and are evidenced at Jericho and Qumran as well, places where priests were well represented.63 While a number of baths (i.e., tubs) and bathrooms were found in the Upper City-some that even functioned as steam rooms with heating units (hypocausts ) beneath the floors64-no public bathhouses have been discovered to date in Second Temple Jerusalem, and none is ever mentioned in any literary source 63. See E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law, 214-227, and Regev, "Ritual Baths," 3-21. Only one miqveh of the type discovered at Masada (double pools, one for immersion and one for storage, with a partition between them) was found in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, on the periphery of the excavated area; see Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 139 (and map on 32). 64. Baths were often strategically placed in different parts of a city to facilitate access for all; see MacDonald, Architecture, 6 (Djemila), 26-27 (Timgad), 37 (Trier), 39 (Gerasa), 40 (Lepcis Magna), 49 (Ostia). Some cities boasted a large number of baths; besides Rome's eight hundred, we know of seventeen in Ostia, four in Pompeii, at least twenty in Athens, and fourteen in Timgad (ibid., 210-219). On baths throughout the empire generally, see the survey and catalog of Nielsen, Thermae et Balnea, and Yegiil, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, 128-313. 330 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Figure 88. The bath and changing room in the basement of a Herodian villa in the Upper City. (Fig. 88).65 This absence is surprising owing to the ubiquity ofpublic baths throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.66 On the one hand, one might argue that public baths probably existed and that their absence is due to the fact that much of the city remains archaeologically unknown. Such bathhouses may have been so commonplace that they were not particularly noteworthy in and of themselves to warrant mention in literary sources. On the other hand, if one wishes to interpret this lack of evidence as an indication that public baths were not part of the Jerusalem landscape, it might be assumed that many stepped cisterns in Jerusalem were indeed used as baths and miqva'ot, thus fulfilling some of the same functions of a Roman bath, at least in a hygienic sense. If the latter suggestion is to be accepted-and for the present this possibility is only speculative-it might point to an interesting Jewish adaptation of a widespread Hellenistic-Roman institution. Public facilities were discouraged and bathing per se was relegated to the private sector, where stepped cisterns in the basements of homes fulfilled this function, at least for the upper classes. The many public miqva'ot near the Temple would have served visitors from outside the city or segments ofthe indigenous population that had no private facilities. Other finds, such as glass objects, are worthy of special mention. The amphora bearing the name of the world-renowned glassblower Ennion of Sidon was noted in Chapter 7 (Fig. 89). In addition, a wealth of vessels, especially those made of stone Uugs, bowls, cups, saucers, plates, cooking pots, and jars), as well as stone tables, sundials, ovens, and weights have been discovered, as 65. Yegiil, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, 104, 142. See also Wright, "Jewish Ritual Baths," 199-200. Bathing complexes at this time were confined to private quarters, particularly in Herodian palace complexes; see Gichon, "Roman Bath-Houses," 37-53, and Small, "Late Hellenistic Baths," 59-74. 66. This silence cannot be easily attributed to a fundamental Jewish opposition to such an institution; in the post-70 era at least, we encounter no real resistance; in fact, public baths were very much part of the larger Jewish and even rabbinic scene. See Jacobs, "Romische Thermenkultur," 219-311, and Eliav, "Roman Bath," 416-454. No source addresses this issue for the pre-70 period. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION Figure 89. Glass amphora made by Ennion of Sidon. The inscription reads: "Ennion made this." 331 Figure 90. A menorah incised on plaster from a villa in the Upper City. have molds for making tokens used for acquiring sacrificial items on the Temple Mount and perhaps for admission to the theater. The wine jugs found are particularly interesting. Imported amphorae with Latin inscriptions imprinted on the handles were found in one of the houses-possible evidence of the occupants ' preference for foreign wine. It will be recalled that in the Hellenistic era, Rhodian amphora handles were discovered in the City of David excavations. Literary sources also attest to imported commodities from Sidon, such as cups (or bowls),67and we have already noted the glass amphora ofEnnion. Moreover, two fragments of plaster engraved with a seven-branched menorah-one of the oldest archaeological finds bearing this motif-were found in the Upper City (Fig. 90).68Thus the finds from the Upper City excavations attest to a population that was as comfortable in a cosmopolitan setting as it was in a Jewish one. Neither the amenities of Roman life were forfeited nor the requirements of Jewish practice at the time ignored. Perhaps the most dramatic finds in terms of a specific historical association come from a relatively modest house in the Upper City consisting of a small courtyard surrounded by four rooms, a kitchen, and a small miqveh. A stone weight engraved with the Aramaic inscription "of Bar Qatros" links this object to the 67. M Kelim 4,3. 68. In subsequent centuries, the menorah became the Jewish symbol par excellence; see Levine, "History and Significance," 131-153. 332 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Figure 91. A stone weight found in the Upper City. The inscription reads: "of Bar·Qatros." well-known priestly family of that name (Fig. 91).69 No less interesting are the remains of the so-called Burnt House that date from the destruction of the city in 70 C.E. The house was covered with piles of stones and a layer of ash, under which fragments of stone and pottery vessels were uncovered. In a comer of the main room, the skeletal remains of a young woman's arm and hand were found near an iron spear; the woman presumably died when the building was destroyed. Since the latest coin found there dates from 69 C.E., the finds can be placed securely in 70 C.E. Taken together, the finds from the residential quarter of the Upper City have enormous historical implications. First and foremost, they tell us about an important segment of Jerusalem society that our literary sources largely ignore (i.e., the Sadducees and priests). This class is either noted almost exclusively in the political realm (as in Josephus' writings) or invariably regarded antagonistically (as in rabbinic literature and the Dead Sea scrolls). On the basis of the written evidence alone, we would know very little about how the priests and wealthy actually lived. For example, were they cosmopolitan (i.e., Hellenized) to the point of indifference to traditional norms, as sometimes asserted? Hardly so. The proliferation of miqva'ot, the use of stone vessels, the absence of figural art, and the appearance of the menorah all attest to the strong Jewish identity and ritual punctiliousness of these people. Moreover, these material remains have revealed modes ofobservance about which we were heretofore unaware. Different types of miqva'ot and the widespread use of stone, particularly in connection with food (tables, eating, and measuring utensils), reflect a deep concern for matters of purity, which appears to have permeated much of Jerusalem society in the first century.70 In addition to the archaeological remains attesting to the priestly and wealthy circles of Jerusalem, it was suggested in Chapter 3 that an Essene community also might have lived in this area. In his publication of the Temple Scroll, Yadin71 notes 69. On the Qatros family in literary sources, see T Menahot 13, 21 (ed. Zuckennandel, 533); B Pesahim 57a, and perhaps Ant. 19.8, 1, 342 and M Parah 3, 5 as well; on the latter two sources, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 94 n. 21, and M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 608. 70. Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center," 252-255, and "Ancient Israel's Stone Age," 46-52; see also Chapter II. 71. Yadin, "Gate of the Essenes," 90-91, and, in more detail, Temple Scroll, 301-304. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 333 that the Gate of the Essenes mentioned by Josephus when tracing the course of the FirstWall72 may, in fact, indicate the presence of an Essene community somewhere on the fringes of the Upper City, perhaps on the southwestern slopes of Mount Zion. Subsequent excavations conducted in the area have led to the claim that such a settlement, in fact, once existed there.73 Other excavations conducted at Bet Zafafa, in the southern part ofJerusalem, have revealed some forty pier graves, similar to those found at Qumran.74 It has been suggested that here, too, there may have been an Essene community, though more substantive evidence is still lacking. Nevertheless, the two sites, however intriguing, remain inconclusive; to identify material finds with a particular sect is a formidable and problematic exercise. Josephus' description of the First Wall is one of the most important sources regarding a series of public institutions in the Upper City, particularly when he traces the northern line between the western Herodian towers (today's Jaffa Gate) eastward to the Temple Mount: "Beginning on the north at the tower called Hippicus, it extended to the Xystus, and then, joining the council-chamber, terminated at the western portico of the Temple."75 Moreover, when introducing Agrippa II's famous but futile speech aimed at preventing the impending revolt, Josephus notes the following: He (Agrippa II) accordingly summoned the people to the Xystus and placed his sister Bernice in a commanding position on the roof of the palace of the Hasmoneans, which stood above the Xystus on the opposite side of the upper town; the Xystus was connected with the Temple by a bridge.76 These passages clearly point to three important buildings that were located along the course of the First Wall in the northeastern part of the Upper City. The westernmost was the Hasmonean palace, presumably where the Herodian family stayed when in Jerusalem during the fIrst century. As already noted, the palace was probably first built by the Hasmonean rulers when they incorporated the western hill into their city, and was then enlarged by Agrippa II in the decade before the outbreak of the revolt.77 This palace, we are told, commanded a magnificent view of the Temple and its courtyards.78 Below the palace was the Xystus (see above). 72. War 5.4,2, 145. 73. Pixner and Chen, "Mt. Zion," 85-95; Pixner, "History of the 'Essene Gate' Area," 96-104, and "Jerusalem's Essene Gateway," 23-31, 64-66; and Sternberger, Jewish Contemporaries, 131-138. 74. Zisso, " 'Qumran-Type'Graves in Jerusalem," 158-171. 75. War 5.4,2, 144. 76. Ibid., 2.16, 3, 344. 77. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189-190. This may be Josephus'intention when he says that the "palaces" of Agrippa and Berenice in the Upper City were destroyed by the rebels (War 2.17,6,426). Ant. 20.8, 11, 189, tells us that the king "built a chamber of unusual size in his palace at Jerusalem." 78. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189-192. 334 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Two other buildings are likewise to be associated with the Upper City. Both Josephus and rabbinic literature mention the existence of an Upper Market in Jerusalem, and there is little reason to doubt that it was located in this district,79 Indeed , it may be possible to suggest a more precise location, quite possibly near Herod's palace. The area east of the palace is flat and thus most appropriate for a marketplace or agora Josephus himself hints at this proximity. It will be remembered that one of the [mal incidents that led to the outbreak of hostilities was Florus' appropriation ofmoney from the Temple, an act that led some Jerusalemites not only to criticize him severely but also to pass around a basket as if to say that the procurator were destitute and in need of charity. We are then told: "Florus lodged at the palace (of Herod), and on the following day had a tribunal placed in front of the building [emphasis added] and took his seat; the chief priests, the nobles, and the most eminent citizens then presented themselves before the tribunal ."80 It would make a great deal ofsense to assume that, ifthe tribunal were summoned to a public setting, as Josephus indicates ("in front of the building"), then it would have been held in an open and spacious place to accommodate all those expected to attend as well as the Roman soldiers needed to provide security. The crucial statement comes immediately afterward, when we are told that, in exasperation at the response of the Jewish leaders, ''Florus ... shouted to the soldiers to sack the agora known as the 'Upper Market.' "81 Since tribunals were often held in an agora, it may well be that the Upper Market was nearby the Herodian palace, which became a praetorium in the first century and, as such, served as the residence of the Roman governor whenever he visited the city.82 It can safely be assumed that several other buildings were located in the Upper City as well, such as the theater built by Herod, even though Josephus offers no information in this regard (Fig. 92). The considerations in favor of such a location are compelling; this type of cultural institution would naturally cater to the more acculturated (i.e., the wealthy) and thus its location in this neighborhood is most appropriate. Moreover, we are told that upon the outbreak of hostilities in 66 C.E., the Jerusalem crowds set fire to the city archives, destroying the debt records and thereby underscoring some of the socioeconomic factors that lay behind the popular support of the rebels. Here, too, the context of this incident in Josephus' account may warrant the assumption that this building was located in the Upper 79. For example, M Sheqalim 8, I, and T Hullin 3, 23 (ed. Zuckermandel, 505). 80. War 2.14,8,301. 81. Ibid., 2.14, 9, 305. 82. Such a presumed location of the agora, with the constant presence of Roman soldiers, would also correspond to the mishnaic reference to gentile spittle in the upper marketplace of Jerusalem, rendering the area impure (M Sheqalim 8, 1). THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 335 Figure 92. The theater in the Upper City (Holyland Hotel model). City as well, although, admittedly, the evidence is less clear. On one occasion, Josephus mentions the archives together with the house of Ananias the High Priest and the palaces ofAgrippa and Berenice;83 and, on another, he speaks of a fire that consumed the Akra (usually identified in his writings with the Lower City; see above), the council chamber, and the Ophel (south ofthe Temple Mount), eventually reaching the palace of Helena.84 Whereas the first reference would seem to place the archives in the Upper City, the latter one points more to the eastern ridge and the part of the city south of the Temple Mount. At present, certainty in this matter is impossible. This survey of public buildings-taken together with the wealthy residential quarter---Clearly indicates that the Upper City of Jerusalem served as the home of the city's leadership and aristocratic classes. The Northern Commercial Quarter The area enclosed by the Second Wall, some sixty acres according to Avi-Yonah's reckoning, lay in the northern part of the Tyropoeon Valley and apparently served a large number of commercial enterprises; it is described by Josephus as follows (Fig. 93): At this spot, on the fifth day after the capture of the ftrst wall,85 Caesar [i.e., Titus] stormed the second; and, as the Jews had fled from it, he made his entry, with a thousand legionaries and his own picked troops, in that district ofthe new 83. War 2.17.6,426-427. 84. Ibid., 6.6, 3, 354-355. 85. That is, the outer, Third Wall by Josephus'numbering. 336 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Figure 93. The commercial district within the area enclosed by the Second Wall (Holyland Hotel model). town where lay the wool-shops, the bmzier workshops, and the clothes-market, and where the narrow alleys descended obliquely to the mmparts.86 Elsewhere, when discussing this northern section of the city, Josephus also notes the existence of a timber market.8 7Although a wool market is also noted in the Mishnah,88 its whereabouts are not recorded. The only specific location given for a shop in rabbinic sources is at the southern tip of the city, near the Dung Gate.89 The smiths' workshops, on the other hand, may have been intentionally placed outside the walls as a preventive measure against noise. The Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus is reported to have banned such work from Jerusalem,90 and it may have been at that point that these artisans relocated outside the city walls to the north.9! Athenaeus notes that the Sybarites (from southern Italy) did precisely this: The Sybarites were also the first to forbid noise-producing crafts from being established within the city, such as blacksmiths, carpenters, and the like, their object being to have their sleep undisturbed in every way; it was not permitted even to keep a rooster inside the city.92 86. War 5.8, 1,331. 87. Ibid., 2.19, 4, 530. This market may be referred to in Qumran fragment 4Q348, which refers to "Shim'on from the Beam market"; see Cotton and Yardeni,Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary Texts, 301-303. 88. M 'Eruvin 10,9. 89. M 'Eduyot 1, 3. Weaving seems to have been associated particularly with women; see Ant. 18.9,1,314. 90. M Ma 'aser Sheni 5, 15, and M Sotah 9, 10. 91. Although the Tosefta (Sotah 13, 10 led. Lieberman, 235]) interprets this decree as referring only to the intermediate days of the festival, it may well be a later, and erroneous, interpretation; Hyrcanus' decree may have been a general, civic, one; see M Bava Batra 2,3, and Lieberman, TK. VIII:748. 92. Deipnosophistae 12, 518c-d. On the problem of noise in a Roman city, see the comments of Martial, Epigrams 12.57, 1-28. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 337 At one point in his narrative, Josephus refers to storehouses for grain that, at the height of the Roman siege, were recklessly destroyed by the warring factions of John of Gischala and Simon. Presumably, these were municipal warehouses, as the claim is made that the supplies might have sufficed the city for many years under siege.93 Josephus intimates that these storehouses (or at least the bulk of them) were located in the vicinity of the Temple (i.e., near the Temple Mount); the commercial quarter immediately to the west would seem to be the most likely SpOt.94 It is unclear whether this commercial district developed naturally, as a northern extension of the stores in the lower Tyropoeon Valley, or whether it was the result of a conscious decision to concentrate such businesses in this area, perhaps as an aid to pilgrims who entered the city from this direction.95 This area has often been identified with the "Mishneh" quarter of biblical times, noted as the residence of the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14; 2 Chron. 34:22), referred to in Zephaniah 1:10, and perhaps mentioned in Neh. 11:9 when speaking about "the second city." Josephus refers to this area in one of several ways. On occasion he calls it the "suburb,"96 and at times he refers to it as part of the "New City."97 These designations need not be considered contradictory, as the New City seems to have included almost all of the areas outside the First Wall. The Bezetha Quarter (The New City) Strictly speaking, the Bezetha section is located north of the Temple Mount; however , the term is sometimes used with respect to the entire New City enclosed by the Third Wall, which included large tracts of land to the west (i.e., north of the Herodian palace and adjacent towers on the western ridge). This ambiguity is evident in the following three excerpts from Josephus' writings: This hill, which is called Bezetha, lay opposite Antonia, but was cut off from it by a deep fosse, dug on purpose to sever the foundations of Antonia from the hill and so to render them at once less easy of access and more elevated.... The recently built quarter was called in the vernacular Bezetha, which might be translated into Greek as New City.98 93. War 5.1,4,24-26. 94. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 240-242. 95. See Ma'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan," 48-51. On the importance of pilgrim trade to the city's economy, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 126-138, and Goodman, "Pilgrimage Economy," 69-76. 96. Ant. 14.13, 4, 339; 15.11, 5, 410. 97. War 5.8,1,331. 98. Ibid., 5.4, 2,149-151. 338 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. The hill Bezetha was, as I said, cut offfrom Antonia; the highest of all the hills, it was encroached on by part of the New City and formed on the north the only obstruction to the view of the Temple.99 Cestius, on entering, set fire to the district known as Bezetha or "New City" and the so-called Timber market; he then proceeded to the Upper City and encamped opposite the royal palace.1°O This area is also referred to by Josephus as the "suburb,"101 quite appropriately named for an area recently enclosed within the city's Third Wall. It seems that before Agrippa I began building a wall here, this land boasted gardens and tombs (John 19:41) and housed pilgrims who set up temporary encampments during the festival seasons. Josephus' references to these pilgrims as being located near the city, "in the plain," may well refer to this area.102 As might be expected, this section in all likelihood remained sparsely populated, at least relative to the rest of the city, even after being partially enclosed by a wall,lOJ a situation that allowed pilgrims to set up temporary encampments there. This sparseness is confirmed by a number of archaeological probes in the area that so far have failed, with the exception of the eastern part, to come up with any substantial building remains from this period.104 This reality has definite demographical implications and are discussed below. Moreover, monuments and facilities that had once been located outside the city's boundaries now found themselves within its walls. To the west, the tomb ofJohn Hyrcanus was located north of the First Wall, opposite the three Herodian towers and near the Pool ofAmygdalon (Hezekiah's Pool).105 The hill referred to in the New Testament as Golgotha was located in this area as well; situated outside the city wall in the time of Jesus, it was now included within the enceinte started by Agrippa 1.106 The funerary monument ofAlexander Jannaeus was to be found in the eastern part ofthe New City, as was the Sheep Pool with its five porticoes , sometimes referred to as the Pool ofBethesda (John 5:2).107 Unfortunately, we know nothing about other buildings in this area, including the possible loca99 . Ibid., 5.5, 8, 246. 100. Ibid., 2.19, 4, 530. 101. Ibid., 2.19, 4, 529-530. 102. Ibid., 2.1, 3,12; see also Ant. 17.9,3,217. 103. War 5.6, 2, 260. 104. See Tzaferis et ai., "Excavations at the Third Wall," 287-288, and Baruch and Avni, "Archaeological Evidence," 52-63. 105. War 5.6,2,259; 7, 3, 304, and 5.11, 4, 468, respectively. 106. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 282-290. 107. See also War 5.7, 3, 304. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 339 tion of the amphitheater that, it will be remembered, Josephus mentioned was located in "the plain."108 Beyond the area enclosed by the Third Wall and toward the east, there were graves, orchards, and gardens covering the western slopes ofthe Mount of Olives and, above them, the villages of Bethpage and Bethany. Farther south, and opposite the City of David, was a rock called "Peristereon";109 the site was apparently used for raising doves for sacrifices or other purposes. Along the Qidron Valley, to the city's immediate east, were cultivated plots, and to the southwest lay a village known as Bet Adashim (House ofLentils) or BetAfunim (House ofPeas)-names suggesting that the area was used for growing legumes.1l0 In reviewing the use of space in first-century Jerusalem, some easily discernible and rather clearly defined patterns emerge. As already mentioned, the valleys served as main routes of communication, and there one would find the shops that served the indigenous population on a regular basis; as suggested, the so-called Lower Market of the city is probably identified with the commercial activity along the Tyropoeon Valley. In addition, the Upper Market presumably was located on the high flat area ofthe western ridge, in close proximity to Herod's palace, although some have located it in the upper part of Tyropoeon Valley Street in the area enclosed by the Second Wall. These valleys afforded a certain degree of distinctiveness to each ofthe neighborhoods . The Upper City appears to have been the most homogeneous; by all indications, the wealthy aristocratic and priestly classes of Jerusalem were concentrated there. All the identifiable Hasmonean and Herodian palaces, homes of high priests, and leadership institutions were found in this area, and for this reason it has been suggested that the city's theater, catering as it did to the cultured, cosmopolitan classes, was likewise situated there. The Lower City, on the other hand, was a more complex neighborhood to define . It was the residential quarter for the lower and middle classes yet also served several outside groups that joined Jerusalem's society during these decades. The Theodotos synagogue, serving a local Diaspora (perhaps Italian) community and visitors from abroad, was located there, as were the palaces of the royal family of Adiabene built in the middle first century, a mere decade or two before the revolt. As noted, one can only speculate as to why the two latter groups built in the Lower, rather than the Upper, City. As regards Diaspora Jews, it may be due, as mentioned, to their desire to be close to the Temple. However, one other possibility may come into play. Residence in the Lower City may be related to the lOS. Ant. 15.S. I, 26S. 109. War 5.12, 2, 505. 110. Ibid., 5.12, 2, 507. 340 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. fact that these people were considered outsiders in the eyes of Jerusalem's elite residing in the Upper City and were thus forced to make do with the eastern ridge. As for the northern districts, there are insufficient data available to determine the nature of this area's inhabitants.lll Demography The dramatic geographical expansion ofJerusalem stemmed, ofcourse, from a significant population increase during this period, conceivably resulting from high fertility , low mortality, migration, or a combination thereof.ll2 The first two factors are unlikely candidates to account for the extensive change that the city witnessed; for hundreds of years, between ca. 540 and 140 B.C.E., Jerusalem's population as demarcated by the city's boundaries seems to have remained fairly stable. The city was concentrated on the eastern ridge, the area commonly referred to as the Temple Mount, Ophel, and City of David (or, in Josephus' parlance, the Lower City). Even the emigration from Judaea to Egypt and elsewhere, which seems to have taken place in the Hellenistic era, does not appear to have significantly depleted the number of inhabitants in the city. Thus the population explosion starting with the Hasmoneans, continuing under Herod and throughout the first century, requires explanation. We have suggested that for the earlier, Hasmonean, period the major component in accounting for this growth is the transformation ofJerusalem into the capital city, with all the political, economic, and social consequences that such a development entails. Under Herod, Jerusalem's political centrality was reconfirmed and broadened. In the post-Herodian era, however, the intensity of the political factor was diminished by the designation of Caesarea as the capital of the Roman province of Judaea. Thus Jerusalem's continued growth must be attributed to other factors, the most prominent of which was the ongoing and increasing migration to the city. How much of this migration was domestic, i.e., from other parts of Judaea, and how much was from the Diaspora, is impossible to determine; in any case, we are better informed about the latter (see below); as a result, the city realized a degree of cosmopolitanism hitherto unknown. Paradoxically, the attraction of the city was primarily a particularistic, religious one; the presence of the Temple and the obvious desire of many Jews to relocate nearby appear to have been paramount considerations at this time. Jews usually came to Jerusalem as pilgrims for a short stay; some visitors took up residence in the city for varying periods of time and even built homes there, 111. On the use of space in urban settings. then and now. see Hillier and Hanson, Social Logic ofSpace. 112. Parkin, Demography, 72. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 341 as was the case with Queen Helena ofAdiabene (see above). There were also those who came to live in the city as the founders and members of the Diaspora synagogues there, as well as someone such as Hillel, the Pharisaic sage from Babylonia. The sum total of this growth was enough to catapult Jerusalem's population; in addition, when pilgrims flocked to the city periodically throughout the year, its numbers swelled far beyond normal size. Estimating the urban population of a city in the Roman era is fraught with difficulties. Many factors have been marshaled to determine the number of residents in a city: its geographical size, built-up area, population density, number of houses registered, water supply system, quantity of food imported, agricultural hinterland, number of seats in the local theater, and, whenever possible, figures recorded in literary or epigraphical sources.1I3 However, all calculations reached on the basis of one or more of the above factors are merely guesses. Each of these criteria is flawed to one degree or another, and a great deal of caution is required in making any kind of assessment. To cite the cases of the two largest cities in the empire: Rome's population in the early empire has been calculated as being as low as 250,000 and as high as 1.6 million; that ofAlexandria, between 300,000 and 500,000.114 Calculating Jerusalem's population in the first century is just as risky. Whatever meager literary evidence exists is either patently unreliable or, at times, simply contradictory. An example of the former involves the number ofpilgrims in Jerusalem. As noted in Chapter 6, Josephus speaks of 2.5 and 3 million pilgrims in the city,1l5 while the Tosefta notes no less than 12 million.II6 Moreover, there is an outright contradiction among several sources, as well as a great deal of exaggeration by each, regarding the number of people in the city during the war against Rome. Josephus reports that 1.1 million people fell in the siege of the city and some 97,000 were taken captive;lI7 Tacitus, however, claims that 600,000 people were killed.118 113. See, e.g., Jacoby, "La popUlation de Constantinople," 81-109; Duncan-Jones, "City Population," 85 ff.; Packer, "Housing and Population," 80-95; and Gamer, "How Many People?" 39-42. See also Bagnall and Frier, Demography ofRoman Egypt, 53-57. 114. The lower figure for Alexandria is offered by Diodorus (17, 52, 6) and relates to the number of free people in 59 B.C.E.; the higher number is suggested by Delia, "Population of Roman Alexandria," 275-292. See Salmon, Population et depopulation, 5-39, esp. 11-22. A maximalist position on popUlation figures in Greco-Roman antiquity is taken by Beloch in his monumental and classic Die Bevolkerung, 392 ff., while a minimalist approach characterizes the work of Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Population, and Control, though in his later work Russell modifies his estimates upward. 115. War 6.9, 3, 423-425; 2.14, 3, 280. 116. T Pesahim 4, 15 (ed. Lieberman, 166). 117. War 6.9,3,420-426. 118. Histories 5.12, 3 [GLAJJ, II: 31]. 342 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. Population estimates for Jerusalem in the fIrst century C.E. range between 25,000 and 225,000, with several approximations in the area of 100,000.119 Many of these numbers are based on various fIgures appearing in literary sources. For instance, Josephus, in quoting Hecataeus, notes that Jerusalem had a popUlation of 120,000,120 an impossible fIgure given the size of the city at the beginning of the third century B.C.E.l2l The account of John's vision in the New Testament describes Jerusalem at the end of days as having a population of 70,000 people (Rev. 11:13). Although this book is far from being a reliable historical source for fIrst-century Jerusalem and the number offered is clearly symbolic (as are the others given there),122 ironically it may indeed tum out to be a fairly accurate approximation of the actual number of the city's inhabitants (see below). Avi-Yonah calculates the number of people in Jerusalem during the years 69-70, the height ofthe revolt, on the basis of the 23,400 men in arms listed faction by faction in Josephus' account.123 Assuming the ratio of fIghters to total population as being roughly 1:10, this fIgure indicates that on the eve ofits destruction Jerusalem held close to a quarter million residents. In view ofthe fact that the city absorbed many refugees from Judaea during these years, the number ofpermanent residents before the revolt was clearly signifIcantly lower; how much, however, we cannot knOw. Similarly in regard to Jeremias' estimate of 180,000 people partaking of the Passover sacrifice;124 even if one were to accept his calculations, the number of permanent residents in the city would still remain unclear. Thus the above-noted approaches, suggesting popUlation figures for the city in normal as well as unusual times, are problematic, each in its own right. One of the most common methods for assessing a city's population, as we have seen with respect to Persian Jerusalem (see Chapter 1), is to estimate a population density per acre and multiply that number by the area of the city. Obviously, this approach will work only when one can be reasonably certain of the total area in 119. For the low estimate. see Jeremias,Jerusalem, 84 (Hengel, Zealots, 354 n. 211, estimates 40,000); for the high one, see Byatt, "Josephus and Population Numbers," 51-60. See also Broshi, "La population de l'ancienne Jerusalem," 10-13; Wilkinson, "Ancient Jerusalem," 33-51; and GIAJJ, II: 63. The fullest treatment of this question of late is that of Reinhardt, "Population Size of Jerusalem," 237-265, who estimates the city's popUlation in the middle first century at possibly 100,000 to 120,000. 120. Against Apion 1.22, 197. 121. A similar exaggeration attributed to Hecataeus has to do with the circumference of the city; Josephus quotes fifty stades, an area not attained even when the city reached its maximum growth in the first century. We are clearly dealing here with an idealized account written at a later date. See Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 271-288 for a late-second-century B.C.E. date; and the cautious remark of M. Stern (GIAJJ, I: 23-24), who, while defending the authenticity of Hecataeus'passages generally, does acknowledge that some parts derive from a later Jewish revision, "however slight." 122. See, e.g., Rev. 21:9-22, and Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, 46-50. 123. War 5.6, 1,248-250. This was an oral communication for which I am unable to find a written reference. 124. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 77-84. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 343 question.125 At the end of the Second Temple period, Jerusalem encompassed some 450 acres. Assuming a population density of 160 to 200 people per acre, we might then conclude that the city numbered 80,000 to 90,000 permanent residents.126 However, given the fact that the city's area included a large tract ofland (about half the overall total) that had just recently been included within the city, an area that, by Josephus' own admission, had been sparsely settled, we should lower the above estimate considerably. Assuming that the newly enclosed area had half the normal urban density (and possibly even less), a figure between 60,000 and 70,000 seems reasonable. Wilkinson,127 for his part, studied the water supply system of the city and also concluded that there were about 75,000 inhabitants. Jerusalem, then, would have been considered a substantial city for its time, though not in the same demographic league as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or even places such as Carthage, Apamea, Pergamon, and Ephesos, all of which were considerably larger.128 With a population of at least 60,000, Jerusalem qualified as a large metropolitan area in the second rank ofprovincial cities. However, if we also take into consideration that three times a year the city's population grew substantially , perhaps even doubling or tripling itself for days and weeks at a time, we should imagine that the city's inhabitants were far more numerous and diverse than any fixed number of permanent residents would indicate. Economic Activity Jerusalem's economic prosperity in this period was more directly correlated to its religious importance than before and to the amount of support it received in this regard. If the city's prosperity under the Hasmoneans and Herod was largely a 125. Nevertheless. even with these givens, certain other factors remain enigmatic, although they, too, are crucial for determining a city's popUlation. For example, how much public space was there? Did residential buildings have more than one floor, and if so, how many? In our present state of knowledge, however, there is no way to determine the answers to these questions. 126. Admittedly, estimating popUlation density is a hotly contested topic, although it remains a most important criterion for determining population estimates. As we have already noted, Beloch tends toward high figures (as, e.g., in regard to Asia Minor; Die Bevdlkerung, 242), while Russell drastically reduces Beloch's numbers. When dealing with population density, Russell assumes an estimate of only about 60 people per acre. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 62--{i3, posits 200 people per acre for Rome, close to that of Beloch, as does Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, 96-98. See also Oates, "Population of Rome," 10l ff. 127. Wilkinson, "Ancient Jerusalem," 49-50. This approach, however, is no less speCUlative than the others noted above. Behind the number suggested lies a series of unproven assumptions, including (I) that we know all of Jerusalem's water sources, (2) that the flow of water in the city's aqueducts was fairly constant , and (3) that the average water consumption of the city's inhabitants can be accurately calculated. 128. Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 260-261 n. 4, and "City Population," 85 ff.; Parkin, Demography, 72; Jacoby, "La popUlation de Constantinople," 81-109; Packer, "Housing and Population ," 80-95; Gamer, "How Many People?" 39-42; Bagnall and Frier, Demography ofRoman Egypt, 53-57; and White, "Urban Development and Social Change," 40-49. 344 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. consequence of its political centrality, then in the first century C.E. it was based almost exclusively on its religious standing. In other words, despite the diminution of the city's political standing in the year 6 C.E., when Judaea was incorporated into the Roman provincial system, its economic support system was at the same time being bolstered by the burgeoning local Jewish population as well as the expanding Diaspora. Both appear to have related to the city and Temple with awe and reverence and were backed by considerable material support. Coupled with the tradition of Roman respect for Jerusalem, and not infrequently for Judaism itself,129 the way was cleared for ongoing contact and the flow of monies and pilgrims to and from the city.130 In economic terms, Jerusalem defies any neat categorization. Was it a consumer , service, or producer city? Perhaps it was all three, to some degree. At first glance, Jerusalem can certainly be regarded as a consumer city in that it drew heavily from its surrounding territory for basic subsistenceY1 Nevertheless, one cannot assume that manufacturing in the city was done only on a small scale with local needs in mind or that Jerusalem was dominated by a landed gentry as such a definition would have it. In fact, given all the economic activity recorded for the city, one might be tempted to defme Jerusalem. at least in certain respects, as a producer, commercial, or even service city,132 the last-mentioned category having been suggested for Pompeii and Corinth.133 Not only does Jerusalem's unique status render such labels irrelevant but even the suggested distinctions among such cities have been called into question of late.134 Notwithstanding whatever mutual trade existed between Jerusalem and its immediate rural environs, the bulk of the city's economy was geared to serving the Temple and those visiting it. The import ofoil, animals, and flour was undoubtedly intended as much for ritual sacrifices as for the needs of the indigenous population. The stone industry served first and foremost the massive needs of the Temple Mount area as well as the stringent purity requirements observed in the city. Unfortunately, Jerusalem's economic life is only very partially noted in our sources. Moreover, the material is also problematic with respect to its historical value. While some sources can be considered fairly reliable, others must be 129. Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 177 ff., and M. Stem, Studies, 505-517. 130. An interesting indication of the rising standard of living in the city may be found in funerary caves. The first century witnessed the introduction of the arcosolia, a practice that required more space and gave greater prominence to the remains. 131. See Finley, Ancient Economy. 132. See Mattingly et aI., "Leptiminus (Tunisia)," 66-89. 133. Jongman, Economy and Society ofPompeii, and Engels, Roman Corinth. 134. For a critique of these designations of ancient cities, see Whittaker, "Do Theories of the Ancient City Matter?" 9-26, and Mattingly and Salmon, "Productive Past," 3-14. See also Parkins, " 'Consumer City,'" 83-111, and Mattingly, "Beyond Belief?" 210--218. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 345 addressed with skepticism. On the one hand, when Josephus speaks of certain industries in the city, we can be reasonably certain of his reliability. He lived in the city for about thirty years and must have been familiar with some (if not most) of the major commercial enterprises there. On the other hand, our other major source for these matters, rabbinic literature, is far more problematic, as this material derives from literary compositions dating centuries later. How much third- and fourth-century Palestinian rabbis knew about pre-70 Jerusalem is far from clear, and the historical reliability of the statements made by their Babylonian counterparts is even more questionable. Even within the Palestinian corpus of rabbinic works, certain distinctions ought to be made. For instance , tannaitic sources dating from the second and third centuries C.E. may be more likely to contain reliable historical data than rabbinic compositions dating from the fifth and sixth centuries. The latter works at times reflect a minimal interest in the reality of Second Temple Jerusalem (e.g., the Yerushalmi)135 and at times are rendered suspect owing to gross exaggerations or clear-cut folklorist overtones (e.g., Lamentations Rabbah). The only way to gain any sort of assurance that a particular tradition may be credible is if we can find similar information in other sources more contemporary to the events or historical situation described.136 The material we have attests very often to economic activities that one would expect to find in any Roman city. However, for the most part, we are at a loss to determine where in the city such shops or commercial enterprises were located. Apart from Josephus' descriptions of an industrial-commercial quarter within the Second Wall and of several market areas, there is only one rabbinic source that pinpoints the place of a specific commercial enterprise (the Dung Gate; see below). Clearly, large gaps remain in our knowledge of the economic aspects of city life. Nevertheless, it seems safe to assume that much of Jerusalem's commercial activity , following Josephus and the rabbinic material, took place largely-though not exclusively-along the Tyropoeon Valley. This central valley, it will be remembered , cut the city in two on a roughly north-south axis and constituted its main artery, serving, inter alia, as a primary commercial venue. Its width of twentyfive yards indeed attests to this importance and, as has been suggested, the Lower Market of the city, noted on occasion in rabbinic sources, was probably located here. While the concentration of economic activity here does not preclude the fact that other areas in the city also served similar functions, these other places were probably decidedly secondary in importance. 135. Hezser, "(In)Significance of Jerusalem," 11-49. 136. See the appendix to this chapter. One of the most salient weaknesses in Jeremias' classic study, Jerusalem, is his uncritical use of rabbinic sources. No distinctions are made in the nature and date of the sources, and almost all the traditions found therein are considered historically trustworthy. 346 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. As noted, certain trades mentioned in the sources would befit any city or town. Jerusalem had its artisans, bakers, launderers, butchers or poulterers, weavers, fullers, and smiths.\37 After the outbreak of hostilities against Rome, it seems that the smiths were mobilized to train large numbers of people to produce the necessary weapons for the anticipated battles and, in tum, train others to do so.138 A few of the references contain a number of other interesting pieces ofinformation . The artisans, for example would greet pilgrims bringing their first fruits to the Temple with the words: "Brethren ofsuch-and-such a place, you have come in peace (i.e., we1come)."139 It is very likely that their shops and workshops were located along a main street where these people were apt to pass, and this, in tum, may well point to Tyropoeon Valley Street Visitors entering the city from the north (the main road from the coastal plain to Jerusalem approached from this direction , passing Bet Horon). As regards the weavers, we are informed that some of them worked in the area of the Dung Gate,140 in the southern extremity of the city, where the Qidron, Tyropoeon, and Ben Hinnom Valleys meet. Moreover, we read at one point that there were two learned weavers who transmitted teachings regarding miqva'ot (derived from the first-century B.C.E. Pharisaic sages Shemaya and Avtalion) to the sages ofthe next generation. This does not seem to have been an unusual phenomenon, as another source mentions two shopkeepers who were, in fact, Pharisees-EI'azar b. R. Zadoq and Abba Shaul b. Botnit.141 In addition to the above, there were a number ofindustries that appear to have particularly flourished in Jerusalem owing to its status as a temple-city. One was olive and olive oil production. Even without explicit sources, the centrality of this commodity is most evident from the names of different locales in and around the city, all attesting to the importance of olives-for example, the Mount of Olives to the east (Mark 11:1and parallels) and, at the base ofits western slope, Gethsemane (lit., "oil press," Mark 14:32), where there was also a garden (John 18:1). The newest neighborhood to be included within the city's walls was, as noted, Bezetha, literally "house or place of the olive." The Mishnah, in a context almost certainly 137. The trades are mentioned, respectively, in M Bikkurim 3, 3; Ant. 15.9.2,309; T Miqva'ot 4, 10 (ed. Zuckermandel, 656); M 'Eruvin 10,9; M 'Eduyot 1, 3, and B 'Avodah Zarah 26a; War 5.4,2,147; and M Sotah 9, 10, and M Ma'aser Sheni 5,15. 138. War 2.22, 1,648-649. 139. M Bikkurim 3, 3. 140. M 'Eduyot 1,3. 141. T Betzah 3, 8 (ed. lieberman, 295). A rabbinic source referring to a synagogue of"Tarsians" (B Megillah 26a) has sometimes been invoked in this regard and interpreted as referring to a synagogue of weavers in Jerusalem (e.g., Jeremias, Jerusalem,S n. 2, 66 n. 8). However, this source is most problematic. Its relation to similar, but not identical, traditions in the Tosefta (Megillah 2, 17 led. Lieberman, 352-353]) and the Yerushalmi (Megillah 3, 1, 73d) is ambiguous, as is the chronology of the Bavli statement See lieberman, TK, V:1162. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION 347 referring to Jerusalem, speaks of olive presses near the walls of the city.142 True enough, the best-quality olives, the Mishnah reports, were brought to the Temple from Peraea, east ofthe Jordan River.143 Nevertheless, it is quite possible that even these choice olives were brought whole to the city (perhaps for purity reasons) and then pressed there, as suggested already in the Yerushalmi.l44 Clearly, the needs of the Temple were a major factor in the degree of local oil consumption. Although never specifically singled out as a trade (except in one late rabbinic source)/45 spices were very much in demand, not only for daily personal use but for burial and Temple purposes as well. So, for example, John 19:39-40 notes one Nicodemus who bought one hundred pounds of spices (myrrh and aloe) for Jesus' burial: ''They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen clothes with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews" (see also Mark 16:1). Goldsmiths were likewise an identifiable part of the city's economic scene. Here, too, the needs ofthe Temple provided much business, since-as attested by both Josephus and rabbinic literaturel46-gold plating was a service in great demand . Gifts made ofgold were donated to the Temple, and in the cases ofMonobaz and Helena it is very likely that their gifts were made in the city since both had residences there.147 Vows were taken to donate gold (in whatever form)l48 to the Temple,149 and a special container (referred to as a shofar) was designated for such gifts.150 The golden vines, one sent by Aristobulus to Pompey and another hung in the Temple, were in all likelihood local products as well.151 The latter vine, noted with awe by both Josephus and the Mishnah for its size, was not a one-time gift; donors could add leaves, berries, or grape clusters on any occasion.152As mentioned , Agrippa I also donated a golden chain, given to him by the emperor Gaius, which was hung over the Temple treasury.153 Jeremias raises the interesting suggestion that the rabbinic references to a golden tiara associated with Jerusaleml54 142. MMa'aserSheni 3,7. 143. M Menahot 8,3. 144. Y Hagigah 3,4, 79c. 145. Y Yoma 4,5, 41d. See Sokoloff, Dictionary, 429. 146. War 5.5, 4, 208-211; 5, 6, 222-224, and T Menahot 13, 19 (ed. Zuckennandel, 533), respectively. 147. MYoma 3, 10. 148. Including the donation of gold dust; see Liebennan, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 170--172. 149. T Sheqalim 3, 6 (ed. Liebennan, 214). The Tosefta relates that a wealthy woman once vowed to give to the Temple gold equal to the weight of her daughter if the latter were to recover from an illness. When the daughter recovered, she honored her vow ('Arakhin 3, 1 led. Zuckennandel, 545]). 150. M Sheqalim 5, 5-6. This gold was used exclusively for gold plating in the Holy of Holies; see T Sheqalim 3, 6 (ed. Liebennan, 214) and M Sheqalim 4, 4. 151. Ant. 14.3, 1,34-35, and War 5.5, 4, 210. 152. Ant. 15.11,3,395; War 5.5, 4,210; and M Middot 3,8. 153. Ant. 19.6, 1,294-295. 154. T Shabbat4, 6 (ed. Liebennan, 17-18) and parallels. See Liebennan, TK, III:62. 348 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. may, in fact, relate to souvenirs of the city that were sold to pilgrims in the pre-70 era; such a practice is attested in Ephesos, where souvenirs of the shrine (or temple) ofArtemis were sold to visitors (Acts 19:23-41).155 The stone industry was particularly essential to Jerusalem and the Temple. Stonecutters are specifically noted by Josephus,156 and according to one rabbinic source, Phineas of Habata was appointed high priest after having been a stonecutter .157 Clearly, the enormous amount of building activity during the Herodian and post-Herodian eras, as documented by Josephus, required a massive production of stone blocks. What literary sources have documented, archaeological finds have confirmed: Stone was the primary building material used in the Temple;158 in Herod's many building projects (e.g., the palace);159 and, of course, in the many tombs, along with their ossuaries and sarcophagi, dotting the landscape around the city. Perhaps the single most impressive building project in the Jerusalem necropolis was undertaken by Helena, who had thousands of tons of stone removed to create a large courtyard, a monumental entranceway, a series of inner chambers, and an impressive fa<;ade that featured a frieze, columns, capitals , and pilasters (known today as the Tomb of the Kings). The raising of pigeons for sacrifices was clearly a desideratum and might well explain the many columbaria (small niches in caves here interpreted as dovecotes) found throughout Judaea. In the vicinity of Jerusalem itself, some twenty-five columbaria have been discovered, usually in man-made caves. Despite the difficulty in dating such installations, the overwhelming majority can be confidently placed in the late Second Temple period.l60 Finally, numerous excavations have demonstrated that the use of stone for ordinary household utensils (mugs or measuring cups, jars, cooking pots, bowls, etc.) proliferated in this period, in large part owing to purity concerns of a fastgrowing population.161 Remains of stonecutting facilities have been found in and around the city: the Lower City (the Ophel and the City of David), Hizma to the north, the Mount of Olives, Bethany, Abu-Dis to the east, and, most recently, on the eastern slopes of Mount Scopus.162 155. See also Paul, "Jerusalem," 259-263, as well as Elsner, "Origins of the Icon," 178-199, esp. 191-196. 156. War 7.2, 2, 26. 157. T Yoma 1,6 (ed. Lieberman, 222), and Sijra, Emor 2 (ed. Weiss, 94b). 158. Ant. 15.11,2,390. 159. War 5.4, 4,177-178. 160. KIoner, "Columbaria," 61 *-66*. 161. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 167-183, and Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center," 244--256. 162. Gibson, "Stone Vessel Industry," 176-188, and Amit et al., "Stone Vessel Workshops," 353-358. THE URBAN CONFIGURATION Appendix: The Use of Rabbinic literature in the Study of Second Temple Jerusalem 349 We have already taken note of some of the problems in using rabbinic literature for reconstructing aspects of urban life in Jerusalem. No blanket statement can be made in this regard; the material is neither ipso facto reliable nor a priori worthless . Each reference has to be evaluated on its own merits, taking into account the date of the particular text, the nature of the evidence, its context, and what purpose (polemical, apologetic, or inspirational) this information may have served the rabbinic tradents themselves.163 As a rule (and, like any rule, it has its exceptions ), the earlier the material, the greater the likelihood that it may reflect a pre70 setting. This is all the more applicable if the context is halakhic; one might then assume an attempt on the part of the sages to achieve a greater degree ofprecision and accuracy. We have incorporated such references when they appeared reasonable, and particularly when they corroborated evidence from other sources, in this case primarily Josephus. However, such historically reliable material is rather sparse. Most rabbinic material derives from later sources (i.e., amoraic material) and dates, in terms of editorial composition, anywhere from the third through the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This material is mostly aggadic (non-halakhic) and, though rich in its range of subjects, is also quite problematic. At times the information is stereotyped and its credibility thus seriously undermined. See, for example, the claim that Jerusalem boasted twenty-four thoroughfares, each having twenty-four markets , each of these having twenty-four streets, each street having twenty-four alleys, each alley having twenty-four entrances, and, finally, each entrance having twenty-four courtyards p64 Other traditions are simply outrageously exaggerated, as, for example, that there were about twelve million people in Jerusalem for a Passover celebration165 or that there were no less than 480 (the numbers 460 and 394 are also mentioned) synagogues in the city.166 The latter instance is instructive for its homiletical inspiration , because in a later source we are told that the number is based on the 163. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 198-204, and Gafni, "Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature," 35-59. 164. Lamentations Rabbah 1 (ed. Buber, 22b). 165. Ibid., 1 (ed. Buber, 23a). This is an interesting example because a similar tradition appears already in the third-century Tosefta (Pesahim 4, 15 led. Lieberman, 166]) and is one of the exceptions to the more "realistic" representations of Jerusalem in tannaitic material. 166. Y Megillah 3, 1, 73d. On 480 synagogues, see also Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 15,7 (ed. Mandelbaum, 257); Song ofSongs Rabbah 5, 12; Lamentations Rabbah 2, 4 (ed. Buber, 50b); and Yalqut Shim'oni, Isaiah, 390 (which notes 481 synagogues i). For 460 synagogues, see Y Ketubot 13, 1, 35c. For 394 synagogues , see B Ketubot 105a. 350 THE FIRST CENTURY C.E. numerical value of the letters of a word (gematria) appearing in Isa. 1:21.167 The idealization ofJerusalem is a recurrent theme in these traditions. The Mishnah,I68 for instance, records ten miracles that supposedly took place in the Temple precincts on a regular basis; these are clearly pious fantasies and have little to do with historical fact. Very often, the sages' descriptions ofthe city reflect their own agenda, and they used (or created) traditions associated with the city for encouraging greater observance among contemporary Jews, shoring up certain beliefs, and possibly countering the claims of others, the Christians in particular. In describing the events surrounding the destruction, the siege, the suffering, the sinful behavior of the inhabitants (e.g., the Qamtza-Bar Qamtza legend), and the material extravagance of some of the wealthy residents of the city, the rabbis clearly used such traditions as a means to convey ethical-religious teachings.169 The traditions regarding the mutual visits ofJerusalemites in Athens and Athenians in Jerusalem, the repeated emphasis on the purity, uniqueness, and civility ofJerusalem, the piety ofits inhabitants, and the expertise and thoroughness of its judges are all part of the same pattern.170 All too frequently sources about Jerusalem are invoked as historically credible , although the content and context are never fully and critically examined. For example, the third-century R. Joshua b. Levi claimed that on the three pilgrimage festivals all Jews were considered ritually clean and that rigid distinctions in this regard were abandoned for a time.l?l One may also cite the tradition wherein vessels were taken out of the Temple on festivals and shown to pilgrims gathered in the courtyard172 or the several parallel traditions regarding the special laws that were allegedly applicable to Second Temple Jerusalem.173 While one should not automatically discount such traditions, their acceptance must be based on more than the fact that they appear in one or more rabbinic sources. We have noted a number of reasons why the sages at times might have been interested in emphasizing the piety of Jerusalemites, particularly on the holidays. With that in mind, therefore, corroborating evidence is necessary to use such traditions as historical testimony for Second Temple Jerusalem. In its absence, the temptation simply to assume historical accuracy ought to be resisted. 167. Lamentations Rabbah, Proem 12 (ed. Huber, 6a). 168. MAvot 5, 5. 169. See esp. Lamentations Rabbah 1 and 4. 170. At, respectively, Lamentations Rabbah 1 (ed. Huber, 24a-26a); T Negaim 6,2 (ed. Zuckermande1, 625) and parallels; Tractate "Mourning" (Semahot) 12,5 (ed. Zlotnick, 35) and T Sukkah 2,10 (ed. Lieberman, 265); and H Sanhedrin 23a. 171. Y Hagigah 3, 6, 79d. See Safrai, Pilgrimage, 135-141. 172. Y Hagigah 3, 8, 79d. 173. See Sperber, "Social Legislation in Jerusalem," 86-95. ...