British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967: An Assessment Shimon Gibson
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Jerusalem, above all places, was the city that needed excavation; from its great antiquity, it carried within its ruins traces of ages and generations further back than any city in the world; it had been seventeen times captured and destroyed, so that it was literally a series of masses of ruins heaped one upon another, and wherever you begin to dig, you come not upon solid ground but upon house-tops and such like, buried at all varieties of depths below the surface. These ruins contained, so to speak, the key to the internal topography of Jerusalem. 1
A surge in the development of British exploration in the Holy Land, almost unprecedented in terms of scope and vision and methods of scientific execution, took place during the course of the 19th century, particularly from the 1860s onward. Jerusalem became the primary focus for much of this work, and some of the achievements made at that time are still unsurpassed, not to mention some 140 years of detailed research and archaeological excavation that have taken place in the city since then. With the notable exception of the legendary successes of Charles Wilson’s Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem and of Charles Warren’s remarkable excavations around the circuit walls of the Temple Mount, results of many of the lesser-known 19th-century explorers tended to be regarded by modern scholarship as somewhat antiquated and have therefore been relegated to obscurity. These results are now being reappraised, sometimes with splendid and unexpected results of lasting value. What is surprising is that some of the key archaeological desiderata and historical conclusions of the 19th century are still being debated by scholars today with a similar sense of liveliness and conviction. How to account for the tremendous results achieved by 19th-century British explorers in Jerusalem is the subject of the first part of this paper. I shall also be examining the symbiosis of religious and scientific factors that ultimately led to the foundation of the principal institution that lay behind this major work of 1. “Meeting at Cambridge, May 8th 1867,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 6. Prior to the publication of the first issue of its Quarterly Statement (PEFQSt, later PEQ) in 1869, the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) printed a series of occasional leaflets and annual reports on the activities of the society beginning in 1865, including an important set of letters written by Charles Warren on his archaeological activities in Jerusalem, and these were distributed to subscribing members. These miscellaneous letters and annual reports were eventually bound together and are referred to here as PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–1869. A copy of this publication is available in the library of the PEF in London.
23
24
Shimon Gibson
exploration in Jerusalem, namely the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF). The second part of the paper will deal with British archaeological achievements in Jerusalem between the Wars and until 1967.
Jerusalem as a Focus of Pilgrimage and Exploration Throughout antiquity, Jerusalem was blessed with frequent visits by pilgrims and travelers—Jewish, Christian, and Muslim—many of whom left written records of their observations regarding the sites and antiquities they came across or were shown by guides. Numerous travelogues and itineraries of pilgrims who came to the Holy Land and visited Jerusalem have survived, particularly from the time of the Crusades. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the pertinent materials relating to Jerusalem were summed up by Franciscus Quaresmius and Adrian Reland, and in the 19th century by Carl Ritter and Titus Tobler (Ben-Arieh 1983: 133; Goren 1999: 59–72; 190–208). 2 Travelers were often shown sites in the city and its immediate vicinity while under the constant supervision of local guides, who were extremely controlling and selective in what they decided to show their charges. Cyril Graham in 1866 pointed out that “travelers, with rare exceptions, are always hurried, follow each other’s tracks with rigid persistence, and, utterly destitute of the language, are at the mercy of an ignorant if not a designing interpreter” (“Report, July 23rd, 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 6). The reason why so many travelers persisted in making the journey to Jerusalem was to examine with their own eyes the holy sites, and this was especially true of Christians. It is said that, on reaching Jaffa, Napoleon Bonaparte was asked why he “would not go on to Jerusalem, as it was only 30 miles away.” “Jerusalem,” he replied, “does not come within the line of my operations.” Napoleon, like Alexander the Great more than 2,000 years before his time, saw no military advantage in getting to Jerusalem, and its religious aspects were not of interest to him. And it was religious fervor that drew pilgrims to the city like flies to honey, and those back home almost always desired more information about the city and its marvels, especially during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Dean of Canterbury himself, admitted as such at the founding meeting of the PEF, held in 1865, that because, in his estimation, “educated men know so much of Athens, and so little of Jerusalem,” he could not wait until explorers would start bringing back home to England maps, sketches, and photographs that could serve as illustrations for a proper understanding of the Bible, as well as detailed accounts of discoveries and their excavation (“Public Meeting, June 22nd 1865,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 21). Many scholars in the 19th century realized that, notwithstanding the amount of information collated in previous centuries, more detailed information and records needed to be gathered but in a much more systematic fashion. At a public meeting 2. F. Quaresmius, Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae (Antwerp, 1639; repr., Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1989, with an Italian translation by S. Sandoli); A. Reland, Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata (Utrecht, 1714).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
25
Fig. 1. Portrait of the explorer Charles Wilson.
held in Cambridge on May 8th, 1867, the Dean of Westminster remarked: “people said that hundreds and hundreds of travelers had visited the country, and asked what there was to find which had not already been described.” In answering this criticism, the Dean stated that ordinary travelers simply did not have the time to examine sites, nor did they have the means to examine extant ancient structural remains in any comprehensive fashion. The rapidity of travel and the prescribed route taken by visitors was not at all conducive to proper research. In addition to all this, excavation was not something that the occasional traveler could undertake (“Meeting at Cambridge, May 8th 1867,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 5). Prior to the founding of the PEF, scholars traveling to the Holy Land were forced by circumstances to be totally self-reliant, and this is how John L. Porter in 1866 described his almost solitary investigations: “I generally traveled alone; I had no companions, no staff, excavators, or photographers to accompany me. I had my own servants and my own tents, but that was all. All the work I was able to do
26
Shimon Gibson
I had to complete myself” (“Report, July 23rd 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 17).
The Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem as a Major Factor of Change in Exploration Procedures The Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem was the first expedition to Jerusalem that was organized as a proper “exploration activity” rather than just a “scholarly visit.” It was funded by the benefactress Angela Georgina (later Baroness) Burdett-Coutts, who acted in a philanthropic manner with the purpose of seeking to supply the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a new supply of water (Webster 1985b: 186–89). 3 On the basis of advice Burdett-Coutts received regarding matters connected to the water supply and on the basis of her personal interest in the history of the city, a decision was made to undertake a complete and accurate survey of the Old City of Jerusalem. 4 The survey originated in a petition from Dean Stanley of Westminster to Lord de Grey and Ripon, British Secretary of State for War, indicating that the city sorely needed an improved water supply and sewage system and that this could not be undertaken without a proper mapping expedition first being made. Austen H Layard made it very clear in 1865 that the survey had been conducted “under the auspices of the War Department and with the sanction of the Government” (“Public Meeting, June 22nd 1865,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 7). Surprisingly, although the Ordnance Survey was incredibly important in that it provided the Western World with the most accurate map of Jerusalem, it did not in the end have the effect of alleviating the dire problem of Jerusalem’s water supply in any way whatsoever. 5 It was through Sir Henry James, director-general of the Ordnance Survey, that Captain Charles Wilson of the Royal Engineers was sent to Jerusalem in October 1864, accompanied by sappers and a few miners and the photographer James McDonald, R.E., who made an extremely important pictorial record of the city’s buildings. 6 Work continued until May 1865. The map of the city (scale 1:2500) was 3. The correspondence of Burdett-Coutts for this period (Papers Nos. 1380–81) is kept in the Lambeth Palace Library, London. While Burdett-Coutts provided the sum of 500 pounds toward the project, it appears to have cost much more than this, especially when we consider that Wilson agreed to forego any payment for his efforts. The latter calculated that the overall cost of such an enterprise of exploration to be more in the range of 1,000 pounds per explorer, though Layard seems to indicate that the total sum of the actual Ordnance Survey eventually reached 1,500 pounds; but perhaps he was also calculating the cost of the subsequent publication (for the comments by Wilson: “Public Meeting, June 22nd 1865,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 23; and Layard: “Report, July 23rd 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 13). 4. For assessments of the survey, see Newman 1949: 64–77; Hart 1965: 214–25. 5. The Jerusalem Water Relief Fund had already highlighted the difficult water situation in the city, and proposals for improvement had been put forward by J. I. Whitty and Sir J. McNeill. The total cost of improving the water supply was estimated at 25,000 pounds, and Burdett-Coutts offered to cover this amount, but the Turks were unwilling to take up the offer on the grounds that they did not want the obligation of having to keep the water works in constant repair once the full supply of the city had been obtained (see “Water in the City”: Gibson 2003: 119–29 and references there). 6. For a biography of McDonald (1822–1885), see Howe 1997: 137–38; also Gibson 2003: 182.
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
27
Fig. 2. Map of Jerusalem showing archaeological remains uncovered there in the 19th century.
28
Shimon Gibson
contoured at 10-foot vertical intervals and showed details of all the streets and important buildings. Benchmarks were cut at the corners of the city walls, at the city gates, and on churches and other public buildings (Shurman 1994: 49–51). Another smaller map (scale 1:10,000) was prepared of the environs of the city, covering an area of about 3 square miles, showing the principal valleys and elevated areas, as well as various features and buildings located outside the Old City. In addition, Wilson drew detailed plans of the Citadel complex, the Haram al-Sharif, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The architectural historian James Fergusson visited Jerusalem toward the end of October 1864 and together with Wilson examined many of its subterranean antiquities, particularly in the area of the Haram al-Sharif. The resulting map was the most trustworthy of the city that had ever been made. Previous attempts to produce a detailed and precise map of the city had met with varying degrees of success. 7 Indeed, George Grove, honorary secretary of the PEF, indicated that this map was as accurate a map as any existing map of London or any other city of the Western World (“Meeting at Cambridge, May 8th 1867,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 1) He also described the immediate results of the survey as showing “how much may be done with tact, temper, and opportunity, without arousing the opposition of the authorities or inhabitants” (“Prospectus,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 2). The fact of the matter, however, was that the activities of the survey led to local fears that it was the harbinger of increased taxation, and some residents of the Jewish Quarter refused Wilson entry to their houses (Gibson 2001: 158). The maps and plans were prepared by the topographical department of the Ordnance Survey and, together with the photographs by James Macdonald, were first shown to an audience of the PEF at a meeting held in London on 23rd July 1866, as a special dispensation provided by Sir Henry James of the Ordnance Survey, indicating quite clearly that at that date the official publication of the maps and photographs had not yet seen the light of day (“Report, July 23rd 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 17). Indeed, Charles Warren, who succeeded Wilson in the task of exploring Jerusalem, supervised Corporal Hancock in March–June 1867 in the completion of the contouring around Jerusalem and the plumbing of the city walls. Relief maps based on the mapping were produced by the Ordnance Survey and sold to educational establishments and museums in England. The Ordnance Survey map continued to be used by later PEF explorers in Jerusalem, notably by Charles F. Tyrwhitt-Drake, Claude R. Conder, Conrad Schick, James E. Hanauer, and others; a new edition incorporating their discoveries and corrections was printed in 1876 (Wilson 1866; 1876). This updated version was subsequently used by all visiting explorers and resident antiquarians of Jerusalem, and when a new map of the city was prepared by the Palestine Survey in 1937 7. The most noteworthy of these earlier maps include those of the physician and natural historian F. W. Sieber in 1818, the architect F. Catherwood in 1833, the soldiers Lieutenants E. Aldrich and J. F. A. Symonds, R.E., in 1841, the Swiss physician T. Tobler in 1854, and the Dutch explorer C. W. M. Van de Velde in 1858, the latter being the best available map until the publication of the Ordnance Survey map of Jerusalem. For further details, see Jones 1973: 29–41; Ben-Arieh 1974: 150–60; 1973: 64–74 [Hebrew]; Goren 2002: 90.
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
29
Fig. 3. Citadel with Hippicus Tower in photograph taken by Elisabeth Finn (?).
(scale 1: 2,500), only minor revisions were deemed necessary. The revision survey was conducted in 1935–36 by J. H. Mankin, superintendent of surveys in the British Mandate Government, who proudly noted: “It must be recorded that the great work carried out under difficult conditions during the Turkish regime by the 1865 Sapper Surveyors stood the test of time and was—in fact—a monumental survey.” (Mankin 1969: 37–39; see also the comments by Sir Charles F. Close in PEQ October 1937: 269)
Motives Behind the Founding of the Palestine Exploration Fund The Dean of Westminster in 1866 described the work of the Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem as a “sort of pre-historic stage of our Palestine Exploration Fund” (“Report, July 23rd 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 19). This is also clear from the Preface to the publication of the Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, in which Sir Henry James asserts that its success was one of the reasons that led to the founding of the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 (Wilson 1866). While evidently an important factor behind the establishing of the Fund, a number of earlier societies had already previously established as their object the study of Palestine, notably the “Palestine Association” and the “Jerusalem Literary (and Scientific) Society.” The latter was the brainchild of Elizabeth Anne Finn, and it held meetings in Jerusalem from 1849 while her husband, James Finn, was actively British consul at the time (Webster 1985a). Finn wrote that the goals of the Society were “subjects of interest connected with the Holy Land, including antiquities, natural history and investigations of all kinds; the only subject excluded was religious controversy.” She also stated that “we had the satisfaction of knowing that it [the Jerusalem Literary Society] ultimately led to the formation of the Palestine Exploration Fund” ([Finn] 1929: 93). Indeed, the principal founder of the PEF, G. Grove, had in 1858 visited Jerusalem and according to Finn was duly impressed by the
30
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 4. The explorer Charles Warren (far left) and comrades in Jerusalem.
achievements of her society. Finn wrote: “Sir George Grove being a friend of Dean Stanley stirred him up, so that when we got to England five years afterwards we found that they were about to start as a new society the Palestine Exploration Fund to carry on the very work we had suggested and begun. In July 1893 the Exploration Fund published a notice to the effect that the Literary Society was the parent of the Exploration Fund” ([Finn] 1929: 181). 8 Finn’s interest in the PEF continued in later years as well, and she was instrumental in raising funds for the Survey of Western Palestine in 1876. The Palestine Association was formed in 1804 with the objective of procuring and publishing information regarding the geography, the people, the climate, and the history of the Holy Land. A few scholars were actually sent out by the association but, owing to dangerous conditions perceived in Palestine, their endeavors were unsuccessful, and they never got farther than Malta. Following the establishing of the Royal Geographic Society in 1830, the Palestine Association became amalgamated with it in 1834. In a meeting presided over by Bartle Frere, it was decided to dissolve the association and to hand over to the Royal Geographic Society all of its funds (135 pounds, 9 shillings, and 8 pence), books, and papers (Watson 8. PEF Secretary and scholar, E. W. G. Masterman, in a review of Finn’s life, wrote that the Jerusalem Literary Society was in a sense “a precursor of the PEF” (PEFQSt April 1930: 97; see also comments in PEFQSt October 1892: 265–66; and in PEFQSt July 1893: 183.
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
31
ig. 5. Henry Birtles descending a shaft to the Herodian Street below Robinson’s Arch in a watercolor from 1871 by William Simpson.
1915: 11). Bliss pointed out that the Fund’s Quarterly Statement of 1876 (p. 154) states quite emphatically that “the [Palestine Association] thus dissolved in 1834 was instituted again in 1865,” thereby recognizing a clear organic connection between the two (Bliss 1906: 255–56; see also the comments by Sir Charles F. Close in PEQSt July 1929: 136). There were undoubtedly religious motives among some of those who were party to the founding of the Palestine Exploration Fund. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that at the important public meeting for the founding of the PEF held in the Willis’s Rooms at St. James in London on Friday, June 22, 1865, the Bishop of London decided to open the proceedings with a prayer session. The event was also chaired by the Archbishop of York, who lent not just respectability to the proceedings but also emphasized the overall religious interest that was being invested in the discussions pertaining to the exploration of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The Bishop of London claimed that the PEF’s goals were not at all similar to that of a religious society––and by that he meant groups advocating extreme contro-
32
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 6. The Western Wall with the lintel of Barclay’s Gate (visible on the right behind the steps) in a watercolor by William Simpson.
versies and marginalized points of view. However, this did not mean that some of the ultimate goals of the society, at least in his eyes, were not meant to facilitate, strengthen and enlighten those from a religious background who might wish to confirm and clarify their religion—otherwise there would have been no point in his and the Archbishop of York’s participation at this specific public meeting. This was made quite clear when he went on to say that “we belong also to a church which professes great reverence for the sacred books, and we should be certainly greatly deficient in our duty if we did not promote an undertaking which is likely to give material aid to the interpretation of those books” (“Public Meeting, June 22nd 1865,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 4). Because of the tone set at this founding meeting of the Fund, the printed prospectus that emanated from it made it very clear that “no country should be of so much interest to us as that in which the documents of our Faith were written.” (“Prospectus,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 2.) According to Bliss, however, “the non-committal platform [of the PEF] as to religious matters is illustrated by the roll of members, which, besides a number of Jews, includes Roman Catholics, Greeks, Anglicans, and Protestants of other churches, including Unitarians” (Bliss 1906: 260–61; Lipman 1988: 45–54). In later years, controversy once again erupted in regard to the possible function of the Fund as a society for “proving the truth” of Scripture. Indeed Bishop Edwards even went so far as to refer to the Society as having been founded by “Christian people . . . largely for the purpose of demon-
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
33
Fig. 7. Portrait of F. J. Bliss (right) and A. C. Dickie in a photograph by G. Krikorian.
strating to the unbelieving world the truth of the story as recorded in the Bible.” 9 Searight later claimed that part of the reason for the setting up of a society such as the Palestine Exploration Fund was to stem “the onslaught that scientists were making on the foundations of orthodox religion” (Searight 1969), an opinion that was subsequently dismissed by Olga Tufnell (1970: 137–38) on the grounds that of the original Fund’s General Committee only a third consisted of clergy and of the 9. See the exchange between Edwards, Bishop of Rochester and Sir Charles Marston in PEFQSt July 1932: 122–24; see also PEFQSt July 1936: 125–26 and the remark by Crimp on p. 132 as to whether the Fund should serve as a scientific or fundamentalist society. For further on this aspect, see Broshi 1987: 17–32; Goren 1998: 103–15.
34
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 8. The Ottoman firman allowing Bliss to conduct excavations in Jerusalem.
Executive Committee only two of the fifteen members were clergy, namely Rev. Frederick W. Holland and Canon Henry B. Tristram (Searight 1969). One must take into account, however, the fact that Grove, who was the principal founder of the Fund (Moscrop 2000: 64; Goren 2001: 153–65), held a great interest in biblical history and for that reason was eager for new and proper explorations to be conducted in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the Holy Land of a scientific rather than religious character. Indeed, prior to the Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, Grove and James Fergusson had repeatedly discussed the possibility of carrying out scientific researches and surveys in Jerusalem (Graves 1903: 118). Those whose interests were in biblical research “saw in him the ideal middle-man, one who was theologically broad to the point of neutrality, and as scientifically objective as it was possible to be” (Young 1980: 88). 10 Indeed, Grove, when replying to a letter from Kingsley, objecting that some members of the newly-formed PEF Committee might eventually disapprove of a discussion of such things as geological formations, on the grounds that their theological tenets would be harmed, assured him that he 10. Lipman concludes that the success of the PEF was owing to Grove’s formula—the collection of all facts about Jerusalem and the Holy Land, past and present, “as a means of unifying people with very different interests and standpoints” (1988: 51).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
35
Fig. 9. Portrait of Conrad Schick taken in 1897.
would make sure that scientific principles would prevail and that he would strive to see that the Fund’s Committee was not populated (as he put it) by “too many parsons” (Young 1980: 90). The resolutions made during the founding meeting of the PEF make it clear that there were quite a few different motives at play, with certain individuals, notably the naturalist Tristram, expressing an interest in a society that would promote a study of the geology and geography of the region, on the one hand, and the study of the animal and plant-life, on the other. In addition to all of this, the illustrious excavator of Nineveh, Layard, was also present at the founding meeting of the Fund, and perhaps because of his recent experience in the field, suggested that they should consider the scientific exploration of Jerusalem as a primary goal, on the grounds that it might throw light on the archaeology of the Jewish people. He stated that “indeed, we know scarcely anything of the Jews from existing monuments and remains. A few large stones and foundations, discovered at Jerusalem in casual excavations, are all we can point to with certainty” (“Public Meeting, June 22nd 1865,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 6).
36
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 10. Original plan of an Early Roman kokhim tomb in north Jerusalem made by Conrad Schick.
Goals of the PEF Explorations in Jerusalem The goal of undertaking excavations in Jerusalem was very much a central feature of the founding meeting of the PEF in 1865, one that clearly resulted from the success of the Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem of 1864 and 1865. Layard stated that he did foresee considerable difficulties with the Turkish Ottoman authorities in excavating in Jerusalem but that the new PEF should ultimately persevere in such endeavors, since there was so much to gain. John L. Porter expressed similar sentiments later in 1866 regarding the possible difficulties of digging in Jerusalem but believed that the patronage that the PEF enjoyed might allow for successful British representations being made from the Turkish authorities at Constantinople in regard to asking for permission to carry out extensive excavations in Jerusalem and “even around the Temple area” (“Report, July 23rd 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 17).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
37
In the Fund’s prospectus, produced in 1865, it was stated that Jerusalem was a prime target for digging operations and that “what is above ground will be accurately known [only] when the present [Ordnance] survey is completed; but below the surface hardly anything has yet been discovered. . . . It is not too much to anticipate that every foot in depth of the ‘sixty feet [ca. 18 m] of rubbish’ on which the city stands, will yield interesting and important materials for the Archaeologist or the Numismatist (“Prospectus,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 2). The initial sites targeted for excavations were stated to be (not necessarily in order of importance): (1) locating the tombs of David and Solomon on Mount Zion; (2) determining the course of the Tyropoeon Valley; (3) determining the extent of the Temple Mount; (4) finding the exact site of the Tower of Antonia; (5) finding the palace of Herod the Great; (6) locating Ophel; (7) finding the Pool of Bethesda; (8) establishing the position of the Towers of Hippicus and Psephinus; and (9) examining the spring (Virgin’s Fountain) and the conduit of Hezekiah. It is interesting to note that after 140 years of research, surveys, and excavations in Jerusalem, not all of the targets as set out in the Fund’s original prospectus of 1865 have been achieved. The situation of the royal tombs of David and Solomon are still not known. While the course of the Tyropoeon Valley is now much better known, particularly as a result of the numerous excavations in the area close to the southwest foot of the Temple Mount and farther south to the west of the City of David and in the area of the Siloam Pool, hardly anything is known about its upper reaches, in the stretch situated beneath the Muslim Quarter. The Temple Mount was the subject of an intensive study by Warren and many other PEF explorers and in modern times by a large number of archaeologists, though hardly any archaeological work has been conducted within the esplanade itself, with most of the new archaeological work undertaken along the outer Temple Mount walls to the west, southwest, south, and even to the east (Mazar 1975a; 1975b; Mazar and Mazar 1989). The situation of the northern wall of the Temple Mount, however, still remains unclear and problematic ( Jacobson 1990–91: 36–66), and this is also true in regard to the dimensions and appearance of the Antonia Tower (Wightman 1990–91: 7–35). While the general foundations of the palace of Herod the Great in the Upper City are known as a result of excavations in the Armenian Garden (Bahat and Broshi 1975; Broshi and Gibson 1994: 147–55), only one of the three towers protecting it from the north is known (it should probably be identified as Hippicus), while the exact position of the other two (Phasael and Mariamne) are still unknown. The whereabouts of the Ophel is generally assumed to be south of the Temple Mount, 11 and excavations in the area of the Church of St. Anne, north 11. The location of the Ophel is still uncertain. Some believe it to be a topographical feature on the north side of the City of David or Southeast Hill. Mazar and Mazar (1989: ix–x) have identified it with Iron Age building remains uncovered immediately south of the Temple Mount. However, the reference to another Ophel at Samaria (2 Kgs 5:24) suggests that it was a massive artificial fortification complex and not a natural topographical feature. Perhaps the early Iron Age “stepped stone structure” (excavated by Shiloh in Area G) and the interconnecting building on the adjacent ridge with massive foundation walls (excavated by E. Mazar) should be identified with the Ophel rather than as a royal palace. For the recent excavations, see Mazar 2007.
38
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 11. The decapitated head of Flinders Petrie.
of the Temple Mount, brought to light the double Pool of Bethesda (Gibson 2005: 270–93). Numerous excavations have also been conducted in the area of the Gihon Spring (or Virgin’s Fountain) and its vicinity (Reich and Shukron 2000: 327–39). However, the situation of the Tower of Psephinus even today remains one of the mysteries of the archaeology of the city. In a Statement of Progress drawn up by the PEF in 1866, the list of what might eventually be achieved by excavations in Jerusalem appeared to be much more focused on the Temple Mount area than was presented in the original Prospectus, perhaps owing to the considerable experience gained by Wilson during the Ordnance Survey of 1864 and 1865 and which he also obtained following a second trip made to Jerusalem for the PEF in April 1866. Accepting that it would be difficult “to obtain permission to disturb the surface of the Haram area,” the Statement goes on to say that with the authority of a letter from the Ottoman Turkish vizier, it might be possible to investigate by excavation the subterranean vaults, cisterns, and passages under the esplanade and to conduct digging operations along parts of the outer western wall of the Temple Mount. A suggestion was also made to investigate features and cisterns under the southern part of the Temple Mount, beneath the Aqsa Mosque, including searching for the western wall of the Triple Gate passage, the opening up of doorways seen inside the Double Gate, and the investigation of the subterranean rock-hewn passages previously seen by Félicien de Saulcy in the area. The logistical problems of carrying out such operations were already being considered. They would have to be done on a large scale; houses adjacent to the excavations would need to be rented or perhaps bought; compensation and bakshish would have to be paid to landowners; and considerable timber would need to be bought to shore up houses near the excavation areas (“Statement of Progress, July 23rd 1866,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 23).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
39
Fig. 12. Portrait of R. A. S. Macalister.
George Grove, Honorary Secretary of the PEF, made it clear in a meeting held in Cambridge in 1867 that it was decided to concentrate almost all future excavations in Jerusalem, and toward that purpose, Lieutenant Charles Warren of the Royal Engineers, with previous experience in topographical and excavation operations in Algeria and Gibraltar, had been sent out to Jerusalem in the company of two sappers (“Meeting at Cambridge, May 8th 1867,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 3). In regard to the questions raised by scholars about the topography of Jerusalem, some of which had been debated for decades without resolution, the Dean of Westminster pointed out to his audience that “without excavation all the theories and speculations that existed about the internal topography of Jerusalem rested upon mere air.” He then went on to list the various controversies that existed at his time: (1) whether the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was at the real site of the Tomb of Jesus; (2) the situation and direction of the ancient city walls; and (3) the location
40
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 13a. Macalister and Duncan’s “Jebusite Ramp” [left half of picture].
of the royal tombs of the Kings of Judah (“Meeting at Cambridge, May 8th 1867,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 5). A more complete list of the controversies that the PEF were hoping to clarify with excavations in Jerusalem was published by Walter Besant (1886: 49–54). One of the most important of these was the need to establish the exact course of the Second Wall of Jerusalem, as described by Flavius Josephus, and to ascertain whether or not it included the knoll on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is located. This was a matter of great concern for Christians. Second, there were the theories as advanced by James Fergusson in regard to the Dome of the Rock being the real location of Constantine’s church and with the cave beneath the rock as the place of the Tomb of Jesus. In his opinion, the Jewish Temple was originally situated at the southern end of the Haram al-Sharif, or in the area of the al-Aqsa Mosque ( Jacobson 2003). Nowadays, we can regard these views as totally untenable, but the lack of knowledge that prevailed at that time made such views fairly reasonable to general scholarship and to the lay public.
Key Explorations in Jerusalem Lieutenant Charles Warren was sent out to work in Jerusalem accompanied by Sergeant Henry Birtles from the Horse Guards and various sappers. The photographer of the expedition was Corporal Henry Phillips (Gibson 1997: 238–39). They
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
41
Fig. 13b. Macalister and Duncan’s “Jebusite Ramp” [right half of picture].
were helped in their endeavors by Dr. Thomas Chaplin, the Rev. Dr. Joseph Barclay, and by the Consul at Jerusalem, Noel Moore. 12 With a letter in hand from the vizier allowing him to excavate wherever he wanted in Jerusalem except for within the Haram precincts, Warren arrived in Jerusalem in February 1867 and continued working there until April 1870. Warren’s operations were directed mainly toward clarifying the ancient aspects of the Temple Mount, with the investigation by survey of cisterns and subterranean spaces, previously seen by Wilson in the Ordnance Survey (Gibson and Jacobson 1996: 15–17); of the passages beneath the Aqsa Mosque and alongside the so-called Stables of Solomon; by digging in the area close to Wilson’s Arch; the area beneath Robinson’s Arch near the southwest corner of the Temple Mount, and at one or two other locations within the city (for example, at the Muristan and at the Damascus Gate) and outside the walls (for example, at Bir Ayyub). Back in London, there was disappointment in some quarters (but not among PEF members) that the discoveries made by Warren did not match the discoveries previously made by Layard in Nineveh and that art objects and examples of sculpture and carved friezes were not discovered. 12. On Chaplin, see Lev and Perry 2004; and on Barclay, see Anonymous 1883. For the problematic relationship between Warren and Moore, see the comments by Russell 1869: 365.
42
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 14. Sketch-plan of Macalister and Duncan’s work in the area of the “Jebusite Ramp” (later Shiloh’s Area G).
Warren’s methods in his Jerusalem work were quite straightforward. From his perspective, there were certain facts about which nobody could argue, such as the fact that the Jewish Temple was originally situated on the spot known as the Haram al-Sharif, that the large hill to its east was the Mount of Olives, and that the valley in between was the Kidron Valley. Other subjects, such as the exact location of biblical Mount Zion, were still a matter of great controversy and debate. “In exploring,” Warren made it clear, “we must go on the principal that we know nothing until it is fully established; ever ready to acquire ideas and to suspend judgment, we are busy collecting facts, and have no time for speculation, so long as we can apply to the ground for information” (“Public Meeting, June 11th 1868,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 7). 13 Notwithstanding the fact that there were no spectacular art objects to be found, such as those uncovered at Nineveh, there was an enormous amount of satisfaction among PEF members in regard to Warren’s early achievements in Jerusalem, with a decision made that he should continue to conduct digging operations and that he should prosecute these in a more systematic fashion. At a meeting of the PEF held in 1868, a report was read concerning Warren’s work, and it was stated that 13. This method is in stark contrast to the method of applying preconceived ideas to archaeological remains that was practiced at the same time at Troy by Heinrich Schliemann (1868) and elsewhere (Traill 1995).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
43
Fig. 15. Corner of fortified building excavated by Crowfoot on the west side of the City of David.
“for the first time the actual streets of the ancient city have been reached—underground passages, which have been hidden for centuries by the mass of incumbent ruins, have been brought to light, a complicated network of drains and reservoirs is being laid bare, which, when fully explored, will no doubt aid very considerably in settling many difficult points connected with the level of different portions of Jerusalem” (“Public Meeting, June 11th 1868,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69: 3). Warren apparently spent part of his time in London discussing his work with colleagues, presumably also with Wilson, as well as weighing up what might still be achieved during future excavations in Jerusalem: “He will return, we trust, not only with renewed health, but also, having had the opportunity of conferring with many eminent men in this country who are best able to advise on the difficult questions which must necessarily come before him, with renewed power to carry on the work of exploration” (“Public Meeting, June 11th 1868,” PEF Proceedings and Notes, 1865–69 : 5). Warren’s technique of work in Jerusalem consisted of excavating 38-m-deep vertical shafts and horizontal galleries that were shored up with wooden planks, all of which was incredibly dangerous, “as the rubbish was largely composed of stone chippings from the ruins of old buildings which had been destroyed, with here and there a layer of earth which had collected in times of peace. The rubble formed a kind of shingle which had no cohesion, and had a tendency to run into and fill
44
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 16. Elevation drawings of wall of Second Temple period cistern excavated by Crowfoot in Field 9. Drawing by N. Reiss (Avigad).
up the shafts and galleries, while large stones, scattered through it, displaced and broke the wooden cases put in to support the sides and roofs. In places also the rubbish was fouled with sewage, which caused wounds on the hands of the workmen to fester” (Watson 1915: 44). Warren continued to work at Jerusalem with many more achievements and successes, and this caused a certain amount of tension between him and Wilson at the PEF, especially in view of the latter’s publication of modifications of Warren’s drawings without his permission in an article that appeared in the PEF’s Quarterly Statement for 1880 (Wilson 1880: 9–65). Walter Besant, however, was not at all modest about what he thought Warren’s achievements were at Jerusalem: “It was Warren who restored the ancient city to the world; he it was who stripped the rubbish from the rocks, and showed the glorious Temple standing within its walls, 1000 feet long and 200 feet high, of mighty masonry; he it was who laid open the valleys now covered up and hidden; he who opened the secret passages, the aqueducts, the bridge connecting temple and town. Whatever else may be done in the future, his name will always be associated with the Holy City which he first recovered” (Besant 1886:
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
45
Fig. 17. Doorway leading to the joint British School of Archaeology and Department of Antiquities of Palestine at Way House in Jerusalem, in a photograph taken by John Garstang.
62). One can only imagine how that other giant of Jerusalem research, Charles Wilson, must have felt on reading Besant’s lines. In a much more restrained fashion, Charles Watson’s appreciation of Warren’s results reads as follows: “Speaking generally, the results of Captain Warren’s expedition have been of the greatest possible importance, and they form the basis of that study of ancient Jerusalem that has continued ever since. All those interested in Bible history owe him a debt of gratitude for the thorough manner in which he carried out his difficult and interesting explorations” (Watson 1915: 52). On conclusion of the work in the field, Walter Morrison, the PEF Treasurer, edited a book with chapters by Wilson and Warren entitled The Recovery of Jerusalem (Morrison 1871), 14 which was followed not long after by a popular account of Warren’s work in Jerusalem entitled Underground Jerusalem (1876). Additional work was undertaken in Jerusalem from the 1870s on behalf of the PEF by Charles Tyrwhitt-Drake, Claude R. Conder, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, and Conrad Schick, among others. They too focused, whenever possible, on the study of the Temple Mount, but more work was now being done elsewhere in the city, using the Ordnance Survey map as the basis for recording observations and finds. Important work on the fortifications of Mount Zion was made by the engineer H. Mauds lay in the area of the Bishop Gobat School and was reported on by Conder. Much work was also done by Schick, a protégé of Wilson, who began making models of ancient Jerusalem as well as researching and studying ancient remains. 15 An important achievement was the publication in 1884 of much of these combined results in a “Jerusalem” volume of the memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine (Warren 14. Apparently, according to Bliss, Warren was pressured into writing this chapter while suffering from fever and exhaustion (Bliss 1906: 267 n. 1). 15. Wilson undoubtedly appreciated Schick’s contribution to the exploration of Jerusalem but also had some reservations about the exactitude of his drawings and maps of antiquities, saying “Dr Schick, whose accuracy as regards measurements is well known, rarely made any distinction either in his writings or in his drawings between existing and assumed remains” (1906: 134).
46
Shimon Gibson
Fig. 18. View of the southeast corner of the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) in a photograph taken at the time of Kenyon’s excavations in the area in the 1960s.
and Conder 1884). It was not just an account of excavations in the city made since Warren’s time, but it also included descriptions of architectural monuments and a chronological overview on the history of Jerusalem. In conjunction with the Survey volume, the PEF also brought out a very large companion portfolio of fifty maps, plans and drawings, entitled Plans, Elevations, Sections, etc., Shewing the Results of the Excavations at Jerusalem, 1867–70 (now known as the “Warren Atlas” [Warren 1884]). While the Survey of Western Palestine remained in progress, the Fund decided it was not able to send out a new expedition to undertake exclusive excavations at Jerusalem, partly for financial reasons and partly because there was no longer a major target for exploration, such as Warren had had with the Temple Mount. The PEF preferred instead to receive piecemeal reports on excavation results and survey investigations made by Clermont-Ganneau, Schick, Hanauer, and others in different parts of the city, much of which was subsequently published in the pages of the
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
47
Fund’s Quarterly Statement. Conrad Schick was exceptionally loyal and punctilious, and maintained strong links with the PEF from 1865 until his death in 1901. Watson mentions that “whenever a house was being removed, or excavations were made for the foundation of a new building, he was always on the spot, recording what could be seen, and making plans of all that was discovered underground” (Watson 1915: 109). 16 Some of the PEF Executive Members sitting in London, among them well-known scholars and clergy, treated Schick with a degree of suspicion derived partly from xenophobia, partly from his capability for producing an endless flow of reports, something which was almost unparalleled among his colleagues even in his own time (Conder is an exception), and partly because they were not always able to assess the full scientific quality of his work. Others, however, treated Schick with the respect he deserved. Today, there can be no doubt that his archaeological achievements are of the utmost importance. Over the period of his residence in Jerusalem, until his death in 1901, Schick published more than 200 reports within the pages of the PEF’s Quarterly Statement. Many of these reports are edited versions of longer and more detailed letters sent by Schick (now in the PEF archives). One subject that seemed to evade many of the explorers working in Jerusalem was that of the exact alignment of the ancient city walls as described in the biblical accounts and in the writings of Josephus Flavius, except for the small segments of defense walls previously uncovered by Warren on the eastern “Ophel” slope, by Maudslay near the Gobat School on Mount Zion (Schultz 2004: 57–74), and by Hermann Guthe in the lower Tyropoeon Valley. Hence, the Fund decided to mount an expedition to Jerusalem to investigate the south side of the city, from the traditional Mount Zion to the west to the area of the “City of David” in the east. These excavations were subsequently conducted between 1894–97, using a system of shafts and galleries, and were made under the direction of Frederick Jones Bliss, who had previously taken over from William Matthew Flinders Petrie at the Tell elHesi excavations during 1891–92, and with the assistance of the architect Archibald Campbell Dickie. Numerous segments of fortification walls, towers, and gates were eventually recorded. The results of the work were promptly published by Bliss in a book entitled Excavations in Jerusalem (Bliss 1898). 17
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between the Two Wars The vast amount of archaeological work made by British explorers in the 19th century paved the way for the major discussions and controversies of the 20th century, particularly in regard to the location of the original biblical Zion (whether 16. For further discussion of Schick’s achievements, see Goren 1999: 235–50; Gibson 2000: 113–22. Numerous drawings and notes made by Schick and other PEF explorers exist in the PEF archives in London, and much of this material was partly published or not at all. One has to remember that in the 19th century the placing of a drawing or report into the archives of the PEF was perceived by many at that time, notably by PEF Committee members and associated scholars, almost as an act of publication. Hence, one frequently finds notes in the Quarterly Statement to drawings and plans having been “placed” into the PEF archives for future reference by visiting scholars. 17. For a recent assessment of Bliss and his archaeological achievements: Hallote 2006: 121–32.
48
Shimon Gibson
it was on the southeastern or southwestern hills), the extent of the Iron Age city and whether or not it included the Western Hill, the situation of the Hellenistic Akra fortress, and the outline and exact course of the northern city fortifications (namely the situation of the Second Wall and its impact on the location of Christ’s crucifixion at Golgotha, on the one hand, and the exact line of the Third Wall, whether beneath the northern city wall of today or farther north, on the other). The first opportunity to test some of these archaeological questions came about as a result of political circumstances. In 1918, hostilities between the British and Turks eventually ceased, with the result that the British now had firm control of Jerusalem and much of Palestine. What is hardly known is that the capture of Jerusalem was in some measure delayed so that damage to sacred places and monuments could be avoided (Gibson 1999: 135). There was much concern and pressure in England regarding the safeguarding of monuments and antiquities. While there was general satisfaction among all parties and countries in regard to the situation as it developed, the famous archaeologist Flinders Petrie came up with a bizarre suggestion: to demolish much of the Old City of Jerusalem. As he put it: “by far the most satisfactory thing would be to establish a new business town a mile or so out and gradually clear the historic town. Thus the whole of the Medieval Jerusalem could be removed in the future, and the Jewish condition of the town brought to light and restored. . . . The first thing to be done is to get it as clear as we can of human habitation, and preserve it as a sanctuary for the three faiths.” 18 It seems Flinders Petrie was losing his head, and luckily this plan was never seriously considered. Indeed, on his death in 1942, Petrie did (physically) lose his head and it was shipped at his request to London where it is now stored in the Royal College of Surgeons. 19 Returning now to archaeological matters: the Pro-Jerusalem Society was eventually set up by the Governor Ronald Storrs and its charter clearly provided for “the protection and preservation, with the consent of the Government, of the antiquities of the district of Jerusalem” (Ashbee 1921: 15–18). Professor John Garstang was a pivotal individual during the 1920s in regard to excavations in Jerusalem, first as the Director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, and subsequently as 18. Petrie quoted in PEFQSt January 1919: 3 19. Petrie was an advocate of the Eugenics movement and, like his mentor Francis Galton, believed that a measure of human intelligence could be pronounced based, among other things, on the measurement of skulls. I am grateful to Dr. Caroline Grigson, who invited me to inspect Petrie’s head, which is stored in a glass container at the Royal College of Surgeons in London. The late Professor Avraham Biran once mentioned to me that, according to a personal conversation he had with the physician who undertook the initial surgery in 1942, only the brain was removed. In fact, the head was also physically removed, perhaps at a slightly later stage, and then eventually it was transported (with the brain) to London. At my request, Margaret S. Drower, author of Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology (1985: 424), examined a photograph of the head and confirmed that it was indeed that of Flinders Petrie. A scar on the temple area of the head confirms this identification. The discoloration of the hair and beard (now black instead of white) is the result of the chemical composition of the preserving liquid agent (not formaldehyde according to Grigson’s laboratory analysis). Petrie’s decapitated body is buried in the Protestant cemetery on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and his tomb is marked by a simple monolith headstone with the words “Flinders Petrie” and above it the Egyptian hieroglyph ʾankh (meaning “life”).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
49
the Director of the Palestine Department of Antiquities. Among his achievements was the setting up of the Palestine Archaeological Museum at Way House (later the collections were transferred to the Palestine Archaeological [Rockefeller] Museum), and the formulating of the Antiquities Ordinance, with a set of laws that also included a Schedule of Historical Sites. While Garstang did not himself conduct excavations in Jerusalem, in 1922 he urged the PEF to resume archaeological work in Jerusalem as part of a joint effort with archaeologists from other countries. The focus was the Ophel and the City of David, and the aim was to retrieve further information regarding the perplexing question as to the original location of biblical Zion (Reich and Shukron 2008: 23–26). The archaeological work was undertaken in 1923–25 by Robert A. S. Macalister with Reverend J. Garrow Duncan, the latter actually shouldering much of the supervisory work conducted in the field. 20 An important find during this work was, of course, a fortification line with a ramp-like built-up area, labeled the “Jebusite ramp,” which was later reexcavated by K. Kenyon and by Y. Shiloh as the “stone stepped structure” in Area G. 21 The accomplishments of this excavation, notwithstanding the disputes between Macalister and Duncan, which affected to some degree the full publication of the excavations, include the confirmation that the Southeast Hill was indeed the ancient Zion and that it was surrounded by a fortification wall. Another important achievement was a very accurate map of the entire Southeast Hill made by Col. Sir Charles F. Close. The Chairman of the PEF, H. R. Hall, pointed out that “it was not expected that at Ophel treasures of gold would be discovered, nor in Palestine are Tutankhamen tombs likely to reward the spade of the digger. What we have discovered is new light on the building and topography of the most ancient Jerusalem, the little city on the steep hill of Ophel that already existed there in the third millennium b.c.” (Macalister and Duncan 1926: viii). New work was resumed on the Ophel/City of David when in 1927 John W. Crowfoot and Gerald M. Fitzgerald cut a 20-meter trench from the west slope of the hill and across the lower Tyropoeon Valley toward the Southwest hill (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929). A massive gate was discovered. It is thought to be Hellenistic, but in my opinion it might go back to a much earlier time, possibly to the Middle Bronze Age. 22 Under the aegis of the Palestine Department of Antiquities in the years from 1934 to 1947, very important excavations were conducted in a different part of the city altogether, in the area of the Citadel near the Jaffa Gate. These excavations were conducted by Cedric Norman Johns, initially as a salvage operation with soundings, owing to the fact that the British, under the supervision of Sir Arthur Wauchope, had taken the step of dismantling the ruined Turkish barracks that had 20. Macalister and Duncan undertook the work between October 1923 and March 1924, with the continuation of the work by Duncan alone from March 1924 to September 1925. 21. This might represent parts of the Ophel; see n. 9 above. For the most recent investigation of this stone stepped structure, see Mazar 2008: 33–37. 22. Clarification regarding the date of this fortification and gate may emerge in the new excavations being conducted at the “Givati parking-lot” compound due north of Crowfoot and Fitzgerald’s area; see Ben-Ami and Tchehanovetz 2008: 108.
50
Shimon Gibson
occupied the central space within the courtyard of the Citadel. The soundings revealed the northwest corner of an ancient system of fortifications, associated on the one hand with a very large tower (presumably the Hippicus Tower), and running southward in the direction of the fortifications previously unearthed by Bliss and Dickie on the traditional Mount Zion ( Johns 1940: 1–22; 1950: 121–90).
The Work of Kathleen M. Kenyon Between 1961 and 1967, Kathleen M. Kenyon (who was later made a Dame of the British Empire) conducted a series of major archaeological excavations in Jerusalem. What were the motivations behind this work, and was she successful in accomplishing her goals? 23 In the Preface to her book Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History (1967: 7), Kenyon explains that one major reason behind her undertaking modern excavations at Jerusalem in the first place was that, in her opinion, her predecessors had dismally failed at their job. She went on to state that, since Warren and Bliss and Dickie were unable to date walls, their work was thereby seriously and fundamentally flawed. She is also critical of her more immediate predecessors, working in the early third of the 20th century (namely, R. A. S. Macalister and J. W. Crowfoot, among others) in that they still had not mastered proper working methods, and by this she meant stratigraphic digging procedures. 24 Indeed, in this regard, Elizabeth (“Betty”) Murray, who participated in the 1933 Samaria excavations, wrote in a letter to her mother that Crowfoot was “terrified” of doing things incorrectly and was in a permanent state of indecision but that he had “learnt a lot from Kathleen’s good slow methods and wants to apply them on every occasion.” 25 In regard to the development of Jerusalem archaeology, Kenyon wrote that “the historian of the 1950s had to recognize that his theories of the growth of Jerusalem were based on very unsound ground. He could invoke historical and topographical reasoning to support them, but he could not invoke archaeological facts.” This statement is somewhat unfair, especially when considering the vast achievements made by her predecessors, Wilson and Warren, and others (as we have seen above). Kay Prag, working on the publication of Kenyon’s Jerusalem excavations, described the goal of her work as follows: “Kenyon’s aim was to produce the first scientificallybased assessment of the archaeology of the city, and to put its archaeology, previously governed almost entirely by biblical descriptions, on a sound footing. Her aim was to excavate, record and phase scientifically the material remains, then to develop conclusions and only at the end of the process, to consider historical and other sources. The archaeological evidence was the primary focus” (Prag 1998: 127– 29). Herein, I believe, lay the major weakness in the working methods as practiced by Kenyon. She believed that knowledge of the history of Jerusalem should not in 23. For an excellent summary of the story of Kenyon’s work in Jerusalem: Davis 2008: 155–212. 24. This is repeated in her later book Digging up Jerusalem, when she says that only archaeologists working in Jerusalem in the Mandate period “had approached the problem of dating structural remains by stratigraphy” (1974: 35). 25. This letter is among the letters of Betty Murray in the PEF archives (Gibson 1999: 139 n. 25; Davis 2008: 58).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
51
any way impede or stand in the way of her ultimate interpretation of stratigraphic sequences, which had to be the most important consideration when interpretations were eventually made. While Kenyon did set out as a major goal of her work to clarify the topography and history of Jerusalem during seven seasons of excavations, there were certain constraints on her work, and in the end what she was able to achieve was something much different. A large part of the Old City was built up and this meant that she was only able to excavate in open areas that were quite rare, notably in the Armenian Quarter on the west of the city (supervised by Doug Tushingham), 26 in the area of the Muristan (Area C) close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and to the north of the city adjacent to the fortification line known as the Third Wall. Hence (though I am sure Kenyon would have been loath to admit it), like her predecessors Macalister and Duncan and Crowfoot and Fitzgerald, Kenyon was forced to concentrate most of her attention on the Southeast Hill, in the area of the Ophel and the City of David, though she could have worked more on the western slopes of the traditional Mount Zion had she really wanted to. The archaeological work of Kenyon in Jerusalem has come in for a lot of criticism by fellow scholars and by some archaeologists subsequently working in Jerusalem. Their arguments may be summed up as follows: her excavation areas were too small (Mazar 1988: 120–21; cf. Davis 2008: 205); 27 she had an obsession with stratigraphy rather than trying to elucidate architectural remains (Dever 2004: 535); she developed major conclusions regarding the expansion and shrinking of the city during various periods based on “negative evidence” (Barkay 1985–86: 35); and she had little interest in the Islamic and medieval remains of the city. 28 In addition, Kenyon suffered from serious gaps in her knowledge (or perhaps was just dismissive) in regard to the explorations and achievements of her predecessors, on the one hand, and in regard to archaeological work conducted after 1967 and until her death in 1978, on the other. Some of these criticisms are unjust. One cannot, in my opinion, criticize an archaeologist for performing what he or she set out to accomplish and did so successfully. Kenyon had no interest in concentrating her excavations in a single area (in fact, this was largely impossible in some cases in her time, due to land-ownership problems or because of the build-up of modern houses). She also did not want to excavate complete building units but, instead, she wanted to dig deep trenches and establish good stratigraphic sequences in order to clarify the development of the city through time. Admittedly, there were some crucial aspects of the development of Jerusalem that she got wrong, namely, the extent of the expansion of Iron Age II settlement to the Western Hill, which was based on negative evidence (namely, the 26. The final results of the work in the Armenian Garden were published by Tushingham 1985 (see an alternative interpretation of the finds by Gibson 1987 and the response by Tushingham 1988). 27. Barkay described Kenyon’s method of digging as a form of “acupuncture” (1985–86: 35). 28. It is perhaps telling that in her book Digging Up Jerusalem only 16 pages are devoted to the remains of the Byzantine, Islamic, and medieval periods, whereas she devoted 189 pages to the remains from the Iron Age through the Roman periods.
52
Shimon Gibson
absence of stratified Iron Age II pottery at the bottom of her squares), but Kenyon never held a monopoly on interpretations. What counts in the end, however, is a readiness to admit that one can sometimes get things wrong, and in this respect, Kenyon tended to be quite entrenched and adamant in her views (at least in publications) and hardly liked to change her opinions, whatever the evidence facing her. 29 Kenyon, like many other archaeologists, studied and wrote about Jerusalem of the periods that interested her, but she did excavate remains of the later Islamic and medieval periods quite carefully (as is clear from the most recent final publication: Prag 2008). 30 Hopefully, when the full publication of her excavations eventually sees the light of day, Kenyon’s overall contribution to the archaeology of Jerusalem will be better thought of. 31
Conclusions The main question dealt with in this paper is why the British, following the founding of the PEF in 1865, should have focused their archaeological work in Jerusalem and more specifically on the Temple Mount. Partly, it seems, there was a religious motivation at play, though strong attempts were indeed also made, particularly by Grove, to ensure that religious sentiments did not influence the thinking of explorers and that archaeological results were eventually presented impartially. This was possible primarily because of the fact that the early explorations were conducted by men from a disciplined military background, such as Wilson and Warren of the Royal Engineers, rather than by individuals from a scholarly or religious background. However, the desire to elucidate the Bible was very much stated as one of the principal objectives of the exploration activities from the outset. What is quite clear is that a major change in the character of the exploration of ancient Jerusalem occurred in the 19th century, with a fascination for the past of the city, fanciful or otherwise, being replaced by that of a scientific concern for the tangible antiquities of the city. 32 The Ordnance Survey conducted by Wilson in 1864 and 1865 marks this turning point. The ancient past of Jerusalem was no longer a matter for armchair scholarly discourse, turning upon the credibility and background of a given scholar, but had now become a matter for clear-cut scientific rigor, which could only be based on facts obtained in empirical fashion, whether through the taking of exact measurements, photography, or excavations in the ground. Warren’s excavations of 1867–70 undoubtedly changed the scholarly ap29. In private, however, Kenyon expressed a much greater willingness to accept new evidence, such as for instance the implications arising from the presence of an Iron Age city wall on the Western Hill (Prag 2001: 217). 30. On the problems of the records and field notes of the Jerusalem expedition: Davis 2008: 210–11. 31. To date, the following publications have appeared: Tushingham 1985; Franken and Steiner 1990; Eshel and Prag 1995; Steiner 2001; Franken 2005; Prag 2008. 32. The view put forward by Edward W. Said in his book Orientalism (1978: 166–97), which regards exploration activities, such as those made in Jerusalem, as a tool for imperialist adventures, does not accord well with the evidence as outlined in this article. See, recently, a critical discussion of Said’s approach in Robert Irwin’s For the Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies (2006: 141–88).
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
53
proach to the subject to such an extent that thereafter all casual discourse on the subject was solely relegated to the domain of religious and travel literature, and scholars became beholden to the exact observations of explorers, such as Schick and others, who were resident in the city at the time of their work. The 20th century, however, marks a shift away from the study of the Temple Mount toward the excavation of sites led on by scholarly debates regarding the situation of the Ophel and the City of David, the dating of its fortifications, and the extent and expansion of the city at different times in its illustrious history. Kathleen Kenyon’s work in the 1960s represents the culmination of this process, with the added bonus of clear stratigraphic data, which one can either accept or ignore, something that was admittedly lacking with the published material derived from earlier excavations by Macalister or Crowfoot. Hence, for example, I was able to provide a new overview and a completely different interpretation (rightly or wrongly) of Kenyon and Tushingham’s results in the Armenian Garden excavations precisely because of the quality of the records and stratigraphic material provided in the final publication (Gibson 1987: 81–96; Tushingham 1988: 142–45). For this reason, I do not believe that recent Israeli excavations have rendered Kenyon’s work in Jerusalem “largely obsolete,” as claimed by Dever (2004: 535), and I fully agree with Prag who wrote that “truly it would be a great loss to ignore the huge amount of evidence accumulated [in the Kenyon excavations]. One can either look at the mass of material and despair; or look with excitement at what further information it can give on this most significant of cities” (1998: 128).
Acknowledgments The research and illustrations for this article were prepared during an archival project undertaken between 1989–1995 by the author at the Palestine Exploration Fund in London, with the help of Pamela Magrill, Fanny Vitto, and Bridget Ibbs. The project was generously supported by the British Library, British Academy, Goldsmith’s Company, Pilgrim’s Trust, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (now the Kenyon Institute), Mediterranean Trust, Kress Foundation, Franklin Trust, and with additional help received from Professor Philip J. King and the Earl Kitchener. My thanks are also extended to executive members of the PEF for their assistance, namely Lt. Col. David N. Hall, Stephen Day, Jonathan Tubb, Dr. Yolande Hodson, Dr. David Jacobson, Dr. Tessa Rajak, the late Peter G. Dorrell, and to the Executive Secretaries Dr. Rupert Chapman and Felicity Cobbing.
References Anonymous 1883 Joseph Barclay, D.D., LL.D., Third Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem: A Missionary Biography. London: Partridge. Ashbee, R. 1921 The Archaeological Needs of the Holy City. Pp. 15–18 in Jerusalem 1918–1920: Being the Records of the Pro-Jerusalem Council During the Period of the British Military Administration. London: John Murray.
54
Shimon Gibson
Barkay, G. 1985–86 Jerusalem of Old Testament Times: New Discoveries and New Approaches. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 5: 35. Bahat D,. and Broshi, M. 1975 Excavations in the Armenian Garden. Pp. 55–56 in Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974, ed. Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ben-Ami, D. and Tchehanovetz, Y. 2008 The Contribution of the Excavations at the “Givati Parking Lot” to the Study of the History of the Early Settlement in the City of David. Pp. 97–111 in City of David: Studies of Ancient Jerusalem, 3, ed. E. Meiron. Jerusalem: Megalim. (Hebrew) Ben-Arieh, Y. 1974 The Catherwood Map of Jerusalem. The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 31/3: 150–60. 1983 The Rediscovery of the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century. Jerusalem: Magnes. Besant, W. 1886 Twenty-One Years’ Work in the Holy Land (A Record and Summary) June 22, 1865–June 22 1886. London: PEF. Bliss, F. J. 1898 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London: PEF. 1906 The Development of Palestine Exploration, Being the Ely Lectures for 1903. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Broshi, M. 1987 Religion, Ideology and Politics and Their Impact on Palestinian Archaeology. The Israel Museum Journal 6: 17–32. Broshi, M., and Gibson, S. 1994 Excavations along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Pp. 147–155 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Crowfoot, J. W., and G. M. Fitzgerald 1929 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927. APEF 5. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Davis, M. C. 2008 Dame Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Dever, W. G. 2004 Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978). Pp. 525–53 in Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists, ed. G. M. Cohen and M. S. Joukowsky. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Drower, M. S. 1985 Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology. London: Victor Gollancz. Eshel, I., and Prag, K. 1995 Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Finn, E. A.] 1929 Reminiscenses of Mrs. Finn M.R.A.S. Marshall: Morgan and Scott. Franken, H. J. 2005 A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient Jerusalem: Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. London: Equinox. Franken, H. J., and Steiner, M. 1990 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Vol. II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
55
Gibson, S. 1987 The 1961–67 Excavations in the Armenian Garden, Jerusalem. PEQ 119: 81–96. 1997 The Holy Land in the Sights of Explorer’s Cameras. Pp. 235–48 in Jerusalem in the Mind of the Western World, 1800–1948, with Eyes to Zion, Vol. 5, ed. Y. Ben-Arieh and M. Davis. Westport: Praeger. 1999 British Archaeological Institutions in Mandatory Palestine, 1917–1948. PEQ 131: 115–43. 2000 Conrad Schick (1822–1901), the PEF and an ‘Archaic Hebrew’ Inscription from Jerusalem. PEQ 132: 113–22. 2001 The Ordnance Survey and the PEF. Pp. 158–9 in, Holy Land in Maps, ed. A. Tishby. Israel Museum Catalogue 459. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. 2003 Jerusalem in Original Photographs 1850–1920. London: Stacey International. 2005 The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period. Proche-Orient Chrétien 55: 270–93. Gibson, S., and Jacobson, D. M. 1996 A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram alSharif. BAR Int. Series No. 637. Oxford: Hadrian Books. Goren, H. 1998 The Chase after the Bible: Individuals and Institutions—and the Study of the Holy Land. Pp. 103–15 in Religion, Ideology and Geographical Thought. WSP Kielce Studies in Geography 3, ed. U. Wardenga and W. J. Wilcynski. Kielce: Instytut Geografii. 1999 ‘Go View the Land’: German Study of Palestine in the Nineteenth Century. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) 2001 Scientific Organizations as Agents of Change: the PEF, the Deutsch Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas and Nineteenth-century Palestine. Journal of Historical Geography 27/2: 153–65. 2002 Sacred, But Not Surveyed: Nineteenth Century Surveys of Palestine. Imago Mundi 54: 87–110. Graves, C. L. 1903 The Life and Letters of Sir George Grove, C.B. London: Macmillan. Hart, I. D. 1965 The Surveys of Palestine. The Royal Engineers Journal September: 214–25. Hallote, R. 2006 Bible, Map and Spade: The American Palestine Exploration Society, Frederick Jones Bliss and the Forgotten Story of Early American Biblical Archaeology. Piscataway: Gorgias Press Howe, K. S. 1997 Revealing the Holy Land: The Photographic Exploration of Palestine. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Art. Irwin, R. 2006 For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and their Enemies. London: Penquin. Jacobson, D. M. 1990–91 The Plan of Herod’s Temple. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 10: 36–66. 2003 Charles Warren Vs James Fergusson. Where was the Israelite Temple Located? Biblical Archaeology Review 29/5: 58–69, 84–85. Johns, C. N. 1940 Excavations at the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1934–9. PEQ 72: 1–22 1950 The Citadel, Jerusalem. A Summary of Work Since 1934. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities 14: 121–90. Jones, Y. 1973 British Military Surveys of Palestine and Syria 1840–41. The Cartographic Journal 10: 29–41.
56
Shimon Gibson
Kenyon, K. M. 1967 Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History. London: Thames and Hudson. 1974 Digging up Jerusalem. London: Benn. Lev, E., and Perry, Y. 2004 Dr Thomas Chaplin, Scientist and Scholar in Ninteenth-Century Palestine. PEQ 136: 151–62. Lipman, V. D. 1988 The Origins of the PEF. PEQ 120: 45–54. Macalister, R. A. S., and Duncan, J. G. 1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923–1925. APEF 4. London: PEF. Mankin, J. H. 1969 Survey of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1865 and 1935. PEQ 101: 37–39. Mazar, A. 1988 Israeli Archaeologists. Pp. 109–128 in Benchmarks in Time and Culture: Essays in Honor of Joseph A. Callaway, ed. J. F. Drinkard, G. L. Mattingly, and J. M. Miller. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Mazar, B. 1975a The Mountain of the Lord. New York: Doubleday. 1975b The Archaeological Excavations Near the Temple Mount. Pp. 25–40 in Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974, ed. Y. Yadin Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, E. 2007 Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area. Jerusalem: Shalem Press. 2008 The Stepped Stone Structure in the City of David in Light of the New Excavations in Area G. Pp. 25–40 in New Studies on Jerusalem, eds. E. Baruch, A. Levy-Reifer, and A. Faust. Vol. 14. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University (Hebrew). Mazar, E., and Mazar, B. 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology. Morrison, W., ed. 1871 The Recovery of Jerusalem: A Narrative of Exploration and Discovery in the City and Holy Land. London: Bentley. Moscrop, J. J. 2000 Measuring Jerusalem: The PEF and British Interests in the Holy Land. London: Leicester University Press. Newman, H. E. 1949 The Ordnance Survey in the Near East. The Royal Engineers Journal, March-June: 64–77. Prag, K. 1998 Re-excavating Jerusalem: the Work of the Joint Expedition, 1961–1967. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 16: 127–29. 2001 Figurines, Figures, and Contexts in Jerusalem and Regions to the East in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries bce. P. 217 in, Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar. JSOTS 331. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. 2008 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume V: Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem. Centenary Volume: Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906–1978. Levant Supplementary Series 7. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books. Reich, R., and Shukron, E. 2000 The Excavations at the Gihon Spring and Warren’s Shaft System in the City of David.” Pp. 327–39 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva (expanded edition). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967
57
2008 The History of the Archaeological Excavations in the City of David (1867–2007). Pp. 13–41 in City of David: Studies of Ancient Jerusalem, 3, ed. E. Meiron. Jerusalem: Megalim. (Hebrew) Russell, W. H. 1869 A Diary in the East During the Tour of the Prince and Princess of Wales. London: Routledge. Said, E. W. 1978 Orientalism. London: Penquin. Searight, S. 1969 The British in the Middle East. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Schultz, B. 2004 The Archaeological Heritage on the Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery on Mount Zion. PEQ 136: 57–74. Shurman, M. M. 1994 Wilson Bench Marks in the Old City of Jerusalem. PEQ 126: 49–51. Steiner, M. L. 2001 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Copenhagen International Series 9. London: Sheffield Academic Press / Continuum. Tushingham, A. D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume I. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1988 The 1961–67 Excavations in the Armenian Garden, Jerusalem: A Response. PEQ 120: 142–45. Traill, D. A. 1995 Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit. New York: St Martin’s Griffin. Warren, C. 1876 Underground Jerusalem: An Account of the Principal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained. London: Murray. 1884 Plans, Elevations, Sections, etc., Shewing the Results of the Excavations at Jerusalem, 1867–70. London: PEF. Warren, C., and Conder, C. R. 1884 The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem Volume. London: PEF. Watson, C. M. 1915 PEF: Fifty Years’ Work in the Holy Land. A Record and Summary, 1865–1915. London: PEF. Webster, G. 1985a Portrait: Elizabeth Anne Finn. Biblical Archaeologist 48: 181–85. 1985b Portrait: Baroness Angela Goergina Burdett-Coutts. Biblical Archaeologist 48: 186–89. Wightman, G. J. 1990–91 Temple Fortresses in Jerusalem, Part II: The Hasmonean Baris and Herodian Antonia. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 10: 7–35. Wilson, C. W. 1880 The Masonry of the Haram Wall. PEFQSt: 9–65. [1866] 1876 Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem Made in the Years 1864 to 1865. Southampton: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. 1906 Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre. London: PEF. Young, P. M. 1980 George Grove, 1820–1900: A Biography. London: Macmillan.
Comments
Report "British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865-1967: An Assessment "