Jewish Quarter Excavations vol 7_-_Monumental_Ionic_Columns_-_Peleg_Barkat_and_Ben_Haim.pdf

JEWISH QUARTER EXCAVATIONS EXCAVATIONS OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM EXCAVATIONS The research and compilation of the manuscript for this final publication were made possible through a generous grant from The Shelby White-Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications Menorah incised on plaster from the Jewish Quarter Excavations (Area A) JEWISH QUARTER EXCAVATIONS IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 Volume VII: Q,J,H, andOther OtherStudies Studies Volume VI:Areas Areas N,O-2 Z and FINAL REPORT Hillel Geva With contributions by: N. Amitai-Preiss, Ariel, A. BenA. Haim, D. Ben-Shlomo, N.Finkielsztejn, Brosh, D.T. Ariel, M. Avissar,D.T. D. Ben-Shlomo, Berman, N. Brosh, G. de Vincenz, E. A.J.Grossberg, Habas, Y. Israeli, J. Magness, M.A.Hershkovitz, Y. Eshel, Israeli, Magness,L. H.K. Mienis, R. Nenner-Soriano, H.K.Y.Mienis, R. Nenner-Soriano, R. Palistrant Shaick, O.I.Peleg-Barkat, Rapuano, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, O. Sion, Yezerski R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. Talgam, I. Yezerski ISRAEL EXPLORATION SOCIETY INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM JERUSALEM 2014 2017 This Volume Was Published with the Support of: Gad Avigad Donna and Marvin Schwartz Foundation Sherry Herschend, for the glory of God Reuben and Edith Hecht Trust George Blumenthal and the Center for Online Judaic Studies David and Jemima Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center of Jewish History at Bar-Ilan University Gol family © 2017 by the Israel Exploration Society ISBN 978-965-221-116-3 Layout: Avraham Pladot Typesetting: Irit Nachum Plates and printing: Old City Press, Jerusalem Dedicated to the memory of Shulamit Avigad, faithful friend of the Jewish Quarter Excavations Expedition Nahman Avigad 25.9.1905‒28.1.1992 CONTENTS Preface — Hillel Geva XI Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV List of Plans, Sections, Figures and Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI PART ONE: AREA Q Chapter One: Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area Q Hillel Geva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Chapter Two: A Miqweh with Surrounding Staircase in Area Q—A Dual-Purpose Installation for Ritual Purification and Recreation Asher Grossberg 52 Chapter Three: Monumental Ionic Columns from Areas Q and H Orit Peleg-Barkat and Asaf Ben Haim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Chapter Four: A Lion in Jerusalem: A Roman Sculpture of a Lion Head from the Jewish Quarter Ronit Palistrant Shaick Chapter Five: A Plaster-Molded Cross in a Water Cistern in Area Q Lihi Habas 96 108 Chapter Six: Local Pottery of the Early Roman Period from Area Q Hillel Geva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Chapter Seven: The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Area Q Jodi Magness [ VII ] 126 Chapter Eight: Pottery from Early Islamic to Mamluk Periods from Area Q Anna de Vincenz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Chapter Nine: Two Hebrew Inscriptions from Area Q Esther Eshel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 PART TWO: AREA H Chapter Ten: Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area H Hillel Geva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Chapter Eleven: Iron Age IIB Pottery from Area H Irit Yezerski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Chapter Twelve: Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Area H Hillel Geva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Chapter Thirteen: Imported Pottery and Selected Locally Made Vessels of the Roman Period from Area H Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 PART THREE: AREA O-2 Chapter Fourteen: Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area O-2 Hillel Geva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Chapter Fifteen: A Mosaic of the Late Second Temple Period from Area O-2 Rina Talgam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Chapter Sixteen: Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Area O-2 Hillel Geva 226 PART FOUR: FINDS FROM AREAS Q, H, AND O-2 Chapter Seventeen: Stone Artifacts from Areas Q, H and O-2 Hillel Geva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Chapter Eighteen (A): Hellenistic to Byzantine Glass from Areas Q and H Yael Israeli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 [ VIII ] Chapter Eighteen (B): Glass Vessels from the Medieval Period from Area Q Naama Brosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Chapter Nineteen: The Coins from Areas Q and H Donald T Ariel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Appendix: A Possible Flan-Mold Fragment from Area H Donald T Ariel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Chapter Twenty: Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from Areas Q, H and O-2 Ravit Nenner-Soriano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Chapter Twenty-One: Shells from Areas H and Q Henk K Mienis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Chapter Twenty-Two: Miscellaneous Finds from Areas Q, H and O-2 Ravit Nenner-Soriano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Chapter Twenty-Three: An Ottoman Weight from Area Q Nitzan Amitai-Preiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Color plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I‒VIII PART FIVE: GENERAL STUDIES Chapter Twenty-Four: Petrographic Analysis of Early Roman Non-Local Storage Vessels from the Jewish Quarter David Ben-Shlomo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Chapter Twenty-Five: Selected Pottery from the Late Second Temple Period and Aelia Capitolina from Area F-6 Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Chapter Twenty-Six: The Mattathias Antigonus Hoard from Area T Donald T Ariel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 [ IX ] Nahman Avigad with Kathleen Kenyon during her visit to the Jewish Quarter excavations in the early 1970s CHAPTER THREE MONUMENTAL IONIC COLUMNS FROM AREAS Q AND H Orit Peleg-Barkat and Asaf Ben Haim INTRODUCTION Several column bases, column drums, an almost complete Ionic capital and a dozen fragments of other Ionic capitals of similar size and style were found during the late Prof. Nahman Avigad’s excavations in the center of the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983: 161‒162, Figs. 178‒181). The fragments were retrieved from Area Q, in the southeastern corner of the Hurva Square, and from Area H, situated a short distance to the west of Area Q. They all belong to Ionic columns of approximately 1 m. in diameter. Their similar monumental dimensions, common stylistic characteristics, and the fact that they were found in relatively close proximity to one another, suggest that they all originated in one series of columns of a monumental building that once stood on the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem. Several of the features of these architectural fragments, as well as their carving style, point to a date in the late 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE, and epigraphic evidence supports a similar date (see Chapter Nine, this volume). The fragments, and especially the Ionic capitals, are of excellent workmanship and they undoubtedly represent some of the finest examples of Herodian architecture in Jerusalem. The architectural elements were all carved of semi-hard limestone (melekeh) quarried in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Most of the known quarries of the late Second Temple period are located north of the city (Avnimelech 1966; Safrai and Sasson 2001; Zilberbod 2012). Apart from their similar scale and type of stone, all the fragments have smooth, finely dressed surfaces, and the marks of the sharp, fine-toothed chisels are discernible on the faces of the drums. Such marks are typical of the Herodian period (Reich and Shukron 2006: 62). They normally comprise tiny dots in vertical columns or horizontal lines, although in some places they appear in groups running in different directions.1 The archaeological context of the fragments and a typological and stylistic analysis of the column drums, column bases and Ionic capitals are presented below, followed by a general discussion of Ionic columns in late Second-Temple period Jerusalem and the possible architectural context of the Ionic columns discussed here. Archaeological Context Unfortunately, none of the pieces were found in situ, in their original context, thus the identification of the building that was once adorned by these columns remains an enigma (see discussion below). The complete Ionic capital, three matching column drums and one Attic column base were discovered ex situ in Area H, during construction work (Photos 3.1‒3.2). However, [ 68 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S Photo 3.1 The complete Ionic capital and a matching column drum found ex situ in Area H their excellent preservation enabled their anastylosis (reconstruction using the original pieces), as can be seen today in Batei Maḥseh Square in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. While some of the Ionic capital fragments, the Attic column base and three column drums from Area Q lack clear archaeological contexts, most of the Ionic capital fragments and one column drum fragment from this area were found in secondary use, incorporated into the walls of a Byzantine-period cistern (L.2210B) that was cut into the lower, central part of an exceptionally large miqweh (ritual bath, L.2203), dated to the end of the Second Temple period (1st century CE; see Chapter One, this volume; Reich 2013: 92−95; Geva 2015). The miqweh, whose remains were exposed close to the surface, had stairs coated with gray plaster ascending from all four sides. During the Byzantine period, the miqweh was converted into a cistern (L.2210B), which cut through its bottom part to the bedrock below. The 1 m. wide walls of the cistern that supported its vaulted roof (found in ruin), were erected on top of the miqweh’s lower remaining stairs. The cistern’s walls (W.538, W.539, W.540, W.541) were built of stones of varying sizes, some of which had been taken from earlier buildings, including many fragments of an Ionic capital. It seems that the capital had been deliberately broken into pieces to facilitate its incorporation into the walls. The larger fragments of the capital, together with one fragment of a column drum, were set into the base of the western wall of the cistern (W.538), directly on top of the miqweh’s lower stairs (Photo. 3.3; Color Pls. II; III:1; IV), while four large fragments from the volutes of the capital were inserted into the southern wall (W.541), close to the southeastern corner of the cistern. Several smaller fragments were incorporated into the upper portion of the cistern walls, and others were found in the earthen fill of the cistern, apparently originating in the uppermost [ 69 ] Photo 3.2 The complete Attic column base found in Area H Photo 3.3 Two large fragments of an Ionic capital and one fragment of a column drum incorporated in secondary use in the western wall of a Byzantine-period cistern in Area Q, looking south [ 70 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S part of the cistern walls that had collapsed inward. Fragments from several column drums were found scattered around the cistern (Photo 3.4), some incorporated in secondary use into Byzantine-period walls. The lack of clear archaeological context and their fragmentary state of preservation make it impossible to determine the exact number of architectural elements that were originally incorporated into the Byzantine cistern. While some of the smaller fragments apparently belong to several Ionic capitals, the larger fragments are part of one capital, which was recently restored in the Israel Museum laboratory (see below; Peleg-Barkat et al. forthcoming). Photo 3.4 Three column drums in the vicinity of a Byzantine-period cistern in Area Q Column Drums At least nine column drum fragments found in Areas Q and H of the Jewish Quarter can be attributed with some certainty to the above-mentioned series of monumental Ionic columns. These include one complete column drum and five large drum fragments from Area Q (Photo 3.4; Pl. 3.1:1−4),2 three large drum fragments from Area H (Photo 3.5; Pl. 3.1:5−7), and one other fragment of a large column drum found in Area N (Pl. 3.1:8), situated a short distance to the north of Area H (Geva 2014). The column drums are similar in size, with a diameter of 0.958–1.075 m. The larger measure- Photo 3.5 Three column drums found ex situ in Area H ments most probably relate to the lower diameter of the columns, while the narrower drums probably originated in the topmost part of the shafts. The tapering of the diameter from bottom to top is in accordance with Greco-Roman tradition (Vitruvius, de Architectura III, 3, 13). An examination of column dimensions common in Judea during the late Second Temple (Herodian) period shows that, apart from the columns of the temples of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea and Sebaste\Samaria (whose diameters range between 1.2 m. and 1.76 m.; Reisner et al. 1924: 191‒192; Kahn 1996: 138, Fig. 2), and the columns that probably originated in the Royal Portico that once stood on the Temple Mount’s southern flank, and were found at the foot of the southern wall (whose diameters are approximately 1 m.; Peleg-Barkat 2007: 292‒293, 336‒337; 2011a: 48), all other columns range in diameter from 30 to 70 cm. Therefore, the rarity of columns with monumental dimensions in this period is further evidence that all the drums in this group from the Jewish Quarter adorned one elaborate royal or public building (see below). As no stucco flutings were found (nor other stucco remains attesting to the use of stucco applications), it seems that the columns were unplastered. Further evidence for this are the small, square knobs (7‒8 cm. wide) left unchiseled on two of the drums (Pl. 3.1:2, 4). Such knobs are in accordance with a contemporary architectural fashion that was prevalent during the late Second Temple period in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea. These protuberances were probably initially used to assist in hoisting the stones into place using a crane. However, the fact that so many such knobs remained unchiseled indicates that they [ 71 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M became an intentional and even desired decoration. Similar knobs on column drums were found in Jerusalem, for example, in the Western Wall tunnels, in the Pool of Siloam, and in the tomb of Queen Helene of Adiabene (Kon 1947, Pl. XVa). Outside Jerusalem, we find similar examples in the peristyle of the Fortress-Palace at Herodium, at Bet She’an, at Ḥorvat ʿEleq in Ramat Hanadiv, and in the oval plaza at Jerash (Mazor and Bar-Nathan 1998: 8–10, Fig. 7; Peleg-Barkat 2007: 268, Figs. 168, 341–346; 2011b, Fig. 15).3 Their popularity may have derived from the fact that the shadows they cast throughout the day broke up the monotony of the colonnades. In the Classical period, such knobs were sometimes left unchiseled on the rear walls of buildings, for example, in the Propylea on the Athenian acropolis (5th century BCE). In 1st century BCE Italy, it seems that these knobs were considered quite fashionable, as is suggested by several frescoes in Rome and Campania showing columns and pilasters with numerous such unchiseled knobs (for example, in the House of the Griffins on the Palatine in Rome, and the Villa of P. Fannius Sinistor in Boscoreale; Ling 1991, Figs. 21, 27). Most column drums whose flat upper or lower surfaces remain intact, show a small, square, shallow depression (2‒4 cm. wide) in the center of the surface that probably held the tenons between the drums, but would also have facilitated holding the drum in place if it was prepared on a lathe, or when raised to its position on the column. Although Josephus mentions the presence of monolithic columns in Herodian buildings, for example in the Northern Palace at Masada (War V.190), and in the porticoes of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (War VII.290),4 such columns were very rare.5 Normally, in Hellenistic and Early Roman Judea, columns were built of drums,6 with the bottom part of the shaft carved in one piece together with the column base, as is the case with the Ionic columns discussed here (see below). When the capital is Ionic (or Doric, and sometimes Corinthian), the top part of the shaft was also carved in one piece with the capital (see below). On the column shaft section that was carved together with the complete Ionic capital from Area H, an engraved mark denoting the Latin numeral VIIII (9) appears on the lower edge of the drum’s outer surface (Pl. 3.3:1‒2; Avigad 1983: 165, Fig. 179). The use of such numbers as mason marks is well attested in Herodian Judea. They appear frequently on architectural elements and building stones in Herodian palaces and other buildings of the period, but most often on column drums. They were probably incised at the quarry to aid the builders in assembling architectural elements easily and accurately after they were delivered to the building site, thus preventing errors in placement—a system widely used since the beginning of the Classical period in Greece.7 The largest assemblage of architectural elements bearing mason marks was discovered at Masada, where over 70 column drums and column bases bear such marks, consisting chiefly of a Hebrew letter (in Aramaic script) and vertical or diagonal bars denoting numerals. However, most of the mason marks at contemporaneous Jewish sites in Judea bear Greek letters alongside the numerals.8 At Archelais (Peleg-Barkat 2007: 250), a column drum was found bearing only a Latin numeral (XIIII), similar to our example. The choice of Greek or Hebrew letters alongside a certain type of numeral seems rather random. Perhaps this elaborate system was meant to differentiate between groups of architectural elements in the quarry that were intended to be sent to different construction projects.9 Two of the column drums reveal evidence of secondary use (Pl. 3.1:2, 4). A number of depressions were carved into their surfaces, perhaps to facilitate their transportation from their original location, to incorporate them into later installations, or just to reuse them in some fashion at a later date. On two of the drums are remains of short Hebrew inscriptions, probably names, on the flat sides of the drums (Pl. 3.1:3; see Chapter Nine, this volume). These inscriptions are dated on paleographical grounds to the Herodian period, but it remains unclear whether they were carved as mason marks before construction of the columns, or as graffiti after the building in which the columns once stood went out of use, and the columns were dismantled. If the latter option is [ 72 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S correct, then the inscriptions offer a hint that the building was destroyed sometime before 70 CE and the destruction of the city. Column Bases Two column bases found in Areas Q and H seem to belong to the same series of Ionic columns measuring approximately 1 m. in diameter discussed here. The column base from Area Q (Pl. 3.2:1) is heavily eroded, with only its original bottom surface preserved. However, the surviving profile clearly indicates that this is a fragment of an eastern Attic column base, carved in one piece together with the bottommost part of the column shaft, whose lower diameter is 1.07 m. In contrast, the column base from Area H is almost complete (Photos 3.2, 3.6; Pl. 3.2:2; Color Pls. V:3; VI) and is displayed today in Batei Maḥseh Square in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, as part of a reconstructed Ionic column. It is also of the eastern Attic type, the case with most column bases of this period, although there are several examples in Jerusalem12 and Herodium13 of Attic bases carved together with a plinth, a feature that first appeared in Judea under the rule of King Herod, presumably due to Roman influence. Ionic Capitals A complete Ionic capital was found ex situ in Area H (Photo 3.1; Pl. 3.3; Color Pls. V:3; VI; VII:1–3), and an Ionic capital of similar dimensions and workmanship, albeit broken into numerous fragments, was incorporated into the walls of a Byzantine cistern in Area Q (Pls. 3.4‒3.5; Color Pl. V:1–2). The Israel Museum laboratory has recently restored the fragments to form a complete capital. Several other fragments that are probably part of a third capital (or perhaps two additional capitals) were also found in Area Q, in the cistern (see above) and in its vicinity (Pls. 3.6‒3.7). The various parts of the capitals will be discussed below as one group, although differences and variations within the group are noted. Dimensions Photo 3.6 The complete Attic column base found in Area H characterized by two tori separated by a scotia or trochilus and two fillets.10 Attic bases were the most common type in Judea during the Second Temple period (Peleg 2006: 325–326).11 Characteristic of the local examples in Judea is the upper torus being shorter than the lower one. The two bases discussed here have no plinths, as is Each of the capitals was carved out of a single block of stone, together with the topmost part of the column shaft. The lower diameter of the shaft in both the complete and reconstructed specimens is 96 cm. The height of the complete capital from Area H (including the shaft section) is 1.24 m., while the restored capital from Area Q is 86 cm. high. The shaft section, below the echinus, is 84 cm. and 51 cm. high respectively. The distance between the volute’s central ‘eyes’ is approximately 99 cm. on both capitals.14 The length of the pulvini ranges between 1.09 and 1.11 m. The Shaft As mentioned above, marks of sharp, finetoothed chisels used to smooth the stone surface are discernible on the shaft section attached to the capitals. On both capitals, at a distance of 4.5‒5 [ 73 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M cm. below the echinus, is a series of small rectangular depressions, reminiscent of the sulci of unfinished flutings (Pls. 3.3:1‒4; 3.4:1‒5; 3.5:1; 3.6:1). Similar depressions were also engraved on another fragment from Area Q (Pl. 3.6:1). The dimensions of these depressions average 15 cm. high, 9 cm. wide and 4.5 cm. deep. Their upper part is rounded, while their flat bottoms slant slightly outward. Similar decoration appears on the necks of Ionic capitals on the facade of the Tomb of Zechariah in the Kidron Valley (Avigad 1954, Fig. 47), as well as on three capitals found to the south and southwest of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2007, Nos. 1031–1033; 2017, Fig. II.23), and is unique to the Herodian architecture of Jerusalem. In recent conservation work conducted south of the Temple Mount, another fragment of an Ionic capital with such depressions carved on its neck was brought to light (Baruch et al. 2016: 51‒52, Fig. 19). Another specimen of this group, albeit in a very poor state of preservation, is exhibited today in the Franciscan Museum in the Old City of Jerusalem (Bagatti 1979, Pl. XIV:2:4). It seems that the inspiration for this decoration derived from the practice of engraving the flutes on the upper edge of a column (sulci) that was normally carved in one block together with its capital, prior to hoisting it up to its final location. Only when an entire column stood in place was scaffolding erected and the fluting completed along the column’s entire height, in accordance with the sulci carved below the capital (Avigad 1983: 161; Turnheim 1998: 148–149). Several examples of standing columns with carved sulci, but without fluting on the column drums, are found in Hellenistic Asia Minor, for example in the Temple of Artemis at Sardis and the Temple of Apollo at Didyma (Durm 1910, Fig. 280; Wiegand 1941, Pl. 143; Akurgal 1987, Pls. 146–147, 150–151), as well as in the royal palace at Pella, capital of ancient Macedonia (Ginouvés 1992: 89, Pl. 76). The reason for the popularity of this type of unfinished fluting on Ionic columns in Herodian Jerusalem is unclear. However, as the carving of the Tomb of Zachariah seems complete (other than the flutings), the fact that such fluting exists exclusively below Ionic capitals, and no carved flutings appear on any columns in Herodian Jerusalem (only stucco flutings were applied), we can conclude that the unfinished fluting motif does not signify unfinished work in the case of the Jerusalem capitals. A more likely explanation is that the Jerusalemite artists misunderstood the unfinished flutings on columns in Asia Minor and elsewhere as a decorative motif that was integral to the Ionic capital, and imitated it as such. The Volutes All four volutes are preserved on both capitals, though the outer edge was damaged or chopped off on most (Pls. 3.3‒3.5). Two additional fragments of volutes of similar style were recovered in Area Q (Pls. 3.6:2; 3.7:1). All the volutes have a similar plastic design: the spiral is composed of a wide strap with a convex surface and concave spaces between the coils. The volutes are of similar size, with a diameter of approximately 40 cm. The ‘eye’ is an undecorated circle, about 1.5 cm. in diameter. The design and measurements recall volute fragments found south of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2017, Figs. II.29−33). The Echini On the complete capital (Pl. 3.3), the bottom of the echinus is carved with the usual smooth, plain astragal above a fillet (Pl. 3.3:3; Avigad 1983, Figs. 179, 181), while on the reconstructed capital from Area Q (Pl. 3.4), two fillets appear in their stead (Pl. 3.5:1). For some reason, the upper molding of this capital was left in its angular, quarry-state; its final carving, meant to create a round profile, was never executed. The palmettes that decorate the transition between volute and echinus are preserved on both facades of both capitals, as well as on three fragments found in Area Q (Pls. 3.3:1‒3; 3.4:1‒2; 3.5:1; 3.6:3‒5). They follow the Hellenistic design of four small, curved leaves that end in a point.15 Instead of the regular egg-and-dart or egg-and-tongue pattern that normally decorates echini of Ionic capitals, the echini of these two capitals (Pls. 3.3:1‒3; 3.4:1; 3.5) are decorated [ 74 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S with a local variant of the above motifs––the egg-and-bud pattern: each dart ends with two arched leaves creating the shape of a floral bud or lily rather than the more usual arrowhead shape. A similar design of bud-shaped darts can be seen on fragments of Ionic capitals from other areas of the Jewish Quarter (e.g., Peleg-Barkat 2007: 197, Fig. 388) and south of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2007, No. 1036.).16 The eggs (originally five on each side of the capital) are elongated (14 cm. high and 6.5 cm. wide) and separated from their casing (2 cm. wide) by a deep, narrow groove. Only one fragment of an Ionic capital echinus from Area Q (Pl. 3.6:6) has the regular dartshaped motif between the eggs, probably indicating that this fragment belongs to a capital of a different series. However, as we shall see in the following discussion on the pulvini decoration, the capitals from Areas H and Q are not identical and variations are discernible, attesting to the work of different artisans of the same workshop. A similar design of darts can be seen on a cornice fragment from Qumran (Chambon 2003, Fig. 17). A somewhat wider, triangular design of darts appears on the Ionic capitals from the Tomb of Zachariah in the Kidron Valley (Avigad 1954, Fig. 47). It should be noted that the echinus of the reconstructed capital from Area Q (Pl. 3.4) suffered more than any other part of the capital from intentional damage. One side was almost entirely obliterated, leaving only one bud (Pl. 3.4:1, 3). A vertical cut (22–26 cm. wide) was deliberately made through the echinus on the other side (Pl. 3.4:1‒2), which left one and a half of the original five eggs and three buds between them. One side of the cut is straight and almost vertical, while the other side is irregular. Its deepest point (12 cm. deep) reaches the same level as the column shaft below the echinus. On the column shaft, just below the cut, chiseling marks are visible that differ in style from those on the rest of the shaft. It is impossible to ascertain whether this cut occurred when breaking the capital into pieces for the construction of the Byzantine-period cistern, or whether it was part of a deliberate obliteration of the decoration on the echinus, to make the capital more regular in shape. Another possibility is that the cut was executed for some secondary use, such as converting the capital into a support for a wooden beam that was inserted into the slot created by the cut. In any case, the precise reason and date of the cut and obliteration remain unknown. The Pulvini The pulvini on both capitals are well preserved (Pls. 3.3‒3.5), and five additional pulvinus fragments of similar dimensions and decoration were found in Areas Q and H (Pl. 3.7:1‒5; Color Pl. V:2). All the pulvini are decorated with scales on the balteus and elongated leaves on both sides. Only on one specimen from Area Q (Pl. 3.7:1) are the edges of the leaves undamaged and their pointy ends can be discerned, while on all the other examples the edges of the volutes were trimmed and the pointed ends did not survive. Although at first glance the pulvini seem identical, they differ slightly from one another: the leaves on the capital from Area H (Pl. 3.3:4), and on two other fragments (one from Area H and one from Area Q; Pl. 3.7:2, 4), do not reach the frame of the balteus, which represents a sort of band tying the leaves together, but end in a curvature next to it. This special design reflects a local interpretation of the Hellenistic motif and attests to the independence and originality of the Jerusalemite artists (Turnheim 1998: 149). In contrast, on the reconstructed capital and another fragment from Area Q (Pls. 3.4‒3.5; 3.7:3), the leaves extend to touch the balteus in the customary fashion of this design. Other differences can be seen in the leaves themselves: on one of the pulvini of the reconstructed capital from Area Q the leaves are made of a series of sharp-edged flutes (Pl. 3.5:5), while the other pulvinus features a long, bulging, rounded band after every two flutes (Pl. 3.5:3‒4). This more elegant design more closely resembles the higher quality and delicate design of the complete capital from Area H (Pl. 3.3:4). The leaves somewhat recall the stucco decoration of the Ionic capital found in Room 521 of the Western Palace at Masada (Foerster 1995: 46−50, Figs. 60−68). A similar [ 75 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M decoration appears on Hellenistic Ionic capitals from Macedonia and Asia Minor, defined by O. Bingöl as pulvini decoration Type VIII, and was popular mainly during the 1st century BCE, although earlier and somewhat later examples also exist (Bingöl 1980: 82, Fig. 35). In Asia Minor, the combination of long, pointed leaves and baltei decorated with scales does not appear after the 1st century BCE (Bingöl 1980: 84−86, Pls. 25−26, Nos. 125, 127−129, 270). On the two capitals and three additional fragments from Area Q (Pl. 3.7:3‒5), the broad balteus at the center of each pulvinus is decorated with horizontal rows of three scales, bordered on each side by bands carved in a cable pattern. Scales often decorate the baltei of Hellenistic and Early Roman Ionic capitals from Asia Minor (Bingöl 1980: 54, e.g., Nos. 24, 29, 32−34, 36–37), but in many cases the framing bands remain undecorated. However, a cable pattern often appears on the Ionic capitals from Asia Minor (e.g., Bingöl 1980, Nos. 13, 57, 65, 76, 104, 160–161, 164, 202, 216). It also appears on fragments of Ionic capitals found elsewhere in the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003, Pl. 7.8:8) and south of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2007, Nos. 1054−1056). Interestingly, the balteus of the capital from Area H (Pl. 3.3:5), as well as another fragment from Area Q (Pl. 3.7:4), have a bud or simple lily pattern instead of a midrib at the center of each scale. It seems that this addition is an innovation of the local Jerusalemite artisans, as the scale-and-bud pattern appears also on other Ionic capital fragments and other architectural elements found south of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2007, Nos. 1055, 1472), as well as on Ionic capital fragments and a decorated soffit from a cornice or ceiling in the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983, Fig. 184; Reich 2003: 271, No.8). The great variety in the decoration of the leaves on the pulvini and the scale pattern on the balteus reflect the work of several artisans in the Jerusalemite workshop and perhaps attest to the fact that while conformity was more strictly imposed on the facades of the Ionic capitals, their secondary sides (where the pulvini are located), which were less easily discerned, Fig. 3.1 [ 76 ] Proposed reconstruction of the monumental Ionic columns from the Jewish Quarter excavations (after Avigad 1983, Fig. 180) C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S were sometimes executed by less-experienced artisans. The Abacus The abacus of both capitals, as well as a capital fragment from Area Q (Pl. 3.7:6), is 12 cm. high. It has a cyma recta profile and was left undecorated. Discussion There is no doubt that the two monumental Ionic capitals with their matching column drums and Attic column bases found in the center of the Jewish Quarter are among the best-preserved and most elaborate examples of Herodian monumental architecture. The complete and fragmentary elements described here represent the largest homogeneous group of Herodian architectural elements from the Jewish Quarter. A considerable number of complete and fragmentary decorative architectural elements from the late Second Temple period were discovered in the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983: 150−152, 161−165; Reich 2003: 271−274; Geva 2014, Pl. 10.5:4), including column bases, column drums, various types of Doric, Ionic and Corinthian capitals, as well as entablature pieces. In a previous study by R. Reich (2003: 273), two monumental architectural groups of the Ionic order were defined as a larger series and a smaller series, which differ in size, details of workmanship and date. The smaller series of columns with a diameter of approximately 1 m., is the one discussed and analyzed in this chapter. The larger series includes a large Attic column base uncovered in Area C (Avigad 1983: 151−161, Figs. 158, 199)17 and several fragments of volutes from Ionic capitals found in Area A (Avigad 1983: 161, Fig. 177; Reich 2003: 271−272). Areas C and A are situated in the northern part of the Jewish Quarter, some distance from Areas Q and H (and N), where the architectural fragments described here were retrieved. The column base and Ionic capital fragments from Areas C and A seem to have originated in an architectural unit that had columns measuring about 1.3 m. in diameter. The monumental Attic base was found below the earliest of three successive floors dating to the Herodian period. According to the excavator, the lowest floor dates to the days of King Herod (Avigad 1983: 161, Fig. 177). Thus, according to Reich (2003: 271−272), the Ionic capital fragments and column base of the larger series should be dated prior to Herod’s reign based on their well-established stratigraphic contexts. The Attic base and Ionic volute fragments differ from the pieces described above not only in their scale and provenance, but also in several stylistic features. For example, the design of the apophyge on the large Attic base differs from those of the Herodian examples, and there is a clear difference between the design of the band that creates the spiral of the volutes and the shape of the volutes’ ‘eyes’ on the Ionic fragment from Area A and those of Areas Q and H. The original architectural context of the large Attic base and the matching Ionic volutes is unknown and remains in scholarly debate. After the large base was discovered, Avi-Yonah (1976: 22) suggested that it was intended for a temple that Antiocus IV Epiphanes planned to erect in Jerusalem in honor of Olympian Zeus, but never managed to complete beyond preliminary preparations. Avigad (1983: 162) rejected this idea, mainly on the basis that no remains of a Hellenistic settlement were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations. However, Reich has re-introduced this proposal, and supports it by the fact that the volute fragments seem to be the outcome of a deliberate mutilation of the original capitals, an act that corresponds with the turbulent times of the Hasmonean Revolt and the struggle between the Hasmoneans and their supporters on the one hand and the Hellenized Jews on the other (Reich 2003: 271−272). However, it cannot be ruled out that the columns belonged to a monumental public or royal building that was constructed on the Southwestern Hill by the Hasmoneans, or in the early days of King Herod. Other than the Jewish Quarter, complete and fragmentary decorative architectural elements originating from public buildings, dwellings and tombs18 were found throughout Jerusalem. The largest assemblage of such elements was ex- [ 77 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M posed during the excavations directed by B. Mazar south and southwest of the Temple Mount, and in further excavations in this area led by R. Reich, Y. Billig and Y. Baruch (Reich and Billig 1999; Baruch and Reich 1999; 2001). The fragments, which include a wide variety of shapes and a wealth of designs, originated in several structures that stood on the Temple Mount and to its south and southwest. Among the finds are Ionic capitals of two sizes (1 m. and 45 cm.; Peleg-Barkat 2007: 275−323; Peleg-Barkat 2017).19 Both groups of Ionic capitals share several distinctive features with the capitals from Areas Q and H, such as the sulci decoration on the neck (see above). Nevertheless, these capitals are simpler in design and most of the pulvini were left undecorated. Therefore, it seems quite clear that although the capitals from the Jewish Quarter and the Temple Mount area may represent the work of the same local workshop, there is no indication whatsoever that they originated in the same structure. As mentioned above, none of the pieces were recovered in situ, in their original context, therefore it is impossible to identify with certainty the structure they originally adorned. They may have originated in Herod’s famous palace at the northwestern corner of the Upper City (the Southwestern Hill, the location of today’s David’s Citadel and the Armenian Quarter), where several archi- tectural pieces were found. Especially noteworthy in this context are two column bases found in the moat of the citadel, whose upper diameters (1.05 and 1.10 m.) correspond well with those of the column bases discussed in this chapter, and whose style of carving and proportions are also very much reminiscent of the column bases from the Jewish Quarter (Photos 3.7–3.8; Sivan and Solar 2000: 175). Josephus’ account of this palace (War V.176−182) describes a monumental building comprising a variety of decorated halls and courtyards, and gardens containing pools and fountains with water sprouting out of the mouths of bronze statues (War V.181). It should be noted that together with the Ionic capital fragments that were incorporated into the Byzantine-period walls in Area Q of the Jewish Quarter, the excavators also found a large sculptured lion head, dated according to its style to the Herodian period (see Chapter Four, this volume). As Judaism of the late Second Temple period, from the time of the Hasmoneans onward, held a negative view of figurative art in accordance with the second commandment, figural sculptures and displays were very rare in Jerusalem and other Jewish settlements in Judea. In Herod’s palace at Herodium, in contrast, a large, imported, three-legged marble basin (labrum) was found, decorated with winged female figures and Sileni masks (Netzer et al. 2013: 144‒145). It seems, there- Photo 3.7 Photo 3.8 An Attic column base found in the Tower of David moat (diameter of shaft 1.10 m., courtesy of Tower of David, Museum of the History of Jerusalem) [ 78 ] An Attic column base found in the Tower of David moat (diameter of shaft 1.05 m., courtesy of Tower of David, Museum of the History of Jerusalem) C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S fore, that this sculpted lion most likely originated in Herod’s palace. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that the monumental Ionic columns decorated another of the monumental public or royal structures in the Upper City that have not survived, but are known to us from the literary descriptions of Josephus, such as the Hasmonean palaces that faced the Temple Mount and the Upper Agora, which continued in use into the 1st century CE. Unfortunately, the data that is currently available to us does not enable a definite answer. It should be noted that Reich (forthcoming) has recently suggested that the Ionic capitals originated in the Royal Portico that Josephus says was erected by King Herod along the southern flank of the Temple Mount. While Reich focusses on the reasons why the reader should not trust Josephus’ claim that the columns of the Royal Portico bore Corinthian capitals, he fails to explain why someone would undertake the exhausting task of carrying the heavy column drums of the Royal Portico up the Southwestern Hill just to incorporate them into a Byzantine cistern. In contrast, to the minds of Peleg-Bar- kat and Geva (forthcoming), who wrote a reply to Reich’s proposal, it is much more sensible to ascribe the columns to a building that once stood much closer to the vicinity where the capitals, bases and column drums were found. At this point in the research, we cannot be absolutely certain that the Royal Portico was adorned with either Corinthian or Ionic columns, or for that matter if the Royal Portico even existed. What we have at our disposal is Josephus’ description of this structure, and the fragments of Corinthian capitals (broken and of insufficient number to draw clear-cut conclusions; Peleg-Barkat 2007, Nos. 1057‒1127) found at the foot of the place where the building ostensibly stood. Thus, there is no plausible reason to doubt this specific detail in Josephus’ description, and no logic in the proposal that the monumental Ionic capitals found in the Jewish Quarter were brought from the Royal Portico to be used in the walls of a Byzantine cistern. As frustrating as it is, the monumental Ionic columns uncovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations are the ghostly remains of a monumental building of Herodian Jerusalem, whose identity we still fail to recognize. NOTES 1 2 On the various tools used by stonecutters in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, see Nylander 1970: 23–28; Adam 1994: 29–40. On tools used by local stonecutters, including various types of drills and lathes, see Shadmon 1972: 50−53; Amit et al. 2001: 105–110; Magen 2002: 116–131; Gibson 2003: 287– 308. In later (or earlier) periods, the stonemasons normally used wide-toothed chisels, or chiseled the stones in a typical diagonal direction. Only four fragments of column drums found in Area Q appear in Pl. 3.1. The fifth drum (3315; L.2269), discussed in Chapter Nine, this volume, bore a Hebrew inscription, paleographically similar to the one engraved in Pl. 3.1:3. Unfortunately, no drawing of this column drum remains in the expedition’s archive. Nevertheless, the excavation diary states that the drum was incorporated in secondary use into a Byzantine-period wall (W.572) in Area Q, northwest of the Byzantine cistern. The similar archaeological context, and the similar epigraphic style to that of Pl. 3.1:3, suggest that this drum also belonged to the 3 4 [ 79 ] group of monumental Ionic columns discussed here. Similar knobs on building stones are still visible in the enclosure walls of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2017, Fig. 2.2) and the Cave of Patriarchs in Hebron (Schiller 1967: 13). In the case of the Northern Palace at Masada, the stucco flutings covering the column drums might have misled Josephus into thinking that he was viewing monolithic columns. However, there is no evidence that the Temple Mount portico columns were covered with plaster. Column drums bearing unchiselled knobs (originally meant to facilitate the lifting of the drums to their correct position), which may have originated from the Temple Mount porticoes were found in the debris at the foot of the southern enclosure wall of the Temple Mount (Peleg-Barkat 2007: 268, 293, 342−343, 346−347, Fig. 343, Nos. 1017, 1021), suggesting that the columns were probably not plaster-covered. Fischer and Stein (1994) have suggested that Josephus’ faulty claim regarding the use of marble in Herod’s construction projects should O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M 5 6 7 be understood as resulting from the aid rendered by assistants in Rome (according to his own testimony) editing his Bellum Judaicum. Since these assistants were familiar with the use of marble in monumental Imperial constructions in Rome (as with the use of monolithic columns), they might have inferred that a similar situation applied to Herod’s building projects in Jerusalem. We may, therefore, suggest that the mention in Bellum Judaicum of monolithic columns adorning Herod’s Temple Mount should also be seen as a result of the influence of Josephus’ assistants, who were used to seeing monolithic columns in the monumental Flavian structures in Rome. Hasmonean and Herodian monolithic columns are to be found in several hewn tomb facades of the distylos-in-antis type (e.g., the Tomb of Benei Hezir in the Kidron Valley and the Qasr el-Karme Tomb in Sanhedria), and in the central pier in the Double Gate passageway below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the specific function of which—bearing the stoa basileios (Herod’s Royal Portico) above it—called for special strength (Gibson and Jacobson 1996: 235–259). An exception to this rule is to be found in Herod’s Third Palace at Jericho (in Triclinium B70 and Courtyards B64 and B55), where the columns were constructed of small, brick-shaped sandstone blocks carved in a manner similar to opus quadratum. This peculiar construction technique is unparalleled at other Herodian sites and apparently resulted from the employment of Roman artisans, as suggested by the excavator (Netzer 1999: 40; 2001: 340). On the other hand, column shafts in the atria and peristyle courtyards at Pompeii were frequently built of bricks and stones in a similar fashion; for example, in the House of the Labyrinth (decorated in the First and Second Pompeian Styles), and some public buildings such as the Temple of Isis (Coarelli 2002: 247, 94). The most famous examples are the elaborate marking system on the architraves in the Athenian Treasury at Delphi, the marks on the building stones of the Ionic temple near the Theater of Pergamon, and the marking of the cornice stones in the Roman colonnade at Berytus (Martin 1965: 225–231, Figs. 104–105, 107). Masons marks are discussed at length by Foerster (in his discussion of the column drums at Masada; Foerster 1995: 80–99) and, according to him, the marking system revealed in the theater built by Aretas IV (9 BCE–40 CE) at Petra––where three of the columns were found collapsed in their original order enabling the reconstruction of the system––represents the closest example to the one used at Masada; the base and drums of each column were apparently marked with the same letter and the numbering proceeded from 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [ 80 ] bottom to top. Such marks were found, for example, in Herod’s First Palace at Jericho (Pritchard 1958: 12), and at Khirbet el-Murak (Damati 1982:120) and Qasr el-Yahud (Bar-Adon 1989: 22). On the use of mason marks in Herodian architecture, see Peleg-Barkat 2013: 254; see also Chapter Nine, this volume. For discussion of the development and variants of the Attic column base, see Shoe 1965: 301; Shoe-Meritt 1969: 191–196, Fig. 2f. Attic column bases were found, for example, at Masada (Foerster 1995: 99–104, Figs. 172–182), Herodium (Corbo 1967: 104–105, Figs. 18–19, 110–111), and Sebaste/Samaria (Reisner et al. 1924: 191–192, Figs. 111–112, 118:6–7). This type of column base first appeared in Judea in the Hellenistic period, becoming the predominant type during the reign of King Herod (Peleg-Barkat 2007: 140). For example, the bases of the distylos-in-antis columns in the Umm el-‘Amad Cave (Avigad 1945, Fig. B3), of the pilasters in the upper story of the socalled ‘Two-Story Tomb’ (Galling 1936, Fig. 4), on a column base in the so-called ‘Tomb of the House of Herod’ in Nikephoria (Schick 1892: Pl. 18:6), as well as on a column base found ex situ on the western slopes of the City of David (Peleg-Barkat 2013, Fig. 8.1:4). The bases of the peristyle columns in Upper Herodium (Corbo 1989, DF40, DF104) and of the attached columns in the Monumental Building in Lower Herodium (Netzer 1981, Fig. 69) all have plinths. On one of the sides of the reconstructed capital from Area Q, the distance is shorter (93 cm). It is unclear whether the variance between the measurements of the two sides is due to inaccurate carving of the original piece, or is a consequence of the reconstruction. A fragment of an Ionic capital with a similar design of palmette and egg, and similar in scale to the fragments under discussion, was uncovered in Area N, situated a short distance to the north of Area H (Geva 2014: 22, Pl. 10.5:4). Together with the monumental column drum found in Area N, this fragment suggests that several pieces of the Ionic columns of this group ended up in Area N, as well as in Areas H and Q. It seems that this Jerusalemite type of echinus decoration was later imitated in Neapolis; a complete Ionic capital, carved with egg-and-bud on its echinus, dated to the 2nd century CE was found near a mausoleum in the necropolis of the city (Peleg-Barkat 2007: 180, Fig. 387). The Greek letter D is clearly engraved on the outer face of the column base, probably a mason mark sig- C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S nifying that it was the fourth in its row of columns (Avigad 1983: 165). 18 Ionic pilasters decorate the Tomb of Zachariah and the Tomb of Absalom in the Kidron Valley, while free-standing Ionic columns in distylos-in-antis facades apparently existed in ‘Umm el-‘Amad Cave and in the Tomb of Helene Queen of Adiabene. 19 Additional assemblages of decorative Herodian archi- tectural elements were found in other parts of the city, e.g., in the excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley directed by D. Ben Ami (Peleg-Barkat 2013: 205−212), as well as on the southern slopes of Mount Zion in an excavation along the remains of the city wall in this area, headed by Y. Zelinger (one of the authors is preparing the publication of this assemblage). BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources Avigad 1989 Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War (Books V−VII), translated by H. St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library No. 210), Michigan, Mass. 1928. N. Avigad, The Herodian Quarter in Jerusalem. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities (Books XII− XV), translated by R. Marcus and A. Wikgern (Loeb Classical Library Nos. 365, 489), Michigan, Mass. 1943. Vitruvius, On Architecture (de Architectura (Books I−V), translated by F. Granger (Loeb Classical Library No. 251), Michigan, Mass. 1931. Avi-Yonah 1976 M. Avi-Yonah, Excavations in Jerusalem – Review and Evaluations. In Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem, pp. 21–24. Avnimelech 1966 M. Avnimelech, Influence of Geological Conditions on the Development of Jerusalem. BASOR 181: 24–31. Adam 1994 J. P. Adam, Roman Building – Materials and Techniques. London and New York. Bagatti 1979 B. Bagatti, Recherches sur le site du Temple de Jérusalem (Ier – VIIe siècle). Jerusalem. Akurgal 1987 E. Akurgal, Griechische und Römische Kunst in der Türkei. Munich. Amit et al. 2001 D. Amit, J. Zeligman and I. Zilberbod, A Quarry and Workshop for the Production of Stone Vessels on the Eastern Slope of Mount Scopus. Qadmoniot 122: 102‒110 (Hebrew). Bar-Adon 1989 P. Bar-Adon, Excavations in the Judean Desert. ‘Atiqot 9 (Hebrew). Baruch and Reich 1999 Avigad 1945 Y. Baruch and R. Reich, Renewed Excavations at the Umayyad Building III. In E. Baruch and A. Faust (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceeding of the Fifth Conference. Ramat Gan, pp. 128‒140 (Hebrew). N. Avigad, Umm el-‘Amad Cave (Qedem 2). Jerusalem, pp. 75–82 (Hebrew). Baruch and Reich 2001 N. Avigad, Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Y. Baruch and R. Reich, Second Temple Period Finds from New Excavations at the Ophel, South of the Temple Mount. Qadmoniot 122: 88‒92 (Hebrew). Avigad 1983 Baruch et al. 2016 N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Y. Baruch, R. Reich and D. Sandhaus, The Temple Avigad 1954 [ 81 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M Mount: Results of the Archaeological Research of the Past Decade. In G.D. Stiebel, J. Uziel, K. Cytryn-Silverman, A. Re’em and Y. Gadot (eds.), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region – Collected Papers, Vol. X. Jerusalem, pp. 33–54 (Hebrew). Geva 2014 H. Geva, Stone Artifacts from Areas J and N. In H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem, pp. 272–287. Bingöl 1980 Geva 2015 O. Bingöl, Das ionische Normalkapitell in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit in Kleinasien (Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft, No. 20). Tübingen. H. Geva, A Second Temple Period Miqveh with a Surrounding Staircase in the Jewish Quarter. In E. Baruch and A. Faust (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem Vol. 21. Ramat Gan, pp. 109–121 (Hebrew with English summary pp. 29*–30*). Chambon 2003 A. Chambon, Catalogue des Blocs d’Architecture localisés ou erratiques. In J.B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg (eds.), Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha, Vol. II. Jerusalem, pp. 445–465. Coarelli 2002 F. Coarelli (ed.), Pompeii. New York. Gibson 2003 S. Gibson, Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine – A Reassessment. In G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L. D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land – Many Cultures, Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM. Jerusalem, pp. 287 308. Corbo 1967 V. Corbo, L’Herodion di Giabal Fureidis. Relazione preliminare della terza e quarta campagna di scavi archeologici. LA 17: 65–121. Corbo 1989 V. Corbo, Herodion – gli edifici della reggia-fortezza. Jerusalem. Damati 1982 E. Damati, The Palace of Ḥilkiya. Qadmoniot 60: 117–121 (Hebrew). Durm 1910 Gibson and Jacobson 1996 S. Gibson and D. M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem – A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram al-Sharif (BAR International Series 637). Oxford. Ginouvés 1992 R. Ginouvés, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine II: éléments constructifs, supports, couvertures, aménagements intérieures (Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome, No. 84). Rome and Athens. Kahn 1996 J. Durm, Die Baukunst der Griechen. Leipzig. M. L. Fischer and A. Stein, Josephus on the Use of Marble in Building Projects of Herod the Great. JJS 45: 79−85. L. C. Kahn, King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima – A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden, New York and Köln, pp. 130–145. Foerster 1995 Kon 1947 G. Foerster, Masada V: Art and Architecture, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem. M. Kon, The Tombs of the Kings. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Fischer and Stein 1994 Ling 1991 R. Ling, Roman Painting. New York. Galling 1936 K. Galling, 1936. Ein Etagen-Pilaster Grab in norden von Jerusalem. ZDPV 59: 111–123. Magen 2002 Y. Magen, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second [ 82 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S Amit, G. D. Stiebel and O. Peleg-Barkat (eds.), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region – Collected Papers, Vol. V. Jerusalem, pp. 38–51 (Hebrew). Temple Period – Excavations at Hizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Jerusalem. Martin 1965 R. Martin, Manuel d’architecture greque I, Matériaux et techniques. Paris. Mazor and Bar-Nathan 1998 G. Mazor and R. Bar-Nathan, The Bet She’an Excavation Project – 1992−1994, Antiquities Authority Expedition. ESI 17: 7−36. Netzer 1981 E. Netzer, Greater Herodium, Final Reports (Qedem 13). Jerusalem. Netzer 1999 Peleg-Barkat 2011b O. Peleg-Barkat, The Introduction of Classical Architectural Decoration into Cities of the Decapolis: Hippos, Gadara, Gerasa and Scythopolis. ARAM 23: 425−445. Peleg-Barkat 2013 O. Peleg-Barkat, Architectural Fragments. In D. BenAmi (ed.), Jerusalem – Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot) Vol. 1 (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem, pp. 205−212. Peleg-Barkat 2017 Netzer, E. 1999. The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Netzer 2001 E. Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho – Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Netzer et al. 2013 E. Netzer, R. Porat, Y. Kalman and R. Chachy, Herodium. In S. Rozenberg and D. Mevorah (eds.), Herod the Great – The King’s Last Journey (Israel Museum). Jerusalem, pp. 126–161. Nylander 1970 C. Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae – Studies in Old Persian Architecture (Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilization 1). Uppsala. O. Peleg-Barkat, The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968−1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports Vol. 5: Herodian Architectural Decoration and King Herod’s Royal Portico (Qedem 57). Jerusalem. Peleg-Barkat et al. forthcoming O. Peleg-Barkat, H. Geva and R. Reich, A Monumental Herodian Ionic Capital from the Upper City of Jerusalem. Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 8:?-?. Peleg-Barkat and Geva forthcoming O. Peleg-Barkat and H. Geva, Addendum 2: A Monumental Herodian Ionic Capital from the Royal Stoa? – A Reply to Ronny Reich. Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 8. Pritchard 1958 Peleg-Barkat 2006 J. B. Pritchard, The Excavation at Herodian Jericho, 1951. AASOR 32–33. O. Peleg-Barkat, The Herodian Architectural Decoration. In E. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder. Tübingen, pp. 320–338. Reich 2003 Peleg-Barkat 2007 O. Peleg-Barkat, The Herodian Architectural Decoration, In Light of the Finds from the Temple Mount Excavation. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). R. Reich, Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments. In H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad 1969−1982. Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem, pp. 263−291. Reich 2013 Peleg-Barkat 2011a O. Peleg-Barkat, The Royal Stoa of the Herodian Temple Mount: A Proposed Reconstruction. In D. R. Reich, Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Baths) in the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. Jerusalem (Hebrew). [ 83 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M Reich forthcoming Shadmon 1972 R. Reich, Addendum 1: Where Was the Capital Incorporated? Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 8. A. Shadmon, Stone in Israel. Jerusalem. Reich and Billig 1999 L. T. Shoe, Etruscan and Republican Roman Mouldings. Rome. R. Reich and Y. Billig, Excavations near the Temple Mount and Robinson’s Arch, 1994–1996. Qadmoniot 117: 31–40 (Hebrew). Reich and Shukron 2006 R. Reich and E. Shukron, The Discovery of the Second Temple Period Plaza and Paved Street adjacent to the Siloam Pool. In E. Meiron (ed.), City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem: The Seventh Annual Conference. Jerusalem, pp. 59–70 (Hebrew). Shoe 1965 Shoe-Meritt 1969 L. T. Shoe-Meritt, The Geographical Distribution of Greek and Roman Ionic Bases. Hesperia 38: 186–204. Sivan and Solar 2000 R. Sivan and G. Solar, 2000. Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980–1988. In H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed – Expanded Edition. Jerusalem, pp. 168–176. Reisner et al. 1924 G. A. Reisner, C. S. Fischer and D. G. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. Cambridge, Mass. Safrai and Sasson 2001 Z. Safrai and A. Sasson, Quarrying and Quarries in the Land of Israel. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Schick 1892 C. Schick, Recent Discoveries at the Nicophorieh. PEFQSt 24: 115−120. Schiller 1967 Schiller, E. 1967. Cave of Machpela (Hebron). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Turnheim 1998 Y. Turnheim, Hellenistic Elements in Herodian Architecture and Decoration. In A. Ovadiah (ed.), The Howard Gilman International Conference, 1: Hellenic and Jewish Art – Interaction, Tradition and Renewal. Tel-Aviv, pp. 143−170. Wiegand 1941 T. Wiegand, Dydima, 1: Die Baubeschreibung. Berlin. Zilberbod 2012 I. Zilberbod, Jerusalem, Beit Ḥanina Final Report. ESI 124, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_ detail_eng.asp?id=2014 [ 84 ] P L AT E S F O R CHAPTER THREE O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M No. Area Reg. No. Locus Remarks Measurements 1 Q 3133 2226 (dismantling W.538) A dowel-hole on upper surface 2 Q 3331 - A dowel-hole, two knobs and two D: 1.00 m. rectangular depressions (secondary use?) H: 90 cm. 3 Q 3334 - D: 1.075 m. H: 43 cm. 4 Q 3332 - A dowel-hole, a knob, and three D: 95.8 cm. rectangular depressions (secondary use?) H: 96.7 cm. 5 H 02145/3 - D: 1.046 m. H: 1.060 m. 6 H 02145/4 - D: 1.050 m. H: 73 cm. 7 H 02145/2 - D: 1.060 m. H: 37 cm. 8 N 12592 - Plate 3.1 A dowel-hole on upper surface Column Drums [ 86 ] D: 97 cm. H: 40.9 cm. D: 1.06 m. H: 41.9 cm. C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S Plate 3.1 [ 87 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M No. Area Reg. No. Locus Remarks Measurements 1 Q 3333 ‒ A dowel-hole on upper surface D (shaft): 1.08 m. D (base, max.): 1.31 m. H (total): 85 cm. 2 H 02145/2 ‒ A dowel-hole on upper surface D (shaft): 1.06 m. D (base, max.): 1.56 m. H (total): 62.5 cm. Plate 3.2 Attic Bases [ 88 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S Plate 3.3 Complete Ionic capital from Area H (02145/1): Reconstruction of frontal view; note mason mark ‘VIIII’ on lower edge of drum (No. 1); different views of the capital (Nos. 2–5) [ 89 ] Plate 3.4 Reconstructed Ionic capital from Area Q (3320–3321, 3325; L.2226–L.2227), three views and section (No. 1); different views of the reconstructed capital (Nos. 2–5) [ 90 ] Plate 3.5 Fragments of the Ionic capital from Area Q before reconstruction: two fragments (3320/1-2; L.2227) found during dismantling of W.538 (No. 1); different views of one of the pulvini (3325; L.2226) found during dismantling of the eastern part of W.541 (Nos. 2–4); three fragments (3321; L.2226) comprising the second pulvinus (No. 5) [ 91 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M No. Area Reg. No. Locus Identification Remarks Measurements 1 ‒ 40,011 ‒ Neck of an Ionic capital Sulci decoration on topmost part of column shaft H: 37 cm.; L: 52 cm.; W: 15.5 cm. 2 Q 3327 2226‒2227 Ionic capital Volute fragment H: 13.7 cm.; L: 30 cm.; W: 12.7 cm. 3 Q 3326 ‒ Ionic capital Echinus fragment H: 21 cm.; L: 265 cm.; W: 16.4 cm. 4 Q 3004 2203 Ionic capital Echinus fragment H: 15 cm.; L: 18.5 cm.; W: 13 cm. 5 Q 3307 2265 Ionic capital Echinus fragment H: 98.5 cm.; L: 13.3 cm.; W: 4.5 cm. 6 Q 3324 2226‒2227 Ionic capital Echinus fragment H: 20.9 cm.; L: 29.4 cm.; W: 10.7 cm. Plate 3.6 Fragments of Ionic capitals from Area Q [ 92 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S Plate 3.6 [ 93 ] O R I T P E L E G - B A R K AT A N D A S A F B E N H A I M No. Area Reg. No. Locus Identification Remarks Measurements 1 Q 3330 ‒ Ionic capital Pulvinus fragment ‒ 2 H 2106 1205 Ionic capital Pulvinus fragment H: 7.8 cm.; L: 11 cm.; W: 2.4 cm. 3 Q 3323 2226‒2227 Ionic capital Pulvinus fragment H: 14.8 cm.; L: 21.5 cm.; W: 9.5 cm. 4 Q 3322 ‒ Ionic capital Pulvinus fragment H: 17 cm.; L: 44 cm.; W: 17.6 cm. 5 Q 3181 ‒ Ionic capital Pulvinus fragment H: 14.5 cm.; L: 27.7 cm.; W: 8.5 cm. 6 Q 3321 ‒ Ionic capital Abacus fragment H: 26.3 cm.; L: 36.5 cm.; W: 7.8 cm. Plate 3.7 Fragments of Ionic capitals from Areas Q and H [ 94 ] C H A P T E R T H R E E : M O N U M E N TA L I O N I C C O L U M N S Plate 3.7 [ 95 ]