The Archaeological Heritage of the Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery on Mount Zion

Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 136, 1 (2004), 57–74

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGEOF THE JERUSALEM PROTESTANT CEMETERY

ON MOUNT ZION1

Brian Schultz

abstract

Ever since the purchase of land in 1848 for the establishment of the Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery on MountZion, the south-western brow of the hill has attracted the attention of scholars. Initiated by the discovery of aseries of rock-hewn steps in a scarp that was traced for over 200 metres and thought to be the line ofJerusalem’s ancient fortifications, archaeological investigation within the confines of the cemetery continuedfor some 150 years. In this paper, the results of a century and a half of excavations are summarized andsynthesized, providing important evidence regarding the development and chronology of Jerusalem’sfortifications from the Iron Age to the Ayyubid Period. Also, the idea of an Essene Quarter on Mount Zionduring the Second Temple Period, based on the discovery of a gate believed to be Josephus’ ‘Gate of theEssenes’, is re-examined in light of the rest of the archaeological evidence from the cemetery.

introduction and history

Tucked away behind the Bishop Gobat School on Mount Zion, unknown to the casualpasserby, is the Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery (Plate I; Plate XVI, Fig. 1).2 Though not thefirst Protestant cemetery in Jerusalem — having been preceded by an American one(1820s–1897) which was located north of the so-called ‘David’s Tomb’— it was the maincemetery of Jerusalem’s Protestant community, whose beginnings date back only to the earlypart of the nineteenth century.3 Despite its isolation and short history, this small plot of landhas attracted scholarly interest ever since the cemetery’s beginning in 1848.

An interesting incident led to its purchase. Beginning in 1843, the Protestant communityhad been allowed to bury their dead in an open plot south and east of the Muslim cemeteryof Mamilla, west of Jaffa Gate (Plate II; Tobler 1854, 98). However, the tension this causedbetween the two communities came to a head when fate had it that both a Muslim and aChristian were buried simultaneously. The Muslims complained to the bishop that in suchinstances their prayers would also benefit the Christian being buried, something unacceptableto them (Peterman 1860, 210). Disgusted with such nuisances, Bishop Gobat sought a sitefor a new cemetery for his community, and after a ten-month battle with the authorities hewas able to purchase a plot of land on the south-western brow of Mount Zion. On 26 and 27July 1848, the remains of those interred in the Mamilla cemetery were moved to their newlocation (Tobler 1854, 214; Bartlett 1855, 68).4

Though purchased for the stated purpose of being a burial ground, Bishop Gobat haddifferent plans for the property, and in 1853 he had a wall built, dividing the site into two.The smaller portion, on the south-western end, was retained as a burial ground, while on thenorthern end a school was built. It was one of the very first buildings outside the Old City inthe nineteenth century (Ben Arieh 1986, 63). Should the cemetery ever run out of room,Bishop Gobat promised, portions of the school garden would be ‘ceded back’ as burialground.

The Bishop Gobat School, a school for Arab boys, was handed over to the ChurchMissionary Society (CMS) in 1874, and saw several stages of expansion. Unfortunately, its

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2004 DOI: 10.1179/003103204225014201

palestine exploration quarterly, 136, 1, 200458

Plate I. General plan of the archaeological remains of the Protestant Cemetery and the BishopGobat School (adapted from Vincent and Steve 1954, Pl. XX and from Bliss and Dickie 1898, Pl. I).

safety was jeopardized during Israel’s war of independence in 1948, and the buildings wereleft abandoned until 1967, owing to their nearness to the no-man’s land dividing Jordan andIsrael. Months before the Six Day War, they were leased to the American Institute of HolyLand Studies. It renovated the buildings ravaged by war and vandalism, and has occupiedthe buildings ever since, now operating under the name of Jerusalem University College.

Though this division of the cemetery land seemed pragmatic enough when it was madein 1853, by the end of the nineteenth century the cemetery was nearing saturation andBishop Gobat’s solution was no longer deemed acceptable. Thus in 1906, it was decided tobuy enough land adjoining the cemetery to its southeast as a replacement for the schoolgarden (Mehnert 1971, 32–33). The owners of the land, however, claimed that the amountrequested was half of a single plot that they were not ready to split into two. But with lessthan ten available burial spots left, and the Anglican Bishop threatening to take over theschool garden should need arise, there was no choice but to accept the terms. The purchasewas made (Plate III), and the addition proved sufficient for the Protestant community until1948, when the churches using the cemetery were restricted in their access, they being inEast Jerusalem under Jordanian rule and the cemetery in West Jerusalem under Israeli rule.The cemetery was for all practical purposes closed.5

The cemetery is divided by a main path running in a south-easterly direction. Generally,the older tombstones are just inside the gate on either side of the main path, and, as onemoves south-eastward, they become more and more recent. Along the north-eastern side isa second terrace, about a metre and a half higher in elevation, where the remainder of themore recent burials are located. Two sub-sections of the cemetery are particularly

http://maney-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/003103204225014201&iName=master.img-000.png&w=379&h=263

the jerusalem protestant cemetery on mount zion 59

Plate II. Protestant burial ground near the Mamilla muslim cemetery north west of Jaffa Gate.(Public Record Office Ref. No. 78/626 f118). (By courtesy of Paul Davis)

noteworthy. The first is a small fenced-in plot just inside the gate on the right-hand side(south). This is a common burial plot, a mass burial of those once interred in the AmericanCemetery on Mount Zion near David’s Tomb. Seven of the sixteen bodies were members ofthe American Colony, including its founder H. G. Spafford. Their remains were movedwhen the American property was sold in order to allow for the construction of the DormitionAbbey (Vester 1988, 218).6 Further down the central path is another section, used during theFirst World War as a military cemetery. Of the forty soldiers still buried there, twenty-eightare German, eight are Austrian, and four are British (Commission 1996).7 Scatteredthroughout the cemetery are the tombs of members of the first American Colony in Jaffa,founders and original members of the German Templars’ Colony who settled in Jerusalem,victims of the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, and officers of the Palestine Police forcewho fell during the tumultuous years at the end of the British Mandate. In all, it covers anarea of 6428 square meters (Tawil 1939) and contains at least 991 individuals.8

The tombstones range from the very simple to the very ornate. The vast majority are oflocal limestone, but a few are made of granite. Some graves are totally unidentified, somehave a row of stones marking the outline of the burial site, and still others have extensivemonuments marking them. While most of the tombstones have only inscriptions, a few havesome artwork; carved images, emblems, and many crosses — free-standing, carved, orinscribed, of stone or metal — adorn the graves. Most of the inscriptions are either inGerman or in English, although there are other languages as well: Hebrew, Arabic, French,Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Latin, Greek, Czech, and Armenian. Though much of itsbeauty is still preserved, the cemetery has suffered from vandalism; several tombstones arebroken, toppled over, or even completely missing.



Plate III. Plan of the cemetery with the proposed addition eventually purchased in 1906. (PublicRecord Office, Ref. No. FO 78/5352). (By courtesy of Paul Davis)

A study of this cemetery could cover many facets, from the history of Jerusalem toProtestant beginnings in the Holy Land, including travellers to the Holy City and missionaryactivity in Palestine. Of special note are the many individuals who played various roles in thedevelopment of Palestinian archaeology. These include such distinguished men as W. M.Flinders Petrie, the father of modern archaeology (Drower 1985), Clarence S. Fisher, who isprobably best remembered for the transmission of the Reisner–Fisher method of excavating(King 1975), James L. Starkey, the excavator of Tell ed-Duweir / Lachish who wasmurdered on his way to the inauguration of the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem (Tufnell1938), and Conrad Schick, the nineteenth-century resident expert on Jerusalem (Goren1998). Other less known individuals include James Duncan, Charles Warren’s assistant(Warren 1876, 392–95), Johannes R. Roth, member of the team that first discovered thatthe Dead Sea lies below sea level (Goren 1994), and Yusif Abu Selim Khazin, assistant toFrederick J. Bliss who excavated in this very cemetery in the late nineteenth century (Blissand Dickie 1898, 359). In view of the rich history encompassed by those buried in it, furtherstudies of this cemetery would prove to be most interesting and useful, and it is hoped that

http://maney-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/003103204225014201&iName=master.img-002.jpg&w=379&h=337


scholars or interested parties will take on this challenge in the future. This present worklimits itself to looking at the archaeological investigations that took place within the precinctof the cemetery itself. This includes the land purchased in 1848 (although a portion of it wasultimately only used for the Bishop Gobat School) and the extension purchased in 1906.

the archaeology of the cemetery (plate i)9

Archaeologists’ interest in the cemetery was sparked in 1848 when the agricultural terraceswere levelled into one large flat field. In so doing, a series of rock-hewn steps was uncoveredon the face of a high, artificial rock scarp (Wilson 1865, 61; Conder 1872, 168). Thisdiscovery initiated a series of excavations in the area. The first was in 1856 by E. Pierotti, anItalian engineer, who, east of the steps, found more artificial rock scarp and a wall line hedescribes as having three different types of masonry (Plate IV) (1864, 23). He was followedin 1867–68 by C. Warren, a young officer hired by the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF)and later famous for his early exploration of Jerusalem. He sought to find the bottom of theseries of steps, hoping it would yield new information. But nine metres deep and 36 stepslater, he uncovered only a rock landing (Wilson and Warren 1871, 280). In 1873–74,H. Maudslay, a British engineer, volunteered his time to the Bishop Gobat School anduncovered much of the line of the rock scarp into which the stairs were hewn. His work waspublished by C. R. Conder (1875b), head of the Survey of Western Palestine (Plate V). Bythis time it was certain the rock scarp had been used as foundation for an ancient city wall,and Conder hoped more excavations could be carried out eastward, ‘sanguine of the successwhich would attend excavations’ (1875b, 86). These were carried out by F. J. Bliss, assistedby A. C. Dickie, between 1894 and 1897 on behalf of the PEF (Plate VI).10 Bliss had beentrained in Egypt by W. M. F. Petrie, the father of modern archaeology, in a three week‘crash course’ from which he went on to continue Petrie’s excavations at Tel el-Hesy in 1891(Drower 1985, 178). Bliss and Dickie uncovered the line of the Second Temple period citywall stretching from Mount Zion to the southern tip of the City of David, including thethreshold of a gate some 35 m. southeast of the 36 steps (1898, 323). Activity in the areadied with the close of the nineteenth century. In 1933, R. W. Hamilton, director ofthe Department of Antiquities in Jerusalem, supervised a salvage excavation before theconstruction of a new classroom building (1935; see Plate VII: Fig. 1). And, intrigued bythe possibility that Bliss’ gate might be the Essene Gate, the late Father B. Pixner of theDormition Abbey uncovered it again together with D. Chen and S. Margalit duringintermittent excavations between 1977 and 1988 (Chen, Margalit, and Pixner 1994, 76).

Most impressive of all the remains uncovered is the rock scarp (A–P), now named afterMaudslay who uncovered most of it in 1874. Traced for over 200 m., its height variesbetween six and fifteen metres. Beginning under the Greek Seminary north of the BishopGobat School, it runs southward for 100m. at which point it forms a buttress (CDEF). Aftercontinuing south for another 14m., the scarp turns southeastward for another 100m. beforereaching the 36 steps which ascend to the top of another, smaller buttress (KLMN). Thescarp then turns northeastward and has been traced for about another 100 m. beyond thecemetery limits. Here a fosse separates it from a counter-scarp (T–Q). South of ButtressKLMN is another scarp (U–Z). Built on the first segment of it (U–V) are the remains of amasonry wall 42 m. long (a–f ). In it are a gate (c–d) and a tower (e–f ) at which point thewall changes to an easterly direction. South of it are remains of the Lower Aqueduct,although not visible today; neither is the wall except for the section between Gate cd andTower ef.

Today, much of Maudslay’s Scarp is hidden by the buildings of the Bishop GobatSchool. Buttress CDEF served as the foundation for the school’s first building, though its


Plate IV. Plan of Pierotti’s excavations inthe vicinity of the Protestant Cemetery: blockareas in black represent areas he dug (Pierotti1864, Pl. III).

Plate V. Conder’s plan of Maudslay’s Scarp (Warren and Conder 1884, 394).




Plate VI. Plan of Bliss’s excavations (Bliss and Dickie 1989, general plan).

Plate VII. Fig. 1— Plan of Hamilton’s excavations east of Tower CDEF (Hamilton 1935, Pl. I).Fig. 2— Wall between Gate c–d and Tower e–f; Iron Age wall shaded in black (Pixner, Chen, and

Margalit 1989, Fig. 5).





sides were left exposed, including the outline of seven steps on its southern face (E–F). Partsof the scarp are visible between G and H, and again at J, but the best place to view it is insidethe cemetery ( J–K) where it is also at its highest and most impressive.

Over the whole area, more than twenty-two cisterns and water installations werediscovered, sometimes fed by water channels also hewn out of the scarp. Five or six of themare probably Jewish ritual baths (miqva’ot), 11 most likely from the Second Temple period(Reich 1980, 240). Two of them (#14 and 15) can be seen in the cemetery (Plate VIII), whileother cisterns are still accessible throughout the buildings of the Bishop Gobat School.Masonry stones from the Second Temple period were found fallen at the scarp’s base atseveral locations: by Buttress CDEF (Conder 1875a, 8, 1875b, 82; Hamilton 1935, 141),opposite I (Conder 1875b, 85), and by Buttress KLMN (Bliss 1894b, 251). These have sincebeen incorporated into the bottom of the western walls of both the main school building andof the adjunct classroom building (Plate IX), as well as into the southern retaining wall forthe Greek Catholic cemetery just north of the school’s gate, commonly referred to as‘Maudslay’s Wall’ (Plate X, Fig. 1). More Second Temple period masonry was found in situon Buttress KLMN (Bliss and Dickie 1898, 321; Geva 1993, 728) as well as in Wall a–f intowhich a gate (c–d) was inserted (Geva 1993, 728–29; Chen, Margalit, and Pixner 1994,79–80). Without a doubt, therefore, Maudslay’s Scarp was already hewn and used asfoundation for the Hasmonean city wall, which was built prior to 133/2 b.c.e. (Geva 1993,729; Sivan and Solar 1994, 173–74; Mazar and Eshel 1998, 265–68). It is the continuationof the rock scarp discovered under the present-day western city walls south of the Citadeland on top of which remains of the Hasmonean wall were also excavated (Broshi and Gibson1994, 150).

This is the ‘First Wall’ described by Josephus as it stood just prior to its destruction byTitus in the year 70 c.e. (War V, 142–45, 156–58). From his description, we learn that thiswall began at the Hippicus Tower — today inside ‘The Citadel’ — and headed south,passing through a place called Bethso on to the Gate of the Essenes before turning eastward.The archaeological excavations have proven the accuracy of Josephus’ records: just beforethe wall turns eastward at Tower ef, there is indeed a gate (cd), quite probably this ‘Gate ofthe Essenes’. Also interesting is Josephus’ description of the towers:

Above the wall, however, rose towers, twenty cubits broad and twenty high, square and solid as thewall itself, and in the joining and beauty of the stones in no wise inferior to the temple. Over this solidmasonry, twenty cubits in altitude, were magnificent apartments, and above these, upper chambersand cisterns to receive the rain-water, each tower having broad spiral staircases (War V, 156–57)

Allowing for a certain leeway in the measurements, this fits particularly well with the twobuttresses in the area of the Protestant Cemetery, CDEF and KLMN, which were probablyfoundations for such towers. The masonry found throughout is indeed of fine work, and bothtowers incorporate cisterns and a stairway which, although not spiral, may well have beenthe beginning of a stairway circling up to the top of the superstructure.

While it is certain that Maudslay’s Scarp was used during the Second Temple period,could it be that it was already in secondary use? Although there is scholarly consensus overthe size of Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, opinions are still divided concerningthe late Iron Age (8th–6th centuries b.c.e.).12 Was the entire Western Hill walled in, asduring the Hasmonean period? Josephus implies that it was, claiming the First Wall ‘wasalso strongly built, David and Solomon and their successors on the throne having takenpride in the work’ (War V, 143). Archaeologically, however, the picture is not so clear.Though the remains in the Protestant Cemetery are not conclusive, they must be taken intoconsideration.


Plate VIII. Fig. 1 (top left) — Ritual baths: cisterns # 14 & 15 (photo: Brian Schultz). Fig. 2 (topright) — Plan of cisterns # 14 & 15 (Reich 1980, 240).

Plate IX. Fig. 1 (middle left) — Second Temple Period masonry in secondary use in Main Schoolbuilding (photo: Brian Schultz). Fig. 2 (middle right) — Second Temple masonry in secondary use in

classroom building (photo: Brian Schultz).Plate X. Fig. 1 (bottom left) — Maudslay’s Wall (photo: Brian Schultz). Fig. 2 (bottom right) —

Crusader tombstone (Clermont-Ganneau 1899, 277).

One surprise from the re-excavation of Bliss’ Gate was the discovery of remains of anIron Age wall 2.4 m. wide and followed for some 20 metres under the Hasmonean wall andtower (a–f ), which the excavators concluded as being part of Jerusalem’s fortifications (PlateVII: Fig. 2) (Chen, Margalit and Pixner 1994, 80–81). Throughout almost all theexcavations, Iron Age pottery was unearthed: in Bliss’ excavations between Tower KLMN








and Tower ef (Bliss 1894a, 173), west of Bastion WXYZ (Bliss 1894b, 256),13 west of TowerCDEF in Hamilton’s dig (1935, 142), a lmlk jar handle near Bliss’ gate during Pixner’sexcavations.14 Unfortunately, none of this pottery can be stratigraphically related to thescarp with confidence. More interesting however, were some Iron Age shards found at thebottom of a small rock-hewn depression on Tower KLMN (Bliss 1894b, 251, Vincent andSteve 1954, 68, 72). This small room on Tower KLMN most probably does not predate thehewing of the tower’s foundation, and it is not unreasonable to conclude that the rest of thescarp was hewn at the same time, as one complete unit, suggesting an Iron Age dating forthe hewing of Maudslay’s Scarp and its use for the fortifications of late Iron Age Jerusalem.

The scarp was used again as foundation for the city’s fortifications in the Byzantineperiod. Josephus informs us that the city was left unwalled after the Romans’ destruction inthe year 70 c.e. (War VII, 1), a fact confirmed by archaeology (Geva 1993, 761). Efforts tofortify the city began in the late third or early fourth century c.e. (Hamilton 1944, 52; Johns1950, 157; Geva 1994, 163–64), but these seem to have excluded Mount Zion and the Cityof David where the Byzantine city walls have been dated to the mid-fifth century c.e.(Kenyon 1974, 272; Shiloh 1984, 30–31; Ben Dov 1985, 223), as was the upper part of Bliss’wall (a–f ) and the top sill of Gate cd (Bliss and Dickie 1898, 318).15 Indeed, it was in the fifthcentury that Empress Eudocia was motivated to strengthen the fortifications of Jerusalem,which according to tradition was based on her reading of Psalm 51:18 ‘Let it be thy pleasureto do good [Greek: eudokia] to Sion, to build anew the walls of Jerusalem’ (Hunt 1982, 238).16The Byzantine fortifications surrounding the Western Hill and the City of David aretherefore attributed to her efforts.

The Byzantine period wall on top of Maudslay’s Scarp remained in use at least until theUmayyad period (Magness 1991, 215–16; Wightman 1993, 235–36), probably even untilthe Fatimid period. The later date is preferred for the walls around the City of David(Crowfoot 1945, 77) and those south of the Citadel (Tushingham 1968, 110; Broshi andGibson 1994, 153). It seems logical that the portion of Eudocia’s wall in the ProtestantCemetery, being a continuation of these walls, would also have survived into the Fatimidperiod. Such an understanding certainly agrees with the historical record of the Englishpilgrim Willibald (ca. 754 c.e.) (PPTS III 1895, 20, 46) and of Bernard the Wise (870 c.e.)(PPTS III 1893, 8). Even the description of the walls by Muqaddassi (985 c.e.) seems to fitbest when it is assumed that Eudocia’s southern line was standing (Bahat 1986, 430), in spiteof a new inner-city wall running along the line of the present day southern Ottomanfortifications (Tsafrir 1977, 155).17 The Byzantine period walls around the city, includingMount Zion, thus stood until the earthquake of 1033 c.e. (Goitein 1982, 185).

Though the city walls were subsequently rebuilt, Mount Zion was left outside the city(Goitein 1982, 188; Prawer 1984, 312; Bahat 1993a, 786, 789), at least originally, since it isknown from both Christian and Arabic sources that Mount Zion was not fortified before orduring the Crusades (Tsafrir 1977, 158; Wightman 1993, 246–57). Though Maudslay’sScarp was not in use during the Crusader period, a tombstone from the period wasdiscovered during Maudslay’s excavations in front of Tower IJ (Conder 1875b, 85). It waspublished by Clermont-Ganneau (1899; see Plate X, Fig. 2) and was eventually donated tothe collection of antiquities at the Church of St. Anne (Hanauer 1887, 78) where it can stillbe viewed today. Yet Crusader-style masonry was found in situ on Maudslay’s Scarp (Blissand Dickie 1898, 5–7, 324). It was obviously in secondary use (Bahat 1987, 296) andprovides a terminus post quem for the construction of a new wall to the Ayyubid period. This isconfirmed by both the archaeological record and the historical sources. From the manyinscriptions discovered in Jerusalem (van Berchem 1927, 24–31; Burgoyne and Hajj 1979,119–23; Broshi and Gibson 1994, 153–55) Saladin’s efforts to fortify Jerusalem are wellknown. In addition, the historian Abu Shama reports that in the year 1192 c.e. Saladin


‘turned the city wall over the summit of Sion, which he thus joined to Jerusalem, and hesurrounded the whole city with ditches’ (Wightman 1993, 273). Though he included MountZion, Saladin did not include the City of David within his walls as in the Byzantine period.Instead, his wall went northeast from Tower KLMN, along section N–P of Maudslay’sScarp. Thus the fosse and the counter scarp (Q–T) cut right through the line of the formerByzantine period city wall.

These city walls, however, did not stand long. In 1219 c.e., el-Malik el-Mu’azzem ‘Isaordered the demolition of Jerusalem’s fortifications, hoping this would stem the wrath of theFifth Crusade (van Berchem 1922, 133–34). Mount Zion was never to be included inside thecity again (Bahat 1987).18 In fact, all of Jerusalem remained unfortified until Suleimanthe Magnificent rebuilt the walls in the 16th century c.e. According to popular legend, thetwo graves inside Jaffa Gate are those of the architects executed for neglecting to includeMount Zion within the perimeter of the wall, though they are in fact those of commoners(Murphy O’Connor 1998, 18). Thus, with time, Maudslay’s Scarp was eventually coveredwith debris only to be rediscovered by scholars some 600 years later!

One of the prominent archaeological features in the Protestant Cemetery is Bliss’ Gate(cd), visible today thanks to the efforts of Father Bargil Pixner of the Dormition Abbey andhis team. This gate is actually a superimposition of three thresholds from gates of differentperiods (Plate XI). In his publication of the dig, Bliss dated all the stages to the Byzantineperiod (1898, 20, 318). Subsequent excavations have shown that the top two sills are indeedof the Byzantine period (Chen, Margalit and Pixner 1989). The top one is made up of threelarge white mezzeh (limestone), upon which indentations for the fittings of the gate and itslocking mechanism are still visible (Plate XII). This sill is related to a stone-paved streettypical of the Byzantine period (Broshi 1977, 232) which has been traced for about 80metresto the northeast (Bliss and Dickie 1898, 52) and under which ran a drain. The bottom sill,however, seems to date to the Second Temple period (Pixner, Chen and Margalit 1989, 87),and, as mentioned above, is a candidate for being the remains of Josephus’ Gate of theEssenes.19

This two-period division is also visible in the corner tower (ef ) just southeast of the gate.Only its corner is presently visible, as the rest disappears under the modern wall surroundingthe cemetery. Clearly noticeable is its orientation change between the lower, Second Templeperiod courses and the upper, Byzantine period courses.20

The proximity of the Essene Gate to various miqva’ot in the area, especially #14 and 15by Tower KLMN, has renewed interest in J. B. Lightfoot’s idea that Mount Zion may havebeen an Essene quarter (1879, 94 n. 2). While this is a legitimate theory concerning thenomenclature of the gate, it must be emphasized that no additional archaeological evidencefor such a quarter has been unearthed within the confines of the Protestant Cemetery.Neither the mere presence of miqva’ot, nor their concentration in a particular area, nor theirsize, nor their general nature are indicators of Essene presence, but rather are characteristicof Second Temple period Judaism (Reich 1990, 10*). Even their proximity to the city wall asin the Protestant Cemetery is not unique for Jerusalem,21 but it is paralleled in the City ofDavid (Macalister and Duncan 1926, Fig. XIV–5).22 Scanty remains in the Bishop Gobatschoolyard have been suggested (Pixner 1997, 64) as evidence for the presence of Josephus’Bethso, its relationship to the Essenes having been strengthened by the discovery of theTemple Scroll, and understood to be latrines (Yadin 1975, 90–91).23 But even such aninterpretation of these scanty remains is untenable. There is no mention of sewage channelsanywhere in Conder’s report, nor do they appear on his map (1875b). Conder may havebeen ‘a military man’ (Pixner 1997, 64) but it was not this that influenced him to interpretthe area between H and I as a stable. Rather, it was the presence of two mangers24 and aRoman period arcosolium tomb since transformed into a water trough, all of which are


Plate XI. Bliss’s plan of Gate cd (Bliss and Dickie 1898, Pl. II).

Plate XII. Top sill of Gate cd (Bliss and Dickie 1898, 17).




Plate XIII (left). Plan of the fountain at the base of Tower CEDF (Schultz 1998: Pl. XII).Plate XIV (right). Plan of the niches (mangers) and the Roman period arcosolium tomb at H in the

so-called ‘Tomb-Room’ (Schultz 1998: Pl. XIII).

Plate XV. Plan of the Rock Platform near R (Bliss and Dickie 1898, Pl. VI).

hewn out of the facade of Maudslay’s Scarp at H and still visible inside a room of the BishopGobat School nicknamed ‘The Tomb Room’, that guided his conclusions (Plate XIV andXVI, Fig. 2). If indeed the Essenes were concentrated on Mount Zion, apart from a gatenamed after them, we are still at want of further archaeological evidence of their presence.





Plate XVI. Fig. 1— Entrance to the Protestant Cemetery from the yard of the Bishop Gobat School(Photo: Brian Schultz). Fig. 2— Arcosolium Tomb at H (photo: Brian Schultz).




conclusion

A walk through the Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery is not merely a study of commemorativestones honouring those who have preceded us. Rather, it is a mini-archaeological garden,illuminating Jerusalem’s history from the Iron Age right down to the present, almost withoutgap. Maudslay’s Scarp, potentially already hewn in the late Iron Age as foundation forJerusalem’s new city wall, was reused several times: first in the Second Temple period, againduring the Byzantine period, and finally during Ayyubid period. The Byzantine gate stillvisible today overlays the sill of what was most likely Josephus’ Gate of the Essenes. Themiqva’ot testify to the city’s Second Temple Period Jewish population. While they may not bespecifically Essene, these miqva’ot may nevertheless be behind the origin of the area’snineteenth-century name, Bır el-Yehudi (Baedeker 1876, 120). A Roman arcosolium tomb,possibly even the crusader tombstone, testify to the property’s use as a burial ground wellbefore its purchase by the Protestants. Finally, in addition to all its ancient remains, theJerusalem Protestant Cemetery also preserves the memorials of several of the greatestarchaeologists of Palestine. With them, the window on Jerusalem’s past, as provided by thecemetery’s remains, is aptly framed.

notes

1 This is a summary of the author’s MA thesis 15 The southern line of the early Byzantine wall isproblematic. Historical sources from the fourth century(Schultz 1998) written under the supervision of Drc.e., such as the Bordeaux Pilgrim (PPTS I 1887,G. Barkay. I wish to thank him and Prof. H. Eshel for22–23) and Jerome (Wilkinson 1972, 49), imply thattheir helpful comments and suggestions.Mount Zion was outside the walled city in the fourth2 See Mehnert 1971; Tamburello 1981; Hermel 1988;century c.e. Yet to date no Byzantine period wall, oneand Benvenisti 1990.that bypasses the southern end of Mount Zion in the3 For a history of the Protestant community insame manner that the Old City wall does today, hasJerusalem, see Hechler 1883; Stock 1899; Gidney 1908;been found (Broshi and Gibson 1994, 154). It hasHandbook 1941; Horn 1978; and Crombie 1991.therefore simply been assumed (Wightman 1993, 195;4 From those tombstones which include a burial date,Bahat 1990, 69) from such evidence as the Madabait can be deduced that the remains of at least eightmap (Lagrange 1897, 454; Avi-Yonah 1965, 53, Fig. 12:individuals were transferred.B, C; Geva 1993, 768) and the testimony of Thomas the

5 Over the last years, however, there have been a fewUndertaker (Milik 1961, 142–45, 166), both of whichmore burials in the cemetery.seem to imply city gates leading not out of the city but

6 Their moving was not without controversy and isinto the southern quarter of the city comprised offully described by the American Colony founder’sMount Zion and the City of David. This wall woulddaughter, B. Spafford-Vester (1988, 210–21).predate later Byzantine fortifications which included

7 Most of the British soldiers have been moved to theMount Zion and the City of David, as is consistent withBritish military cemetery on Mount Scopus. Eucherius’ testimony from the mid-fifth century c.e.

8 This number is based on information gathered from (PPTS II 1890, 8, 10).burial records, tombstones, and the 1939 map. For 21116 For a list of historical sources pertaining to Eudocia’sof them, no precise burial location is known. In construction efforts, see Hunt 1982, 238 n. 92.addition, there are 257 potential burial sites that remain17 The last mention of the Church of Holy Zion, thusunidentified, 90 of which are outlined or marked in Mount Zion, being inside the walled city is by an Arabic

some way. A complete list of names can be found in geographer, Al-Mutahhar, dating to the very beginningSchultz 1998, 212–52. of the 11th century c.e. (Goitein 1982, 188; Wightman9 See Barkay 1987, 1988, and 1991.

1993, 245 n. 47).10 A. C. Dickie joined Bliss in March 1895, well after

18 In this article, Dan Bahat explains why Sanuto’sthe area of the Protestant Cemetery had already been map is not be trusted in its inclusion of Mount Zionexcavated by Bliss and his workers (PEFQS 1895, 89). within the city walls. See also van Berchem 1922, 44911 # 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, and possibly #1. n. 3 which gives a summary of both texts and maps12 See Geva 1979; Avigad 1980, 46–60; Barkay 1986; from the Ayyubid to the Ottoman periods with regard

Gibson 1987, 87; Shiloh 1993, 706–08; Bahat 1993b, to the inclusion or exclusion of Mount Zion in the city581–83; Broshi and Gibson 1994, 150. walls.13 This conclusion can be drawn from Bliss’ descrip- 19 The question of the middle sill is problematic. Father

tions and drawings of the pottery, especially when using Pixner (1989, 99–102; 1997, 28–29) suggests it to becomparative material from Tell el-H. esi (1894b, 256; part of the murus sion described by the Bordeaux Pilgrim.1894c, 120, Fig. 240; Bliss and Dickie 1898, Pl. XXV, However, it seems that the Bordeaux Pilgrim is describ-Fig. 2). ing a wall separating Mount Zion and the House of

Caiaphas from the area of David’s Citadel which he14 Personal communication with G. Barkay.


believed to be genuine (Wightman 1993, 207). The scanty remains of the city wall were ever seen in situabsence of walls around Mount Zion before the time of upon Maudslay’s Scarp (Robinson 1856, 179) and theseEmpress Eudocia is alluded to by Jerome (Wilkinson had already disappeared by the time Maudslay unco-1972, 49) and Eucherieus (PPTS II 1890, 8,10). Neither vered the scarp. The opening in question is thus part ofare there any remains of such a wall. Could it be that a modern wall.this ‘very primitive’ gate (Pixner, Chen and Margalit

23 For a discussion of the issues surrounding Qumran,1989, 88) is rather an early effort by the resident clergy the Essenes and the Temple Scroll, see Magness 2000,to protect the newly built Church of Holy Sion?

715–17 and Baumgarten 1996, 9–20. I wish to thank20 It has also been suggested that both stages date to H. Eshel for bringing these two articles to my attention.the Hasmonean period (Chen, Margalit and Pixner

24 From the Gospel account, we learn that Jesus was1994, 79–80). born in a stable and laid in a manger (Luke 2:1–19).21 It seems unlikely that these miqva’ot would have been

Since Justin the Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho §78),accessible from outside the city, as they would havethe Protoevangelium of James (18:1) and the Church ofcreated a very vulnerable point in the wall, all an enemythe Nativity all preserve the tradition that the stable waswould have had to do was undermine the arches abovea grotto, it is very probable that the manger in whichthem which supported the city wall. More likely is thatJesus was lain was rock-hewn, similar to the ones foundthe wall followed the edge of the scarp, thus containingin the Bishop Gobat school.them within the wall and tower structure.

22 The idea that there is a small postern beside miqva’ot#14 and 15 (Pixner 1997, 65) is also untenable. Only

bibliography

Avigad, Nahman, 1980. Discovering Jerusalem ( Jerusalem).Avi-Yonah, M., 1965. The Madaba Mosaic Map ( Jerusalem).Baedecker, K. (ed.), 1876. Jerusalem and its Surroundings (1973 facsimile, Jerusalem).Bahat, D., 1986. ‘Les Portes de Jerusalem selon Mukaddasi: Nouvelle identification’, RB, 93, 429–35.Bahat, D., 1987. ‘Sanuto’s Map and the walls of Jerusalem in the thirteenth century’, EI, 19, 295–98 (Hebrew).Bahat, D., 1990. The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem ( Jerusalem).Bahat, D., 1993a. ‘Jerusalem: Early Arab to Ayyubid Periods’, in E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land ( Jerusalem), 786–89, 795–800.Bahat, D., 1993b. ‘ ‘‘Was Jerusalem really that large?’’ ’, in A. Biran and J. Aviram (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today,1990 ( Jerusalem), 581–84.

Barkay, G., 1986. ‘Jerusalem of Old Testament times; New discoveries and new approaches’, BAIAS, 1985–86,32–43.

Barkay, G., 1987. ‘In our own backyard’, From Mt. Zion, 6/1, 1.Barkay, G., 1988. ‘The archaeological remains in the area of the Bishop Gobat School’, Ariel, 57–58, 152–55

(Hebrew).Barkay, G., 1991. ‘Archaeological remains on the campus of IHLS’, From Mt. Zion, 10 (1), 1, 3.Bartlett, W. H., 1855. Jerusalem Revisited (London).Baumgarten, A. I., 1996. ‘The Temple Scroll, toilet practices, and the Essenes’, Jewish History, 10, 9–20.Ben Arieh, Y., 1986. Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 2: The Emergence of the New City ( Jerusalem).Ben Dov, M., 1985. In the Shadow of the Temple, trans. from the Hebrew by I. Friedman ( Jerusalem).Benvenisti, M., 1990. Jerusalem’s City of the Dead ( Jerusalem) (Hebrew).van Berchem, M., 1922. Materiaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum: Deuxieme Partie: Syrie du Sud, Tome Premier —

Jerusalem ‘Ville’ (Cairo).Van Berchem, M., 1927. Materiaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum: Deuxieme Partie: Syrie du Sud, Tome Second —

Jerusalem ‘Haram’ (Cairo).Bliss, F. J., 1894a. ‘Excavations at Jerusalem’, PEFQS, 26, 169–75.Bliss, F. J., 1894b. ‘Second report on the excavations at Jerusalem’, PEFQS, 26, 243–57.Bliss, F. J., 1894c. A Mound of Many Cities (London).Bliss, F. J., and Dickie, A. C., 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem 1894–1897 (London).Broshi, M., 1977. ‘Standard of street widths in the Roman-Byzantine period’, IEJ, 27, 232–35.Broshi, M., and Gibson, S., 1994. ‘Excavations along the western and southern walls of the Old City of Jerusalem’,

in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed ( Jerusalem), 147–55.Burgoyne, M. H., and Abul-Hajj, A., 1979. ‘Twenty-four mediæval Arabic inscriptions from Jerusalem’, Levant,

11, 112–37.Chen, D., Margalit, S., and Pixner, B., 1989. ‘Mount Zion: The ‘‘Gate of the Essenes’’ re-excavated’, ZDPV, 105,

85–95.Chen, D., Margalit, S., and Pixner, B., 1994. ‘Mount Zion: Discovery of Iron Age fortifications below the Gate of

the Essenes’, in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed ( Jerusalem), 76–81.Clermont-Ganneau, C., 1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874, vol. i, trans. by

A. Stewart (London).Commission, Commonwealth War Graves, 1996. ‘Letter to the author dated 20December 1996’.Conder, C. R., 1872. ‘Lieut. Claude R. Conder’s reports’, PEFQS, 4, 153–73.Conder, C. R., 1875a. ‘The Survey of Palestine: Lieut. Claude R. Conder’s report’, PEFQS, 7, 7–10.


Conder, C. R., 1875b. ‘The rock scarp of Zion’, PEFQS, 7, 81–89.Crombie, K., 1991. For the Love of Zion (London).Crowfoot, J. W., 1945. ‘Ophel again’, PEQ, 77, 66–104.Drower, M. S., 1985. Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology (London).Falls, Thomas B. (ed.), 1948. Writings of St. Justin Martyr (New York).Geva, H., 1979. ‘The western boundary of Jerusalem at the end of the monarchy’, IEJ, 29, 84–91.Geva, H., 1993. ‘Jerusalem’, in E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land

( Jerusalem), 713–49, 753–85.Geva, H., 1994. ‘Excavations at the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1976–1980’, in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed

( Jerusalem), 156–67.Gibson, S., 1987. ‘The 1961–67 excavations in the Armenian Garden, Jerusalem’, PEQ, 119, 81–96.Gidney, W. T., 1908. The History of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, from 1809–1908

(London).Goitein, S. D., 1982. ‘Jerusalem in the Arab period’, in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Jerusalem Cathedra, vol. 2, trans. by

N. Ginsbury ( Jerusalem), 168–96.Goren, H., 1994. ‘Johannes Rudolf Roth. Researcher of Palestine until death’, Ariel, 102–03, 190–201 (Hebrew).Goren H. (ed.), 1998. Conrad Schick: For the sake of Jerusalem ( Jerusalem) (Hebrew).Hamilton, R. W., 1935. ‘Note on excavations at Bishop Gobat School 1933’, PEFQS, 67, 141–43.Hamilton, R. W., 1944. ‘Excavations against the north wall of Jerusalem, 1937–8’, QDAP, 10, 1–54.Hanauer, J. E., 1887. ‘The tomb of Philip d’Aubigne at Jerusalem’, PEFQS, 19, 76–78.Handbook, 1941. Handbook of the Anglican Bishopric in Jerusalem and the East ( Jerusalem).Hechler, W. H., 1883. The Jerusalem Bishopric (London).Hennecke, E., 1963. New Testament Apocrypha, vol. i, 3rd edn, revised by Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Philadelphia).Hermel, G., 1988, ‘The Protestant cemetery on Mount Zion’, Ariel, 57–58, 174–85 (Hebrew).Horn, S. E., 1978. The Jerusalem Bishopric 1841 (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota).Hunt, E. D., 1982. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312–460 (Oxford).Johns, C. N., 1950. ‘The Citadel, Jerusalem’, QDAP, 14, 121–90.Josephus, F., 1928. The Jewish War, Books IV–VII, trans. by H. St John Thackeray (Cambridge).King, P. J., 1975. ‘The American archaeological heritage in the near east’, BASOR, 217, 55–65.Kenyon, K. M., 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem (London).Lagrange, M.-J., 1897. ‘Jerusalem d’apres la mosaıque de Madaba’, RB, 6, 450–58.Lightfoot, J. B., 1879. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London).Macalister, R. A. S., and Duncan, J. G., 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923–1925 (PEFA IV,

London).Magness, J., 1991. ‘The walls of Jerusalem in the early Islamic period’, BA, 54 (4), 208–17.Magness, J., 2000. ‘A reassessment of the excavations of Qumran’, in L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam

(eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After ( Jerusalem), 708–19.Mazar, B., and Eshel, H., 1998. ‘Who built the First Wall of Jerusalem?’, IEJ, 48 (3–4), 265–68.Mehnert, G., 1971. Der english-deutsche Zionsfriedhof in Jerusalem und die deutsche evangelische Gemeinde Jerusalem (Leiden).Milik, J. T., 1961. ‘La topographie de Jerusalem vers la fin de l’epoque byzantine’, MUSJ, 37, 125–89.Murphy O’Connor, J., 1998. The Holy Land. An Archaeological Guide from the Earliest Times to 1700 (4th edn, Oxford).PEFQS, 1895. ‘Notes and News’, PEFQS, 27, 90.Peterman, H., 1860. Reisen im Orient, vol. 1 (Leipzig).Pierotti, E., 1864. Jerusalem Explored: Being a Description of the Ancient and Modern City, trans. G. Bonney (London).Pixner, B., 1989. ‘The history of the ‘‘Essene Gate’’ Area’, ZDPV, 105, 96–104.Pixner, B., 1997. ‘Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway: Where the community lived in Jesus’ time’, BAR, 23 (3), 23–31,64–65.

Pixner, B., Chen, D., and Margalit, S., 1989. ‘Mount Zion: the ‘‘Gate of the Essenes’’ re-excavated’, ZDPV, 105,85–95.

PPTS I, 1887. Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, trans. by A. Stewart and C. W. Wilson (London).PPTS II, 1890. The Epitome of S. Eucherius about Certain Holy Places, trans. by A. Stewart and C. W. Wilson (London).PPTS III, 1893. The Itinerary of Bernard the Wise, trans. by J. H. Bernard (London).PPTS III, 1895. The Hodœporicon of Saint Willibald, trans. by C. Brownlow (London).Prawer, J., 1984. ‘The conquest of the city and the walls of Jerusalem at the eve of the First Crusade’, EI, 17,312–24 (Hebrew).

Reich, R., 1980. Mishnah, Sheqalim 8:2 and the archaeological evidence’, in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport,and M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period ( Jerusalem), 225–56 (Hebrew).

Reich, R., 1990. Miqwa’ot ( Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and TalmudPeriod (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University) (Hebrew).

Robinson, E., 1856. Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and Adjacent Regions (Boston).Schultz, B., 1998. The Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery on Mount Zion (Unpublished MA Thesis, Jerusalem University

College).Shiloh, Y., 1984. ‘Excavations at the City of David’, Qedem, 19.Shiloh, Y., 1993. ‘Jerusalem: The early periods and the First Temple period’, in E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land ( Jerusalem), 701–12.


Sivan, R., and Solar, G., 1994. ‘Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980–1988’, in H. Geva (ed.), AncientJerusalem Revealed ( Jerusalem), 168–76.

Stock, E., 1899. The History of the Church Missionary Society (London).Strobel, A., 1988. Conrad Schick: Ein Leben fur Jerusalem (Furth/Bay, Germany).Tamburello, N., 1981. Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery Grave Plots ( Jerusalem).Tawil, L., 1939. British-German Cemetery Map 1:100 ( Jerusalem).Tobler, T., 1854. Topographie von Jerusalem und seine Umgebungen, vol. ii (Berlin).Tsafrir, Y., 1977. ‘Muqaddasi’s gates of Jerusalem: A new identification based on Byzantine sources’, IEJ, 27,152–61.

Tufnell, O., 1938. ‘James Leslie Starkey: An appreciation’, PEQ, 70, 80–83.Tushingham, A. D., 1968. ‘Excavations in Jerusalem 1967’, PEQ, 100, 109–11.Vester, B., 1988. Our Jerusalem ( Jerusalem).Vincent, L.-H., and Steve, M.-A., 1954. Jerusalem de l’Ancient Testament, vol. i (Paris).Warren, C., 1876. Underground Jerusalem (London).Wightman, G. J., 1993. The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks (Sidney).Wilkinson, J., 1972. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades ( Jerusalem).Wilson, C. W., 1865. Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem (London).Wilson, C. W., and Warren, C., 1871. The Recovery of Jerusalem (London).Yadin, Y., 1975. ‘The Gate of the Essenes and the Temple Scroll’, in Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeology of

the Holy City 1868–1974 ( Jerusalem), 90–91.

Documents

The Archaeological Heritage of the Jerusalem Protestant Cemetery on Mount Zion