Maeir A. M. 2011. The Archaeology of Ear

The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem:
From the Late Proto-Historic Periods (ca. 5th Millennium)

to the End of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200 b.c.e.)
Aren M. Maeir
Bar-Ilan University
Introduction
This essay is a brief survey of the archaeological sequence of the city of Jerusa-
lem between the end of the Prehistoric (Neolithic) period until the end of the Late
Bronze Age (ca. 1200 b.c.e), a time-span of roughly 4,000 years (for a more detailed
survey, see Maeir 2000 [including additional references], with some updates in Ca-
hill 2003).
Not all periods are well-represented from an archaeological point of view, in part
due to the intensity of the activity in the city during later periods. Nevertheless,
these finds offer us an opportunity to compose a cautious understanding of the
early history of this fascinating city.
This survey will include archaeological finds relevant to these time-periods un-
covered in Jerusalem and in the immediate surroundings, up to a radius of approxi-
mately 3 km from the ridge extending toward the southeast of the Temple Mount,
known as the City of David. This latter area represented the settlement nucleus of
the city in the periods included in this survey.
The Chalcolithic Period

(ca. 4500–3500 b.c.e.)
The archaeological evidence of Jerusalem from the Chalcolithic period is very
scant. Though there is indication for some settlement activity within the City of
David, the character of the site during this period is far from clear, due to the mea-
ger finds.
Kenyon’s excavations produced a small amount of evidence from this period,
including some sherds and a flint (e.g., Crowfoot 1995: 253; Steiner 2001: 7). Shi-
loh’s excavation (1984: 6, 8, 10, 20) also revealed limited evidence. Most of these
Author’s note: This study is dedicated to the memory of the late Prof. Yigal Shiloh (1937–87), ex-
cavator of the City of David, under whom I had the pleasure of studying the history and archae-
ology of Jerusalem at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, from
1982 to 1986. I would like to thank the editors, for inviting me to contribute to this volume, and
my former student, Ms. Julia Iatesta, for assistance in the preparation of this study. This article
is a partially abridged and updated (to the end of 2008) version of an earlier study published in
Hebrew (Maeir 2000).
171
Offprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
172 Aren M. Maeir
finds came from eroded strata and fills—in other words, they appear in secondary
contexts. Although the Chalcolithic remains are not in their original location, the
pottery did not include any sherds later than the Early Bronze Age. Similar finds
have been reported by Reich and Shukron (2004: 211).
In E. Mazar’s recent excavations (2007: 20–21), a series of “cup-marks” were un-
covered. Although similar features were previously discovered by Macalister and
Duncan (1926: 26–27, figs. 19–20, pl. I), they were dated to later periods. Mazar,
based on similar characteristics known from other Chalcolithic sites, suggests dat-
ing these features to the Chalcolithic Period and pointed to them as evidence for
agricultural activity in Jerusalem during this period.
These finds confirm the currently available evidence uncovered at contempo-
rary settlements within the central hill country, as found at various sites located in
proximity to Jerusalem (see Gibson and Rowan 2006).
The Early Bronze Age

(ca. 3500–2200 b.c.e.)
The majority of archaeological excavations conducted in the area of the City of
David have revealed Early Bronze Age remains. The earliest architectural remains to
have been exposed also date to this period.
A series of three burial caves (Caves 1–3) were uncovered during Parker’s excava-
tions in the City of David and were partially published by Vincent (Vincent 1911:
7–12). The caves included a rich assemblage of finds, including complete pottery
vessels. However, given the excavation methods used and the only partial publica-
tion, very little information can be gathered from these caves. We do know that the
vessels date to the Early Bronze Age I (3500–3000 b.c.e) and that they are similar to
the pottery repertoire known from contemporary sites located in the central hill
country (sites such as Ai/et-Tell and Tell el-Nasbeh). None of the finds from these
tombs dates later than the Early Bronze Age (for a discussion of the finds from these
tombs, see Maeir 2000: 35; see also Maeir et al. 1992). Based solely on the publica-
tion, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know any other details about the
caves. There is no evidence of other such caves within the city or its surroundings.
The finds from the Early Bronze Age from Kenyon’s excavations were quite lim-
ited, supposedly revealing very limited amounts of pottery dating to the EB I and
EB II (Steiner 2001: 7–9; Franken 2005: 21, 192–93). Evidence for architectural re-
mains from this period comes from Area E1 and was uncovered during the course
of the excavations conducted by Shiloh on the eastern slope of the City of David
(Shiloh 1984: 10, 20). Underneath a wall dating to the Middle Bronze II, the rem-
nants of two houses were uncovered. Both of these were small, rectangular struc-
tures with built-in benches lining the interior walls. The excavator dated them to
the Early Bronze I–II. Similar structures are known from numerous Early Bronze
Age sites and are considered the typical house-type in Canaan during this time (see,
e.g., A. Mazar 1990: 124–25).
An additional Early Bronze Age structure was uncovered during the course of
Kenyon’s excavations (1963: 11). A cross-section along the eastern slope of the City
Offprint from:
The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem 173
of David, revealed a “rough stone structure” initially dated to the Early Bronze Age.
In the final report (Steiner 2001: 7–9), no additional information was published
about either the structure, its context, or its date.
These caves and the three (or perhaps two) structures represent the main archi-
tectural remains of the Early Bronze Age in Jerusalem.
In addition, the following finds should be mentioned: Duncan and Macalister
uncovered various remains dating to the Early Bronze Age, some of which were
identified by the excavators themselves (Macalister and Duncan 1926: 21–25,
175–78), the rest documented and analyzed by other scholars (e.g., Albright 1930–
31: 164–66; B. Mazar 1975: 18; Maeir 2000: 36). In the excavations conducted by
Crowfoot and Fitzgerald, many Early Bronze Age sherds were discovered, though
mostly in fills dating to later periods (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 20–22, 65–66,
pl. 11:10–22). Kenyon’s excavations, apart from the “rough stone structure” men-
tioned above, revealed Early Bronze Age sherds in fill layers just above the levels of
the Early Bronze as well as inside a cave located at the base of the slope (Kenyon
1963: 11–12; see also Steiner 2001: 7). In Shiloh’s excavations, in addition to the
two houses mentioned above, a number of Early Bronze Age living surfaces related
to the dwellings (in Area B, and especially in Area E1) were uncovered. Contempo-
rary fills and pottery sherds were found in numerous other locations. According to
Shiloh (1984: 10, 20), it is possible to date most of these remains to the end of the
Early Bronze I and to the Early Bronze II (the first half of the second millennium
b.c.e.), while a smaller percentage (mainly the sherds found in secondary contexts),
dates to the Early Bronze III. 1 E. Mazar, in her recent excavations in the northern
part of the City of David, also reported Early Bronze Age pottery deriving from
mixed earth fills (E. Mazar 2007: 22–3). Finally, excavations conducted near the
southern end of the Western Wall revealed fill layers containing pottery sherds dat-
ing to the Early Bronze Age, mixed with later material (E. Mazar 1987). 2
Franken (2005: 192–93; followed by Steiner 2001: 7) has demonstrated that the
Early Bronze Age pottery in Jerusalem originated mostly from outside the region.
As a result, he suggests that Jerusalem during this period was a semi-nomadic settle-
ment. This conclusion does not appear to be justified. First, various types of pottery
could have reached Jerusalem through trade connections. Furthermore, the archi-
tectural evidence, albeit scarce, hardly indicates a temporary settlement.
To summarize the nature of Jerusalem during the Early Bronze Age:
1. Jerusalem was completely unprotected during this period. No traces of
fortifications have been identified.
2. The settlement during this period was limited to the City of David—in
particular, to its eastern slope. Nevertheless, numerous contemporaneous
1. Although it is often thought that an EB III “Khirbet Kerak Ware” vessel was found in Parker’s
excavations (Vincent 1911: pl. XI; see, e.g., Steiner 2001: 7), Maeir et al. (1992) have demonstrated
that this find should not be associated with this ware but should instead be dated to the EB I.
2. For the head of an Egyptian statue that was apparently found at the Church of St. Peter in
Gallicantu, on Mount Zion, which may date to the Old Kingdom (= Early Bronze Age), see Mal-
lon 1928; Rowe 1936: 291, pl. 37 as well as more updated discussions in Maeir 1989; 2000: 37–38
n. 37.
Offprint from:
174 Aren M. Maeir
sherds have been uncovered (including along the southern Temple Mount).
As a result, it is difficult to determine the exact size and character of this
settlement.
3. All this evidence suggests that Jerusalem was a small agricultural settlement
during the Early Bronze Age, playing no significant role beyond the context
of its immediate environment. Jerusalem lacks all the characteristic signs
associated with the contemporary urban Early Bronze settlements in the
central hill country. Throughout the entire Early Bronze Age, Jerusalem was
inhabited. In contrast, the evidence for settlement during the Early Bronze
III is limited. Given the structures revealed during the course of Shiloh’s
excavations, it is rather unlikely that, as suggested by Franken (2005: 192–
93), Jerusalem was as a semi-nomadic village.
The archaeological data from Early Bronze Age Jerusalem fits well into the pattern
of settlement formation as portrayed in other studies. This is especially true for the
contemporary settlement patterns in the central hill country (e.g., Gophna 1984:
24–29; Joffe 1993: 73–79). As early as near the beginning of this period, settle-
ments were established at different sites all across this region (including nearby
Motza [Eisenberg 1993a], as well as at Ai, Tell el-Nasbeh, Tell el-Farʿah [North], and
others). Most of these settlements were also located on elevated spots overlooking
the agricultural areas in the valleys. During the course of the Early Bronze Age, a
number of these settlements gradually grew into relatively large fortified cities (e.g.,
Ai, Yarmuth, Tell el-Farʿah [North] and others). At the same time, small unfortified
settlements continued to exist (e.g., Jerusalem, Beth-Zur, and others). It is during
the Early Bronze Age that the foundations for the later city-states in Canaan took
shape, while settlements such as the one in Jerusalem remained small, constituting
the agricultural hinterland of these polities, and developed only at a later stage.
Thus, it is safe to assume that, during the Early Bronze Age, Jerusalem was not yet a
substantial settlement like other contemporaneous sites in the central hill country,
and only later did it ultimately develop, during the second millennium b.c.e. 3
Middle Bronze Age I/Early Bronze Age IV

(ca. 2200–2000 B.C.E.)
During this period (also known as the Intermediate Bronze Age), there is ev-
idence that significant changes that took place in the socioeconomic structures
and processes throughout the land. There was a major decline and it is even pos-
sible that urban society ended. A predominantly rural settlement pattern is appar-
ent, with small villages and nomadic/semi-nomadic groups, the main evidence for
them being concentrations of burials, particularly in the central hill country (in
general, see, e.g., Palumbo 1990; Dever 1995).
Unlike the finds from the Early Bronze Age, mostly uncovered at the northern
end of the City of David in Jerusalem, there are far fewer finds from the Middle
3. It should be stressed that claims that Jerusalem is mentioned in the 3rd millennium b.c.e.
texts from Ebla, Syria (e.g., Pettinato 1976: 46; Matthiae 1980: 181, fig. 48), thus hinting at its
ostensible importance during this period, have no basis at all and consequently should be disre-
garded (see, e.g., Matthiae 1982: 8; Muhly 1983: 74–75; Biggs 1992: 265).
Offprint from:
Bronze I. Very little information can be gleaned from this material. In fact, I am
unaware of any finds from this period uncovered within the City of David itself
(see, e.g., Steiner 2001: 9).
Evidence for human occupation in the area of Jerusalem during this period comes
solely from tombs located on the outskirts of the city. Approximately 20 graves
were found on the Mount of Olives by both Warren and Conder (1884: pl. 45:5, 14;
see as well Prag 1995: 240, fig. 27) and by Kenyon (1974: 130–32; Prag 1995: 221–
41). A number of other tombs have been reported in the area of Bethany (Vincent
1914; Loffreda 1974: 143), within the area of the village of Silwan (Saʿad 1964), and
perhaps, even on the Temple Mount itself (Gonen 1985). All these graves belong to
types characteristic of this period (see, e.g., Dever 1987a; Palumbo 1990: 120–26;
Greenhut 1995), and the associated pottery is similar to types found at other sites
in the central hill country.
During the construction of the Augusta Victoria Hospital on Mount Scopus, re-
mains of a tomb of the dolmen type were uncovered (Gressman 1907; Mader 1927:
103; cf. Vincent and Steve 1954–56: 67 n. 4). Similar “dolmen” tombs are mainly
found in northeast Israel. Although their date is controversial (e.g., Epstein 1975;
1985; Yassine 1985; Vinitzky 1992), there is clear evidence that they were used
during the Middle Bronze I. It should be noted that another dolmen-like tomb
was found at Khalet el-Ful, near Jebel Qaʿaqir, southwest of Hebron. It appears to
be related to a contemporary cemetery that is located nearby (Anonymous 1969:
21). Thus, it is likely that the dolmen tomb found on Mount Zion is related to the
Middle Bronze Age I cemeteries that have been documented in its proximity.
It appears, then, that all presently available evidence dating to the Middle
Bronze I from Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings comes from burial con-
texts. Based on these finds, and due to what is known about the nature of the
society at the time, one possible explanation of the character of these remains is
that Jerusalem’s inhabitants were nomads or semi-nomads and therefore left be-
hind no signs of settlement save for the burials of their dead. However, the lack of
architectural remains could also be explained by the limited areas that have been
excavated. Although no remains have been uncovered within the City of David,
there are good chances that sites dating to this period may have been located in the
mountainous areas in immediate proximity to Jerusalem. The extensive remains
excavated in the Rephaim Valley, less than 5 km to the west, may testify to this
(see Edelstein and Milevski 1994; Edelstein, Milevski, and Aurant 1998; Eisenberg
1993b: 83–88). The same is true for settlement and burial remains in the modern-
day Pisgat Zeʾev neighborhood, north of Jerusalem (Seligman 1994).
Middle Bronze Age II

(ca. 2000–1550 b.c.e.)
The Middle Bronze Age II is a period during which major changes occured
throughout the ancient Near East in general and in Canaan in particular (see, e.g.,
Dever 1987b; Ilan 1995). Following the break in the urban culture seen in the
preceding period, urban entities once again emerged throughout the land, their
Offprint from:
176 Aren M. Maeir
appearance intricately connected with social, economic, and political develop-

ments well-attested throughout the Near East. Although the earliest of these devel-
opments are seen along the coastal region and in the northern valleys of Canaan,
during the middle of this period, around the 18th and 17th centuries b.c.e, these
major changes are seen in the central hill country as well (see, e.g., Cohen 2002;
Maeir 2002). In fact, it is during the Middle Bronze II that one can detect the first
indications of Jerusalem’s transition to a settlement with an urban character and
its development into the center of an emerging polity. As in other parts of Canaan
(see, e.g., Finkelstein 1993), it is most likely that this phase represents the begin-
ning of Jerusalem’s role as one of the many Canaanite city-states that existed in the
region throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.
The archaeological remains in Jerusalem from the first phase of this period, the
Middle Bronze IIA (ca. 2000–1750 b.c.e.), are relatively scarce. One tomb was un-
covered during the excavations carried out by Duncan and Macalister within the
city itself (Macalister and Duncan 1926: 175–76; Prag 1991). Among the finds, a jar
handle with the imprint of an Egyptian stamp-seal and a scarab dating to the 12th
Dynasty were published (Macalister and Duncan 1926: 178).
For the second half of this period, the Middle Bronze Age IIB (1750–1550 b.c.e.),
most of the archaeological evidence, which in recent years has been very impres-
sive, comes from within the City of David. Through the excavations of Kenyon
(1968: 29; 1974: 83–84; Steiner 2001: 10–23) and Shiloh (Shiloh 1984: 10; Cahill
2003: 21–26), and most likely also those of Parker (Vincent 1911: 11; see Reich
1987: 163–64; Steiner 1988), sections of the earliest known wall of the city were
uncovered. The remains of this wall were found along the eastern part of the sum-
mit of the city, halfway up the slope. According to Kenyon, this wall also included
a fortified tower. Based on the location of the wall on the slope, it seems most likely
that the city spread across most of the slope and not just on the summit. The wall
was constructed during the 19th century b.c.e. and continued in use for approxi-
mately 100 years, including two phases of construction.
The most important remains dating to the Middle Bronze Age II were clearly
those uncovered in the excavations of Reich and Shukron (2004) along the east-
ern slope of the mountain ridge of the city, above the Gihon Spring. Remains of
a monumental fortification system and other related features were discovered, all
of which have been dated unequivocally to this period. Most impressive are the
monumental, massive towers that were built near the bottom of the eastern slope
of the City of David, just above the spring. This fortification system was obviously
built to protect the area of the spring, a related water system, and its immediate
surroundings. Thus, these impressive remains demonstrate that not only was the
water system in Jerusalem in use at the time but that the city was surrounded by
a very impressive, and labor intensive, fortification system––indicating the status
and impressive organization abilities of the polity existing in Jerusalem at the time.
These elements have been dated to the mid-MB II, similar to the dating suggested
by Kenyon and Shiloh for the MB II wall sections.
During Kenyon and Shiloh’s excavations, remains of buildings that included sur-
face levels contemporary with the city walls were found (see Steiner 2001: 12–16;
Offprint from:
Shiloh 1985: 66). The buildings, like the walls, also included more than one phase
of construction. Shiloh’s excavation revealed complete pottery vessels as well as
bone inlays and jewelry from the same period (see, e.g., Ariel 1990: 120–24). In ad-
dition, an infant burial inside a jar was found underneath one of the floors, a burial
type common during this period (Y. Shiloh, pers. comm.). Most of the finds date to
the 18th century b.c.e, and although remains from the end of the Middle Bronze
Age are scarce, they do exist (for details, see Maeir 2000: 44 n. 55, contra Steiner
2001: 23).
Recently, E. Mazar (2006) has suggested that during the Middle Bronze Age the
city was rather limited in size, and did not include the northern parts of the City
of David. Based on the lack of finds dating to the MB II from her excavations, she
posits that the city was in fact only about 4 hectares large. While having very in-
teresting implications for understanding the role of the city during the MB II, this
suggestion requires further research.
Evidence of occupation not only derives from the city but also from the imme-
diate vicinity, where burial caves dating the Middle Bronze IIB were found. These
help to complete the archaeological picture of Jerusalem during this period. As with
most other periods, the caves are located east of the city, in the vicinity of Bethany,
near the Mount of Olives (see Saller 1957; 1984), possibly within the Silwan vil-
lage (Smith 1970) and on the Mount of Olives itself (Warren and Conder 1884: pls.
XLV:11, 19, 20, 21; XLVII:26–30; Sallers 1964). Special attention has been devoted
to the burial cave discovered near the Dominus Flevit Church, which is situated
on the western slope of the Mount of Olives (Sallers 1964). This cave was first used
during the Middle Bronze II and remained in use until the Late Bronze IIA. The
finds from this cave were rather diverse, including more than 1,200 pottery vessels,
alabaster, metal vessels, jewelry, inlaid bones, scarabs, and more, dating between
the MB IIB and the LB IIA. These material remains seem to mirror the daily lifestyle
of Jerusalem during this time-frame.
An additional burial cave, which we believe also dates to the MB IIB, was discov-
ered by Hänsler (1909) in the late 19th century at Jebel er-Ras, near the Abu Tor
neighborhood of Jerusalem (overlooking the Hinnom Valley). Although the finds
from the cave were never properly described and have supposedly disappeared, this
tomb can be dated to MB II. The dating is based on the fact that, among the 400
pottery vessels, Hänsler noted several, large, four-handled jars, which are charac-
teristic of the Middle Bronze Age (for a detailed discussion, see Maeir 2000: 47–49
nn. 62–64). 4
To summarize: at the beginning of the Middle Bronze II (MB IIA), there is very
little evidence for settlement (or other) activity in the city of Jerusalem itself and its
immediate surroundings. A similar situation can be observed throughout the cen-
tral hill country. There, too, only a very small number of sites dating to the MB IIA
have been identified (see, e.g., Gerstenblith 1983: 34–35; Cohen 2002: 107–28).
4. For several additional finds from Jerusalem and its vicinity that may date to MB II, see Maeir
2000: 48–49 nn. 64–65.
Offprint from:
178 Aren M. Maeir
During the 18th century b.c.e, the first significant evidence emerges within
the context of the city of Jerusalem. The site undergoes a transition to a fortified
settlement encompassing the summit of the City of David and extending over most
of the eastern slope. These building activities continued into the Middle Bronze IIB
(the 17th and 16th centuries b.c.e.), however, with only limited remains for this
later stage. The city did continued to exist and was characterized by a rich mate-
rial culture, as can be seen from the evidence uncovered in the burial caves in and
around the immediate vicinity of the city.
The archaeological evidence for the emergence of Jerusalem as a regional center
during the 18th century b.c.e. is also supported by the picture presented to us in
Egyptian sources. Among the contemporary sites in the central hill country, only
Jerusalem and Shechem are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts. This sup-
ports the view that these two cities constituted the main urban centers of the cen-
tral hill country (e.g., Aharoni 1979: 146–47; but see Naʾaman 1992).
The appearance of fortified settlements, such as Jerusalem and Shechem (and
including the smaller sites of Beth-Zur, Hebron, and, recently, apparently Bittir as
well 5), in the area of the central hill country, highlights the state-formation pro-
cesses that began during this period and continued throughout the Late Bronze
Age. Clearly, if Jerusalem served as a regional (and perhaps urban) center, there
were smaller settlements in its vicinity. Quite possibly, these can be identified at
several rural MB II sites that have been found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such as
the site to the north of the city at Pisgat Zeʾev (Seligman 1993), and the village sites
discovered in western Jerusalem in the Rephaim Valley, in the area of modern-day
Manahat and the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo (e.g., Edelstein, Milevski, and Aurant 1998;
Eisenberg 1993b; Eisenberg and de Groot 2001; for a general summary, see now
Faust 2006). The formation of city-states such as Jerusalem during this period and
their control of the surrounding countryside laid the foundation for the political
and social structures that continued to influence the region during the following
periods. The limited finds from the late MB II and early LB in the City of David and
the presence of tombs of this period in the vicinity of Jerusalem make it difficult
to accept the suggestion that settlement in Jerusalem ceased following the 17th
century b.c.e. (e.g., Steiner 2001: 22; Franken 1989). There is no reason to assume
that the many advantages of settlement in Jerusalem, which were taken advantage
of throughout most periods from the 3rd millennium b.c.e. onward, would not be
utilized at a time when settlement in Canaan was at one of its peaks prior to the
classical periods and when most ecological niches throughout the country were
rather intensively utilized (e.g., Broshi and Gophna 1986). The cultural continuity
5. An as-yet unpublished fortified settlement of very impressive proportions has been recently
excavated at the village of Bittir/Kh. el-Yahud (ancient Betar ) by Y. Magen and S. Batz. This site,
previously excavated by Ussishkin (1993), is located ca. 4 km southwest of the MB II site in the
Rephaim Valley (Eisenberg 1993b). A full understanding of this fascinating site, its relationship to
other MB II sites in the region, and its implications for understanding MB II settlement in the cen-
tral hills in general and in Jerusalem in particular will have to await the publication of the finds.
In the meantime, the site has only been mentioned briefly in the Hebrew-language daily Haaretz
on 17/12/2006 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801792.html).
Offprint from:
between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze
Age, as seen particularly in the Dominus Flevit tomb (Saller 1964), hints at an ap-
parent lack of destruction in Jerusalem at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (see
also Cahill 2003: 26). Although many sites in the region were destroyed during the
transition between these two periods, this was not the case at all sites (e.g., Beth
Sheʾan; see Mazar 2003).
The Late Bronze Age

(ca. 1550–1200 b.c.e.)
The el-Amarna documents are the only historical source relating to Jerusalem
during the Late Bronze Age, 6 and they enable us to reconstruct the political status
of Jerusalem during this period. Nevertheless, their value is limited, because they
only inform us about the mid-14th century b.c.e, the time during which this ar-
chive was composed. Similarly, the archaeological finds do provide evidence for
the entire Late Bronze Age. However, given their inconsistent and chronologically
uneven nature, they only attest to specific moments during the entire period.
The archaeological record from the City of David from the first part of the period
(Late Bronze I: 1550–1400 b.c.e.) are quite limited (see Kenyon 1965: 13; cf. Steiner
2001: 24, who redated these finds; Tarler and Cahill 1992: 55; Cahill 2003: 27).
However, as mentioned above, the burials surrounding the city, even if the amount
of material is limited, indicate a continuous presence between the late Middle
Bronze and the Late Bronze Age I. This corresponds to the contemporary situation
throughout Canaan, with evidence for a general “crisis” during the transition be-
tween these two periods, regardless of the nature of arguments used in favor of this
crisis (see, e.g., Hoffmeier 1989; Dever 1990; Weinstein 1991; Naʾaman 1994). The
lack of evidence for destruction in Jerusalem (as well as in other locations) is indica-
tive of the incoherent development of settlements during this period.
The archaeological remains dating to the 14th century—that is, the second phase
of the Late Bronze Age—are of tremendous importance because they are contem-
poraneous with the Amarna archives, which include letters sent to Egypt by the
ruler of Jerusalem, Abdi-Hepa, as well as letters written by other contemporary rul-
ers who mention the city (see, e.g., Moran 1992: 325–34; Rainey and Ahituv 2000;
Goren et al. 2003: 265–69). 7
The most significant discovery on the City of David ridge from this period con-
sists of extensive building remains discovered during the course of the excavations
conducted by Kenyon and by Shiloh. The remains are located along the eastern
slope of the ridge (Kenyon’s Area A; Shiloh’s Area G) and included a series of stone
terraces. These terraces were originally thought to have functioned as substructures.
This theory was primarily based on the steepness of the slope and the assumption
6. See, e.g., Maeir 2000: 50–51 n. 73.

7. There is no reason to accept the suggestion that Urusalim as it appears in the Amarna texts
should not be identified with Late Bronze Age Jerusalem (e.g., Franken and Steiner 1992; Steiner
2001: 40). The similarity of the names (Urusalim/Jerusalem), the existence of relevant (albeit lim-
ited) archaeological remains, as well as no other logical geographical identification for this top-
onym, makes this suggestion untenable.
Offprint from:
180 Aren M. Maeir
that significant structures, such as the city’s fortress and palace, would have been
located at the highest spot. However, no traces of any such structure have been
uncovered.
Until recently, it was assumed that these terraces were contemporaneous with
the Amarna letters and that they constituted a definitive link tying the archaeologi-
cal and the historical evidence of the city together (e.g., Kenyon 1974: 95; Shiloh
1984: 13). Recently, scholars have begun to reassess the evidence and the sugges-
tion has been made that the structures are of a later date (e.g., Steiner 2001: 24–41;
Cahill 2003: 33–54), namely, the last phase of the Late Bronze Age or even the Iron
Age (see separate discussion of this below, pp. 192–193). As a result, these signifi-
cant building remains would have no connection with the Amarna documents and
do not date to the Late Bronze Age.
Other Late Bronze Age remains from the excavated areas around the City of Da-
vid are few in number. In Area E1 of Shiloh’s excavations, a small amount of Late
Bronze Age pottery was discovered (Shiloh 1984: 10) and a few other finds possibly
from the period have been reported (e.g., Macalister and Duncan 1926: 175).
However, evidence from the Late Bronze II has been found in a larger quantity
along the periphery of the city. On the eastern periphery, tombs that continued in
use from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age were found near the
Dominus Flevit Church on the Mount of Olives (Saller 1964: 196–97) and within
the area of Bethany (Saller 1964: 168–69; Vincent 1914: 439). To the south of the
city, on the Armon Hanatziv (Government House) hill, a hewn “cistern” with stairs
that contained pottery dating to the 14th century b.c.e. was uncovered (Baramki
1935). Although no evidence of burials was found in this context, it may very well
have served as a necropolis during this period. 8
Another tomb was discovered in the western part of the city, in the Nahlat Ahim
neighborhood, which is located between the Mahaneh Yehuda neighborhood and
the Knesset. The hewn-stone tomb was excavated during the 1930s (Maisler 1932–
33) but was not published until almost three decades later (Amiran 1960). The
tomb contained a rich assemblage of pottery vessels, including a large percentage
of imported Mycenaean (Myc IIIA) and Cypriote wares. Interestingly, typologically
this pottery has been dated to the 14th century b.c.e.—that is, to the time of the
Amarna archives. It should be stressed, however, that this tomb is located more
than 2.5 km from the City of David. Therefore, it remains questionable whether it
was used by the inhabitants of the city or by people living in its immediate vicinity,
either villagers or nomads.
G. Barkay (1990; 1996) suggested that an Egyptian temple existed in Jerusalem
during the Late Bronze Age, somewhere on the grounds of the École Biblique north
of the Damascus Gate. This hypothesis was based on various Egyptian objects re-
covered during the course of the last century and which are still in the Dominican
Monastery. Barkay suggested that these finds indicate the existence of an Egyptian
shrine built along the road between Jerusalem and Shechem and dating to the days
8. Note the similarity of this “cistern” to a similar pit found next to the Dominus Flevit Church
(see Saller 1964: 8–9).
Offprint from:
of the 19th Dynasty. This theory has been hotly debated (e.g., Wimmer 1990; 1998;
Geva 1991; 1992; Barkay 1991; 1992) and unfortunately, given the lack of conclu-
sive evidence, no definitive conclusion can be reached.
Based on the limited yet varied Late Bronze Age material in Jerusalem, we can
now attempt to reconstruct the city. In spite of the sparse remains, it is possible to
conclude that the majority of the material is located on the northern (Kenyon’s
Areas A and P [Steiner 2001: 24–41], Shiloh’s Area G [Shiloh 1984: 13]) and central
(Shiloh’s Area E1 [Shiloh 1984: 10]) areas of the City of David ridge. 9 It is thus quite
logical to assume that the settlement was approximately the size of the earlier,
Middle Bronze Age site. Nevertheless, given the limited finds from this period, it is
hardly prudent to assume very much about the character of the site during the Late
Bronze Age. There was most likely some sort of settlement in Jerusalem, but it was
relatively small. Jerusalem was neither large nor flourishing; it was instead a small
and peripheral site. Nonetheless, the evidence from the Amarna archives suggests
that in spite of its reduced size, the city played an important role in the geopolitical
scene of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age. Either existing structures and other
material have not survived or, more likely, even a relatively small and seemingly
insignificant settlement could have played the role of a political center of some
importance on the local Canaanite scene (see, e.g., Naʾaman 1996; see, e.g., Steiner
2001: 40–41 for a different opinion).
The identity of the population of Jerusalem during the Iron Age is an interesting
subject. Although it is most logical to assume that the inhabitants of the city were
Canaanites, some scholars have suggested that the Jebusites lived in Jerusalem dur-
ing the Late Bronze Age, a theory that is based on the biblical text 10 (e.g., Kenyon
1974: 81–97; Abramski 1985). If the Jebusites were an ethnic group that did indeed
exist, it would be more sensible to assume that they were a group who arrived in the
region during the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age, a time of major
changes in the entire Near East. Accordingly, the Jebusites should be seen as one of
the peoples that came from the general area of the then-declining Hittite Empire
and settled in the southern Levant (see, e.g., Mazar 1975: 24–25; Reed 1992). Al-
though an interesting theory, it should be stressed that there is no archaeological
evidence indicating that a foreign population reached Jerusalem during the Late
Bronze Age. 11
Despite the fact that there is hardly any concrete evidence dating to the Late
Bronze Age in the City of David, and there is even less evidence for continuity be-
tween the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, Hess (1989) has noted the possibility
of stylistic parallels between the Jerusalem Amarna correspondence and the Book
9. Although the “stepped-stone structure” and related elements had previously been dated to
the Late Bronze Age, the currently available evidence does not support this. For updated discus-
sions of this issue, see Cahill 2003: 33–54; below, pp. 189ff.).
10. Note, of course, the suggestions that Jebus and Jerusalem are two different locations. See:
Miller 1974; Franken and Steiner 1992, which, like the suggestion negating a connection between
Urusalim and Jerusalem, is hard to accept in light of the available evidence (see above, n. 7).
11. For a more extensive discussion of the origin and identity of the Jebusites, as well as the
difficulty of identifying them in the archaeological record, see, e.g., Maeir 2000: 59–61.
Offprint from:
182 Aren M. Maeir
of Psalms. This may hint at both the continuation of scribal (and other cultural)
traditions and at the presence of the same population in Jerusalem between the
Late Bronze and Iron Ages.
Summary
In this chapter, I have made an attempt briefly to survey the archaeological ma-
terial from Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings between the Chalcolithic
period and the Late Bronze Age and to relate it to the very limited historical evi-
dence from the same period. Although the finds are sparse, they are paramount in
our understanding of the city and its place in recorded history. The archaeological
material, along with the available historical data, helps us create a picture––albeit
incomplete––of the city’s early history, from its origins in the late prehistoric period
until the end of the Bronze Age. Although much has yet to be learned, the evidence
does serve as a backdrop for the study of Jerusalem in later periods, when the his-
torical and archaeological evidence are more abundant.
References
Abramski, S.
1985 The Attitude towards the Amorites and Jebusites in the Book of Samuel: Historical
Foundation and Ideological Significance. Zion 50: 27–58. [Hebrew]
Aharoni, Y.
1979 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2d ed., trans. A. F. Rainey. Philadel-
phia: Westminster.
Albright, W.
1930–31 Excavations at Jerusalem. Jewish Quarterly Review 21: 164–66.
Amiran, R.
1960 A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem. Eretz Israel 6: 25–37,
27*. [Hebrew with English abstract]
Anonymous
1969 Khalet el-Ful I. Hadashot Archeologiyot 28–29: 21. [Hebrew]
Ariel, D.
1990 Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, Glass: Excavations
at the City of David, 1978–1985, vol. 2. Qedem. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.
Baramki, D. C.
1935 An Ancient Cistern in the Grounds of Government House, Jerusalem. Quarterly of
the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4: 165–67.
Barkay, G.
1990 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem? Eretz Israel 21: 94–106, 104*.
[Hebrew, with English summary]
1992 Review of H. Geva, Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 95–96: 127–28. [Hebrew]
1996 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem? Israel Exploration Journal 46/1–2:
23–43.
Biggs, R
1992 Ebla Texts. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2: 263–70. New York: Doubleday.
Broshi, M., and Gophna R.
1984 The Settlements and Population of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age II–III.
BASOR 253: 41–53.
1986 Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. BASOR 261: 73–90.
Offprint from:
Cahill, J. M.
2003 Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy. Pp. 13–80 in Jerusalem in Bible and
Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. Vaughn and A. Killebrew. Society of Bib-
lical Literature Symposium Series 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Cohen, S.
2002 Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Ca-
naan to Middle Kingdom Egypt. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant
3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Crowfoot Payne, J.
1995 The Chipped Stone from Kenyon’s Excavations in Jerusalem: Notes on the Flint
Implements. Pp. 253–57 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, IV:
The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries
Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dever, W. G.
1987a Funerary Practices in EB IV (MB I) Palestine: A Study in Cultural Discontinuity.
Pp. 9–19 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H.
Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters.
1987b The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeolo-
gist 50: 148–77.
1990 “Hyksos,” Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze
Age. Levant 22: 75–81
1995 Social Structure in the Early Bronze IV Period in Palestine. Pp. 282–96 in The Ar-
chaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. Levy. London: Leicester University Press.
Edelstein, G., and Milevski, I.
1994 The Rural Settlement of Jerusalem Re-evaluated: Surveys and Excavations in the
Rephaʾim Valley and Mevasseret Yerushalayim. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 126:
2–23.
Edelstein, G., Milevski, I., and Aurant. S.
1998 The Rephaim Valley Project: Villages, Terraces, and Stone Mounds: Excavations at
Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989. IAA Reports No. 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
Authority.
Eisenberg, E.
1993a A Settlement from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age I at Moza. ʿAtiqot 22:
41–48.
1993b Nahal Rephaim: A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem. Qadmoniot
26(103–4): 82–95. [Hebrew]
Eisenberg, E., and de Groot, A.
2001 Jerusalem and its Environs in the Middle Bronze II Period. Pp. 7–12, 5* in New
Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference, ed. A. Faust and E. Baruch.
Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
[Hebrew with English abstract]
Epstein, C.
1975 The Dolmen Problem in Light of Recent Excavations. Eretz Israel 12: 1–8. [Hebrew
with English summary]
1985 Dolmens Excavated in the Golan. ʿAtiqot 17: 20–58.
Faust, A.
2006 Jerusalem’s Countryside during the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 7–20, 7* in New Stud-
ies on Jerusalem, vol. 12, ed. E. Baruch and A. Faust. Ingeborg Rennert Center for
Jerusalem Studies. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. [Hebrew with English abstract]
Offprint from:
184 Aren M. Maeir
Franken, H.
2005 A History of Pottery and Pottery in Ancient Jerusalem: Excavations by K. M. Kenyon
in Jerusalem 1961–1967. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology. London:
Equinox.
Franken, H., and Steiner, M.
1992 Ursualim and Jebus. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104: 110–11.
Gerstenblith, P.
1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. American Schools of Oriental
Research Dissertation Series 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, for the American
Schools of Oriental Research.
Geva, H.
1991 Review of D. Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 93–94: 62–64.
[Hebrew]
1992 A response to G. Barkay. Qadmoniot 95–96: 128. [Hebrew]
Gibson, S., and Rowan, Y.
2006 The Chalcolithic in the Central Highlands of Palestine: A Reassessment based on a
New Examination of Khirbet es-Sauma’a. Levant 38: 85–108.
Gonen, R.
1985 On Ancient Tombs and Holy Places: The Cave of Machpela and the Temple Mount.
Cathedra 34: 3–14. [Hebrew]
Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I, and Naʾaman, N.
2003 Inscribed in Clay I: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Near Eastern Texts.
Monographs Series of the Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Greenhut, Z.
1995 EB IV Tombs and Burials in Palestine. Tel Aviv 22: 3–46.
Gressmann, H.
1907 Ein prähistorisches Grab auf dem Grundstück der Kaiserin Auguste Viktoria Stif-
tung bei Jerusalem. Palästina Jahrbuch 3: 72–5.
Hänsler, H.
1909 Archäologisches aus Jerusalem. Das Heilige Land 53: 33–6.
Hess, R. S.
1989 Hebrew Psalms and the Amarna Correspondence from Jerusalem: Some Compari-
sons and Implications. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125: 125–42.
Hoffmeier, J. K.
1989 Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Pales-
tine. Levant 21: 181–93.
Ilan, D.
1995 The Dawn of Internationalism: The Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 297–319 in The Archae-
ology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press.
Joffe, A.
1993 Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I & II Southern Levant: Complementarity
and Contradiction in a Small-Scale Complex Society. Monographs in Mediterranean
Archaeology 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Kenyon, K.
1963 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1962. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 95: 7–21.
1974 Digging up Jerusalem. New York: Praeger.
Loffreda, S.
1974 La Tomba No 3 presso le Suore della Nigrizia Betania. Liber Annuus 5: 143.
Macalister, R., and Duncan, J.
1926 Excavations on the Hill of the Ophel, Jerusalem. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Offprint from:
Mader, P.
1927 Neue dolmenfunde in Wespalästina. Journal of Palestine Oriental Society 7: 95–107.
Maeir, A. M.
1989 A Note on a Little-Known Egyptian Statue from Jerusalem. Gottinger Miszellen 110:
35–40.
2000 Jerusalem before King David: An Archaeological Survey from Protohistoric Times
to the End of the Iron Age I. Pp. 33–66 in The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Pe-
riod, ed. S. Ahituv and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. [Hebrew]
2002 Perspectives on the Early MB II Period in the Jordan valley. Pp. 261–67 in The
Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA
Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Contributions
to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3.Vienna: Österreichischen Akad-
emie der Wissenschaften.
Maeir, A. M., Yellin, J, and Goren, Y.
1992 A Re-Evaluation of the Red and Black Bowl from Parker’s Excavations in Jerusalem.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 39–53.
Maisler, B.
1932–33 Cypriote Pottery at a Tomb-Cave in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literature 49: 248–53.
Mallon, A.
1928 Jérusalem et les documents égyptiens. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 8: 5–6.
Matthiae, P.
1980 Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, trans. C. Holme. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
1982 Recent Discoveries at Ebla. Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3: 8.
Mazar, A.
1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 b.c.e. The Anchor Bible Reference
Library. New York: Doubleday.
2003 Beth Shean in the Second Millennium b.c.e: From Canaanite Town to Egyptian
Stronghold. Pp. 323–39 in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Med-
iterranean in the second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000—Euro-
Conference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band 29. Vi-
enna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mazar, B.
1975 Jerusalem in Biblical Times. Pp. 11–44 in Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Exploration Society. [Hebrew]
Mazar, E.
1987 Jerusalem—The Ophel 1986. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5: 56–58.
2006 The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Second Millennium bce in Light of the New
Excavations in the City of David. Pp. 21–28, 8*–9* in New Studies on Jerusalem, vol.
12, ed. E. Baruch and A. Faust. Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies.
Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. [Hebrew with English abstract]
2007 The Excavations in the City of David 2005: The Visitor’s Center. Preliminary Report.
Jerusalem: Shoham. [Hebrew]
Miller, J.
1974 Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-
Vereins 90: 115–27.
Moran, W. L., ed. and trans.
1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Muhly, J.
1983 Ur and Jerusalem Not Mentioned in Ebla Texts, say Ebla Expedition Scholars. Bibli-
cal Archaeology Review 9: 74–5.
Offprint from:
186 Aren M. Maeir
Naʾaman, N.
1992 Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second Millen-
nium b.c.e. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–91.
1994 The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 26: 175–87.
1996 The Contribution of the Amarna letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Posi-
tion in the Tenth Century b.c.e. BASOR 304: 17–27.
Palumbo, G.
1990 The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant: Settlement Patterns, Economy, and
Material Culture of a ‘Dark Age.’ Contributi e Materiali di Archaeologia Orientale 3.
Rome: Universitá degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”.
Pettinato, G.
1976 The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla. Biblical Archaeologist 39: 44–52.
Prag, K.
1991 An Early Middle Bronze Burial in Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 123:
129–32.
1995 The Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age Cemetery on the Mount of Ol-
ives. Pp. 221–41 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967: IV. The Iron
Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere,
ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rainey, Z., and S. Ahituv
2000 Addendum: Letters from Jerusalem in the El-Amarna Archive. Pp. 23–32 in The
History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period, ed. S. Ahituv and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi. [Hebrew]
Reed, S.
1992 Jebus. Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3: 652–53. New York: Doubleday.
Reich, R.
1987 Four Notes on Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 37: 158–67.
Reich, R., and Shukron, E.
2004 The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. Levant 36: 211–23.
Rowe, A.
1936 A Catalogue of the Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine
Archaeological Museum. Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale.
Saʾad, Y.
1964 A Bronze Age Tomb Group from Hablet el Amud, Silwan. Annual of the Department
of Antiquities of Jordan 8–9: 77–80.
Saller, S. J.
1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem), Part II: The Jebusite Burial
Place. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Jerusalem: Franciscan.
1984 La Tomba No 4 del Bronzo Medio IIB a Betania. Liber Annuus 34: 357–70.
Seligman, J.
1993 Excavations in the Pisgat Zeʾev Neighborhood in Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 103–4:
109–13. [Hebrew]
1995 Shaft Tombs of the Early Bronze Age IV at Pisgat Zeʾev (Ras Abu-Maʾaruf)—Jerusa-
lem. ʿAtiqot 27: 191–97.
Shiloh, Y.
1984 Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons.
Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.
1985 Notes and News: Jerusalem, City of David, 1984. Israel Exploration Journal 35:
65–67.
Offprint from:
Smith, R.
1970 A MB II Tomb from the Vicinity of Jerusalem. Annual of the Department of Antiqui-
ties of Jordan 15: 17–20.
Steiner, M.
1988 Letter to the Editor. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 203–4.
2001 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron
Ages. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Sylvester, F., and Saller, J.
1957 Excavations at Bethany. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Jerusalem:
Franciscan Press.
Tarler, D., and. Cahill, J. M. .
1992 David, City of. In Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2: 52–67. New York: Doubleday.
Ussishkin, D.
1993 Archaeological Soundings at Betar, Bar-Kochba’s Last Stronghold. Tel Aviv 20:
66–97.
Vincent, L.
1911 Jerusalem sous terre: les recentes fouilles d’ophel. London: H. Cox.
1914 Un Hypogée cananéen à Bethanie. Revue Biblique 23: 438–41.
Vincent, L., and Steve, M.
1954–56 Jérusalem de l’ancien Testament I–III. Paris: Gabalda.
Vinitzky, L.
1992 The Date of the Dolmens in the Golan and the Galilee: A Reassessment. Tel Aviv 19:
100–12.
Warren, C., and Conder, C. R.
1884 The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Weinstein, J. M.
1991 Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine. Levant 23:
105–15.
Wimmer, S.
1990 Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai. Pp. 1065–1106 in Studies in Egyptology Pre-
sented to Miriam Lichtheim, vol. 2, ed. S. Israelit-Groll. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1998 (No) More Egyptian temples in Canaan and Sinai. Pp. 87–123 In Jerusalem Studies
in Egyptology, ed. I. Shirun-Grumach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yassine, K.
1985 The Dolmens: Construction and Dating Reconsidered. BASOR 259: 63–69.
Offprint from:

Maeir A. M. 2011. The Archaeology of Ear

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maeir A. M. 2011. The Archaeology of Ear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Archaeology of Early Jerusalem:

From the Late Proto-Historic Periods (ca. 5th Millennium)

The Chalcolithic Period

The Early Bronze Age

Middle Bronze Age I/Early Bronze Age IV

Middle Bronze Age II

appearance intricately connected with social, economic, and political develop-

The Late Bronze Age

6. See, e.g., Maeir 2000: 50–51 n. 73.

You might also like