Comments on: First Temple period wall found in Jerusalem

By: Leen Ritmeyer

Leen Ritmeyer — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:18:56 +0000

I will soon reply to your query in a blog post.

By: Arthur Chrysler

Arthur Chrysler — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:23:23 +0000

Greetings,
The Large Tower, explored by Warren and one hundred years later by Dame Kenyon, is constructed of stones of the character identified as Phoenician at Samaria. The header-and-stretcher construction is also identified as Phoenician at Samaria. Kenyon stated, “The date of these earliest walls, on the basis of the deposits against them, is, on the field estimate of the pottery, eighth century B.C. OR EARLIER (Digging up Jerusalem p.115). She also states in the caption under pl. 38, “Wall in Site S II on eastern crest of eastern ridge, which can be STRATIGRAPHICALLY dated to 8th century B.C….”. This area of Jerusalem is not a Tel! You cannot stratigraphically date anything here. This unique topography, consisting of a steep slope with exposed bedrock demands unique methodology. Kenyon states that, “Close at hand, there was a wall of the time of Solomon, from which the builders of the eighth century B.C. derived their stones”. King Hezekiah had a unique style of construction as seen in the Broad Wall, the Outer Wall, and his section of wall cutting across the Jebusite angle above the Gihon Spring. None of these examples give a hint of header-and-stretcher characteristics. Why would Hezekiah go through the trouble of re-stacking Solomon’s massive stones to move the tower only a few meters? Kenyon used the dating method that she was familiar with but it led her to the wrong conclusion regarding the tower here. The tower is certainly Solomonic and the connected wall and the Golden Gate, all of which display Identical characteristics.

By: Seth Sanders

Seth Sanders — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:53:59 +0000

Yes, efi, if you are able, please ask Eilat about the epigraphic material that *was* found under the floor. Without being clear about the relationship between finds and contexts it is impossible to even begin to judge the significance of the discoveries.

By: Leen Ritmeyer

Leen Ritmeyer — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:46:06 +0000

It would have been helpful if the facts had been stated clearly.

By: efi

efi — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:30:16 +0000

If these seals came from under the floors then you are right – problem is that they did not (E. Mazar, per. comm.). You cannot just throw out hypothesis about the location of finds without knowing the facts.

By: Seth Sanders

Seth Sanders — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:31:05 +0000

If the lmlk seals depicted on the Hebrew U facebook page were found as fill under the lowest floors in an undisturbed context then those floors are 8th century at the absolute earliest. Just look at the script–it’s not difficult.

By: First Temple Period gate and wall « Ferrell’s Travel Blog

First Temple Period gate and wall « Ferrell’s Travel Blog — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:22:01 +0000

[...] Bolen (here and here and here) and Leen Ritmeyer (here and here) point out that, in spite of the news release, this excavation goes back many years. Dr. Eilat [...]

By: Mazar Re-excavates Old Wall, Announces New Dating « Luke Chandler's Blog

Mazar Re-excavates Old Wall, Announces New Dating « Luke Chandler's Blog — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:19:36 +0000

[...] B.C., the United Kingdom period. Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, an expert on Jerusalem through the ages, has two different posts with his initial [...]

By: A Truly Unique Talent « Searching for Authenticity

A Truly Unique Talent « Searching for Authenticity — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:01:01 +0000

[...] #3: Leen Ritmeyer, who can hardly be accused of minimalism, shares his thoughts and experience regarding the [...]

By: Leen Ritmeyer

Leen Ritmeyer — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:17:27 +0000

That is useful to know. Thanks!