The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh

Author(s): M. BROSHI
Source: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1974), pp. 21-26
Published by: Israel Exploration Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27925434
Accessed: 22-12-2017 10:04 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Israel Exploration Journal

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns
of Hezekiah and Manasseh*
. R O S HI
Israel Museum, Jerusalem

The excavations conducted in the last six years in the Old City of Jerusalem have
helped to solve a long-standing problem, the extent of the city of Jerusalem under
the Divided Monarchy.1 The discovery of N. Avigad's wall in the Jewish Quarter, the
evidence adduced in the work conducted by B. Mazar, Ruth Amiran and A. Eitan, and
the author, as well as the re-appraisal of previous excavations, have shown that down to
the eighth century b.c. Jerusalem was confined to the Lower City, the Ophel and the
Temple Mount. It was only during the last hundred or so years of the First Temple
period that it spread to the Upper City. Admittedly, the chronological and historical
evidence is still incomplete, but one can claim with certainty that around 700 b.c.
the city had expanded to three to four times its former size. This growth cannot be
explained by natural population increase or by normal economic growth. We shall
try to prove in this article that the main reasons behind this expansion was the immi
gration of Israelites who came to Judah from the Northern Kingdom after the fall
of Samaria in 721 b.c., and the influx of dispossessed refugees from the territories
that Sennacherib took from Judah and gave to the Philistine cities.
A series of rock-cut tombs was discovered by Mazar's excavations west of the
south-western corner of the Temple Mount, i.e. on the slopes of the Upper City.2
The architecture of the tombs and a hoard of some 250 pottery vessels found in one
of them indicate that the cemetery was in use during the eighth century b.c. This is
clear proof that the Western Hill was still uninhabited at that time. It is quite improb
able that any cemetery, except the royal cemetery (located in the City of David),
was included within the city limits. Avigad's excavations uncovered a broad wall,

* This is a revised and expanded version of a paper read at the Sixth World Congress of Jewish
Studies (Jerusalem, August 1973).
1 The debate up to 1954 over the extent of biblical Jerusalem is summarized clearly and with ample
bibliography by M. Avi-Yonah: The Walls of Nehemiah, a Minimalist View, IEJ 4 (1954), pp. 239
if.The main contribution since then, up to the recent archaeological activity following the Six Days'
War, is that of Prof. Kathleen M. Kenyon. Prof. Kenyon has succeeded in defining the limits of the
Ophel, the 'City of David'. It is quite significant that her Jerusalem, London, 1967, includes maps of
the city at the times of David (p. 29), Solomon (p. 57) and Nehemiah (p. 109), but none of Hezekiah's
or Manasseh's.
2 B. Mazar: Finds from the Archaeological Excavations near the Temple Mount (Jerusalem City
Museum Catalogue), Jerusalem, 1973, pp. 58-59. Idem, Qadmoniot 5 (1972), pp. 88-90 (Hebrew).

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
22 m. broshi

6.4-7.2 m wide.3 Although only 40 m of this wall have been exposed,4 it seems that
the reconstruction of its length is based on sound topographical and archaeological
considerations. An important discovery is the Iron Age c structure under this wall.
Not only does it help in establishing the date of the wall, but also it proves that urban
expansion preceded the building of the wall.5 Contemporary structures have been
discovered in most of the areas excavated by Avigad in the Jewish Quarter.6
A series of excavations conducted west of Avigad's wall proves that the city also
had an extensive unwalled suburb, or suburbs. Israelite remains have been found in
every excavation carried out along the western edge of the Upper City, above the
slope descending to the Valley of Hinnom. In the Citadel, Amiran and Eitan discovered
five Israelite floors datable to the seventh century b.c.7 In the Armenian Garden,
seventh-century deposits were found by Kathleen M. Kenyon and A. D. Tushingham
(AreaL)8, and by D.Bahat and M.Broshi.9 Large quantities of late Iron Age pottery were
found in the fill of the platform on which Herod's palace was built.10 If our conjecture
is correct that the dimensions of this platform were 330 x 130 m (1000 400podes)119
the fill should be estimated at least 100,000 m3. It stands to reason that this huge
amount of earth was taken from nearby Iron Age strata, another argument in favour
of the existence of an extensive Israelite suburb in this neighbourhood.12 During
the author's excavations on Mount Zion at the court of the Armenian church (the

3 . Avigad: Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1970, IEJ 20 (1970),
pp. 129 if.
4 N. Avigad: Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971, IEJ 22 (1972),
pp. 193 ff. According to our reconstruction the length of this wall should have been about 1800
2000 m. Thus only 2% of its length has been unearthed. See ibid., p. 195, Fig. 2.
5 Avigad, op. cit. (above, n. 3), p. 30.
6 N. Avigad: Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, IEJ 20 (1970), p. 5:
'This period is represented wherever the terra rosa and the rock surface was reached. Various
remains of walls and floors were associated with pure deposits of Israelite pottery... dating ap
proximately to the seventh century b.c.' Cf. also Avigad, ibid., pp. 8, 129-134, 139; idem, IEJ 22,
(1972), pp. 193-197.
7 Ruth Amiran and A. Eitan, IEJ 20 (1970), pp. 10-11. On Johns' wall, which we ascribe to Iron
Age il, see QDAP 14 (1950), pp. 130-131. This wall is tangential to the tower of Phasael (A on plan,
Fig. 23, after p. 162; section in Fig. 5, left, p. 127) and is dated to the Hellenistic period. It could
only be ascribed with certainty to the Iron Age n. The deposits on both of its sides could be late
accumulations of debris. The wall's proximity to the rock and its alignment point to quite an early
date. I owe this observation to Mrs. Yael Israeli.
8 A. D. Tushingham, PEQ 99 (?967), p. 72; 100 (1968), p. 109. To this period belong several walls
and floors that do not add up to a building plan (oral communication from Dr. Tushingham,
Summer 1973).
9 D. Bahat and M. Broshi, IEJ 22 (1972), p. 172.
10 D. Bahat, ffadashot Arkheologiyot 38 (1971), pp. 15-16; M. Broshi, ibid., 40 (1971), pp. 19-20
(Hebrew); Ruth Amiran and A. Eitan, IEJ 22 (1972), pp. 50-51.
11 M. Broshi, Qadmoniot 5 (1973), pp. 103, 107 (Hebrew).
12 Iron Age material found by Johns in the Citadel seems to belong to the same fill. See C. N.
Johns, QDAP 14 (1950), p. 130, Fig. 6, PI. lvii:1-2.

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 expansion of jerusalem under hezekiah and manasseh 23

traditional site of the House of Caiphas), numerous Iron Age nc finds were un
earthed: pottery, figurines, weights, etc. The best evidence for occupation in this
period is locus 206; on the very typical lime plaster floor a dozen complete pottery
vessels were found.13 Other Israelite remains were found on Mount Zion during
Hamilton's small-scale excavations near the Bishop Gobat School14 and in the ex
tensive pioneer work of F. J. Bliss and A. C. Dickie.15 Unfortunately, Bliss and Dickie
did not specify the exact location and stratigraphical context of their Iron Age finds.
However, what matters for our discussion is the fact that their provenance is the
Upper City, the slopes of Mount Zion.16
The above evidence makes it clear that Jerusalem at about 700 b.c. had mush
roomed, historically speaking, overnight. The new wall apparently surrounded only
part of the city; when estimating its total area, one should take into account the un
walled suburbs to the west and probably to the north as well. In comparing the
expansion of the city at its various stages, one is struck by the rapid growth from the
44 dunams of David's city17 and the 130-180 dunams of the eighth-century city to
the 500-600 dunams18 of the seventh century b.c.19 (In Fig. 1, which should be re
garded as an inexact estimation, the areas are 130 dunams for the eighth century
and 570 [not including the unwalled suburbs] for the seventh century b.c.)
This expansion cannot be explained by mere demographic or economic growth;
nor was it a gradual process. During the quarter millennium after King Solomon's
reign, the city changed very little, but around 700 b.c. it increased to three or four
times its former size. No economic factor could have necessitated a concentration
of 24,000 people in Jerusalem, when the city of the eighth century must have num

13 See my forthcoming report in IEJ.

14 R. W. Hamilton, PEFQSt 68 (1935), p. 142 and reference to his work in 1939-1940 in C. N.
Johns, QDAP 14 (1950), p. 152, n. 4.
15 See the reference in Johns, ibid., p. 152, n. 3.
16 Prof. Kenyon's excavations on the lower slopes of Mt. Zion (sites b, d, d2, e, f) proved, in her
opinion, that 'there was no occupation in this area until the first century a.D.* See Kenyon, op. cit.
(above, n. 1), p. 27. It seems that the negative results obtained in Kenyon's soundings are due to the
samll size of the area excavated.
17 Kenyon, ibid., p. 30.
is The uncertainty is due mainly to the fact that it is difficult to establish the northern limit of the
city at that time. Did the northern limit run along David street (Jarik Bab es-Silsileh) or did it
extend to the north-western top of the Temple Mount? Considering Herod's levelling operations at
the northern Temple Mount it is doubtful whether we will ever know the history of this area.
Kenyon's excavation at site c tends to show, however, that the city extended to the north of the
minimalist line. See Kenyon, ibid., pp. 151-152 and the plan on p. 145. Close to Kenyon's site c,
under the Church of the Redeemer, a large amount of Israelite material was found in a fill. See Ute
Lux, ZDPVU (1972), pp. 191-194.
19 The radical change in our conception can be gauged by comparing our plan to a plan published
recently by E. Vogt: Das Wachstum des alten Stadtgebietes von Jerusalem, Biblica 48 (1967), pp.
377-358 and the plan after p. 358. Vogt's 'bigger city' was an area of only about 200 dunam's.

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
24 M. BROSHI

Fig. 1. Recent excavations in which Iron Age nc finds were discovered:

1, tombs (Mazar) ; 2, Kathleen M. Kenyon's site c ; 3, Church of the
Redeemer (Ute Lux) ; 4. Avigad's wall ; 5. the Citadel (Johns, Ruth
Amiran and Eitan) ; 6, the Armenian Garden (Bahat and Broshi) ;
7, the Armenian Garden (Kathleen M. Kenyon - Tushingham site l) ;
8, 'House of Caiaphas' (Broshi).

bered only 6000-8000.20 There are no indications that Judea enjoyed any substantial
income from foreign commerce at that peiiod. The international trade routes passed
through Trans-Jordan (the trade with Arabia) and Philistia (Arabia and Egypt);
few, if any, went through the Kingdom of Judah.21 The Judean economy was basically

20 An average of 40-50 people per dunam (1000 m2) seems a reasonable estimate. See H. Frankfort:
Town Planning Review 21 (1950), p. 103. For comparison it should be remembered that the sparsely
populated Jerusalem in the beginning of the 19th century a.d. had only 6000-7000 citizens. See
S. Avitzur in Perakim be-Toldot Ha- YishuvHa- Yehudi Birushalayim, Jerusalem, 1973, p. 12 (Hebrew).
21 M. Eilat: Tribute and Booty in the Economy of the Countries in the Near East at the Time of the

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 expansion of jerusalem under hezekiah and manasseh 25

self-sufficient. In our opinion the growth was due to two waves of mass immigrat
one from the northern kingdom of Israel after 721 b.c., and the other from the J
provinces ceded by Sennacherib to the Philistines after 701 b.c.
The predacious rule of the Assyrians that brought about the sharp decline o
formerly Israelite provinces might have caused a mass immigration to the so
The decline is felt in every site excavated between Dan and Bethel. Some of
Israelite towns had been reduced and impoverished (e.g. Dan, Hazor and Shiq
and some were destroyed and abandoned (e.g. Ein-Gev and Beth Shean).23
quite reasonable to assume that the reduction in the population of these place
be explained by forced exile and by emigration of people seeking refuge in indepen
Judah.2*
The second wave of immigration was composed of Judeans uprooted from their
villages and towns when their lands were given by Sennacherib to the Philistine
city-states.
Thus said Sennacherib: 'His [Hezekiah's] cities which I have despoiled I cut off
from his land and to Mitinti King of Ashdod, Padi King of Ekron and Sillibel King
of Gaza I gave' (the OI prism inscription, col. , 1.31 ff.). In the Bulls inscription (1.30)
the King of Ashkelon is also mentioned, together with the other three Philistine
kings.25
We find it difficult to agree with Alt's extreme view that Sennacherib reduced
Judah to the bare limits of the city-state of Jerusalem, the dynastic inheritance.26 (The
same data allowed various scholars to make other suggestions.27) However, there is no
doubt that Sennacherib's claim have reduced his land' (the Bulls inscription) is
no idle boast. Even if those territories were reclaimed by Manasseh or Josiah, we
must assume a considerable immigration eastward at about 701 b.c.
It seems that many of the immigrants from the northern provinces and from the
west settled in Jerusalem,28 and in other parts of Judah as well. The survey conducted

Kingdom of Israel (Ph. D.Dissertation,The Hebrew University), Jerusalem, 1971, Chapter xvi (Hebrew).
22 I was happy to learn that Prof. A. Maiamat arrived independently at the same conclusion.
23 E. Stern, Qadmoniot 6 (1973), pp. 5-6 (Hebrew).
24 It is tempting to relate Chron. 9:3 to our period: 'And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children
of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh'. How
ever, it is quite clear that this and the follwing verses reflect the restoration at the beginning of the
Second Temple period and have a strong affiliation with Neh. 9. See W. Rudolph: Chronikb?cher,
T?bingen, 1955, p. 83; J. M. Myers: Chronicles, Garden City, 1965, p. 76. Could it be that those
children of Ephraim and Manasseh are descendants of residents of Jerusalem in the seventh cen
tury b.c.?
25 D. D. Luckenbill: The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago, 1924, p. 33 (= AN ET p. 288) and p. 70.
26 A. Alt, PJB 25 (1929), pp. 80-88 (= Kleine Schriften, , M?nchen, 1953, pp. 242-249). Alt's
view was also held by M. Noth: Geschichte Israels, G?ttingen, 19563, p. 243.
2? E.g. H. L. Ginsberg (following . Elliger): Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, New York, 1950,
pp. 349-351.
28 Could it be because of the Isaianic theology that claimed that Jerusalem is inviolable?

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 26 M. BROSffl

by Kochavi in the Judean hills established that 22 out of the 54 Iron Age set
tlements (i.e. 40%) were founded in the last century of the First Temple period.29
In fact, since some of the earlier sites were deserted, the proportion of sites founded
in the seventh century is even higher, almost 50%. The same intensive settlement
activity is attested in other parts of the kingdom of Judah in the Negev,30 in the
Judean Desert31 and along the Dead Sea.32 Indeed, the consensus of scholarly
opinion is that most of those places were founded in the eighth or even the ninth
century b.c.33 Undoubtedly, much of this colonization activity is to be attributed to
the seventh century, like the founding of En Gedi, which Mazar dates to the time of
Josiah, around 630 b.c.34 Both the expansion of Jerusalem and the intensive coloni
zation of Judea should be attributed mainly to the population increase due to the
immigration from the Kingdom of Israel and the western provinces of Judah.

29 M. Kochavi (ed.): Judaea, Samaria and the G o?an, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968, Jerusalem,
1972, p. 20 and the folded map (Hebrew).
30 Y. Aharoni: The Land of the Bible, Philadelphia, 1967, pp. 259-297.
31 P. Bar-Adon, in Kochavi (above, n. 29), pp. 93-94.
32 R. de Vaux: Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, London, 1973, pp. 1 if., 48, 58 f., 83, 92 f.
33 Ibid., p. 94.
34 . Mazar et al.: En-Gedi, The First and Second Seasons of Excavations, 1961-1962, 'Atiqot
(English Series) 5 (1966), p. 38. It ought to be remembered that in many cases we lack adequate
criteria to differentiate between the eighth and the seventh centuries b.c. An illuminating case is
the extended argument over whether the date of the destruction of stratum hi in Lachish is 701 or
587. Cf. Stern, op. cit. (above, n. 23), p. 10 : '... the difficulty rises from the absence of a dividing
line between the pottery of the eighth and the pottery of the seventh centuries b.c., as they are
pretty similar in ware, forms and decoration'.

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:04:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms