investigating jerusalem's rural landscape

Levant, Vol. XVII (1985)

INVESTIGATING JERUSALEM'S RURAL LANDSCAPE

by Shimon Gibson and Gershon Edelstein

Since 1980 a systematic archaeological survey,complemented by a series of trial excavations, hasbeen conducted in the hills around Jerusalem. Thefundamental aim of this survey, apart from theconventional mapping and recording of archaeo-logical remains, has been to clarify the distributionand character of ancient rural settlements, and thetechnological development of agricultural landscapefeatures. In addition to this, we were also interested inaccurnulating data concerning the layout of ancientroad systems and the early utilization of naturalresources. Previous investigations into the peripheralareas of Jerusalem, since the well- known Survey ifWestern Palestine in the late nineteenth century, hadbeen mainly limited to the study- of specific isolatedfeatures (e.g. small settlements, individual buildings,tombs and aqueducts), but little attempt had beennlade to place their location within the overall contextof the human landscape. Hence, an important aspectof our survey was the attempt to study the overalldistribution and patterning of the cultural and ruralfeatures, as an integral part in illuminating the general

configuration of ancient Jerusalem's human environ-ment. The initial results from the survey have alreadyprovided us with a clearer picture of the reciprocalbalance which existed between the rural landscape andthe city of Jerusalem. 1

The Agricultural Farm

The most obvious of human modifications to thelandscape surrounding Jerusalem are the innumerableagricultural terraces, which were built on the slopes ofhills and in the valleys. When we began plotting theterraces in the field, using surveying methods andaerial photographs, it became clear that each terracedzone was subdivided into many separate units whichwere delineated by boundary walls (PI. IX A). In someareas, especially to the west of Jerusalem, theseterraced units are not so well defined as they originallymust have been, due to considerable re-modelling andexpansion throughout the periods. This is one of thebasic problems that hinder estimating the extent ofland-use around Jerusalem during different periods.

Pl. IX A. Aerial photograph of the Repha'im Valley with 'Ein Yalu in the ce~tre, Khirbet er-Ras to the left and the Early Bronze IV site to the right (a BritishR.A.F. aerial photographfrom 1935).

I For the preliminary results concerning our work: see Edelsteinand Kislev Ig81; Edelstein and Gat Ig80-81; Edelstein andGibson 1982; Gibson 1982a; and Edelstein, Gat and Gibson 1983.

139

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. P. G. Dorrellfor his useful comments on our work.

LEVANT

Pl. IX B. A farm unit surrounded by a boundary wall near the junction between the Gilo and Repha'im Valleys in south-west jerusalem(Photograph: Tom Wachs).

The boundary wall (usually 1 m. thick), built ofirregular-shaped stones without the use of mortar,gave the unit its specific shape and defined territorialownership (PI. IX B). It also kept animals out ofcultivated areas. The size 'Of the terraced areas withinthe boundary walls was found to vary from one unit toanother. Access between the terraces was gained bymeans of ramps or fenced alleyways (perhaps. this isalluded to in Numbers 22:24: the "narrow pathbetween the vineyards with a wall on either side").

A large number of these terraced units have beenidentified as farms and are distinguished by structures,storerooms, installations (especially wine presses),wat~r cisterns, and sometimes even water-irrigationsystems. Alongside some of these farms were areaswithout terraces, surrounded by boundary walls (e.g.cEin Yalu). These enclosuresmaypossibly have servedas corrals for sheep and goats, or for the grazing oflivestock. In order to further our knowledge concern-ing the characteristics of such farms, systematic mapp-ing and trial excavations were undertaken at a numberof sites, including: Khirbet er-Ras (map ref. 16700-

12820) and CEin Yalu (map ref. 16687-12777). Bothsites are located close to each other in the Repha'imValley to the south-west of jerusalem.

The farn1 at Khirbet er- Ras, built on the southernslope of the Mal1.Ia Hill, has an area of agriculturalterraces surrounded by a stone-built boundary wall.On the west side of the farm is a fenced alleyway whichoriginally linked it with other farms. Within the farmwere the rernains of structures, caves and installations.The central feature of the farm was a large structure,rneasuring externally 13 x 10 m., of the typical IronAge "four-roon1" architectural type (the developmentof this architectural type has been discussed by Shiloh1973). Within this structure were stone-paved floorsand an internal row of four monolithic stone pillars,preserved to a height of 1-5 m. (PI. X A). judging fromthe 111easurernents of this structure, it appears to havebeen planned according to the short Egyptian cubit of0'45 01. The only exception is the breadth of theentrance and the internal doorway, both of whichrneasure 1-°5 111., i.e. two long Egyptian cubits of0'525 111.(Scott 1958). The storage jars and cooking


>'943Kh. er' Ras Four-Room Structure

----_-.....-----o 3-.::.= .....::-

m

S.GibsonPl. X A. Plan ojthe ']our-room".structure at Khirbet er-R'as in the RephaJim Valley (Drawing: S. Gibson).

Pl. X B. ~n agricultural terrace built over quarried bedrock.

INVESTIGATING JERUSALEM'S RURAL LANDSCAPE 143

pots found on the floors date the use of this structureto the late Iron Age, eighth-sixth centuries B.C. Infront of the structure's entrance was a large stone-paved courtyard where a number of household hand-mills were found. These hand-mills which are of aparticular hard limestone, were made locally in aquarry which has been identified in the immediatevicinity of the farm (map ref. 16685-12845). Beneaththe "four-room" structure and its external courtyard,are the remains of earlier structures, which have onlybeen partly unearthed, together with some EB IV(intermediate EB-MB period) fills. Whether or not onemay assume contemporaneity between the structuralremains and the EB IV fills, has not yet been clarified.I n the northern part of the farm are the remains of anadditional structure (date unknown) and also a rock-cut and plastered wine press with a small storage cavenearby. The excavation of some of the terraces at thesite, has indicated that they were in use during the lateIron Age and then were later partly restored duringHellenistic times, probably in the late second centuryB.C. These same terraces were still being cultivatedsometime prior to 1948. The archaeological remainsfound at Khirbet er-Ras indicate that during the lateIron Age this farm was practising .dry farming and wasprocessing agricultural produce (grapes and perhapsalso olives), and seems to have been a permanentpeasant holding. During Hellenistic times and muchlater, the site appears to have served only as asubsidiary terraced unit and it may have beenassociated with the nearby site ofMal1)a (Mana1)at).

The farm at cEin Yalu consists of an extensive area ofirrigated agricultural terraces surrounded by a stone-built boundary wall, and a large and complicatedwater-system (Fig. I). The terraces are about 10 to 20m. wide and 150 to 250 m. long, and can only havebeen the result of careful pre-planning. On the eastside of the farm is a paved alleyway with steps, whichled from the direction of Khirbet er- Ras. The watersystem itself begins in the uppermost part of the farm.A tunnel had been cut horizontally into the slope ofthe' hill in order to develop the water source. Set intothe floor of this tunnel are branching channels withplastered walls (0·3 m. wide, 0·2 m. deep). During alater (Medieval ?) stage ceramic piping was set into themain channel outlet, probably because of silting. Infront of this rock -cut tunnel is a rectangular stone-built chamber (3·4 x 2·2 m.) with a square manhole inthe ceiling. This chamber was probably erected inorder to provide easy access to the tunnel whenever thechannels needed cleaning. From this chamber thewater was channeled northwards into a horizontalstone-built gallery which had a plastered channel in itsrock-cut floor. This plastered channel was also latersubstituted by ceramic piping. Ata much later stage,

probably during late Medieval times, this gallery wentout of use and another gallery was built along aparallel line slightly to the west. At the northern end ofthis latter gallery is a small drainage pool, throughwhich the water flowed to a large plastered reservoirwhich could have held up to 4,000 m.3 of water.Although the foundations of this reservoir are ancient,it appears to have been restored during variousperiods and more substantially in the nineteenthcentury. The water flowed to the irrigation channelsthrough outlets below two arches in the north wall ofthe reservoir. A plastered irrigation channel was builtat the base of each terrace, and the water wascontrolled by a valve system which allowed for aregulated distribution of water to the terraces. ThecEin Yalu water systen1 resembles other water systemsknown in the region of jerusalem (Ron 1966,111-116;Issar 1976).

Within the CEin Yalu farm in the area of the upperterrace are the remains of a number of ancientstructures. To the west of the water system are theremains of a large building built of squared ashlarstones, which at one stage had been incorporated intoa terrace. Part of this building has recently beenunearthed and a number of building phases have beenidentified. Although we have not yet determined itsfunction, it was clearly being used during the Byzan-tine period, i.e. probably during the fifth or sixthcenturies A.D. Further west are the remains of anotherlarge structure with plastered walls (1·5-2·0 m. thick),which originally had a barrel-vaulted ceiling.Although this farm was probably already being used asearly as the first century B.C., as ceramic finds indicate,it was clearly being used extensively during theByzantine period. There is also evidence that the farmwas partly rebuilt during the nineteenth century, and astructure from this period exists to the west ,of thereserVOIr.

Agricultural Terraces

The phenomenon of constructing terraces onhillsides for agricultural purposes is a very charac-teristic feature of jerusalem's environs, and of thej udean Hills in general. 2 One of the first mostobservant of descriptions concerning the terraces andtheir n1anner of construction, was made by CharlesWarren towards the end of the nineteenth century:

"Walls of rough stones are built along the hillsides,three to four feet high, according to the steepness ofthe slope, and the space between them and the hill

filled up with fat loam (our italics); this is continued

2 The construction and use of agricultural terraces are mentioned inMishna ShevCit 3,8-9 and Mishna Kla'im 6, 1-2.

144 LEVANT

frorn bottonl to top, until the mountain side,presents the appearance, fronl the opposite side, ofa series of steps" (1876, 456-459).

Even though these agricultural terra,ces are clearly thernost inlportant of the human changes to the overallecological balance of the mountainous landscapearound J erusalern, they have hitherto never re~lly beenregarded as a subject worthy of archaeologIcal c~n-sideration. In 1966, Z. Ron published an extensIvegeolnorphological study of agricultural terr~ces .in theregion of J erusalern. An important co~cluslon IS thatabout 60% of the hills to the west of Jerusalem arecovered with terrace constructions. Ron assumes that aInajor reason for the construction of terraces was inorder to conserve soil against erosion (1966, 33-34;1977a). This would be correct assu~ing that the,hillsides were originally covered by a duck blanket oftopsoil illunediately prior to the constructi~n of thefirst terraces. However, it now appears more hkely thataccelerated soil erosion caused by a process ofsubstantial devegetation, with the subsequent deg-radation of the hillsides, probably took place a longtilne before the construction of terraces actually began.Although as an end result terraces d~ prev.ent soilerosion, it seerns doubtful whether thIs notIon wasconceived of during the time when terraces were underconstruction. Since there are very few level plains forcultivation in the Jerusalem region, the sole purpose ofthe fanner was to create many artificial level areas on :the hillsides for additional cultivation. Ron has also I

suggested that the soil fills contained within a terracewere a result of natural accumulation brought aboutby the erosion process, and that a te:race served as a"depository for the stones cleared from the t:rracesurface" (1966, 34). During the survey we examIned alarge nurnber of collapsed terraces and have excavatedothers 3 and we now believe them to be completelyartifici~l constructions which were filled with terra rossasoil and stones imported from nearby valleys. More-over we have examined some terraces that had actuallybeer; built over areas which had previously beenquarried for stone (PI. X B). Hence there seems to. beno archaeological evidence to support the contentIonthat terrace walls were built primarily in order toretain pre-existing erosion soils.

The terrace wall was built out of irregular-shapedquarried stones without the use of mortar, and its

:1 There can be no doubt that the excavation of terraces is importantin order to reach conclusions concerning their method ofconstruction (Edelstein and Gibson 1982,54). Terraces have beenexcavated in the Repha'im Valley (especially at Kh.er-Ras) and alsoat Ras et-Tawil, to the north-cast of Jerusalem (Gibson 1982b). Anagricultural terrace, probably dating from the late Iron Age, wasrecently excavated at Khirbet J emacin in Samaria (Dar 1980,99-100).

foundations were placed immediately onto the bed-rock surface. The terrace wall was built with a batteredinward incline in order to achieve better stability andto prevent collapse. The terrace walls were usuallybuilt along the natural topographical contours. T~estone and soil fills were placed behind a terrace wall, Ina specific predetermined fashion. Above .bedrock was alayer of small and large stones, supenmposed by aInixed fill of terra rossa soil and stones, and finally by asurface layer of organic soil which had inevitablycreated itself over years of use. A fill of stones was alsopacked iIlIIllediately behind the terrace wall.. ~hese,stone fills are of great importance for the stablhty ofthe terrace, for without them the water-retentive soilfills would cause the collapse of the terrace wall. Therainwater falling on the surface of a terrace is absorbedby the soil in which the plants or fruit trees aregrowing. All surplus water filters through the stonefills on bedrock and flows out through the gapsbetween the stones of the terrace wall, down to thenext terrace below it. The lower stone fills within aterrace absorb a certain amount of the surplus water.This Illoisture is ultimately drawn to the surface by theheavy evaporation during the summer season.

The method of terrace construction is now known tovary in the different areas around Jerusalem: The,terraces east of Jerusalem (especially in the regIon ofMount Scopus and east of Tell el-Ft1l) were actually cutout of the soft limestone hillsides. The soft limestonernaterial was excavated from below each selectedcontour to be filled in above the next one and so on,eventually creating a regular stepped hillside. The fillscaused by the quarrying process were supported bylow retaining walls. Apparently the topsoil of theseterraces originally consisted of terra rossa soil broughtfroIll nearby valleys.

Structures and Towers

During the survey around Jerusalem, many ,struc-tures were found associated with farms. Some of thesestructures were used as temporary or permanentdwellings, for the storage of agricultural produce, oras observation places for guarding vineyards andorchards during the harvest seasons. A typical struc-ture of this kind was built in a prominent part of thefarm overlooking the terraces, and usually had watercisterns and agricultural installations in its immediatevicinity. ,

The earliest rural structures found during the surveydate from the late Iron Age, eighth-sixth centuries B.C.

Examples are known in south-west Jerusalem: in theGilo region (map ref. 16632-U~684) and in the Repha'irn Valley (Kh.er-Ras). Others have been found innorth Jerusalem (Gibson 1982a, 156): east of Tell


SGFig. 2. Plan of the structure at map ref. 17338-13925J near Neve YaCaqovJnorth ofJerusalem. The hatched stones represent the coll~psed corbelled ceiling.

el- Flil at a site called Hariqat el- Kilab (map ref.17354-13669), and also north of Tell el-Flil at a sitelocated within the eastern outskirts of modern BeitHanlna (map ref. 17217-13747). Many of these struc-tures seem to have served as permanent dwellings,while others were of a more temporary nature andwere probably used for storage.

Examples of farm buildings dating from late Hel-lenistic to Byzantine, times have also been found. Asmall late Hellenistic farmstead found during thesurvey at Sacb Matrad (map ref. 17328-137°7), hasrecently been excavated (Reich Ig81, 20). Anotherinteresting structure was investigated on the north-eastern slope of Neve YaCaqov, north of Jerusalenl(map ref. 17338-13925). This small structure is oblongin plan (5' 7 x 3'2 m.), and was built of large ashlarblocks (Fig. 2). The entrance to the structure, with itslintel still in situ, was in the south wall. The ceiling wasoriginally constructed of large flat slabs of stone incorbelled fashion. Although this structure has not yetbeen excavated, we assume that it was used for thestorage of agricultural produce, rnainly because abuilding containing an oil press was found nearby(map ref. 17343-13915). A large group of sirnilarlybuilt structures, sometimes described as "rnegaliths",was investigated in the region by Vincent at thebeginning of this century (1901, 278-298). Anothergroup of similar structures were recently surveyed andexcavated in Samaria (Applebaum, et al. 1978).

The most typical of the more recent rural structuresare the so-called "towers" built of dry stonework,which are round or square in plan (PI. XI A). This kindof structure, known in Hebrew as a "shornera" and in

oI

M

2!

Arabic as a "qasr", was usually two storeys high. Thelower roonl was used for the storage of agriculturalproduce. Ron (1977b) has demonstrated that thetemperatures within this room during the summerrnonths, are lower (by 11' 5°C.) than the normalternperatures outside. This was clearly suitable for theproper storage of agricultural produce. The upperarea of the structure, which was reached by means of aranIp or Hight of steps, was enclosed as a temporaryhut-like dwelling for the farmer during the harvestseasons (Canaan 1932, 227). Cisterns are usually foundalongside these structures. A rnore sirnple kind ofstructure which belongs to this group, is a smallovoid-shaped elevated area girded by a stone builtenclosure wall, with a rock-cut storage cave nearby.Although sonle of these structures are still being usedby the local Arab IeLLabin, nl0st of thern were aban-doned during the rlliddle of this century.

Agricultural InstaLLations

Agricultural installations are another importantfeature of the ancient farrlls around Jerusalem. Therllost typical kind of installation is the wine press. Innorth -east J erusalerll, 50 wine presses were in-vestigated within an area of 10 one-square kilometres.These wine presses were all cut out of the rock, an1fft.?rllany of thern were originally plastei'ed. They mayt1'Q$divided up according to their technological aiHlfunctional developrnent into three rnain typologiCalgroups:

(I) The first group is characterized by a winepresswith a treading floor, a settling basin and a receivingvat. The process was as follows: the grapes weretrodden on the Hoor of this installation or crushedwith stone rollers. The grape juice would flow into thereceiving vat through the settling basin which collectedthe residue (PI. XI B). The earliest known example ofsuch an installation in Israel comes [rorn Tell Tacannek .in the Jezreel Valley, where it is dated to between theEarly Bronze and Middle Bronze periods (Lapp 1969,12, Fig. 8; Ahlstrorn 1978,46). Two installations whichInay belong to this group, were unearthed next to TellQasilc and dated to the second century A.D. (Ayalon1983-84, 17-30).4 The evidence from our survey

~ According to Ayalon (1983-:-84, 23) the lack of evidence for beamor screw-pressing devices in the wine presses near Tell Qasile,must indicate that the secondar): pressing here was done bymanual means alone. However, since these I~rge wine pressesappear to have been public installations, seco!1dary pressing bymanual means alone seems highly unlikelyn. Possibly the ir-regularity evident in the north wall of the ndfthern press (ibid,II!. 1 : W -2), may represent the remains of a ni~he for a pressingbeam. Hence this press may resemble in phfr1 the beam pressinstallation known at Khirbet elJAked (Hirschfdd 1983, 2°9: Fig.2 ).

LEV ANT

Pl. XI A. A round ((tower)} within afarm unit in the Gilo region in south-west jerusalem.

PL. XI B. Rock-cut wine press to the east q[the Byzantine settlement Deir Razllli, at map ref 17412-1)626 in north-east jerusalem.


'-'~'''''.,

.' (""'-. 1,.,,',"._:

~\

lI

8II

A

0 2I !

M

A -- A

5 G

Fig. 3. PLan, section and perspective drawing of a rock-cut wine press north-east of Ras et-TawlL, at map ref. 17376-13813: I, Treadingfloor; 2, Nicheforpressing beam; 3, Receiving vat; 4, Rock-cut basin; 5, SLoping surface for storing the grapes prior to the pressing process; 6, Rock-cut basin for coLLectingthe must

of the grapes.

indicates that this type of installation was in usearound Jerusalem at the latest during early Roman andByzantine periods, together with other moretechnologically advanced installations. Examples ofsuch installations have been found in both south-westand north-eastJerusalem.

(2) The second group is characterized by a wine presswhich in general terms resembles the wine press of thefirst group, except that it also has a rock-cut niche fora pressing beam (Lat. prelurn) in one of its walls. Theprocess was as follows: after the initial treading, thegrapes were placed within flat baskets or mats andwere then crushed in bulk under a wooden beam fixedin a rectangular niche at one end and heavily weighted

down by pierced stones tied at the other end (Fig. 3).The beam press was an invention which was known inthe Aegean world prior to the first Inillennium B.C., forexpressing both grape juice and olive oil (Forbes 1955,133). Locally, beam press installations for extractingolive oil are known from Samaria as early as the eighthcentury B.C. (Eitam 1979, 146-154). The large numbersof beam press installations found in the Jerusalemregion appear to have been used prilllarily as winepresses, although we cannot rule out the possibilitythat they were also used occasionally for extractingolive oil. Hence, it may be justified to describe them as"multi-purpose installations" (some wine presses mayhavebeen used as threshing floors: Judges 6: 1d. Some

LEV ANT

Pl. XII A. Rock-cut wine press surrounded by cupholes) on the north slope of Ras Abu Sarah) at map ref. 17467-13699'

Pi. XII B. Small rock-cut installation at Ras Abu Salah) map ref. 17476-13708.


of the installations found in north-east jerusalem,have two niches cut very close to each other in the rockwall above the treading Roor and this probablyindicates that .a pair of beams were originally used.Pliny the Elder described the practical use of such adouble bearn: "Some press the grapes with a singlepress but it pays better to use a pair, however large thesingle beanls rnay be". 5 All the beam presses found inthe j erusalenl region were in use at the latest duringearly Roman and B'yzantine periods.

(3) The third typological group is characterized by awine press which has a large mosaic-paved treadingHoor with a central depression for an upright screwpress device, and also settling basins and a receivingvat.6 Such installations were used for processing largequantities of grapes. Two examples of such instal-lations have been unearthed in north jerusalem: onewithin the nlonastic settlement at Ras et Tawil (GibsonIg82b, 155) and the other within an elaborate struc-ture west of the village ShuLfat (Edelstein and Gat1980-81, 76-77). Other installations of this kind wereidentified north of the Byzantine farm at Khirbeten -Tut in west jerusalem (Edelstein and Gat 1980-81,74). All these installations date from the Byzantineperiod, fourth-sixth centuries A.D. Similar wine pre-sses of this type, also dating from the Byzantine period,have been found in other parts of the country(Ahlstrom 1978,19-49; Roll and Ayalon 1981,111-125; Hirschfeld 1983,214-218).

During the survey a number of wine presses werefound which had additional rock-cut oval floorsleading to cupholes. These floors were probably usedfor storing the grapes prior to the pressing process(known as "mishtah shelcalim" in Mishna Taharot, 10,

4-5). The must created by the static weight of thegrapes collected within the cupholes and was deemed avaluable conlmodity during ancient times (Forbes1956, 132). Other installations were investigated whichhad rock-cut shelves or cupmarks probably for drain-ing the wet jars, after they had been filled with juicefrom the receiving vats. One installation found innorth-east jerusalem was surrounded by deep cup-holes (PI. XII A). These probably served originally assockets for the wooden poles of a booth -like structureerected above the wine press (Ahlstrom 1978,3°-34).Quite a few wine presses served for collecting run -offrainwater during the winter seasons. Rock-cut chan-

5 Naturalis Historia XVIII, 317, ed. Rackham, H., Loeb. 1938.6 The upright screw-press device of this type of installation is

depicted being manipulated by two men on a sixth century mosaicfloor at Khirbet el-Makhayyat in Jordan (Dauphin 1980, PI. 16:A).For detailed discussions concerning the appearance and the use ofthis type of installation: see Hirschfeld 1983, 214-218, and thereconstruction in Fig. 7; Roll and Ayalon 1981, 121-123, and thereconstruction in Fig. 7.

. nels, for diverting the rainwater, were found leadinginto these installations. Most of the wine presses hadstorage caves and cisterns in their immediate vicinity.The cistern was an integral part of the wine press: itprovided water for washing the feet of those processingthe grapes and also for washing the surface of the winepress after its use.

Very few oil presses were found during the survey.Perhaps small household quantities of olive oil wasproduced by crushing the olives in cup marks and bypressing the olive pulp in wine presses. However, largescale olive oil production probably took place only inpublic installations located in centralized rural settle-rnents and not in farms. This is supported by theknown location of ancient oil presses in north-eastjerusalem. A large building containing an oil press wasdiscovered at map ref. 17343-13915, close to thesettlement of Khirbet Shcib es-Sira. The press consistsof a circular stone basin where the olives were crushed(yam), a cuphole, and in the western wall the place for abeam where the olives were pressed (Yeivin 1966). Onthe east side of the building is an oblong room, withpart of its corbelled ceiling still in place, whichprobably served for storage. Surface pottery mayindicate that this oil press dates from the Byzantineperiod. Another circular stone basin belonging to anoil press was identified at map ref. 17298-13887, and isall that can be seen of the settlement of Khirbet DeiI'Sallam. Part of the crushing wheel of an oil press(memel) was also identified within the settlement ofKhirbet KackGl (map ref. 17385-13585).

Three very small rock-cut installations were foundduring the survey in north-east jerusalem. One ofthese installations at Ras Abu-Salah (map ref. 17476-137°8) consists of a rock-cut oval surface about 0-9 x0-6 m. in size with a 15 mm. wide circular incisedchannel leading into a cuphole which is 0-2 m. in bothdiameter and in depth (PI. XII B). Another installationof this kind was found in the Repha'im Valley to thesouth-west of jerusalem, in the immediate vicinity ofan EB IV (intermediate EB-MB period) settlement atmap ref. 16667-12805. Although such installations aresometimes referred to as "primitive altars" (Blair1919, 168; Olami 1981, 1), they were most probablyused for extracting small quantities of olive oil. A greatnumber of cup marks or cupholes have also beenfound in the region of jerusalem. In size thesedepressions usually range b~tween 0- 10 to ° -90 m. indiameter, and about 0-05 to 0- 50 m_ deep. Possiblysome of these cup marks may have served for theproduction of small amounts of olive oil. 7

7 The many possible functions of cup marks and cupholes, havebeen dealt with at length by Worrell 1921-22, 80-94, andAhlstrom 1978,44-45.

LEVANT

Roads

Factors of communication, economy and environ-ment influenced the development of roads in theregion of jerusalem. During the survey we investigatedmany traces of. ancient roads, some which are stillbeing used today by the local inhabitants. A typicalroad is usually about 2 to 5 m. wide, and is borderedon both sides by a heaped or built row of stones. Theroads traced in the Repha'im Valley and Gilo region,weave in between the farms and are bordered on bothsides by a stone built wall.8 Alongside these roads wefound many cisterns which must have provided waterfor commuting farmers and other travellers. Theearliest roads found during the survey were probablybuilt in the Iron Age. The road system becamewell-developed during late Hellenistic and Byzantineperiods.

In north -east jerusalem, we were able to distinguishbetween highways, regional roads and internal roads(Fig. 4)9:(1) Highways which linked} erusalem with other majorurban settlements, for example the jerusalem-Nablusroad.lO

(2) Regional roads which linked jerusalem with localrural settlements:

The jerusalem-Ras el-Kharruba road (Fig. 4: A-A): Astretch of this road, which linked jerusalem with thelate Iron Age-Hellenistic site at Ras el-Kharriiba(usually identified as biblical Anathoth: Albright1922-23, 138), was investigated at map ref. 17380-13461. The road is 2·7 m. wide and had heapedstones on either side. I I Scattered on this road werelate Iron Age potsherds. The eastern stretch of thisroad was repaired during a later period (possiblyduring early Roman or Byzantine times). This latterstretch of the road is partly quarried and cobbled, .and is retained by a wall. On both sides of this roadare a number of ruined farms. This road continuesto the north-east past Khirbet CAlmitin the directionof Wadi Fara.The French Hill-lfizma road (Fig. 4: B-B): This roadbegins at the j erusalem-Nablus highway and leadsfrom the west side of the French Hill towards~izma, passing the sites of el-Qucma (Byzantine),

8 Note that in Mishna Taharot 10,8, it is stated that during the harvesta road leading through a vineyard was regarded as a privatethoroughfare, but after the harvest a public one.

9 A similar three-road system was investigated in Samaria: Dar198 r, 3 76-3 8 2 .

10 This stretch of the highway near Tell el-FfI1 (identified as biblicalGibeah: Albright 1922-23) is probably mentioned in Judges20 :31.

II This is probably alluded to in Isaiah 62 :10: "Cast up the pathway,clear it of stones". Forbes (1934,67) has incorrectly assumed thatthis :erse referred to "stone-paved" roads. Harel·( 1967, 18)descnbes Iron Age roads built in this fashion in theJudean Desert.

179140

Wiidl Fiira

2 km.1:===_•••••'

129179

Fig. 4. Map ojthe ancient road system in northJerusalem: 1, Khirbet,CAddiisa;2, Tell el-Ful; 3, Ras et-Tawll; 4, Khirbet 't:4dasa; 5, Hizma; 6, Q.ubur Bani/srail; 7, el-7tjqjiit; ,8, KhirbetCAlmit;. 9, Khirbet es-Saumaca; 10, el-Q.ur-,ma;11, Deir Raziili; 12, Khirbet Ka,cikul; 13, Ras el-Kharrftba.

Khirbet Kacktil (Byzantine-Medieval), Deir Razaii(Byzantine) and e1-CAjajat(early Roman). The road isabout 4-5 m. wide and is bordered in parts byroughly built walls. Four cisterns were found atvarious intervals along the road. Early Roman andByzantine sherds were found scattered on the road.This road is known locally as Shicb Daghir, i.e."road of the blind".The Bir Katamon-jabaC road (Fig. 4: C-C): Thisregional road branches off from the French Hill-l:Jizma regional road, and leads towards the north inthe direction of jabaC (Geba). TheToad usually has awidth of 3 m. and is bordered on both sides by stonewalls. Three sections of this road were surveyed: atBlr Katamon (map ref. 1735°-136°9), on the westslope of WaCar Blr Husein (map ref. 17367-13717),and at Blr Tamaze or Tama9i where it is 7.2 m. wide(map ref. 17413-13857). Federlin (1906, 267)originally followed this road from j abac tojerusalem and suggested identifying it as the pos-sible route of the Assyrian army, mentioned inIsaiah 10: 2 8-3!.The Beit Hanina-ijizma road (Fig. 4: D-D): Thisregional road, which ran between Beit Hanlna and~izma, was partly trace_dat map ref. 17342-13748.The road is 3 m. wide and is bordered on both sidesby walls (1 m. thick) built of large field stones. Thisroad leads from the eastern outskirts of Beit Hanlna


towards Khirbet cAdasa (Byzantine-Medieval) andthen upon nearing Ras et-Tawil (Byzantine [Gibson1982b]), the road twists down to the south towardsthe Sacb Matrad site (late Hellenistic [Reich 1981])and then turns eastward again towards J:Iizma. Thetwisting fashion of this road may account for itslocal name: Shicb el-Haiya, i.e. "road of the snake".Clermont-Ganneau who visited the region in thelate nineteenth century, mentions seeing here "anancient road with a double line of great blocks ofstone" (187°,471-173). Masterman also mentionsthis road as an "ancient road bordered with largestones set on end" (1913, 136).

(3) Internal roads or paths which linked the regionalroads with farms, terrace systems, quarries and in-dustrial installations:

The Beit Hanlna-Wiidi Zimra road (Fig. 4:E-E): to the-north ofTeIl el-Ful is a stretch of an ancient internalroad, which led from the direction of Beit Hanlnatowards the fields in Wadi Zimra (map ref. 17228-13702). The road is bordered on both sides by l' 5m. thick walls. The road itself is 1·7 m. wide andmany late Iron Age sherds were found scattered onit.Road along the eastern edge of Tell el-Fl1l (Fig. 4: F-F): Astretch of this internal road was investigated at mapref. 17224-13627. It forked off from the J erusalem-Nablus highway in the south, passed along theeastern edge of Tell el-Ful and joined up with theBeit Hanina-I:Iizma regional road in the north.Early Roman and Byzantine period sherds werefound scattered on this road. This road is still beingpartly used by the local inhabitants and is wellpreserved between the hill of SaumaCa and Tellel-Ful.The Wadi el-Mujaliroad (Fig. 4: G-G): Branching offfrom the Jerusalem-J:lizma regional road, is astretch of internal road along the eastern edge ofWadi el Mujali, below el-CAjajat (map ref. 17441-13728). This road leads from the Byzantine site ofDeir Razali towards l:Iizma. The road is 3 m. wideand is supported on one side by a retaining wall.Internal roads south of Riis Abu-Saliih (Fig. 4: H-H): Tothe south ofRas Abu-Salah at map ref. 17458-13678,there is a junction between two internal roads. Oneroad meets up to the east, near el-CAjajat, with theJ:lizma-cAnata regional road. The other road leadsup towards the Byzantine site of Deir Razali. Theroads are both about 3 m. wide and are bordered onboth sides by roughly built walls. Early Roman andByzantine sherds were found scattered on both theseroads. Near the junction of the two roads is a cisternand a stone trough.The Wadi el-Khafi road (Fig. 4: I-I): Part of aninternal road was investigated along the northern

edge of Wadi el-Khafi, at map ref. 17340-13807.This road is bordered on either side by a stone wall.It leads to the west towards a junction with anotherinternal road at the ancient quarry MaqtaCat Karkls(i.e. "the Karkis junction") and to the east it climbstowards Bizma, and also links up with the regionalroad at Bir Tamaze. Byzantine sherds were foundscattered on this road.

CisternsPrior to the invention of plaster-lined cisterns, the

region of Jerusalem was only very sparsely settled.Most of the proto-historic sites which we know ofaround Jerusalem, are usually located alongsidenatural springs. W. F. Albright (1954, 113) wasprobably right in assuming that the earliest use ofplastered cisterns in Judea corresponded with thesettling of the hill country during the early Iron Age.During the survey, we found hundreds of cisterns ofvarious shapes and sizes: in rural settlements andfarms, alongside roads, and near agricultural andindustrial installations. These cisterns, which werehewn out of the rock and plastered internally with limeplaster, collected the surface run-off of rainwater.12

Some cisterns had drainage basins in front of theirentrances, as a measure against silting. Since most ofthese cisterns were re-plastered and re-usedthroughout the periods, we were usually unable todate them. A large number of cisterns are still beingused by the local inhabitants.

Stone Q,uarriesMany stone quarries were studied in the vicinity of

Jerusalem during the survey. The earliest knownquarries in the Judean Hills are dated to the late IronAge (Shiloh and Horowitz 1975). Others are knowndating from early Roman and Byzantine periods. Thetechnique of hewing blocks of stone was by cuttingchannel-like grooves around required sizes of stonewith a chisel and mallet. These blocks of stone werethen subsequently removed by means of a sharprod-like instrument, probably made out of iron (PI.XIII A). The blocks of stone (usually no larger than 1'0x o· 5 m.) were then used for the construction ofhouses and storage buildings in nearby farms or ruralsettlements.

An exceptional quarry where enormous stoneblocks were extracted, was investigated west of thevillage ShuCfat in north Jerusalem. One of the largeststones which had been extracted here was 11'45 m.

12 The traditional methods of hewing and plastering a cistern inPalestine, are described by Canaan 1932, 244-247·

LEVANT

Pi. X111 A. Ashlar quarry at Maqta'at Karkls to the south west of Neve Ya'aqov, at map ref. 1727o-J)809.

Pl. X/ll B. Lime kiln on the south slope c!fGiv'at Masu"ah in the Repha'im Valley (Photograph: Tom Wachs).


long and 1·53 m. wide. The existence of an :earlyRoman tomb cut into one of the quarry walls,probably indicates that this part of the quarry shouldbe dated to the first century A.D. at the latest. Anurnber of similar quarries, where massive stones hadbeen extracted, were investigated by Merrill (1908,368,370-371) at Nab! Samwil and in other areas ofnorth Jerusalem. Possibly these quarries may havebeen the source for some of the large ashlar stonesused for the construction of monumental buildings inJerusalem during early Roman times. These largestone blocks were probably transported from thequarry to Jerusalem on sledges hauled along by meansof wooden rollers (Ward-Perkins 1971,8).

Cruder stone quarries are also known to haveexisted: the naturally cracked rock surface was lifted insections and then was broken up into rough blocks ofstone. These blocks of stone were then used forbuilding enclosure walls and terraces. The large stonechips resulting from the quarrying process, were eitherused as fill nlaterial for terraces or were burnt in limekilns. Quarries dating from Turkish times and frornthe early nineteenth century were also investigatedduring the survey. 13

Lime KilnsA large number of lime kilns are known in the

vicinity of Jerusalem (PI. XIII B). They appear astruncated mounds, consisting of an inner circular area(about 5 m. in diameter and 2 m. deep), with ashaft-like aperture sited to face the prevailing winds,and earthen slopes littered with slag. Originally theremay also have been a vent or blow-hole i,n the don:edceiling to allow the smoke and' gases of combustIonwithin the kiln to escape. The blocks of limestone werestacked within the central area with a fair amount offuel, and then subsequently burnt and finally slaked.Many of the lime kilns found during the surve~ were,probably originally connected with the preparatIon ofplaster for coating the walls of cisterns and agriculturalinstallations. It seems likely that lime burning was aninnovation which was developed locally with thesettling of the hill country during the early Iron Age.On the west slope of Ras et Tawil in north Jerusalem, alime kiln was excavated dating from the late Iron Age(Gibson 1984). Another lime kiln was unearthed inRamot to the north of Jerusalem (Edelstein, et al. 1983,19). This kiln appears to have gone out of use duri~gthe Byzantine period, according to the .cer~m.lCmaterial found underlying the collapsed debrIS WIthInthe kiln.13 For the methods used in these later quarries in Palestine, see:

Canaan 1932, 234. For a more general account of quarrying inantiquity, see Ward-Perkins 1971.

Chronological Summary

Very few prehistoric renlains have been found in thevicinity of J erusalenl. Two Lower Palaeolithic siteswith late Acheulian tool industries are known: one inthe upper part of the Repha' im Valley south ofJ erusalenl, and the other in the area of Sheikh Jarrahnorth of Jerusalem (Noy, 1982, 11-12). Individual flintirnplenlents of Neolithic age have also been found, butsites fronl that period have not yet been identified.One large Chalcolithic site existed on the south slopeof Khirbet es-SaurnaCa to the north of] erusalem (mapref. 17210-13586). During a survey conducted there byNa~ralleh (1936, 293-315), large quantities of flintinlplements, ceranlic sherds, and pestles and mortarswere found.I4 Another large Chalcolithic to earlyBronze Age site has recently been investigated next tothe spring of CEin Fara to the north-east of Jerusalem(Magen 1983, 16). From the EB IV period (Kenyon'sintermediate EB-MB period), we know of at least threesites in the Repha' im Valley (at Khirbet er-Ras; at cEinel-Haniyeh: nlap ref. 16505-12790; and at GivCatMasuah: map ref. 16667-12805), and one site innorth-east Jerusalem (at Hariqat el-Kilab: map ref.17354-13669, situated 1 km. east of Tell el-Flil). Thesite at GivCat Masuah has recently been excavated andthe remains of a structure was found with earthenfloors and an internal installation. Apparently thewalls of this structure were originally' built of mud-brick on stone foundations. On the floor werenumerous ceramic vessels (mainly storage jars) andflint implernents. The faunal remains consisted ofsheep, goat and pig. Virtually nothing is knownconcerning the period spanning between the EB IVperiod and the beginning of the early Iron Age.Although the evidence from the survey appears toindicate that the environs of] erusalem were only verysparsely settled prior to the early Iron Age, one n:usttake into consideration the possibility that many of theearlier sites may have been obliterated or covered upby the considerable landscape modifications caused bylater terracing activities.

It was probably only during the early Iron Age, withthe development of a more sophisticated technologyfor agricultural cultivation and for storing food andwater, that non-urban existence on a more permanentbasis became possible within the hilly regions ofJ udea.Consequently the elaboration of agricultural techni-ques (e.g. the construction of terraces) and the,sophistication of storage facilities (e.g. the ~se ofplaster-lined cisterns) provided the impetu~ for ~heestablishment of numerous settlements of varYIng

14 This site was re-surveyed in 1981, and a few flint implements ,andsherds were collected. We wish to thank Dr. Tamar Nay, of theIsrael Museum, for identifying the flint material.

154 LEVANT

functions. It was this development which finallyemphasized the distinction between rural and urbancommunities in the region of jerusalem. However, it isonly from the late Iron Age that we have cleararchaeological evidence for extensive human ·activitiesin the environs of jerusalem, with the construction ofmany rural settlements, farms, terraces and roads. Itappears that the farms dating from the late Iron Agewere to a large degree self-sufficient peasant holdings,and had structures which were lived in permanently.Since terrace construction was well developed duringthe late Iron Age, it seems very likely that terracing wasan innovation which was either introduced into theregion from outside or developed locally, with thesettling of the hill country during the early Iron Age.When the northern kingdom (Israel) fell to theAssyrians in the year 721 B.C., there was probably alarge influx of refugees into judea, and this may havebeen the reason for· the unprecedented urban growthof jerusalem at that time (Broshi 1974). The urbanexpansion' of jerusalem must have brought about a.'greater demand for larger quantities of agriculturalproduce from the rural areas, and this probablyexplains why a proliferation of rural settlements andfarms were being established during this period in theregion surrounding jerusalem. With the sack· ofjerusalem in the year 586 B.C., the farms wereabandoned and the terraces were allowed to crumble.

During the late Hellenistic and early Romanperiods, the rural areas surrounding jerusalem con-tinued to prosper, and techniques of utilizing naturalresources were refined. Due to the political insecurityof these times, it appears that settlement withinnucleated rural villages began to be favoured and thatvery few farms were actually lived in permanentlyexcept during the harvest seasons.15 A stone vesselindustry is known to have existed during the firstcentury A.D. in the vicinity of jerusalem. Stone vesselworkshops are known from J:Iizma north -east ofjerusalem and from jebel Mukabar south ofjerusalem. During the survey conducted at Ijizma,many fragments of lathe-turned and hand-carved

15 The claim made by Hopkins (1980, 19) that during this period thehamlet or farmstead was largely unknown, is unacceptable in thelight of our survey and the many excavations carried out in theregion.

vessels were collected from the surface of the site(Gibson 1983).

Cultivation of the rural areas surroundingjerusalem was apparently largely halted, following thedestruction of the city by the Romans in the year 70A.D. However, during the Byzantine period (fourth-seventh centuries A.D.) the rural landscape aroundjerusalem once again flourished. The evidence fromour survey seems to· indicate that most of the ruralpopulation was settled in villages and that farms wereno longer lived in permanently. Monastic settlementsclearly of an agricultural character are also known.Such a settlement has recently been excavated at Raset-Tawil, to the north-east of jerusalem (Gibson1982b). The site consists of a large building containinga mosaic-paved chapel, and also various agriculturalinstallations and a large area of terraces. From theearly Arab conquest in c. 638 A.D. and down toOttoman times, there was a gradual decline in the useof the terraced areas for agricultural purposes.

This investigation 'of ~the.material re~~ins ~(therural landscape, has now provided much informationabout the farms and fields which supported the urbaneconomy of jerusalem throughout the various periods.Unfortunately, the opportunity to conduct thisresearch is now being threatened by modern develop-ment, re-afforestation and the construction of newroads. Further work still needs to be undertaken inorder to clarify more of the details concerningJerusalem's rural landscape.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The jerusalem archaeological survey was instigated andco-ordinated by Dr. Amos Kloner, and conducted on behalfof the Archaeological Survey of Israel and the IsraelDepan:ment of Antiquities. The teams were directed by theauthors and Y. Gat (Repha'im Valley region), Beni Frankel(Gilo region), Oded Avisar (Har-Nof region) and ShimonGibson (Tell el-Ffil region). Other participants were: TomWachs (photography), David Huli (measurements), AnitaKiekheafer, Oskar Shmilshok, Michael Sedgwick, andIvonne Fleitman. Thanks are due to Fiona Gibson for heradvice during the preparation of this article, and to Mr.Avraham Eitan, Director of the Israel Department ofAntiquities, for permission to publish the results from thesurvey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlstrom, G. W. (1978) "Wine presses and cup marks of thejenin-Megiddo survey", BASOR 231,19-49.

Albright, W. F. (1922-23) "Excavations and results at Tellel-Ffll (Gibeah ofSaul)", AASOR 4.

Albright, W. F. (1954) The Archaeology of Palestine(Harmondsworth) .

Applebaum, S., Dar, S. and Safrai, Z. (1978) "The Towers ofSamaria", PEQ110, 91-100.

Ayalon, E. (1983-84) "Roman-period wine presses excavatedin the Haaretz Museum Centre", in R. Zeevy (ed.),Israel-People and Land (Haaretz Museum Yearbook, vol. I(19), English summary (Hebrew)).


Blair, D. P. (1919) "Stone altars and cup marks in SouthernPalestine", PEFQ§t 52, 167-177.

Broshi, M. (1974) "The expansion of jerusalem in the reignsof Hezekiah and Manasseh", IE] .24,21-26.

Canaan, T. (1932) "The Palestinian Arab house: its architec-ture and folklore",]POS 12, 223-247.

Clermont -Ganneau, C. (1870) Archaeological Researches inPalestine, I, 471-473.

Dar, S. (1980) "KirbetjemaCin-a village from the period ofthe Monarchy", Q.admoniot 51-52,99-100 (Hebrew).

Dar, S. (1981) "Roads and forts in the Beth-Lidd region ofSamaria", Eretl.. Israel 15, 376-382 (Hebrew).

Dauphin, C. (1980) "Mosaic pavements as an index ofprosperity and fashion", Levant 12, 112-134.

Edelstein, G. and Kislev, M. (198t) "MevasseretYerushalayim-the ancient settlement and its terraces",BA XLIV, 53-56.

Edelstein, G. and Gat, Y. (1980-81) "Terraces aroundjerusalem", Israel-Land and Nature 6,72-78.

Edelstein, G. and Gibson, S. (1982) "Ancient jerusalem'srural food basket", The Biblical Archaeology Review 8, 46-54·

Edelstdn, G., Gat, Y. and Gibson, S. (1983) "Food produc-tion and water storage in the jerusalem region", Q.admoniot61, 16-23 (Hebrew).

Eitam, D. (1979) "Olive presses of the Israelite period", TelAviv 6, 146-154.

Federlin, L. (1906) "A Propos d'Isaie X 29-31", RB 15,266-273·

Forbes, R. J. (1934) Notes on the History of Ancient Roads andtheir Construction (Amsterdam).

Forbes, R. j. (1955) Studies in Ancient Technology, III (Leiden).Forbes, R. J. (1956) in C. Singer et. al. (eds.) A History of

Technology, II, 102-144 (Oxford).de Geus, C. H.J. (1975) "The importance of archaeological

research into the Palestinian agricultural terraces with anexcursus into the Hebrewwordgbi", PEQ.107, 65-74.

Gibson, S. (1982a) "jerusalem (north-east) archaeologicalsurvey", Notes and News, IE] 32,156-157.

Gibson, S. (1982b) "Ras et-TawIl", Notes and News, IE] 32,154-155.

Gibson, S. (1983) '''The stone vessel industry at J:Iizma", IE]33, 176-188.

Gibson, S. (1984) "Lime kilns in north-east jerusalem", PEQ.116,july-Dee. 94-102.

Harel, M. (I967) "Israelite and Roman roads in the judeandesert", IE] 17, 18-25.

Hirschfeld, Y. (1983) "Ancient wine presses in the Park ofAijalon", IE] 33,2°7-218.

Hopkins, 1. W. J. (1980) "The city region in RomanPalestine", PEQ.112, 19-32.

Issar, A. (1976) "The evolution of the ancient water supply-system in the region of jerusalem", IE] 26, 13°-136.

Lapp, P. W. (1969) "The 1968 excavation at Tell Tacannek",BASOR 195,12.

Magen, Y. (1983) "The survey in judea and Samaria",Proceedings of the Tenth Archaeological Conference in Israel,jerusalem.

Masterman, E. W. G. (1913) "Tell el-FfII and KhurbetcAdaseh", PEFQ.St 46, 132-137.

Merrill, S. (19°8) Ancient Jerusalem, chap. XLI: "Rock andquarries about jerusalem", New York, 367-404.

Na~ralleh, R. P. J. (1936) "Le Gisement Ghassoulien de Telle~-~6maC",]POS 16, 293-315.

Noy, T. (1982) "Reflections on twenty-five years of pre-historic research in jerusalem and its environs", The IsraelMuseum]ournalvol. 1, 11-16.

Olami, Y. (1981) Daliya Map (31), Archaeological survey ofIsrael, jerusalem (Hebrew).

Reich, R. (1981) "Rcls et-TawII", Hadashot Arkheologiyot 76,20 (Hebrew).

Roll, I and Ayalon, E. (198 t) "Two large wine presses in thered soil regions ofIsrael",PEQ.113, 111-125.

Ron, Z. (1966) "Agricultural terraces in the j udean Moun-tains", IE] 16, 33-49 and 111-122.

Ron, Z. (1977a) "The influence of agricultural terracing onthe morphological processes in the hills of judea andSamaria", in M. Broshi (ed.), Between Hermon and Sinai-Memorial to Amnon,jerusalem, 24-28 (Hebrew).

Ron, Z. (1977b) Stone Huts as an Expression of Terrace Agriculturein the ]udean and Samarian Hills, vols. 1-2, Tel-Aviv(Hebrew).

Scott, R. B. Y. (1958) "The Hebrew Cubit",]ournal of BiblicalLiterature 77, 2°5-214.

Shiloh, Y. (1973) "The four-room house-the Israelite typehouse?", Eretl.. Israel 11, 277-285 (Hebrew).

Shiloh, Y. and Horowitz, A. (1975) "Ashlar quarries of theIron Age in the hill country of Israel", BASOR 217, 37-48.

Vincent, H. (190t) "Monuments en Pierres Brutes Dans laPalestine Occidentale", RB 10, 278-298.

Ward-Perkins, j. B. (1971) "Quarrying in antiquity:technology, tradition and social change", from theProceedings of the British Academy, LVII.

Warren, Ch. (1876) Underground]erusalem (London).Worrell, W. H. (1921-22) "Sepulchral cup-marks, pools and

conduits near jerusalem", AASOR 2-3, 80-94.Yeivin, Z. (1966) "Two ancient oil presses", Atiqot 3, 52-63

(Hebrew).

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1179%2Flev.1980.12.1.112

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1179%2F033443579788441217

investigating jerusalem's rural landscape

Documents