Archives

The Fall of Babylon: A Reassessment

Rabbi Steven Fisdel is the founder of the Center for Jewish Mystical Studies in Albany, California. Rabbi Fisdel has firsthand experience with both the esoteric and practical sides of Kabbalah, studying the original texts, clarifying the ideas and subsequently teaching the traditional doctrines to people of all spiritual backgrounds. Rabbi Fisdel served for 12 years in the congregational rabbinate in California. He served as a core faculty member of Chochmat HaLev, a center for Jewish meditation and spirituality, from its inception and was for many years a visiting scholar at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur. He is the author of two books, “The Practice of Kabbalah” and “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Understanding Their Spiritual Message.” He has written and produced two CD sets, Meditations on the Tree of Life and The Katriel Deck: The Original Kabbalist Tarot. His current work in progress is an in-depth explanation of the fundamental principles of Kabbalist thought and practice.

Rabbi Fisdel received his BA at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and both his BHL and MA at Spertus College of Judaica in Chicago. He was trained and received rabbinic ordination from Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, the founder of the Jewish Renewal movement.

One of the most pivotal points in ancient history is the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire[i]. Its demise was sudden and unexpected. It changed the reality and the very trajectory of civilization in the Old World. Since the fall of Babylonia helped ensure and consolidate the establishment of the Persian Empire under Cyrus II[ii], it is important that a more accurate assessment be made to understand exactly what happened that changed things so profoundly. In this brief paper, the intention is to reconstruct as effectively as possible the actual circumstances of Babylon’s fall by reviewing and reassessing the materials that we have available to us from antiquity.

I contend that to understand the dimensions of this epic series of events it is necessary to view the information that we already have, primarily from a political perspective, which means taking into account the practical nature of political struggle, its complexity and the attending intrigue.

Rise to Power

The best way to approach this subject is as a narrative centering on the reign of the sixth ruler of the 11th Dynasty, the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus[iii]. As background, it is important to note that the Neo-Babylonian Empire only lasted 87 years, from 626 to 539 BC. The first Neo-Babylonian ruler of the 11th dynasty was Nabopolassar (626 -605 BC), an Assyrian official who rebelled and established himself as king in Babylonia, ejecting the Assyrians in 616 BC and then proceeding to destroy the Assyrian Empire. His son, Nebuchadnezzar, sent an army (possibly more than once) west toward Egypt, conquered Judah, destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in the process, and incorporated both Phoenicia and Cilicia into the empire.

Amel-Marduk, the third king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, reigned only two years before being murdered by Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law, Neriglissar, who was a capable official and good businessman. His son, Labashi-Marduk, however, was killed within a year by a group of senior officials, who saw him as absolutely unfit to rule. Labashi-Marduk was seen as a child who was cruel and evil. After 9 months, he was tortured to death. In his place, Nabonidus was named to be king. Remarkably, his reign lasted 17 years. On the whole, though, it seems that the whole tenor of the 11th dynasty was not particularly stable.

The Nabonidus Reign, Exile and Belshazzar

Upon taking the throne, Nabonidus was 60 years old. He was from a noble family, but not the royal family. He had held important posts under both Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar. One of the most noticeable traits of Nabonidus was that he was a great devotee of the god Sin[iv], whose central shrine appears to have been in Harran. He seems to have made it his mission to promote and elevate the worship and position of Sin within the empire as a whole. It is important to remember that Sin, the moon god, was central and pivotal in the Assyrian pantheon. This would not make Nabonidus popular, since the Babylonians suffered for a very long time under the Assyrian yoke.

Moreover, Harran was the strategic city commanding the roads from Northern Mesopotamia to Syria and Asia, therefore possessing as a result a hugely important marketplace. This is certainly a prime reason why Nabonidus would lavish great attention on its god. However, Nabonidus by no means restricted the promotion of Sin to just Harran. He rebuilds the Temple to Sin there, which was destroyed by the Medes in the process of overthrowing Assyria. It is stated in the Nabonidus Cylinders[v] that the god Marduk commanded him to rebuild the sanctuary of Ehulhul and specifically establish the god Sin there. In doing so, Nabonidus marched from Gaza with numerous troops and rebuilt it anew on the foundation of Assurbanipal, who had built on the foundation of Shalmaneser III. He refers to Sin as the Creator and King of the Gods[vi].

Apparently, there was a great deal of discontent and opposition against Nabonidus in the first half of his reign. In the stele called the Verse Account of Nabonidus[vii], the statement is made that the country had descended into lawlessness. The king listened to no one. As a result, the common people perished through hunger. Trade was interfered with and prosperity ruined. The nobility was decimated, killed in war. Farmers were ruined, because the country’s arable land was not being protected. This was complicated by the confiscation of property (probably illegally or wantonly). The accusation is leveled that the king has defied the gods and established Sin as lord of the gods. The stele also laments that a cessation of the New Year festival has occurred.

The Nabonidus Chronicle states that the king went into self-imposed exile in Arabia for a period of 10 years. It would seem that he really had no other viable choice under the circumstances, if he wished to save his crown. However, due to Nabonidus’ decade long absence, the New Year’s Festival[viii] ceased. It could not be held, since the presence and participation of the king was central to this vital ritual. The Babylonians believed the order of the universe had to be restored every year in order to prevent the cosmos from devolving back into chaos.

During the New Year Festival, the critical rituals were done to maintain order and ensure blessing and prosperity. The rituals revolved on reestablishing the proper relationship between the people — represented by the king — and the gods, represented by the chief god, Marduk.

The welfare of the nation and its structural coherence, as well as the natural hierarchy of the universe was seen to be totally dependent on the precise rituals that had to be carried out during the New Year Festival.  The rituals revolved around the re-creation of the World, the Defeat of Chaos, the Restoration of Order, the Forgiving of the Past and the Determination of Destiny. The King was the representative of the country. It was he who faced Bel and then installed Marduk.

Any cessation of the New Year Festival would have been devastating, let alone one that lasted a full decade. The practical and psychological trauma this induced must have been enormous. Moreover, it came on the heels of a period of time in which the country had deteriorated into lawlessness.

The Verse Account indicates that Nabonidus entrusted the army to his son, Belshazzar[ix] and entrusted kingship to Belshazzar and himself. It appears then that Belshazzar was empowered to run the government, while Nabonidus moved to Arabia for political refuge and for purposes of political maneuvering. It seems that one of Nabonidus’ aims was to build up the Arabian Peninsula as a buffer against possible Persian expansion. It is also interesting that the god Sin was a very prominent deity in the Arabian pantheon.

It is important to note that in the Nabonidus Cylinders from the great city of Ur, Nabonidus fervently prays to Sin that he not sin against the god and that he fulfill all the rituals without any errors or mistakes. He makes a point of praying that Belshazzar show the same reverence and care, so that as a result both he and Belshazzar are rewarded for their piety. This indicates that divine rituals had to be completed fully and meticulously in order to bring harmony and blessing. More importantly, it is clear that Nabonidus, at the time of his departure from Babylon, understood he and Belshazzar to be completely on the same page. Nabonidus at that time had total confidence in Belshazzar and felt comfortable leaving him as his agent in the capital and in effective administrative and military control.

The famous authority on Ancient Mesopotamia, Georges Roux, asserts that Belshazzar was put in charge of the country because he had a record of being an able soldier and administrator and that he respected and revered the ancient traditions, thus restoring and renovating the Temples of Marduk, something erroneously attributed to Nabonidus.

The Chronicle of Nabonidus states that from the seventh to the eleventh year of his sojourn in Arabia (meaning the seventh through tenth year) Nabonidus was in the oasis of Tayma. Inscriptions from Harran note that Nabonidus wandered from oasis to oasis as far as Yathrib. This would accord with the Biblical evidence that Nabonidus went through a period where he completely lost his mind and his mental faculties.

Upon arriving in Tayma, Nabonidus kills the ruling prince. He and the army then take up residence there and proceed to literally work the people to death building a replica of his palace in Babylon. This very possibly indicates that he was in permanent exile and could not return to Babylon.

It is interesting here to note that the following story appears in the fourth chapter of the Book of Daniel: A dream that Daniel interprets for the king prophesies that because of the king’s iniquities and arrogance, he will be driven away from men and live like a beast in the field, eating grass and being washed only by the dew of heaven[x]. Only through generosity to the poor can his sins be redeemed. But the king did not heed this advice. He remained selfish and arrogant. As a result, twelve months after the prophecy, the king is driven away and for seven seasons lives in the fields with the animals, eats grass and drinks the dew, his hair growing as long and thick as eagle’s wings and his nail resembling the talons of a bird. When the allotted time is up, the king regains his senses and his faculties return. He gives thanks and admits that there is greater power in the world than he is.

In the Biblical story, the king named is Nebuchadnezzar. However, in the same account found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the king is Nabonidus. This accords with many of the ancient assertions that Nabonidus was insane. It seems that in general, Nabonidus was very self-referenced (possibly narcissistic), arrogant and unconcerned about the welfare of others. However, at some juncture during the years he was in Tayma, Nabonidus seems to have had a complete nervous breakdown and/or a psychotic episode. In the cuneiform text, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, he is called a liar, claiming victories he never won. The stele asserts that Nabonidus claimed triumphs that were either not his or never occurred. He would also claim to see visions and those would provide him with access to secret, esoteric knowledge. Such knowledge led him to lecture the priests on holy matters and rituals He was branded as a heretic.

This account raises the possibility that Nabonidus did not necessarily go into exile completely voluntarily. He may have been under considerable pressure to do so by the kingdom. The ancient record does indicate that he was not very well liked. Moreover, the exile in Arabia seems to have exacerbated matters and pushed him over the edge completely.

A more important point is that for ten years Belshazzar ran the empire primarily on his own. Much of the army and all of the administration were left in his hands, while Nabonidus was driven away (according to Daniel) and preoccupied with establishing control over Arabia. The fact that Nabonidus built an exact duplicate of the royal palace in Tayma surgests he did not believe he could ever return or at least would be in exile for a very long time, if not permanently.

It is quite likely that Belshazzar did keep Nabonidus responsibly updated on what the situation in Babylonia was, on a regular basis. Belshazzar had a great respect for tradition, family and duty. Whether Nabonidus responded or not, or even cared that much, is another question, considering he had his own agenda and focus.

Cyrus II ascended the throne of Persia 3 years prior to Nabonidus’ ascension in Babylonia. During the years Nabonidus was in Arabia, Cyrus was establishing his own empire. He conquered Ionia, Asia Minor, Parthia, Sogdia, Bactria and part of India. In response, Nabonidus raised troops in Syria and subsequently invaded Arabia.

Return of the King

According to the Book of Daniel, it was the king’s conviction that his sanity was restored to him in its entire splendor specifically for the glory of Babylonia. After completely recovering his faculties, it says that at that juncture Nabonidus was sought out by the court and the nobility and that he was reestablished in the kingdom with even more power. This would indicate that several crucial realities were emerging as a result of his recovery. First, that upon regaining his sanity, Nabonidus believed that he had been brought back to life and elevated to an even higher level of competence and grandeur than he previously exhibited. With this greater power, he was destined to expand the glory and power of the empire.

At this point, Nabonidus is contacted by the nobility, who want to reestablish him in Babylon and are willing to give the king substantial support. This does not mean that all of the nobility was reaching out to Nabonidus. The biblical text refers to “companions” and “nobles.” That presumably means close friends and supporters. The increasing success of Cyrus may have been the pivotal, if not the most salient and pressing, reason for turning to the king, i.e. the defense of the empire.

It is now that we need to examine the position that Belshazzar was in, so as to understand the dynamics of what actually transpired and how the Neo-Babylonian Empire was brought to an end.

What is most important to bear in mind is that while the archeological and historic records all blame Nabonidus with causing economic ruin[xi], social turmoil, injustice and heresy, no such complaints or allegations were made throughout the 10 years that Belshazzar was effectively the ruler. It seems fairly apparent that Nabonidus’ push to promote Sin as the prime deity of Babylon and the empire caused very fundamental and practical ruptures within the daily life of the people and government. It was also a direct assault on the power and prestige of the central priesthood that served Marduk.

The ardent desire of Nebuchadnezzar (and his successors in all likelihood) was to model the Neo-Babylonian Empire socially, politically and economically along the lines of the laws, policies and culture of the early Babylonian dynasties. The focus was on reviving all of the elements that had made Old Babylonia great in the more distant past. This policy reflects a society that was very mindful of tradition. The religion of Mesopotamia was astrologically based, so an important function of the priesthood was to determine what the gods were planning to do and what fate they were ordaining so that the leaders and people knew how to proceed. They could propitiate the gods and beg for forgiveness if the gods were unfavorable or angry. Alternately, they could offer praise and lavish offerings to the gods if they were well disposed.

By promoting Sin as the central deity, not only was the divine order being massively disrupted, much of practical life and society was directly affected by the commotion. Not only were the temples the cultic centers, they were also the major economic and financial centers. Nabonidus’ policies undermined the system, throwing much of the society and the economy into deep uncertainty and subsequent chaos. This would appear to be the cause of the distress and commotion that forced Nabonidus to flee or be exiled to Arabia. It would also be the root conflict between Belshazzar and Nabonidus.

Historical accounts do not accuse Belshazzar of ever being lawless, arrogant or of being a heretic. Nabonidus was preoccupied by the subjugation of Arabia, while Belshazzar ran the governance of the empire. Belshazzar continued to operate as the sole ruler effectively during the years that Nabonidus lost his mind altogether.

We do not know exactly at what point in time Nabonidus recovered from his debilitating condition. We do know, however, that the New Year Festival[xii] was resumed during the 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign. This means it was at that time, the last year of his reign, that Nabonidus returned to Babylon per se. Whether or not he returned to Babylonia in general, earlier than his entrance into the capital, is another question.

In psychological terms, a person coming out of a coma, an emotional trauma or an emotional breakdown often exhibits personality and/or behavioral changes. Sometimes, these changes manifest as the intensification of certain already active beliefs and behaviors. At other times, the experience can activate latent or dormant ones.

When Nabonidus ‘reclaimed’ his sanity, he had to have realized that Belshazzar had become the sole ruler of the empire during his absence, and easily have come to the paranoid conclusion that Belshazzar had usurped the throne. His son, in his mind, had become his biggest enemy. If he wished to regain the throne, Nabonidus would need a strong ally and a covert plan of operation.

It would appear that Nabonidus, upon returning, set about exercising his authority. This normally would have had to be done gradually and discreetly. However, under the threat of an imminent war with Persia, the process could be moved along much faster. Under urgency of these circumstances, it would also be easier to marginalize Belshazzar. This could be reinforced by slander to Belshazzar’s subordinates about his son. In the ancient records, Nabonidus was accused of lying as well as taking credit for achievements that were not his. Slandering an opponent to destroy his credibility and isolate him is a critical step in the process of destroying him. It is all the more effective if the statements are coming from an authority figure that abuses his title for self gain.

By this time, Cyrus had extended his empire to the Arabian Gulf and the two empires were bordering each other. Cyrus crossed the Tigris River in 539 BC and attacked the Babylonian forces at Opis. We have no direct information about who the Babylonian commander was or what the casualty figures were. However, the people of Opis and/or elements of the army revolted and it was Nabonidus who quashed the rebellion. This would indicate that it was Nabonidus at the head of the army. The sources report that the Persians massacred the Babylonian forces and that the governor of Gutium (Assyria) with his forces changed sides and defected to Cyrus.

This fiasco could be understood in two different ways: (1) Nabonidus was old and incompetent at this juncture. After all, he was in his late 70’s and had recently recovered from a major psychological breakdown in the not too distant past. And (2), he was secretly working with Cyrus in order to regain his throne, this claim supported by both Cyrus’ and Nabonidus’ cylinders referencing each other in a manner that indicates comradery. In that case, the army at Opis, as well as the population, realized from Nabonidus’ behavior that something was very seriously wrong and that the king was either endangering their lives or betraying them. When they rebelled, he ruthlessly cut them down. In this scenario, he would have also ordered the Assyrian forces to defect. This would leave Babylonia highly, but not completely, vulnerable.

To prepare for the takeover of Babylonia, there was already fierce psychological warfare being waged by the Persians depicting Cyrus not as a conqueror, but as a liberator and savior. He was heralded as a very wise, humane and enlightened ruler who freed peoples from corruption, crisis and oppression and was benevolent and merciful.

After the Battle of Opis, Cyrus takes a circuitous route before he reaches the very important city of Sippar, which he conquers without any resistance. After the surrender of the city, Nabonidus, who was there at the time, exits and heads directly to Babylon itself. Two factors are worth considering here. One is why was Nabonidus in Sippar without an army? The second question would be; is it possible that it was not the bulk of the Babylonian army that was defeated at Opis. Perhaps that is why Cyrus approached Sippar cautiously. However, if Nabonidus did have a sizable army at hand, why would he avoid facing the Persians?

It is worth seriously considering that in order to regain his throne from Belshazzar he worked out an arrangement with Cyrus to facilitate a takeover, in exchange for making the Babylonian empire an ally of the Persian or for ruling Babylonia as a co-regent in a united empire. Both Cyrus’ and Nabonidus’ cylinder transcripts suggest as much.

Babylon and the Jews

Before going into the fall of Babylon itself, it is important to discuss the significance of the Jews, their position in the empire and their relationship to the court.

The status of the Jews in the Neo-Babylonian Empire was very favorable as can be deduced from the biblical material. In the first chapter of the Book of Daniel it states that Nebuchadnezzar specifically took talented men from among the Judaean captives and had them trained in Aramaic, the literature and culture of Babylonia and then incorporated them into the court as officials and administrators. When Meshach, Shadrach and Abed-Nego survived the ordeal of the fiery furnace, the king made them administrators of the province of Babylonia. For his service, Daniel was appointed the prefect of all the wise men of Babylon and appointed governor of the province.

In the Book of Ezra, Chapter 1, it lists the names of the prominent men and their families that were returning to Judaea to resettle under Cyrus’s edict. The amount of wealth that they carried with them was substantial, apart from the Holy Vessels of Jerusalem and the monetary donations collected from the Jewish community. It is stated that priests, prophets, heads of the clans and even Nehemiah, who Cyrus appointed as governor of Judaea, went. The Book of Daniel places the number at over 42,000[xiii]. In accord with Biblical reckoning this number in all probability only includes the important families, not necessarily the ordinary people who chose to return as well. One way or the other, in spite of the intense emotional pull and the joy of being repatriated in their homeland, the number of people returning by no means is anywhere near the total Jewish population. The vast majority of the Jews in Babylonia chose to stay, which strongly suggests that they had found a comfortable place in Babylonian society.

Their acceptance and success may be the reason why, on one hand, Meshach, Shadrach and Abed-Nego and later, Daniel, are denounced by some nobles and why, on the other, that Darius is so relieved and happy that Daniel survived the lions’ den. Daniel remained a prominent figure from the time of Nebuchadnezzar until the ascension of Cyrus, which means that he had to have had a similar relationship to Belshazzar. In other words, the Jews remained valuable assets and loyal servants of the crown throughout the existence of the empire.

In Mesopotamian belief, an idol was not a statue. It was the god or goddess incarnate. The god or goddess inhabited the image and operated from their temple to dwell amidst people of the city, so as to watch over them and rule. When the hostilities first began with the Persians, Nabonidus had the gods from many of important cities removed from their sanctuaries[xiv] and brought to Babylon. This would frighten and demoralize the population since in times of danger the people looked to the gods for protection and solace. Nabonidus’ move rendered the populous helpless and terrified. The gods had left them abandoned. In essence, Nabonidus was holding the gods captive, thereby removing any aid and protection.

According to Herodotus, shortly after Nabonidus went into exile, the queen Nitocris (most likely with Belshazzar’s help) built fortifications in defense of Babylonia. Since Belshazzar was in constant communication with Nabonidus[xv], it is almost certain that he had a fair working knowledge of the whole system. That would mean Nabonidus was in a position to provide Cyrus information vital for bypassing Babylon’s defenses and taking the city by stealth and surprise. The Persians knew to dig canals to divert the river water that ran under Babylon’s walls, so as to lower the water level and allow troops into the city. Who fed them the schematics of the defense system, if not Nabonidus?

This brings us to the issue of the feast[xvi] taking place in the palace, the coup de grâce. With the loss of a substantial part of the army during the battle of Opis and the surrender of Sippar, the last step in the process of bringing down Belshazzar and regaining control of the country was the capture of Babylon itself. With knowledge of the empire’s defenses, the Persians could infiltrate the city. However, it was not in Nabonidus’s interest to have his forces slaughtered if his aim was to effectively govern. They needed to be neutralized, not killed.

At the time of the assault on Babylon, there was a great feast occurring in the palace. This feast is stressed in the Book of Daniel and in the writings of Herodotus and Xenophon. At such a time, this makes no sense whatsoever. During a major war which threatens Babylonia’s empire, if not her independence, why have such a huge feast at such an inappropriate time?

In the 5th chapter of Daniel, it states that Belshazzar organized the feast and was present. It also points out that the feast was attended by 1000 of his nobles. In other words, a very large number of those present were supporters of Belshazzar, as opposed to those nobles who were allied more directly to Nabonidus.

In Daniel, mention is made that during the course of the feast, everyone became very drunk and that not only were the nobles there, but so were their consorts and concubines. Herodotus describes the feast as being filled with debauchery. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that Babylon fell without a struggle. It was not because the population was looking to be liberated from traumatic conditions, as Persian propaganda claimed. Rather, the “peaceful takeover” was due to the fact that the city was invaded by stealth, while the nobles were conveniently all gathered together in the same place. Drunk and exhausted, they were not in any mental or physical shape to think clearly, let alone to fight.

Why the feast was held at all is a matter of conjecture. However, a couple of logical possibilities come to mind. Belshazzar was an effective and intelligent ruler. It is not likely that he came up with this idea on his own. Ordinarily, having a great feast at this time would not make sense, either logically or militarily. The order to have such a lavish celebration had to have come from elsewhere. That would be Nabonidus, who could act through his supporters at court without being there himself. Nabonidus was in the country, though not in Babylon proper. This would allow him to issue orders, marginalize Belshazzar and set him up to take the fall.

The two strongest possibilities for explaining why the feast was held when it was are; Nabonidus ordered it on the pretext that he was returning to the capital and that reconciliation was about to take place, or that word had been spread deliberately that the Persians had suffered a massive defeat and a celebration was in order.

This ‘celebration’ tactic would include Nabonidus demanding the sacred vessels from the Temple in Jerusalem be used in the feast. The use of the sacred vessels is stressed in Daniel and mentioned as a serious issue in both Herodotus and Xenophon. The primary reason for such mention and emphasis is that this kind of action constitutes an act of wanton and deliberate sacrilege.

Jeremiah had prophesied at the time Jerusalem was destroyed, that the exile would be over in 70 years time. The Jewish community in Babylonia, as well as the government, was very aware of this fact. Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and even Darius the Mede, had direct experiences with the God of the Jews and respected His power.

The Jews were longing to go back, reestablish the homeland and to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Both, symbolically and practically, this meant that they would be returning with the Temple vessels. However when some of the vessels were used in the feast under Nabonidus’ order, they were defiled ritually and could never, under biblical law, be used again in the Temple. The political message that this transmitted was that the government, ostensibly under Belshazzar, had no intention of ever repatriating the Jews to Judaea.

The objective of this move by Nabonidus was to drive a wedge between the Jews and Belshazzar, thus depriving him of a strong base of support. The feast had a double-edged purpose. On one hand, it neutralized the nobles who supported Belshazzar and turned them over to the Persians ‘without a struggle’ and also caused a tremendous breach between the Jews and Belshazzar.

In one fell swoop, two of the central pillars upon which Belshazzar depended were torn away, completely destroying his position and laying the blame for Babylon’s fall squarely on his shoulders.

It is emphasized in Cyrus’ cylinder material that Sippar and Babylon were taken without a fight. Nabonidus was present in or around both locations at the time they ‘welcomed’ the Persians. It would seem that in all probability, Nabonidus pulled off the same type of deceit and betrayal in Sippar as he did in Babylon. There was a close relationship between what happened in both locales, probably because there were close connections between the two cities. An indication of this is the fact that when Nabonidus removed the gods from most of their sanctuaries and brought them to Babylon, Sippar was one of the few cities that was exempted.

Belshazzar seems to ask for Daniel’s help. When Daniel was able to interpret the vision that Belshazzar had of the feast’s writing on the wall[xvii], the message made known that the kingdom was falling to Cyrus citing, ‘your kingdom is divided’ in present tense. It was not a prophecy of future events, but rather a notice stating the current facts, with premeditated intentions. Belshazzar’s knees knocked, he was terrified at realizing the full truth of how he was manipulated and deceived, what his father’s agenda really was and the extent of the betrayal.

Prior to translation, he offers Daniel the position of third in the kingdom. This means that Daniel should join a triumvirate. The first in line would be Nabonidus, who regardless of all the treachery is still the lawful king. Belshazzar would remain as second and Daniel would be the third in command. With that constellation of power, tradition would be respected and upheld and the combination of Belshazzar and Daniel working together would hold Nabonidus in check. Belshazzar was hoping to reverse the unfolding situation and save Babylon.

What he did not realize was that it was already too late. Within hours, the nobility would be captured and he himself would be killed. It is noteworthy that he is the only one that dies. This would support the assumption that Belshazzar was ultimately the target. He had to be overthrown and eliminated because he effectively held the real power on the throne. It was in the interest of both Nabonidus and Cyrus to have Belshazzar killed.

Nabonidus returns to Babylon immediately after its fall, in anticipation of being placed on the throne by Cyrus, only to be double-crossed. When Cyrus enters the city a couple of weeks later, Nabonidus is arrested[xviii]. Instead of killing him, Cyrus rewards his assistance by making Nabonidus the governor of Carmenia in Persia itself. This worked for Cyrus on two counts. He was being honorable enough by acknowledging Nabonidus’ enormous contribution in facilitating the incorporation of the Babylonian Empire, and he was furthering a wise political policy of treating conquered people humanely and compassionately.

Cyrus

Cyrus’ strategy was well thought out and very effective politically. It established Cyrus’ reputation as one of being a merciful ruler, not only deeply concerned about the welfare of his own people, but also responsive to the needs and sensitivities of even subject peoples. In the Bible, Cyrus is highly regarded and described as sent by God to restore the Jews to their homeland. Even Herodotus saw Cyrus as the model of a true ruler.

In addition, it should be pointed out that this policy also had tremendous propaganda and public relations value. It set forth the feeling that Cyrus was not a ruthless enemy, that he was a man with a wide perspective and enlightened viewpoint. He might even be considered a potential liberator from injustice, oppression and chaos. Moreover, his policy of working to restore the fortunes of conquered peoples, treating them with dignity and understanding went a long way in co-opting subject peoples and creating a strong bond of loyalty.

Though Cyrus did not punish and destroy former enemies, it seems that it was not a universal policy. Cities and countries that Cyrus was concerned about “courting” and co-opting, generally were named specifically in the records. These were usually peoples or places that were of strategic and economic importance.

It is of interest that one of the first things Cyrus did after capturing Babylon was to create an edict allowing for the restoration of Judea[xix]. It is one thing to rebuild a fallen city, to protect the rights of a subject people and to integrate them into the empire. However, the Jews were already integrated, not only into Babylonian society, but holding high ranks within the government itself.

The intention of the edict was to reestablish a strong Jewish presence in Judea. Cyrus allowed aristocracy, the heads of the clans, the priests and prophets as well as officials and administrators to return. They were encouraged to solicit contributions for the Temple’s rebuilding from all over the empire. When they arrived in Judaea, families settled in their original towns. Obviously, the plan was to rebuild and empower a strong Jewish presence in the province in Judaea, which would be loyal to Persia. This would solidify Persia’s hold on the land bridge between Asia and Africa. It both held Egypt in check and subsequently opened the door for its eventual conquest.

Since Belshazzar was well aware of the anticipation around the possible fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy, it is quite conceivable that in order to secure Babylonia’s future, protect it from the Persians and the Egyptians and expand the empire, Belshazzar was planning to utilize the Jews in the same way. Cyrus being alerted of this by Nabonidus may explain why he attacked Babylonia when he did. He may have felt that he had to preempt or face a stronger enemy in Babylon.

The tragedy is that Babylonia could have regained its former glory or possibly surpassed it under an unencumbered reign of Belshazzar. Instead, the Neo-Babylonian Empire was short-lived due to Nabonidus’ insanity, sabotage and betrayal. Rather, Belshazzar, the king who could have laid the foundations for a resurgence of Babylonian culture and influence was marginalized, slandered, and murdered. This was one of the greatest tragedies to play out in the ancient world.

=====

Reference sources:

[i] Wikipedia Fall of Babylon

[ii] Britannica Cyrus The Great

[iii] Livius Nabonidus

[iv] Britannica Mesopotamia God Sin

[v] Wikivisually Cylinders of Nabonidus translation

[vi] Livius Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar

[vii] Wikipedia Verse account of Nabonidus

[viii] New Encyclopedia Nabonidus (3rd paragraph ‘Reign’)

[ix] Creation.com Belshazzar

[x] Ancient Origins The Lost Years of Nabonidus

[xi] Cambridge University Press Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy (‘summary’ footnote) Also note JSTOR’s ‘abstract’ citing Nabonidus additionally collapsing the Iron Age polity of Edom

[xii] World History Akitu – The Babylonian New Year Festival (second and last paragraphs)

[xiii] Complete History of the Holy Bible

[xiv] Nabonidus The Mad King Page 139

[xv] Nabonidus and Belshazzar – the Neo-Babylonian Empire by Raymond Philip Dougherty

[xvi] Bible.org Belshazzar’s Feast

[xvii]  Bible Gateway Writing on the Wall, Book of Daniel

[xviii] Encyclopedia Nabonidus

[xix] My Jewish Learning Palestine Under Persian Rule

Cyrus Cylinders translation

‘Translation of A’ (point 3) referencing Nabonidus as incompetent and causing disarray by demanding the Babylonians pray to his moon god, Sin. For two thousand years, the Babylonians had only prayed to Marduk.

‘Cyrus takes Babylon’ – Cyrus clarifies Nabonidus as an ally when Babylon was conquered the night of the feast, with Nabonidus helping to plan and successfully invade the Empire.

‘Religious Measures’ (point 33) proving Nabonidus ordered the feast and that the Jerusalem Temple goblets be used at this celebration of his return – this was sacrilegious, disobeying God. Hence the writing on the wall was directed at Nabonidus yet he failed to show at the feast. All fingers pointed to Belshazzar.

Nabonidus Cylinders translation

Specifically this excerpt ‘while Cyrus is the king of the world whose triumphs are true and whose yoke the kings of all the countries are pulling.’ He acknowledges Cyrus as a great warrior and leader, followed by hallucinations that without him, Cyrus wouldn’t have successfully invaded Babylon. This is where Nabonidus egomania and long term insanity is self transcribed with delusions of grandeur and power. Nabonidus has regularly been cited as mentally unstable but not in the context of anything more than an isolated topic. Not one person, aside Rabbi Fisdel and I, has associated his insanity as spearheading the Babylonian collapse. That’s why this cylinder is important. 

Ground-Truthing History at Jamestown

As Founder and Editor of Popular Archaeology Magazine, Dan is a freelance writer and journalist specializing in archaeology.  He studied anthropology and archaeology in undergraduate and graduate school and has been an active participant on archaeological excavations in the U.S. and abroad.  He is the creator and administrator of Archaeological Digs, a popular weblog about archaeological excavation and field school opportunities.  

It was an instance of serendipity when, one day in late October, 2017, I happened to cross paths with William Kelso. We had no plans to meet, but I recognized him as I was snapping some photos of the most recent excavations within the vicinity of the old Memorial Church at the Jamestown Island, Virginia, archaeological site. Kelso is best known for his pioneering work discovering and uncovering the remains of the long-lost James Fort, thought for decades, until 1994, to have vanished into the water of the James River long ago as the river eroded its way into the island over the centuries. That discovery, and the hundreds of thousands of artifacts that have since come to light about America’s first permanent English colony, have arguably for many defined one of the great archaeological discovery stories of the past century. 

We spoke only briefly, but it was enough to generate the distinct impression that Kelso, currently Head Archaeologist for the Jamestown Rediscovery Project and veteran of decades of research, had no plans to retire soon. His legacy, however, has already been made. Standing to witness were the manifestations of evidence for America’s first permanent English colony surrounding us as we talked, from sections of the reconstructed post-in-ground palisade walls of the original 1607 James Fort to the partial reconstruction overlying the footprint of the first-ever church structure built at the site, where Pocahontas and John Rolfe exchanged their marriage vows in 1614. This is aside from the more than two million total artifact haul accumulated since Kelso’s excavations at the site began, most of which is unseen by the public eye but some of which, over 4,000 strong, can be seen in the Archaerium museum only steps away from where we stood to talk.  

For most people it would be enough to walk about the site. It is certainly impressive enough. But for other members of the public, like me, curiosity can only be sufficiently quenched by thoroughly reading about the details of the groundbreaking (pun intended) discoveries that have been made here over the past 20+ years. Kelso has made this possible with the publication of his most recent book, Jamestown,The Truth Revealed. 

Kelso qualifies by making no secret of the fact that fully 60 percent of the book constitutes a re-publication of his previous book, The Buried Truth, to provide a fuller context or precursor to the discoveries made in more recent years, equally compellingly documented in the book’s second part, “More Buried Truth”. 

It is the book’s second part, and more, that is the focus here. I relate it by way of the chapter headings assigned within the book itself: 

Holy Ground 

As the title of Part II’s first chapter suggests, excavation work at the site has uncovered some tantalizing evidence of the central role the English, or Anglican, Church played in the culture of Jamestown’s first colonists. Wasting little time after their arrival in 1607, the colonists, under the direction of its leadership, constructed one of America’s first English ecclesiastical buildings — a simple post-in-ground structure that saw several renovations or revisions in very short order. William Strachey, writer and Secretary of the Colony in 1610, wrote this first-hand account of the structure, in which Pocahontas and John Rolfe were famously married in 1614. It describes the church as it appeared during his tenure:

In the middest [of the fort]…is a pretty chapel…It is in length threescore foot, in breadth twenty-four…a chancel in it of cedar and a communion table of black walnut, and all the pews of cedar, with fair broad windows to shut and open…and the same wood, a pulpit of the same, with a front hewn hollow, like a canoe, with two bells at the west end. (1)

It was Strachey’s account of the structure, clues from other sources, and excavations in the southeastern sector of the James Fort that turned up the tell-tale signs of the building, revealing deep post-holes all in alignment very close to the dimensions Strachey described, and four burials located in what would be the chancel area of the church. 

Although the traces of the church structure was big news when archaeologists first revealed the remaining soil stains left by the structure’s long-decayed post architecture, it was the burial discoveries that eventually commanded the most attention from the press and public. That is because, consistent with the long-held burial practice of English society at that time, high-status individuals were found to be buried beneath church chancels — and, in this case, it would be individuals who had played essential leadership roles in the founding and settlement development of Jamestown in its very earliest years. Forensic analysis of the skeletal remains, other archaeological evidence, chemical analysis, and historical documents confirmed with a confident degree of certainty that the individuals buried within the chancel space were likely Reverend Robert Hunt, Sir Ferdinando Wenman, Captain Gabriel Archer, and Captain William West, all known “movers and shakers” of the Jamestown settlement. Kelso, without getting the reader lost in what could have been a mind-numbing technical report, nonetheless goes into meticulous and satisfying detail about the discoveries in the text of the chapter. 

Identifying the big names was sensational, without question. But how did the early church finds add to what we already knew about the first years of the Jamestown settlement? 

Kelso emphasizes at least several major takeaways. First, that “the biographies of four practically anonymous Jamestown leaders have come to life,” and that “Wenman and West, both relatives of De La Warre [the Jamestown leader best known for having commanded the supply fleet that arrived in Jamestown in June 1610 after the ‘starving time’, in time to save the colony from a final collapse], were held in high esteem at Jamestown.” Second, it suggested how the established system of English hierarchy was transported to the New World, with the Anglican Church as the “center of the James Fort’s society, spiritual and secular.” And third, the excavation results confirmed that the first, 1608 – 1616 church structure stood apart and separate, although only yards away, from the later church built upon a brick-on-cobble foundation, the one initially built in 1617 and in which America’s first democratic assembly met in 1619. The church where Pocahontas was married was not the same church in which the seeds of the U.S. American government were planted. (2)

_______________________________________

jamestownpic3

Aerial view of the excavated features of the 1608 church. Photographed detail of an informational placard at the Jamestown historic site. Jamestown Rediscovery project, Preservation Virginia

______________________________________________________

jamestownpic5

Excavated burials in the 1608 church chancel area. Photographed detail of an informational placard at the Jamestown historic site. Jamestown Rediscovery project, Preservation Virginia

 ____________________________________________________

jamestownpic6

Above: Archaeologists unearthed a small silver box, placed at the time of his burial on top of Gabriel Archer’s coffin. Micro CT scanning analysis revealed it to be a reliquary, which is a container for holy relics. Although corrosion has precluded analysts from opening the box, scanning revealed that it contained fragments of bone, likely human, and fragments of a lead ampulla. Ampullae were small flasks used to carry blood, holy water, or oil. Why it was placed on Gabriel Archer’s coffin remains a mystery.

____________________________________________________

jamestownpic4

Artist’s illustration depicting the form and dimensions of the 1608 church as it would have appeared in its day. Photographed detail of an informational placard at the Jamestown historic site. Jamestown Rediscovery project, Preservation Virginia

_______________________________________

jamestownpic1

Above and below: Views of the partially reconstructed 1608 church, after excavations.

____________________________________________________

jamestownpic2

_____________________________________

Jane

Although Jamestown’s claim to fame has rested primarily on its mantle as America’s first successful English colony, a darker side to its story tells how close the fledgling colony came to failure. That close call, as most people who have followed the Jamestown story know, was due most acutely to the horrendous period of starvation the colonists faced during the winter of 1609 – 1610. Brought on by a combination of concurrent factors, such as crumbling relations with the local Powhatan resulting in hostility and siege of James Fort, a drought, and dwindling food supplies and sources, it became known to history as the “starving time”. The written record has recounted this episode with some startling narrative:

Wee cannot for this our scarsitie blame our Comanders here, in respect that our sustenance was to come from England…soe lamentable was our scarsitie that we were constrayned to eat Doggs, Catts, rats, Snakes, Toadstooles, horse hides and wt nott, one man out of the mystery that he endured, killinge his wiefe powdered her app to eate her, for wch he was burned. Many besides fedd on the Corps of dead men…and one who had gotten unsatiable, out of custome to that foode could not be restrayned, untill such tyme as he was executed for it.(3) 

The historical narrative is powerful and excruciatingly detailed, but generations of scholars and the public had to rely on the truthfulness and accuracy of the written word for these events — the physical evidence was absent. Until, that is, Kelso and his team began uncovering artifacts and bones that indicated something terrible was happening at Jamestown during this period. Excavations yielded burials, bones, artifacts and contexts that, after analysis, provided plausible evidence that the “starving time” did indeed occur and was likely as horrific and severe as documented. The one discovery that captured the imagination of scholars and the public alike, however, was the recovery of the remains of a 14-year old girl. Kelso relates the details of this story in the chapter, Jane. Reading almost like a detective mystery, Kelso does not scrimp on the thorough telling of how the researchers, through archaeological and forensic anthropological analysis, determined that the skeletal remains, consisting of more than a dozen specimens including a female human skull, jaw with teeth, and shin bone — all found with discarded “starving time” trash in a cellar/kitchen fill — had been butchered in an act of cannibalism. Doug Owsley, the Smithsonian Institution’s renowned forensic anthropologist and a consultant to the Jamestown excavations, was key to making the determination:

Owsley determined that the skull and leg bone had undergone sustained blows, chops, and cuts from several sharp, metal implements, reflecting a concerted effort to separate the brain and soft tissue from bone. Months of intensive scientific testing — including high-magnification technology, stable isotopic tests for oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, and tests for lead — determined that the bones were the remains of a fourteen-year-old English girl of lower status, probably raised in southern England. Owsley concluded that the rigorous postmortem cuts to the skull and jaw, and the way the leg was severed, were clear evidence of cannibalism.(4)

Researchers have been unable to pinpoint the girl among the roster of settlers, and thus she remains unidentified. She is known simply by the name, for lack of any other, assigned to her: “Jane”.  

Researchers have since created a believably lifelike and, by professional standards, accurate forensic sculptural reconstruction of Jane’s face and skull using a digital resin copy of her skull based on the skeletal finds. In addition to reading about the Jane story in Kelso’s book, it is well worth the visit to the Archaerium museum at the Jamestown site to view the reconstruction. 

___________________________________

jamestownjanebones

The cannibalized remains of Jane, all constituting parts of the (1) skull; (2) shin bone; and (3) jaw. Photographed from a public display illustration in the Archaerium.

______________________________________________

jamestownarticlepicjaneskull

Jane’s skull. Smithsonian image

_________________________________

jamestownarticlepicjane

Forensic sculpture reconstruction of Jane’s face. Studio EIS

____________________________________

Company Town

Archaeologists get very excited about finding middens (old refuse dumps) and wells. There is good reason for that. Like treasure chests for archaeologists, they often contain the greatest concentration of the bits and pieces of past civilizations. This has been particularly true for Jamestown. In the book’s final chapter Kelso covers a lot of ground, but his discussion of what Jamestown excavators have recovered from the historic James Fort wells dominates the narrative. And rightly so. The wells, particularly the two described in “Company Town”, have yielded some of Jamestown’s most intriguing artifacts. Although thousands of artifacts were recovered, one of the wells, associated with an excavated storehouse and its cellar, constructed inside the James Fort palisade triangle, gave up two objects worth noting here:  A 5” by 8” slate tablet featuring inscriptions of words, symbols, numbers, and drawings of people, animals and plants; and fragments of 8 curiously marked Robert Cotton* clay tobacco pipes. The slate tablet discovery, which Kelso described as “not unlike finding the proverbial lost letters in an attic trunk,” had the distinction of being “both an archaeological find and a historical document.”(5) But accurately reading and interpreting the inscriptions on its face have been challenging, to say the least. Nonetheless, Kelso devotes fully 8 pages to describing the inscriptions, the efforts to understand them, and what they mean in terms of understanding what was happening at Jamestown. A close second in terms of the chapter content is the 7-page description of the pipe finds. These pipe fragments were interpreted to bear the names of 8 well-known English gentlemen: Sir Walter Raleigh, Lord De La Warre, Captain Samuel Argall, Sir Charles Howard, Henry Wriothesley, (the Earl of Southampton), Captain Francis Nelson, Sir Walter Cope, and Robert Cecil (Lord Salisbury) — all gentlemen associated with the Jamestown venture in different ways. “Why Cotton had to name them remains one of the most intriguing mysteries of the abandoned cellar/well finds,” Kelso writes. “Like the writing slate, however, the names on the pipes are examples of some of the surprisingly literal messages left to us by Jamestown’s past.”(6)

The second of the two wells, described by Strachey as intended to replace the old storehouse/cellar well, was discovered about 80 feet further north of the old well, but still within the James Fort palisade triangle. Its story is as much about its original construction as the artifacts found within. As the archaeologists excavated, they discovered that “at a depth of eight feet, six inches, the soil became moist, and remnants of timber lining appeared. Digging below that revealed more and more intact remnants of the lining until the timber was completely preserved to the bottom, fourteen feet below grade.”(7) The latter part of the excavation had to be conducted in water — a difficult situation — but in addition to the timber, the conditions produced by the water in the bottom portion of the well helped to preserve some other tantalizing finds, such as the remains of a child’s leather shoe and what is thought to have been Lord De La Warre’s ceremonial halberd, intact and remarkably preserved. An elegant loaded pistol, of a type that was likely considered state-of-the-art for its day (apparently finding its way into the well between 1610 and 1617), was also found, as well as a lead “Yames Towne” shipping tag. 

_______________________________________

jamestownpic8

The slate tablet, as exhibited in the Archaerium

______________________________________

jamestownpic9

A selecion of the pipe stems, as exhibited in the Archaerium

___________________________________

jamestownpic7

Detail of a lead Jamestown shipping tag, dated to 1611, found in the timber-lined well. As exhibited in the Archaerium

________________________________________

 Holy Ground, Again

The book notwithstanding, it does not tell the end of the Jamestown excavations story. Indeed, the ink had barely dried with the book’s publication as excavations progressed full swing within the 1906 Memorial Church, today the most prominent architectural feature at the James Fort site. One of the excavation’s objectives, as with the first post-in-ground church dig to its northeast, is to uncover and hopefully identify who was buried in the church chancel — likely, as English tradition held in the early 17th century, burial remains of some of Jamestown’s most notable citizens. 

Could the burials include Lord De La Warre, otherwise known as Thomas West, the leader who rescued the Jamestown colony from collapse with new supplies after the starving time, John Rolfe, the first successful tobacco planter and husband of Pocahontas, and George Yeardley, one of colonial Virginia’s early governors? 

Intriguing new evidence unearthed within the chancel area of the church might possibly provide some clues. Archaeologists have already revealed evidence of burials, the presence of which were known from previous excavations conducted soon after the turn of the 20th century. Examination of recovered bones from the recent excavations by Smithsonian scientists in the lab are beginning to yield new information about who the bones represent, but nothing yet definitive in terms of identifying the buried. One set of bones, however, exhibited signs that the individual was robust, a man in his forties, and had tell-tale signs of having been a horseman. At least two out of the three findings thus far are consistent with what is known about Lord De La Warre.  

It will take some time to ferret out the findings at the site and in the lab. For one thing, previous excavations and disturbances have vastly complicated the process.  “We have not uncovered any more bones in place as of yet,” Kelso told Popular Archaeology. “We are still trying to sort out which graves came before which graves by the disturbed soil above the actual buried skeletal remains.”

One additional recent discovery is worth noting — a small metal box containing what has been detected by x-ray examination to be a piece of folded paper was unearthed in the northeast corner of the church foundation. A written note? “The paper is unreadable so far and probably never will be,” said Kelso. “Of course there is no doubt that the tin container was purposely buried [by the early excavators] under the north corner of the 1640s church during the 1901 digging.” The find exemplifies the many limitations and mysteries that may always remain about historic Jamestown, even through to the 20th century.

One thing should be emphasized — there is much more to the Memorial Church excavations than unearthing burials, (all of which, once recovered and researched, will be re-buried in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources). The current structure, after all, lies above the foundation of the original 1617 structure, the church in which the first English governing representative assembly in America met. It was, among other things, the birthplace of the kind of government that eventually became the United States as we know it today and the center of the religious culture that helped to define a nation. Archaeologists are, at this writing, exploring the old foundations and recovering artifacts that will help to develop a deeper understanding of that historic site and its place in the American heritage.

_______________________________________

jamestownpic10

Excavation in progress within the Memorial Church

 ____________________________________________________

jamestownbook

Interested readers may obtain a copy of Kelso’s latest book, Jamestown, The Truth Revealed, by going to the University of Virginia Press website. The book is, in this writer’s opinion, a must-read for those who want an in-depth, engaging, and easily understood source for the story of how archaeology is both affirming and revealing important beginnings of the American experience.

_____________________________________________________

Notes: 

  1. Strachey, in Wright, Voyage to Virginia, 80.
  2. Kelso, William M., Jamestown: The Truth Revealed, 2017 University of Virginia Press, pp. 182 – 184.
  3. A True Declaration of the estate of the Colonie in Virginia, 1610, and The Tragical Relation of the Virginia Assembly, 1624, in Tracts and Other Papers, ed. Peter Force, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1836 – 46), 3:16.
  4. Kelso, William M., Jamestown: The Truth Revealed, 2017 University of Virginia Press, p. 189.
  5. Kelso, William M., Jamestown: The Truth Revealed, 2017 University of Virginia Press, pp. 210 – 211.
  6. Kelso, William M., Jamestown: The Truth Revealed, 2017 University of Virginia Press, p. 226.
  7. Kelso, William M., Jamestown: The Truth Revealed, 2017 University of Virginia Press, p. 228. 

*Robert Cotton was a pipe-maker sent to Jamestown as part of a re-supply in 1608, and is responsible for the making of a number of pipes found at the Jamestown excavations.

____________________________________________________

Become a Popular Archaeology premium subscriber.

___________________________________________

Travel and learn with Far Horizons.

farhorizons1

____________________________________________

Wanted: A Remarkable Piece of History

Marek Titien Olszewski is Associate Professor, PhD from the Sorbonne, lecturer at the Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, specialist in Roman archaeology and iconography, and an expert on ancient mosaics, Roman archaeology and Syria (UNESCO). He sits on the board of the AIEMA (Association Internationale pour l’Etude de la Mosaïque Antiqua).

Houmam Saad has a PhD in archaeology and is on the staff of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums of Syria (DGAMS). He is also an associate of the French Academy of Sciences (CNRS) and a specialist in the archaeology of Syria.

Beyond the devastation and tragedy of human lives precipitated by the conflict in Syria, priceless representations of ancient culture and history have likewise fallen victim to a seemingly never-ending maelstrom of destruction. Ancient monuments and art have either been destroyed, damaged, or lost as chaos persists in a region that has for thousands of years seen the footprint of a parade of civilizations. Missing but not forgotten among these cultural victims is one very important Roman mosaic — a floor mosaic that tells a history of the great ancient city of Apamea, an important Greek and Roman hub of the Levant. Like many other splendid and unique mosaic floors, this one was unfortunately cut from its bedding, smuggled abroad and sold on the black market to a foreign collector by an organized group of professional antiquities thieves. However, the panel was photographed with a cell phone by an anonymous person. The images were passed on to specialists by pure coincidence, and today it is one of the most valuable objects wanted by INTERPOL.

The uniqueness of this Roman mosaic, discovered and stolen in 2011, warrants its presentation here, based on the presumption that the panel originated most probably from Apamea, one of the most important classical sites in Syria.

 

A Slice of Material History

The panel was likely part of a larger work from a very large hall of a wealthy residence belonging to perhaps the most important person in the local and Roman administration officiating in Apamea. This rectangular figural panel, an estimated 19 m2 in size, was surrounded with a geometrical frame. It comprised different scenes arranged in three zones, one above the other, the one in the middle wider than the other two, which are otherwise of the same dimensions. The scenes are historical, extremely rare on Roman mosaics. They tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD. 

The photographic image shows that the lower zone and about half of the central zone of the mosaic floor were not preserved. The rest of the panel is in good condition, save for a few minor losses.

The religious act of the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes 

The upper zone of this floor mosaic is filled with a scene composed of ten figures. On one side there are five Macedonian light cavalrymen – strong men with their horses, shields and spears. On the other side, there is a religious scene, a cult offering being made by five figures, three of which are identified by inscriptions in Greek. Archippos, the legendary founder of Pella-on-the-Orontes, is shown with a patter in his right hand, held above the bodies of sacrificial bulls. He is accompanied on either side by two of the Diadochi, successors of Alexander the Great, namely Antipater and his son Kassander. All three are dressed in rich tunics, pallia and diadems. Crowning the scene is an eagle with spread wings symbolizing Zeus. 

_____________________________________

Apamee 0_A (1) Dobrochna

Fig. 1. Upper zone of the mosaic from Apamea. Representation of a cult offering made by Archippos before the diadochi Antipater and his son Kassander, and the Macedonian cavalry, occasioned by the founding of the Macedonian colony of Pella-on-the-Orontes. Anonymous photographer, image modified and sharpened by D. Zielińska. 

______________________________________________ 

The (re)foundation of Apamea – the royal generosity of Seleucus and Apama 

The central zone presents scenes that can be divided into three groups: (1) six richly attired people around a large table (mensa argentaria), (2) a city with monumental buildings, and (3) craftsmen and workers building the fortifications. Silver and gold coins cover the tabletop. All the figures standing and sitting around the table have Greek captions. One of them is Seleucus I Nikator, recognized also by the bull’s horns. He holds in his hands an architect’s measure, symbol of the king as founder of the city (ktistes). Antipater is looking on. Sitting at the table are Archippos, Apama – first wife of Seleucus, Kassander and Antiochus I Soter, son of Seleucus, who became a very powerful ruler. They are all dressed exquisitely like Hellenistic rulers should be, in tunics and pallia, and they wear diadems. Apama has her head draped and wears a chiton and himation.

The city is surrounded by huge defense walls. Apama contributes an enormous sum of money for the construction of the city. Seleucus is shown as the founder, whereas the other diadochi are present and express with gestures their solidarity with the queen and her act of generosity, suggesting at the same time their personal contribution to the development of the town. A temple on a high podium rises behind Seleucus; one can see the roof with a tympanum in front, set on five columns; a few columns can also be seen in the side elevation. Behind the general and the rulers there is a large oval building with two structures on the long axis of the central inner courtyard. It is a hippodrome or Roman circus with a semi-oval base (meta) with three colonettes topped by an egg-shaped form, standing at either end of the spina or central axis. The circus is adjoined by a number of buildings, including one of monumental size. Inside the walls there are many different buildings beside the monumental temple, but the mosaic is fragmentary in this spot. At the bottom one can discern a large ox pulling something very heavy. Away from the town walls, on a small fragment, there is a semi-nude female figure personifying the springs that filled the Orontes (Belos) river, resting her arm on a vessel (?) with water pouring from it (?). Two builders are shown working on the fortifications. Outside the wall there are three other builders pushing one of the large dressed stone blocks and a fourth depicted walking. 

____________________________________

Apamee 0_B Dobrochna

Fig. 2. Central zone of the mosaic from Apamea. (Re)foundation of Pella/Apamea-on-the-Orontes by Seleucus I Nikator and the donation of Apama for the development and fortification of the town. Other participants of the scene include Archippos, Antipater, Kassander and Antiochus I Soter. The representation of the town of Apamea shows its main buildings. In the bottom zone, the hinterland of the city of Apamea with a noria and baths. Anonymous photographer, image modified and sharpened by D. Zielińska.

______________________________________________ 

Apamea: prosperity and joy of suburban life 

The third zone at the bottom of the panel depicts scenes showing the prosperity of the hinterland of the city of Apamea, possibly the plain of Ghȃb or other nearby regions on the Orontes. A splendid Roman bath catches the eye here, as does a noria on a river, which is most probably the Orontes. Two entrances can be seen, one leading most probably to the apodyterium (cloakroom), the other onto a ramp leading to a large pool. Three children are playing on the ramp and in the pool, while two women leading small children are entering the cloakroom. A fowler is hunting birds next to the baths and a man carrying a load can be seen on the road.

 

The mosaic as a new historical source for the history of Apamea

The hypothesis that this mosaic was one of a series of panels showing cities of the Tetrapolis founded by Seleucus I Nikator in 300 BC decorating a rich private house or a public building belonging to a high official of Apamea seems possible. The dating of the mosaic brings to mind the oration made by Libanios in honor of Antioch in AD 356. 

It is noteworthy that the diadoch Antigonos, who is believed to be the “founder” of Pella-on-the-Orontes in modern scholarly literature, is not present in this panel, whereas Antipater and Kassander were shown twice as active contributors to the development of the Macedonian colony. The unknown source that inspired the creators of the mosaic in question gave Archippos (he is confirmed by Pseudo-Oppian) as the founder and suggested that Macedonian veterans colonized the city, possibly after the Battle of Issos in 333 BC. The colony gained in importance in the times of Antipater when he was regent of the empire in 321- 319 BC., and in the time when Kassander commanded the Macedonian cavalry stationed in Pella. The cavalry depicted in the mosaic as well as the way in which they are shown recall some iconographic scenes from the period of the Diadochi, e.g., the wall paintings from the tomb of Agios Athanasios from Thessaloniki and the sarcophagus of Alexander the Great from Sidon, today in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul.

___________________________________

Agios-Athanasios

Fig. 3. Macedonian cavalryman with his horses from the tomb of Agios Athanasios in Thessaloniki, dated to the end of the 4th century BC (after H. Brecoulaki, La peinture funéraire de Macédoine. Emplois et functions de la couleur, IVe-IIe siècle aavant J.-C., Athens-Paris 2006, pl. 96.2).

_____________________________________________ 

The mosaic depicts historical events of the highest importance for the city of Apamea: after 333 BC and then in 300 BC. Meetings of rulers and generals, whose rule impacted the development of the colony and city, occurred between 321 and 261 BC (death of Antiochus I Soter). This points to the allegorical nature of the mosaic, emphasizing the circumstances of the founding and development of the city of Apamea. This narrative corresponds to an unknown and more detailed and complementary story of the origins of the town. The mosaic was inspired by unknown sources, perhaps Hellenistic pictures complemented with elements contemporary with the city of the 4th century AD. A possible source is the lost work of Euphorion of Chalcis describing the origins and development of Apamea. The mosaic is of exceptional significance for the history and iconography of the Diadochi. This is the first portrait of Apama, first wife of Seleucus I Nikator, to be preserved in Classical art. The panel is also an exceptional source for reconstructing the urban architecture of Apamea. For the first time we are treated to a view of the famous temple of Belos(?), the hippodrome (circus), suburban baths and a representation of the noria a whole one hundred years earlier than the oldest known iconographical image of this installation known to date, from Apamea from the mid 5th century AD. One may also observe certain parallels with the iconography of buildings from a later mosaic of Megalopsychia from Yakto in Antioch. The mosaic is exceptional in its expression and is part of a series of exceptionally rare historical mosaics. 

 

As one of the most important works of ancient art, the mosaic is part of the Syrian national heritage and should be returned one day to the place where it belongs, that is, the archaeological museum in Apamea.

Summing up, one should note that many mosaic panels from the Syrian Apamea have been plundered by organized bands of professional thieves of ancient artifacts and works of art. These thieves are also propagating false information regarding stolen works of art, suggesting that they are forgeries. It is unfortunate that some restorers, not necessarily specialized in ancient art and Roman mosaics, originating from countries neighboring with Syria, are receptive to such disinformation. Information that objects of real antiquity are forgeries is meant to protect future dishonest buyers of such objects from the Interpol and local police. 

_______________________________________

***

The mosaic panel was first identified in 2016 by permission of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums of Syria (DGAMS) and its director, Prof. Maamoun Abdulkarim. The co-authors would like to express their deep gratitude.

***

The Diadochi shown on the mosaic from Apamea:

Antiochus I Soter (“the Savior”) – 324–261 BC; king 281–261 BC

Antipater – 397–319 BC; regent of the empire 323–319 BC

Apama – ? –299 BC; wife of Seleucus I Nikator

Kassander – 350–297 BC; regent of Macedonia 317–305 BC; king of Macedonia 305–297 BC

Seleucus I Nikator (“Victor”) 358–281 BC; king of the Seleucid empire 305–281 BC

 

Bibliography:

OLSZEWSKI M. T., SAAD H., 2016 (in press), « Origin of Apamea of Syria on the Roman mosaic wanted by Interpol. New Roman Source to Hellenistic and Roman History of Apamea », Archeologia (Warsaw), 66.

INTERPOL calls for vigilance on looting of ancient mosaics in Syria : 

 http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2012/N20120521

 

Fig. 1. Upper zone of the mosaic from Apamea. Representation of a cult offering made by Archippos before the diadochi Antipater and his son Kassander, and the Macedonian cavalry, occasioned by the founding of the Macedonian colony of Pella-on-the-Orontes. Anonymous photographer, image modified and sharpened by D. Zielińska. 

Fig. 2. Central zone of the mosaic from Apamea. (Re)foundation of Pella/Apamea on the Orontes by Seleucus I Nikator and the donation of Apama for the development and fortification of the town. Other participants of the scene include Archippos, Antipater, Kassander and Antiochus I Soter. The representation of the town of Apamea shows its main buildings. In the bottom zone, the hinterland of the city of Apamea with a noria and baths. Anonymous photographer, image modified and sharpened by D. Zielińska.

Fig. 3. Macedonian cavalryman with his horses from the tomb of Agios Athanasios in Thessaloniki, dated to the end of the 4th century BC (after H. Brecoulaki, La peinture funéraire de Macédoine. Emplois et functions de la couleur, IVe-IIe siècle aavant J.-C., Athens-Paris 2006, pl. 96.2).

 

_______________________________________

Antonia: The Fortress Jerusalem Forgot

This is Marilyn Sams’ fourth, originally-researched article dealing with the general topics of Jerusalem archaeology and, in particular, the Haram es Sharif, popularly known as the Temple Mount. 

In her full-length book entitled The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, Ms. Sams weaves together a narrative of over 200 ancient and seldom-cited literary sources that challenge the traditional model that places the Solomonic and Herodian temples over the Dome of the Rock.

You can read a synopsis of her evidence and learn more details at her website: http://jerusalemtemplemountmyth.com.  

Through this location passed, according to ancient sources, a veritable “who’s who” of the ancient, classical world:  Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt…the Roman generals Titus and Pompey…Herod the Great…his son Antipater…Mark Antony …Pontius Pilate…Jesus of Nazareth…the Apostle Paul…the historian Josephus…the Roman emperor Hadrian…and tens of thousands of Roman legionnaires. Yet why have historians given Fort Antonia—the great Roman fortress built at this location and hosted by Rome’s client king Herod the Great—only glancing and foot-noted references?  How does history simply “lose” one of the great architectural achievements of the ancient world?  And why have the drawings of contemporary biblical archaeologists repeatedly represented Antonia as a relatively modest, annex-sized building positioned at the northwest corner of the Haram es Sharif, commonly known as the “Temple Mount?”

___________________________________________

jesusbeforecaiaphas

Above: Artist depiction of Jesus near the judgment seat of Pontius Pilate on the steps between the Temple and the imposing walls of Fortress Antonia, his Roman guards waiting below. To avoid defilement on Pesach, his disciples did not enter the fortress (John 18;28).  It was from these same steps that the Apostle Paul addressed an angry crowd in Acts 21:34-40.  Image, top left: Jesus on Trial at Fortress Antonia. Pilate’s seat of judgment was elevated, and located just outside the Praetorium in Fort Antonia. Here Pilate interrogates as members of the Sanhedrin look on. Illustration by Balage Balogh 

_________________________________________________________

The story begins with Josephus, the first century Romano-Jewish scholar and historian, who explains in his writings that Herod the Great expanded the “Baris” (the Greek word for “tower”), built by John Hyrcanus, the famous second century B.C.E. Jewish leader, to replace the citadel which had formerly protected the temple in the City of David (pre-Babylonian Jerusalem).  Josephus effuses about its splendor and how much Herod, a prolific spender, dispensed for its construction.  Herod dubbed the Roman camp “Fort Antonia” after his friend, Mark Antony, and it assured his reputation as a master builder by its unparalleled magnificence. It must have been about 40 acres in size, like other typical Roman camps capable of housing a legion of 5,000-6,000 soldiers. Josephus described it as being “erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height” on a “great precipice.”  It had “all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps, such that it had all the conveniences of cities and seemed like it was composed of several cities.”   With 60-foot walls, four towers (the southeast being 105 feet high), and smooth stones installed on its slopes, it dominated the temple to its south, ready to fend off the most formidable attacks.  When any trouble brewed in the temple, or to keep peace during the festivals, Roman soldiers poured out of Fort Antonia onto two 600-foot aerial bridges, connecting it to the roofs of the temple porticoes, whereupon they dispersed around its four-furlong perimeter. If need be, the soldiers could rain their arrows down upon the people in the outer courts or descend via staircases to perform hand-to-hand combat. 

Yet despite these informative descriptions from Josephus, who personally participated in the siege of Titus, the current models of Fort Antonia approved by the mainstream traditionalist scholars and historians are typified by the one illustrated below: 

_________________________________________

antoniaimage2A popular view of the Temple Mount in Jesus’ time with smallish rendition of Fort Antonia highlighted. Courtesy Bob Ellsworth

__________________________________________

In most respects, the traditionalist model does not match up with Josephus’s descriptions.  For example, it is not laid out as a camp, but does look like a castle.  Josephus’s account encompassed both descriptions.  It does not have the size of “several cities,” nor does it look like a city.  It does not exhibit the “magnificence” a huge expenditure would suggest.  It does not feature slopes which would accommodate slippery tiles.  It does not “dominate” the temple.  It is not separated from the temple by a distance of 600 feet, and there are no aerial roadways connecting it to the temple.  However, the traditionalist model does show four towers, one higher at the southeast corner.  Archaeologically, the northwest and northeast corners do show signs of towers.  However, Herod’s temple foundations did not have any towers.  But most significantly, the major problem with the current traditionalist models is how they do not resemble a typical Roman camp in size, shape, or function, while the 36-acre walled edifice does.

_________________________________________

ifitlookslikefort

 Image courtesy Bob Ellsworth

__________________________________________________________

fort2

 Typical layout of a Roman fortress with principal elements noted. Courtesy Bob Ellsworth

_____________________________________

sergiopolispic

Above: Roman fortresses like this dotted the Roman Empire—from Spain to Britain to Germany and the Middle East. This Roman fortress at Sergiopolis in Syria is still standing to this day. Notice the striking similarity in size (40 acres), shape, and layout to the Haram es Sharif or “Temple Mount” structure in neighboring Israel, and the consistent “cookie cutter” shape to other Roman fortresses. Courtesy Bob Ellsworth

_______________________________________________________

 

Clues: The Roman Destruction

After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the First Jewish-Roman War in 70 C.E., they turned their sights on Masada, Herod’s magnificent fortified palatial complex high atop a plateau in the Judaean Desert overlooking the Dead Sea.  Josephus quotes Eleazar, the Jewish leader of Masada, as trying to convince his people to commit suicide rather than being taken captive by the Romans upon the Jewish defenders’ impending defeat.  Eleazar asks them:  “Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein?  It is now demolished to the very foundations, and has nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that have destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins…And I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner” (War VII, 9, 376, 379, Whiston translation).  The traditionalists have ignored the first part of this passage regarding the surviving Roman camp and simultaneously interpreted the destruction of the temple to mean only the sanctuary and the inner precincts, with support from the use of “naos” (sanctuary) in the original Greek.  Adherents of the Fort Antonia identification of the “Temple Mount” bank on Whiston’s “foundations” being dug up as referring to those of the whole temple mount, because when Christ directed his disciples to gaze at “these buildings” after their question concerning the temple’s demise, the most visually prominent building would have been the 450-foot high temple mount.  Hence, a literal interpretation of Christ’s prophecy that not one stone would be standing upon another would dramatically illustrate the utter end of the temples and Jewish worship therein, as opposed to the traditional view that more than 10,000 stones victoriously stood in place—the stones of the traditional version of the “Temple Mount.”  However, archaeology in the City of David has thus far reinforced the total destruction interpretation of Christ’s prophecy, as no two temple stones standing upon one another have been found.  Nevertheless, in 1968, in the southwest area of the “Temple Mount’s” southern wall, archaeologist Benjamin Mazar discovered a stone incised with the square Hebrew alphabet used in the Herodian period.  The decipherable words were interpreted to mean “To the place of trumpeting,” an actual location on the temple mount walls mentioned by Josephus where the priests blew a trumpet to announce the beginning and end of the Sabbath day.  Mazar assumed it had fallen from the southwest corner.  In addition, in 1871, Clermont-Ganneau found a warning stone at the northwest corner of the graveyard abutting the traditional temple mount wall (see Numbers 1:15).  These stones were placed at intervals in the Soreg, and in 1936, J. H. Illiffe found a partial fragment in another stone in the Lion Gate.  Hence, the tradition claims these three stones affirm the “Temple Mount’s” identity, though none were found “in situ” and Aquila (c. 128-177 C.E.) famously described the temple ruins as “like a quarry, all the inhabitants of the city choosing stores from its ruins as they will for private as well as public buildings.” Meanwhile, the same yardstick has not been equally applied to relate the proximity of Roman military buildings “in situ” and myriad Roman artifacts nearby, as a sign that the 36-acred walled edifice is Fort Antonia.  

                                                                                              

Clues: The Two 600-Foot Aerial Bridges

The traditionalists can point to the following statement by Josephus about the siege of Titus: “For the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple foursquare, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, “That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become foursquare” (War VI, 5, 311).  Taken out of context, this statement clearly explains that the Jews had demolished Fort Antonia, as traditionalists believe.  Taken in context, it is clear the demolition of Fort Antonia actually meant only the destruction of the two 600-foot aerial bridges, which connected it to the temple. Josephus’s account of the siege shows the Jews never had the time, means, or opportunity to destroy a castle-like Roman camp of several cities size defended by masses of Roman soldiers in front of and behind 60-foot walls. A part of the Jews desperately defended the temple.  The rest were confined and guarded in walled sections of Jerusalem.  The demolition of Fort Antonia described by Josephus must be associated with his accounts of the temple mount’s measurement, stated in several places to be a four-furlong or four hundred cubit square.  However, in one place, he includes the two 600-foot aerial bridges and the plaza beneath in the measurement of the temple and says it was a six-furlong rectangle. When both the Jews and Romans destroyed the bridges, the square temple stood alone, fulfilling the prophecy:  “When square the walls, the temple falls.”  This literally happened when the battles taking place atop the bridges ended at their destruction, while soldiers constructing siege banks against the temple’s north wall hastened their completion.  When the break-through came, the battles began in the temple outer courts and lasted until Roman soldiers seized the sanctuary.

How did the two 600-foot aerial bridges disappear from the pages of history? They were still there in two 19th century books written by scholars Thomas Lewin, and William Sanday and Paul Waterhouse. These men probably read Josephus in the original Greek, while others succeeding them relied on the eminent 18th century translator, William Whiston.  Whiston probably decided, taking the “Temple Mount” tradition as his guide, that Josephus had erred in War VI, 2, 144 when he described the exact length of the aerial roadways as a furlong, replacing it with “no long space of ground.”  He must have felt obliged to do this, based on Jerusalem topography and the impossibility of placing Fort Antonia six hundred feet north of the alleged “Temple Mount.”  Although there are ten references in Josephus to these bridges, Whiston’s translation obscured their existence and without Dr. Ernest L. Martin’s seminal book, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, they would still be forgotten today.

Martin’s model shows the two bridges and the separation between the temple mount and Fort Antonia.  But Balage Balogh more dramatically illustrates the statement by Josephus that Fort Antonia blocked the view of the temple from the north, implying the two structures were on different elevations.  A careful reading of Acts 21:30-40 in the New Testament provides confirmation for this detail.  In this passage, an angry mob seizes the Apostle Paul and throws him out of the Temple.  In response to this uproar, the soldiers and centurions “ran down” to retrieve Paul from the mob and bound him.  When Paul preached to this mob, he was “on the stairs” and the soldiers had to “go down” again to retrieve him from the Pharisees (Acts 23:10).  This scenario can easily be reconstructed when the stairs south of the traditional temple mount uncovered by Benjamin Mazar (and also illustrated in Martin’s model) are identified as those belonging to the castle mentioned in Acts.  In the traditional models, Fort Antonia stands on a scarp slightly elevated above the “Temple Mount,” but do not have the requisite plaza and stairs on the south side, as the models are flush against the “Temple Mount’s” north wall.

______________________________________________

balagetemple

The proposed premise, depicted above by noted archaeological illustrator Balage Balough, shows the massive Fortress Antonia looming over the Second Temple, which was placed over the Gihon Spring in the City of David. To the north of the Fortress (here in the foreground) is the Birket Israel, the former Struthion Pool. Dr. Martin’s original model of this same theory clearly shows the two bridges and the 600-foot separation between the Temple and Fortress Antonia. The above illustraton, however, more dramatically illustrates the statement by Josephus that Fortress Antonia blocked the view of the Tempe from the north, implying that the two structures were on different elevations. A careful reading of Acts 21: 30-40 in the New Testament provides confirmation of this detail. In that account, an angry mob seizes Paul and throws him out of the Temple. In response to this uproar, the soldiers and centurions “run down” to retrieve Paul from the mob. When Paul addressed the mob he was “on the stairs” and the soldiers had to once again “go down” to retrieve him from the Pharisees. Illustration by Balage Balogh

________________________________________________________________                                                                     

roadtojerusalem

 Travelers approaching Jerusalem from the north found their view of the Temple obscurred by the massive fort-city of Antonia (Josephus, Wars, 5). This observation would have been impossible if the Temple was situated within what is today the Haram es Sharif enclosure. Illustration by Balage Balogh

_____________________________________________________________

Clues: The Degradation of Fort Antonia

Based on Fort Antonia’s new identity as the “Temple Mount,” traditionalists carefully noted Josephus’s statements that Fort Antonia  “was situated at the corner of two passages of the court of the temple; on that of the west, and that of the north” and that it “joined to the north part of the temple.”  They also knew from Josephus that during the siege of Titus, the soldiers attacked Fort Antonia through the Struthion Pool.  Hence, scholars deemed a pool to the north of the “Temple Mount,” under the Convent of the Sisters of Zion, as the Struthion and the Convent emerged as the conjectured location of the former but now allegedly defunct Fort Antonia.  However, according to The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1993), scholars eventually dated the remains adjacent to and under the Convent to Hadrian and even later.  This location then fell into disrepute, though traditionalists still claim the Struthion Pool is the one described by Josephus.  The new conjectured location for Fort Antonia then moved closer to the “Temple Mount” on a rock scarp directly north of it, a space now occupied by the Omariya Boys School.  This scarp measures only 394 by 147 feet, so the former Roman camp had to shrink from about 40 acres to about 1 1/3 acres in order to fit.  Nevertheless, the Duc de Vogii, Dr. Edward Robinson, Claude Conder, Sir Charles Warren, and Sir Charles Wilson supported the site.  Even though F. E. Peters and others felt this scarp would be too small to contain the edifice described by Josephus and proposed that part of the Fort must have been imposed on the northern area of the “Temple Mount,” the rock scarp location has prevailed and is the reason Fort Antonia is now pictured as a relatively small castle at the northwest corner of the “Temple Mount.”  However, the traditionalists give only the fact of the scarp’s existence as proof of its identity.  There hasn’t been a single sherd, etching, coin, or packet of dust to prove that a Roman camp of several cities’ size once stood there.  Without recognizing there were two 600-foot aerial bridges, scholars degraded the once-magnificent Roman camp to a Grade B location, failing to recognize how the bridges joined the temple to Fort Antonia on the north.  

                                                                                       

Clues: The Displacement of the Tenth Legion

Although four legions had fought at the siege of Titus, only the Tenth Legion would remain behind, stationed at Fort Antonia.  A victory celebration had been conducted there, but the decimation of Jerusalem was not complete and Josephus describes Titus gazing out at the western hill from the vantage point of the camp.  He sees Herod’s three marvelous towers—Hippicus, Mariamne, and Phaesalus—and parts of the western wall near them.  He feels they should remain standing to show what kind of a city Jerusalem had been and they could be used to afford a camp for “such as were to lie in garrison.”  These statements lend credence to the traditionalist views that Fort Antonia had been destroyed, the whole Tenth Legion lay garrisoned in the towers and on the western hill, and the “Temple Mount” stood abandoned.  However, it is evident that Titus changed his mind or someone overturned his command, as there are no further descriptions of the three towers or the western wall by persons who witnessed Jerusalem’s destruction and even Josephus said the “local towers” were destroyed.  Other than Eleazar, no eyewitnesses to Jerusalem’s destruction ever mention the gargantuan “Temple Mount” or Herod’s towers.  They always refer to the total devastation of Jerusalem and the temple, giving rise to the supposition that they did not consider the 36-acre walled edifice as part of Jerusalem, nor did they consider it to be the temple.  Likewise, accounts of the Byzantine-era pilgrims reveal they identified this remaining monument as the Praetorium, the Roman camp, and described the temple ruins with features consistent with the southeastern hill—Mount Zion, the fountain of Siloam, Eudocia’s east city wall, and the two pools of Siloam.   

Holding to Titus’s statement about the garrisoning of the Tenth Legion in the towers, archaeologists have scoured the western hill for evidence of the Legion’s occupation.  But The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1993) reveals the paucity of findings there: “The Roman occupation level is extremely fragmentary and in most places it is difficult to identify.”  The thousands of broken ceramic roof tiles and those stamped with the Tenth Legion’s abbreviation (LXF, LEG X FR) would probably only cover two roofs.  Hillel Geva said of his western hill excavations: “…we did not uncover any significant artifacts typical of Roman military camps (such as sculptures or Latin inscriptions)—only a few coins and a few baskets of shards.  The conclusion cannot be avoided: The Roman stratum is absent in most of the excavated areas.”

Instead, Roman military structures and artifacts are mostly found near and under the “Temple Mount.” Excavations by Benjamin and Eilat Mazar at the southwest corner have revealed a Roman bakery and further north, a Roman bath house.  Since these structures were unearthed above the 70 C.E. destruction layer, Eilat Mazar conjectured that the rising number of legions in Jerusalem during the Bar Kochba rebellion (estimated to be 9-13) caused the Tenth Legion to go up on the formerly abandoned “Temple Mount.”  Hadrian put down the rebellion, but at an enormous cost to his armies.  He then built the city of Aelia Capitolina, with the goal of eradicating all things Jewish from the former Jerusalem.  Hence, one might reasonably ask why Hadrian would retain the “Temple Mount” as its dominating monument.

                                                                           

And More Clues: New Discoveries, Ancient Records

The Temple Mount Sift is an archaeological project established to wet-sift the soil discarded from underneath the “Temple Mount” during the Muslim construction of the Marwani Mosque.  Among its findings from every era can be found artifacts signifying both a Roman (with the largest share of findings) and Byzantine presence.  Gabriel Barkay, the project’s co-founder, stated that “the people writing the history of the Temple Mount definitely have to reassess their work on this particular era” (referring to the Byzantine era when scholars believed the temple was abandoned).  Co-founder Zachi Zweig (Dvira), while researching at the Jerusalem Antiquities Authority, found a report by R. W. Hamilton, a former Director of the British Mandate Antiquities Department.  In the wake of recent earthquakes that damaged the Al Aqsa mosque, Hamilton seized the opportunity to explore its underground, with the permission of the Waqf.   At some point between 1938 and 1942, he found a mosaic under the Umayyad level, and under it, a mikveh of the Second Temple period.  His report of the excavation failed to mention these important finds, and they were unknown until Zachi Zwieg found them in 2008.  When Rina Talgum dated the mosaic to the Byzantine era, assumedly from a church or monastery, Zweig commented that “the existence of a public building from the Byzantine period on the Temple Mount is very surprising in light of the fact that we do not have records of such constructions in historical texts.”

Due to the prevailing temple mount tradition, Zweig failed to recognize there are “records of such constructions.”  They are found in accounts from Byzantine-era pilgrims who identified the edifice as the Praetorium or the Hall of Pilate, not the “Temple Mount”.  There are several pre-tradition accounts of two churches in the Praetorium.  Theodosius (530 C.E.) mentions Eudocia’s Church of Saint Sophia in the Praetorium.  Then Antoninus Martyr (a.k.a. the Piacenza Pilgrim), at about the same time, combines the Basilicas of the Blessed Mary and Saint Sophia and calls them the Praetorium.  Antoninus also refers to a square stone in the “midst” of the Praetorium, where the Lord was tried.  The Breviarius lists the Church of Holy Wisdom as a church at the House of Pilate.  Arculf  (680 C.E.) claims Omar built his house of prayer over ruined remains.  The Venerable Bede echoes this tradition.  Arnold Von Harff, as late as 1496 C.E., identifies the remains as those of the Church of Our Blessed Lady.   In Burchard of Sion’s time (1283 C.E.) the 36-acre edifice was called the Tower of David, but Burchard said some identified it as Antony’s Tower

In addition, Eutychius (876-940 C.E.) writes that when Caliph Abd al-Malik rose to leadership, he sought to demonstrate the ascendancy of Islam over Christianity in Jerusalem and ordered the construction of the Dome of the Rock to compete with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on the opposite hill.  Eutychius vouchsafes the location of the Church of Saint Sophia over the Sakrah when he claims that al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock on the site of a Christian Church that he destroyed. Eutychius also states that the Christians did not build a church over the temple ruins, because of Christ’s statement that there would not be one stone left standing upon another.   Hence, Eutychius never considered the Dome of the Rock as the site of the temple, because that site had formerly been occupied by a Christian church.

                                                                         

How the Tradition Came to Be

A major factor in the establishment of the temple mount tradition was the absence of the Jews from Jerusalem for long periods. They had been ousted by Titus, then Hadrian, and then by Christians during the Byzantine era, but when 70 families asked Omar for permission to return, they asked to be in the “southern” part of the city, near the waters of Shiloah, and the temple and its gates.  When the Muslims took over the “Temple Mount,” the Church of Our Blessed Mary lay in ruins and the Church of St. Sophia stood over the Sakrah.  Muslim tradition alleges that Omar transferred the temple’s foundation stone from the temple ruins to the southern end of the 36-acre walled edifice. This was the first arrival of a temple-related artifact and “the toe-in-the-door” of the  “Temple Mount” tradition. Over time, the “foundation stone” changed locations to the Sakrah and eventually transmuted into the Sakrah itself, which then became the foundation stone of Solomon’s temple.  The Muslims instituted the temple mount tradition, promoting the Sakrah as the site where David prayed, where Solomon built the temple, and where Mohammad departed on his Night Journey.  When the Crusaders arrived, they were entirely ignorant of any authentic identifications and promptly dubbed the Dome of the Rock the Templum Domini and the Al-Aqsa Mosque the Templum Salomonis.  Apparently, the few remaining, downtrodden Jews in the city failed to keep the truth alive.  In addition, the temple ruins were no longer recognizable and the Jews’ last site of worship, instead of being at the site of the ruins, had been in a synagogue on the Mount of Olives.  The Jews gradually embraced the Crusader identifications and commenced worshipping at the east wall, then, in the 16th century, at the Western Wall.  All these factors contribute to F. E. Peters’ complaint that when studying Jerusalem, he noticed various sites would “flutter disconcertingly” from one side of the city to the other. 

Uncertainty about the lay of the land and the positioning of buildings in biblical Jerusalem has been long-standing.  British historian and archaeologist Joseph Trupp, writing in 1855, noted that ancient Jerusalem’s topography “is enveloped in grievous uncertainty” and opined “it can be of no surprise if the traditional knowledge respecting the spots important to the study of Jewish archaeology should prove to have been completely corrupted or lost…the utter demolition of the city by Titus renders it probable that the accurate topography of the ancient city was forgotten at a very early period.”

One hundred and fifty years of intervening research and archaeology have done little to unscramble this puzzle, and there is hardly one point in the topography of the Holy City to which scholars are entirely agreed.  Hershel Shanks, Editor-in-Chief of Biblical Archaeology Review, succinctly summed up this dilemma in 1999, with a bold and unsettling observation: “Everything you know about Jerusalem is wrong.”

More recently, an extravagantly produced and authoritative work on early Jerusalem (City of David, published by the City of David Institute for Jerusalem Studies, 2008) makes the telling admission that “the Temple Mount area still remains the ‘black hole’ of Jerusalem archaeology.”

______________________________________________

domeoftherock

 Said Dr. George Wesley Buchanan, Professor Emeritus, Wesley Theological Seminary: “None of the Jewish temples were ever built in the area of the Dome of the Rock. Although a popular theory, it is free from any support from biblical sources.” Image courtesy British Museum

______________________________________

The Archaeology of Fort Antonia

Since the “Temple Mount” is today under the authority of Muslim overseers, non-Muslims are not allowed beneath it, a frustrating situation for many archaeologists who can only dream to investigate the site for new evidence.  Nevertheless, Charles Wilson mapped the underground cisterns and aqueducts in the 19th century, and various persons have entered into the southern extension, taken pictures of ‘Solomon’s Stables’, described the gate underneath the Golden Gate, viewed trenches exposing walls near the Dome of the Rock, and walked through the tunnels extending from the gates.  Excavations to the south and along the western and eastern walls, as well as the sifting project, have yielded column and capital fragments; fragments of Roman marble statues, inscribed stones, one with the discernible word “elders” and one in Latin honoring Vespasian, Titus, and Silva; the base of a statue dedicated to Hadrian (embedded into the lintel of the Double Gate); pottery and stone vessels; bullae (Roman amulets); stone seals, several thousand coins, and more.  Collectively and individually, the finds give information about the occupation of both the “Temple Mount” and the southeastern hill.  Unfortunately, certain of the finds can be interpreted as “proof” for both proposed identities of the temple mount and Fort Antonia, because of the proximity of the two edifices and numerous siftings and destructions by time, war, earthquake, and new constructions by changing regimes. 

A more effective method to distinguish the two is to apply ancient descriptions of the temple mount to the traditional edifice’s placement, dimensions, gates, walls, size of stones, and water system.  For example, when Aristeas claims there was a natural spring under the temple, this can be compared with the lack of a known spring under the traditionalist “Temple Mount.”  When Maimonides says the Ark of the Covenant was hidden in the deep and winding tunnels under the temple, this can be compared with the straight tunnels under the traditionalist “Temple Mount.”  When Josephus says the temple was completed, this can be compared with the unfinished northwestern corner.  When Eusebius says the temple site became a garbage dump, this can be compared with the lack of such findings under the “Temple Mount,” while many garbage sites have been uncovered on the southeastern hill.  When Josephus describes the foundations as starting in the Kidron Valley and ending as a four-furlong square 450 feet high, this can be compared with the 922 by 1596 by 1040 by 1556-foot measurements of the “Temple Mount” trapezoid, whose maximum height is 158 feet, upslope from the Kidron Valley.  The traditionalists have attempted to remedy the size issue by drawing a 500 cubit square (the dimensions given by the Mishnah) around the Dome of the Rock.  More recently, Leen Ritmeyer has taken the trouble to find many signs on the “Temple Mount” which show that Solomon’s temple was actually an 861-foot square.  This, however, does not coincide with the eyewitness account of Hecateus of Abdera who described the temple of Solomon as being “in the middle of the city” (on the southeastern hill) and measuring 500 feet by 150 feet.

_____________________________________________

templewithcaptions

This schematic line drawing from Dr. Ernest L. Martin’s work details the actual relationship between Fort Antonia and the Second Temple. It is the first premise to reconcile descriptions of eyewitnesses that the Temple stood one stadia (or 606’ feet) south of Fortress Antonia in the City of David, and that the two complexes were connected by two aerial bridges.  The Temple had its east wall descending precipitously deep into the Kidron Valley, and was situated over a “gushing” perennial spring.  Josephus also notes that Fort Antonia was “several cities” in size, a castle-like camp dominating the Temple.The New Testament simply describes it as a “castle”. It had smooth slabs of  stone surrounding the base for both adornment and protection against potential invaders. Most significantly, it would have been the only structure in ancient Jerusalem able to garrison and support a six thousand-strong Roman Legion. Image courtesy Bob Ellsworth

______________________________________________________________

 

Excavations in the City of David

Ongoing excavations on the southeastern hill are lending more support for the Fort Antonia identification of the “Temple Mount” and the City of David location for the temple.  The recently uncovered cyclopean stone towers, meant to protect the Gihon Spring in the Middle Bronze Age II, served the same function as Solomon’s temple, built 1,000 years later in the same location.  Small tunnels leading from the hill’s center to the sewer under the street of the Tyropoean Valley have been identified as possible water and blood disposal channels from the slaughtering tables on top of the ridge.  A golden bell, similar to those described on the High Priest’s robe (Exodus 18:34), has been found near the proposed vicinity of the temple.  Excavations in the Warren’s Shaft area of the Gihon Spring have exposed new tunnels under the central hillside, which lead to what was previously an unknown water source—the manmade Rock-cut Pool.  Mysterious rooms nearby on the hillside have provoked curiosity and new conjectures, including the existence of an altar there.  But most importantly, one of the major archaeologists working in the City of David, Eli Shukron, has made it known (but not publicly) that he believes the temples once stood there.  Only time will tell if the existing and growing evidence will be sufficient to overturn the prevailing tradition hiding Fort Antonia’s true identity, but non-traditionalists are hopeful. 

Cover image, top left illustration: Jesus on Trial at Fortress Antonia. Pilate’s seat of judgment was elevated, and located just outside the Praetorium in Fort Antonia. Here Pilate interrogates as members of the Sanhedrin look on. Illustration by Balage Balough

__________________________________________________________

About the Theory

Few modern scholars had a better hands-on knowledge of Temple Mount topography than Dr. Ernest Martin, who first published his unorthodox and controversial findings on the location of the Solomonic and Herodian temples in 1998.

Over a 5-year period, Dr. Martin worked with noted archaeologist Dr. Benjamin Mazar and Hebrew University in extensive excavations on Mt. Zion* and came to the conclusion that the “Temple Mount” structure is in fact the remains of Fortress Antonia, “hiding in plain sight”.

His research on other topics has been included in such standard works as the Handbook of Biblical Chronology, and his books and research have garnered favorable reviews from such noted scholars as F.F. Bruce and W.H.C. Frend.

*Time Magazine, December 3, 1973

__________________________________________________________

Does this interest you? You can read more about this at jerusalemtemplemountmyth.com.

__________________________________________________________

The Exodus: Myth or History?

David Rohl is a British Egyptologist with a reputation for the controversial. Regarded by his colleagues as a maverick, Rohl proposes bold solutions to some of the ancient world’s greatest historical conundrums – many related to the epic stories of the Old Testament. He regards himself as an agnostic, yet he argues for a historical Bible. He accepts that he is a heterodox who does not accept orthodoxy simply because it is the consensus view. Rohl is a fully trained scholar with a degree in Egyptology, ancient history, Levantine archaeology, and the history of ancient Greece, whilst his post-graduate research concentrated on the complex and rarely studied chronology of the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt.

Rohl’s conclusions have been dismissed by academia, mainly on the grounds that they are too bold, too radical and not supported by the evidence. He would disagree with the last sentiment, arguing that most scholars who dismiss his work are not themselves familiar with the material and have not understood his evidence, since they have not actually read his books. He feels they are simply regurgitating an anti-Rohl consensus, which amounts to “we all know he’s wrong”, even though a detailed and thorough critique of his work has never been offered. Many in the general public, on the other hand, have been captivated by his research and, as a result, he has become the de facto leader of a new ‘Bible as history’ movement.

Here Rohl discusses the question of the historical basis for the Exodus story, given the renewed interest engendered by two new films on the subject released in the last twelve months.

 

Question 1: With the recent release of Ridley Scott’s ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ and even more recently the documentary movie ‘Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus’, why do you think the Exodus story remains a compelling topic for both filmmakers and moviegoers?


David Rohl: Biblical epics have always been a part of the movie scene, almost from the birth of Hollywood just before the advent of the First World War. The original great epic was Cecil B. DeMille’s 1923 black and white, silent movie ‘The Ten Commandments’. The biblical epic genre has tended to come and go in cycles. It was done to death in the 1950s and 60s, reaching its zenith with DeMille’s color remake of ‘The Ten Commandments’ in 1956, starring Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brynner as Ramesses II. And now, as you rightly point out, the biblical epics have come back into fashion once more in the last couple of years with the release of ‘Noah’ and ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’. The reason for this resurrection seems to be the popularity of fantasy movies, whether it be vampires and werewolves, super heroes or hobbits, elves, orcs and golden rings … and, of course, because Hollywood now has the new toy of CGI (Computer Generated Graphics) to make the mighty miracles of Genesis and Exodus even more impressive for the demanding moviegoer.

The thing is that the Bible stories are very much a part of our heritage – within both Jewish and Christian communities – and, of course, Hollywood was virtually created by Jewish filmmakers and producers imbued, through the annual Passover meal, with the legend of their ancestral and religious origins.

But the academic disciplines of archaeology and ancient history have moved on, far ahead of Hollywood, in the sense that, over the past fifty years since Charlton Heston parted the waters of the Red Sea, scholars have conclusively demonstrated that there is no evidence of a large population of Semites sojourning in Egypt at the time of Ramesses, nor an Exodus from Egypt in his reign, and especially no military conquest of the Promised Land (i.e. Canaan) during the closing years of Egypt’s 19th Dynasty (archaeologically speaking the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age). As a result, the Exodus epic is regarded as nothing more than a ‘pious myth’ created by the Judean priesthood of the seventh to third centuries BC in order to provide a mythical past for the Jewish people.

 

Question 2: But you would disagree with those findings wouldn’t you? In ‘Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus’ you say that you believe Moses was the first historian, long before Greeks like Herodotus wrote their histories of the ancient world. Does this mean the Bible can be viewed as a kind of history book?

 

David Rohl: Yes. Actually I don’t disagree with the findings of archaeologists at all … far from it. I concur completely with the view that there was no Exodus and Conquest during the 19th Dynasty. The evidence is perfectly clear on that. Where I disagree is in treating the Old Testament narratives as a work of fiction. I prefer to view the stories as legendary narratives based on genuine historical events. Exaggerated and aggrandized? Certainly. Legendary? Probably. But myth? No.

For me, the reason why we find no evidence for the Exodus narratives in the closing years of the Late Bronze Age is because it didn’t happen then but rather much earlier, towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age. In other words, archaeologists have been looking in all the right places for the Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest stories but in entirely the wrong time.

 

Question 3: I read that you regard yourself as an agnostic, yet, as you say, you believe there are some historical truths in the various books of the Bible. How do you go about distinguishing fact from fiction in the Old Testament?  

 

David Rohl: It’s very simple. I treat the biblical text like any other ancient document. Just because it’s a ‘religious text’ doesn’t mean it has no history in it. In fact, many of the annals and narrative texts from the ancient world are ‘religious’ in the sense that kings go into battle with their gods by their sides. Ramesses II claims to have won the Battle of Kadesh with the personal support of his god Amun, literally by his side. We wouldn’t dismiss the Battle of Kadesh as ‘pious fiction’ on that basis would we? Today, most scholars would accept the historicity of the Trojan War, even though Homer’s Iliad is replete with the interventions of gods on both sides during the battles. Why then should we treat the biblical text differently?

So I analyze the narrative, looking for potentially historical elements (not miracles or personal details that have no hope of being seen in the archaeological record). I then test the sequence of those ‘historical’ elements against the archaeological evidence in Egypt and Israel/Palestine. If I observe a pattern of evidence in the archaeology which matches the biblical narrative, then I can conclude that the narrative has a basis in history. If there is no match at any point in the historical timeline, I conclude that the story is not based on real events. I would approach any ancient document in exactly the same way. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water just because the baby is called the Bible!

 

Question 4:  As you say, in our current scholarly climate, even if historians do not believe the Exodus occurred, they still choose to place it hypothetically in the time of Pharaoh Ramesses II. Then, when archaeologists look for evidence for these events in that time period, they find nothing, which seems to confirm their view that the Exodus is nothing more than a myth. Do you think Scott’s film adds to the general impression that the Exodus is merely a fairy tale?

 

David Rohl: Now, there’s the rub of the matter – a prime example of circular reasoning, which Ridley Scott perpetuates in his ‘fantasy movie’. The first chapter of the Book of Exodus mentions that Israelite slaves built a city called ‘Raamses’. Now scholars take that to mean the city of Pi Ramesse (the ‘Estate of Ramesses’) built as Ramesses II’s delta capital. On that basis … and that basis alone … they date Moses to the time of Ramesses II and the Exodus and Conquest to the 19th Dynasty. Then, when they examine the archaeology, they find no evidence for these events.

But that’s not all. They then use the Bible to construct the entire chronology of the Egyptian dynasties! Ever since the days of Champollion (decipherer of the Egyptian hieroglyphs in 1822) the Egyptian king Shishak, plunderer of Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem in Year 5 of the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, according to the Books of Kings and Chronicles, has been identified with Pharaoh Shoshenk I, founder of the 22nd Dynasty. Shoshenk undertook a military campaign into Canaan in his 20th year, and it’s fair to say that the names Shishak and Shoshenk do sound similar. But, as I and other scholars have pointed out, the campaigns of Shishak and Shoshenk are completely different. Whereas Shishak invades the kingdom of Judah, captures Rehoboam’s fortified towns and plunders the temple and palace in Jerusalem of its treasures, Shoshenk avoids Judah and focuses his campaign in the northern kingdom of Israel. According to the Bible, the king of the Northern Kingdom, Jeroboam I, was an ally of Egypt. So the campaign of Shoshenk is the complete opposite of the campaign of Shishak. I believe Shoshenk is not Shishak and we must look for Shishak in the identity of another historical pharaoh who is much more famous.

Nevertheless, Egyptologists date Shoshenk’s 20th regnal year to 925 BC, based solely on the biblical date of 925 BC for the fifth regnal year of Rehoboam, when Shishak plundered the Temple of Solomon. So … and this is the important point … we use the Bible to date the 22nd Dynasty and, from that, working backwards, we arrive at the dates for Ramesses II (1279-1213 BC). Having done so, scholars then find that there is no evidence for the Exodus in this era, and so dismiss the Bible as fiction. Can you see the methodological circularity here? Egyptian history is dated by a book which is subsequently regarded as a work of fiction!

Question 5: ‘Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus’, on the other hand, is a documentary that takes a serious and fair-minded approach towards ascertaining whether or not the events of the Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest actually happened. The centerpiece of the film is your ‘New Chronology’. What are the origins of the New Chronology and what does it set out to do?

 

David Rohl: The New Chronology is my attempt at restructuring the ancient timeline of Egypt using only the Egyptian internal evidence (not relying initially on any biblical dating), plus retro-calculable astronomical events recorded in the ancient documents which can be tied to actual historical events. I then use that new chronological framework to see how it synchronizes with other ancient civilisations, such as the Bronze Age Greeks and Anatolians, and the biblical narratives. That research has been underway now for over forty years, since I first noticed anomalies in the Egyptian timeline back in the 1970s.

The conclusion that arises out of this re-examination and reworking of Egyptian chronology is that scholars have artificially stretched out the pharaonic timeline, making it around three centuries too old. This is why the Old Testament events can’t be found in the conventional or orthodox chronology. With the three centuries removed from the timeline, the dates for the Egyptian Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom are lowered (younger in time) and therefore align quite differently with the timeline of the Bible.

 

Question 6: So basically, if we look several centuries further back in time from the reign of Ramesses everything begins to fit together?

David Rohl: That is not quite the right way to see it. Ramesses II’s dates are now lower, shifting down by three centuries. He is now a king of the tenth century BC and therefore a contemporary of Solomon (whose dates have not shifted). It is then interesting to discover that Ramesses had a hypocoristicon or short-form of his name used throughout Canaan. He was called Shisha … does that remind you of a certain pharaoh who plundered the Temple of Solomon in 925 BC?

Looking further back in time, the biblical Exodus date of 1447 BC now falls in what Egyptologists call the Second Intermediate Period, which is the archaeological period known as the Middle Bronze IIA-IIB. It was at this time that we find a huge city, lying underneath the 19th Dynasty capital of Pi Ramesse (biblical Raamses), known in the contemporary texts as Avaris. And this Middle Bronze Age city, located in the land of Goshen, was teaming with Semites who had initially migrated from Canaan into the Egyptian delta. They then abruptly abandon the city and disappear. About half a century later the city of Jericho is violently destroyed, its walls falling down in an apparent earthquake. Jericho is then burnt to the ground and abandoned for nearly 600 years. All the cities described in the Book of Joshua as being ‘placed under the curse of destruction’ are also destroyed at this time.

_______________________________________

davidrohlpatternsDavid Rohl and Director Tim Mahoney examining a replica of the ‘Israel Stela’ during the filming of ‘Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus’. Courtesy David Rohl

 _________________________________________

davidrohlexodusRecreated depiction of the Israelites leaving Egypt and heading into Sinai during the dramatic events of the Exodus. Courtesy David Rohl

 ____________________________________________________

 

Question 7: What has been the response of religious believers to your New Chronology? To what extent does the New Chronology challenge or reinforce what they already believe?

David Rohl: It has been a mixed reaction. The general public in both the Jewish and Christian communities has welcomed it with open arms and people are genuinely excited by the discoveries resulting from the time shift. Evangelical Christian scholars, on the other hand, tend to be very much against it. They take their stance from the high priest of Egyptian chronology, Professor Kenneth Kitchen, who is also an evangelical Christian. When my first book A Test of Time (published in the USA as Pharaohs and Kings) came out in 1995, it went straight to the top of the bestsellers list, supported by a three-part TV documentary series. Kitchen immediately wrote a letter to his evangelical colleagues in America, ridiculing the hypothesis and dismissing it as “98% rubbish”. The effect was dramatic within evangelical scholarship. His letter was circulated throughout the evangelical world … I even received five copies myself from different sources – sympathetic scholars who thought I had better be made aware of what was happening.

So Kitchen effectively generated a strong negative reaction within Christian academia which took his decree on faith. Sadly that negativity still persists, even though Kitchen has gone a considerable way towards retracting his initial angry response. In 2004 a public debate was held at the University of Reading in the UK, where Professor Kitchen and I debated the issue ‘Exodus – Myth or History?’ in front of 450 conference delegates. In the closing discussion, Kitchen offered a public apology for his written outburst and then admitted that he now accepted that there were two ‘powerful sets of options’ for the Exodus dating – his own 19th Dynasty, Late Bronze Age date, which he continued to argue for, and the David Rohl Middle Bronze Age date. That admission has not been widely disseminated among Christian scholarship. 

 

Question 8: Why do you think Egyptologists have not embraced the New Chronology?

David Rohl: Because Egyptian chronology is a very specialist field which most Egyptologists stay well clear of, preferring to accept Professor Kitchen’s chronology, which has been the orthodoxy for decades now. In effect, the Conventional Chronology has been set in stone and there is simply no appetite to re-examine it from the foundations upwards.

 

Question 9: Do you think “Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus” will help in showing the world that the New Chronology solves the problems that exist in the Conventional Chronology?

David Rohl: I hope so. The film has created a new momentum within the religious communities and, now that they have seen the compelling evidence, even among leading authorities within evangelical academia. Let’s see where it takes us this time, now that America is aware of these exciting developments in biblical archaeology.

 

Question 10: How does your upcoming book Exodus – Myth or History? fit into all this?

David Rohl: The movie, by its very nature, can only really highlight the evidence for this new biblical research. A film has a different role to play, involving storytelling, drama and emotion; it primarily has to be a medium for entertainment. My new book Exodus – Myth or History? is there to compliment the movie and to go into much greater depth than a two-hour film can possibly achieve. It is a tough read … but full of fascinating detail. It lays out the entire case for placing the Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest in the Middle Bronze Age … and now it is up to both academia and the public to determine if I have done a decent job and made a strong enough case for a re-examination of the question.

 

Question 11: Why is it important that we know the truth about the Exodus?

 

David Rohl: First because we should always be in search of historical truth, wherever we find it; and second because, if my work supports a historically based Bible, then I am happy to offer that biblical reality as a re-enforcement of faith in a world where skepticism is so fashionable and opinions are so deeply entrenched.

_______________________

The video and book, Patterns of Evidence, are available from the web site www.PatternsOfEvidence.com and from selected retailers, including Amazon. David Rohl’s book Exodus – Myth or History? is available in April, 2015.

________________________________________

About David Rohl

________________________________________

davidrohlDavid Rohl’s life-long love affair with Egypt began in 1960 when he first travelled to the Nile valley as a nine-year-old, sailing upstream all the way from Cairo to Abu Simbel in King Farouk’s paddle steamer the ‘Khased Kheir’, following the king’s exile after the 1952 revolution.

David was born in Manchester, England, on September 12 1950 and has spent much of his life exploring the Middle East, from the high valleys of the Zagros mountains in Azerbaijan, Kurdistan and Luristan (in search of the legendary land of Eden), to the vast expanses of the Egyptian desert (in search of the origins of pharaonic civilisation). He has been described by one UK national newspaper as ‘Britain’s highest profile Egyptologist’ and ‘the British explorer who is outdoing Hollywood’s Indiana Jones’.

David Rohl is also famous (some would say notorious) for his radical revision of the ancient Egyptian timeline. His ‘New Chronology’ proposes to remove several centuries from what he believes to be an over-extended reconstruction of history by modern scholars, to reveal a whole new set of synchronisms between Egypt and the Old Testament, as well as eliminating the Dark Ages from Greek and Anatolian histories.

______________________________________

This interview was conducted by Ryan Cochrane

______________________________________

Photo above: David Rohl in the Egyptian Eastern Desert at one of the predynastic rock art sites. Courtesy David Rohl

_____________________________________________________

spring2015coverfinal6You can read our more in-depth articles about new discoveries and developments in archaeology and anthropology with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology Magazine.  Find out what Popular Archaeology Magazine is all about

 

In addition, the latest Popular Archaeology ebook is now available.

The Once and Future Egypt

Editor’s Note: The following article is a ‘blast from the past’ re-publication of the original article, published in 2013 at Popular Archaeology. It was subsequently removed from access, but is now re-published as there are many new readers who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to read the story, and recent efforts to negotiate the return of the famous bust of Nefertiti to Egypt from Germany has been championed by this subject article’s Dr. Zahi Hawass . Much has changed in Egypt and with Dr. Zahi Hawass since the interview was conducted, in terms of both the political situation in Egypt and the research and discoveries he has made since that time, so readers should bear this in mind. Although he may remain a somewhat controversial figure in some circles, he nonetheless has played a prominent role historically in the ongoing narrative on discovering Egypt’s past. Since the interview, he has made notable contributions to Egyptology, including unearthing the tombs of the pyramid builders at Giza and the Valley of the Golden Mummies at Bahariya; and through the Egyptian Mummy project, he led efforts to conduct CT scans of the mummy of King Tutankhamun and other important figures such as Queen Hatshepsut and Nefertiti to learn more about their lives and deaths. He continues to be a strong, leading advocate for the protection, repatriation and conservation of Egypt’s antiquities. 

Cairo, Egypt – It took over an hour navigating through chaotic Cairo traffic to arrive at Zahi Hawass’s apartment building. Nestled amidst a bustling suburb, it was a surprisingly austere place for a man who, it seemed but moments ago, held Egypt’s highest post for the management of its antiquities and, for years, was Egypt’s iconic face to the world when it came to antiquities. As we entered the dusty and dimly lit lobby, the guard stoically nodded for us to pass to the elevators that would take us up to Zahi’s apartment. Once we arrived, his assistant opened the door and politely greeted us, asking us to come in. His office had an academic air and was well kept, much like a professor’s office. The walls were filled to capacity with books about Egyptian archaeology, many of them authored by Zahi himself, who has produced numerous titles on Egyptology over the years. There were clusters of framed photos, and certificates of appreciation and accolades given to him over the years from schools, universities and governmental agencies, among others. Life in this space has become much quieter since before the revolution. Back then, he’d usually have teams of student assistants swirling about, helping to coordinate and organize his ambitious workload. With so many projects being managed at any given time, he needed all the help he could get. No longer.

Zahi met us warmly with an infectious, friendly smile. It was no wonder. I was with his longtime friend Mary Lomando. She met Zahi over 20 years ago, while she was completing her degree as an Egyptologist. Today, she is a seasoned tour leader and owner of PachaTera Travel. For Zahi, she was a welcome face, and for good reason. He has grown weary of being maligned by the media and his countrymen because he had been a cabinet appointee of deposed President Hosni Mubarak.

So it came as no surprise that, as we sat down together and began our discussion, one of the first topics naturally related to how recent events in Egypt had affected Zahi’s image. From his perspective, the people of Egypt found him an easy target, and he inevitably became a scapegoat for their frustration with anything to do with Mubarak’s regime. Even though all of the charges of corruption against him have since been dropped due to lack of evidence, some still try to malign his work. But love him or hate him, the facts speak clearly: he has arguably done more for restoring the sites of Egypt, preserving its antiquities, and announcing new discoveries, than any other archaeologist in recent history. He has written or co-written more than 60 books on Egyptian archaeology, containing new insights and discoveries. Through his books and public speaking events, he has educated and informed countless archaeologists and archaeologists-in-training, reinforcing the notion that it’s not about the gold, but the ‘treasure’ of information gleaned from the artifacts that tell the “story of us.” In Zahi’s words, “If anyone were to ask what my religion is, I would answer my religion is to train other archaeologists to be better archaeologists than I was!”

Despite his celebrity status, Zahi sees himself not as a media personality, but as a guardian of Egypt’s rich heritage. At the start of the revolution in January, 2011, Zahi took a big risk by forming a human chain with other Egyptians in the streets in front of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, hoping to prevent protesters from storming the museum. This act was not reported by any media source. While in his post with the Egyptian government, he was responsible for repatriating over 5,000 artifacts from museums all over the world. The New York Metropolitan Museum cooperated with him in returning 19 artifacts from King Tutankhamun’s tomb. His boldest move was more controversial: for the first time in history, he blocked France from digging at Saqqara until the Louvre returned the five fragments of the Tetiky frescoes taken from the West Bank in Luxor. Said Zahi, “a bomb dropped at the Louvre when I stopped the French from digging at Saqqara.” His bravado worked and all frescoes were returned.

“What are the most important artifacts you feel should be returned to their home in Egypt?” I asked.

He spouted off a short list of the most significant, such as the Statue of Ramses II in Turin, Italy; the statue of the architect, Hemiunu of the Great Pyramid at the Roemer-und Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim; the bust of Prince Ankhhaf at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston; the Dendera zodiac at the Louvre in France; the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum; and, of course, the famed bust of Nefertiti in the Berlin Neues Museum.

Regarding the Nefertiti bust, said Zahi: “There is no progress after years of stalled negotiations and the new Minister of the Supreme Council for Antiquities has sadly and unbelievably publicly declared he does not want Nefertiti returned to Egypt.” 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

rosettastonehanshillewaert

The Rosetta Stone as exhibited in the British Museum. Hans Hillewaert, Wikimedia Commons,  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I asked him how he felt about the overall difference he has made for Egypt in meeting its objectives related to its antiquities. He recounted some of the projects and achievements for which he was instrumental during his tenure before the revolution:

  • The initiation or establishment of 24 new museums around the country. Six have been completed. The rest are still under construction;
  • The complete restoration of the Serapeum and reinforcement of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara;
  • Excavation of Pharaoh Seti’s tomb tunnel;
  • Renovation of the conservation lab at the Egyptian Museum;
  • Extension of the Luxor Museum; and
  • Restoration of the Sphinx and its enclosure.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The Step Pyramid at Saqqara. Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The Great Sphinx, as seen today. Makalu, Pixabay

_________________________________________________________________________________________

As would be expected, discussion gravitated to the impact of Egypt’s slow-boil revolution on its priceless antiquities, in and out of the ground. The archaeological sites of Egypt are unbelievably empty of tourists — one of the casualties of the civil unrest. Security has much to do with this. The monuments, exemplifying some of humanity’s greatest achievements, are barely guarded, and in some sites there are no guards whatsoever. Many sites are in a neglected condition, littered with animal dung, graffiti, and trash.

Moreover, the wave of Islamic extremist incidents throughout the country, fueled by the Muslim Brotherhood, haven’t helped matters. One cleric recently threatened to dismantle the Pyramids and ancient temples. It seems that Islamic fundamentalism isn’t friendly to secular archaeology, which highlights the accomplishments of ancient people with a different belief system, even though today’s Egyptians generally no longer subscribe to it. And looting, like a viral disease, is running in epidemic proportions.

“The current situation is a disaster for Egypt,” said Zahi, “and particularly in Abu Sir, there are illegal excavations everywhere!”

_________________________________________________________________________________________

hawassimage5(AbuSir) – Photo of children playing near large mounds of toxic waste and trash strewn along the irrigation canal in Abu Sir that leads to the Nile. Before the revolution the government had started a clean up project but now that has been halted and with garbage pickup spotty at best, residents dump their garbage alongside it’s banks, sometimes even burning the rubbish to decrease the trash piles that block the flow of water to irrigate local crops. http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/garbage-piles-canals-residents-take-matters-their-own-hands

 __________________________________________________________________________________________

hawassimage6

Neglected mummy surrounded by trash in Luxor’s Assasif Mountain area, near the Valley of the Kings.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I asked him about the recent reports of work by Sara Parcak, the University of Alabama archaeologist who, using satellite imagery, calculated the extent of the looting epidemic since the revolution, estimating an increase of 500 percent.

“The [looting] holes that Sarah Parcak is talking about,” Zahi responded, “are what looters leave behind and are not always accurate indicators of looting. These looters dig hundreds of exploratory holes and [they] are mostly failed attempts. They dig for two things — gold and the myth of the healing “red mercury” that supposedly exists in the throats of the mummies, which sometimes fetch high prices on the medicinal black market. There is no such liquid. I have never seen it. It doesn’t exist!”

While on the topic of Parcak’s work, I asked him how he felt about the merits of new technologies, such as the satellite imagery she used to make the recent headline-making new discoveries in Egypt.

“These technologies are all wonderful,” he responded, “but first of all, Egypt is filled with ancient sites – there are sites everywhere! The problem is these new technologies are incompatible with the current state of Egypt today. You find a site and it is reported but then who can we assign to protect it from looting and excavate it properly? There aren’t enough resources for the discovery of so many sites when the existing ones haven’t been properly secured and restored yet. You need a good and stable government for that!”

On another topic, much has been reported in the media regarding accusations and charges against Zahi for corruption related to contracts with National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. I inquired about them.

“All the charges have been dropped from lack of evidence of wrongdoing,” he explained. “I negotiated those projects based on what best offer of help they would provide for the benefit of Egypt. The National Geographic video was very successful for them and in return, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo received a 3 million dollar CT scan machine that is in use to this day and bringing to light many more insights and discoveries about the Pharaohs and their families. All funds paid by the Discovery Channel went straight to the Egyptian antiquities department. The Tutankhamun exhibit earned 125 million dollars for a new room inside the Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza, now under construction. These contracts were all approved beforehand by the Mubarak regime and were totally transparent.”

Egypt’s mega-project — its new Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza — promises to be Egypt’s crown jewel, just a mile away from the pyramids near Cairo. Giza’s skyline is dotted with so many cranes, it looks as if they are constructing a new pyramid. A large sign with red LED numbers in front of the site shows a countdown of 622 days. But this has been a running joke among the locals who say the countdown is in years, not days.

I asked him if he had any updates on the new museum.

“Construction work is ongoing, but very slow, as they need about 700 million dollars to complete the construction of this massive museum. With the current instability, who knows when that will be completed,” he lamented.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

hawassimage4

Sunset sky filled with cranes looming over Giza Plateau almost a mile away from the pyramids complex. The cranes are being used to build the new Grand Egyptian Museum, which will be a much larger, state-of-the-art home for Egypt’s finest antiquities. The old museum will still be used but as more of a research center for Egyptology.

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

hawassimage3

 The construction coundtown clock at the building sight for the new Grand Egyptian Museum near Giza Plateau.

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Zahi’s dream – to do the work that still needs to be done to complete his vision for the antiquities department – has been blocked. Looking to the future, that won’t stop him from making new discoveries and continuing to be an Egyptologist, he asserts. But for now, he is resigned to filling his days by organizing speaking tours in the U.S., and book signings in Geneva, Poland, and London, which began November 5th. He’ll be promoting his new book, Discovering Tutankhamun: From Howard Carter to DNA. He is also currently completing another book on the DNA research findings on the royal mummies at Cairo’s Museum of Egyptian Antiquities.

And his passion remains, not in carrying a title, but in being able to effect change and fulfill his personal mission as a guardian of Egypt’s heritage.

I asked him: “If it were offered to you again, would you want your old job back?

He answered with an emphatic “No!”

“Not in the current state Egypt is in. If there is no stability and Egypt is not brought back to a normal working condition, I would be useless and unable to perform my job well.” 

I was curious to know what would be on his bucket list of future discoveries when and if life in Egypt returned to normal. He replied, without missing a beat:

“The tomb of Nefertiti, the tomb of the great Imhotep, and finally find the answer to what is behind Gantenbrink’s door inside the Great Pyramid. I believe Imhotep may be buried in an unexcavated area on the west side of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. They have already found a 2nd Dynasty tomb underneath the Step Pyramid. Senenmut, the architect of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari, was buried near her mortuary temple there. This leads me to believe that Imhotep mirrored this same act of reverence near King Djoser’s Step Pyramid at Saqqara, since he was architect of that pyramid.”

Although not mentioned on his bucket list, Zahi addressed my additional inquiry about the status of the search for Cleopatra’s burial place.

“Dr. Kathleen Martinez unearthed a marble bust of Cleopatra and 22 coins with her image at a small cemetery inside the Ptolemaic temple at Taposiris Magna in Alexandria, some time ago. Unfortunately, that mystery still remains unsolved after more than 5 years of digging and the excavations at the site are ongoing with Dr. Martinez.”

Finally, at the risk of getting a bit too political in a country where the current sensitivities in this realm run high, I asked the big question: “Who would you like to see as the next president?”

There was little hesitation in his response, but his discretion was clear.

“Whoever the people elect, that leader must be very strong and determined to make changes quickly. There are so many people that haven’t worked in three years. The situation is terrible.”

Meanwhile, Zahi is enjoying the legacy he has already built. Next stop: a flight to another speaking engagement and book signing……….to a country where “revolution” is something one only reads about happening somewhere else.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

hawassimage7

Zahi Hawass with long time friend and fellow Egyptologist, Mary Lomando at his home office in Cairo.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Article Supplement

A COUNTRY IN CRISIS                                                     

The Egypt of today is a surreal dichotomy. Its once remarkably rich and powerful civilization led by vibrant pharaohs contrasts sharply with the economic and political breakdown of the seemingly leaderless Egypt of today. At present, Egypt’s unemployment rate is over 13 percent (locals say it’s much higher). Moreover, like other third-world countries, much of its population lives in poverty, while luxurious havens exist for the elite few in Cairo, Alexandria, Hurghada, and Sharm el-Sheikh. Income inequality and corruption are as bad as, if not worse than, most other third-world countries.

On our way to visit the pyramids at Giza, youth—no more than 13 years of age— suddenly surrounded the taxi driving us down the old Pyramids Road. They tapped on the car’s windows in an attempt to get money, or baksheesh, from us. Our driver exclaimed apologetically, “They are starving!” in a spurt of honesty that was so heartfelt, it rang in my ears, creating instant empathy for their living conditions. Being Cuban, and having visited my country several times, parallels were instantly drawn in my mind of how far a failed government can effect it’s own people, forcing them to be capable of anything in an effort to survive.

Yet, even though Egypt’s people are in dire need, the country is very safe to visit. Tourists are always treated with kindness and appreciation. It’s an unspoken rule to treat tourists well, but every now and then you will get a character that won’t take “No, thank you” for an answer. A payment of baksheesh—about 10 Egyptian pounds ($1.44 US)—usually satisfies them. Egypt’s economy is heavily reliant on tourism, and the revolution has taken a toll on the tourism industry, which, since the revolution erupted in 2011, has come to a virtual standstill. It would not be an exaggeration to say that at many of the sites we visited we were the only American tourists around. Whenever we were asked the common question: “Where are you from?” our response was always greeted with “Ah, America . . . good people!” Thankfully, Tourism Minister Hisham Zazou  announced on October 2, 2013, that 13 countries have now lifted bans on travel to Egypt. The latest two countries, Austria and Ireland, lifted bans to holiday destinations in the Red Sea and South Sinai.

But despite some silver linings, Egypt remains in the grips of an ongoing revolution, and the resultant consequences for its archaeological treasures have been grim. Egypt’s Malawi National Museum was looted and vandalized in August of 2013 by local Muslim extremists, and many artifacts, even wooden sarcophagi, were hacked to pieces with axes. Reports of looting have been leaked from independent sources, but as yet there isn’t much actual data, or an official account, of what has gone missing. However, in Jerusalem, a public auction of 126 recently looted antiquities was halted, evidence that many antiquities are being smuggled out through Egypt’s porous borders.

Mary Lomando and I visited Saqqara and the Abu Sir pyramids area the day before meeting with Dr. Hawass, and reported to him that the replica, full-size statue of King Djoser sitting inside his serdab enclosure was moved out of line in a failed looting attempt. Most looters are not educated enough to know it is a replica. The representation of the ancient king now sits in wait, no longer aligned, blocked from his line of sight to the stars. It is a standing metaphor for the state of Egypt today. 

                                                                                                                                                                 —- EV

_________________________________________________________________________________________

hawassimage2

Djoser’s serdab with eyesight holes. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

serdab

 Before the attempted looting: The pharaoh Djoser’s statue looks out through the hole in his serdab. Wikimedia Commons

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

hawassimage1

 After: The position of the statue as shifted due to the looting attempt.

__________________________________________________________

Cover Photo, Top Left: View of the great pyramids at Giza. by Soupysquirrel, Pixabay

______________________________________________

The Resurrection Tomb

It was exposed by a dynamite blast. At the time, the blast would not have been an unexpected sound in this part of Jerusalem where, in April of 1981, the Solel Boneh Construction company was preparing to construct a new condominium complex in the East Talpiot neighborhood, less than three kilometers south of the Old City. As in many cities with an ancient past, construction workers stumbled upon something ancient and buried. In this case, it appeared to be a tomb—also not surprising, as it was located within an area long known to feature a necropolis of ancient tombs. Construction work was halted and, as is required by law, Amos Kloner, a Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, was immediately called in to investigate the tomb.  

He could enter the tomb only through a break in the ceiling. Its ancient square entrance was closed, sealed tight by a large “stopper” stone. What he first saw was a 3.5 by 3.5 meter rock-cut single square chamber. Cut into and along three of its sides were nine carved gabled burial niches in all (called kokhim in Hebrew), about 2 meters deep, three in each side. Each niche was sealed in front with a blocking stone. He suspected that inside the niches would be ossuaries, or bone boxes. For Kloner this would not be a surprising find, given the context. Ossuaries, or bone boxes, were commonly used by the wealthy Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem during the 1st Century B.C.E. up until 70 C.E. to permanently store the skeletal remains of deceased family members, often in a stone-cut family tomb. Kloner observed skeletal remains in the niches, with significant primary burial remains in four of them, meaning those skeletal remains had not yet been placed permanently into ossuaries. Also found were some cooking pots placed in three locations on the floor.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Bones found in situ within one of the niches of the tomb. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But Kloner wasn’t afforded much time to examine the tomb. Soon, he was forced to leave the tomb by protesting ultra-Orthodox Jews, determined to protect the sanctity of the tomb. But this was not before he was able to acquire one smaller ossuary for examination—a decorated ossuary with no inscription, fit for the remains of a child. He entrusted it to the custody of IAA authorities at their Rockefeller headquarters (The ossuary is now part of the State of Israel collections).  

Despite the protests, Kloner and the IAA were determined to investigate the find. Although he had to depart the country to fulfill another commitment, he entrusted two IAA archaeologists, the late Joseph Gath and Shlomo Gudovitch, to continue the investigation. Upon returning to the site, they were able to remove the blocking stones from the niches and examine ossuaries inside, a total of seven, taking photographs and recording their positions. All ossuaries but one were decorated and two were observed to have Greek inscriptions. They spent several days at the tomb location, removing the ossuaries from their niches and opening their lids for further examination. While preparing to raise the ossuaries up through the tomb ceiling to transport them to the IAA Rockefeller headquarters, they were again prevented from completing the task by a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish protesters. The seven remaining ossuaries were returned to their niches, albeit not all in their original positions. There they remain to this day.

 

Mission (Almost) Impossible

It was not until 2005, more than 25 years later, that a new archaeological team was assembled to take another look at the tomb (today known as the “Talpiot B” or “Patio” tomb) and its contents. This latest exploration was conducted by a team co-led by prominent biblical historian James D. Tabor of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and noted archaeologist Rami Arav of the University of Nebraska. The team included a comparatively eclectic mix of experts, including the well-known Canadian film producer and director Simcha Jacobovici, top Canadian film producer Felix Golubev, two key technical experts, Walter Klassen and William Tarant, and Dr. James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary as the team’s primary academic consultant. 

What prompted the new initiative was the proximity of the tomb to two other tombs, the first being the controversial, high-profile Talpiot or “Jesus Family Tomb” (also known as the “garden” tomb because of its proximity to a garden) discovered in 1980 and further investigated in 2005; and the second, a tomb mostly destroyed in 1980 by a dynamite blast during preparations for construction work. The “Jesus Family Tomb” or “garden” tomb, only 45 meters away from the subject Patio Tomb, contained nine ossuaries and a niche for a missing 10th, six of them inscribed with names: Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus, Son of Joseph), Maria (Mary), Yose (Joseph), Yehuda bar Yeshua (Jude, Son of Jesus), and Matya (thought to be a form for Matthew or Matthias), all in Aramaic, and Mariamenou Mara or Mariam kai Mara (Martha) in Greek. (It has been suggested by some that the controversial “James, Brother of Jesus” ossuary is the missing 10th.) The suggestion that this tomb could be connected to Jesus of Nazareth and his family opened a pandora’s box of scholarly dispute when, in 2007, it was brought into the public limelight.

“It was the proximity of these three tombs, and the possibility that they were clustered together on a wealthy estate in the 1st century CE that prompted us to request a permit to carry out further investigations,” reported Tabor in his Preliminary Report about the Patio Tomb exploration. The immediate vicinity of the three tombs also included the remains of a plastered ritual bath (or mikveh), water cisterns, and an ancient olive press. Joseph Gath, who surveyed the area, determined that they, including the tombs, belonged to a large, wealthy agricultural estate. They were likely the family tombs of the owner of the estate. “The object of our investigation was to determine whether the “patio” tomb, still intact, might contain names or other evidence that would provide for us further data that might conceivably shed light on the adjacent “garden” tomb with its intriguing cluster of names,” reported Tabor in a preliminary report of the findings. “Our stated intent in our proposal to the Israel Antiquities Authority was that we wanted to determine if further scientific information about these tombs and their possible relationship to one another might still be obtained 30 years after their initial exploration.”[1] 

The team knew that re-examining the tomb would, to say the very least, be difficult. The gravity of the challenge was enhanced by several factors. First, there was the challenge of obtaining permissions from four different sources, each of which had a different agenda and a different set of interests to consider and safeguard. They included the IAA, the condominium owners (as the tomb was located below the basement of the condominium complex), the municipal police, and finally, perhaps most sensitive of all, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups that objected to exploration of tombs. Permission was obtained from all, provided certain conditions were met.

Even with the administrative/logistical hurdles cleared, however, there was still the technical challenge of locating, accessing, and then moving remotely within the tomb to film and record what they needed to see. Given the underground, sealed location of the tomb 25 feet below the condominium complex, the requirement not to move the ossuaries to respect the sensitivities and conditions of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, the dimensions and configuration of the tomb, and the extremely limited clearance space around the ossuaries within the niches, it was a monumental task that seemed almost insurmountable. It had never been done before.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Remote camera view of one of the tomb niches containing ossuaries. The team could see that maneuvering cameras within the spaces would be a challenge, to say the least. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

View of niche with ossuary within the tomb, showing blocking stones. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Inside the Tomb

The only clue the team had regarding the precise location of the tomb was a “ritual vent” or “soul pipe”, the entry point of which was located on a patio about 25 feet above the tomb. By Jewish law, a soul pipe is required to be installed whenever construction is performed above a tomb. (The pipe allows an opening through which the soul of the deceased may escape from the tomb.) They knew that the pipe ran down directly into the tomb based on earlier preliminary investigatons, when they were able to successfully drop a small camera attached to the end of a flexible cable through the opening down into the tomb and shoot some video footage of the tomb features and contents. This aparatus, however, had no capability to maneuver about within the tomb to closely examine the contents. As one of the prime requirements was to approach close enough to the ossuaries to observe and record any markings or inscriptions that would tell them something about who was buried there and the ownership of the tomb, the team went to work to devise an innovative scheme and tool that could accomplish this. It would include a unique robotic arm and camera/video assembly specially designed for the task.*

With the specialized tools developed, the robotic arm investigation began in June of 2010. The plan was to explore the tomb systematically, working counterclockwise from the sealed entrance and going niche by niche. Not without roadblocks along the way, the team was able to obtain a more detailed view of the ossuaries, with some startling discoveries. What follows is what they discovered:

(1) Ossuary 1 was richly ornamented on its front side, including two carved rosettes, an elaborate frieze for a border, and a pillar or nephesh (a figure representing the soul) carved between the rosettes. Clear evidence of a reddish-rose paint was on the rosette petals. The rest of the ossuary was plain with no features or inscriptions, although it had deep horizontal scratches on the back. 

(2) Ossuary 2 was also richly ornamented on its front side with carved rosettes and a frieze border. There was an incised marking in the upper right corner, indistinguishable upon the first examination. The rest of this ossuary was plain. 

(3) Ossuary 3 featured a partial rosette with the name ‘Μapa’ faintly inscribed in Greek letters. Mapa, also written as ‘Mara’, is rarely seen on Jerusalem ossuaries of the 1st century. One of the few examples was found in the nearby Talpiot “Jesus Family Tomb” as Mariamenou Mara or Mariam kai Mara . It is often considered a version of the name ‘Martha’, found in the Gospels of the New Testament.

(4) Ossuary 4 was also ornamented, but because of its position inside its niche, including its closeness to the niche wall, the team was unable to study it closely. Its far end appeared to feature a name inscribed in Greek. 

(5) Ossuary 5 showed an ornamental front façade with twin rosettes and elaborate frieze border. Interestingly, between the rosettes was a four-line Greek inscription.

(6) Ossuary 6, originally (when explored by Kloner) in the first position closest to the tomb entrance, featured perhaps the most interesting markings. Its front (museum replica pictured right) showed what the team interpreted as the image of a fish, including tail, fins, and scales, with what appeared to be a stick-like human figure with a large head emerging from its mouth. Along the top border was a series of smaller, fish-shaped images. Incised on the left end was a bell-shaped circle that featured a cross inside. On the right end was an image that appeared to be a scaled body and tail of a fish, although only the lower portion of it is shown, upended. 

(7) Ossuary 7 was plain with no markings or decorations.

 

What Does It All Mean?

Of the finds in the tomb, the most striking and significant were the inscriptions found on ossuaries 3, 5 and 6.

As already related, ossuary 3 featured an inscription translated as ‘Mapa’ or ‘Mara’. It is considered significant for two reasons, the first being the rarity of the occurence of this name on any extant 1st century Jerusalem ossuary, and the second, the fact that the relatively rare name was found on an ossuary in a tomb only 45 meters away from the Talpiot A tomb, or famous “Jesus Family Tomb” described above, explored in 1980 and then again in detail in 2005. One might recall that the Talpiot A included, among the other names found in the tomb that were associated with Jesus in the Gospels, the name ‘Mariamenou Mara’, interpreted as another version of the name Martha.

These name interpretations and associations have been much disputed by other biblical scholars. To counter their arguments, Tabor, in making reference to the recent “Jeus Family Tomb” finds, advances these remarks in his February, 2012 Preliminary Report on the Patio tomb investigations: 

Other than theological objections, the response most often offered to any probable identification of this tomb with Jesus and his family is that “the names are common.” Subsequent research has definitely shown that is not the case, either from a statistical standpoint or even a practical observation—though one hears it endless[ly] repeated even from academics who should know better. There is not a single cluster of names ever found in any tomb in Jerusalem from this period, other than this one, out of the estimated 900 that have been exposed, that one could plausibly even make the argument of correspondence with Jesus and names associated with his family. This does not prove the tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family, but it does demonstrate that its probability should not be dismissed.[1]

 

Ossuary 5 carried the four-line inscription in Greek. The use of Greek would not necessarily be considered extraordinary. The translated text, however, reading as it were like an epitaph, was quite extraordinary under these circumstances. More unusual still was the use of the word for the name of God, Yahweh, written in Greek on a 1st century ossuary in what is clearly a tomb belonging to a Jewish family of the time, and words that expressed a raising up or resurrection (“rise up to God”, or “rise up to heaven”). As Tabor describes it in his Preliminary Report:

We are convinced that our inscription clearly makes some affirmation about either resurrection from the dead or lifting up to heaven…….Although it is true that ideas of resurrection of the dead and even ascent to heaven are found in a multiplicity of Jewish sources in the late 2nd Temple period, they do not appear as expressions in burial contexts unless we have an exception here in the Talpiot tomb. That, along with the unprecedented example of writing the divine name Yahweh in Greek letters in a Jewish tomb—a place of tum’a or ritual defilement—argues for a heterodox or sectarian context. The family buried in this tomb are Jews to be sure, and the style of the tomb, the ornamentations of the ossuaries, and everything else about it is nothing out of the ordinary— other than these semi-informal inscriptions of both epitaph and icon.[1]

 

Considering these finds alone, the Talpiot B or Patio tomb, like the Talpiot A or “Jesus Family Tomb”, stood out from all others of its kind, and there are about 900 discovered thus far. 

As though the other finds were not rare enough, Ossuary 6 with its fish inscriptions, perhaps the most sensational and most controversial discovery emerging from the tomb, was rarer still. This was, according to the investigative team interpretation, not only because they could be images of a fish, an animal, on a 1st century Jewish ossuary (something that would have been prohibited by 1st century Judaism), but because the imagery was similar to that seen within the 3rd and 4th century CE Christian tombs of the catacombs in Rome—the “sign of Jonah” (as in Jonah and the whale of the biblical account) images that symbolized the resurrection. As Tabor proposed in the Report:

We interpret this drawing as a presentation of the biblical story of Jonah and the “big fish.” In ancient Jewish art there are no attested representations of Jonah and the fish. Other biblical scenes are common such as Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, Noah and the ark, Moses and the burning bush, Daniel in the lion’s den, especially in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. In contrast, images of what is called the “Jonah cycle” occur over 100 times in early Christian art, most often in tombs, as a way of proclaiming and celebrating the resurrection of Jesus—and thus Christian resurrection hope more generally. [1] 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Focused view of the head/mouth of the fish image on ossuary 6. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Could the ‘Jonah’ or fish image actually be something else?

Other scholars have suggested so, and it has been one of the most hotly contested issues of the tomb discoveries. The most prominent interpretation advanced by others is that the fish-like images, particularly the largest image, actually represent amphorae or funerary nepheshes or pillars, images that are not uncommonly inscribed on ossuaries. To this Tabor has responded that his research team has “carefully examined all the extant examples of nephesh and amphora on ossuaries of this period and have not found anything that is even close” in appearance, despite the fact that the image was comparatively crudely drawn.  “It was clearly done by a family member, or someone associated with the family, who was not a professional engraver. It is nonetheless the most elaborately carved ossuary in the tomb, testifying to the importance of its individual and particular expression.”[1]

To this has recently been added the work of James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary, who announced the deciphering of a four letter inscription on the ossuary that spells out the name “Jonah” (the same as ‘Yonah’) in ancient Hebrew. Charlesworth is the George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton. He is a noted expert in the epigraphy of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Herodian script of the period to which the tomb is dated. Another well-known epigrapher, Robert Deutsch, has confirmed Charlesworth’s reading of YONAH, although his noted epigrapher colleague Haggai Misgav of Hebrew University reads the markings as ZOLAH rather than YONAH. Other epigraphers have been invited to examine and analyze the inscription for additional perspectives.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Closeup view of ossuary 6 with YONAH inscription highlighted. Background photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thus, put together, the most significant finds and their interpretation from the original investigative team’s perspective is summed up well in the words of Tabor:

“………..We are dealing here with a family or clan that is bold enough to write out the holy name of God in a tomb, with a declaration about “raising up” or resurrection—something totally unparalleled in any of the 900 tombs from the period known in Jerusalem. And further, this is a family that is willing to put an image of a fish and a human, both eschewed by pious Jews as “graven images” on the most prominent ossuary in this wealthy tomb— located at the front of the first niche on the right as one enters the tomb—and fill it with the bones of more than one family member…………..We are convinced that the best explanation for these unusual epigraphic features in the Talpiot “patio” tomb is its proximity to the Jesus family tomb less than 45 meters away. What we apparently have is a family connected to the Jesus movement who reaches beyond the standard burial norms of the Jewish culture of the period to express itself individually in these unique ways.” [1]

 

Other scholars have strongly disputed this interpretation. But it has raised some intriguing popular questions: Is the Patio tomb, together with the nearby “Jesus Family Tomb” and 3rd tomb (mostly destroyed during construction work), a cluster of tombs belonging to a wealthy family, perhaps even that of Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy member of the Sanhedran who, according to the Gospels, donated a tomb for the burial of Jesus after Jesus‘ Crucifixion? Or, aside from the hypothetical association with Joseph of Arimathea or a wealthy Jewish family, was it associated with the early followers of Jesus, those that made up the initial “inner circle”, including family members? Or was it both? 

“Whether one might identify it as “Christian,” or, to be more historically precise, as associated with the early followers of Jesus, is another question,” writes Tabor. “I would strongly argue in the affirmative.”[1]

_______________________________________________

* The detailed account of how the technical team gained access and remotely moved about the tomb is presented in the article, Probing the Secrets of Jerusalem’s Patio Tomb, by team member William Tarant.

[1] A Preliminary Report of a Robotic Camera Exploration of a Sealed 1st Century Tomb in East Talpiot, Jerusalem.  James D. Tabor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Some of the views expressed in this article are the views of the exploration team and do not necessarily represent the views of the Editor and staff of Popular Archaeology Magazine.

_______________________________________________

Read about the most fascinating discoveries with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology Magazine. Find out what Popular Archaeology Magazine is all about.