By Arthur Chrysler
The Relationship between Jerusalem's Proto-Aeolic capitals and Absalom's Pillar
Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance: and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day, Absalom's place (II Samuel 18:18).
The discovery of Absalom's Pillar might be considered the find of the century. Not only would the pillar itself be an important discovery but also the place. The Bible says that the pillar is in the king's dale. The Bible also says that the king's dale was the site of the meeting between Abram, Melchizedek and the king of Sodom: And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (Genesis 14:17-18).
There is a distinct connection between the architectural elements utilized by Hiram king of Tyre for David's house (II Samuel 5:11) and the architectural elements incorporated by Absalom in the making of his pillar in the king's dale. The following information will illustrate that connection and lead you to the unavoidable conclusion that Absalom's place is none other than the spring head at 'Ain Joweizeh.
The discovery of Absalom's Pillar might be considered the find of the century. Not only would the pillar itself be an important discovery but also the place. The Bible says that the pillar is in the king's dale. The Bible also says that the king's dale was the site of the meeting between Abram, Melchizedek and the king of Sodom: And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (Genesis 14:17-18).
There is a distinct connection between the architectural elements utilized by Hiram king of Tyre for David's house (II Samuel 5:11) and the architectural elements incorporated by Absalom in the making of his pillar in the king's dale. The following information will illustrate that connection and lead you to the unavoidable conclusion that Absalom's place is none other than the spring head at 'Ain Joweizeh.
Jane Cahill reported on Jerusalem at the time of the united monarchy: “Biblical tradition holds that David bought a threshing floor located outside the city and that Solomon built the temple there, on the hill located north of the City of David and known ever after as the Temple Mount. Kenyon discovered stratified remains that she interpreted as evidence for the Solomonic expansion of the city in three areas, all of which were located only a short distance north of the stepped rampart: Square A XVIII, Site H, and Site M. In Square A XVIII Kenyon discovered a palmette (i.e., Proto-Aeolic) capital and a number of ashlar blocks that she dated to the tenth century “at the foot of the scarp on the eastern crest of the eastern ridge.” In Site H Kenyon discovered a short segment of a wall that she interpreted as part of a casemate fortification wall. In Site M Kenyon discovered a layer of soil containing pottery ascribable to the tenth century B.C.E. Kenyon dated the casemate fortification wall to the period of Solomon and interpreted it and the tenth-century pottery from Site M as evidence that the Solomonic expansion of the city to the Temple Mount (i.e., Mount Moriah) was confined to the hill crest. Because details of Kenyon’s discoveries remained unpublished for many years, and because no other evidence of contemporary occupation has been recovered from the City of David’s hill crest, most scholars have long regarded Kenyon’s interpretations of the remains that she dated to the tenth century B.C.E. from Sites H and M skeptically. A notable exception is Eilat Mazar, who has argued that Kenyon’s discoveries indicate that David’s Palace was located in the vicinity of Kenyon’s Site H” (Jane M. Cahill, Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy, 68, 69, 80; Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, Editors).
A renewed prominence of Egyptianising motifs in art across Syria-Palestine began during the 10th and 9th centuries BC, with a rejuvenation of Egyptian trade through Byblos. Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon published the following in 1967: "All the archaeological evidence from Palestine goes to show that the Israelites themselves lacked any skill as masons and craftsmen. Evidence of the skill of the Phoenicians in working stone from the second millennium onwards comes from sites such as Ras Shamra and Byblos and from the remains of Tyre itself, though most of the latter have to be studied below the waters of the Mediterranean. Still more revealing in relation to Jerusalem is the evidence from Samaria. Here, some eighty years later (c. 880 BC), Omri, ruler of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, built himself a new capital. Omri's contacts with Phoenicians are shown by the marriage of his son Ahab to the Phoenician Princess Jezebel. Excavation has shown that the masonry of the buildings of Omri and Ahab is Phoenician. The masonry is truly exquisite, the heavy walls bold and forceful, the interior walls with stones dressed to a beautifully tooled smooth face and fitted together with minute precision. We can imagine that the walls of Solomon's Temple and palace were of the same fine masonry, and that the platform was constructed of stones with the bolder type of dressing. Though so much of this has to be deduced from the mere statement that Phoenician masons were employed in the work, one link in architectural style can be based on the evidence of the excavations. Against the foot of the summit scarp on the eastern side (immediately east of Site P in Fig. 6) excavations disclosed a tumble of ashlar blocks with the fine, smooth faces of Omri's building at Samaria, and amongst them two halves of a pilaster capital of Proto-Ionic type. This is precisely the type of capital found at Samaria and at other sites that have architectural links with Samaria. This tumble of masonry, obviously from an important building which had stood on top of the scarp, may be the one architectural relic of Solomon's Jerusalem so far found" (Kenyon, K.M. 1967: 59, Pl 20. Jerusalem, Excavating 3000 Years of History. London).
Although Kathleen Kenyon's 1962 discovery was not found in situ, she was able to make the important association between the masonry found in her square A XVIII and the Phoenician masonry which characterized Omri's royal buildings in Samaria. She went on to suggest that her discovery of a capital among a tumble of ashlars "may be the one architectural relic of Solomon's Jerusalem so far found." One might be inclined to agree with Kenyon on this but it is not a giant leap to interpret this same evidence as being the one architectural relic of David's Jerusalem so far found. After all, according to the Bible, Hiram king of Tyre sent carpenters and masons to build David an house (II Samuel 5:9-11; I Chronicles 14:1). Additionally, Yigal Shiloh stated that "the design of the outline and the lines of the relief of this capital are the finest of all the Proto-Aeolic capitals in this country" (Shiloh 1979: 10). King David's house would have incorporated the very first of the known capitals, all others thereafter being inferior copies.
Here is Yigal Shiloh's description of Kenyon's Proto-Aeolic capital: "J1 - Two fragments forming a single complete capital, found in the City of David, area P (not in situ). The design of the outline and the lines of the relief of this capital are the finest of all the Proto-Aeolic capitals in this country. The proportions achieve perfect harmony. The central triangle is narrow and high, and is formed by parallel lines in relief, together forming a strip 7 cm wide. The base of the triangle is not defined. The entire area between the volutes, the apex of the triangle, the concentric circles near it and the abacus is sunk to a depth of 2 cm. In the rest of the relief, the depth adjacent to the raised relief is about 1.5 cm. The shape of the relief lines in section is half round, adding to the pleasant effect. The base of the lower leaf lies some 12 cm above the base of the triangle. This is relatively high in comparison to the other capitals and further emphasizes the base of the triangle. The height of the abacus atop is about 10 cm and it, too, is precisely finished. After the relief was worked out, the fine final smoothing was executed, giving the capital a finish finer than on any of the other capitals" (Shiloh, Y. 1979. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry. (Qedem 11).
Another fragment of a Proto-Aeolic capital was discovered in Jerusalem during Eilat Mazar's excavation season at the Ophel in 2012. The Ophel capital was discovered in secondary use in a Herodian period fill within a plastered pool: "This Proto-Aeolic capital, made of hard, gray limestone, has been worked on its front side, but was left in rough state on its back side. The surface on the front side is smooth, with finely finished rounded lines forming the relief of a volute near the right edge of the capital and, left of this volute, a segment of the central triangle. The fragment measures 40.7 cm in length and 30.4 cm in width. The relief lines measure approximately 3 cm in width and 2 cm in depth" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Mazar makes an important observation that the Ophel capital and the City of David capital bear striking similarities in design and proportions: "Both were smoothed and finely finished. The placement of the central triangle in relation to the volute is also similar on the two capitals. This positioning differs greatly from that found on capitals from northern Israel and Jordan. The angle of the triangle of the Ophel capital clearly shows that the triangle was narrow and high, similar to the triangle on the City of David capital. The relief's depth and its round section are similar on the two capitals, creating what Shiloh described as "a pleasant effect" (ibid., p. 11)" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Notice Mazar's brief mention of yet another discovery of a Proto-Aeolic capital fragment in the same 'Jerusalemite' style: "Half the above-mentioned dimensions in size, a small fragment (11 x 12 x 17 cm) of a Proto-Aeolic capital in the same "Jerusalemite" style was recently found in the Giv'ati Parking Lot excavations. It was found right next to a monumental entrance of an Iron Age II ashlar building, most of which is still buried under Late Roman debris (Ben Ami and Tchekhanovets 2015)" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Mazar makes an important observation that the Ophel capital and the City of David capital bear striking similarities in design and proportions: "Both were smoothed and finely finished. The placement of the central triangle in relation to the volute is also similar on the two capitals. This positioning differs greatly from that found on capitals from northern Israel and Jordan. The angle of the triangle of the Ophel capital clearly shows that the triangle was narrow and high, similar to the triangle on the City of David capital. The relief's depth and its round section are similar on the two capitals, creating what Shiloh described as "a pleasant effect" (ibid., p. 11)" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Notice Mazar's brief mention of yet another discovery of a Proto-Aeolic capital fragment in the same 'Jerusalemite' style: "Half the above-mentioned dimensions in size, a small fragment (11 x 12 x 17 cm) of a Proto-Aeolic capital in the same "Jerusalemite" style was recently found in the Giv'ati Parking Lot excavations. It was found right next to a monumental entrance of an Iron Age II ashlar building, most of which is still buried under Late Roman debris (Ben Ami and Tchekhanovets 2015)" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
This fragment of Proto-Aeolic capital (J2) was unearthed in the excavations carried out by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets at the Giv'ati Parking Lot excavations located in the Northwestern sector of the City of David. Unlike the previous "Jerusalemite" capital fragments this one is subject to preliminary observations within its archaeological context: "Capital fragment J2 originated in a layer consisting of Iron II debris, mixed with Hellenistic sherds (late 3rd to 2nd century BCE). These fills were excavated along the southern face of a wide and long wall built in an east to west direction and dated to the Iron II. The wall is constructed of ashlar masonry. Only one course of the wall on the eastern side where bedrock is high, but as it descends toward the west, The wall is preserved to a greater height. A monumental entrance, 1.9 m wide, was found here. The door posts are made from large ashlar blocks, and between them a large ashlar stone threshold is still in place."
"Judging by the length and construction style of its wall, this large Iron II building must have boasted a high standard of architectural décor. Since proto-aeolic capitals are associated with structures of ashlar masonry, and the building under discussion clearly fits this definition, it seems unlikely that the find spot of Capital fragment J2 only 1 m south of the monumental entrance is coincidental. The capital fragment from the Givati Parking Lot seems to provide further support for the assumption that proto-aeolic capitals are associated with entrances to ashlar-built structures, as is the case at the site of Mudeibia in Moab and as suggested for Hazor, Samaria, Megiddo and Ramat Rahel" (Shiloh 1979: 1-12, 21-25; Lipschits 2011: 203-217)" (Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets, Tel Aviv 42 (2015) pp. 67-71).
"Judging by the length and construction style of its wall, this large Iron II building must have boasted a high standard of architectural décor. Since proto-aeolic capitals are associated with structures of ashlar masonry, and the building under discussion clearly fits this definition, it seems unlikely that the find spot of Capital fragment J2 only 1 m south of the monumental entrance is coincidental. The capital fragment from the Givati Parking Lot seems to provide further support for the assumption that proto-aeolic capitals are associated with entrances to ashlar-built structures, as is the case at the site of Mudeibia in Moab and as suggested for Hazor, Samaria, Megiddo and Ramat Rahel" (Shiloh 1979: 1-12, 21-25; Lipschits 2011: 203-217)" (Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets, Tel Aviv 42 (2015) pp. 67-71).
Eilat Mazar also mentioned in her report a fourth Proto-Aeolic capital found in the southern outskirts of the Jerusalem area: "Another Proto-Aeolic capital was discovered at 'Ain Joweizeh, in the region of Nahal Rephaim, in the southern outskirts of the Jerusalem area. It was discovered as an architectural element carved inside an Iron Age tunnel spring (Ein Mor 2013:98-102, Figs. 4-5). Although not yet fully exposed, it is clear from the tall, narrow triangle, from the double concentric circles (oculi) flanking the apex of the triangle and the general proportions of the capital that this capital is remarkably similar to those found in the Ophel and the City of David (Ein Mor and Ron 2013:100, Fig. 16). It is likely that stone cutters used the same design template to chisel out all three" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Notice Mazar said that "this capital is remarkably similar to those found in the Ophel and the City of David. She even speculates that "stone cutters used the same design template to chisel out all three." This discovery is at the same time unique in that the pillar and capital are carved together from one massive stone. Additionally, there is no evidence of a second pillar at the site.
I believe that the "Jerusalemite" style should now be dated to the Iron II relative to the Giv'ati Parking Lot fragment (J2) which was discovered in association with a large Iron II building constructed with ashlar masonry. When the additional consideration is given to Shiloh's observation of Kenyon's fragments (J1) that "the design of the outline and the lines of the relief of this capital are the finest of all the Proto-Aeolic capitals in this country" (Shiloh 1979: 10), the case can be made that the "Jerusalemite" style pre-dates the style incorporated in the Ramat Rahel and Jordan capitals. Eilat Mazar emphasizes the uniqueness of the Jerusalem capitals when she concludes in her final report of the Ophel Excavations that: "The Proto-Aeolic capital from the Ophel excavation amplifies the corpus of capitals found in Jerusalem. Although a precise chronological date cannot yet be affixed to the Proto-Aeolic capitals from Jerusalem, the Ophel capital compliments our understanding of the unique features that distinguish the Jerusalem capitals from other Proto-Aeolic capitals found in Israel and Jordan. The remarkable similarities between the capitals from the Ophel, the City of David and 'Ain Joweizeh are noteworthy; in fact, owing to the difference between these capitals and those from Ramat Rahel and Jordan we suggest assigning them their own subtype" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Who might have constructed this royal, pillar, incorporating the early "Jerusalemite" style, at the 'Ain Joweizeh Spring? What significance would this architectural element have so far away from any royal structure? The answer could be that Absalom constructed this monument to himself after learning that his sons had been executed by King David. The Ain Joweizeh Spring location would have been a somewhat remote (yet important) place for Absalom to construct his pillar without attracting too much attention from the followers of David in nearby Jerusalem.
Baruch Halpern observes, "Did Absalom have sons, or did he not? Most commentators have, again, assumed that II Samuel 14:27 and II Samuel 18:18 contradict one another. Yet Absalom had a daughter, whom he named Maacah, after the founder of the dynasty that gave him refuge. Maacah was the wife of Rehoboam and mother of his heir, Abijah. And she remained queen-mother, chief priestess of the kingdom, into the reign of Asa, Abijah's successor.
Assuming that Maacah's descent from Absalom was not an imposture perpetrated by Solomon, Absalom's daughter, at least, survived. What of the boys? The most probable solution is that David attainted Absalom's family - that is, having convicted Absalom of treason, David executed his male heirs and confiscated all his properties. This is how Ahab handled the family of Naboth (I Kings 21; II Kings 9:26). It is also how Joshua treated the treason of Achan (Joshua 7). And the Ten Commandments proclaim that Yahweh, too, roots out the sons of "those that hate me," which is, traitors, to the third and fourth generation.
When Absalom's sons were subject to attainder is a question. One possibility is that the unreported executions came on his flight to Geshur, and occasioned his resentment of David. Most likely, David killed his grandsons on learning of the revolt, and Absalom accordingly constructed a monument. If David failed to take action, Solomon would not have allowed Absalom's sons to survive. David probably also banished Absalom from remembrance in the royal funerary cult. The women, however, survived. It would be intriguing indeed to have Maacah's reflections on the events of her lifetime.
All this suggests that David dealt harshly with Absalom's family. It explains why Absalom's helpers, such as Ahitophel, preferred suicide to falling into David's hands. This may have been a means to avoid attainder: David spared both the daughter and the grandson of Ahitophel - Bathsheba and Solomon - though killing his own grandsons by Absalom. The purge following on David's victory was in all likelihood a great deal more widespread than limited to immediate circles. Blood will have flowed in the villages of Judah, among the real partisans of Absalom. It will have flowed in Israelite villages as well, among those who regarded the war as an opportunity for vengeance on David for the deaths of the sons and grandsons of Saul" (Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons, 2001, pp. 386, 387).
Absalom was anointed king in Hebron (II Samuel 15:7-10), and shortly thereafter went to Jerusalem (II Samuel 16:15). The "Ain Joweizeh Spring is located between Hebron and Jerusalem. The design elements of the pillar signify royalty. One cannot deny this remarkable convergence between text, geography and material culture. Absalom is most likely responsible for the existence of that pillar, in that place, at that time.
Notice Mazar said that "this capital is remarkably similar to those found in the Ophel and the City of David. She even speculates that "stone cutters used the same design template to chisel out all three." This discovery is at the same time unique in that the pillar and capital are carved together from one massive stone. Additionally, there is no evidence of a second pillar at the site.
I believe that the "Jerusalemite" style should now be dated to the Iron II relative to the Giv'ati Parking Lot fragment (J2) which was discovered in association with a large Iron II building constructed with ashlar masonry. When the additional consideration is given to Shiloh's observation of Kenyon's fragments (J1) that "the design of the outline and the lines of the relief of this capital are the finest of all the Proto-Aeolic capitals in this country" (Shiloh 1979: 10), the case can be made that the "Jerusalemite" style pre-dates the style incorporated in the Ramat Rahel and Jordan capitals. Eilat Mazar emphasizes the uniqueness of the Jerusalem capitals when she concludes in her final report of the Ophel Excavations that: "The Proto-Aeolic capital from the Ophel excavation amplifies the corpus of capitals found in Jerusalem. Although a precise chronological date cannot yet be affixed to the Proto-Aeolic capitals from Jerusalem, the Ophel capital compliments our understanding of the unique features that distinguish the Jerusalem capitals from other Proto-Aeolic capitals found in Israel and Jordan. The remarkable similarities between the capitals from the Ophel, the City of David and 'Ain Joweizeh are noteworthy; in fact, owing to the difference between these capitals and those from Ramat Rahel and Jordan we suggest assigning them their own subtype" (Eilat Mazar 2015, The Ophel Excavations 2009-2013, Vol. 1. Part III, Ch. 4 - A Proto-Aeolic Capital from the Ophel).
Who might have constructed this royal, pillar, incorporating the early "Jerusalemite" style, at the 'Ain Joweizeh Spring? What significance would this architectural element have so far away from any royal structure? The answer could be that Absalom constructed this monument to himself after learning that his sons had been executed by King David. The Ain Joweizeh Spring location would have been a somewhat remote (yet important) place for Absalom to construct his pillar without attracting too much attention from the followers of David in nearby Jerusalem.
Baruch Halpern observes, "Did Absalom have sons, or did he not? Most commentators have, again, assumed that II Samuel 14:27 and II Samuel 18:18 contradict one another. Yet Absalom had a daughter, whom he named Maacah, after the founder of the dynasty that gave him refuge. Maacah was the wife of Rehoboam and mother of his heir, Abijah. And she remained queen-mother, chief priestess of the kingdom, into the reign of Asa, Abijah's successor.
Assuming that Maacah's descent from Absalom was not an imposture perpetrated by Solomon, Absalom's daughter, at least, survived. What of the boys? The most probable solution is that David attainted Absalom's family - that is, having convicted Absalom of treason, David executed his male heirs and confiscated all his properties. This is how Ahab handled the family of Naboth (I Kings 21; II Kings 9:26). It is also how Joshua treated the treason of Achan (Joshua 7). And the Ten Commandments proclaim that Yahweh, too, roots out the sons of "those that hate me," which is, traitors, to the third and fourth generation.
When Absalom's sons were subject to attainder is a question. One possibility is that the unreported executions came on his flight to Geshur, and occasioned his resentment of David. Most likely, David killed his grandsons on learning of the revolt, and Absalom accordingly constructed a monument. If David failed to take action, Solomon would not have allowed Absalom's sons to survive. David probably also banished Absalom from remembrance in the royal funerary cult. The women, however, survived. It would be intriguing indeed to have Maacah's reflections on the events of her lifetime.
All this suggests that David dealt harshly with Absalom's family. It explains why Absalom's helpers, such as Ahitophel, preferred suicide to falling into David's hands. This may have been a means to avoid attainder: David spared both the daughter and the grandson of Ahitophel - Bathsheba and Solomon - though killing his own grandsons by Absalom. The purge following on David's victory was in all likelihood a great deal more widespread than limited to immediate circles. Blood will have flowed in the villages of Judah, among the real partisans of Absalom. It will have flowed in Israelite villages as well, among those who regarded the war as an opportunity for vengeance on David for the deaths of the sons and grandsons of Saul" (Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons, 2001, pp. 386, 387).
Absalom was anointed king in Hebron (II Samuel 15:7-10), and shortly thereafter went to Jerusalem (II Samuel 16:15). The "Ain Joweizeh Spring is located between Hebron and Jerusalem. The design elements of the pillar signify royalty. One cannot deny this remarkable convergence between text, geography and material culture. Absalom is most likely responsible for the existence of that pillar, in that place, at that time.
... Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the Lord shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord. And the king said unto him, Go in peace. So he arose, and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, As soon as ye hear the sound of the trumpet, then ye shall say, Absalom reigneth in Hebron (II Samuel 15:7-10).
And Absalom, and all the people the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him. And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king (II Samuel 16:15-16).
"The element from "Ain Joweizeh is decorated with an equilateral triangle whose sides were carved in three parallel lines (length of inner triangle base 0.31 m, length of each side 0.39 m; length of outer frame base 0.56 m, length of each side 0.64-0.65 m). The triangle is set in abacus (thickness 0.13 m), whose eastern half is broken. Concentric circles (oculus - diam. of outer circle is 11 cm, diam. of inner circle 7 cm) adorn both sides of the triangle's vertex and volutes flank its sides. Much of the eastern volute is missing. The outline of the western one is mostly preserved, although the surface of the stone and decoration are worn. An upper leaf was discerned between the western volute and the abacus and there might also be a lower leaf, although the condition of the element precludes ascertaining it. From an artistic standpoint the decorative characteristics of the architectural element from "Ain Joweizeh resemble the capitals found at Ramat Rahel, the City of David and el-Mudeibi' in Moab; however, its greatest similarity is to the capital discovered by Kenyon in the City of David excavations (Kenyon 1963)" (Hadashot Arkheologiyot - Excavations and surveys in Israel ISSN 1565 - 5334 Volume 125 Year 2013 Walajeh ('Ain Joweizeh) Daniel Ein Mor 16/06/2013).
Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance: and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day, Absalom's place (II Samuel 18:18).
German theologian John Peter Lange wrote, "Abram’s Triumphant Return (Gen. 14:17-24). The kings who welcome him. – At the valley of Shaveh, i.e. the (later) king’s dale. The valley probably takes its name from this event. Absalom erected his pillar here, 2 Sam. xviii. 18..." (A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Genesis, John Peter Lange, D. D., Edinburgh, 1868, p. 404).
According to II Samuel 18:18, the King's Dale is where Absalom made the pillar to himself. If the 'Ain Joweizeh pillar can be associated with Absalom, then another mystery has been solved; we have located the meeting place of Abram, Melchizedek, and the king of Sodom: "And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale" (Genesis 14:17).
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Tumble of ashlars" at the northern edge of Area G -
Photo by A. Chrysler - July 31, 1984
In her excavations in square A XVIII, KATHLEEN KENYON exposed ashlar stones along with a proto-aeolic capital (KENYON 1963, 16; see also STEINER 2001, 48), which must have originated from a royal building. This indicates, according to E. MAZAR, that in the area just above the location of the finds there was an impressive, ashlar built, public building, and that the capital and the stones fell to the areas excavated by KENYON and SHILOH when the building was destroyed (E. MAZAR 1996, 14; 1997, 57, 74). Additional ashlar stones had been uncovered nearby by the Y. Shiloh expedition: "In her square XVIII, at the north-western corner of our Area G, fallen debris of small ashlars was found, like those found by us at the northern edge of Area G, and a single Palmette ("Proto-Aeolic") capital. Ashlar masonry and this type of capital are the outstanding characteristics of royal architecture at Israelite centres" (Yigal Shiloh, Qedem 19, Excavations at the City of David, 1984, p.27).
See - www.timesofisrael.com/at-popular-jerusalem-promenade-archaeologists-find-a-first-temple-era-mansion/
Bible Places Blog - www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20570989&postID=4553014564084837668
