Previous Article in Journal
A Case of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip with Dislocation from Ancient Rome
Previous Article in Special Issue
Determining the Thickness of Gold Leaf in Post-Byzantine Religious Panel Paintings Using Imaging μ-XRF
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 8
Issue 11
10.3390/heritage8110490
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Lithic Journey of Jerusalem Stone: New Evidence of Ancient Quarries

by
Adi Sela Wiener
1,2,*,
Laura Medeghini
2 and
Gabriele Favero
3
1
Master’s Program in Urban Design, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem, 1 Zmora Street, Jerusalem 9515701, Israel
2
Department of Earth Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale A. Moro, 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale A. Moro, 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(11), 490; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8110490
Submission received: 4 September 2025 / Revised: 31 October 2025 / Accepted: 10 November 2025 / Published: 19 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Preservation of Cultural Heritage: The Nexus of Diagnosis-Prevention-Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Jerusalem’s prominent building material of limestone and dolostone, which is commonly known as “Jerusalem stone”, characterizes the city’s architecture and built environment. The distinctive stone was quarried from the Jerusalem landscape, prepared as building stone, and transported to building sites, a process referred to in this paper as the “lithic journey”. While these ancient quarries have been identified in previous studies, new evidence identifies the characteristics and the spatial distribution of these quarries and the connections between them. This study examined over one hundred archeological reports resulting from mainly salvage excavations conducted in the last decade (2012–2024), which has enabled the creation of updated mapping. Data collected from the Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI), are included in a database that classifies quarry types, building material provenance, and specific characteristics of the ancient quarries that supplied Jerusalem’s building stones. The resulting expanded dataset of this open-access, online resource broadens our understanding of the quarry landscape and the continuous use of stone in the city’s building culture, while also offering an understanding of Jerusalem’s urban development and the design of Jerusalem’s cityscape from antiquity to the present day, as well as contribute to the city’s heritage management.

1. Introduction

The transition from natural rock to building stone, referred to in this paper as the “lithic journey”, is a multi-stage process that involves the quarrying of the rock, the preparation of the building material, its transfer from the place of production, and its use in the building industry. The lithic journey is influenced by several factors that are natural, cultural, spatial, and economic in nature. The process has always been affected by feasibility, in which the production of the material depends on location, the material’s characteristics, the material’s reserves, and the prevailing architectural trends. Knowledge of the process is an important step in understanding the creation of the urban built environment of a place over time (Figure 1).
The current paper focused on the initial stage of the lithic journey—the material characteristics and reserves—that begins with the identification of a suitable lithological stratum for opening a quarry, a process relevant both historically and today. By exploring new evidence for ancient quarries within the contemporary municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, this study aims to enrich the existing knowledge of their characteristics and map their spatial distribution. The research explicitly addresses Jerusalem, a city whose image is characterized by its stony cityscape and where stone is deeply embedded in its urban heritage, while also considering the broader geological and the geographical-urban context of quarrying activities that have taken place in the city vicinity since antiquity.

1.1. The Stone Culture of Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem is identified by many, especially medieval Christians in Europe, as Umbilicus Mundi—the center of the world. Its image is world-renowned in art and literature, and its unique stony appearance derives from the mountains “round about Jerusalem” (Psalm 125: 2), from which the stone was quarried. Jerusalem’s image, both the earthly tangible one and the heavenly intangible one, is revealed in the cityscape’s materials and materiality (Figure 2). In this sense, as presented by Pallasmaa [1], materials play a central role in the perception of architecture, and stone is considered a “timeless material”—the ultimate building material [2]. The noun “material” refers to “the elements, constituents, or substances of which something is composed or can be made” or “matter that has qualities which give it individuality”. It is distinct from “materiality”, which is “the quality or state of being material” (a definition likely first used in 1570) or “something that is material” [3]. Both materials and materiality are important aspects of the built environment, with material referring to the tangible attributes of the cityscape, i.e., the stone, while materiality refers to the intangible values of the cityscape that contribute to its urban heritage [4,5].
The unique urban character of Jerusalem is profoundly shaped by its geology and the use of Jerusalem stone as the primary building material. Like other stone-defined cities such as Rome, Jerusalem has a strong connection to its building materials, with Jerusalem stone evolving from a simple building block into a symbol with material, cultural, and administrative significance. This has led to ongoing discussions about the city’s urban heritage and the future of stone use in modern construction [6,7,8].
While the stone building tradition exists across Israel’s mountainous regions, it is most deeply rooted in Jerusalem, where usage of stone was upheld by municipal legislature [9]. This is due in large part to the 1918 so-called “Stone Ordinance,” enacted by the city’s first British Governor Sir Ronald Storrs, which mandated the use of stone and prohibited “inappropriate” materials like plaster and tin in the Old City, and later, across what was then the entire city. This legislation formalized the administrative and cultural importance of Jerusalem stone, establishing a clear link between the city’s geological composition and its urban development [10,11,12,13]. The significance of this tradition is also reflected in the intangible cultural heritage of local masons’ language, with specific Arabic terms such as the word Mizzi (used for stone), Hilu (beautiful), Ahmar (red), and Meleke (royal) used to describe different types of stone, underscoring its deep cultural integration [14]. For example, Mizzi Hilu is a fine-grained, yellowish-whitish limestone commonly used for paving and stairways; Mizzi Ahmar is an iron-oxide-rich limestone or dolostone (also known as ‘dolomitic rock’, ‘dolomite’, or ‘dolomite rock’) that lends a reddish hue to many historic neighborhoods; and Meleke is a high-quality white to grayish limestone, relatively easy to quarry and process using traditional methods, and which was the main building material of the Old City of Jerusalem.

1.2. The City’s Natural and Geological Setting

The urban and architectural development of Jerusalem is profoundly tied to its unique geological setting, which provides the distinctive Jerusalem stone. As Avnimelech [15] argues, there are few examples of such a strong connection between a city’s development and its geological condition. Situated within the Judaean Mountains on a moderate plateau with hills between 700–800 m above sea level, the city’s location is defined by its core geology. Specifically, the city rests in a central syncline (a trough or downfold in the rock layers) located between two major anticlines (upfolded ridges) to the north (Ramallah) and south (Hebron). This structural setting controls which rock layers, such as limestones and dolostones, are exposed and available for quarrying.
The underlying geology is composed of carbonate sedimentary rock dating back to the Upper Cretaceous series, which formed 70–100 million years ago in the Tethys Ocean [16,17]. The regional lithostratigraphy is divided into two main units [16,18,19,20]: the thicker Judea Group, consisting primarily of hard limestone and dolostone (Cenomanian and Turonian stages), and the Mount Scopus Group, composed mainly of softer chalk and marl (Senonian stage). The geological strata are tilted, with the oldest Judea Group layers exposed in the west and the youngest Mount Scopus Group layers in the east [15,19,21,22].
The Jerusalem stone used for building is quarried primarily from the abundant hard layers of the Judea Group. These rocks are valued for their lithological characteristics, which determine their suitability for cutting and processing into building stones of various shades of white, yellowish, reddish, and gray [23,24] (Figure 3). Furthermore, this geomorphological structure, along with the city’s division by a topographic watershed that separates drainage basins toward the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, has not only dictated the types of building materials available but also shaped its dramatic cultural landscape, including the deep, V-shaped valleys that define the Old City [16,18,25,26].

1.3. Ancient Quarries in Jerusalem and Its Vicinity

Although the availability of building materials was never a strong factor in site selection for settlement, as Perath [9] has noted, Picard pointed out when referring to the location of the city of Jerusalem that while it falls short of other ancient cities in its merits, “there is one virtue to Jerusalem’s location, which these many natural mountain fortresses do not have, within its boundaries are abundant beautiful rocks for both religious buildings and secular buildings” [27] (p. 35; author translation).
Among the three main considerations that Perath lists as determining the choice of building stone, two are closely tied to quarries. The first relates to the distance between the quarry and the construction site, since “a building stone must be available in sufficient quantity, in reasonable proximity to the building site” [9] (p. 15, emphasis added). Here, reasonable is a relative question. The second explicitly refers to the quarry conditions: “the quarry must be exploitable at high efficiency” [9] (p. 15). Only the third condition relates to the various characteristics of the material itself, such as its stability, strength, and weathering resistance. Like Perath, Hoter [28] also indicates three key factors for the selection of building stones. However, unlike Perath, two of the conditions are directly related to the physical and mechanical properties of the stone and its esthetic qualities in a way that will serve well the use, architecture, and design; only one factor is related to economic aspects of the quarry location and transportation of the material.
The practice of building with stone predates formal quarrying and relied on the collection of field stones and stream cobbles already before the Iron Age (1150–586 BCE). However, with the development of metal chisels, the systematic extraction of stones through quarrying began and was intensified with the introduction of explosives such as dynamite at the beginning of the twentieth century [9]. Early quarrying operations were often integrated with other land uses, for example, small, private quarries provided stone for building, and the quarry space was often repurposed as a water cistern or for the foundation of a residential structure, as seen in Jerusalem’s Old City. Large-scale quarries, on the other hand, characterized by the size of the quarry and the size of the stone produced, were a significant source of building stone for monumental structures [29,30].
The development of large and giant quarries was closely tied to major construction projects, such as the Herodian and Roman enterprises in the Land of Israel. In traditional construction, stone quarrying was adapted to construction work, and it was necessary to tailor each stone to construct a particular building. The scarcity of waste material at ancient quarry sites indicates that all available stone, including defective stone, was utilized for construction, gravel, or mortar [9]. Archeological evidence from ancient quarries suggests that stones were dressed and cut to size at the quarry site itself. This practice reduced the overall weight and dimensions of the stone, making it more efficient and economical to transport. Safrai and Sasson provided calculations showing that a finished 40 kg stone block would have started as a block weighing around 80 kg, with the excess material removed at the quarry [30]. Monumental stones, such as those used in the Herodian wall of the Temple Mount, were likely hewn in giant quarries and transported from higher elevations to the city via moderate slopes. Unlike smaller, private quarries, giant quarries were often public or state-managed operations. These giant quarries supplied stone for significant public and royal buildings, particularly during the Second Temple period but also in later periods. Examples of these large-scale quarries include Zedekiah’s Cave (also known as Cotton Cave and Solomon’s Quarries) and the quarry at an-Nabi Samu’il (Tomb of Samuel) (Figure 4).
The categorization of quarries either by size or type are significant to the findings in this paper. Safrai and Sasson [30] established a quarry typology that links quarry type to size, identifying eight distinct categories: (1) One-time quarries are small quarries for residential construction; (2) Stepped quarries feature a series of terraces or “steps” in the quarry walls; (3) and (4) Courtyard quarries (the most common type) are grouped as “small” (4–8 × 4–8 m) or “large” (up to 20–25 m per side); (5) Giant quarries have large dimensions, with sides reaching several tens of meters; (6) Installation quarries are rock-hewn structures, such as a wine press, that is actually a quarry; (7) Tomb quarries feature burials in rock-cut chambers; (8) Cave quarries are dug into the side of a mountain, creating caverns and tunnels underground for the rock extraction. The size of all of these quarries can presumably indicate the number of workers, from a single quarryman to groups, and may provide insights into quarry ownership and the overall organization of the quarrying industry. While this study utilized the quarry typologies proposed by Safrai and Sasson [30], it expands upon the original classification by incorporating additional characteristics related to quarry size and type, derived from the analysis of the excavation reports. These refinements and the specific methods used for characterizing the quarries are described in the Materials and Methods section of this paper.
These ancient stone quarries have operated in and around the city of Jerusalem for millennia, and many of them are currently within the city boundaries. Evidence of the natural bedrock, as well as evidence of ancient quarries can still be distinguished today (Figure 5). However, the process of bedrock diminishing from the cityscape, which was already addressed in the late 1960s by Avnimelech [15], who acknowledged the disappearing evidence of the geological history of the area, is even more extreme today as urban development continues. However, ancient quarries are still frequently discovered in archeological excavations carried out throughout the city prior to development. Recent findings from extensive excavations that were collected and analyzed in the current study shed light on the characteristics of these ancient quarries as well as on their spatial distribution. The following section outlines the materials and methods undertaken in this particular study.

2. Materials and Methods

The primary stage of setting the research framework concentrated on (1) defining the urban-geographical area of reference for the study, (2) its time range, and (3) identifying the source of information for retrieving the data relevant to the current study. The urban-geographical area was set to include the area within the city municipal boundaries, i.e., the city of Jerusalem jurisdiction. To expand on previous research regarding Jerusalem’s stone quarries, this study conducted a quantitative and spatial analysis of 39 ancient quarries, drawing on 117 archeological excavation reports from the period between 2012 and 2024. The start year of 2012 coincides with the already existing and available mapped data, presented in Sasson et al. [29], which discussed quarry and quarries in north Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period; the end date of July 2024 marks when the study was conducted and relevant data published.
The bilingual journal Hadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI) served as the primary source. The journal, published since 1961 by the Israel Department of Antiquities and—Museums (IDAM), and since 1990 by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) (originally in print and since 2005 online), contains preliminary reports of all excavations and surveys carried out in Israel, as well as final reports of small-scale excavations and surveys. Unlike monographs on large-scale archeological excavations, HA-ESI also publishes archeological findings recorded during inspection activities. This open-source, searchable database of archeological reports includes photographs, maps, and plans, as well as figures of small findings and artifacts like pottery and coins. All data are managed and published by the IAA, the governmental authority responsible for enforcing the 1978 Law of Antiquities and regulating all archeological excavations in the country [31].
Data collection was carried out in several successive steps. Initially, all excavation reports appearing in HA-ESI on excavations conducted in the Jerusalem jurisdiction between 2012 and July 2024 were individually collected and listed [32]. This revealed an examination of 117 archeological reports of mostly salvage excavations that were conducted in open areas and built areas prior to development activities within the city’s boundaries during the indicated years. The reports were then sorted using a list of keywords, e.g., quarrying, quarrying or cutting marks, quarry (singular) or quarries (plural), and similar words derived from the same linguistic root. These reports were highlighted as relevant excavation reports for further study. Subsequently, the excavation reports deemed relevant to the study were read in depth to extract both general and detailed data. General data included the title of the report, its date and type, as well as the link to the published electronic report; the name, number, and date of the excavation as well as its type; the excavation location using coordinates (precise) and indicating the area of the city (relative). The detailed data were extracted from the information available in the excavation description and the findings provided by the archeologist. The focus was on specific data related to quarrying or quarries, and the natural rock and the building stone. This was conducted according to defined parameters: quarrying signs, quarry, quarries or indication to a system of quarries, reference to the size of the quarry (small, medium, large, giant) and its type (open, courtyard, shallow, stepped), the dating of the quarry, and wherever mentioned, reference to the lithology or lithostratigraphy where the quarry was open and quarrying work was carried out. In cases where the type of building stone to be produced was mentioned, that was also recorded (Table 1).
The third stage of the study included quantitative and spatial urban-geographical analysis. The quantitative analysis included general data, the type of excavations that were carried out, and the type of reports published in order to characterize the excavation and the existing information. This analysis determined the scope, type, and the findings regarding the current study’s interest in quarries, quarrying activities, and any information regarding the lithic journey from natural rock to building stone. There were a number of questions asked during this analysis: In how many of the performed excavations were evidence of quarries and quarrying marks discovered? Among them, what are the type of quarries and number of each type? What is the size of each quarry and number of each size? In how many excavations was a system of quarries or quarry infrastructure identified? While the dating of the quarries was also analyzed, this information was less precise in the reports. Further analysis regarding the stratigraphy and lithology aspects, i.e., the type of the natural bedrock and the building stone, was also performed. For example, whether the natural bedrock in which the quarry was opened was mentioned, was the formation and/or the type of rock also mentioned, were the characteristics of the rock mentioned in regard to work of quarrying, was the size of the building stone produced mentioned, and could evidence of their extraction still be seen?
From this quantitative data, a spatial urban-geographical analysis was performed. The guiding questions included: What size and what type of quarries were found in each area of the city? In which area of Jerusalem are the large and giant quarries concentrated? In which area is a system of quarries believed to exist? In what type of quarries were evidence of stone detachment found? What was the size of the building stones that were removed from the quarries where evidence of stone detachment was found? While the quantitative analysis referred only to the new data collected as part of the current study, the spatial urban-geographical analysis combined the data from the current study with available existing mapping data from the previous information layer. For this purpose, the existing 2011 map from Sasson et al. [29] presenting relevant data of ancient quarries from the Second Temple period (Late Hellenistic–Early Roman, 2nd century BCE–70 CE) was used as the first layer of mapping by digitizing the hard copy of the map. Next, relevant data from the current study was added to expand the map, i.e., all the excavations in Jerusalem where quarries or evidence of quarrying were discovered between 2012 and July 2024, were included. Each data received its own separate layer.
Parallel to this, an integrated map of the area of the city of Jerusalem and its geological characteristics was also created. The main sources used in this process was an updated geological map of Israel [24] (1:50,000. Sheet 11-II, Jerusalem). Using free and open-source geographic information system (GIS) software (QGIS version 3.36.3-Maidenhead), the data were uploaded on a superimposed city map and geological map and the previous database from 2011 to obtain the spatial layout of the ancient quarries and their location in relation to the city. The result allowed for a spatial urban-geographic analysis of the quarries that relates to the geological aspects of the natural rock layers of the city’s ancient quarries as well as distinguishing between new evidence for ancient quarries alongside the existing evidence from previous studies. Both the quantitative representation and the spatial representation were included to illustrate the phenomenon.

3. Results

The dataset of this study comprised 117 excavation reports published in HA-ESI covering a period of twelve years from 2012 to July 2024 [32]. These reports document archeological fieldwork predominantly conducted between 2006 and 2022. A preliminary review identified 39 reports (33.3%) that contained explicit evidence of quarries or quarrying marks. This section presents a detailed analysis of these 39 excavations, focusing on findings pertinent to the scope of this paper.

3.1. Excavation Context

The majority of the reviewed excavations, specifically 32 out of 39 (over 80%), resulted in the publication of a final report. Five were preliminary reports, while one was an extended report and one was of another type. A significant finding is that approximately 75% (29 of 39) of the ancient quarry discoveries occurred during salvage excavations. These excavations are typically conducted by the IAA to mitigate the impact of urban development [33]. The remaining ten quarry discoveries were made during trial excavations (6), archeological surveys (2), a development survey (1), and an academic excavation (1).
The spatial distribution of the excavations with discoveries of quarries within Jerusalem revealed the following concentration: fourteen (36%) were located in the northern part of the city; eight (20.5%) were in the south; six (15.5%) in the Old City; four (10%) each in the west and city center; and three (8%) in the east (Figure 6).

3.2. Characterization of Quarries

In 24 of the 39 reports (60%), the quarries were characterized by their size, type, or in several cases (3 reports) both in size and type. Quarry size was assessed using relative terms (small, medium, large, giant). Precise dimensions in square meters were rarely provided, and in those cases, the dimensions were estimates due to the partial nature of the excavations. Among the 18 reports that specified size alone or size and type, 44.5% (6 large and 2 giant) described quarries of considerable scale, followed by 28% (5) of quarries in various sizes, 22% (4) of small quarries, and 5.5% (1) of an unknown size due to the fact that it was mostly a trial excavation.
The classification of quarry types drew upon categories established by Safrai and Sasson [30], with additional information retrieved from the excavation reports, including open, shallow, stepped, and courtyard quarries. Among the nine reports that specified the type of quarry or both the size and type, 33.3% (3) described either a shallow quarry or courtyard quarry of each type, and the remaining three were an open quarry, a stepped quarry, and another type of quarry (ashlar quarry), respectively, which relate to the type of building stone excavated (Figure 7).
When cross referencing the findings on the size and type of quarries with the urban-geographical distribution according to the areas of the city, it was determined that most of the giant and large quarries (6) were located in northern Jerusalem, with evidence of one giant quarry in the Old City and one big quarry in the city center. Following these were other various-sized quarries also located in the northern part of the city. Small-size quarries were spread throughout the west, east, and south (Figure 8A). Courtyard quarries (2) were mainly found in the northern area of the city where other types of quarries (stepped and shallow) were also found. In other areas of the city, while no other stepped quarries were found, a courtyard quarry was found in the eastern part of the city, shallow quarries in the city center and the east (one in each), and an open quarry in the southern area (Figure 8B).
A noteworthy finding is that 21 reports (54%) mentioned the individual quarry as part of a system of quarries, i.e., a larger, interconnected quarrying system (Figure 8C). Examining the accumulated information of the three characteristics of the quarries—size, type, and connection to a system of quarries—revealed connections between them that are relevant to the previous findings on the urban context and spatial location of the quarries. Specifically, 14 of these quarries (66.6%) were located in the northern part of the city, and among them, 11 were characterized by their size—six (6) large and giant quarries and five (5) quarries of various sizes; two were also characterized by their type, i.e., a large courtyard quarry and a stepped quarry of different sizes; two were only characterized by their type (a courtyard and a shallow quarry); and one was not characterized by its size or type but as part of a larger system of quarries. The remaining seven (7) quarries for which a quarry system was mentioned were located in the east of the city (2) and in the south (2), none of which were characterized as large or giant, rather a small courtyard quarry and an unspecified-size quarry in the east, and a small quarry and an open quarry in the south. In addition, one (1) quarry in each area was mentioned as part of a system of quarries: in the Old City (giant), in the city center (large), and in the west of the city (small) (Figure 8A–C).
The dating of the quarries was addressed in nearly 80% of the reports (31). Dating was achieved through direct period assignment, relative dating (e.g., “predating a certain period”), or analogical dating based on comparisons with similar, well-dated quarries in the vicinity. Evidence from several reports indicated multi-period use or continuous quarrying from an ancient period into a later one. Modern quarrying, identifiable by modern drilling or blasting marks, was also noted in some cases. The chronological range of the quarrying activity spanned the Iron Age II, Second Temple, Hellenistic, Early Roman, Roman, Late Roman–Early Byzantine, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods.

3.3. Building Stones

The geological context of the quarries, specifically the bedrock type, was mentioned in 18 reports (46%). The identified rock types were limestone, dolostone (also known as ‘dolomitic rock’, ‘dolomite’, or ‘dolomite rock’), and to a lesser extent chalk and chalk with chert (flint). While all 18 reports listed the type of rock, only seven (7) specified the geological lithostratigraphy indicating the group and formation in addition to the type of rock. Among them, five quarries were opened in the Nezer Formation of the Judea Group and two in the Menuha Formation of the Mount Scopus Group. Both belong to the Upper Cretaceous epoch (100.5–66 Ma), though the first, the Nezer Formation, is in the Turonian series, and the second is in the younger series of the Senonian (according to the old division) or to the Santonian stage (according to the new division) (see Figure 3). Two of the reports mentioned the traditional common name of the building stone, Meleke, which is identified with building stone extracted from the Nezer Formation of the Judea Group.
Interesting to note is that in some of the reports, a connection between the natural rock and the quarrying workmanship was made: “the bedrock is a chalky limestone of the Mount Scopus Group—a soft rock, easily quarried” [34] or “the quarried bedrock layer was soft limestone, ranging in color from white to pale yellow; it is surrounded by cracked and friable layers that restricted the possibility of quarrying” [35].
Cross referencing the above geological findings regarding the type of the rock with the previously described distribution of the quarries in the urban context and the size of the quarries, it can be noted that among the 18 quarries in which the natural rock type was indicated, eight (8) quarries were located in the north area of the city, five (5) of which were in the Turonian Nezer Formation and one (1) of which is in the Senonian Menuha Formation (for the other two, only the type of the rock is mentioned). Among these quarries, in the north part of the city where the natural rock type is indicated, all eight (8) belonged to a system of quarries and five (5) were of a considerable size (large and giant).
Of the 18 reports, in 10 where the type of the natural rock is mentioned, only two (2) quarries in the eastern part of the city resembled a similar though not identical situation as the quarries in the northern part of the city. They were both from the Senonian Menuha Formation and belonged to a system of quarries, although one is a small quarry, and the size of the other is unknown due to the type of excavation.
Evidence related to stone extraction was a common theme, with 35 reports (90%) detailing methods such as severance channels, cutting channels, and quarrying and dressing marks. Of these, 24 reports (68.5%) documented partially cut stones that were still attached to the bedrock. The size of the quarried blocks was described in 27 reports (69%), using a relative size like giant, large, medium, and small, and sometimes indicated the specific dimensions of the building stones. A significant finding is that in 18 of these 27 reports (67%), evidence of extracting multiple stone sizes from a single quarry was observed (Figure 9). The subsequent use of the quarried stone was mentioned in 15 reports (38.5%), with some mentioning the supplying of building stones to Jerusalem buildings for an extensive time. Of these, four (27%) reports indicated that the stones were used for construction at or in close proximity to the quarry site (Table 2).

4. Discussion

The findings from this quantitative and spatial analysis of 39 ancient quarries, drawing on 117 archeological excavation reports, provide compelling evidence that supports and expands upon previous research providing a broad and updated database on ancient quarries within the city of Jerusalem boundaries and their main characteristics as well as accumulated spatial mapping.
The results of the current study confirm the conclusions of Sasson et al. [29]. It strongly supports a main finding regarding the spatial urban-geographical distribution of a high concentration of ancient quarries in northern Jerusalem during the Second Temple period as well as their geological settings, as presented in the integrated map below (Figure 10). However, in relation to the historical scope, this study broadens the dataset and demonstrates that this phenomenon is not confined to a single period but is a longstanding characteristic of the city’s quarrying industry.
The notable concentration of large-scale quarries in the northern part of Jerusalem can be attributed to a confluence of geological, geographical, and logistical factors. As our spatial analysis shows, these quarries were predominantly located in the Turonian bedrock of the Netzer Formation (formerly Bina) of the Judea Group. This specific geological layer, known for its high-quality building stone, provided a readily accessible resource for ancient quarry and building works. In this regard, the current study used archeological reports as “raw materials” to extract geological data pertaining to ancient stone quarries. Therefore, two key recommendations that can be drawn from it are: (1) any excavation report detailing an ancient quarry must include stratigraphy data, i.e., the geological layer, as a mandatory data; and (2) the archeological excavation should include comprehensive material analysis of natural bedrock based on rock sampling and laboratory work using analytical methods to provide the mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of the quarry’s rock. For large or multi-level quarries, the entire area of the quarry should be marked on the Geological Map of Jerusalem to examine the geological extent of the quarry, and multiple rock samples should be systematically collected to ensure representative analytical coverage.
Furthermore, the strategic location on a north–south ridge facilitated the efficient transport of material to the city, aligning with hypotheses regarding the topographical advantages of these sites. The integrated mapping already emphasizes the connection between the geographical location of the quarries and their relative altitude to the city and the subsequent transportation of building stone to Jerusalem. While this supports the assumption of the existence of an organized site for transport and the proximity of these quarries to known ancient routes, identified either during the excavation itself or through prior archeological surveys in the adjacent areas [37,38], this aspect can be further emphasized by integrating a layer of ancient and historic routes—sourced from historical maps, such as the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF)—into the GIS mapping. This integration facilitates the spatial examination of the relationship between precise, archeologically derived quarry locations and the routes and field evidence of the mapped roads.
The quantitative findings from the excavation reports provide insights into the characteristics of the ancient quarries mainly in terms of their size, type, and whether they belong to a system of quarries. The findings also highlight a clear distinction between the quarries in northern Jerusalem and those found in other parts of the city. While smaller, more sporadic quarries exist throughout Jerusalem, the northern sites are characterized by their significant size and the production of large building stones. The consistent evidence of multi-level, complex quarries—including courtyard, open, and stepped varieties—in the northern areas further supports the hypothesis of a centrally managed, large-scale industry, likely state-run, as previously suggested by Safrai and Sasson [30] and Sasson et al. [29]. This contrasts with other areas where quarries appear to be smaller, more private ventures.
These reports offered rich descriptions of specific quarry characteristics, including the quarry levels (from two levels to a multi-leveled quarry), preserved high rock walls in the quarry perimeter, and detailed descriptions of quarry steps along with exact dimensions. Additionally, some of these reports provided information on evidence on the operational workflow, noting the directionality of quarrying [36,39,40]. In addition, and not specifically addressed before, it draws upon the connection between the source of rock, the type of quarry, and the extracted building stone. In this respect, the current study facilitates future material conservation research focused on data collection regarding the decay of various building stones in both ancient and historic structures, thereby expanding upon the analytical methods previously suggested for identifying the quarried material of the natural rock. Furthermore, the findings of the current study reveal a direct correlation between the discovery of ancient quarries and modern urban planning initiatives. The fact that 75% of the quarries in this study were uncovered during salvage excavations demonstrates that the expansion of contemporary Jerusalem reveals a wealth of archeological information. In the context of the spatial distribution of quarries around Jerusalem, Yeger [41] offers an interesting hypothesis: the scarcity of finds east of the Old City can be attributed to the fact that intensive development of the area occurred before any archeological excavation could be performed. This link underscores the importance of integrating archeological research into urban development, as the city’s growth continues to uncover its ancient industrial and material history. The methods in this study provide the blueprint for integrating the two fields in such a way that any new construction provides an opportunity to expand the archeological data about Jerusalem’s development. Recognizing the relationship between rapid, intensive urban development and the discovery of quarries within city boundaries profoundly impacts urban heritage management. For example, it may be necessary to mandate that archeological surveys and excavations be conducted at an earlier stage of the planning and development process to ensure the timely extraction of crucial archeological and historical information. The goal is to shift the majority of fieldwork from reactive salvage excavations—like those examined in this study—to proactive, planned excavations.
The detailed excavation reports noted two additional phenomena concerning the secondary use of abandoned quarries. While these were not the primary focus of this study, their significance warrants future investigation. One is rock-hewn burial caves and chambers in the quarry walls, which were mentioned in earlier studies. The second is soil accumulation within the quarry areas that converted the former quarries into agricultural terraces, indicating an integration of these sites into the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem after their primary use had ended, which was briefly indicated by Sasson et al. [29] but received a specific focus in recent studies such as Yeger [41], who focused on archeological excavations mainly in the north part of the city. Both of these phenomena can be explored using the methodology employed in this study.
The methodology of the current study, based on a growing database of excavation reports, offers a new approach to the study of ancient quarrying. The framework allows for the continuous integration of new data, providing a dynamic research tool that can be refined over time. For example, future research could incorporate data on quarry altitude to more precisely model transportation logistics, or the quarry location on a specific slope of the mountain, factors identified as significant by Sasson et al. [29]. Moreover, the methodology used in this research suggests that GIS tools allow for future examination of the direct relationship between the discovery of ancient quarries and ancient spatial infrastructure and modern urban planning initiatives. This study reveals that the majority of ancient quarries (75%) were found during salvage excavations, which are a prerequisite for urban development. To further illustrate this connection, an additional GIS layer is proposed. This layer would integrate data on designated construction and development areas in Jerusalem from the master plan and other approved projects. This integration would provide a comprehensive spatial analysis of the interplay between archeological findings and urban development.
As noted by Safrai and Sasson, Sasson et al., and currently by Mamalya and Ben-Yosef [29,30,42], while approximately 80% of the excavated quarries in the region are within carbonate sedimentary rocks (limestone, dolostone, and chalk) there is a methodological complexity in studying stone quarries. Part of it is the dating of ancient quarries, which remains a significant challenge due to the absence of sealed levels, the lack of in situ artifacts, and the long-term consistency of traditional quarrying technologies. Consequently, the dating of these sites often relies on circumstantial evidence from nearby settlements. Future research could explore advanced dating techniques or focus on integrating historical and archeological data more closely to address this limitation.
The subject of ancient quarrying in Jerusalem is a broad topic that invites new discoveries in historical, archeological, and geological research. While it can be broadened to the exploration of regional and worldwide phenomena, the current research explicitly focused on the city of Jerusalem, which is in line with a continuing research trend. Interest from researchers grows, however, as evidenced by the recent symposium at the National Institute of Archeology of the Land of Israel in Jerusalem entitled “Ancient Stone Quarries: the Local Aspect” [43], which addressed quarries and stone tools, the importing of stones and their transportation methods, as well as the connections between stone quarries, construction, and agriculture. It is evident that the great attraction to these subjects of quarrying and quarries in the context of the city of Jerusalem stems both from the city’s large construction projects and from the appearance and image of the city itself, whose prominent material character is intimately related to the surrounding landscape.
The current study, which focused on new evidence for ancient quarries within the city of Jerusalem, adds another “layer of stone” to this field of research, which is part of the framework of “geo-archeological studies,” and the study of human–environment interactions [42]. Furthermore, this multidisciplinary research builds upon existing research to introduce the urban-geographical aspect of the spatial dimension of the city and its surroundings with potential urban heritage and heritage management contribution. This is especially important as the city continues to develop, and new excavations are undertaken.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.W., G.F. and L.M.; methodology, A.S.W. and L.M.; software, A.S.W.; formal analysis, A.S.W.; data curation, A.S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.W.; writing—review and editing, A.S.W., L.M. and G.F.; visualization, A.S.W.; supervision, G.F. and L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Research data will be provided from the corresponding author upon specific request.

Acknowledgments

This article was derived from research by Adi Sela Wiener, titled CSMs|City Scape Materials and Materiality—Redefining urban heritage materiality: a conceptual study of Jerusalem, that was carried out at Sapienza University of Rome, Earth Science Department, curricula of environment and cultural heritage. It was conducted partially in parallel with the EDICULA Project (Educational Digital Innovative Cultural heritage related Learning Activities) that was coordinated by A. Moropoulou, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, and funded by the European Union’s Erasmus+ (Project Code: 2020-1-EL01-KA203-079108). Further acknowledgment to M. Turner, thesis advisor, and Aya Arod, research assistant at the Bezalel Institute for Spatial Studies (BISS), School of Architecture, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript.
HA-ESIHadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel
IAAIsrael Antiquities Authority
IDAMIsrael Department of Antiquities and Museums
QGISGeographic Information System (GIS) software, free and open source

References

  1. Pallasmaa, J. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses; Wiley-Academy: West Sussex, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Meyhoefer, D.; Roche, S. Set in Stone: Rethinking a Timeless Material, 1st ed.; Braun: Salenstein, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  3. Merriam-Webster. “Material” and “Materiality.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2024. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ (accessed on 30 October 2025).
  4. Sela Wiener, A. City Scape Materials and Materiality. Redefining Urban Heritage Materiality: A Conceptual Study of Jerusalem. Ph.D. Thesis, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, February 2025. [Google Scholar]
  5. Turner, M. Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape. In Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century; Cameron, C., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heller, S. Without the Cladding Stone: After a Hundred Years-the Municipality Wants to Examine the Stone Ordinance in Jerusalem. Kol Hair. 2019. Available online: https://www.kolhair.co.il/realestate/99260/ (accessed on 27 August 2025).
  7. Shalom, O.; Bouhsira, Y.; Matar, A. Under Cover: On the Question of Stone in Jerusalem; Municipality of Jerusalem, Jerusalem Urban Design Center, and Bezalel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Weiss, I. Jerusalem of Plaster. Street Language Urban Magazine. 2016. Available online: https://www.stlanguage.com/%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%98%D7%99%D7%97/ (accessed on 27 August 2025).
  9. Perath, I. Stone Building and Building Stone in Israel; State of Israel Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, Geological Survey of Israel, Environmental Geology Division: Jerusalem, Israel, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kroyanker, D. Jerusalem Architecture-Periods and Styles. The Period of the British Mandate 1918–1948; Keter: Jerusalem, Israel, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lobovikov-Katz, A. The “Stone Regulation” and Stone Building Conservation in Jerusalem (the Role of Building Material-Stone-in Urban Conservation). Ph.D. Thesis, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ramon, A. Jerusalem in the British Mandate time 1917–1948. In The Jerusalem Lexicon; Ramon, A., Ed.; Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies: Jerusalem, Israel, 2003; pp. 52–54. [Google Scholar]
  13. Storrs, R. The Memoirs of Sir Ronald Storrs; G.P. Putnam’s Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1937. [Google Scholar]
  14. Netzer, M. Jerusalem will be built and prepared with its stones. In Land of Distant Days; Barkai, G., Schiller, A., Eds.; Ariel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  15. Avnimelech, A.M. Turonian Jerusalem. Science 1968, 13, 209–215. [Google Scholar]
  16. Arkin, Y.; Ecker, A. Geology of Infrastructures and Water at the Jerusalem Area. Geological Survey of Israel, Rep. GSI/08/2014; Geological Survey of Israel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen, K.M.; Finney, S.C.; Gibbard, P.L.; Fan, J.-X. The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart. 2023. Available online: https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2023-09.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  18. Ben-Yosef, S. Shefela Foothills: Vol. 11. In The New Israel Guide; Keter: Jerusalem, Israel, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mazor, E. Geology with An Israeli Hammer; The Open University: Tel Aviv, Israel, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  20. Arad, U.; Oren, U.; Romem, E.; Sinai, R.; Perlberg, A.; Mendelson, A.; Ron, M.; Amador, L.; Ramon, U. North of the Jerusalem Mountains: Survey, Analysis and Assessment of Nature, Landscape and Human Heritage; Open Landscape Institute: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Avnimelech, A.M. The geology of Jerusalem’s surroundings in the light of the new investigations. Nat. Earth 1951, 8, 507–515. [Google Scholar]
  22. Avnimelech, A.M. The influence of the geological conditions of Jerusalem on the development of its settlement. In Judah and Jerusalem–The Twelfth Archaeological Convention; Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, Israel, 1957; pp. 129–136. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hashimshony, A.; Shabid, Y.; Hashimshony, Z. Jerusalem Master Plan 1968; Municipality of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, Israel, 1974; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sneh, A.; Avni, Y. Geological Map of Jerusalem; The Geological Survey of Israel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rubin, R. Stories Told by the Mountains: Cultural Landscape Though Time; Resling: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  26. Vardi, A. Jerusalem: Vol. 12. In The New Israel Guide; Keter: Jerusalem, Israel, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Picard, L.A. The Geological Situation of Jerusalem. In The Book of Jerusalem: The Natural Conditions and the History of the City from Its Origin to the Destruction of the Second Temple; Avi-Yonah, M., Ed.; The Bialik Institute and Dvir Publishing House: Jerusalem, Israel, 1956; Volume 1, pp. 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoter, R. Geographical Aspects of Quarry Sites in Central Israel. Yediot Bahaqirat Eretz-Isr. Weatiqoteha 1965, 29, 187–203. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23734009 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  29. Sasson, A.; Sion, O.; Barda, L. Quarry and Quarries in North Jerusalem During the Second Temple Period. In New Studies on Jerusalem; Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A., Faust, A., Eds.; Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Jewish Studies: Ramat Gan, Israel, 2011; Volume 17, pp. 265–286. [Google Scholar]
  30. Safrai, Z.; Sasson, A. Quarrying and Quarries in the Land of Israel; Ariel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  31. Israel Antiquities Authority. About Hadashot Arkheologiyot. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/about_eng.aspx (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  32. Israel Antiquities Authority. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel [Online Database]. 2004–2024. Available online: https://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/default_eng.aspx (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  33. Israel Antiquities Authority. Salvage Excavations: When and Why? Available online: https://www.iaa.org.il/page_iaa_policy/page/saving-policy (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  34. Vitto, F. Jerusalem, Et-Tur. Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2012, 124. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1995&mag_id=119 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  35. Lavi, R. Jerusalem, Musrara. Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2012, 124. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2123&mag_id=119 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  36. Cohen, R. Jerusalem, Beit Hanina (A). Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2022, 134. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=26159&mag_id=134 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  37. Weksler-Bdolah, S.; Hagbi, M. Jerusalem, Silwan. Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2022, 134. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=26253&mag_id=134 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  38. Cohen, R. Jerusalem, Shu’fat. Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2023, 135. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=26415&mag_id=135 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  39. Cohen, R. Jerusalem, Beit Hanina (B). Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2022, 134. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=26155&mag_id=134 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  40. Zilberbod, I. Jerusalem, Beit Hanina (B). Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excav. Surv. Isr. 2012, 124. Available online: https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2014&mag_id=119 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  41. Yeger, D. The End of the Deed with Forethought: Evidence for the Utilization of Stone Quarries for Agriculture in the Roman-Byzantine Periods. In Proceedings of the Conference Abstracts for Ancient Stone Quarries: The Local Aspect, Jerusalem, Israel, 7 August 2025; National Institute of Archaeology of the Land of Israel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2025; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mamalya, H.; Ben-Yosef, E. Introduction: The Stone Quarries in the Land of Israel: Geoarchaeological Aspects. In Proceedings of the Conference Abstracts for Ancient Stone Quarries: The Local Aspect, Jerusalem, Israel, 7 August 2025; National Institute of Archaeology of the Land of Israel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2025; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
  43. Israel Antiquities Authority. In Proceedings of the Ancient Stone Quarries: The Local Aspect, Jerusalem, Israel, 7 August 2025; National Institute of Archaeology of the Land of Israel: Jerusalem, Israel, 2025. Available online: https://www.iaa.org.il/page_event/page/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%9F-%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA---%D7%94%D7%94%D7%99%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
Heritage 08 00490 g001
Figure 1. A schematic representation of the lithic journey.
Figure 1. A schematic representation of the lithic journey.
Heritage 08 00490 g001
Heritage 08 00490 g002
Figure 2. Observation of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives demonstrating the strong material character of the city. Photograph by Frank Mason Good, 1875. Lenkin Family Collection of Photography at the University of Pennsylvania Library, The Pritzker Family National Photography Collection, The National Library of Israel (left); photograph by Yoav Avneyon, 2021. Courtesy of the photographer www.yoaview.com (right).
Figure 2. Observation of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives demonstrating the strong material character of the city. Photograph by Frank Mason Good, 1875. Lenkin Family Collection of Photography at the University of Pennsylvania Library, The Pritzker Family National Photography Collection, The National Library of Israel (left); photograph by Yoav Avneyon, 2021. Courtesy of the photographer www.yoaview.com (right).
Heritage 08 00490 g002
Heritage 08 00490 g003
Figure 3. The main stratigraphy of the city of Jerusalem, outlined with a dashed black line. Sheet 11-II in Sneh and Avni, 2011 [24].
Figure 3. The main stratigraphy of the city of Jerusalem, outlined with a dashed black line. Sheet 11-II in Sneh and Avni, 2011 [24].
Heritage 08 00490 g003
Heritage 08 00490 g004
Figure 4. Large-scale “Giant” quarries. Solomon’s Quarries: (1a) Rock-cut burial cave (c. 1898–1946); (1b) men standing in Solomon’s Quarries. Quarrying marks can be noticed inside the cave (c. 1898–1946), Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., USA [LC-DIG-matpc-08611 and LC-DIG-matpc-11823]. Quarries at an-Nabi Samu’il: (2a) The Crusaders quarry on the north part of the site. The large quarry surfaces and the flat stone surface with three carved rock columns remain in its center, each approximately 1 m high; its role remains unclear. The mountain ridge and the city of Ramallah can be seen in the distance; (2b) a wide severance channel with two levels of undetached large size stone; (2c) the uncompleted moat’s wide and high severance channel that is over human height. Photographs by Adi Sela Wiener, April 2022.
Figure 4. Large-scale “Giant” quarries. Solomon’s Quarries: (1a) Rock-cut burial cave (c. 1898–1946); (1b) men standing in Solomon’s Quarries. Quarrying marks can be noticed inside the cave (c. 1898–1946), Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., USA [LC-DIG-matpc-08611 and LC-DIG-matpc-11823]. Quarries at an-Nabi Samu’il: (2a) The Crusaders quarry on the north part of the site. The large quarry surfaces and the flat stone surface with three carved rock columns remain in its center, each approximately 1 m high; its role remains unclear. The mountain ridge and the city of Ramallah can be seen in the distance; (2b) a wide severance channel with two levels of undetached large size stone; (2c) the uncompleted moat’s wide and high severance channel that is over human height. Photographs by Adi Sela Wiener, April 2022.
Heritage 08 00490 g004
Heritage 08 00490 g005
Figure 5. Natural rock with evidence for quarries exposed above street level. (Left) The hard natural rock with presumed quarrying evidence on the straight sides is integrated in the building ground floor along Bezalel St. (Right) Evidence of an ancient quarry with significant quarrying wall on the natural rock along Remez St. near the Khan Theatre. Photographs by Adi Sela Wiener, January 2024 and February 2023, respectively.
Figure 5. Natural rock with evidence for quarries exposed above street level. (Left) The hard natural rock with presumed quarrying evidence on the straight sides is integrated in the building ground floor along Bezalel St. (Right) Evidence of an ancient quarry with significant quarrying wall on the natural rock along Remez St. near the Khan Theatre. Photographs by Adi Sela Wiener, January 2024 and February 2023, respectively.
Heritage 08 00490 g005
Heritage 08 00490 g006
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of excavations with quarry evidence within the city of Jerusalem boundaries represented by the number of excavations in accordance with the different regions of the city.
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of excavations with quarry evidence within the city of Jerusalem boundaries represented by the number of excavations in accordance with the different regions of the city.
Heritage 08 00490 g006
Heritage 08 00490 g007
Figure 7. Quarry classification.
Figure 7. Quarry classification.
Heritage 08 00490 g007
Heritage 08 00490 g008
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of quarries according to their characteristics. (A) Distribution by size; (B) Distribution by type; (C) Distribution by system. (6), (4), (14), (3), (8) Number of quarries in the different regions of the city.
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of quarries according to their characteristics. (A) Distribution by size; (B) Distribution by type; (C) Distribution by system. (6), (4), (14), (3), (8) Number of quarries in the different regions of the city.
Heritage 08 00490 g008
Heritage 08 00490 g009
Figure 9. Jerusalem, Beit Hanina quarry. (left) Looking southeast (L103); (middle) undetached stone and quarrying channel (L100); (right) particularly wide severance channel, looking west (L103). Photographs from [36]. Photographs by Rotem Cohen, 2022. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Figure 9. Jerusalem, Beit Hanina quarry. (left) Looking southeast (L103); (middle) undetached stone and quarrying channel (L100); (right) particularly wide severance channel, looking west (L103). Photographs from [36]. Photographs by Rotem Cohen, 2022. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Heritage 08 00490 g009
Heritage 08 00490 g010
Figure 10. Spatial spread of ancient quarries in Jerusalem and its vicinity. Map by Adi Sela Wiener based on [29,32]. For map legend see Figure 3.
Figure 10. Spatial spread of ancient quarries in Jerusalem and its vicinity. Map by Adi Sela Wiener based on [29,32]. For map legend see Figure 3.
Heritage 08 00490 g010
Table 1. Relevant data collected from the excavation reports.
Table 1. Relevant data collected from the excavation reports.
General Data
Excavation reportTitle Link
Date Type(Preliminary/Final/Extended/Not specified)
ExcavationDates Permit/license Num.
Type(Salvage excavation/Trial excavation/Archeological survey/Development survey/Academic excavation)
LocationCoordinates Part of the city(Old City/City Center/North/South/East/West)
Description(short description of the site including the main findings)
Quarries: Evidence and general characteristics
Evidence of quarry and/or signs of quarrying(Yes/No)
Dating of the quarry (1)(Specific period according to historical time scale/Cannot be determined)
Size of quarry(Giant/Large/Medium/Small/Not mentioned)
Type of quarry(Open/Courtyard/Shallow/Stepped/Not mentioned)
Evidence of a system of quarries?(Yes/No)
Quarries: Lithography, rocks and building stones
Are stratigraphy and lithology mentioned? (2)(Yes/No)
Rock formation(Name/Not mentioned)
Type of rock(Limestone/Dolostone/Chalk/Other/Not mentioned)
Evidence of the extraction of building stones (3)Description of the evidence
Size of building stones(Small/Medium/Large/Giant/Various sizes/Not mentioned)
Uses of building stones(Short description of the use/Not mentioned)
(1) Multiple choices are optional. (2) The natural bedrock layers and geological data mentioned (stratigraphy, lithology, etc.). (3) Stones that were partially cut and remained in situ, evidence includes severance channels, undetached stones, etc.
Table 2. Evidence of building stone extraction, size, and use.
Table 2. Evidence of building stone extraction, size, and use.
Evidence of Building Stones
Extraction of building stones34
Extraction not completed (out of the 34)24
Building stone size27
Various sizes (out of the 27)18
Uses of the building stones15
Used in the quarry (out of the 15)4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sela Wiener, A.; Medeghini, L.; Favero, G. The Lithic Journey of Jerusalem Stone: New Evidence of Ancient Quarries. Heritage 2025, 8, 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8110490

AMA Style

Sela Wiener A, Medeghini L, Favero G. The Lithic Journey of Jerusalem Stone: New Evidence of Ancient Quarries. Heritage. 2025; 8(11):490. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8110490

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sela Wiener, Adi, Laura Medeghini, and Gabriele Favero. 2025. "The Lithic Journey of Jerusalem Stone: New Evidence of Ancient Quarries" Heritage 8, no. 11: 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8110490

APA Style

Sela Wiener, A., Medeghini, L., & Favero, G. (2025). The Lithic Journey of Jerusalem Stone: New Evidence of Ancient Quarries. Heritage, 8(11), 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8110490

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop