Queen Helena’s Jerusalem Palace—In a Parking Lot?

028

This story, you may be assured, will end in Jerusalem. But only in due course. It begins in Adiabene, a small semi-independent kingdom near the border of the Parthian (Persian) empire in the days before the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. The story is told mostly by the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, but occasionally details are added by the Mishnah, an early compilation of rabbinic law and commentary.¹

Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, had many wives. But he really had a passion for his sister Helena—so he added her as his wife! Queen Helena had at least two sons by her brother. The elder would become Monobazus II. The younger was named Izates. Once when Helena was pregnant with Izates, Monobazus, 029 030 sleeping beside her, placed his hand on her belly, and a voice called out, telling him to remove his hand so as not to cramp the baby who, by the providence of God, would have a fortunate end.

When Monobazus died, his son Monobazus II became king for a short time to protect the young Izates from his father’s jealous sons by his other wives. But ultimately Monobazus II gave up the throne in favor of his younger brother Izates.

Before Izates had become king, a Jewish merchant in Adiabene named Ananias had taught the king’s other wives “to worship God after the manner of the Jewish tradition.”² Through them, Ananias met Izates and brought him also to Judaism. Another Jewish merchant likewise brought Queen Helena to the Jewish tradition. Josephus states quite flatly: “Helena, Queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates became converts to Judaism.”³

With regard to Izates, however, there was a hitch. Helena feared that the people “would not tolerate 031 the rule of a Jew over them.”⁴ Izates apparently did not formally convert because he feared his subjects would be outraged if they learned that he had been circumcised. Ananias told Izates that God would pardon him if he refrained from becoming circumcised.⁵ However, another Jew named Eleazar convinced Izates of the importance of circumcision, and Izates—wanting very much to be a Jew—“summoned his physician and had the prescribed act performed.”⁶

“Helena, the mother of the king [Izates], saw that peace prevailed in the kingdom and that her son was prosperous and the object of admiration in all men’s eyes.”⁷ At that point, she felt “a desire to go to the city of Jerusalem and to worship at the Temple of God.”⁸

When she arrived, Jerusalem was suffering from a famine, so she purchased grain and figs, which she distributed to the needy. This was only the beginning of Helena’s charitable endeavors in Jerusalem. 032 033 According to the Mishnah, Helena also contributed a golden candelabrum above the Temple gate.⁹ Josephus reports that as a result of her gifts of food during the famine, “she has thus left a very great name that will be famous forever among our whole people for her benefaction.”¹⁰ Her son Izates also sought to relieve the hardship of the famine; he sent a great sum of money to the Jerusalem leaders so they might buy provisions. Papyrological and archaeological evidence confirms that a serious famine gripped Egypt in 45 C.E., and it could well have extended into Judea, perhaps providing some confirmation of Josephus’s account. In that year the price of grain was recorded as being more than twice as high in Egypt as it had ever been.¹¹

According to the Mishnah, when Izates went off to war, his mother Helena vowed to become a Nazirite for seven years if her son returned alive.¹² When he returned, she complied with her vow. The completion of this vow required Helena to be present in Jerusalem and to offer proper sacrifices at the Temple.¹³

After 24 years on the throne of Adiabene, Izates died at age 55. At the news of Izates’s death, Helena returned from Jerusalem to Adiabene. There, “weighed down with age and with the pain of her sorrow, she quickly breathed her last.”¹⁴

Izates’s elder brother, Monobazus, returned to the throne. Then “Monobazus [II] sent [Helena’s] bones and those of his brother [Izates] to Jerusalem with instructions that they should be buried in the three 034 pyramids that his mother had erected at a distance of three furlongs from the city of Jerusalem.”¹⁵

At this point in our story, archaeology takes over—both early and late. Helena’s tomb has long been known.¹⁶

Josephus tells us that the tomb Helena built during her lifetime had three pyramids on top. Pyramids were often erected on tombs of the elite at this time.^b Some can still be seen on Second Temple tombs in Jerusalem. The three pyramids on Helena’s tomb indicate that the tomb was probably intended for Helena and her two sons, Izates and Monobazus II. (The tomb of the Hasmoneans, heroes of the festival of Hanukkah, was topped with seven pyramids, two for the mother and father and one for each of their five sons.¹⁷)

Today Helena’s tomb lies less than a half-mile north of the Old City, just as Josephus said. Longtime readers of BAR will not be surprised to learn, however, that it has been mistakenly identified as the “Tomb of the Kings.”

How did this happen?

Because of its massive size and elaborate decoration, early European travelers identified it as the tomb of the ancient kings of Judea. The well-known 18th-century English traveler Richard Pococke is credited with being among the first to identify the tomb as Helena’s,¹⁸ a position confirmed by other explorers and then by the important 19th-century American Biblical scholar and Holy Land geographer Edward Robinson.¹⁹

In 1863 in what is often regarded as the first archaeological excavation in Jerusalem, French archaeologist Louis Félicien de Saulcy discovered a limestone sarcophagus in the tomb, inside of which were the remains of a body in a gold-embroidered shroud.²⁰ Now, only tiny fragments of the shroud remain in storage in the Louvre.²¹ Two enigmatic inscriptions on the sarcophagus—reading “tsadan malcathah” and “tsadah malchatha”—seem to refer to “Tsadan [or Tsadah] the queen.”²² De Saulcy insisted that the sarcophagus belonged to the wife of a Judahite king,²³ perhaps Jeho-addan (2 Chronicles 25:1), the wife of king Joash. Thus de Saulcy unwittingly perpetuated the misnomer Tomb of the Kings.

The inscription Tsadan/Tsadah remains unclear.²⁴ Historical sources and the reading of “queen” on the inscription have led many to believe that the sarcophagus belonged to Queen Helena of Adiabene.²⁵ Yet nowhere is Tsadan recorded as Helena’s name. It is possible that the sarcophagus may have belonged to another queen in the Adiabene family, perhaps an unknown wife of either Izates or Monobazus.

Before departing the Holy Land amid some 035 controversy, de Saulcy somehow managed to have the sarcophagus shipped to Paris, where it was taken to the Louvre. After it was displayed for a short time, it went into storage until 1982, when there was an exhibition commemorating the 100th year of de Saulcy’s death. More recently, the Louvre lent the sarcophagus to the Israel Museum for the opening of the museum’s new archaeological wing in July 2010.

Although the tomb continues to be called the Tomb of the Kings (and is so marked at the entrance), almost all scholars agree that it is in fact Helena’s tomb.²⁶

We turn now to an entirely different kind of archaeological problem—the possible discovery of Helena’s Jerusalem palace. It is the quest of an ongoing excavation (although only one bit of a larger, more comprehensive archaeological investigation). The excavation is directed by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets of the Israel Antiquities Authority and is known as the Givati Parking Lot excavation. That is where the excavation is taking place, just outside the Old City’s Dung Gate in the northern part of the ridge known as the City of David.

Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets have uncovered the remains of a monumental building that was part of a spacious architectural complex. The building itself has two parts—a northern one and a southern one. Of the latter, only a corner has been exposed, but its eastern wall is 46 feet long and rises to a height of more than 16 feet. The wall is more than 3 feet thick and is composed of large, roughly cut fieldstones, some of which weigh more than 200 pounds.

The interior of the building includes elongated 036 037 halls preserved to a height of two stories. Three of these halls have been excavated, but there may be more.

The basement level of the building was supported by rows of large vaults made of smooth, rectangular-cut limestone ashlars.²⁷ The bases of these vaults were discovered in situ.

The building was demolished during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., a date that was confirmed by pottery and coins. In the debris were scattered fragments of frescoes in shades of red, yellow and green framed by thin black lines.

Large architectural fragments with floral patterns were uncovered in secondary use in a later Roman rebuild.²⁸ Ornately decorated column drums and capitals were incorporated within the peristyle plan of a large, later Roman building.²⁹

Adjacent to the northern part of this monumental structure were ritual immersion pools (miqva’ot), as well as a square collection basin that probably fed the pools.³⁰ Such immersion pools were a staple of wealthy homeowners near the Temple Mount who were particularly concerned with ritual purity.

Although a number of these residences have been excavated near the Temple Mount in the Upper City, none matches the size and construction of this building excavated under the Givati Parking Lot.³¹ And this is the only large structure of its kind to have been found south of the Temple Mount in the City of David. The massive structure, the remains of frescoes in various solid colors similar to those found in Herod’s northern palace on Masada, and 039 the private immersion pools all indicate that this structure was in fact a palatial residence. Nearby in the ruins of a later Byzantine building in the Givati Parking Lot, a Roman-period gold earring inlaid with pearls and emeralds was found which may have originated in this palace.

But how can we know whether this was in fact Helena’s palace? No ancient source gives us the precise location of Helena’s palace. But Josephus does provide some topographical clues of its location—and the Givati Parking Lot fits.

Three rival Jewish factions controlled different portions of Jerusalem during the ultimately unsuccessful defense of the city that culminated in the Roman destruction of 70 C.E. In demarking the division between the areas controlled by John of Gischala and Simon ben Giora, Josephus mentions “the palace of Helena.”³² Although Josephus’s description is not easy to understand and requires considerable background to follow, it does appear that Helena’s palace is located between the Ophel (the area immediately south of the Temple Mount) and the City of David (or Lower City) immediately south of the Ophel.³³ The monumental building in the Givati Parking Lot excavation lies within this general area.

In his description of the Roman destruction of the city, Josephus reports that Roman troops set fire to an area that included the Ophel, “the flames spreading as far as the palace of Queen Helena which was in the center of the acra.”³⁴ For Josephus, the Greek term acra can refer to any height, hilltop or citadel. Here it refers to the City of David generally. The monumental building currently under excavation in the Givati Parking Lot is at the highest point in the City of David. It descends steadily to its southernmost point at the Pool of Siloam. Archaeologists Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets are correct when they observe that Helena’s palace is the best known candidate for the monumental building they have found in their excavation.

Further excavations may help to determine with greater certainty whether this monumental building is in fact Queen Helena’s palace.³⁵ In the meantime, we must be satisfied with the intriguing suggestion.

This story, you may be assured, will end in Jerusalem. But only in due course. It begins in Adiabene, a small semi-independent kingdom near the border of the Parthian (Persian) empire in the days before the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. The story is told mostly by the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, but occasionally details are added by the Mishnah, an early compilation of rabbinic law and commentary.1 Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, had many wives. But he really had a passion for his sister Helena—so he added her as his wife! Queen Helena had at least two […]