TRANS Nr. 17: 8-5. - Esther Grabiner: The Double Urban Impact of a Model of Ancient Jerusalem

The model representing Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was built between 1962 and 1966 as a personal initiative of Hans Tsvi Kroch (1). Following his arrival in Israel (1949), he constructed the hotel “Eretz Hatsvi” (Land of the Deer) (2), inaugurated in 1959 and later re-named the Holyland Hotel. The hotel was situated in the south - west part Jerusalem, in an area, which was, then outside the city boundaries. The model, erected on the hotel’s grounds, was conceived as a memorial to his son, Jacob Ernst Kroch, who died in the 1948 Independence War.

Fig.1: The model of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period in Holyland Hotel, courtesy of Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd.

The planning and archaelogical content of the model was entrusted to Professor Michael Avi-Yonah of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an archeologist and historian, expert of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods for the region as a whole, and for Jerusalem in particular. The model construction was based primarily on textual sources: The Jewish Wars and Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash and the New Testament. Other resources included archaeological data accumulated from excavations in Jerusalem and other cities of the Roman Empire (3).

The model, extending over 940 square meters recreates Jerusalem to the scale of 1:50, depicting it as was prior to the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66 BC and the destruction of the city and the Temple in 70 AD. At that time the city’s glory reached its summit and according to textual sources (4) and archeological findings (5), was considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in the Roman Empire. The materials used for the construction of the model are the genuine materials used to build the city: local limestone, also called Jerusalem Stone, was used for most of the buildings; marble, was used for Herod’s palace and the Second Temple, gold for pillar capitals and the gates to the inner court, copper for the Nicanor Gate, as well as bronze, iron and wood.

The model was built in the courtyard south of the hotel building (fig. 1), on a gentle slope to the south and west, and was open to the landscape of the Judean Hills to the south. Access to the model was from the north and its orientation was similar to that of the historical city, but with a deviation of 15Â° to the west dictated by the site’s topography. The promenade and observation path constructed around it accorded the altitude of the wall’s lower part except to the south, where it was approximately one meter higher. An observation terrace was constructed west of the model overlooking it from a height of approximately 4 meters.

Forty years later, this once isolated area was engulfed by Jerusalem’s expansion and became a coveted site for real-estate development. In the nineties a development and construction project was authorized for luxury apartments spreading over an area of 40,000 square meters. The approved plan consisted of an elliptical residential complex surrounding the hill, with the model at its center in its original location. Soon, however, the very existence of the model became problematic, on a site that had become a major construction area, with cranes, trucks of materials, omnipresent noise and dust, all of which transformed the model into an obstruction rather than a potential attraction. In addition the prospect of hundreds of thousands visitors per year and tens of buses a day did not suit the promoters’ vision for the future residential complex, and they requested that the model be moved. The building permit by the Regional Municipal Committee was granted subject to finding a replacement site for the model. At one point it was suggested that the model be moved to “Mini Israel” located in Park Latrun, between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem, a site including over 350 models, but the Jerusalem Municipality insisted that the model should stay within its limits.

In the course of 2003 and 2004 no less than nine alternative sites were examined (6). Each site was tested, measured and basic diagrams were prepared. Practical parameters were closely reviewed including access roads, parking, handicap access, lease options, construction permits, etc. Visual representation aspects were closely examined as well: how will the model be revealed to the spectator, what will the view from the model to its surrounding environment look like? Will it be possible to simulate the historic topographic environment of the city?

On the 4th of August 2004 an agreement was signed stipulating that the new site for the model shall be the Israel Museum. The signatories were the model’s owner, Hillel Cherni, Hans Kroch’s grandson, and the Museum’s Management. During the winter of 2006 the model was cut into approximately 1000 pieces, moved to a 9000 square-meter site within the museum campus (7), and then reassembled (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Simulation of the model of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period in the Museum campus, courtesy of Avner Drori Architects.

The transfer of the model, from a courtyard of a private hotel to the national museum, would raise various urban and cultural issues:

The numerous issues emerging from the transfer of the model will be developed in another context. This paper proposes an iconographic analysis of the model’s new environment and the manner of its display, designed by Avner Drori and inaugurated in July 2006. The paper discusses how these have evoked and empowered mythical images and formative ideological contents of the city, establishing them in a concentrated and new scheme within a defined visual space.

At its conception, and even though its initiator may not have been aware of this, the model has been closely linked to the ethos of the son’s sacrifice, which is the very basis for Jerusalem’s sacredness (12). Mount Moriah, the construction site of King Solomon’s Temple in the Tenth Century BCE, and the site of the Second Temple in the sixth century BCE, renovated and expanded by Herod in the First Century BCE, is commonly accepted as the spot of Isaac’s sacrifice. Genesis 22:2: “Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of”. The Hill of Golgotha, where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was constructed, is commonly accepted as the place of the Crucifixion. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus was quoted as saying: “My God, My God (my father, my father), why have you forsaken me?” And in Luke 23:46: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”. Between 1962 and 1966, Hans Tsvi Kroch built a model of the city of Jerusalem as a memorial to his deceased and only son.

The theme of the model is the city of Jerusalem as completed by Herod the Great, and prior to the revolt of the Jews against the Romans. According to Jewish perception this was the climax of Jerusalem's political supremacy, territorial expansion and cultural flowering, with the Temple in the city as the sublime expression of political independence and cultural uniqueness. Moreover, literature as well as visual representations were used to depict similarities between the situation of Jerusalem in general and the Temple in particular, and that of the people and the nation. In recent times, historic periods have been named after the temple: the First Temple Period, representing the period from the Tenth to the Sixth Century BCE, and the Second Temple Period, representing the period from Sixth Century BCE to 70 CE. These names are rooted both in the spoken and written language as are their international parallels such the Iron Age, Hellenistic Era or the Roman Era. Yearning for Jerusalem is among the founding principles of the Zionist Movement. This period, considered to be the golden era of Jerusalem, has continually been the major inspiration for historical explorations, archaeological excavations and conservation projects. Following the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 1949 by David Ben-Gurion, despite the 1947 UN resolution to internationalize the city (13), it was Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period that inspired names, images and public emblems for the representation of the new capital in its aspiration for sovereignty and historical legitimacy (14).

The exceptional success of the model was no coincidence. It provided tangible evidence of a destroyed city, a subject of yearning and research capable of bonding various social circles within Israeli society: religious and secular, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, left and right wing, intellectuals and men of action. Moreover, at the time of its construction the model acted not only as a reminder for the lost idyllic times of the Second Temple Period, but equally as a substitute for the Old City of Jerusalem before 1967, when residents of one side of the border could not pass to the other. Thus the site of the Hellenistic and Roman city, including the Temple Mount, was inaccessible to the residents of the western city.

In consequence, in spite of the model’s location on an isolated hill in the southern limits of the city, it quickly constituted one of the icons bonding Jerusalem to a national Jewish identity. It instantly became a tourist attraction for both individuals and groups, primarily Jews and Christians, the latter finding in it the Jerusalem where the feet of Jesus had trod (15). The model’s magnetism did not diminish after 1967. Photos of the model were abundant in research and textbooks of history, archaeology and architecture. It was and still is one of the recommended sites listed by the Ministry of Education for school visits and in itineraries for youth movements (16). The model is mentioned in urban and regional maps and in tourist maps of the city, distributed by the Office of Tourism or the city hotels and is one of the most important Jerusalem cultural landmarks. In several guides the following recommendation can be found: “It is recommended to visit the old city of Jerusalem only after reviewing the city structure and the function of its walls and ancient buildings, by studying the model located in the Holyland Hotel” (17). No less!

The new site of the model is located within the grounds of the Israel Museum, which was designed by Alfred Mansfeld and inaugurated in 1965 (18). The museum is part of a government district, established at the time of the country’s independence. The district, the Kiria, is located in the western part of the city on an area of nearly three square kilometers that stretches across two crests and was intended to become the national center of educational, cultural and governing bodies in the new capital. On the western crest the Hebrew University (19), with the National Library within its grounds, are located; the Israel Museum resides on the southern part of the eastern crest, and on its north are located the Jerusalem Convention Center (20), the Supreme Court (21), the government buildings and the Israel house of Parliament, the Knesset (22).

Fig. 3: View from the south, photo by the author, courtesy of Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd.

On its new site, in the north western limits of the Israel Museum, the model is within eye contact of the Knesset, a showpiece among the government buildings, originally designed by Joseph Klarwein and inaugurated in 1966. In 1957, this competition-winning project symbolized the Israeli democracy, despite its unfashionable echoes of classical architecture. Its situating alluded to the Temple Mount: a high hill with steep slopes to east, south and west, separating it from its surrounding, and becoming part of the crest to the north. Inside the building there are photographs of stones from the Western or Wailing Wall, photographed by Alfred Bernheim during the Thirties. The stones from the Western Wall are once more referred to in the southern wall of the Assembly Hall, designed by sculptor Dani Karavan. The Menorah, a seven-branch candelabrum, stands in front of the gates to the Knesset; it is a 5 meters-high bronze sculpture by Benno Elkan. The Menorah, as well as a symbol of the State of Israel, is also a reminder of the golden menorah, which stood in the Temple, as documented in the Arch of Titus relief in Rome (23). As a final note, the name of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, is derived from the Great Assembly, Haknesset Hagdola - Institution of the Jewish council during the period of the first construction of the Second Temple.

The model, positioned in the exact orientation of the historic city, is visible from the south with the Knesset building in the background (fig 3). This new angle of visibility, of the emblem of modern Israeli democracy, from within the model limits evokes and enhances both the conceptual and formal links between the modern city and Jerusalem of the Second Temple.

In the Museum campus, the museum is located between the Sculpture Garden, designed by Isamu Noguchi and inaugurated in 1960 (24), and the Shrine of the Book, designed by Frederick Kiesler and Armand Bartos and inaugurated in 1965 (25). The design of the paths around the model, even more evident in an earlier plan (fig. 4), contains references to the western crescent shaped retaining walls of the Sculpture Garden. The relation to the Shrine of the Book is more complex. The Shrine of the Book was erected to house the Dead Sea Scrolls, considered to be the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times. The building includes an underground corridor and exhibit hall, a round structure covered by a white dome and surrounded by water, and across from it a black wall. Beyond its function of housing these most ancient sacred manuscripts, this monument is a complex emblem of the uniqueness of the Qumran Community, its beliefs, and of the discovery of the scrolls in clay jars in caves of the Judea Desert. Among their symbolic intentions the designers emphasized the close timeline between the Scrolls' discovery in 1947 and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 (26).

From the beginning, the Museum management’s directives were “not to overshadow the Shrine of the Book” (27). The architect’s approach was thus to create a discourse with the bedrock rather than with the skyline, with about two-thirds of the site’s area of about 1400 square meters being below ground level (fig. 2,3,4). This is partly due to engineering requirements of positioning the model on a solid and uniform base. Of the three access paths to the model, two, the western and southern paths, were designed at the upper plaza level of the Shrine of the Book, with the northern path at a lower level. According to the designer this was done in order to remain faithful to the historic approaches to the city: from the east, from the Mount of Olives, corresponding in the model to the main entrance from the museum; the approach from the south, the Bamat Ha’har road, corresponds to the path leading from the Sculpture Garden; the Damascus Road to the north relates in the model to its future main entrance, still under construction. Thus, it is possible to see the Shrine of the Book from every location within the model’s perimeters and from the paths leading to it.

Furthermore, the new location of the model links the Judea Desert Scrolls, commonly accepted as written by those fleeing Jerusalem due to schism with the priesthood, to the city’s representation, which was abandoned in favor of the desert. Thus this new vicinity brings together, spatially and visually, additional facets of this period, while their complementary contents empower each other.

These visual connections to ancient Hebrew texts and to the modern parliament building cherished by the National Museum. James Snyder, the Museum Director, in his model inauguration speech on July 6, 2006, said: “Some divine force wanted the site to remain dormant and over forty years kept this acre free” (28). Dor Lin, Assistant Director, during a press interview (July 7, 2006) was quoted as saying: “Within the museum’s ground there was an area, close to the Sculpture Garden, for which we did not find a use. It was abandoned for several decadesâ¦ I’m not a religious man but apparently this area had a purpose. Who knows, seemingly this area patiently waited for the day the model arrived” (29). The rhetoric of the photos in the Museum press releases speaks for itself (30) (fig. 5).

I would like to conclude with two additional mythical images of the city which the new model’s location evokes and enhances. One is topographical, the other geological.

One of the most ancient images of the city found in Psalms, 125:2 is: “as the mountains surround Jerusalem”. The image based on topographical features was nurtured throughout the last millennium by literary and visual representations (31). The examples are numerous: in book illuminations, in historic maps, imaginary or realistic, in paintings and travel chronicles, even in the shaping of customs related to pilgrimage to the city (32). As an additional note, in 1949 David Meir Smith proposed a mountain as a symbol of Jerusalem (33). Ancient Jerusalem can still best be seen from its surrounding hills: from Mount Scopus and the Mount of Olives from the east, and the Mount of Evil Counsel from the south.

The design of the model’s new environment and its location (fig. 6) evokes the representation of Psalms and restores the view towards the city of the First Century BC. The eastern entrance approach, at present the main entrance to the model from the Museum Compound, leads to the first observation point, from which the spectator instantly discovers the model from the east, from a height of about four meters. This view is similar to the one behold from the Mount of Olives towards the Temple Mount. The sensation of height is enhanced by the addition of the Kidron Valley, which was not included in the original model, and is part of the model’s expansion in its new site. From this point the path leads southward to a small amphitheater. This observation angle, from about three meters above the model, recalls the view from Mount of Evil Counsel. Here as well the sensation of height is reinforced by the addition of Ben Hinnom Valley to the model, which borders the city from south and west. Continuation of the path westwards is similar to the line of the watershed, a topographical line from where the city could be observed until the area was built over in the course of the last two centuries. These overlooks recreate the dramatic and emotional experience reported by pilgrims when discovering the city spread out before them.

Another central mythical theme of the city resonates within its stones, expressing in various cultures authenticity, testimony and memory. The subject is immense and its biblical sources vast. Suffice it to note two outstanding examples: The Tablets of the Ten Commandments, stone tablets written by the Finger of God (Leviticus 24:12, Leviticus 31:18, Leviticus 34:1-4, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 5:19, Deuteronomy 10:1,3); and the 12 stones of Gilgal, which the chosen representatives of the twelve tribes were to carry while crossing the Jordan river as the eternal evidence of divine intervention in the crossing both of the Jordan and of the Red Sea (Joshua 4). Both rock and stone as evidence have become sacred in the Jerusalem of the monotheist religions. The most prominent is the Rock of Foundation, Even Hashtia, in the Dome of the Rock, evidence of the creation of the universe, and the Golgotha Stone in Holy Sepulcher, evidence of Jesus’ Crucifixion. These rocks as well as others were granted the status of relics; fragments of these were sold to pilgrims.

Fig. 7: The Kidron Valley, photo by the author, courtesy of Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd.

Jerusalem spreads over a rocky syncline area, which has suffered heavy erosion from the west. Therefore the exposed rock is of various levels of durability, from dolomite to chalk. The dolomite limestone, of various hardness and shades, is an excellent quality building material and was the historic construction material for the city. The area’s abundance of this stone and its expression in the local monumental architecture has left its deep mark on travelers and pilgrims from the Roman period to the Twentieth Century. Occasionally these stones were made sacred - a significant example is that of the Wailing Wall.

Fig.8: Retaining wall, detail, photo by the author, courtesy of Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd.

The British, who regarded their rule in Jerusalem (1918-1948) as a “Sacred Trust” (34), were sensitive to the historic memories and religious connotations of the city’s buildings (35). As early as 1918 the city’s military governor, later to become its civil governor, Ronald Storrs, decreed that all additions to buildings or their restoration in the Old City and its immediate vicinity should be done only in Jerusalem stone. This regulation was re-implemented time and again by the city’s various planners: William McLean (1918), Patrick Geddes (1919), Charles Robert Ashbee (1922) as well as in the statutory plans of the British mandate of Clifford Holliday (1930) and of Henry Kendall (1944). Between 1948 and 1967 this regulation was respected by both the Jordanian and Israeli authorities in both the eastern and western parts of the city; and the newest plan, named Jerusalem 2000, with a few exceptions, still embodies this principle (36). Stones also represent the background of the symbol of Jerusalem, a roaring lion between olive branches. In a meeting of the Committee for the Symbol of Jerusalem on October 22, 1949, Daniel Oster, then the Mayor of Jerusalem and the Committee Chairman, explained that the stones symbolize the wall surrounding Jerusalem as well as the Western Wall (37).

The model’s new environment exhibits and utilizes various types of rock and stone finishes: the local raw limestone, the dolomite of the hardest crust, which evokes the primeval landscape, borders with the model; excavation east of the model forms the Kidron Valley (fig.7), and to the south and west the Ben Hinnom Valley. Elsewhere, when natural rock formation was revealed it was left as a visible bottom layer for the retaining walls (fig.8). Exposing the bedrock at a building’s foundation has been practiced in Jerusalem since the beginning of use of stone for construction (fig.9).

The walls encircling the site are covered with a polygonal stone, carved with hammer and chisel. Use of this type of stone carving, well known in areas abundant with this stone throughout the Mediterranean basin, started during the Mycenaean period onward. In this case it is used to create a visual continuity with the walls of the Shrine of the Book.

The supporting walls in the western slope are built with rough stone walls (fig. 10), as used in local vernacular agricultural terraces, where stones were regularly removed from the slopes to enable cultivation, and were re-used to create horizontal ground terraces which retained water and prevented run-off. This technique dates back to the beginning of agriculture in the region (fig. 11). On the western slopes of the site, olive and almond trees have been planted. According to the designer, the stone terraces were chosen to relate to the supporting walls of the adjoining Sculpture Garden. Viewed from the Hebrew University Campus to the west, the crescent walls of the Sculpture Garden and the western slope of the model’s site are visible consecutively.

The paving is made of rectangular flagstones with a finely hammered surface texture, similar to that used by the Romans. At the edges of the paths pebbles are used to avoid diagonal cuts to rectangular stones (fig.12).

To summarize, this is how real-estate dynamics have displaced a cultural emblem, transferring it from the semi-private to the public domain. With this relocation, the model has been enshrined with its contemporary counterparts in the Western City: the Shrine of the Book, the Israel Museum and the Knesset building. Its positioning and the design of the area encircling it, in a charged environment, has created an excavated landscape, simultaneously mirroring old and new, and in which fixed mythical images and ideological contents of the city are amplified.

Fig.10: Terrace wall in the model site, photo by the author, courtesy of Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd.

Fig. 12: A path in the model site, detail, photo by the author, courtesy of Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd.

1 My deepest gratitude to Hillel Cherni, the owner of the model, to Avner Drori, the architect of the new site and to Matanya Hecht, manager of the model's relocation for their generous help and information. Kroch was born in Germany in 1887 and died in Israel in 1970; for biographical information: Giora Eylon, ”Memories from the Land of the Deer”, The Jerusalem Post Magazine, 5th August 1994, p.28-30; Yoram Tsafrir, “On the Design of the Model of Jerusalem at the time of the Second Temple in the Land of the Deer Hotel, at the Occasion of its relocation in the Israel Museum”, in: David Mevorach (Ed.), a forthcoming book, Jerusalem, The Israel Museum and Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd., (in Hebrew); for Hans Tsvi Kroch in Leipzig: Edina Meyer-Maril, “Architectural projects of Kroch in Leipzig”, in: Dafna Alexandroni (Ed.), a forthcoming book, Jerusalem, Holyland Tourism (1992) Ltd., (in Hebrew).

3 Michael Avi-Yona, “Archaeology and Topography of Jerusalem in the Time of the Second Temple”, in: Michael Avi-Yona (Ed.), Sepher Yerushalayim (The Book of Jerusalem), Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, The Bialik Institute and Dvir Publishing House, 1956, p. 305-319 (in Hebrew); Id., ”The Second Temple”, in: Ibid., p.392-418; Yoram Tsafrir, as in n.1.

4 Pliny, Natural History, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1969, 5:15, p.272-275; Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1961, 7:1, p.505; Id. Jewish Antiquities, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, London, Ailliam Heinemann LTD, 1980, 15: 412, p. 198-199.

7 Documentation of the process: Lari Abramson, video art, in: Mini Israel, exhibited: Israel Museum, Jerusalem, spring 2006; Matanya Hecht, “The process of transferring the model of Second Temple Jerusalem from the Holyland Hotel to the Israel Museum”, Ariel, 176, 2006, p.54-59; various press articles, see for example: http://www.imj.org.il/model/indexHeb.html, retrieved December 2007.

8 See for example: Haim Goren, "An Imaginary European Concept of Jerusalem in a late sixteenth century Jerusalem Model", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 127, 1995, p. 106-121; Haim Goren and Rechav Rubin, “Conrad Schick’s Models of Jerusalem and its Monuments”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 128, 1996, p103-124; Rivka Gonen, “A model of the First Temple Jerusalem”, Ariel, 57-58, 1988, p. 126-131 (in Hebrew); Ya’akov Ariel, “A model of Jerusalem, Planning department of historic towns”, Ariel, 91-92, 1993, p. 94-97 (in Hebrew); Rechav Rubin, "When Jerusalem was Built in St Louis a Large Scale Model of Jerusalem in the Louisiana Purchase Exposition 1904", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 132, 2000, p. 59-70; Ronny Reich, “The Virtual Model at the Davidson Center near the Temple Mount and the Reconstruction of the Royal Stoa”, Qadmoniot, 123, 2002, p.48-52; Alain Marchadour, “La JÃ©rusalem Byzantine reconstituÃ©e”, Le monde de la Bible, 153, 2003, p.62-63; Yuval Baruch, Lisa Snyder, and Liat Ayzencot, “The virtual model of the Umayyad building near the Temple Mount: archaeological and historical interpretation”, in: Joseph Patrich and David Amit (Eds.), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007, p. 116 â 129 (in Hebrew).

9 For example: Esther Levinger, War Memorials in Israel, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993 (in Hebrew); Ilana Shamir, Commemoration and Remembrance, Tel-Aviv, Am Oved, 1996 (in Hebrew); Maoz Azaryahu, State Cults, Celebrating Independence and Commemorating the Fallen in Israel 1948-1956, Beer-Sheva, Ben-Gurion University Press, 1995 (in Hebrew); Zvi Efrat, The Israeli Project: Building and Architecture 1948- 1973, Tel Aviv, Tel-Aviv Museum of Art, 2004, p. 452-481 (in Hebrew).

10 Josephus Flavius, for example, The Jewish War, as in n. 4, 5:4, p. 251-253, 5:5, p. 257; for a discussion of certain aspects of this phenomenon, see: Esther Grabiner, "L’iconographie du faux marbre, le cas de l’Ã©glise franque Ã Abou Gosh”, Les cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa, 38, 2007, p.137-142.

14 Joseph Klausner, “Religious and Cultural Life in Jerusalem in the time of the Second Temple”, in: Michael Avi-Yona (Ed.), as in n. 2, p.263-304 (in Hebrew); Michael Avi-Yona, “The Second Temple”, in: Ibid., p. 392-418; Yaacov Shavit, “Truth Shall Spring out of the Earth: The Development of Jewish Popular Interest in Eretz-Israel”, Cathedra, 1987, p.27-54 (in Hebrew).

16 For example: Yithak Zacs, A Guide to excursions in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the Ministry of Education, 1968, Israel State Archives, GL 13038/9, dossier 4037, p. 7 (in Hebrew); Avraham Shttal, Instructions for school’s excursions, Jerusalem, the Ministry of Education 1969-1972, Israel State Archives, GL 13037/7, dossier 1873, p.12 (in Hebrew); Menahem Zaharoni, Tours in Jerusalem of the First and the Second Temple, Tel-Aviv, Education and Youth Corp, Israel Defense Forces, 1979, p.29 (in Hebrew); Yona Zilberman, Tsila Meron and Avi Zevlouki, Jerusalem day, Jerusalem, the Ministry of Education, 1986, p. 5,7 (in Hebrew).

19 Diana Dolev, “An Ivory Tower in the National Precinct: The Architectural Plan for the University Campus in Giva’at Ram”, Zmanim, A Historical Quarterly, 96, 2006, p. 86-93; see also: Arnon Bruckstein, “Jerusalem as a pattern of three mountains: the Moriya Mountain, Mount Herzl and Giv’at Ram”, Ariel, 91-92, 1993, p.21-28 (in Hebrew).

25 Michael Segan-Cohen,”Le Sanctuaire du Livre et l’art de transformer le superflu en nÃ©cessaire”, in: Chantal Beret (Dir.), Frederick Kiesler, Artiste-Architecte, Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, 1996, p. 229-239; Adolfo Roitman, “the History, Architecture and Symbolism of the Shrine of the Book”, The Israel Museum Journal, 15, 1997, p. 15-34.

31 See for example: R.Yaron (Dir.), Jerusalem, Exhibition Catalogue, Jerusalem, Jewish National and University Library, 1977; Milka Levy-Rubin and Rehav Rubin, “The Image of the Holy City in Maps and Mapping”, in: Nitza Rosovsky (Ed.), City of the Great King, Jerusalem from David to Present, Cambridge Massachusetts and London, Harvard University Press, 1996, p.352-379; Rehav Rubin, Image and Reality, Jerusalem in Maps and Views, Jerusalem, Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1999; Ariel Tishby (Ed.), Holy Land in Maps, Jerusalem, The Israel Museum, 2001; Gideon Ofrat, “The Phenomenology of the Jerusalem Mountains in the Painting of Immigrants from Germany”, in:Yehoshua Ben-Arye (Ed.), Jerusalem and the British Mandate, Interaction and Legacy, Jerusalem, Yad Yitshak Ben Tsvi, 2003, p. 408-422.

35 See: Ron Aharon Fuchs, “Austin St. Barbe Harrison, A British Architect in the Holy Land”, D.SC. Dissertation, Technion, Haifa, Israel, 1992, Vol. 1, p. 57-65 (in Hebrew); Id., Benjamin Hyman, Michael Levin, Michael Turner, Joseph Rykwert, “ Architecture in Jerusalem during the Mandate Period: Historicism vs. Modernism”, in: Yehoshua Ben-Arye (Ed), as in n.25, p.169-216 (in Hebrew); Inbal Ben-Asher Gitler, “C.R. Ashbee's Jerusalem Years: Arts & Crafts, Orientalism and British Regionalism”, Assaph: Studies in Art History, 5 (2000), p.30-31.

	Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften	17. Nr.	Juni 2012

Sektion 8.5.	The Urbanity of the World and the Dividing of Cities Sektionsleiter \| Section Chair: Mariana Neţ (“Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest, Romania) Dokumentation \| Documentation \| Documentation